Prager not getting Separation of Church and State:

Dennis Prager, in a recent column, writes about America’s enemies, one from abroad, one from within: “America is engaged in two wars for the survival of its civilization. The war over same-sex marriage and the war against Islamic totalitarianism are actually two fronts in the same war -- a war for the preservation of the unique American creation known as Judeo-Christian civilization.

One enemy is religious extremism. The other is secular extremism.

One enemy is led from abroad. The other is directed from home.”

There are a number of problems with Prager’s analysis. Right off the bat, he identifies “Judeo-Christian” civilization as “a unique American creation.” Excuse me, but the Judeo-Christian tradition predates the American founding by many thousands of years. Perhaps he wasn’t choosing his words carefully enough. Perhaps what he really meant to say was, we are in a “war for the preservation of the Judeo-Christian element in America’s culture.”

And in fact Prager, invoking de Tocqueville, tells us that America is not a wholly Judeo-Christian nation (say, in the way that every aspect of Islamic nations—every institution, private or public—are religious to the core). America is in fact, “a unique combination of secular government and religious (Judeo-Christian) society.” Prager doesn’t focus too much on the implications Tocqueville’s comments; but perhaps he ought to. Yes, America has a tradition of maintaining a vibrant Judeo-Christian culture, but we also have a tradition of secular government, one that makes a distinction between the religious (private) and the civil (public).

There is also a “contradictory” tone to Prager’s article. On the one hand, Prager’s sole purpose seems to be to defend America's Judeo-Christian tradition. In this war between the “secularists” and the “traditionalists” as Bill O’Reilly would put it, Prager is clearly on the side of the latter. Yet his comments (especially his citation of Tocqueville) also indicate that he accepts secularism—that our public institutions are intended to be, in principle, secular—just so long as we don’t fall into the trap of “radical secularism.” Thus, the distinct aspect of America is not so much our “Judeo-Christian” tradition, but the unique balance that this nation maintains between the secular and the sacred. “Not only has this combination been unique, it has been uniquely successful.”

(Prager deserves kudos for his recognition that America has a “secular” government. Too many prominent religious conservatives absolutely refuse recognize any form of secularism, or that America’s government is supposed to be secular in principle. Instead they claim that America’s government is built “wholly on a Judeo-Christian foundation.” Others simply ignore the “Judeo” and flat out declare that we were “founded” on Biblical Christianity. Perhaps as a non-Christian, Prager realizes that it benefits him to live in a nation where his religion exists, as a legal matter, on an equal footing with Christianity. And perhaps this cannot be done, if “Christianity” serves as the legal basis for this nation.)

But what is the “right” balance of the secular and the sacred? What is the “American formula” for doing this? America maintains a “proper” balance between the religious and the secular by consigning “the religious” to the private sphere and adopting “public” legal rules that are secular and neutral, that don’t discriminate in favor or against one’s religion or lack thereof (or at least our constitutional ideals inform us that this is what ought to be done). In other words, religious traditions and values deserve absolute protection—but only in the private sphere of life. Our public rules should be neutral and accommodate or “equally apply” not only to religious conservative folks, but to those of us that fall outside of this tradition as well.

As a general principle, this is known as “separation of Church and State.” Now this is unique to American society (at least we started it).

What Prager refers to as “radical secularism,”—what threatens to destroy the “religious” aspect of this nation—could only do so if we blur the lines between Church and State and legally impose secular principles upon private religious entities. So long as the separation is maintained and private religious groups are given complete autonomy to operate in the private sphere, then I don’t see how gay marriage is a threat to “the sacred.” In other words, only if the state not only legalizes gay marriages, but also begins to force the fundamentalist Jewish and Christian Churches and Synagogues to marry same-sex folks, does “radical secularism” threaten “our Judeo-Christian morality.”

What Prager is arguing for is the hegemony of orthodox Judeo-Christian norms in the public, as well as in the private spheres of society.

To me this is inconsistent with our national ideal of having a government that is (supposed to be) secular and one that in no way favors “religious opinion” over others that operate outside of such traditions or vice versa.