We need Christian Nationalism in the US

In The Federalist, Matthew Cockran defends Christian nationalism and its place in the US.  In his article, We Need Christian Nationalism Because Religious Neutrality Has Failed, he rejects religious neutrality and equality and claims that "our religious liberty never proceeded from attempts at religious neutrality. It came precisely from the privileged position that Christianity has historically held in America and in the West."

He defines Christian nationalism, not as the conflation of American and Christian identities or a call for theocracy or white supremacy, but in a much simpler way:

A rejection of the religious neutrality of the late 20th century in favor of 1) a recognition that Christianity has had a unique and privileged influence on our American heritage that overshadows the influences of other faith traditions, 2) a conviction that a Christian understanding of the world should predominate over other worldviews in American civic life, and 3) an understanding that a nation that successfully excised or sufficiently diluted this influence could no longer be called “American” in the same sense as before. Although more general than what the statement condemns, this understanding would actually encompass many Americans, whether they accept the label or not.

Cockran argues that all religions are not the same and religious freedom is specifically linked to Christianity: 

Different gods make different demands. One of the reasons theological liberals are so blind on this issue is their ignorant presumption that, at their root, all religions are basically the same—that they all worship the same God, proclaim the same general values and ideals, and merely have different cultural trappings or modes of expression. In such a fantasy, a neutral pluralism is conceivable, but reality is a different matter. 

Although there is only one God, there are many gods (i.e., idols) in this world. The extent to which a person will support or even accept things like secular democracy and religious pluralism depends on that person’s god... 

What then does that mean for American democracy and religious freedom? It means neither can ever be religiously neutral. Some gods demand such things; some gods merely tolerate them; and other gods abhor them. To embrace these things as worthy of our support and protection and prioritize them over other concerns is to favor some gods and therefore some religions above others.

Rather than submitting to a fantasy of religious neutrality, Christian nationalism accepts and adapts to this reality. After all, the Christian faith is the root from which our form of religious freedom grew, and the American nation is the heritage in which it is enfleshed. The positive forms of secularism and religious liberty that had been enjoyed in America grew out of the specifics of Christianity. 

Christians, for example, have always held that there is a fundamental distinction between worldly government and the kingdom of heaven. Even the statement acknowledges this. You can see it in the teachings of Jesus—that his kingdom was not of this world, and that we should render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s. 

You can see it in St. Augustine, when he wrote of the City of Man and the City of God. You can see it in Martin Luther’s Two Kingdoms theology. You can see it in the Church of Rome’s doctrine of the Two Swords. Different Christian traditions have certainly differed as to how these two realms relate to one another, and some have separated them far more than others. Nevertheless, the distinction has always been there. Civil government can be disentangled from the church precisely because of that Christian distinction... 

So in the end, even the simple idea that church and state have distinct authorities and responsibilities is by no means religious neutral. It blatantly gives Christianity a seat of privilege in the way government is organized, and it does so at the expense of some other religions. 

The same can be said of American religious freedom. Americans have deliberately refrained from establishing a state church, and we allow extremely broad freedoms for the exercise of religion and the expression of religious ideas. This was a natural outgrowth of Christian ideas, since in Christianity, salvation comes through faith in Jesus Christ—a faith that cannot be compelled by force. Accordingly, from the Christian perspective, there is very little point in using the state to enforce religious adherence... 

In America, the weight of those past decisions have always been rooted in the values of the Christians who founded and cultivated this nation. Their substance is indelibly colored by Christianity. Our Declaration of Independence hinges the entire matter of independence on the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” and ascribes our rights to endowment by the Creator. 

These are by no means religiously neutral statements. They are not sectarian, grounded as they are in the language of natural law, but they are nevertheless grounded in a Christian understanding of that natural law. Not every religion sees the matter the same way. Not every religion even has a natural law tradition.

Rejecting common objections to Christian nationalism, he contends:

Some would object to this line of thought, claiming that our nation really founded as much by deists rather than Christians. There were certainly a few prominent ones in the mix, but it doesn’t weaken my case in the slightest. Deism itself was always an attempt to possess a Christian heritage without possessing a Christian faith... 

Others would claim that our religious liberty is no longer Christian because many non-Christian nations have also provided measures of religious freedom. This is true, and I’m quite pleased that they’ve culturally appropriated religious liberty from the Christian West. I believe my heritage to be of value, so I think it’s great when others learn from it.

Haredi Conscription: Battle between the Knesset and the Supreme Court continues

Two previous blog posts document the fight of the mainly secular Israelis to force Haredi Israelis to serve in the military. In the first blog post ( See Is studying religion a service to the state?), the history of the conflict is traced from the independence of Israel to 2012. In the second blog post (See Going to jail for studying Torah), the passage of the 2014 law, which was a compromise, was discussed.

The March 2014 law made room for multiple but opposing perspectives. Neither secularists nor Haredi liked it. Secularists did not like it because it did not have strict penalties for forcing the Haredi youth to serve in the military. The Haredi were unhappy because it had some weak injunctions for people who refuse to serve:

The new legislation sets annual quotas for drafting yeshiva students for military or national service, and mandates criminal penalties against draft evaders. However, the law doesn’t entail complete Haredi conscription, instead calling for a gradual annual increase in the number of ultra-Orthodox 18-year-olds drafted, and still allowing for small numbers of exemptions until 2017. (See Israel passes ultra-Orthodox draft law)

The Haredi parties vowed to change the 2014 law whenever they had the power to do so. In late 2014, there were policy disagreements within the government and elections were held in March 2015. The Likud Party won big in the elections and Netanyahu decided to form a government with primarily religious-right parties and not with centrist Yesh Atid, who was the main force behind the 2014 law. 

Source: Two new Supreme Court justices named

In November 2015, the ruling coalition, including Haredi parties Shas and United Torah Judaism, passed amendments to the 2014 law. These amendments diluted the original law and gave Haredi students more exemptions besides delaying the implementation of the law:

The amendment to the law for Haredi (ultra-Orthodox) conscription that was passed yesterday postpones the implementation of obligatory enlistment for full-time yeshiva students until 2020, though it was originally supposed to come into effect in 2017. It also gives the Defense Minister the authority to exempt yeshiva students after that date if he so wishes, “while bearing in mind” goals established by the government under the 2014 law. (See Analysis: Haredi parties wipe out Lapid's IDF draft law - but for how long?)

The crucial question was, however, will the Supreme Court accept it? Unlikely:

In this regard, it is worth looking back at the Tal Law, which provided a legal framework for haredi men to indefinitely postpone their military service until they reached the age of exemption, and at the reasons why the High Court declared it incommensurate with Israel’s basic laws.
The court said in 2012, that while there had been an increase in the number of haredi men enlisting to military or civilian service, the rate of increase was insufficient given the legal inequalities the Tal Law generated.
“Legislation that perpetuates the gaps and flaws of the lack of equality, to the extent which they currently exist, cannot be upheld,” wrote then-Supreme Court president Dorit Beinisch in the 2012 ruling.
In 2011, the last full year for which the High Court could see haredi enlistment statistics for their 2012 ruling, 1,282 ultra-Orthodox men enlisted to the IDF and 1,089 enlisted to the civilian service, totaling 2,371 haredi military or civilian service recruits.
This was just under 30% of the potential draft.
Bearing in mind the 30% rate of haredi enlistment in 2012 when the Tal Law was declared unconstitutional and the 33% rate of enlistment today, it seems highly unlikely that the High Court will deem the new amendment – which to all intents and purposes removes the legal obligation for haredi men to perform national service – commensurate with the requirements of equality before the law. (See Analysis: Haredi parties wipe out Lapid's IDF draft law - but for how long?)

In September 2017, the inevitable happened and the Supreme Court stuck down the law as unconstitutional and unreasonable.

The dramatic ruling on Tuesday set a one-year deadline to implement a different framework for handling the ultra-Orthodox draft.
The court was responding to four separate appeals — three of which claimed the current arrangement discriminated against non-Haredi Jews, and a fourth that argued it discriminated against Haredi Jews, who are being asked to increase their military draft rate while other minorities, especially Israeli Arabs, are not required to serve at all.
Eight justices, led by Chief Justice Miriam Naor, ruled that the current arrangement was increasing the inequality in the “draft burden,” rather than reducing it, which was the law’s stated purpose and the grounds for its constitutionality. That made it an “unconstitutional law,” the justices ruled.
One dissenter, Justice Noam Solberg, argued that the law had not been in effect long enough to determine its effect on the military draft, and therefore no determination could yet be made about its constitutionality. (See High Court strikes down law that postponed ultra-Orthodox draft)

The Haredi parties' leaders are furious and calling this decision unacceptable and dictatorial. Ya’acov Litzman, Israel's health minister and United Torah Judaism chairman said that the decision was "the worst and most wretched decision in the history of terrible decisions in the Jewish world." One of his party members, Yisrael Eichler,  called it "part of an all-out war on Judaism"(See Israel’s religious military exemption law is unconstitutional – Supreme Court and High Court strikes down the law that postponed ultra-Orthodox draft)). Religious Affairs Minister David Azulai and Shas party member claimed that the Supreme Court was fighting with the Jewish people, "In the Supreme Court ruling yesterday, the court said in effect that it wants to continue the dispute with the Jewish people. It chose to say it precisely a few days before Rosh Hashanah." The religious parties are now calling for passing a law to limit Supreme Court jurisdiction:

The time has come to make a legislative change and tell the High Court of Justice that you are not elected, but nominated" he said. Stop making disagreements with the Jewish people and ruling against the Knesset. (See Haredi MKs focus their rage on the Supreme Court)

Another way for religious parties to resolve this issue is to change the composition of the Supreme Court. The Justice minister, Ayelet Shaked, though not a member of a Haredi party, is working on making the court more conservative and more nationalist. She was able to bring two conservative judges on the Supreme Court in 2017. However, the change can take a long time. This means the issue will continue to bedevil Israeli leadership in the next few years.

Blaine Amendment(s) and separation of Church and State in the US

Blaine-type amendments are in the news because recently the US Supreme Court gave a decision against their strict interpretation. This has implications for church-state relations in the US.

Blaine-type amendments are named after Maine Representative James G. Blaine (1830–93) who served as Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives (1869-1875), United States Senator (1876-1881), and the US Secretary of State (1881 and 1889–1892). He failed to get the Republican nomination for President in 1876 and 1880 but was nominated in 1884. He was defeated by Grover Cleveland in the general election. 

When Republican lost the majority in the House in 1874 elections, Blaine decided to focus on his presidential ambitions. President Grant's speeches on the desirability of good public education that was devoid of sectarian dogmas perhaps gave Blaine the idea. As he had married a Catholic, he was also liable to suffer from anti-catholicism fervor that was rampant in the US in the late 19th century. So, an amendment that was clearly against the Catholic parochial schools was definitely helpful to his political fortunes. Blaine moved the amendment in 1875. The text of the proposed amendment, which would have expanded the First Amendment, was as follows:

No State shall make any law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; and no money raised by taxation in any State, for the support of public schools, or derived from any public fund therefor, nor any public lands devoted thereto, shall ever be under the control of any religious sect, nor shall any money so raised, or lands so devoted be divided between religious sects or denominations.

The amendment failed to pass the Congress. The House passed it by the required two-third majority (180 votes for and 7 votes against) but it could not pass the same hurdle in the Senate(28 votes for and 16 against). However, despite the failure, many states decided to add similar amendments in their own constitutions. This process was speeded up in the West when the Congress made it a pre-condition for admission into the Union in 1876. Currently, 37 states have Blaine-type amendments forbidding public funds from being used for sectarian schools. These amendments are not similar. 

Blaine Amendments differ primarily in two ways. First, some Blaine Amendments forbid funding of religious education while others more broadly forbid funding of all religious organizations. Second, some Blaine Amendments prohibit only direct funding while others prohibit both direct and indirect funding. Direct funding involves the state actually giving aid to a religious organization. Indirect funding involves the state giving aid to a religious organization through a third party, such as a family that uses state funding to send its children to a religious school. The least restrictive Blaine Amendments, such as the one in Kentucky, forbid only direct funding of religious education; the most restrictive Blaine Amendments, such as those in Florida and Georgia, prohibit both indirect and direct funding of any religious organization. (The Blaine Game: Controversy Over the Blaine Amendments and Public Funding of Religion)

Source: Answers to Frequently Asked Questions About Blaine Amendments

For more a century, Blaine-type amendments in State constitutions were not an issue. However, the start of school choice and voucher movement has changed all that. In June 2017, the US Supreme Court ruled in favor of a daycare center run by Trinity Lutheran Church, Columbia, Missouri, thus diluting Missouri's Blaine-type amendment. The daycare had requested a grant from a state program to use scrap tires for its playground surface but was denied because of the Blaine-type amendment.

What are the implications of this decision?

It will affect the success/funding for school voucher programs but, more importantly, it will have implications for separation of church and state in the US:

The big deal is what it may mean for voucher programs. Even though the issue in Trinity Lutheran v. Comer was playground equipment, some see the court’s 7-2 decision in favor of the church as a sign that school voucher programs, which both President Trump and Education Secretary Betsy DeVos support, would survive future legal challenges. Currently, more than a dozen states have school voucher programs that involve religious schools.
“This decision has implications beyond scrap tires and church playgrounds,” Michael Bindas, an attorney with the Institute for Justice, said in a statement. “The Court’s reasoning sends a strong signal that, just as the Court would not tolerate the use of a Blaine Amendment to exclude a religious preschool from a playground resurfacing program, it will not tolerate the use of Blaine Amendments to exclude religious options from school choice programs.”
But don’t plan a funeral dirge for the Blaine Amendments yet. Secular groups have pledged to fight. Americans United for Separation of Church and State called the ruling “harmful.”
“The religious freedom protections enshrined in state constitutions are worth more than resurfacing a playground,” the Rev. Barry Lynn, AU’s outgoing executive director, said in a statement. “This ruling threatens to open the door to more taxpayer support for religion, which is at odds with our history, traditions and common sense.” (The ’Splainer: What is the Blaine Amendment and did SCOTUS kill it?)

Many scholars have advocated striking own of the Blaine-type amendments because of their anti-Catholicism and anti-religion bias as well as an unnecessary restriction and intrusion. Philip Hamburger is the Maurice and Hilda Friedman Professor of Law at Columbia Law School has penned a lengthy piece arguing against Blaine-type amendments (Prejudice and the Blaine amendments). Others have, however, contended that these amendments are essential for the public education system and the separation of church and state. Former assistant education secretary in the administration of President George H.W. Bush, Diane Ravitch, who supported school choice earlier but has now become a public school advocate has blogged in favor of Blaine-type amendments (Ravitch: Why the Supreme Court should not force the public to pay for religious schools). An article in the New Republic explains why this decision is important for the state-church relationship and how the new Justice Neil Gorsuch might affect the Supreme Court's decision (Neil Gorsuch Is Poised to Swing a Landmark Church-State Case). Melissa Rogers, who was director of the White House Office of Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships under President Obama, thinks the ruling will have consequences but a lot depends on lower courts (Six issues to watch in the Supreme Court’s Trinity Lutheran case).

One Nation under God

One Nation under God: How Corporate America Invented Christian America by Kevin Kruse appears to be a fascinating book on how religion/Christianity was promoted in the US by the corporations in the second half of the twentieth century. Ronald Reagan was, thus, not the first President supported whole-heartedly by the newly invigorated religious right. Eisenhower and Nixon were both successful, partly due to the support from the pulpit, a support financed by the American business.

Source: How 'One Nation' Didn't Become 'Under God' Until The '50s Religious Revival

Recently, we have seen a strong alliance developing between religious-right and business communities around the world. In many countries, this alliance has delivered amazing results. We have seen it in Turkey, where Anatolia tigers (conservative businessmen from Anatolian heartland) allied with the AKP and ended the almost ninety years rule of secular establishment. We have more recently seen it in India, where corporate India supported religious-right party BJP, under Narendra Modi, to comprehensively win in 2014 elections to form the first single-party government in India in more than two decades.  

The US seems to be an outlier in terms of church-state relationship. As discussed in a previous post (see American Secularism: A historical view of separation of the Church and the State in the US), the US is the only country of the world that keeps religion and state strictly separate. The practicing of minority or majority religions is neither restricted nor regulated. However, it was not always so. In the 18th and 19th centuries, while church-state was separate at the federal level, at the state and local level, there were laws that discriminated against minority religions, including Christian sects such Catholicism. It was only in the 1940s that Supreme Court imposed the strict separation of church-state.

Kruse informs the readers that it was about the same time that corporate America and religious-right came close. Both of them realized that they are under threat from the federal government; the religious right was threatened by the judicial branch while corporate America was being threatened by the executive branch (Roosevelt's New Deal). General Eisenhower's victory in Presidential elections in 1952 was the first national success for this alliance.  A new national motto (In God we trust), the addition of 'under God' in the pledge of allegiance and appearance of national motto on all banknotes soon followed.

Here is a review of the book (See The World Ike Wrought) and an interview with the author (See How 'One Nation' Didn't Become 'Under God' Until The '50s Religious Revival) to savor before you buy the book.

Netanyahu: Need of a Jewish State

It seems I prematurely jettisoned the idea of a Jewish state (See End of prospects of a Jewish state?). Prime Minister Netanyahu, on Israel's independence day, announced that he is preceding to make the Jewish state a reality by amending Basic Law of Israel (that serves as Israel's Constitution) to highlight the Jewish character of Israel. He argued:

Israel gives full equal rights to all its citizens, but it is the nation-state of one people – the Jewish people – and no other. To fortify Israel's standing as the nation-state of the Jewish people, I intend to spearhead the legislation of a Basic Law that will enshrine this status.

Israel is a Jewish and democratic state. Our Basic Laws give full expression to the democratic aspect of the state. We do this by giving full equal rights to each and every citizen. The Basic Laws do this by means of two main laws – the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty, and the Basic Law: Freedom of Occupation. It will define the national right of the Jewish people to the state of Israel, without infringing on the individual rights of any citizen of Israel. It will fortify the standing of the Law of Return as a Basic Law, it will anchor in the Basic Laws the standing of the national symbols – the flag, the national anthem, the language and other components of our national being...These components are under relentless and increasing attack from abroad, and even at home.

Of course, there are those who don't want Israel to be defined as the nation-state of the Jewish people...They want to see a Palestinian nation-state arise alongside us, and for Israel to gradually become a bi-national, Arab-Jewish state, within its narrow borders. But I say one simple thing: You can't hold the national stick by both ends. You can't say that you want to separate from the Palestinians in order to avoid a bi-national state, an argument that has a certain logic to it, and meanwhile sanctify a bi-national, Jewish-Arab state in Israel's permanent borders. (See Netanyahu: Israel is home to one people - Jewish)

Changing of Basic Law and giving preferential treatment to Jewish over democratic character of Israel would, of course, establish an overtly Jewish state. Let's look at the arguments. Is Israel's flag, anthem and language increasingly under attack? No. Is Israel itself increasingly under attack for being a Jewish state? Not so. The world's focus on Israel is because of Israel-Palestine conflict. Yes, there are concerns about the treatment of Arab minority but treating minorities badly is common in the Middle East and around the world so that is not the issue. Even being a religious nationalist state is not an issue because the Middle East has many such states. Netanyahu would like us to believe that it is anti-Semitism but it is not true. Increasingly Jewish people themselves are realizing, this is just a way to legitimize occupation of Palestinian lands.

1947 Zionist poster

Source: Zionist Postcards

The second argument is again problematic. Those, who promote a separate Palestinian state, also accept Israel's right to exist. They want both states to give rights to their minorities. Those, who favor the two-state solution, do not demand or accept an Islamic state in Palestine while denying Jews to establish a Jewish state in Israel. What many people are arguing for is two states for two communities, not two faiths. But the world can also live with two states for two faiths (i.e. states based on religious nationalism), if they are separate. What world, I think, is wary of is the conflict and Israel has tended not to resolve the conflict for at least the last twenty years. And this is jeopardizing Israel's Jewish character itself.