The Kuyper of Idaho (you know, pastor, college founder, magazine editor, culture warrior – so far, no prime ministry) has spoken on the proposed mosque in New York City near Ground Zero. As complicated as the issue is, because of the delicate balance between legal freedoms and democratic politeness, Wilson has used the occasion to denounce – you guessed it – secularisim. (Thanks to the Brothers Bayly for the link.) Wilson concludes:
. . . Muslims know what they are doing. What is that exactly? They are exposing the intellectual, theological, and ethical bankruptcy of secularism, and they are doing it on purpose. . . . Someone really does need to tell secularist America that her gods are genuinely pathetic. And currently, the Muslims are doing this because the Christians won’t. And the Christians who won’t do this are not so much in need of a different kind of theology as they are in need of a different kind of spine.
According to Wilson, the problem with America’s gods is that all sectarian faiths need to go along with the president in order to get along. He doesn’t like what such accommodation means for those who protest abortion and gay marriage on religious grouds. But if the United States prohibited abortion and gay marriage, would Wilson be content? Would Muslims have a place in Christendom. Over at another site Doug and I went round on this one and he seems to argue that Christendom makes plenty of space for freedom of conscience. He allowed that Servetus would conceivably grow to a ripe old age in Moscow, Idaho, if Wilson were in fact prime minister, and that Muslims would be free to hold their views, just not to practice their faith in a Wilsonian Christendom. I am not sure that Wilson’s version of Christendom does justice to the actual history of Christian Europe, where the relations between Christians, Jews, and Muslims was hardly harmonious. So if you want the freedom to practice your faith in America, don’t you need to allow for the freedom of other religious adherents to practice? I guess you don’t have to if your religious group is the one holding keys to the White House. But if you are going to make the cult the basis for the cultus, you are going to have a few conundrums about how to handle those “poor†and “tired†“masses,” streaming to the United States, “yearning to breathe free.â€
Just as thorny as Wilson’s ideal of Christendom is his denunciation of secularism. In his post he cites what he regards as an ineffective piece by Charles Krauthammer on the “hallowedness†of Ground Zero’s ground. I concede that the idea of sacred space in secular America is a puzzle and I also believe that more effective arguments can be made about the impropriety (as opposed to illegality), for instance, of putting a German Lutheran church across the street from the National Holocaust Museum. It’s just not right.
But Wilson is so intent to denounce secularism (in order to prove the merits of Christendom) that he misses other fine points in Krauthammer’s secular piece. The op-ed includes this:
Even New York mayor Michael Bloomberg, who denounced opponents of the proposed 15-story mosque and Islamic center near Ground Zero as tramplers on religious freedom, asked the mosque organizers “to show some special sensitivity to the situation.†. . .
Bloomberg’s implication is clear: If the proposed mosque were controlled by “insensitive†Islamist radicals either excusing or celebrating 9/11, he would not support its construction.
But then, why not? By the mayor’s own expansive view of religious freedom, by what right do we dictate the message of any mosque? Moreover, as a practical matter, there’s no guarantee this couldn’t happen in the future. Religious institutions in this country are autonomous. Who is to say that the mosque won’t one day hire an Anwar al-Awlaki — spiritual mentor to the Fort Hood shooter and the Christmas Day bomber, and one-time imam at the Virginia mosque attended by two of the 9/11 terrorists?
And not to be missed is what Wilson’s secular pal, Christopher Hitchens wrote about the mosque. Hitchen’s calls for a discussion of the matter based less on the feelings of both sides – whether the Muslims or the survivors of 9/11 – and more on reasonable premises of American law and knowledge or recent experience.
Even within Wilson’s own post he acknowledges that the Supreme Court of the United States, in its Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942) decision was able to see clearly through the lens of secular reason that “that freedom of speech did not include the right to stand on the sidewalk outside the funeral of somebody’s mom in order to taunt the mourners.â€
Which leads to the question: why does Wilson go out of his way to denounce secularism when secular people in the United States provide plenty of evidence that secularism has its moments. One of those moments is the distinction between public (involuntary) and private (voluntary) associations. According to this division, religionists have the freedom to maintain their own institutions and keep out those who disagree. But in the public ones, everyone has access, no matter what their faith. This was the arrangement of secular America and it has worked reasonably well for Christians since they still are able to worship freely (along with Mormon, Jews, and Muslims). And it is what Wilson rejects, as if not maintaining one’s private views in public settings is a form of bad faith.
Of course, a secularism that tries to impose public standards on private associations is a real danger and this has been a feature of court rulings for the last four decades where justices do not respect either private associations or the rights of states. I understand that this is partly responsible for the reaction of the Religious Right. Many evangelicals felt and still feel threatened by the federal government extending its reach into private associations. (I also think this is more a political than a religious problem.)
But Wilson’s solution is not to return to the good secularism because for him only Christendom is good and secularism is always bad. In which case, his Christendom model is an effort to impose private rules of association on public institutions. That presents a problem not only for the construction of mosques but the presence (if you’re Reformed) of Roman Catholics and Anabaptists in the United States. One of the more perceptive readers of Wilson’s blog made this very point:
Interesting post, Douglas. But I’m not entirely clear about what you are saying. You say that building a mosque so close to ground zero should be prohibited because the existence of such a mosque would be “fighting words.†But using that standard, wouldn’t the building of any mosque be prohibited anywhere in the United States?
In fact, if we applied that standard, wouldn’t the establishment of New St. Andrews College in downtown Moscow be unconstitutional using the “fighting words†standard?
It seems to me that you should stay away from the constitution (you don’t like it much anyway, do you?) and stick to the Bible. The Bible is clear: permit only correct forms of worship (like Christ Church) and destroy all others.
In which case, the problem with the situation in New York City is not America’s gods but the nation’s feelings. Many officials are worried about offending the sensibilities of some aggrieved group, and they want to be sure to be seen as sensitive (as opposed to intolerant and insensitive). Now, if I were prone to the single-cause explanations as Wilson appears to be, I’d be tempted to blame the current predicament on evangelicals. After all, ever since Jonathan Edwards wrote Religious Affections, born-again types have been far more attentive to sincerity of motives than to formal expressions of doctrine or worship. If this is so, then the moral and political impasse to which this blessedly secular land has come could be the direct result of the success of Whitefield, Finney, Graham, and Rock the River Tours. But I am far too charitable to take the bait and blame it all on evangelicalism.
Old Life 
Dgh…
I enjoyed this essay, and the back and forth over at the other site you linked to. A couple of thoughts as to my take, worth less than two cents…
The point many seem to miss when talking about our Founder’s Judeo-Christian point of view is: One can argue as much as one wants that Adams, Madison, et al were profoundly influenced by their J-C world view (which in many cases was true), the fact remains they set up a constitutional gov’t that was both secular and limited. They recoiled at the idea that the central government should have any more than the minimum legal powers necessary to insure a stable and free society. Society was free to develop in different directions under that umbrella of limited federal gov’t and guaranteed individual rights. Being that they set up a “federal” republic, the state gov’ts could also operate in the direction of specific types of society as long as not violating the rights of their citizens. Thus they necessarily set up a limited gov’t having internalized one of the main and most neglected doctrines of Scripture… the sinful nature of man, and the resultant oppression of man over man that naturally follows if unhindered.
Also, I would venture one more reason behind the opposition to the mosque. I think there is valid cause for concern about who is backing this project given the track record of high profile mosques being used as recruitment centers for jihadism and the aim of insinuating shiria law into secular law and society. Germany, Britain, Northern Virginia and Minneapolis are examples that come to mind. This does need some attention inasmuch as Islam, by its own teachings and practice, is a theo-political-societal religion, i.e. it seeks to set up an Islamic theonomy.
best regards,
Jack
LikeLike
Mr. Miller, I tend to agree about not letting religious freedom outdo proper suspicion. Reagan’s line, “trust, but verify,” comes to mind. As does the way that Utah became a state — i.e., Mormons had to give up polygamy.
LikeLike
Dgh…
No need to call me Mr. Miller. Mr. is fine…
“trust, but verify”… as the Gipper said. Steve Emerson has been on the job. Some interesting info just breaking over at Atlas Shrugs: http://tinyurl.com/276azha
Needless to say, more than meets the eye.
By the way, my wife and I have been visiting a church here in Santa Barbara and benefiting from the solid sermons by Pastor Harley, who blames you for steering him to the OPC. I like him a lot.
cheers,
Jack
LikeLike
For some reason I have no idea what Doug Wilson is talking about. What exactly is he saying? That the city of New York, or the Federal or State government, should ban the mosque because it’s opposed to the Bible? To the Book of Church Order? What?
Nobody denies that Muslims have the legal right to set up a mosque (if zoning laws allow such buildings). The only question here is one of propriety. I’ve often asked those who play the “freedom of religion” or the “racism” card in order to defend the mosque: Is it okay to build a KKK memorial next to the grave of Martin Luther King Jr.? Why or why not?
LikeLike
Jack said: “One can argue as much as one wants that Adams, Madison, et al were profoundly influenced by their J-C world view (which in many cases was true), the fact remains they set up a constitutional gov’t that was both secular and limited.”
That’s right. Here’s some often overlooked evidence that supports your point: President Adams signed the Treaty of Tripoli in 1797. Article 11 of the treaty stated:
“As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”
LikeLike
Adams is course talking about the “federal” government. The States were founded on the Christian religion, and a number still had established churches. The U.S. Constitition did not establish a religion (was not “founded” on the Christian religion) precisely because the States would have objected to it. The determination of religion, and moral laws, was the business of the States and they did not want to cede that power to the new federal government.
LikeLike
Vern –
You nailed it re: Wilson’s essay. My main problem with Wilson’s writing is that he always says a lot without really saying anything. He rambles on about America’s secular gods, but doesn’t link those “gods” to why the mosque shouldn’t be built. Same with his FV “clarifications”: he talks and talks about the FV and being Reformed, but never actually makes the case. His rhetoric is a mile wide and an inch deep, intellectually speaking…
LikeLike
Vern:
The states were committed to religious freedom also. Here’s how it found expression in their constitutions:
“That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore, all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other.” The Virginia Declaration of Rights 1776.
“Section I. The opinions of men are not the object of civil government, nor under its jurisdiction; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own…” The Virgina Statute of Religious Freedom (enacted in 1786).
“And whereas we are required, by the benevolent principles of the rational liberty, not only to expel civil tyranny, but also to guard against that spiritual oppression and intolerance wherewith the bigotry and ambition of weak and wicked priests and princes have scourged mankind, this convention doth further, in the name and by the authority of the good people of this state, ordain, determine, and desire, that the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall be forever hereafter be allowed, within this state, to all mankind: PROVIDED That the liberty of conscience, hereby granted, shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness, or justify practices inconsistent with the peace or safety of this state.” Article 38 of the New York Constitution (enacted in 1777).
“It is the right as well as the duty of all men in society, publicly and at stated seasons, to worship the Supreme Being, the great Creator and Preserver of the universe. And no subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained, in his person, liberty, or estate, for worshipping God in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience, or for his religious profession or sentiments. provided he doth not disturb the public peace or obstruct others in their religious worship.” Article 2 of the Massachusetts Constitution (enacted in 1780).
“Article LVI. All persons whatever shall have the free exercise of their religion; provided it be not repugnant to the peace and safety of the State; and shall not, unless by consent, support any teacher or teachers except those of their own profession.” Georgia Constitution 1777.
Georgia added this to its constitution in 1798: “Article IV. Section 10. No person within this state shall, upon any pretense, be deprived of the inestimable privilege of worshipping God in any manner agreeable to his own conscience, nor be compelled to attend any place of worship contrary to his own faith and judgment; nor shall he ever be obliged to pay tithes, taxes, or any other rate, for the building or repairing any place of worship, or for the maintenance of any minister or ministry, contrary to what he believes to be right, or hath voluntarily engaged. To do. No one religious society shall ever be established in this state, in preference to another; nor shall any person be denied the enjoyment of any civil right merely on account of his religious principles.”
“Whereas Almighty God hath created the mind free; and all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burdens, or by civil incapacitations, tend to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness; and whereas a principal object of our venerable ancestors, in their migration to this country and their settlement of this state, was, as they expressed it, to hold forth a lively experiment that a flourishing civil state may stand and be best maintained with full liberty in religious concernments; we, therefore, declare that no person shall be compelled to frequent or to support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatever, except in fulfillment of such person’s voluntary contract; nor enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in body or goods; nor disqualified from holding any office; nor otherwise suffer on account of such person’s religious belief; and that every person shall be free to worship God according to the dictates of such person’s conscience, and to profess and by argument to maintain such person’s opinion in matters of religion; and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect the civil capacity of any person.” (New Hampshire Constitution 1842).
LikeLike
RL, SOME States had religious liberty clauses, but others chose to keep their established churches, up until about 1830 when Massachussets disestablished. My point is that whether to grant freedom of religion, or to favor a church, was a matter that the States decided, not the federal government. The fed was barred by the Bill of Rights from imposing any religion. That was not true for the States, unless their own State constitutions granted freedom of religion. If interested, please see my essays on the subject at:
LikeLike
I’ve rss feed so I could look out for additional posts of yours. Definitely anticipating additional posts on the same subject. Thanks for such an informative blog!
LikeLike
I know this site offers quality based posts and extra data, is there any other web page which provides these stuff in quality?
LikeLike
seedbox, other blogs offer stuff, but you only get “these” stuff at OL.
LikeLike
Lol!
LikeLike