In these “On Faith” discussions we have dealt several times with the Islamic faith as it seeks its place and voice in the American religious landscape. We might call those discussions “Religious Pluralism 101”. We have dealt with the Mormon faith and the prospect of a Mormon president. We could describe those discussions as “Religious Pluralism 201”. And now we are discussing a Hindu chaplain from Nevada, Rajan Zed, who is the first Hindu to deliver the morning prayer before the U.S. Senate. This is “Religious Pluralism 301” or, “Introduction to Non-Monotheistic Faiths.”
The genius of the American democratic project is manifold, but one crucial idea is the relationship of religion and the state. By refusing to “establish” one official religion, the founders did not exclude religion from the public square, they just made sure not to privilege one over the other by making one religion or even denomination the “official religion” to the exclusion of all others. This is called "establishment" because it makes one religion an organ of the state. Establishment in this country didn’t finally end until my own Protestant forebears, the Congregationalists, were “disestablished” in Massachusetts in 1833.
The interesting learning in this country is that religious faith thrives in an environment where religious belief is welcomed in public debates, but where no one religion is legally elevated above the rest by the state. We know that faith thrives in this kind of environment because 91% of Americans respond to polls that they believe in God and attendance at houses of worship is high. Contrast that figure to England, where the Church of England is still established. Seventy percent of the British public report “some kind of faith” but only 26% agree that they “believe in a personal God”.
It is also the case in the U.S. that while faith is active, we have been blessedly free of religiously motivated violence, violence that often results around the world in places where one religion is “established” and has all the privilege and power in a society and other religions are persecuted.
It is crucial for this country, that has such a vibrant and increasingly diverse faith community and that has peaceful relations among the religions, to have a Hindu lead prayer before the Senate. You can make a good case that refusing to allow the leader of one particular faith to lead prayer in the U.S. Senate is establishing the other faiths as the only representatives of faithful citizenry and inviting conflict.
Religious pluralism of the kind we enjoy in the U.S. must include every religion for our unique blend of faith participation and religious freedom to operate. Monotheists (those who believe in a single God) don’t get to exclude the non-monotheists (those who believe in multiple Gods or in a non-theistic faith) or vice versa.
The “wall” separating church and state in Jefferson’s famous dictum does not mean religious exclusion from all aspects of the public square. The “wall” protects religious freedom from state interference or the kind of control that comes with establishment. It does mean that the Christians can’t be the only faith represented in the public square and it also means that faith in a God or Gods itself is not privileged over humanist or other non-theistic beliefs. The conscience of all Americans in regard to belief is a cherished and central freedom.
Religious pluralism means the presence of lively faith traditions engaging the public square. As the number of faiths and faith-adherents grows, the limits of pluralism will be continuously tested. For this democracy to function, there can be no limits set on our freedom to pray to God as each of us sees fit. And it is well and good that this is modeled by our Senate. Very good indeed.
Please e-mail On Faith if you'd like to receive an email notification when On Faith sends out a new question.
Email Me | Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook
