America is a land of empty promises. We often make bold claims that, when it comes down to it, we have no intention to keep.
This fact is the best explanation for the proliferation of fine print and for that one time I told my ex-roommate we should "definitely hang out some time." This is also the only possible explanation so many Americans claim we have a separation of church and state. Judging by the behavior of many of our legislators and theistically inclined voters, this appears to be yet another empty, unchallenged promise of American society.
If we are to be serious about a meaningful separation between church and state, we must adopt a more radically secular mindset that necessitates more than keeping the Ten Commandments out of courthouses.
We need to deeply contemplate the role religious principles have in the formulation of public policy and our collective value judgments. If we are not prepared to take such steps, as I believe we are not, we ought to be honest about what our society truly is: a watered down theocracy.
Not until we understand the real implications of a principle can we determine if we meet that principle, or even if doing so is desirable. As a society, we have not adequately reflected what a true separation of church and state would mean. And this lack of critical thinking has made debates about religion and society imprecise, unproductive and superficial.
The nature of our political system, with its emphasis on democratic procedures and accountability to the voters, allows for large segments of the population to effectively control the political process. And by controlling the political process for one, they control it for all.
Since our value judgments are extensions of our various beliefs, it is not possible to separate religious belief from seemingly secular decisions. How we vote on nearly every issue can be drawn back to considerations we have about the nature of morality, goodness and conceptions of what is right and wrong - questions that, for the theist, are answered by appeals to religious conceptions.
Therefore, with regard to the theist, all decisions are, at least in part, shaped by their religious beliefs. And in a society where believing in God is common, the notion of a legitimate separation of theology and public policy is not possible.
No matter how many bumper stickers with the phrase "don't legislate morality" have been sold in the United States, morality is precisely the aim of the legislative process. If the government isn't in the business of morality, or at least claiming to be, it wouldn't be very popular. Fairness, equality and protection of rights are all moral principles.
The threat, then, is that particular religious conceptions of morality may usurp the government and legislate on moral principles not consistent with our own. And this is the reason for our so-called separation of church and state.
But as our society continually becomes more diverse, including a growing number of agnostic and atheist Americans, the inherent hypocrisy of a religious society calling itself secular will also grow. And until there is discourse on this issue and consensus on what separation of church and state actually means, this problem will be unsolvable.
No issue of public policy is free from religion or religious arguments, especially in a state like ours, where members of a specific religious faith seem to control the agenda for everybody else (see Russell Pearce).
Until we more clearly articulate what separation of church and state means, or ought to mean, we should agree to do something my party (Republican) used to stand for: allowing individuals to live their own lives as they see fit.
Macy Hanson is a political science and philosophy junior. Reach him at macy.hanson@asu.edu">.
