Christianism—like Islamism—refers to the determination of religious ideologues to use the coercive power of the state to enforce religious morality. This is not supposed to happen in the West, where Enlightenment rationalism and its secular legacy have established a rigid separation between church and state. On the other hand, there is no English or French Christianism. So, why is there American Christianism? I venture to suggest that there is a flaw in American secularism.
Secularism was the rational solution to the religious wars between Catholics and Protestants that engulfed Europe in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. To stem the tide of this religious bloodbath, political philosophers Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679) and John Locke (1632–1704) provided two very different solutions. Hobbes thought that the church must be subordinated to the sovereign power of the state—queen, king, or Parliament. He admired the efforts of his sovereign, Queen Elizabeth I, who made the English or Anglican Church a state institution subject to her power. In so doing, she re-instated a process that was started by her father, King Henry VIII.
The English Puritans found the Hobbesian solution that empowered the state totally unacceptable. They could not tolerate worshipping in a state-sponsored church. As far as they were concerned, the Anglican Church had all the trappings of the Catholic Church, which they regarded as a manifestation of the power of the Anti-Christ. They complained that this English “solution” robbed them of their religious freedom and a chance for salvation, because the latter required living in accordance with the dictates of their conscience. In truth, the state has no jurisdiction over the hearts or minds of its subjects; it cannot prevent anyone from believing whatever he or she likes in his or her heart of hearts. Outward conformity to the state’s regulation of religion cannot impinge on salvation, which is hidden in the heart and privy only to God. So, the Puritan objection to the English solution is bogus.
In contrast to Hobbes, Locke suggested religious freedom as a solution to religious strife. He thought that by allowing a thousand churches to bloom, the state would achieve both peace and freedom. Naturally, the Puritans chose Locke. So, when they migrated to America, they brought with them Lockean politics. The non-establishment clause in the First Amendment of the American Constitution says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” It is a clear rejection of an established church after the British model. But there are those who understood it to be a strong endorsement of secularism. In a famous letter written to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut (1802), Thomas Jefferson maintained that the Constitution amounts to “building a wall of separation” between church and state. That may be a plausible reading—but only if religion is satisfied with freedom and a guarantee of non-interference from the state. But history is not reassuring on that count.
Religion has invariably been in quest of power. No one understood this better than Joseph Ratzinger (a.k.a. Pope Benedict XVI). He loved the American churches because he understood the vulnerable character of American secularism. In his book with Marcello Pera, Without Roots: The West, Relativism, Christianity (2006), he called the American churches the “free churches,” in contrast to the Anglican Church, which he abhorred as a subjugated instrument of the state (pp. 56–60). He recognized instinctively what Hobbes had realized and Locke had not: namely, that these independent churches might succeed in gaining dominion over the state—a situation that Ratzinger was keen to encourage.
The persistence of Christianity’s quest for power in American politics suggests a flaw in American secularism. The Constitution makes it an obligation of the state to refrain from interfering in the free exercise of religion, but there is no corresponding obligation for religious institutions not to meddle in the affairs of the state. The Johnson Amendment of 1954, a provision in the tax code, provided a redress to this imbalance. It threatened religious institutions with the loss of their tax-exempt status if they contributed to political campaigns, endorsed candidates, or tried to influence legislation.
Even though the Johnson Amendment has never been seriously enforced, a well-funded organization, the Alliance Defending Freedom, has dedicated itself to its eradication. Preachers are encouraged to openly flout the law and send the Internal Revenue Service recordings of their sermons in the hope of provoking a lawsuit—to no avail, so far. Because the Republican Party has been stacking the courts with Christian radicals, the Johnson Amendment is not exactly a robust force in the scheme of things. This weakness in American secularism has made Christianism a powerful force in American politics.
In a brazen quest for power, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has voted to prohibit President Joe Biden from Holy Communion until he renounces his liberal position on legal abortion.
Christianism does not only undermine freedom; it threatens law and order. In response to the feeling that the country they knew is slipping from their fingers, White Christians and their representatives in Congress have supported the violent insurrection of January 6, 2021, as a means of regaining control. As a result, the Christianism of the Republican Party has become closely allied with the violence of white supremacy. This alliance has elicited a visceral reaction from the Left, which has made fighting racism its priority. The clash accounts for the country’s increasing political dysfunction and gun violence.
What is at issue is not simply a domestic affair. Christianism makes American foreign policy muddy, if not meaningless. With Republicans eager to make America a Christian nation, does it make any sense for the United States to insist that it is the leader of the “free world”? French President Emmanuel Macron does not think so. He has complained to President Biden that in the wake of the Islamist terror that France has suffered, including the decapitation of teacher Samuel Pety, the American media has not mustered the courage to support French secularism. Instead of defending freedom of speech and debate, American media blamed the victims by accusing France of Islamophobia. It stands to reason that a country reeling from Christianist violence is in no position to fight Islamist violence. So, what is this military behemoth fighting for?