Dear Friends,                                                        Demo-, Theo-, what’s your cracy?

During one of the dubious elections in Iraq following the US invasion (was there one in 2008?), a proscribed Islamist militant group distributed leaflets confronting their fellow Iraqis with a very simple and reasonable claim (this is not the exact words):

The US forces and their puppets say that what we need is democracy. What is democracy? The word itself tells us: rule by the people. The word itself, the word democracy, explains why it is wrong. The people are not the rulers. God is the one and only ruler. Theocracy, rule by God, is the only true government. God does not need elections.

Whatever you may think of the conclusion, the logic is unanswerable. If you want God to rule, forget about democracy. If you want democracy, God must take a backseat – I’m tempted to say that he, she, they can be a backseat driver at most, but maybe that’s unfair.

Democracy, rule by the people, Theocracy, rule by God, are mutually exclusive. Ok, not exactly a blinding revelation. But let’s belabor the obvious just a little more:

Consider the religion clauses of the First Amendment: no established religion, freedom of religious belief. The leaflet does indeed call for an “established” religion, and then some. Only one God, only one law, theocracy. No freedom even for believers, religion is not a matter of free choice.

Why bring this up now? Because Republicans (there’s no point any longer in saying “MAGA Republicans”, what else is there?) have adopted roughly this position, but, as usual, they’re lying and cheating and accusing and whining, that is, as usual, showing that they don’t believe in anything, while continuing to proclaim their profound Christian faith. And, as usual, this is simultaneously pathetic and dangerous.

The Islamist leaflet is a true and authentic expression of the confrontation of fundamental religious belief with democracy; writing and distributing the leaflet put its authors and fellow believers’ lives in danger. They deserve respect for this.

Republican Christian Nationalism deserves no such respect. But it is what faces us here, today, in the US. And, of course, much – not all – of the danger comes from all the lies and fake American patriotism.

Confronting Republican Christian Nationalists with reasoned arguments about the First Amendment is about the worst use of anyone’s time, right down to let’s say 3 seconds … so many better things we could all do in 3 seconds.

Still, we need to be absolutely clear about the relation between church (religion) and state, as it is, unambiguously, put forward in the law of the United States of America, beginning with the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.  

We’re only concerned with the religion clauses, but it’s good to see the form of the whole. Three subjects in three grammatical clauses: religion, speech, assembly; but the three are not separate, they belong together as a whole. Together they establish a primary space in which free citizens can exist as free citizens.

Each grammatical clause has two parts forming a subordinate whole within the whole Amendment. However, interpretation, against the clear meaning of the text, has tended to divide the religion clause into two substantive clauses: the establishment clause, and the freedom of religion clause.

The two clause interpretation is a problem first, simply because it treats a single claim as though it is two separate claims. Second, though, it allows for an evaluation of each clause alone, and then as compared to the other. The result – and you’re either going to have to take my word for this, or look it up – is that the freedom of religion “clause”  now predominates, and the establishment “clause” doesn’t seem to matter much. (Something similar has happened with the Second Amendment).

Separating the clauses throws each in question, so what’s the percentage? Well, the goal is, precisely, an established religion (a very precise one); but you can’t really come out and say that directly. So, instead, you make a huge fuss about how you’re an oppressed religious minority fighting for your right to worship as you choose … and then it turns out that your rights cannot be properly returned to you unless the Ten Commandments are displayed in every classroom, the Bible is taught in classes (not any Bible, the Trump one), we can kneel in prayer in the middle of the football field … and a lot more.

Looking a lot like an established religion, isn’t it? No, no, no, we’re just defending religious  freedom. Still, as far as I know, no one has demanded teaching from the Popol Vuh, the Homeric Hymns, the Egyptian Book of the Dead, the Tibetan Book of the Dead, the Koran, the Analects of Confucius, the Tao Te Ching, the Bhagavad Gita, to name a tiny selection of all the sacred texts that have equal claim with the Bible even according to the Christian Nationalist arguments for religious freedom.

Privileging the religious freedom clause is a roundabout path to negating the establishment clause. It doesn’t stand up to even a moment’s serious thought, but if you yell loud enough and often enough serious thought gets drowned out.

Serious thought, though, in its quiet way, continues to reflect on the obvious point that the “Founders” obviously did not see two clauses but only one; the two parts are mutually dependent. Without the establishment “clause” freedom of religion must always be threatened. Without the freedom of religion “clause”, establishment of one religion will always be a threat.

Serious thought, so often confined to the margins of general discourse, poor thing, does have another quite important point about the source and standing of the first clause (just one) of the First Amendment. Again, there is no point at all in using this as an argument to sway Christian Nationalist reactionaries (swaying is not really their thing); but it is necessary for us all to be as clear as possible in our own minds about the sources of our arguments so that we can depend on their standing, their truth as entailed by the fundamental law:

There is no such thing as “religion in general”, there are only particular religions. Therefore, since the general principle of religious freedom cannot be founded on a particular religion, there is no overall religious position that is outside every particular religion. In other words the principle of religious freedom is not a religious principle, it is secular.

If you’re a Christian Nationalist hell-bent on abolishing the separation between church and state this really puts the cat among the pigeons. All that effort splitting the freedom “clause” from the establishment “clause”, and now, bang!, it’s all for nought: a secular principle is worse than no principle at all.

Of course our Christian Nationalist need not despair. Who’s going to bother with an argument like that? He and his fellow Christian Soldiers certainly won’t. “Respectable” Republicans won’t, the “liberal mainstream” media won’t.

Still, if our friend serious thought goes on doing what it always does – thinking seriously – asserting, unanswerably, that it’s no established religion and freedom of religion together, or neither; and that the religions themselves cannot organize this, well, maybe something will rub off somewhere. And all of its friends should do everything they can to amplify its message:

The first grammatical clause of the First Amendment is a whole, not two separate “clauses”: no established religion requires freedom of religion; freedom of religion requires no established religion. The two co-constitutive elements – no established religion, freedom of religion – cannot be derived from any one religion, and “religion in general” does not exist. Therefore, they form a singular, secular principle, explicitly stated in the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.

Please note that serious thought makes this argument entirely from the clause in the First Amendment. All the additional statements especially by Adams, Jefferson, and Madison are vital, but the First Amendment says it all, and it’s part of the Constitution.

I’m taking it on myself to give voice to serious thought, I hope that … wait, I’m not sure what serious thought’s pronouns are … well, I hope that serious thought is cool with what I’m saying. Just remember, the First Amendment is very clear, but beyond that, if you are a religious person of any kind then it benefits you even if you belong to the denomination that might become established; if you are not a religious person, well, the benefits are pretty obvious.

Love and solidarity,

            Serious thought (and Bobby)