Americans seem to fight about many silly things: whether a copy of the Ten Commandments can be posted in a city courthouse; whether a holiday display that
puts an image of the baby Jesus next to one of Frosty the Snowman violates the Constitution; whether fidgeting grade-schoolers may stand for a minute in
silent “spiritual” meditation before classes begin. Common sense might suggest that these are harmless practices whose actual damage is to trivialize religion.
Otherwise they threaten no one. Not children, who ignore them as the incomprehensible designs of absurd grown-ups. Not atheists, who may find them
hypocritical and vulgar but hardly intimidating. Not Buddhists and Muslims, who in these small areas of daily practice can demand equal access to the public
landscape. So why do they raise ideological storms?
The answer lies in what history has done to us. Some Americans have inherited extravagant hopes about what religion, specifically Christianity, may
accomplish in solving social problems through moral instruction. Others look to a different legacy, one that suggests how easily partisan religion in the hands of
a purported majority can become a dangerous form of intellectual and political tyranny. Both groups have become masters of hyperbolic language.
However, their quarrels are not about nothing. If Americans have learned to make constitutional mountains out of religious molehills, it is because crucial
principles may become endangered. The creche or the menorah on public property becomes the nose of the camel sneaking into the tent where Americans
have carefully enshrined the constitutional separation of church and state.
Should we be worried? The answer given in this book is yes, at least with respect to one area of ongoing controversy. The authors are concerned about current
pronouncements made by politically charged religious activists, what is called in journalistic parlance the religious right. Their crusade is an old one. Now a
prime target is abortion clinics. Before it was mail delivery on Sundays, or Catholic immigrants, or Darwinian biology in school curriculums. Whenever religion of
any kind casts itself as the one true faith and starts trying to arrange public policy accordingly, people who believe that they have a stake in free institutions,
whatever else might divide them politically, had better look out.
What follows, then, is a polemic. Since before the founding of the United States, European colonists in North America were arguing about the role of religion in
public and political life. Broadly speaking, two distinct traditions exist. We intend to lay out the case for one of them–what we call the party of the godless
Constitution and of godless politics. In brief, this position recognizes that the nation’s founders, both in writing the Constitution and in defending it in the
ratification debates, sought to separate the operations of government from any claim that human beings can know and follow divine direction in reaching
policy decisions. They did this despite their enormous respect for religion, their faith in divinely endowed human rights, and their belief that democracy
benefited from a moral citizenry who believed in God. The party we defend is based on a crucial intellectual connection, derived historically from both
religious and secular thinkers, between a godless Constitution and a God-fearing people.
We will call the other side in this debate that runs through American history the party of religious correctness. It maintains that the United States was established
as a Christian nation by Christian people, with the Christian religion assigned a central place in guiding the nation’s destiny. For those who adhered to this
party in the past, it followed that politicians and laws had to pass the test of furthering someone’s definition of a Christian public order. Recently some who
belong to this party have suggested that the stress upon “Christian” be downplayed in their political pronouncements. By referring more ecumenically to the
United States as a religious nation, they invite other religious traditions to join a family-values crusade launched originally by a particular form of Christian
faith. However, whether the present-day religious right has really moved beyond earlier pronouncements suggesting the forms of American government can
be entrusted only with a Christian people is, with respect to the issues raised in this book, beside the point. A shift in rhetorical strategy to widen political
appeal does not affect the substantive issues at stake.
The label “religious correctness” is pejorative and is obviously intended to turn the tables on those who imagine that the only danger to our free political
institutions lies in something they, pejoratively, call political correctness.