John Kasich is Not a Laicist: A Brief Case Study in Secular Rhetoric

% of readers think this story is Fact. Add your two cents.

In The Politics of Secularism in International Relations (2008), Elizabeth Shakman Hurd makes a helpful distinction between two models of secularism: “laicism” and “Judeo-Christian secularism.” Laicism, or laïcité, upholds a “strict” form of separation not just between church and state, but between religion and the government. This model results in a variety of intended and unintended consequences, one being the secular state’s necessary definition of “religion” itself—and thus its interaction or intermingling with its negatively defined and co-constituted realm. As C.S. Adcock has written, “the secular state operates to define, constitute, and regulate religion; far from a contradiction in terms, the secular state invariably interferes in religion” (24). Laicist nations, such as France and Turkey, rather than taking an equal-opportunity approach to public religious display, attempt to keep things religious as far from things public as possible.

Americans, for the most part, have held to the other model: Judeo-Christian secularism. Until the middle of the twentieth century (and perhaps well after) we might call it Protestant secularism. Under this model, the state is secular—meaning that church and state are officially separated and no one denomination is officially preferred over another—but the state’s values, even when referred to as “universal,” are derived from (Judeo-)Christianity. We can find an example of this American secularism in Thomas Jefferson, who introduced his famous bill for “establishing religious Freedom” by stipulating that “Almighty God hath created the mind free” and that “Truth is great, and will prevail if left to herself.” Hurd notes a more recent example. George W. Bush, while promoting secular democracy in Iraq, said, “liberty is both the plan of Heaven for humanity and the best hope for progress here on earth” (37). Down to the problematic assumption that “liberty” follows “democracy,” Bush sounded downright Jeffersonian, truly an American Judeo-Christian secularist. Hurd deadpans, “President Bush was not a laicist.” Neither is John Kasich.

“We need to beam messages around the around about what it means to have a Western ethic,” Kasich said, explaining the purpose of his proposed agency. But what is a “Western ethic” anyway? Kasich clarifies, “It means freedom; it means opportunity; it means respect for women; it means freedom to gather; it means so many things.” It sounds like a Western ethic is simply a version of liberalism. What if he had said “universal values” instead? This language, addressing “the human” and “the universal,” (which, of course, obscures its particularity) is more common among politicians and world leaders. Now, whether, how, and to what extent modern human rights is really based in Christianity are good questions worthy of good discussion. But there are at least some reasons to argue genealogically that Kasich’s conflation of Western with Judeo-Christian, especially in terms of individual political rights, is not off-base.

President Obama, remarking on the attacks in Paris last weekend, said, “This is an attack not just on Paris, it’s an attack not just on the people of France, but this is an attack on all of humanity and the universal values that we share.” This attack can be blamed only on “terrorism and extremism,” opposed to “the timeless values of human progress” represented by Paris itself. Vice President Biden put an even finer point on this boundary-drawing, arguing that France and the United States “are bound by timeless democratic values that the cowardice and perverse ideologues of extremist networks can never match, wherever they are. Such savagery can never threaten who we are.” On one side, we have humanity, progress, timelessness, universal values, and “we all.” On the other side, extremism, terrorism, savagery.

By appealing to humanity, Obama’s secular rhetoric (in addition to constructing monstrous anti-humans) appears to distance itself from particularities like Western or Christian, even as his universal values are identifiably liberal. Kasich wants none of this secularization. “It’s essential, by the way,” he noted, “that those in the West begin to embrace again our Jewish and Christian tradition, rather than running from it, hiding from it…” NBC’s Peter Alexander interrupted to ask, “What does that say to atheists and Buddhists and Muslims and all the others who live in our melting pot?” Alexander wants to know if embracing the Judeo-Christian tradition is exclusionary, insufficiently pluralistic, and thus not secular. In other words, is Kasich really a secularist? Kasich’s telling response began, “I also think we have many moderate Muslims who share our views…and they should be included in this, and they’d be a very effective part of this.” So, “moderate Muslims”—as opposed to “extremists”—might be “Western” and liberal too. In fact, this is what marks them as “moderate.”

The State Department already has something not so different from what Kasich proposed. The Office of Religion and Global Affairs seems to beam messages about what Kasich calls a “Western ethic.” The office is led by “Special Representative,” a religion expert who also happens to be a liberal Protestant theologian. The Office of Religion and Global Affairs, however, does not export Judeo-Christian values. Instead, it works with religious groups to promote “core U.S. values like respect for the human rights of members of minority and marginalized groups, pluralism, tolerance, and sensitivity to and respect for the beliefs and traditions of others.” Hardly a laicist operation.

Perhaps Kasich’s plan is not an abnegation of American secularism but actually a more honest acknowledgment of how it works. At the very least, it’s worth asking, Are Kasich’s “Judeo-Christian values” substantively different from Obama’s “universal values” and “timeless values of human progress”?