America Does Not Have a Religious Identity

[rug]

Interview
June 18, 2013
by Dennis J Goldford, professor of politics at Drake University.

The Constitution of Religious Freedom: God, Politics, and the First Amendment
by Dennis J. Goldford
Baylor University Press, 2013

What inspired you to write The Constitution of Religious Freedom?

At a practical level, I have been fascinated by the rise of Christian conservatism, and particularly the claim of what some call Christian nationalism, that America is a Christian nation, as a major factor in American politics. At a theoretical level, I have always thought that, at its broadest, politics is the process by which we negotiate our differences. In particular, liberal democracy—a political order in which majorities rule but not over everything—is an institutionalized agreement to disagree. My concern is the question: what happens, and what do we do, if there are some things about which we cannot agree to disagree? Prominent on that list is religion.

What’s the most important take-home message for readers?

The central argument of the book is that the Constitution does not protect religion—it protects religious freedom. The latter is very different from the former, and understanding the distinction enables us to understand the political meaning of the religion clauses of the Constitution. Specifically, I argue that the meaning of the religion clauses is that the locus of religious identity is the individual, not the nation; that the American political order does not have a religious identity of its own, but, rather, is a political order that allows and encourages individuals and groups of their choosing to have their own religious identity without having one of its own.

http://www.religiondispatches.org/books/rd10q/7108/america_does_not_have_a_religious_identity/

[demwing]

1. "the locus of religious identity is the individual, not the nation"

E pluribus unum - "Out of many, one."

Traditionally, the meaning of the phrase held that out of many colonies, a single nation emerged. In recent years, the meaning has broadened, and has come to suggest that out of many peoples, races, religions and ancestries has emerged a single people and nation—illustrating the concept of the melting pot.

If the individuals (the many) have a religious identity, then why not the nation (the one)?

We don't have a uniform, individual racial identity, but as a nation we hold racial diversity as an element of our social identity (the melting pot). Likewise, we may not have a uniform, individual religious identity, but we hold religious diversity as an element of our national identity.

To say we don't have a single religious identity as a nation may be technically accurate, but it is not a fact that represents the truth. It is a statistical measure, and obscures more than it reveals.