The Declaration of Independence was a response to interference by King George III in the affairs of American life. Today we face a similar threat from the religious right. The Declaration of Independence was a set of grievances against King George; I believe we need a similar declaration against the attempt, usually not so subtle, to impose an extreme religious view point not widely shared on all Americans. Presented herewith is a proposed Declaration of Religious Independence. Nothing in this document would have been controversial among the Enlightenment thinkers our founders considered themselves - with some justification - to be. - MV
Declaration of Religious Independence
We hold these truths to be self-evident:
That no issue is more divisive among otherwise intelligent, compassionate, reasonable men and women than religion;
That in a pluralistic society of many faiths including none at all, our founders were wise to create a secular republic rather than a theocracy;
That if the founders intended a theocracy, they would have mentioned god - even once - in the Constitution. Had they intended a Christian theocracy, they would have mentioned Jesus Christ - even once - in the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, or any of the Federalist Papers (as it turns out, they did not);
That when George Washington and John Adams wrote that the United States is "in no way a Christian nation" they meant that we are in no way a Christian nation and not something else;
That Article VI of the Constitution forbidding any "religious test" as a qualification for any office or public trust means just that;
That the only legitimate role of government in religion is to have no role except to protect the rights of all citizens to worship freely or not at all as their consciences see fit unless when to do so will materially harm or endanger their fellow citizens;
That questions of metaphysics such as the existence of god or gods and what to call him are deeply personal matters over which intelligent people have the sacred right to disagree;
That despite our differences over unprovable metaphysical questions, we can agree on certain universal ethical principles the fruits of which are tangible and real. These include honesty, humility, kindness, charity, forgiveness, and fairness.
That the core ethical teachings of all religions and secular belief systems, however imperfectly, hold a common ideal of ethical reciprocity - do unto others as you would have them do unto you, and do not do unto others as you would not have them do unto you.
That government should never have the power to uphold or protect one religion over another since the power to show preference today is the power to persecute tomorrow.
That those chosen for high office should be judged based on what they do rather than what they say they believe. Men and women who engage in good behavior have no need to tell us they are good; their actions speak for themselves. The launching of an unjust war or the execution of an innocent should never be excused because the person engaging in these acts claims to be acting on divine authority.
That we all have the right to believe or follow a divine authority or six or none at all, but those who believe that loyalty to an unseen deity trumps loyalty to their constituents or the Constitution should disclose this up front and not take vows they cannot keep to uphold and protect a Constitution they hold subordinate to other documents not ratified or endorsed by the people;
That there is a difference between choosing personally not to engage in a particular behavior and banning that behavior for all citizens of all faiths at all times. Law-makers who personally would never eat pork or seek an abortion should not attempt to to impose kosher dietary laws or abortion prohibition simply because of their religious affiliation or belief. They represent their constituents not their own personal beliefs, and their primary loyalty as government officials must be to the Constitution not an unelected foreign official who has no authority over the American legislative or judicial process.
That public bullying or intimidation of lawmakers of a particular faith by unelected officials of that faith has no place in a nation of laws. If an archbishop does not wish to give communion to an elected official if he represents his constituents, he should discuss this private matter with his parishioner, not hold a press conference to intimidate others into obedience.
And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence or none at all, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
