This, that, or the other thing (on political religion)
An interesting post from Catholic Eye: Becoming A Catholic Nation.
The problem with the argument is that it involves a sine qua non that places religion as key to governing.
The author cites a First Things article on the decline of Protestantism
This paper has tried to illustrate that the United States was not an exception to the rule that nations are formed by core ethnic groups which later attempt to shape the nation in their own image. The American case betrays many of the same features that characterize other ethnic groups. These include: a sense of election (Puritan), a myth of exclusive genealogical descent (Anglo-Saxon), a set of cultural boundary markers (‘WASP’), a process of dominant-conformity (anglo-conformity), an association with a specific territory (United States/Frontier), a lifestyle representation (Yeoman) and a communal Golden Age (Jefferson’s Republic) to which the group seeks to return. Together, these elements formed the myth-symbol complex of the “American” ethnie. This ethnic structure, once crystallized, decisively shaped the reactions of the American nation for a over a century.
. He posits that Catholicism has assumed (is assuming) the role Protestantism once played in setting the moral tone and focus for the nation. He also cites Michael Gerson’s book Heroic Conservatism: Why Republicans Need to Embrace America’s Ideals (And Why They Deserve to Fail If They Don’t), connecting Catholicism’s emergence to its relationship with the Republican party.
If the sine qua non between religion and politics is true, then religion, faith, is little more than a subjective part of the human experience. The type of religion required for a nation’s existence is really irrelevant – as long as you have one. While classicists point to the role of religion as foundational to civilization I do not think you can carry that argument to the extent some believers do, equating religion as central to sustaining a nation’s political reality. We do not have the right to co-opt faith in that way. Government and the political order is a self-serving and self-preserving endeavor. It will use whatever tools are available, from religion to the military in order to maintain itself. While government can promote and restrict through its beneficence, that power does not equate with truth. While you may get “faith based” programs if religion serves those in power, you can just as easily get concentration camps if religion opposes the will of the political class.
Our Lord and Savior told us that we cannot serve two masters (Luke 16:13). Religion, tied to government, looses its center, its mission, and the truth found in its voice. The Bishop of Rome’s talk on the role of religion in the social order makes sense only when seen in light of faith speaking the Gospel regardless of political circumstance. In a society that is truly free religion should have equal footing with all voices; the protection of just laws. That said, we know that in times of injustice and persecution the Gospel cannot be silenced, but rather produces martyrs and confessors.
[French President Nicolas] Sarkozy openly argued that while secularism is important, it should not be a hostile force that forbids all talk of God, faith, and transcendence. Sarkozy called for a —positive laïcité— that allows religion to help forge an ethical society.’
It is —legitimate for democracy and respectful of secularism to have a dialogue with religions,— Sarkozy said at the palace with the pope. —That is why I have called for a positive secularism,— adding that —It would be madness to ignore [religion.]—
Pope Benedict reinforced Sarkozy’s words, and rephrased them rather more bluntly: —it is fundamental to become more aware of the irreplaceable role of religion for the formation of consciences and the contribution which it can bring,— the pope said.
From Sarkozy, Pope Challenge French Secularism at PoliGazette
The voice of faith is beyond government, the political order, and the nation. Its life is apart from the world, in it, not of it (John 17:14-18), speaking and gathering according to its witness.
This nation, any nation, cannot have this religion, that religion, or the other religion. It cannot change affiliation and philosophical perspective like people change underwear, suiting the political winds of the times, and still expect to be thought of as proclaiming truth. The fact that exercises in doing so occur proves that government treats religion like a subjective good. If we are an objective good, the true sine qua non in the lives of men, then we must be outside and unaffiliated. speaking the Gospel in good times and bad, in freedom and persecution, under the Republic or the tyrant.
To the author’s argument, this country is neither Protestant or Catholic. Our Republic is simply a political reality. Our job is to speak the truth. Our task is to form our citizens in faith, to enlighten their intellect by His word and His way. God’s gift is that intellect, the intellect enlightened by truth, that sees beyond the lies and hypocrisy of the world. Unless we transform the lives of men we fall short of building the true Kingdom on a hill. That kingdom is not a nation of geography, political parties, and men, but is the Kingdom of God.