1

Religion in American Public Life

Christian Marrero

How is the current American religious scene different from that found in

Tocqueville’s America? In order to adequately respond, one must analyze the

works of Francis Canavan, James Hunter, and Will Herberg to piece together the

relationship of religion and public life in the United States during the

modern era. These authors paint a picture of America in which the nation is

facing a series of social changes that reform religion’s place in the American

landscape. The United States has seen the privatization of religion, the

beginnings of a new culture war, as well as the rise of American civil

religion that has reshaped the role of religion in American public life.

In Tocqueville’s America, religion was a major factor in day to day life

and played a large role in shaping American culture. Due to the relatively

small size of government in the 1830’s, religious groups and other

associations have had a significant impact on American society. But author

Francis Canavan argues that since Tocqueville’s day, religion has become

increasingly more privatized. Slowly leaving the public square and beginning

to retreat into private life. But why has religious privatization increased?

The answer to this question can be addressed by the analysis of a number of

factors.

First, Canavan points to a general increase in religious pluralism

beginning roughly in the 1790’s. During this period America was essentially

99% Protestant. Over the course of American history the story of religion has

2

become increasingly pluralistic. Canavan here explains “That is why

Protestants, when they set up the public school system in the nineteenth

century, vetoed the teaching of sectarian doctrines on which they differed

among themselves. Catholics then vetoed Protestatism; Jews vetoed

Christianity; and secularists have now succeeded in vetoing religion

altogether in public education.”1 The more pluralistic the nation becomes the

fewer religious values the citizens have in common. This creates a situation

where the population finds it difficult to compromise on societal issues such

as education and politics.

The author also points out that religious privatization has increased

due to the simultaneous rise of the welfare state and the concept of strict

separationism. The welfare state is a large, active, and interventionist

government that redistributes wealth and runs a gambit of social programs.

This state strives to ensure that everyone’s basic material needs are provided

for. Historically, America was not a welfare state; this eventuality emerged

in the 20th century. But eventually the establishment of the welfare state

would begin to take on roles that where once held by private associations

including religious groups; i.e. hospitals, schools, and charities.

When government steps in and takes control of these services, the

national populations begins to believe that it is the role of government to

handle these issues and takes the responsibility away from the private sector.

But how is government able to find the means necessary to take on this

1 Francis Canavan, The Pluralist Game: Pluralism, Liberalism, and the Moral Conscience (Lanham,MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 1995), 2.

3

responsibility? The creation of a welfare state inevitably means an increase

in taxation. This eventuality leaves citizens with less money available to

donate to private organizations that once took this role. Over time, this led

to the gradual decline or disappearance of private associations in the United

States. Canavan remarks that

”The constantly growing taxes on private income will tend to dry

up the source of funds on which non-state institutions serving

welfare purposes depend…In short, the groups that want to have and

to support such institutions will find that they are competing

with their own tax money-and inevitably they will lose.

What is happening to private higher education is a good

illustration. In 1950, about 50 percent of American college

students attended private colleges and universities. Now fewer

than 40 percent do. By 1975, it is predicted, about 25 percent

will; by 1985 only 20 percent will. Has this great shift in

college attendance from private to state universities taken place

because the students or their parents prefer state schools? No, it

is because their own taxes have rendered the private colleges

noncompetitive.”2

But at the same time as the welfare state emerges, the concept of strict

separationism begins to take hold.

2 Ibid., 24

4

There are two basic interpretation of the religious provision of the

first amendment. The first of these is known as the non-preferential

interpretation. In this view, government may not single out one particular

religion and provide it with help or assistance. The general maxim is one in

which government does not give preference to a specific religious faith. This

being said, the other side of this coin is that it does not preclude

government from endorsing religion in general, under the condition that

government endorses religion in an even minded manner. This has been the

predominant interpretation of the first amendment for most of American

history.

The second interpretation of the first amendment’s religious provision

is known as strict separationism. The author, quoting the Supreme Court

describes this as a situation in which “Neither [a state nor the federal

government] can constitutionally pass laws nor impose requirements which aid

all religions as against non-believers, and neither can aid those religions

based on a belief in the existence of God against those religions founded on

different beliefs.”3 This doctrine is one in which government may in no way

endorse or aid religion in any way whatsoever. The strict separationist

position would begin to take hold beginning with Supreme Court decisions

established in the 1940’s and has become the predominant interpretation of the

religious provision of the first amendment ever since. Strict separationism

helps to create a welfare state that is indifferent to-and will not

accommodate-religious actors. On their own, a welfare state alone or even

3 Ibid., 21

5

strict separationism need not cause a dramatic privatization of religion. But

combined these two concepts tend to push religion out of the public sphere and

towards privatization.

Along with an increasing religious pluralism and the rise of the welfare

state and strict separationism, the rise of the ideal of a neutral state has

also pushed the nation towards an increased religious privatization. In post-

World War II America, we began to get the gradual ascendency of a new vision

of democratic government. At its heart is the notion of the neutral state.

Quoting Ronald Dworkin, Canavan presents that “Political decisions must be, as

far as possible, independent of any particular conception of the good life, or

of what gives value to life. Since the citizens of a society differ in their

conceptions, the government does not treat them as equals if it prefers one

conception to another.”4 According to the proponents of the neutral state,

government cannot take sides on the question of the human good, it must remain

neutral. It cannot single out individuals and penalize them for not pursuing

life in the way it chooses. It also cannot make an endorsement of what is the

good life. Government must remain neutral and not take sides. But why have a

neutral state? We can point to two reasons.

First, for better or worse people disagree on what the good life is. For

government to take sides is divisive and invites social conflict. In the

interest of unity and peace, government must not take sides. It undermines

social cohesion and could potentially lead to civil war. In addition, the

4 Ibid., 106

6

state must be neutral because in this way it respects rights and promotes

justice. As a matter of moral principle, justice demands the establishment of

a neutral state.

But what are the implications of this and its relationship with

privatization of religion? Religious persons will choose strict separationism

because it will deny government the ability to pick one religion over another,

or all religion, which would ignore the needs of atheists. Those that believe

in the neutral state are proponents of strict separationism. Everyone has a

different interpretation of human good. This has implications on the crafting

of laws and policies. Citizens have to check their religious convictions at

the door of the public square. Religions must be segregated from the making of

laws and public policy. Not doing so would go against the concept of a neutral

state.

This neutral state works in favor of the privatization of religion.

America today cannot be considered a neutral state, but this political

paradigm has had a huge impact on the American theme. One of the interesting

twists with this concept is that the neutral state is impossible. The making

of laws necessarily involves making judgments about the human good. In order

to have a welfare state, one must establish what welfare means to the

populous.

We can see a prime example of this in education. A society must decide

what kind of education it will provide for its citizens. The mere

establishment of a school system precludes a lack of neutrality in the state.

7

In choosing a form of education individuals essentially are making judgments

on what is advantageous and detrimental for human beings. Canavan echoes this

sentiment.

“…once teaching goes beyond technique and aims at imparting wisdom

and understanding, it must speak from some standpoint. Whether

this ultimate ground is religious and supernatural or secular and

naturalistic does not matter. What counts is that it represents an

opinion in the realm of belief. As such, it is an abandonment of

the strict and lofty neutrality of religion.”5

Canavan also points out that even outside of education it is impossible

for government to be neutral. Creating laws implies making moral judgments.

Every political issue has a moral dimension about what can be considered just

and unjust at what is acceptable to do to others. Neutral government is simply

unachievable.

“With the advent of the welfare state, the problem of government

neutrality clearly becomes more acute. A state that acts

vigorously on a number of fronts to promote people’s welfare must

have some idea of what their welfare is. That necessarily implies

some conception of what is good for human beings and what is bad

for them. Having such a conception, the state cannot pretend to be

neutral about it.”6

5 Ibid., 206 Ibid., 70

8

But what are the implications of this in terms of the privatization of

religion? If one embraces the neutral state and focus on religion, religion

must be segregated from the making of laws and public policy. Such public

square, according to Canavan, is not neutral. Such a public square in practice

has embraced a non-religious interpretation of the universe. “The separations

of religion and education does not make schools religiously neutral. It only

imposes a particular educational philosophy on the public schools, one that is

most acceptable to people who consider religion irrelevant to life.”7 By not

allowing a religious vision, one by default is allowing for a secular vision.

Another difference between religion in the era of Tocqueville and today

is that modern religions have and continue to face a series of culture wars

which are causing tension within and amongst religions. James Hunter notes

that social or cultural issues are playing a prominent role in American public

life today. The author notes that when viewed, social issues tend to be linked

to one another. Typically, by knowing where someone stands on one issue an

individual could likely deduce where they stand on others. An example of this

can be seen in people that are pro-choice. Those that prescribe to this

ideology will tend to think positively about gay marriage.

This illustrates that these are not distinct social issues independent

of one another. The linking of these platforms indicates that the United

States is undergoing a culture war. This is a battle over determining what

understanding of human nature and human good will organize and inform American

7 Ibid., 18-19

9

public life. The tension is not over the individual issues themselves, but

points to a deeper disunion that underlies American’s divisions on these

social issues. Hunter explains

“…the contemporary culture war is ultimately a struggle over

national identity-over the meaning of America…what seems to be a myriad

of self-contained cultural disputes actually amounts to a fairly

comprehensive and momentous struggle to define the meaning of

America-of how and on what terms will Americans live together, of

what comprises the good society.”8

A culture war is a struggle over public culture that will inform, organize,

and animate our public life. But this is not America’s first culture war,

there have been many in the past. In order to understand the current conflict

one must put it into the context of the two previous culture wars.

The first of these was caused by America’s religious pluralism beginning

roughly around the 1790’s. The United States was religiously a very

pluralistic nation. By this is meant that the United States was religiously

diverse. There were many different churches throughout the country and they

would disagree on a variety of topics; including which church’s vision should

inform American public culture. Due to the extent of American pluralism, no

one church was in a position to organize itself in a way to establish itself

8 James Davison Hunter, Culture Wars the Struggle to Define America ; [making Sense of the Battles over the Family, Art, Education, Law, and Politics] (New York, NY: Basic Books, 1991), 50-51.

10

as the vision that animated American culture. Yet these competing

denominations would find numerous areas of agreement; including creed,

ecclesiology, worship, and morality.

As these churches began comparing doctrines they would discover they had

much agreement on the questions of creed, ecclesiology, and worship; but they

would find themselves in complete agreement in the concept of morality. This

primarily due to the fact that despite being different denominations, all of

these churches shared a Protestant ethos. Finding that no one religious sect

would win out over all the others, these competing groups came to a mutual

understanding.

The next culture war occurred around the turn of the 19th century as

American pluralism increased in response to immigration into the budding

nation. Other religions began to infiltrate the United States during this

period including the two most prominent groups, Catholics and Jews. The

tension between the Protestant belief system and that of Catholicism and

Judaism would soon trigger the second culture war. The old understanding of

America being a Protestant nation began to be challenged by Catholics and Jews

that did not support a public culture which was Protestant centric.

But this culture war would also end in a settlement between these

competing groups. This agreement was built on what Protestants, Catholics, and

Jews held in common. These groups had a minimal agreement on ecclesiology and

worship, but tended to have considerable agreement on creed and morality.

11

This common ground is primarily, but not exclusively, moral in nature.

Though note that these commonalities are smaller than those found in the

settlement of the first culture war. It was based on what Hunter describes as

biblical theism.

“What was happening, in fact, was that a new pluralistic ‘balance’

was being forged around a broader Judeo-Christian consensus. New

competing sectarian interests were an important factor in

achieving this balance, to be sure. Yet, above this was the

continued, tacit acceptance on the part of all of the major

players of a public discourse informed by, among other things, the

suppositions of a biblical theism…At one level, biblical theism

provided the language in which differences could be talked about…

At a more profound level, however, biblical theism gave

Protestants, Catholics, and Jews many of the common ideals of

public life.”9

But this second agreement is barely settled when it begins to become unglued.

What causes it to fall apart and trigger a third culture war is the

transformation of America’s religious pluralism.

A series of factors would contribute to the changes in America’s

religious pluralism. First among these would be the waning of denominational

loyalties. Early in American history, people knew much more about the church

that they attended than the average person today. They would be deeply

9 Ibid., 70-71

12

familiar with church history and doctrine. This tended to be a central part of

people’s identity, and would even only marry within their churches. As the

course of the twentieth century progressed, people soon would begin to lose

this connection with their faith; knowing less about their chosen

denominations than their predecessors. Religion stops being part of their

cultural identity.

The emergence of new faiths also would act as a contributor to the

expansion of religious pluralism in America. By the end of the Second World

War, other religions begin to gain a foothold on the American landscape.

Hindus, Buddhists, and Muslims all begin to migrate to the United States.

Hunter addresses this and states “Religious and cultural pluralism expanded

after the war, as religious traditions native to Asia and the Middle East

began to appear in the United States in greater numbers.”10 Individually they

are small in number, but when amalgamated one began to see a significant

presence of non-Christian religions in the country.

The last factor contributing to religious pluralism in America would be

the growth of the secularists. Seculars represent the fastest growing

religious community in America. By the mid-1980’s, they comprised 10-12% of

the American population. The secularist presence is more influential than that

of the religious scene. They tend to be concentrated in areas that shape and

mold the American culture; including education, mass media, and Hollywood.

10 Ibid., 73

13

Starting in the 1960’s, a civil war erupts between individual members of

each community. Protestant versus Protestant, Catholic versus Catholic, and

Jew versus Jew. These are not isolated civil wars, but instead are closely

linked to one another. This is a battle between the progressives and orthodox

members of each faith. Those on the orthodox side of the fight feel that they

have more in common with the orthodox people in other religious traditions

rather than with the progressives of their own religions. This plunges the

nation into a third culture war.

According to Hunter, they disagree fundamentally about America. These

two groups have very different interpretations of the nation, its origins, and

commitments. The orthodox side sees America as being founded on religious

values. “God’s hand was in the founding of this country and the fiber of

Christ is in the very fabric of America…civil government is ordained by of God

[and]…America was founded upon Christian principles.”11 The Progressives on

the other hand believed that America was founded on a secular humanistic

state. “…the Founding Fathers drafted the Constitution with its Bill of

Rights, they explicitly designed it to guarantee a secular, humanistic state…

secularity was the dominant trait of American society. ‘The American mind’

[Arthur Schlesinger] says ‘is by nature and tradition skeptical, irreverent,

pluralistic, and relativistic…Relativism is the American way.”12

Both groups also disagree with the nature of freedom. Though they both

believe in the concept, they define it differently. “The meaning of freedom,

11 Ibid., 10912 Ibid., 113

14

as it is emphasized within the various orthodox communities, is the freedom

enjoyed by a society when it does not live under despotism; the freedom of a

society to govern itself-what philosopher Charles Taylor has called civic

freedom.”13 To the members of the orthodox camp, freedom means society’s right

to live according to a set of common values. Community should build

institutions and public life based on these common communal values. This is a

collective freedom, freedom as a group to create the kind of society and

social order dedicated to and premised upon the values they believe in.

The Progressives embrace a different understanding of freedom.

“Here freedom is defined largely in terms of the social and

political rights of individuals. This is what Charles Taylor has

called “liberal” freedom…It is…freedom in the ‘negative’ sense, a

condition in which the individual is granted immunity from

interference by others in his life, either by state or church or

by other individuals.”14

Here, liberal freedom is defined as the ability of people, as individuals, to

live by their own values and do what they want with their lives. In order to

protect this freedom one needs government neutrality.

Though both Orthodox and Progressives believe in justice, here they also

disagree on how to define the topic. Hunter tells us that “Justice is

generally defined in terms of the Judeo-Christian standards of moral

13 Ibid., 11014 Ibid., 114

15

righteousness.”15 The orthodox group believes that a just society is one in

which individuals live by God’s law. Progressives have a different

understanding of the subject. “Justice, on the other hand, tends to be

understood by progressivists in terms of equality and the end of oppression in

the social world.”16 Despite these differences, the heart of the conflict is

that these groups disagree on the nature of moral authority.

The orthodox camp’s definition of moral authority is identified by

Hunter, the author states

“What is common to all three approaches to orthodoxy, for example

(and what makes orthodoxy more of a formal property) is the

commitment on the part of adherents to an external, definable, and transcendent

authority. Such objectives and transcendent authority defines, at

least in the abstract, a consistent, unchangeable measure of

value, purpose, goodness, and identity, both personal and

collective.”17

Here the orthodox group defines morality not as something human beings invent.

It is something that we discover. It comes down to humans from something

greater than man. It obligates us independent of any active consent on our

part.

For the progressives, morality is something that we do not discover.

15 Ibid., 11216 Ibid., 11417 Ibid., 44

16

“Within cultural progressivism, by contrast, moral authority tends

to be defined by the spirit of the modern age, a spirit of

rationalism and subjectivism. Progressivist moral ideals tend,

that is, to derive from and embody (though rarely exhaust) that

spirit. From this standpoint, truth tends to be viewed as a

process, as a reality that is every unfolding.”18

Morality is a set of rules that human beings invent. Why would we make up

moral rules? Imagine a world with none, with no agreed upon standard of right

and wrong. It could be an unpleasant place. In a moral vacuum, there is

nothing wrong with theft. This would be impracticable, so people create rules

to live by in order to live civilly. Though these rules are always open to

interpretation.

But how do we find a resolution to this third culture war? There is no

plan, and Hunter cannot see how it can be settled. This third conflict is

different from previous culture wars; though there was a lot of conflict

between groups, there was also common ground in previous wars. Common ground

and common language allowed for a settlement to be possible in the past. What

has been discovered about this third culture war is that there is very little

common ground and language. Everyone speaks of freedom and the American way,

but each group means something fundamentally different by this. Without a

common language they cannot find a middle ground. Some may say that this

tension is categorized by disagreement, but this is incorrect. Disagreement

18 Ibid.

17

assumes understanding, what the progressive and orthodox groups are doing is

effectively talking passed each other. Each side existing in a different

intellectual universe.

The origins of orthodoxy are in the great religious traditions of the

West. Protestantism, Catholicism, and Judaism have always embodied an orthodox

understanding of the nature of moral authority. Likewise, this nature of moral

authority dominated the great thinkers of the western world including

Aristotle, Plato, and St. Thomas Aquinas.

Progressivism on the other hand emerges out of what is called the

radical enlightenment, which is characterized by two hallmarks. The first of

these is an inner-worldly focus. The enlightenment is focused on the world of

space and time, here and now. This school of thought promotes the idea that

human thought should focus on this. It does not want people to focus on life

after death, heaven, and how to get there. They see the cardinal task of human

life as making this world a better place instead of focusing on what lies

beyond.

This radical enlightenment is also categorized by a new understanding of

reason. Over time, the enlightenment acquired two wings. One is conservative,

which holds on to an orthodox understanding of moral authority. They are

representatives of the orthodox tradition and moral reflection. The radical

wing embraces a progressive understanding of the nature of morality. A set of

rules that human beings have created that are relative, conditional, and

18

subject to change. To Hunter, the culture war is a conflict between the

religious traditions of the West against the radical enlightenment.

“Yielding to the temptation of hyperbole, it could be said that

the politically relevant divisions in the American context are no

longer defined according to where one stands vis-à-vis Jesus,

Luther, or Calvin, but where one stands vis-à-vis Rousseau,

Voltaire, Diderot, and Condorcet, and especially their

philosophical heirs. The politically relevant world-historical

event, in other words, is now the secular Enlightenment of the

eighteenth century and its philosophical aftermath. This is what

inspires the division of public culture in the United States

today.” 19

Finally Will Herberg who’s analysis unfolds against two different

developments in America. First again is America’s religious pluralism. The

United States was a nation of Protestants, Catholics, and Jews. According to

sociologists a strong society presupposes a strong and shared body of

religious belief. But in America we are categorized by pluralism which is

contrary to the accepted sociological models.

Why would sociologists say that a strong, unified, vibrant, and stable

society involves a common religion? First we must accept that a political

society involves a common way of life. If we cannot agree on anything we

cannot function as a stable and organized society. We must also define

19 Ibid., 132

19

religion as our understanding of the ultimate purpose and meaning of human

existence. What is the purpose of the universe and human existence? Religion

is an attempt to answer these questions. Different interpretations of this

will cause many serious disagreements on how human beings should live.

Different understanding of what the purpose of human life is will entail

varying value systems that cause strife, conflict, and destabilizes social

life.

How do we agree on common social structures in order to organize a

healthy society? Though there is an upsurge in religion in the United States,

some interesting polling data has come out. Religious people tended to not

focus as much on their religious beliefs. Religion today has less of an effect

on political beliefs, work life, and family life. America is pluralistic yet

still functions. It is in the middle of a religious revival, but the polling

data points in another direction. The majority of people who claim to read the

Bible every day cannot name the four gospels of the New Testament.

What explains this phenomenon? When we think religion in America, we

think Protestantism, Catholicism, and Judaism. But there is also the religion

of American democracy. Herberg explains that

“What is it in and through which Americans recognize their basic

unity with other Americans as Americans? What is it that provides

that ‘overarching sense of unity’ expressed in the system of

allegiances, norms, and values functioning in actual life, without

which no society can endure? …Americans, by and large, find this

20

‘common religion’ in the system familiarly known as the American

Way of Life…By every realistic criterion, the American Way of Life

is the operative religion of the American people.”20

Here Herberg does not use the term religion here loosely. American civil

religion has sacred scriptures (Declaration, Constitution, the Gettysburg

Address), it has holy sites (Washington Monument, Lincoln Memorial), this

religion has holy days (4th of July, Memorial Day, Thanksgiving,). Also has

Saints and patriarchs (Jefferson, Washington, Lincoln). Again Herberg states

“America’s civil religion, too, has its Saints-preeminently Washington and

Lincoln-and its sancta and shrines-think of Washington, D.C. and Hyde Park.”21

This religion is very much present, and is a huge influence on shaping

American culture. Once realized, all this puzzling data becomes easy to

understand.

How are they going through a religious revival if Protestants,

Catholics, and Jews in this period-despite their claims-are unfamiliar with

the tenants of their faith? Look at how American civil religion and values is

influencing their lives. What is reviving is the American way of life

(American civil religion), the old religions are beginning to lose influence.

How does this relate to Protestantism, Catholicism, and Judaism? It

contradicts with these practices. But it has inhabited the world of American

20 Will Herberg, "American Civil Religion: What It Is and Whence It Comes," 77.

21 Ibid., 82

21

religion. American civil religion has colonized the biblical religion. Subtly

transforming these beliefs into different expressions of the American way of

life. The bulk of Catholics, Protestants, and Jews are variant expressions of

this American civil religion.

Bibliography

Canavan, Francis. The Pluralist Game: Pluralism, Liberalism, and the Moral Conscience. Lanham,MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 1995.

Herberg, Will. "American Civil Religion: What It Is and Whence It Comes." 76-

88. Hunter, James Davison. Culture Wars the Struggle to Define America ; [making Sense of the Battles

over the Family, Art, Education, Law, and Politics]. New York, NY: Basic Books, 1991.

22