fbpx

Secular Puritanism and the Bladensburg Cross

Justice Gorsuch’s concurrence in the Bladensburg Cross case argued, correctly, that the dispute should have been dismissed for lack of standing. The American Humanist Association’s claim that its members were offended by the sight of a World War I memorial in the shape of a cross on public land did not, Gorsuch concluded, constitute a discrete harm. The shame is that there is no legal doctrine for dismissing a case for lack of maturity.

The atheist organization’s decision to make a federal case out of its purported offense at the very sight of a cross on public land suggests that its members are either snowflakes or zealots, fragile or fanatical. Or both. The case illustrates the increasingly imperialist nature of secularism, which for some is itself taking on the attributes of a faith. H.L. Mencken characterized puritanism as “the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.” Today’s secularism is increasingly assuming a zealous character that cannot tolerate the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be devout.

This secular puritanism is evident not only in the Bladensburg Cross case but also in the legal harassment of believers in other contexts. Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cakeshop fame, for example, faces yet another lawsuit from activists who appear to be cold-calling businesses not to purchase their goods or services but rather to dare them into refusing to provide them. In Town of Greece v. Galloway, secularists sued in an unsuccessful attempt to stop religious invocations at town council meetings despite heroic attempts to make the prayers pluralistic. Similarly, as the Bladensburg Cross shows, secular puritans are hostile to any public expression of religion, which is inherently hostile to a wide range of faiths that depend on publicity.

This zeal is every bit the match for the rising influence of the integralism of those who believe politics and religion only work if they officially and institutionally reinforce each other. Secularists are becoming every bit as evangelical and expansionary as the most fanatical believers. The logic in both cases that it is not enough to exist, a right that no one would deny to either atheists or believers. It is not even enough to be allowed to evangelize through persuasion. Instead, the ethic is “proliferate or perish.” The public square must consequently be colonized. Secularism cannot simply grow because it can be shown to be compelling. Politics—for secular as for religious integralists—must be placed in its service.

Legal commentary on the Bladensburg case has centered largely on legitimate debates over the viability of the Lemon test. But secular fanaticism is ultimately a political rather than a legal problem. That is true for two reasons. One is that a free society cannot consist of members who relentlessly haul petty disputes into court or even into the political realm rather than resolving them informally or, better yet, tolerating them maturely. That is a formula for illiberalism that imposes rules for everything.

The second is that a truly classical liberalism—one that assumes mores and norms that precede and fortify it (on which point see Richard Reinsch and Peter Lawler)—must preserve space for competing views of the good. Those goods that must be preserved include public expressions of belief, but they must also have the self-confidence to believe they can persuade without compulsion.

This tolerance of dispute is falling out of conservative fashion, partly because integralists say the public square is never truly neutral. This is probably accurate in the same sense that even well-meaning journalists cannot be entirely objective or that even conscientious judges cannot be perfectly impartial: The impossibility of perfection is taken to mean that one should not do one’s best.

A relatively neutral and classically liberal public square would permit both publicity and dispute. This is a far better option than the secular or religious integralism that says that because the public square is not wholly neutral, everyone should attempt its conquest: Fervor must be made to counteract fervor. This combination of Carl Schmitt’s politics as warfare with either secular or religious puritanism is particularly dangerous to ordered liberty.

Secularists have dismissed integralists as theocrats. What they miss is that they, too, are zealous advocates of the integration of personal (and public) belief with politics. Secularism is growing both intolerant and imperialist or, if one prefers, evangelical.

This secular puritanism is not entirely wrong to say exclusive sectarian displays should not be maintained at public expense. The particular history of the Bladensburg Cross—erected by private organizations as a memorial to World War I, for which the cross was a widely accepted symbol, then appropriated by the city for its preservation when the groups faded—makes for a bad case with which to test that principle. It is equally probable that even an exacting legal standard (see Lemon) is unlikely to capture the nuances involved in welcoming expressions of faith into the public square.

There is, however, a political if not a legal solution that seems to elude puritans of both religious and secular stripes: We could cultivate a citizenry disposed to reserve offense for occasions on which it is genuinely warranted and otherwise to behave charitably. We ought to demand a government that fairly navigates religious and secular concerns and that is open rather than hostile to views of the good, including their public expression. There are occasions for offense or at least concern: One can imagine, for example, a proposal to build an exclusively sectarian chapel (Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Muslim, etc.) in a political facility like a capitol or town hall. While such an act may not directly offend, it confers government favor on a particular faith tradition.

But these are not the hard cases that test the durability of a liberal regime. The hard cases involve occasions in which we can rush to offense or assume others’ good motives; when we can tolerate disagreement or insist on imperialism. Secularists need not snuff the approach of tyranny in every expression of “Merry Christmas,” and Christians need not interpret the greeting “Happy Holidays” as a war on Christmas. Both need the self-confidence to believe they can flourish on their merits without a conquest of the political. These are political, not judicial, cases. They depend on the virtues of citizenship. Edward Shils called this civility. Secular puritans are not displaying it any more than their religious counterparts.

Reader Discussion

Law & Liberty welcomes civil and lively discussion of its articles. Abusive comments will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to delete comments - or ban users - without notification or explanation.

on June 26, 2019 at 10:54:34 am

"The impossibility of perfection is not a reason to do one’s best."
Seems that is missing a "not", as in:
"The impossibility of perfection is not a reason to NOT do one’s best."

read full comment
Image of R O
R O
on June 26, 2019 at 11:02:38 am

This is such a great, well thought out article! Pithy and spot on! "Secular Puritanism" is the perfect summary. I will keep this quiver handy for my next argument about this increasingly popular form of fascism.

One minor point from an excellent quote from this piece... If I'm not mistaken, this sentence is missing an extra 'not'.

"The impossibility of perfection is not a reason (not) to do one’s best."

Keep up the great work!

read full comment
Image of Steven
Steven
on June 26, 2019 at 11:37:40 am

Fanatical, evangelistic, soi-disant "atheists" are one of the peculiar joys of classical liberalism. Perhaps the early moderns prophesied the coming of this tribe but thought the tradeoff was worth the cost. The progress they seem to continually make in the realm of moral philosophy is a wonder, and certainly the hallmark of their sect. The non-existent god seems to also be a harsh and jealous god who inspires a lot of righteous indignation and guilt.

read full comment
Image of anon
anon
on June 26, 2019 at 12:21:28 pm

I made essentially this same argument in these very pages a few weeks back. Very happy to see SCOTUS understands how the Establishment Clause has been perverted over the years. And I am not of the faith or otherwise a religious person. The continued whipping by the progressive left of the EC horse (as well as all the other horses they trash) is simply a demonstration of Bernstein's dictum that the goal is nothing and the movement everything. There is no sign of Christianity (because they really do limit their thrashings almost entirely to that flank) that can ever remain too small and too recondite to eventually be proclaimed a harbinger of theocracy if allowed to go unpunished, because that is what the movement requires.

read full comment
Image of QET
QET
on June 26, 2019 at 13:53:07 pm

Amen (if I may).

read full comment
Image of Kevin Gutzman
Kevin Gutzman
on June 26, 2019 at 17:45:05 pm

“The impossibility of perfection is not a reason (not) to do one’s best.”

Two "not"s? As in ...not ...not...?

But doesn't that beg the question: Who's there?

read full comment
Image of nobody.really
nobody.really
on June 26, 2019 at 17:51:22 pm

MODERATORS, COULD WE HAVE THIS COMMENT REMOVED? This is supposed to be a place for civil discourse, not religious brow-beating. Now I'm all in a dither.

Couldn't you at least post a trigger warning or something?

Jeez... er, I mean ... wow.

read full comment
Image of nobody.really
nobody.really
on June 26, 2019 at 19:47:47 pm

A fine piece, Greg, as other commentators have said. A bit more exercised or thumotic than usual, with some good attendance sarcasm and phrase-smithing. But you reverted to your moderate, conciliatory self, when you brought in the Integralists. That struck me as a false, merely rhetorical note. Do you think Sohrab Amhari and Adam Vermule are an equal threat to the republic with the entirely of the Democratic leadership? But more fundamentally, while I don’t disagree with your normative counsel (who could)?), do you think it has a snowball’s chance in hell? Your piece reminds me of A Constitution in Full: full of what ought to be’s, but short on strategy and tactics to improve a bad and deteriorating situation.

read full comment
Image of Paul Seaton
Paul Seaton
on June 26, 2019 at 20:07:59 pm

As I also noted above, double negatives have their place, and this place is one of them - to rephrase it: not doing one's best is not justified by the impossibility of perfection.

read full comment
Image of R O
R O
on June 27, 2019 at 01:01:55 am

[…] A Soul In Anguish About The State Of The Church, Wherein Fr. Z Rants – Fr. Z’s Blog Secular Puritanism & The Bladensburg Cross – Greg Weiner at Law & Liberty The Summer Reading List – George Weigel at The […]

read full comment
Image of THVRSDAY EDITION – Big Pulpit
THVRSDAY EDITION – Big Pulpit
on June 27, 2019 at 09:31:47 am

“Justice Gorsuch’s concurrence in the Bladensburg Cross case argued, correctly, that the dispute should have been dismissed for lack of standing. “

True, for to claim The Cross is offensive, is to be offended by the spirit of our Constitution:

https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1431&context=flr

read full comment
Image of Nancy
Nancy
on June 27, 2019 at 20:34:23 pm

[…] Read Full Article » […]

read full comment
Image of Secular Puritanism and the Bladensburg Cross | Maketinews
Secular Puritanism and the Bladensburg Cross | Maketinews
on July 01, 2019 at 00:30:10 am

[…] Secular Puritanism and the Bladensburg Cross Greg Weiner, Law and Liberty […]

read full comment
Image of PowerLinks 07.01.19 – Acton Institute PowerBlog
PowerLinks 07.01.19 – Acton Institute PowerBlog
on July 01, 2019 at 17:35:54 pm

Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven

read full comment
Image of Alexander
Alexander

Law & Liberty welcomes civil and lively discussion of its articles. Abusive comments will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to delete comments - or ban users - without notification or explanation.

Related