Shanny Luft authored a post arguing this on religiousdispatches.com. What follows are quotes from the article and my response.
“Separation of church and state did not result in religious dissolution and moral chaos… Instead, the first amendment to the Constitution created a bull market for religion. Nineteenth century Europeans were gobsmacked that religious disestablishment in America fortified religious growth…
“…Francis J. Grund identified the essential differences between American and European Christianity. ‘The Americans,’ he wrote, ‘enjoy a threefold advantage: they have more preachers; they have more active preachers, and they have cheaper preachers than can be found in any part of Europe.’
“Religion in Europe waned because Christianity maintained a religious monopoly. America, on the other hand, saw religion thrive because the First Amendment to the Constitution created a religious free market… What could be more palatable to conservatives than the fact that American religion is yet another success story for the free market?
“And therein lies the lesson that the two sides of this culture war should heed. The history of American religion suggests that when government involves itself in religion, religion withers on the vine; whereas when governments neither helps nor hinders, religious life flourishes. Therefore: atheists who would like to see a decline in religious influence over government should fight to establish state religions across the nation. If they succeeded, they would make religion anathema.”
My comments:
I agree with his thesis that the free market is what has created the present religious atmosphere in America. However, I don’t think establishment of a state religion would be a good idea, as a matter of principle or as a matter of practice.
For a moment let’s forget about the ethics of following Luft’s advice and focus on whether it would actually help atheists achieve their social goals (we’ll come back to the ethical side of the coin shortly). First of all, if we established a state religion, there is a strong possibility that it would be some form of fundamentalist Christianity. Fundamentalist Christianity might not “whither on the vine” if it were a monopoly. After all, fundamentalist Christianity has already accrued a number of beneficial mutations from the process of evolution by natural selection that took place after the free market opened up for religion in America. We can’t expect that to disappear overnight (or at all) if it became the state religion. After all, the Catholic church had a monopoly on religious belief across most of Europe for centuries before it ever learned an ounce of tolerance and human decency, and even now it only has about an ounce of decency and tolerance.
More importantly, the ethics of establishing a state religion are abominable. I wouldn’t want anyone to push their philosophical/religious beliefs on me, and as such I cannot push my beliefs (much less the Christian beliefs I don’t even hold) on someone else.
I have a much better suggestion, along the lines of Daniel Dennett. Democracies and free market systems absolutely depend on an informed voter or consumer in order to work. So, in a free market religious landscape, informing people about their choices will likely bring about a better religious landscape. To inform people, I think we ought to first and foremost teach critical thinking skills in high schools: basic logic, how to evaluate sources and test whether claims are true, and related skills ought to take up an entire class for 9th through 12th grade. Second, there should be at least one mandatory class in high school on world religions. Kids should learn the basic tenets and claims of all major world religions, and I’d suggest that religious leaders (including secular humanists/atheists) ought to be invited to come and speak to the class about what they believe, why, and the kids should be allowed to ask questions.
If this were done, I think it would result in greater tolerance and harmony between religious communities. I believe it would lead to a decline intolerant and ignorant forms of religion.
Last but not least, I suspect it would lead to a great surge in atheism. I don’t know this, but the suspicion I have is based on three lines of admittedly less-than-watertight evidence. First, among people who have been exposed to a large variety of belief systems and arguments for them, atheism is the norm. Three-quarters of philosophers are atheists, and by the very nature of their training philosophers are necessarily exposed to all kinds of arguments for and against the existence of god. Second, studies have shown that atheists are more informed about religion than anyone else. I think it is plausible that if we increase the set of people who know a lot about religion we will likewise see an increase in atheism. Last but not least, many atheists I know, including myself, came to hold the views we do after looking hard at both sides of the question and coming to a decision.
