REGARDING GOVERNMENT AND RELIGION

I'm willing to say that there is indeed something about the American theory of government specifically, and the modern Western approach in general, which is superior to any form heretofore adopted by a society. However, I am constantly frustrated by the loose and sloppy approach to the question that is so frequently articulated by most people, and most especially (by way of unquestioned assumption) by journalists. "It's about freedom," one says. "What does that word mean?" say I. "Democracy!" says another. "What's so good about that--Hitler was elected democratically," say I. "Capitalism!" shouts another. "Oh lovely--we're great because we're a bunch of money-grubbing, selfish pigs," say I. "Christian roots!" intones another (smugly). "Yeah, letting the state and the Church mix has worked really well in the past," say I. "Secularism," the journalists trumpet. "By which you mean that once you achieve it, you might let superstitious evolutionary throwbacks like me live and benefit from your Enlightened Utopia if we don't make any noise and just die off quietly, because otherwise our stupidity and fanaticism would drag down the Greater Good, or whatever philosophical ethical system you subscribe to," say I.

I should note that this conversation takes place only in my head, as I read news articles and infer how this journalist or that interviewee would answer the above questions. Also I should note that I know the answer to the secularist is weak--I don't honestly know how to approach that. I disagree vehemently with him, but we don't have much common ground on which I can compose a witty and crushing retort. ;)

All that aside, however, I appreciate this article very much, if only because it articulates, or at least begins to articulate, what I consider the best account possible of why the American system is superior.

Specifically this section:

Despite what schoolchildren read in their history books, the reality is that the separation of church and state is not so much the foundation of American government as it is the result of a 250-year secularization process based not upon secularism, but upon pluralism. It is pluralism, not secularism, that defines democracy. A democratic state can be established upon any normative moral framework as long as pluralism remains the source of its legitimacy.

Or this quote:

The foundation of Islamic pluralism can be summed up in one indisputable verse: "There can be no compulsion in religion."

To explain, then, I would say that any superiority of the American system in particular and the Western system in general is based in a recognition of our common humanity, of the dignity of each person, and certain rights held by each individual. The specifics aren't important so much as the principle. The individual has a right to certain things so long as he does not infringe on any other individual's right to the same things. Or, to articulate it in Christian terms, the ideal society possible in a fallen world is built on the theological principle of free will--you have the ability to choose your manner of life and belief, but you accept the consequences of your choices, in this life and the next, which in practical terms includes consequences for interfering with the rights of another. Which idea is not exclusively Christian--it's simply the way things work.

Religions and philosophies can, or at least should, be able to abide by these rules. Insofar as they have, this so-called American Experiment has been a success. The failures have all-to-frequently come when one "-Ism" or another attempted to disregard them. But when it works, people are more or less at peace while the academics argue and religions and philosophies are judged on their merits rather than which has the most firepower.

I do find it ironic, however, that it was an article about Islam, not Christianity, that won from me a nod of unreserved affirmation that I have not given for several years.

**A final note--I know that there's a bit of a conflict between my use of the word "democracy" and Aslan's usage. For whatever reason, the word no longer means precisely "rule of the people" but rather "the way we civilized nations govern ourselves." When I use it pejoratively, I mean the former--when more or less approvingly, the latter.