ON INAUGURATION, AN ESSAY, KEEN'S

Alternative Title:

"The Crippling Farce of the Separation of Church and State, Constructive Criticisms."

"On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas that for far too long have strangled our politics." - Barack Obama, inaugural speech

"Almighty God, Our Father, everything we see and everything we can’t see exists because of You alone. It all comes from You, it all belongs to You, it all exists for Your glory. History is your story...And may we never forget that one day, all nations, all people will stand accountable before You...I humbly ask this in the name of the one who changed my life—Yeshua, Esa, Jesus, Jesus—who taught us to pray: Our father, who art in heaven...[etc,etc.]" - Rev. Rick Warren's invocation at inauguration

I watched the inauguration, aired at midnight here, by means of digital cable in the house of one of the wealthier people in Palembang.

Before the ceremony begins, we flip through the local news channels to see what reports were being broadcasted. The Indonesian news, fueled by its flagrant bias and a recent surge of global Muslim solidarity, and unburdened by the concerns of airing violent imagery, is completely frank about the recent events in the Gaza Strip. Looped images of mangled, bloody, broken women and children linger for silent minutes on the screen; the amount of blood rivals that seen in a Mel Gibson film. The cameraman takes a tour of the dead-houses and hospitals, trying to find the most gruesome and horrible cases of injury and death (e.g. showing dead children and the pieces of shrapnel protruding from their chests) to show to the fulminating Indonesian populace. There is no room on the Indonesian news for any mention of the action out on Capitol Hill. To be in a vast-majority Muslim country at a time like this is quite the experience.

In the last two weeks, life at the Islamic boarding school has taken a turn for the tense. Almost daily there are meager but eager donations collected from the students to send to Palestine. Students are putting up posters in the hallways showing more violent images, along with rallying cries such as "Stop Death!" and "Destroy Israel!" (an ironic juxtaposition). Evening sessions in the mosques neighboring me have lengthened, with the intensity of the nightly lectures delivered to the students noticeably increased.

While life in a Palembang pesantren may provide a more extreme example relative to the average school community in Indonesia, the activism and anger is generally ubiquitous. At an education conference this weekend in the nation's capital, Jakarta, there happened to be a Palestine rally at the hotel where I stayed, graced with the presence of the country’s vice president and some heart-throb Indo-pop bands who had come to show their support. The lobby was awash with beautiful actresses representing various television syndicates, cameramen, gaffers, and an abundance of Palestinian scarves. Walking to dinner, driving to the way to the airport, and searching for a corner store, we'd see groups of motorcycle roaring by with political flags waving, dump-trucks full of cantankerous protesters. Some of these rallies have been explicitly anti-American, and those instances are avoided at a distance by us tall white guys.

While Indonesia is indeed a majority-Muslim country, it is not governed by an explicitly official Islamic institution. This is a Republic, and the separation of Mosque and State is, at least in writing, maintained and respected. But practically, that separation is a complete illusion. Despite the diversity of religions in this unbelievably diverse archipelago, Islam is the overbearing and undeniable ideological force at work in the government. This can be seen in first and foremost of the 5 founding laws of the new Indonesian state in 1945, "1. Believe in God." Indonesia seems to be the case in point that a nation can claim to achieve this said “separation” yet still remain a theocracy.

Many people, including my students and other Fulbrighters, argue about whether the Palestine-Israel conflict has its roots in politics or religion. Whether it does or not (my answer is that both are inextricably and dialectically involved, because, as I argue in this post, the divide between the two realms is a farce), people here are certainly discussing the conflict in religious terms. I know this by simply listening to the various conversations that occur in the teacher's office throughout the day. It is evident in the language and labels used in the local news. This last week, I gave a religion survey to my students, asking them some uncomfortable questions, the last and most extreme being this: "Would you rather stop being Muslim or kill 50 people?" 100% of the 314 students who completed the survey answered the latter, and 13% of them added, on their own accord, versions of the same parenthetical note at the end of the second option: "if they are Jews."

I have come to realize that it is countries like Indonesia, the tragedies in Gaza, and now the inauguration ceremony of our 44th president, that demonstrate clearly that the idea of the “separation of Church and State” and the idea that such a thing should remain a permanent goal of modern society are illusory. Not only that, but such “liberal denials” protect and even contribute to the perpetuation of volatile, destructive, distracting, and ultimately unendurable ideals.

The language of the inauguration last night made self-evident the illusory divide between the Christian church and the state to a degree that cannot be ignored. As I watched, I was blown away by the stifling amount of explicit and unabashed Christian language coating the prayers, songs, speeches, and symbolism of the event. I mean, the fourth sentence of Rev. Rick Warren's horrendous invocation was the unbelievably imprudent - although certainly intentional - verse, ‘Hear, O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is one.' John William's beautiful composition was an obvious adaptation of a Christian hymn. Oaths were taken over a Bible. President Obama, in his absolutely fantastic speech, was heard to quote Scripture, refer to the founding freedoms of our nation as "God-given" and call upon "God's grace" in his closing words. The Benediction was given by another religious leader, albeit of different skin color, but of course not of a different creed. Religious plurality, even the acknowledgement of it was utterly absent from the event -- except in statements disparaging the idea that any creed or heritage is of any special importance, which as we shall see is problematic despite the liberal ease with which it is swallowed. (Even if plurality were present in the proceedings, plurality wouldn't be evidence not for the separation but the union of Church(es) and State.)

Granted, many of these religious outbursts are entirely excusable. Pledging oaths over Bibles can be as much an honor of national tradition as it is devotion to the Christian holy text, and, after all, what other equivalent book is there that one could take such a pledge over? (Actually, there are several religious and even secular texts that outline an ethical guide that is equally or even more substantive for those in political office.) Furthermore, who would deny a man his right to insert his opinions into his own speech, even if they are religious in ilk? To do so would be just as unconstitutional as the unification of church and state. And who knows if Obama's words were what he wanted to say or what he knew his people wanted to hear? The truth is, if the people want there to a Bible present and a shout-out to God in the inauguration speech, why shouldn't there be? I mean, "In God We Trust" is written on our currency and all over our national monuments. Theism is certainly our national tradition. The words "God" and "divine" are in our Constitution. We are guilty of the same theocratic status, same as Indonesia, albeit less explicitly. So why should the inauguration ceremony put on airs of utter secularism? Wouldn't doing so be more farcical than all the religious language going on under the banner of "Separation of Church and State?"

The answer is yes, it would be.

A historical perspective makes this obviously impossible “separation” seem like less of a naïve goal. Our forefathers, in writing our founding documents, were reacting to the explicit connection between the British king and the Anglican church, and all the oppressive problems that such a union incurred. This is most likely what was explicitly meant by the demands of religious freedom and separation of church and state in our Constitution’s preamble and Bill of Rights. However, by definition, a republic whose constituency is mostly Christian and almost entirely theistic cannot claim to be governed by a secular government, if that government is in fact representing its people. Whether or not this is the conflict to which our founding fathers were referring in the Constitution, today in this ever globalizing and precarious world it is a conflict of the same name that is urgently relevant to our collective fate. There is no actual basis for any purported empty space between religion and social order. How naïve it is to assume otherwise, considering that the two institutions claim governance over the same bodies, the same world, and the same future! Any such “separation” is a delusion, and realizing so may enable prudent, effective change that would otherwise would be self-inhibited. When parts of scripture are challenged by new bits of scientific evidence or a new social predicament that could never have been imagined two thousand years ago, insisting upon the separation of church and state has never prevented conflict from arising. All too often, insisting there is not an issue prevents any kind of reasonable conflict prevention from occurring at all. The inescapable union, and therefore conflict, of Church (or Mosque, or Temple, or combinations of those) and State is a reality, whether or not personal beliefs are discussed officially or publicly or never.

According to the basic definitions of belief - essentially that beliefs, in being believed, govern actions - religion is not and can never be only a personal issue. Nor should we ever want it to be. Aiming to make that so would strip away some of religion's most valuable roles: that of a community glue, that of a forum for exchanging ideas, that of a medium for fellowship, etc. This all-too-common idea that "religion is a personal thing" belongs to the same school of "tolerance" we Fulbrighters were taught at orientation here in Indonesia, and it is the kind of tolerance being proselytized around the world today by “global citizens” who misunderstand the purpose of liberal values (and they can't be blamed - often, it is a matter of self-preservation and popularity to pretend not to care about different religious ideas, even if those ideas are completely ridiculous). Yet such doormat ambassadorship is not tolerance, it is not respect, and it is not fair to ourselves, our world and certainly not to our future. It is simply avoiding uncomfortable conflicts of ideas, something that Obama vowed to put a stop to several times in his speech last night, incidentally.

But does disagreement necessitate frail sensitivity and undesirable discomfort? Must it? I insist that it does not have to, and that we are in control of whether it does. While discourse may involve negation, the very act of discourse is an affirmation of our faith in one another’s beautiful humanity, humble fallibility, and desire to become better, more responsible, more fulfilled people. The conflict of ideas, executed humanely and with poise and with unwavering elemental respect, is the very basis and value of democracy. It is in such discourse that the deepest bonds are forged and the most rewarding social and spiritual progress can be made. Protecting religion from disagreement and criticism is not actual protection. It is analagous to letting a foot wound fester because asking the doctor to look at it would be scary and probably painful - but it would certainly be better than your toe falling off! To pretend that religion is merely a personal thing and that it should stay that way is to pretend that religion does not cast its ballot in decisions of national security, development and social justice. This is a demonstrable mistake. This simply gives religion more and more ballots to cast, until situations become unfathomable and we can't remember why we got ourselves into a mess in the first place (case in point: Iraq). True tolerance, which translates into conservative social concern, honest inquiry, and the willingness to be wrong and change (and the expectation of others to do likewise) does not endorse such denial in any form.

The pretend separation of church and state, the complete privatization of religion, is no perfect system relative to that of their explicit union, especially in a global society. In the long run, it is certainly as inhibitive to significant social and environmental reform as the latter, even though the costs of the former may not be apparent until things come to a head. You may look at Saudi Arabia and find that their records of justice and humanitarianism are lacking compared to America's (although it may depend on how hard you look at America). But the world is vastly connected now, and the way this changes things much be acknowledged. As “secularized” countries promote turning-a-blind-eye as proper tolerance and religion-sponsored states are militantly convinced of their righteousness, more sensible "secular" nations are threatened by less sensible neighbors while all nations are unwilling to address the realm of ideology that is their common source of ineffective rule. When will secular moderates learn that ignoring religion in political forums will not make it go away? Non-confrontational “tolerance” has not protected us, and it has not quieted the eruptions of religion-inspired strife throughout the world. We can only conclude that neither the separation nor the union of church and state are proper goals to strive for, and I don't think either was the intention of Thomas Jefferson, a true believer in the potential of the Enlightenment.

Perhaps what Jefferson had in mind was that we should think of the separation of Church and State as an interim solution – a kind of short-lived self-discipline. I practice the same discipline, almost daily, in class here in Palembang when I have to separate two students who together are unbearably misbehaved. Hopefully, I won't have to separate them every day of class for the next 5 months. Hopefully, I will be able to work with them to find a way for them to be partners. To leave them in separate corners for the rest of the time would be looked upon with shame by teachers who know better. It is clear from examples like Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran and Israel that explicitly religious states are volatile, difficult to work with, and often unfair to their own citizens, generally more so than secularized states. These are the reasons church and state started off separated in new nations like America. But we should not settle for this illusion of life in two corners at once, simply because it is impossible and even less desirable given our alternatives. As we stand now, we are a house divided against itself, much as we were during the Civil War. We should stop asking ourselves, as we have since our independence, "How can we make sure church and state remain separate?" Did Lincoln ask how to maintain slavery in a way that made slaves less miserable? No, he called for slavery’s end, the unification of the House, all for principled and enabling reasons. Similarly, we should be asking, "How can we unite the two realms of our ideas and our lives - those of religion and those of reality – in a way that leads to a better world for us all?" Can't we agree that doing so would further human order and progress? That it would provide an opportunity to tear down the next divide, should another be found?

How is such a reunion of church and state possible? How to unite the house without sending it teetering over, as is happening in the religious nations throughout the Middle-East? What would such a compromise between politics and religion look like? Well, to begin with, putting the burden of concessions and compromise on the shoulders of the State is silly, simply because in our country the State isn't some disconnected body but actually the population of religious citizens. I am afraid that the burden for revision rests for the most part on the two-thousand-year-old ideology that most of us guard so close to the chest. It is a simple fact that religion (as it is now) and politics don't mix because religion (as it is now) and reality don't mix. Realizing that a durable state requires the support of a "reality-based community," and that America, being in actuality a Christian nation, is far from that, change must come from within the walls of religion itself.

Inevitably the inescapable link between republics and their religious majorities always becomes obvious due to one cause or another, and hard questions must be asked and answered. But are these questions really that hard? Why shouldn't our goal be the consilience and integration of knowledge, the unity of perspective? I don’t have in mind everyone becoming atheist or everyone agreeing to the same religious claims. I have in mind a world of everyone remaining religious, fulfilled and united, without dependence upon dangerous, divisive, foundationless ideas. Anyone who thinks they can't have a fulfilling, "religious" existence without the ideas of God and heaven have succumbed to the internal, circular logic of their self-interested belief system. Only after we realize that the human source and capacity for sanctity and hope lies within us and is not divvied out mysteriously from above, can we take the next promising steps in love, hope, progress, environmental stewardship, and general integrity. This can happen with the free exchange of ideas and the administration of proper tolerance. What we need, taking wisdom from recent economic lessons learned, is a more highly regulated “religious market,” governed by the principles of accountability, gratitude, amazement, ethical duty and the freedom from oppressive absurdities.

The bold, brash Christianity of the inauguration's Invocation and Benediction was troubling - scary, even. How does America think the Muslim world will react to those prayers?! The reactions of the Indonesians I watched it with were telling enough for me. How can we as a nation, after seeing the recent manifestations of such explicit religiosity in the Palestine-Israel conflict, celebrate the control Christianity has over our government so proudly and recklessly? Why is it that we all assume a collective incapacity for reverence, meaningful ceremony, or official dignity without reference to the Bible or to God? Why aren't the planners of these government functions calling upon speakers who are able to elicit the deeply religious and communal in all of us Homo sapiens without vomiting the cliches and inanities of antiquated religions that cheapen, not deepen, our collective experience of the holy, of progress, of change, of hope, of a renewed nation?

Rev. Rick Warren, a controversial, pro-life, "purpose-driven" man, was jarringly out of place as the opening act of the most important inauguration in recent history. But he was also eye-opening, in that he exposed bluntly the current state of Christianity's marriage with a world power in the throes of various crises.

How can we reconcile Obama's inspirational words of progress, reason, integrity and respect with the language of the formalities surrounding his inauguration? How can a country so willing to put on a half-assed farce of simultaneous leadership and religious tolerance hope to forge a durable future for itself in the years ahead? For how much longer must this go on before we actually start having faith in ourselves, not in one book written about 2,000 years ago? When will we learn to be religious without being religious at something, especially not fictional personality? When will we become empowered by our own capacity for resolving differences, and achieving the seemingly impossible?

Yesterday, our nation officially broke the color barrier. The near-nomination of Hillary Clinton earlier in 2008 broke through that glass ceiling once and for all. These are all considerable achievements, and they all involve a collective resolve to ignore bad ideas and harmful practices in the effort to restore hope to an ever bigger, ever more desperate world. It is time to turn to the next divide, the next bad idea given too much unquestioned respect, the next urgently harmful practice.

Do you think we can?