I used to like Bill O'Reilly. I thought he was, although a little right-of-center, pretty much a straight shooter, who called things as he saw them. But then he seemed to always be talking about the "secularist agenda". Now, I don't know exactly what the "secularist agenda" is, but, whatever it is, I'm thinking it's probably preferable to any "religious agenda" that might be floating around out there.

The Founding Fathers, it seems to me, had a secularist agenda.

And yet, we are reminded, the Founding Fathers, or the majority, or even a super-majority, were and are religious, or Christian, or of the Judeo-Christian tradition.

Of course, where religion is concerned: So what? Do your religious views change based on whether you are in the majority?

Were the Christians "wrong" when they were in the minority? In Rome, getting fed to the lions. But then became "right" about everything when Constantine or Charlemagne or whoever converted, and Christians suddenly found themselves in the majority?

What about difference between and among Catholics and Baptists and Methodists and Mormons and Episcopalians? Not to mention Muslims, or Buddhists, or Jews. Whoever has the most people in their camp is "right" and therefore wins, politically?

The real problem I have with the religious agenda is that it seems to reject the proposition that decisions should generally be made by the people who have the greatest stake in the outcome. Opinions are like belly-buttons; everybody's got one. Some opinions or beliefs are more valid, perhaps, than others; some are more deeply rooted in moral or religious values; some are well-informed, others irrational. But the principles embodied in the Bill of Rights; the vision of the Founding Fathers; the Secularist Agenda, as it were; is that people's lives shouldn't generally be directed by the beliefs of others. Even where such beliefs are shared by the majority.

Most people will tell you that the revolutionary thing about America is democracy. Majority rule. But there had been democracies before. The great and truly unique thing about America was the idea that, even in a democracy, there were certain inalienable rights, to think, and to speak, and to believe. That, in many respects, the individual is sovereign. Every man a king; every woman a queen.

Why should my beliefs about gay marriage be the deciding factor in the way that two homosexuals are permitted to live their lives? Why should my opinion about responsible television prevent you from watching a show that is entertaining, educational or otherwise valuable to you?

It is only where beliefs become actions, which affect others, that society has a right to draw the line.

Of course, at times, this is going to be unsatisfying. Where the issue is abortion, for example, it is impossible to appropriately account for the interests of the unborn. And yet, the unborn child, or fetus, or embryo isn't here. It can't think, or talk, or make decisions. So, as between someone who, legitimately, believes that it is wrong, versus the women, or the couples, who actually have to live with the decision, we let the people who have the most stake in the outcome decide. That's really what Roe v. Wade comes down to. It's not really about a "right of privacy". Or a "penumbra" of rights. It's simply an inarticulate expression of the notion that: We simply can't make this decision as a society. We're hopelessly deadlocked. So, we are going to place the burden of choice – not on the church, or the public, or the government, or the majority of others, who are on the outside looking in, but rather – on the people with the greatest stake in the outcome; who actually have to live with the consequences.

If religion is going to drive politics, then the politicians should be true to that religion. When is the last time you heard Bill Frist, or Karl Rove, or Rush Limbaugh embrace the political agenda that one should "see all that you have and give it to the poor." [Luke 18:18] Or: "Give them something to eat." [Mark 6:35] Or: "Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers... give without pay." [Matthew 10:8]

As described by Hendrik Hertzberg shortly after the 2004 Election: "In voting for a party that wants to tax work rather than wealth, that scorns thrift, that sees the natural world not as a common inheritance but as an object of exploitation, and that equates economic inequality with economic vitality, they have voted against their own material (and, some might imagine, spiritual) well-being. The moral values that stirred them seem not to encompass botched wars or economic injustices or environmental depredations; rather, moral values are about sexual behavior and its various manifestations and outcomes, about family structures, and about a particularly demonstrative brand of religious piety."

Perhaps that is nothing more than Democracy at work.

But: If religion is going to drive politics; and there is going to be little, or no, separation of church and state; then why is the church exempt from paying taxes? Why are contributions to the churches of political activists tax-deductible? Perhaps, instead, churches should be treated as political action committees; donations as campaign contributions. And regulated accordingly.




[Note - The views expressed on this political blog and law blog about Bill O'Reilly, gay marriage, the secularist agenda, intelligent design, and other issues are the personal views of Steve Herman and are not intended to represent the views of Herman Herman Katz & Cotlar, LTLA, TLPJ, the Civil Justice Foundation, or any other organization.]

Isn’t a secularist agenda what we want in Iraq?

Conservative Evangelical Pastor Gregory A. Boyd, who opposes abortion and frowns upon homosexuality, unveiled a series of sermons urging the church to steer clear of politics, give up moralizing on sexual issues, and stop claiming that the United States is a “Christian nation” while glorifying American military campaigns. “When the church wins the culture wars, it inevitably loses” he says. “When it conquers the world, it becomes the world. When you put your trust in the sword, you lose the cross.”



See Laurie Goodstein, “Conservative Evangelical Pastor Steers Clear of Politics, and Pays” New York Times, July 30, 2006, p.1.

Reverend Joel Hunter, who had been tapped to lead the Christian Coalition, resigned when it became apparent that the organization was unwilling to tackle issues such as easing poverty, preserving the environment, or fighting AIDS. “These are issues that Jesus would want us to care about,” Hunter says. But the leadership of the Coalition did not want to alienate its “base” of Republican voters. “We’re a political organization” said Chairman, Roberta Combs, committed to the narrow agenda (also supported by Hunter) of opposing abortion and gay marriage. "If we are going to care for the vulnerable, we ought to care as much about the vulnerable outside the womb as inside the womb," Hunter said.


[See R. Marus, “Just-Named Christian Coalition Head Steps Down in Dispute over Mission” ABPNews.com, Nov. 30, 2006; W. Mariano, “Incoming President Resigns from Christian Coalition” Orlando Sentinel, Nov. 24, 2006.]