Religious Expression and the American Constitution (review)

Abstract

Religious Expression and American Constitution. By Franklyn S. Haiman. [Rhetoric and Public Affairs Series.] (East Lansing: Michigan State University Press. 2003. Pp. x, 254. Paperback.) Franklyn Haiman begins by declaring that he is an agnostic and neutral on matters of religious faith (p. ix). The remaining five paragraphs of preface, however, reveal Haiman to be something different. Indeed, it is fair to describe him as a secular fundamentalist who would depreciate religion and dismiss it as an irrational phenomenon that has no legitimacy in world of public policy or law. Religion has given rise to horrible evils, Haiman avers, from Osama bin Laden to Ku Klux Klan. Even in its milder forms, it has cultivated dogmatic self-righteousness(p. ix) and led to great crimes. The Crusades, Inquisition, sixteenth-century religious wars between Protestants and Catholics, and twentieth-century terror campaigns in northern Ireland are ritually condemned in a single breath-taking paragraph (pp. ix-x). A believer might respond to this astonishing screed on at least three levels. One might point out lack of balance in Haiman's polemic: vast majority of truly monstrous crimes against humanity of last two centuries have been committed in name of irreligion, atheism, modernity, and secular state. From French Revolution's Reign of Terror to Stalinism, Nazism, and Maoism, mass murders and genocides of last two hundred years have been almost exclusively work product of secularists. A second response might be to argue that great religions have embedded within themselves an ethic of love. To take Christianity: Jesus Christ called his followers to be peace-makers; to be humble; to love their neighbors without limit; and to be prepared to lay down their lives in obedience to these commands should such be demanded of them. A third answer, finally, is to consider soundness of Haiman's thesis, which purports to be an historical justification for a secular fundamentalist reading of constitutional tradition. In chapter one, entitled Historical Background, Haiman contrasts Christianity with other faiths. The ancient world was filled with a rich diversity of religious experience, such as Buddhism, Confucianism, and Shintoism. Haiman, however, wishes to consider only Christianity's relationship to political power. Again, he presents a deformed caricature, a travesty of a rich and complex history. Haiman introduces life and ministry of Jesus Christ by stating:The books of New Testament... planted seeds for centuries of anti-Semitism that followed ... (p. 2). Christianity's claim to be the only 'true religion,' led to further pogroms against Jews (p. 10). When Islam appeared on scene, yet more warfare ensued. Eventually, Christians brought their genocidal ways to New World eradicating Native American cultures and peoples. No doubt, Christians justified anti-Semitism by reference to Gospel and Conquistadores committed many depredations in New World. But Haiman's lack of balance, again, astonishes. Haiman has no desire to present an historically accurate account of Christianity's relationship with political power or larger non-Christian world. His intent, rather, is crude and obvious: he wishes to denounce Christianity, thus justifying a militantly secular interpretation of Constitution. Haiman's larger constitutional claims are riddled with inaccuracies and anachronisms. One might take his account of origins of Constitution and First Amendment.'Christian America' advocates, Haiman asserts, like to point to Christian influence still felt by many European settlers who came to North America in seventeenth and eighteenth centuries (p. 8). While these advocates for a Christian America also point to religious establishments found in many of thirteen colonies, they fail to appreciate that Christianity had no role to play in the creation of United States (p. …