Freedom from religion

The Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, not freedom from religion," Sen. Joseph Lieberman said to worshippers in a Christian church one Sunday, shortly after he became Al Gore's running mate. This set off alarms for many Americans -- first, it disturbed many of Lieberman's fellow Jews because Lieberman was abandoning the secularism they have embraced in the public sphere; second, because he was using a deliberately misleading Christian-Right slogan.\nTaken at face value, what Lieberman said was simply false. Freedom of religion had better include freedom from religion, or it isn't really freedom. \nAs an atheist, I insist on my right to freedom from religion. But what exactly do would-be theocrats mean by this popular slogan? If they mean citizens should be free to criticize their society and its government on religious grounds, they have that freedom already and exercise it abundantly -- "Freedom from religion" doesn't affect it at all. \nIf it means no one can disagree with religion-based criticisms, no one has that freedom, nor should they. But that, it seems, is what religious conservatives want -- to be able to state their views on political matters without having to defend them against disagreement.\nConservative Christians are in a bit of a bind, because they don't have a very good track record on social issues. The Southern Baptist Convention, for instance, recently apologized for its past defense of slavery. Conservative white Christians opposed the dismantling of racist institutions across America -- the big growth spurt of Christian private schools in the 1960s was a reaction against school desegregation, since private schools could legally exclude students who had made the wrong-skin-color lifestyle choice. (Yes, some 18th century evangelicals opposed slavery -- but the 20th century evangelicals who opposed school desegregation are not their denominational descendants.) They lament that they are caricatured in popular media as fanatical wackos, but crusades like the Southern Baptists' ineffectual boycott of Disney or the Vatican's attempts to shut down a gay pride celebration in Rome last summer, don't make the perpetrators look like reasonable folks.\nIt doesn't help that expression of Christian morality in the public sphere is so, well, selective. Although Jesus condemned divorce and remarriage very explicitly, according to the Gospels, the\nChristian Right hailed divorced-and-remarried Ronald Reagan as a defender of family values. (Could that have something to do with the high divorce rates among evangelicals that sociologist Sara Diamond documented in her 1998 book, "Not by Politics Alone: The Enduring Influence of the Christian Right?") When Pat Robertson acknowledged that his wife was already pregnant when they married, the "True Love Waits" crowd wasn't listening. Clinton's bombings in Iraq, the Sudan, Afghanistan and Kosovo have been criticized by a few Christians, but not by the Christian Right. They, and Joe Lieberman, were only interested in where he was putting his cigar.\nSome liberal believers also want special treatment for their perspective, pointing to Martin Luther King Jr. as an example of a "good" Christian. While I agree with King's goals and methods, I neither know, nor care, whether they are theologically correct.\nWhen religion enters the public sphere, it should be treated as what it is: one more human construct -- fair game for analysis and disagreement without any special claim to deference or obedience. \nTaking believers seriously enough to debate them doesn't signal any special disrespect for religion. Rather, it's treating religion with condescending lip service, as a pastime for Sundays and holidays with nothing to say about weekday life -- that is disrespectful. Also disrespectful is most Americans' abysmal ignorance about religion, a barrier to discussion that isn't going to be fixed any time soon. But most believers have preferred this state of affairs, keeping debate within denominational boundaries rather than expose their shaky faith to scrutiny by critical outsiders. \nNo doubt that's why Lieberman made his declaration in a church -- there's nothing like preaching to the converted.