 "Photo:")
With the election of George W. Bush in 2000, America has witnessed a considerable surge in religious discussion within the political sphere. Discussion has come from the "religious right," a term that is primarily applied to Christian sects that influence or seek to influence the law and politics.
Many people, however, see this "religious right" as breaking down the separation of church and state, an idea rooted in the Constitution. To address this issue, the Boisi Center for Religion and American Public Life at Boston College sponsored "'The Theocons' in American Public Life" last night.
This panel discussion featured Damon Linker, former speechwriter for Rudolph Giuliani and author of the book The Theocons: Secular America under Siege, as well as Jorge Garcia, a professor of philosophy at BC.
The event was being moderated by Alan Wolfe, director of the Boisi Center, who said that the conversation would focus on Linker's book as well as "the role of religion in a democratic society."
Linker began by defining theoconservatives or "theocons" as a group of Catholic intellectuals that, through a Christian-moral construct, use politics as a way to reform "secular society."
The most vocal proponents of this theocon movement, he said, are Michael Novak, George Weigel, and the Rev. Richard John Neuhaus.
The theocons, according to Linker, see the current secular society as unsustainable because it denies the fact that America is a nation founded on Puritan, Christian ideals.
Linker went on to note, however, that this is the point of departure for many thinkers. Secularists acknowledge that America has its roots in Puritanism, yet they claim the framers of the country went on to reject this overt religiosity in favor of a complete separation of church and state.
They say that the Establishment Clause in the Constitution affirms this separation. Furthermore, they contend that certain groups of Americans have tried to tear down this barrier, but numerous modern Supreme Court cases have reaffirmed the original intent of the founders.
Theocons believe that the framers recognized the importance of religion in society and included the First Amendment as a means to protect religious identity. This notion, however, has recently been under attack, and therefore must be protected through politically democratic means.
Linker stated that he believes both accounts to be "distortions of the historical record." He also noted that the founding fathers were deistic Episcopalians that advocated a civil religion, a watered-down combination of Protestant and Newtonian-scientific ideals.
As the country became more diverse, however, Catholics and Jews sought to make a change to the civil religion from the outside and Protestants advocated a more orthodox piety from within. Both were pressures which eventually caused its downfall in the mid 1960s.
Today, America is witnessing a new push for a civil religion. Linker said this new religion would not be liberal like its predecessor, but instead would assume a more orthodox outlook inspired by Christian social work.
Linker believes that this attempt will fail because America is too diverse. He stated that the only option is no central religion whatsoever and a complete separation of church and state. After this argument, professor Garcia was given the floor.
He stated that contemporary American politics is not his specialty, yet, he does support the idea of moral politics because it discusses "genuine conflicts" that the government is called to address.
Garcia went on to say that a secular America "under siege" is not such a terrible scenario. In his eyes, the theocons can serve to "deepen, elevate, and reform" the political discussions in American government.
Garcia then dissected five particular areas in Linker's book. These were: life, family, science, the "Jewish problem," and the "liberal bargain."
At the end of this discussion, Garcia stated that instituting a gag rule on religious ideas will only serve to hamper meaningful political discussion in the future.
In his response, Linker stated that he is not opposed to discussing matters from a religious standpoint, but, "the problem comes when they win."
He believes that the religious discussion is not really about policy issues, but instead a concerted effort to "change the definition of America."
Be the first to comment on this article!