Secularist Theocracy

Senator Diane Feinstein asked Judge John Roberts whether he, as a Catholic, would respect the "absolute" separation of church and state or consult the "dictates of [his] religion" in judging matters of law. Roberts eventually answered "I don't know what that means when you say absolute separation. I do know this: that my faith and my religious beliefs do not play a role in judging. When it comes to judging, I look to the law books and always have. I don't look to the Bible or any other religious source."

Feinstein's question implies that Catholics have a special burden of proving they are not theocrats, which is a curiously antiquated bigotry. The Pope does not have authority to command Catholics outside the realm of faith and morals. (I invite Roman Catholic readers to expand or correct my thoughts in the comments section). Bigotry and ignorance aside, her question borders on the paranoid. It belies an actual fear—which I have encountered more and more often among my liberal friends—that conservative Christians actually intend to impose a literal theocracy on the United States.

The reasoning seems to go like this: Conservative Christians talk about religion a lot. They even justify some of their policy positions with religious arguments. Therefore, they want a theocracy.

This line of reasoning makes two mistakes. The first mistakes the nature of theocracy. A theocracy vests power with religious authorities to the exclusion of all others. It is a tyranny in the name of God. No Christian politician that I am aware of is arguing that non-Christians should be disenfranchised or barred from office. They are not seeking exclusive power for their religion—only for the share of power granted to any citizen. This is not theocracy: it is democracy.

The second mistake—the belief that religious arguments are illegitimate in a democracy with a separation between church and state—is more insidious. It asserts, a la John Rawls, that citizens are obligated to enter the public sphere as denuded, autonomous individuals, stripped and secularized, bereft of their most cherished beliefs. One can participate in democracy only if one agrees to be a temporary atheist. This line of reasoning goes beyond the intent of the First Amendment—to bar the creation of a national church and to protect religious worship—to create a state-endorsed official secularism and dictate what kind of reasoning we can and cannot use in forming our political beliefs. It comes dangerously close to thought control.

I suspect this is tied to the thickening up of liberalism and the thinning down of democracy (see below). When everything is a matter of rights, in which there is no room for private conviction, nothing is a matter for an up or down vote, in which private conviction always plays a role.

Conservative Christians are not theocrats. Rather, it is those who demand that they strip themselves of their religion when they engage in politics who are erecting a theocracy of secular fundamentalism. Where would this reasoning have left the Civil Rights movement? The Revered Martin Luther King, Jr., overflowed with religious justifications for his political advocacy.

Feinstein needn't worry. Roberts is no theocrat. Her question, on the other hand, was at least ludicrous. Does she actually suspect a highly qualified and educated judge secretly consults Leviticus instead of the US Code in making decisions? No, her question was meant simply to communicate her belief about where religion belongs, and to that extent her question was a disgrace to the US Senate.