At an Oxford University conference on human dignity held earlier this year, Dr. Paul Fiddes, a professor of systematic theology, presented his thesis on the role religion should play in social and political arenas. In the speech, Professor Fiddes argued that it was unethical for individuals to bring their private religious beliefs into the public sphere. He advocated for the adoption of secular public arenas as a response to increasingly multicultural societies. As the West becomes more religiously diverse, he argued, adherence to purely secular social behaviors in public would reduce cultural tension and create increasingly peaceful societies. Dr. Fiddes also contended it was culturally offensive to bring religious beliefs into public affairs, as not every member of society shares these values. Sitting in the audience, I grew increasingly unsettled by the professor’s speech; faces in the audience, though, seemed unvexed and inattentive. The room’s complete lack of recoil spoke volumes. This perspective was not bewildering: this was the West’s new normal.
As the conference came to an end, the professor’s words remained a point of internal conflict. Was this a justifiable request to ask of people, to separate their private religious beliefs from their public action? And did Fiddes’ thesis further substantiate America’s historic call for the separation of the private church and public state, or miss the mark altogether? Contrary to Dr. Fiddes’ proposition, separating religious beliefs from public action is an impossible and unnecessary burden. Rather than shunning religion from public environments, Americans should strive to more effectively practice cross-cultural religious literacy when engaging with religion in public. The secularization of public spaces ultimately conceals, rather than reduces, societal friction.
Expectations in the West: Let’s Leave Religion at Home
After declaring independence from a country whose leader was both the head of state and the head of the church, the American Founding Fathers ensured their Constitution included provisions to prevent religion from dominating government at an institutional level. The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment explicitly ensures that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” and Article Six of the Constitution also specifies that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
While the Constitution restricts religious jurisdiction, it does not support a strict separatist view of church-state relations. Unlike some European policies of state secularization, like France’s Laïcité, American law does not prohibit religion from influencing the public arena. A strict separatist stance on religion and the public state is contradictory to the First Amendment’s protection of the practice of religion and freedom of speech. The Constitution ultimately restricts religion from impacting government at an institutional, not personal, level; it does not prohibit individual politicians, academics or public figures from incorporating religious views into their leadership roles and decision making.
Today, this institutional religious tolerance is starting to wilt. America is experiencing a social shift to the religious separatist standards more common in Europe. A 2018 study conducted by the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found that the majority of Americans believe religion should have no influence in policymaking. Nearly 60 percent of Americans believe Congress is too influenced by religious belief. Just four years ago, 60 percent of Americans polled during the 2014 midterm elections said that it was “important for members of Congress to have strong religious beliefs.” What accounts for this stark change in national opinion? Much of it may be attributed to the growing distaste of religion on both sides of the political spectrum. The left has clashed with Evangelical America over LGBTQ and reproductive rights issues, while President’s Trump campaign rhetoric highlighted a parallel distrust of Islam amongst the far right.
American distrust of religious influence goes beyond the political arena. Several years ago, former NFL quarterback Tim Tebow habitually wrote Bible verses on his eyeblack during football games. The verse he used during the 2009 College Football National Championship was searched on Google over 90 million times in 24 hours, sparking nationwide debate. Significant backlash from fans and media outlets forced the league to create a new rule banning players from writing on their faces, nicknamed “The Tebow Rule.” This backlash did not derive from animosity toward the practice of players writing personal messages on eyeblacks—around the same time, New Orleans Saints running back Reggie Bush wrote his hometown’s area code under his eyes every game to no reaction. “The Tebow Rule” arose from the belief that Tebow’s explicit advertisement of religion in a public space was unethical. Tebow, according to many in the American public, should have kept religion at home.
Hostile reactions to public displays of religion are not a purely American phenomena, either; they are modern Western, trends. A judge in Quebec recently refused to hear a Muslim woman’s trial because of her hijab. The judge contended that all religious symbols were inappropriate in that setting, as courts are public environments. Similarly, some cinemas in the UK have refused to show any religious advertisements. Theater directors stated that religious videos are offensive to those who hold opposing beliefs.
Western countries appear to be increasingly designating public spaces—like courts, theaters or athletic matches—as purely secular arenas. These policies imply that religion is one dimensional and expect individuals or groups to “turn off” their religious selves when necessary. This belief belies the fact that many religious people are unable to discriminate between which areas of life religion should and should not shape. These attempts to limit the public effects of religious values are largely misdirected and unhelpful.
Benjamin Simon, ’21, a Jewish student at Stanford who has written broadly on the topic of religion for The Stanford Review, sat down to discuss his thoughts on religion in the public. Simon described the intimate relationship between religious thought and public influence:
Religion permeates all aspects of life. Perhaps it would be a mistake to say that Judaism is a “component” of my identity. … My identity is not, for the most part, compartmentalized. My religious beliefs and practices deeply inform how I live my day-to-day life—who I will date, which parties I will go to, how I spend my free time, etc.—and also how I think about the biggest political and philosophical questions.
Simon disputes the common belief that religion is a singular identity, able to be “boxed off” by itself. For many, religion is instead a lens through which all other aspects of life are observed.
Although it would be a mistake to assume every religious American shares Simon’s belief about the extensive personal reach of religion, it is equally naive to presume religion does not shape multiple components of life. People’s beliefs about the world will inevitably influence their positions on issues like morality, politics, dress, gender, sex and more. Similarly, politicians will naturally support legislation in accordance with their values, religious or not. Many politicians, like Vice President Mike Pence, have faced criticism for allowing religion to shape their political decisions. It would be unwarranted, though, to expect Pence to act “un-Christian” or “non-religious” exclusively at his place of work. The notion of having both a “secular public self” and a “religious private self” is impossible: any private value system will influence decisions throughout all areas of life.
Cross-Cultural Religious Literacy: A Response to American Pluralism
How then should a country like the United States engage with its increasingly multicultural society without shunning religion from the public sphere? This question is especially challenging today, as most Americans are failing to engage in meaningful cross-cultural interactions. Americans are more likely than ever to exclusively associate with people similar to them. According to recent statistics from Barna, a research institute on faith and culture, 69 percent of Americans reported that most of their close friends held similar religious views, while 74 percent revealed that their friends were all of the same race. With evangelicals, those numbers jump to 91 percent and 88 percent, respectively. Americans are becoming less willing to cross religious and racial boundaries.
Dr. Chris Seiple, current president of the DC-based Institute for Global Engagement, sat down with me to discuss his thoughts on how diverse countries could improve relations between citizens. His organization was founded primarily to “help people of faith engage with the world better.” They have conducted work all over the globe, such as helping rescue and restore Middle Eastern Christians to their hometowns after periods of discrimination. In our interview, Seiple emphasized cross-cultural religious literacy as essential for learning how to coexist in multicultural societies. Cross-cultural religious literacy, according to Seiple, involves adopting “humility in attempts to gain a greater appreciation and understanding” for radically different belief systems than one’s own. His organization has faced criticism from both the American right and left for its work to improve religious relations. “Republicans accused [him]of supporting ‘blood-thirsty bigots’” when the IGE invited prominent Pakistani politician Mahmud Ali Durrani to the US to spark dialogue about Islam and the West. He also claims that the left has long suspected his organization of “promoting some secret evangelizing mission.”
Despite the criticism, Seiple remains confident that engaging in honest and respectful discourse is the best way for societies with diverse religious makeups to thrive. Seiple says he does not trust that “sweeping religious differences under the rug” will improve cross-cultural relationships: “If I’m going to respect you and you’re going to respect me, we can’t have watered down differences,” he argues. “You have to know that the essence of my identity is Christ as a believer, and yours might be Muhammad and the Quran. Once we agree about what the essence of our respective identities is, we can actually engage each other. I have found that practical collaboration actually results faster when there’s that deeper respect for identity.” Gaining a deep understanding of each other’s religious and cultural differences, instead of pretending they don’t exist, is ultimately the best way to improve relations in a multicultural society.
Seiple also sat in attendance at the Oxford University conference. Unsurprisingly, his reaction to the Professor Fiddes’ thesis was less than agreeable. Seiple’s lifelong commitment to religious engagement and literacy largely stems from his belief that a person’s religious values will inevitably impact their public decision making. “I don’t think you can separate religion and politics, belief and behavior. That’s sort of an ignorant assumption,” he says. “Let the beliefs speak for themselves through the actions, and the actions should reflect a common good.” Americans will never agree on the basis of religion or morality; every individual has a unique value system to justify their conception of right and wrong, good and evil. Consequently, we shouldn’t expect every American to speak, act or vote the same in public.
***
The United States of America is a country still heavily influenced by religion. A recent Pew Research Center study found in 2018 that over 77 percent of Americans identified as religious. While some claim that religion should be removed from the public sphere, religion plays an essential role in the identities and beliefs of a vast number of Americans. To expect religiously identifying citizens to adopt separate public personas ignores that for many, religion cannot be pigeonholed into private, hidden sectors of life. Instead of hiding private religious influence from society, Americans should recognize and learn from the many religious influences that shape their fellow citizens. Engaging in honest dialogue allows people to simultaneously disagree with—yet understand—action stemming from religious belief. Religious diversity and disagreement will always be an important characteristic of the American story. We can either ignore the existence of these stark differences, or attempt to engage with and learn from our fascinating, complex society.
On the final morning of the conference on Human Dignity, speakers and participants sat in an Oxford dining hall enjoying breakfast together. A young Middle Eastern woman wearing a headscarf took a seat beside Dr. Seiple. While most conference participants naturally shook hands with each other, I marveled at Seiple’s reaction to her. Recognizing that she might feel uncomfortable touching a non-related man, he immediately placed his hand on his right heart, nodded to her, and said, “As-Salaam-Alaikum”—Arabic for, “peace be upon you”. The woman appeared briefly taken aback, perhaps surprised that a Westerner had taken the time to study traditional Islamic greetings. Smiling, she repeated the greeting back to him.Seiple’s actions are regrettably unique in Western society. In Europe today, Muslim women often struggle to find high-paying jobs, as they prefer not the shake hands with men they conduct business with. Seiple’s simple, respectful greeting illustrates how easy it would be to begin improving cross-cultural and religious relations in the West. By taking the time to understand another belief system, he had put himself in a position to build greater relationships with strikingly dissimilar people. Religion will always differentiate people in the way they act, think, and vote. But, like Seiple illustrates, it doesn’t need to divide us.
Nathalie Kiersznowski, a sophomore studying political science and economics, is the magazine director of Stanford Politics.