The need for a secular state

The following is the text of an article I wrote for Trinity News, published 10 February 2008
Last weekend, I saw Milk, the newly-released biopic of Harvey Milk, the first openly gay man to be elected to public office in the United States. While a Supervisor in San Francisco, he led the campaign against Proposition 6, which would have banned gays or lesbians from teaching in the California’s public schools. It seems far removed from modern Irish society, but Irish legislation allows for such a situation. Under the terms of equality legislation, religious organizations are given exemptions on moral grounds, so that a school board could refuse to employ someone who did not comply with their ethos, including a matter of sexuality.

In calling for a secular society, it is not then simply an abstract philosophical position, but a call for the state to be neutral on religious grounds, granting no particular privilege or status to a belief because it is a matter of faith. Though discrimination might be distasteful, I have no strong objection to the right of religious organizations or any other private group to do so on whatever basis they choose. What matters is when such discrimination is allowed in public sector, in this case in schools. However infrequently such privileges are exercised by the religious, the fact that they exist does create a burden for some people, restricting the areas they feel confident that they could look for work in.

The state has progressed a long way since there was significant collusion between those in political and religious power in shaping policy, with particularly shameful episodes such as Magdalene laundries, with girls taken away from their families and children for not conforming the Roman Catholic Church’s view of morality. Thankfully, such situations no longer occur, and it would be unhelpful to make too much of a point of these past events. But they do highlight the problems that can emerge when power is given to an organization which is not accountable to the people. Equally, there should not be particular consultation with religious officials when drafting legislation that has ethical implications. I have no objection whatever to priests preaching politics, but it is only by the electorate subsequently contacting their TDs that they should expect to effect change in a republic.

It is not my desire as an avowed atheist and secularist to encourage those who have religious faith to abandon it, as it is fundamentally a very personal matter. I do think, however, that those who lack a belief in a god should recognize the significance of such a position, and that some level of the promotion of the rationality of nonbelief is a good thing in the context of the presumption of belief that often exists. This should not mean railing against religious faith as irrational, as this serves only to make others feel uncomfortable, including many atheists who have no desire to be aggressive.

It is precisely because religious faith or the lack of it is such a personal matter that I would advocate a secular state. It was not originally as an atheist that I first became a committed secularist, but as someone who had received a Roman Catholic primary education, including the administration of sacraments, but found my beliefs and religious sensibilities more akin to Protestantism. It was only when I read the work of Thomas Paine at 19 that I questioned religion wholesale. Even leaving aside cases of conversion or apostasy, there are many who receive sacraments through their school system who are not fully aware of their religion’s doctrines. While the various denominations do not want their nominal figures to decline, so might see removing religious instruction from classrooms as against their interest, if such instruction took place only in religious settings by those who have trained for that specific purpose, their faith would surely be more sincere.

It is in the classroom that I think that a secular society matters most of all. It is not just that at times the teachings of religion can conflict with educational value of teaching objective truth; it can be an issue, but the nature of religion in Ireland is such that there is little reason to fear teachings such as creationism or, what is a more modern version of it, intelligent design. It is because there will be one child in that classroom who questions religion, either from their own reflection or because of family background, or one of another religion. As Toby said to Leo in Season Two of The West Wing, on the reason the state should maintain objectivity in religious affairs “It’s not religious freedom, it’s not church and state, it’s not abstract…It’s the fourth grader who gets his ass kicked at recess because he sat out the voluntary prayer. It’s another way of making kids different from other kids.” The state should be secular because of this real difference it makes to individuals’ lives, and this objectivity is then the proper stance of a republic.

In reply to Stephen on Obama

It was nice to read to the reaction to the note I wrote on Sen. Obama last week, and in responding briefly to these, I want to follow up on Stephen’s lengthy response in particular.

I can accept your point about bipartisanship, that what matters is the actual policies and bills, not token bipartisanship for its own sake. But that cant be said of the two most prominent acts of bipartisanship from McCain. In both of the cases, McCain deserves more credit than Feingold or Kennedy respectively, because they were taking a more politically safe option from their own background. My problem with Obama’s sparse record of bipartisanship is that despite a lot of his talk, he hasnt acted in a way that would be politically dangerous for him. Obviously this was difficult for him during his time in the Senate, as he was planning on stading for president from the time he was sworn in, but that didn’t stop McCain advocating the unpopular surge in Iraq.

An issue he could have taken to stand out from accepted Democratic orthodoxy would be on trade. I dont mean to say it’s the only one, only that it’s one (as you must have gathered) that I’m interested in, and having mentioned it in the last note, it leads me nicely to my next point. I dont believe Obama is any more a protectionist than President Clinton was, or that he’s much more so than I am myself. He could well be less of a protectionist than the current President Bush. My problem with him on this front is his rhetoric on the matter. That he was promising in the primaries to renogiate NAFTA while letting it be leaked that he was reassuring the Canadians that he make no significant change so that those of us who understand the problem with tariffs as a policy will know where he really stands was a genuine Scanton-San Francisco moment. He could have told the crowds that the failing of recent administrations was opening up trade without the appropriate safety net and transitional programs for those who would lose in the short term, thus addressing the real and legitimate concerns with the pace of globalization you mention. The reason Americans are more concerned with opening up of trade than most Europeans is because of the stronger social services in countries here, so that a European who loses a job due to it being relocated does not become as close to destitution as his or her American counterpart. (Thanks for that link on his economic policies, it was quite interesting).

On the religious question, it is obviously very difficult to know what Obama believes. If he was an agnostic and isnt telling us, he wouldnt make it clear in his memoir. Perhaps both Hitchens and I simply have a biased view and think that a man of his intelligence, having been brought up by atheist parents, would not become a Christian. It is sentences like “And it was in search of some practical application of those values that I accpeted work after college as a community organizer for a group of churches in Chicago that were trying to cope with joblessness, drugs, and hopelessness in their midst” and “I came to realize that without a vessel for my beliefs, without an unequivocal commitment to a particular community of faith, I would be consigned at some level to always remain apart” (p. 206) that made me think that Obama was a social liberal who found Trinity United to be the best way to connect with those who he was working with on the ground.

Given that, however, I will admit that I could be wrong. There is what I would call a Brideshead (and Hitchens, also a fan of Waugh, should know what I mean) moment two pages later, when he says “The questions I had did not magically disappear. But kneeling beneath that cross on the South Side of Chicago, I felt God’s spirit beckoning me”. One way or another, you mentioned something that I’ve brought up with you before, whether the influence of Christian churches on Obama’s policy could be harmful. He has proposed expanding the current faith-based initiatives started under the current President Bush to a formal Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. The more benign way of looking at this is that rather than have faceless bureaucrats dealing with those in need, they will get to meet someone in their own community who would probably be more in touch with their actual needs. Despite these good intentions, I worry about the precedent. While First Amendment violations could be rare in the one or two terms of an Obama presidency, that could be quite different under a religiously conservative president like Bush or Reagan. Those involved in churches could still be involved even without it explicitly in the title, so I believe the emphasis was an attempt to improve his credentials and lessen the impact of his clinging remarks (which was probably in turn an attempt to lessen the impact of his involvement with Trinity United).

I will give Obama credit for raising the depth of political debate, but my difficulties with him really come down to a gut feeling that he lacks honesty a lot of the time. Yes, you’re right that the hard-line position the Democrats have on abortion is ridiculous, my own views on the matter would probably class me as a conservative in their eyes. That whole discussion, however, just seemed to be another case of being economical with the truth, claiming to have voted against the Born Alive Bill because of it’s effect on Roe v. Wade, despite the proviso that bill had stating that it would not affect it.

A lot of this does come down to gut reaction, and many like you will say that at least on these counts, he is far better than most politicians America has had in recent times. But on what really matters, I’m with him. Were it simply a question of character, I’d favour Sen. McCain, but it is obviously about who I’d rather see implementing policy as President of the United States.

Thanks for the other comments as well. I had a feeling that other ex-Clinton supporters like Iain would feel the same way about him, but still on balance follow the Democratic ticket because of the issues. Then as to John, if I make a habit of these notes, as I hope to, I would like to come back to your argument that states should legislate for abortion, and why one way or other on the abortion question, with the Bill of Rights and other later Amendments, it should be determined at a federal level.

What I dislike about Obama

Originally written as a Facebook note
What I dislike about Obama, but why I will probably continue to back him
From the beginning of the election campaign last year, I felt inclined to align myself with a candidate, and when it became clear that the Democratic nomination was between Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama, I backed Ms Clinton. This was partly because I admired how President Clinton handled the economy managing to eliminate deficits, much better than the supposedly fiscally responsible Republican Party during the Reagan years where there were deficits year after year. I would also be very much a Democrat with regard to my positions on so-called cultural issues, being strongly in favour of church-state separation, abortion rights, extending full marital rights to gay couples and taking the equivalent liberal views on other such issues.

The real question of this election, however, was whether to support Barack Obama. That one was in agreement with the direction of the two Clinton terms was for many no reason not to be enthusiastic about supporting Mr Obama, the new light in politics, the man needed to change the way politics is done in Washington. From the start, I wasn’t particularly enthusiastic. At first, what I didn’t like about him was that as early as 2004 when he made his speech to the Democratic National Convention, his aim in being in Washington at all was to get to the White House. Alan Greenspan joked when commenting on Nixon that he would like to propose a constitutional amendment saying, “Anyone willing to do what is required to become president of the United States is thereby barred from taking that office” and given the power one person holds if elected, the apprehension here is understandable. The point about Mr Obama’s lack of experience was that he exemplifies the careerist politician for whom any office is only a step to a higher office, who live in the world of the permanent campaign and who we never get to see what they would do legislating or governing. This is not to fault ambition; we undoubtedly need the brightest and most able politicians not to feel satisfied with lower offices than they are worthy of, but to say that before the people elect someone to a higher office, there should be time to observe them acting and voting outside of the glare of high media scrutiny, outside of the context of a campaign.

Mr Obama claims to represent a new kind of politics, and one might think listening to his eloquent speeches that he is a model of bipartisanship. He emphasizes that politics needs to move away from point-scoring and cross-party rivalry. Yet, he has not acted on this in practice, having sponsored no bill of worth a senator from across the floor, something both his rival for the Democratic nomination and his current rival for the White House in Sen. John McCain have done. On Mr Obama’s part, the reason for this was that as a Freshman Senator, and particularly one looking for presidential endorsements, he needed to get to know the fellow members of his party in the short time he had there since January 2005, so avoided stepping away from the party orthodoxy. In his years in the Senate, Mr McCain has worked with Democrats on particular issues, and provoked the ire of his fellow-party members with the Campaign Reform Act in 2002 which he wrote with the socially democratic Russ Feingold and with the immigration reform bill with Ted Kennedy which he championed into the time of the presidential debates last year. (It was amusing to hear one Republican speaker after another at their convention praise his bravery in standing up to the establishment, particularly the very opponents who had slammed him for those positions in the primaries). Even Sarah Palin in her short time as Governor of Alaska has acted with more bipartisanship in her strongly Republican state than has Mr Obama in his time in the United States Senate.

Then there are Mr Obama’s claims to represent a new kind of politics, without lobbying and special interests. Yet his voting record does not stand up to this. He voted for Bush’s now widely discredited Energy Policy Act in 2005, which cost that United States taxpayer by subsidises the economically and environmentally inefficient ethanol industry as a vain attempt to find a substitute for oil. The inefficiency of this method was not something that was known only in the past three years, and has been recognized for a while that it also compromises food production. The fact, however, that farmers in Mr Obama’s home state of Illinois was a factor in his support for this flawed bill. The question of global free trade is not by a great deal an open one in economics and most educated politicians know this, that the benefits of trade outweight any losses and that it is the country that allows more imports that benefits most. Despite this, in the first half of the year, while debating Ms Clinton, he continually stoked protectionist feelings among voters, while Mr McCain risked elections in Iowa and Michigan by telling them the truth that he should not and would not protect their local industries from outside competition. Now, having secured the nomination, Mr Obama casually dismisses his previous remarks by saying that language got overheated during the primary season.

This brings me on to my next point, about Mr Obama’s lack of honesty. It was Ms Clinton’s “Well, that depends on what your definition of sniper fire” moment that prompted me to stop backing her, as it shows quite an act of desperation to fabricate an entire event to show foreign policy experience. Mr Obama’s dishonesty is of a different sort. Arriving in Chicago to embark on a political career, and as far as I can tell from his second memoir, The Audacity of Hope, fairly much agnostic, he chose to attend Trinity United Church of Christ. Not just a middle-of-the-road episcopalian or methodist church but a megachurch with a slightly unstable pastor, that Mr Obama was able to conveniently cast aside after first claiming that it would be tantamount to disclaiming a family member. He is not open matters that could be divisive, with the weasel answer, “That’s above my pay grade” when asked difficult questions about abortion.

But when it comes to who I hope will be president in January, I have to return to my first paragraph. I wrote this to answer a few comments on my status indicating support for Mr McCain over Mr Obama, and thought writing a note better than a quick response. I am holding Mr Obama to a higher standard in many areas than I would perhaps other politicians, in large part because of the claims he makes for himself. Despite all I have written above, he is the Democratic nominee. I do trust Mr McCain more with the economy, and while I believe they would act largely the same with regard to Iraq, having advocated the surge in the first place, I think he deserves the credit for its success. But the economy will survive and as long as a serious depression is held at bay, in the long run, the policies of one or the other will not be so different in effect. What does matter in the long term are cultural issues. Mr McCain is not religious evangelical that Presidents Reagan or Bush were, but with the Supreme Court in such a delicate balance, where the retirement or death of one liberal Justice and the appointment of a conservative would put in the control of the latter section. In which case, a test case on Roe v. Wade could find it overturned, as well as changes affecting the separation of church and state. Antonin Scalia is the worst example, but when we have him justifying his support for the death penalty by stating that “few doubted the morality of the death penalty in the age that believed in the divine right of kings”, we can see why there is reason to fear the impact such theocrats can have given the influence they have in shaping the state of the culture of the United States. Not while there are far fewer such Justices on the Bench, and until the Republican Party rids itself of its evangelical wing (such a change is not impossible; the Democrats once had a racist and bigoted wing), could I comfortably support the Republicans. Yes, this does not affect me directly, but were I a United States citizen I would not support such government, despite economic concerns, and I do not think I could wish it on them, even if Mr McCain would be more secure for the Irish economy. And yes, in a country with school prayer and no abortion rights, it may seem hypocritical and irrelevant to complain of such changes across the water, but I can hope for the laws and Constitution of the United States to remain as a standard for ours to achieve.