Examining 'A Shared Vision' by William B. Lindley In July, a document titled "A Shared Vision," signed by many religious leaders, was released. The document is an attempt to strike some sort of balance in the public and political dialogue over the proper place of religion in American society. Edd Doerr, executive director of Americans for Religious Liberty and editor of their newsletter Voice of Reason, kindly passed a copy of the document to us. Edd noted that he was "probably the only humanist- freethinker listed among signatories," and that the document was "presented to Vice President Al Gore on July 14." One paragraph in it is problematic for freethinkers, and it closely resembles the thinking of Stephen Carter, whose book The Culture of Disbelief was reviewed in Vol. 121, #3 of Truth Seeker. The paragraph treats the second of two extreme and opposite views on the subject. I quote the paragraph in full and follow with my comment. The other view [the first being that of the religious right which sees the United States as a Christian Nation] sees religion and religious groups as having a minimal role in-perhaps even being barred from the vital public discourses we carry on as a democracy. It sees faith-based involvement in the democratic process as violating the principle of church-state separation. It regards religious arguments as naive and seeks to embarrass any who profess religious motivation for their public positions on political issues. This view denies our country the powerful moral guidance of our religious heritage and discourages many of our brightest and most committed citizens from actively participating in our public life. My comment: The view described is probably held by some university types, the "politically correct" crowd, Dan Rather and fellow "journalists," and some Humanists and freethinkers. I certainly don't hold it in its entirety, and I consider it an annoying but noteworthy partial misrepresentation of the views I do hold. Let's take it sentence by sentence: (1) Being "barred" from participation would be a flat violation of the "free speech" clause of the First Amendment. The "minimal role" assumes a lack of political strength, determination, lung capacity, or whatever it takes to "get your oar in." Observing the political scene, I find that Christians have no trouble being heard or participating. Moderate Christians are having more trouble being heard than are evangelicals, perhaps because "it is not polite to shout." (2) Only an act is a violation of the principle of church-state separation. Making it a habit to vote your religion, no matter what, does indeed violate the spirit of the Constitutional mandate "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." "Faith-based involvement" necessarily brings the faith itself into the public arena, but this is not a church-state problem. The church-state problem arises when we ask: "Do you urge that we coerce all citizens of the United States to follow certain practices which your faith mandates?" The abortion issue is a perfect example. (3) Many of the religious arguments are not naive at all. This is where some secularists, in their own naiveté, may be making big mistakes. However, because the arguments are made in the political arena, their basis (religious, theological, or Biblical) is open to public challenge, where derision, contempt, scorn and calumny are natural and much-used tools of discourse. Any attempt to bar such calumny because of religious sensitivities is like the child in the kindergarten playground who says "I can hit you, but you don't get to hit back." (4) Whether our "religious heritage" actually serves as a unique source of "powerful moral guidance" is open to question. If it does, it can and will be heard and heeded on its merits. A nation with religious liberty built into its Constitution will, of course, not have a single "religious heritage." "Many of our brightest and most committed citizens" are discouraged "from actively participating in our public life" for so many different reasons that religious sensitivity must rank rather low on the long list. The fact that our best people stay out of politics is a big problem for the nation, but coming to grips with that problem and solving it is a matter quite separate from that of church- state separation and religious liberty.