Mark Lilla's "The Politics of God," from yesterday's New York Times Magazine, reflects the bafflement of the liberal intelligentsia in coming to terms with the worldwide revival of religion. Lilla is a respected political scientist at Columbia University, and his essay begins with all the pomposity of the secular liberal establishment. "We in the West are disturbed and confused...We find it incomprehensible that theological ideas still stir up messianic passions...We had assumed this was no longer possible...We were wrong."
Having discovered the obvious--that God is dead only in Manhattan--our campus Sherlock gives us a potted history of the religious wars. These wars culminated in what he terms the Great Separation. Yes, Lilla is genuflecting, as all approved New York Times pundits must, to the grand scheme of separation of church and state. "We have chosen to keep our politics unilluminated by divine revelation." Apparently Lilla has forgotten about the Declaration of Independence, which traces the source of our inalienable rights to none other than "the Creator." The doctrine that "all men are created equal" is derived from the theological concept that we are all equal in the eyes of God.
Nowhere does Lilla confront the obvious problem that his Great Separation is not even close to what the American founders had in mind. Even Jefferson, the least religious of the founders who first used the "wall of separation" phrase in a letter, permitted a far more public role for religion than we have today. Although Lincoln was not a conventionally religious man, his speeches were full of ruminations about divine providence and about God's active role in shaping the destiny of America. Lilla may disagree with the founders and with Lincoln, but he pretends like they were aberrations in some grand narrative of liberal enlightenment. He neglects to point out that today's Great Separation is a product of a series of Supreme Court decisions starting in the 1940s.
Consequently when Lilla accurately diagnoses "the revival of political theology in the modern West," he is not (as he thinks) identifying a rebellion against modernity or America or any of that. He is identifying merely a revolt against the extreme secularism that has captured academia and the courts in the past few decades. This extreme secularism has given atheists and unbelievers full control of the public square on the specious grounds that unbelief is politically safer than belief. As I will show in my forthcoming book What's So Great About Christianity, the ideologies of unbelief have littered the world with more corpses in a few decades than all the religions have managed over millennia. Isn't it time to stop crying over three-hundred year old denominational conflicts that occurred on another continent, not here in America?
Lilla's article contains one worthwhile insight. He recognizes that Islam is better tamed by traditional Muslims like Tariq Ramadan than by secular liberals who have little or no influence in Islamic countries. Otherwise he can do no better than end on a note of liberal self-congratulation. "All we have is our own lucidity," he writes without a trace of irony. "We have wagered that it is wiser to beware the forces unleashed by the Bible's messianic prose than to try exploiting them for the public good." Put this way, I don't really disagree. But who is this "we" that Lilla keeps referring to? I suspect this is academia talking to academia, Manhattan liberals cheering up other Manhattan liberals. I hope the Supreme Court discovers that it is also wise to beware the revisionist doctrines of secular pundits like Lilla.
Reader Comments ( Page 7 of 8)
91.
Just to enlighten people. No where in the bill of rights or in the deceleration of independence is the words " There shall be separation of Church and State" written. The first amendment gives a person to believe whatever he or she wants and express it in a public setting without the fear of catching any government BS. I am a Christian and i share my faith in public i am respectful but you can't shut me up over the phrase "don't say that you will offend someone" Sorry if you don't like what myself or ne other Christian's are saying get some earplugs or go to anther coffee shop street corner etc. As for prayer in schools it is allowed as long as it is student led and started by the students.
Religious freedom was one of the cornerstones of the this country and one of the reason it exists. This nation is a refuge to people from persecution has been and always will be one. To those who want to eliminate the existence of God from American Society you are wasting your time. As for me debating with people on the existence of God. I don't because the reality of the matter is we are all going to die and one of us is going to be right and the other is going to wrong. If you are true and God is not real then I have lost nothing for believing in Him, but on the other side is if I am right and you are wrong and God is real and all the Bible stuff is real. I am still in and you suddenly find yourself seriously screwed. I will leave you with that
Have a nice day
Joe
jesusjammer26 at 12:55PM on Aug 21st 2007
92. James, it's all the same god. yahweh = jehovah = allah. Same god. Same starting point.
Islam does not have just one prophet. Islam recognizes several prophets--including jesus! Mohammed is simply the FINAL prophet. You'd know that if you had done even a modicum of research.
Knight_of_BAAWA at 3:30PM on Aug 21st 2007
93. Slow down a bit James, I have to side with Knight on this one. Knight, you might want to mark this on your calendar, as we so rarely agree ; )
James, there is only one God, and the three great monotheistic religious traditions you reference (Jewish, Muslim, and Christian) all worship the same God, ableit in very different ways. Now certainly, neither you nor Knight nor I really understand enough about Islam to comment intelligently on Islamic prophets, but surely whether we humans choose to call the Almighty; God, Dios, Deo, Yaweh, Abba, Jehovah, or even Alla is of little consequence.
Think for a moment; do you really think Pope Benedict would have gone and prayed in that Islamic mosque in Turkey last autumn if he did not honestly believe that Alla is in fact God Almighty, the same God of Christianity and Judaism?
In fact some priest in northern Europe (Holland I think, but am not sure) recently suggested that we Catholics start using the word "Alla" when referencing the Almighty. Now that might be going a bit too far for some folks' linguistic or cultural taste, but the man's point is techincally valid. In any case, it would not be the first time we Catholics have adopted or co-opted a word or even a tradition from a non-Catholic culture.
And now I must run - I need to mark my calendar too Knight!
: )
Ken Berg at 4:31PM on Aug 21st 2007
94. But to D'Souza'a point, I happened to catch Larry King's show last night and he was inverviewing Christina Kalampour (bad spelling on last name). She was excitedly reporting about how she and other media reporters had recently noticed that across this tired old world, in general, most of the public believes in God, or at least is interested in religion and/or religious philosophy.
It was laughable because she and other reporters who chimed in seemed to be both amazed and a bit startled by it all. Just think, the unwashed masses do not agree entirely with the usually just tedious or nonsensical but benign, and occasionally truly malevolent and heartless secular humanistic clap trap that various shades of leftists have been trying to push down our throats since the last half of the twentieth century.
Amazingly to Christina and others on the show, we (the public) actually think about things bigger than ourselves, and we ponder the answers to great human questions, and we think about the Divine, and do not want ourselves, our children, or our societies to mutely follow the atheistic secularists over the cliff and into a pit of madness like sheep to a slaughter.
¡Aye Carumba - It is amazing how uppity the public can be sometimes!
Ken Berg at 5:09PM on Aug 21st 2007
95. Knight @86: Oh, so you really believe that Stalin and Mao prove that all atheists are communists and atheism leads to immorality? Somehow I don't think you'd accept that argument if someone - - say I - - seriously advanced it to you. Thus, as I understand your point, you are simply retracting your overstatement about Christians hating atheists. Good idea.
Not marginalized at 8:24PM on Aug 21st 2007
96. I'm not retracting anything at all. I'm simply showing where certain ideas must lead.
Knight_of_BAAWA at 10:07PM on Aug 21st 2007
97. First off, Dinesh, the Declaration of independence does not govern our nation, as other commentor(s) have pointed out. However, I want to further dispel your lame arguments. "The Creator" is used generically. Naturally, you take that to mean your God. You are welcome to do this, but not everyone shares your beliefs (And Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are not the only religions, so the 'same God' argument isn't going to fly). But let's not get bogged down by the fact that there are multiple religions and that each of us has our own conception of God. Because, as stated, it refers to "The Creator." Said Creator is who/whatever said Creator is, and none of us truly know. It may be some God, or it may be no God. We don't know how or by whom we are created. For all we know, we may be the result of nature alone without God. The point is, not only was the use of the term "The Creator" non-denominational, it was non-religious. They appear to be saying "These are our rights simply because we exist." Further, just because an idea is based on a theological concept does not give it religious implications, otherwise I'd be performing a religious act each time I turn a light on (according to an old church song). I certainly hope these arguments here were not the strongest ones from your book, or else I'd advise you to keep on blogging--for my entertainment, if anything!
Jimmy at 10:31PM on Aug 21st 2007
98. Bridget, we would not "all be Catholic" if not for the Declaration of Independence. Perhaps we would be Anglican, the religion of England at the time. Catholics in the colonies were marginalized and discredited, just like Catholics in the modern US.
Knight, I'm sorry for your pain and disillusionment. I can't imagine how lonely it must be to believe God does not exist.
Denise at 9:17AM on Aug 22nd 2007
99. Per Jimmiy in post 95. "First off, Dinesh, the Declaration of independence does not govern our nation, as other commentor(s) have pointed out."
KB - True enough, but many Americans maintain the document does have some value. Moreover it does illustrate the fact that while they were admirably broad minded and wise, our forefathers were a product of American culture, which in turn was (and still is) firmly in the Judeo-Christian tradition. More specifically, most of our Founding Fathers were Masons, which while a secular organization, is definitely monotheistic. Ben Franklin suggested daily prayer to begin the sessions when they were drafting the Constitution. He famously said (paraphrased) that we should call on the Almighty for help in this because if a sparrow cannot fall without His notice, surely a great nation cannot rise without His aid. This tradition of course lead to the congressional chaplain, and the prayer that opens the US Senate each day. When asked during the Civil War if "God was on our side?", Lincoln famously replied that it was less important that God was on our side, and more important that we are on His side. Thanksgiving Day is a federal holidy specifically instituted and dedicated to prayer and thanking God for our many blessings. To say then, that religion has no place in our public square is patently ridiculous.
J - " However, I want to further dispel your lame arguments. "The Creator" is used generically. Naturally, you take that to mean your God. You are welcome to do this, but not everyone shares your beliefs (And Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are not the only religions, so the 'same God' argument isn't going to fly). But let's not get bogged down by the fact that there are multiple religions and that each of us has our own conception of God.
KB - True, and each of us is entitled to our own conception of God. One of the great principles upon which this nations was founded is religious tolerance and understanding.
J - "Because, as stated, it refers to "The Creator." Said Creator is who/whatever said Creator is, and none of us truly know. It may be some God, or it may be no God. We don't know how or by whom we are created. For all we know, we may be the result of nature alone without God. The point is, not only was the use of the term "The Creator" non-denominational, it was non-religious.
KB - Stop babbling; this is nonsese and surely you can see that.
J - "They appear to be saying "These are our rights simply because we exist."
KB - Really? Why then, did they not use those terms? Why also did they capitalize the word "Creator", an action which in the english language signifies you are referring to none other than Almighty God?
J - "Further, just because an idea is based on a theological concept does not give it religious implications, otherwise I'd be performing a religious act each time I turn a light on (according to an old church song). I certainly hope these arguments here were not the strongest ones from your book, or else I'd advise you to keep on blogging--for my entertainment, if anything!
KB - This is so sketchy, I simply do not know how to reply. Still, I wish you luck in your search for Truth.
Ken Berg at 11:17AM on Aug 22nd 2007
100. Why are JEWS immune from analysis of the hypocracies of their religion? Most conservative AND liberal Jews in NY are full hatred against Christianity and Islam but then will tell you of the beauty of their religion and - liberal Jews are especially hypocritical - will tell you why the entire world has to be free of religion and secular except for a little discriminatory nuclear power known as Israel and Financed by the ailing American Tax payer. AND THERE IS NEVER AN ANALYSIS OF the hypocrasies of Judaism because of the "holocaust card." Only hateful, critical analysis of Christianity - especially Catholicism, and Islam. WHY????Maybe if a journalist with balls would question Israel's logic it would force Israel to make peace with it's neighbors. Currently no Muslim or Christian is allowed to live in Israel and have full civil rights. SHouldn't that change? The arab world finds this insulting considering prior to 1947 Arabs could live in what is now known as Israel. But we all have to ignore these realities of land stealing because Jews will pull the holocuast card. It is easier just to spend trillions and go to war and kill millions of people. SICK. And the POPE was correct - the Iraq war is an immoral war because it did not accomplish ANYTHING.
john at 3:57PM on Aug 22nd 2007
101. Denise, I have no pain, nor am I disillusioned, nor am I lonely. Whatever gives you the idiotic notion that I am those?
Knight_of_BAAWA at 5:39PM on Aug 22nd 2007
102. John, I think Pope Benedict said the Iraqi war is immoral AND has not accomplished anything. This sounds like I am splitting hairs, but I am not.
My point is that the morality of a given war does not depend entirely on whether or not it accomplishes anything.
That is probably what you meant to say anyway.
Ken Berg at 5:51PM on Aug 22nd 2007
103. When religion and government mix, people get burned at the stake for believing the world is round or that the earth is older than 7000 years. History is full of facts conveniently ignored by fundamentalist when the facts challenge their beliefs. The separation of church and state is one of the greatest achievements of our democracy. Name one successful theocracy in the world that isn't supported by petro-economics.
Morphy at 4:36PM on Sep 10th 2007
104. It is depressing the D'Sousa labels as a member of the "liberal intelligentsia" (which he means as a slur) Mark Lilla, a student of Harvey Mansfield and a former professor at the Committee on Social Thought.
nypete at 12:39PM on Aug 24th 2007
105. The canard that all people who want religion out of the public sphere are atheists persists among those who want to insert religion in all areas of our lives. There are many very religious people who agree that religion has no place in governmental or public institutions. The people who usually advance this position and are religious understand the great danger in publicly sponsored religion. Religious minorities as well as atheists usually bear the brunt of overbearing religious intrusion into the public sphere.
eric at 3:13PM on Aug 24th 2007