It was electrifying to hear an American President declare before the Turkish Parliament, “The United States has been enriched by Muslim Americans. Many other Americans have Muslims in their families or have lived in a Muslim-majority country — I know, because I am one of them.” A truly extraordinary and important moment.
\nBut I have one quibble about Obama’s message in Turkey. In trying to walk the tightrope between the “religious” parties in Turkey (which now hold power) and the “secular” parties, he missed a great opportunity.<\/p>\n
It was electrifying to hear an American President declare before the Turkish Parliament, “The United States has been enriched by Muslim Americans. Many other Americans have Muslims in their families or have lived in a Muslim-majority country — I know, because I am one of them.” A truly extraordinary and important moment. But I have…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":49,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-801","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"yoast_head":"\n
\nIn the Islamic world (and among conservative Christians in the U.S.) there is a common misconception that you need to choose between having a secular government or a religious society. Obama rubbed up against this tension when he said that “freedom of religion and expression leads to a strong and vibrant civil society that only strengthens the state.”
\nTrue, but to me that emphasizes the wrong lesson from American history. Our experience has proven that a secular state leads to religious vibrancy.
\nIn his old age, President James Madison was asked to reflect on whether separation of church and state (and religious freedom) had succeeded. Naturally, he said, yes — but what was interesting were the reasons he gave. You can tell it succeed, he explained, because America seemed more religious.
\n“No doubt exists that there is much more of religion among us now than there ever was before the change,” he wrote. “This proves rather more than that the law is not necessary to the support of religion.” What’s more, the quality of the clergy had improved. “Religious instruction is now diffused throughout the Community by preachers of every sect with almost equal zeal…. The qualifications of the Preachers, too among the new sects where there was the greatest deficiency, are understood to be improving.” On the question of whether clergy could survive without state support, the jury was in: “the number, the industry, and the morality of the Priesthood and the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the Church from the State.”
\nObviously this vision — that religious freedom leads to religious vibrancy — was not always apparent in America. Though we’re accustomed to thinking of “theocracy” as the dangerous form of government invented by radical Muslims, it was one of Massachusetts’ early Puritan leaders, John Cotton, who declared, “Theocracy, or to make the Lord God our governor, is the best form of government in a Christian commonwealth.”
\nThe founders of the Constitutional era rejected Cotton’s formula, and went instead with a unique combination — a secular government designed to encourage a religious society. In all likelihood, a separation of Mosque and State would lead to a more vibrant, healthier Islam.
\nPrinted first on The Wall Street Journal Online<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"