Public Square

Regardless of your individual position on the HHS Contraception Mandate, the Catholic Church, and the controversy surrounding it, the following quote from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch should at least raise your eyebrows.

For this entry, in the words of the great orator, "Let me be clear", I do not want this to devolve into a debate on the HHS Mandate or the Catholic response.  "Let me be clear," I do not care it you are pro-HHS, pro-Catholic, anti-HHS, anti-Catholic, or "Hey, let's skip the anchovies tonight, pass the Xbox controller".  Got it?

Now the quote (emphasis added):

This editorial page has profound respect for the work of the Catholic Church and its individual members in health care, education and social justice. We do not take issue with church beliefs or internal operations, regardless of the church, as long as they do not enter the public square. The U.S. bishops, in their call for civil disobedience, have entered the square.

Anyone notice anything?  If you guessed that I have an issue with the keep your religion private and out of the public sound to it, then you win the prize.  According to the editors, it's OK if the Guys in Pointy Hats with Large Crooked Sticks have opinions, and beliefs, just keep them confined to those buildings with the + signs on the funny sticky up roofs. 

I am certain that the good editors will make the same remarks when Guys in Pointy Hats (Catholic) or Guys and Girls in Pointy Hats (Episcopalian) speak out for open borders, ending the "war on terror", helping the homeless, increased public aid, care for those who suffer for the sake of conscience, banking controls, and universal health care*.  Right?  They are consistent right?  (Now, lest you think I have a political axe to grind here, please refer to paragraph two and insert issue in the underlined space).

What I am saying, is that I would guess the editors would have no problem with religion being inserted into the public square as long as those who inserted religion agreed with the editors' positions.  If this be the case, it is necessarily consequential that only the right kind of Guys in Pointy Hats, or religious people are allowed to "enter the public square".  If I may ask a question of the editors, are only the right kind of Catholics allowed in this debate?  If that is indeed the subtle message, I find it chilling.  Is this limited to Catholics only, or are only the acceptable sort of (insert minority religion/people group here) welcome to bring their core values and ontological selves into the public square for debate and to influence political and cultural decisions? Oh, wait, that has happened before (need I name names?) and classic liberalism abhors it.

On the other hand, maybe the editors just mean that religion should have no place in the public square?  If that's the case, it's all the more chilling as a Christian cannot be a Christian at home and in worship only.   I introduce as evidence Hymn 293 in the Hymnal 1982:

They lived not only in ages past, there are hundreds of thousands still, the world is bright with the joyous saints who love to do Jesus' will. You can meet them in school, or in lanes, or at sea, in church, or in trains, or in shops, or at tea, for the saints of God are just folk like me, and I mean to be one too.

No matter your politics, the subtle push to separate faith from public action and discourse should cause concern.

*Actually, the USCCB has argued strongly for many of these positions, and should be applauded.  Now, that might be a political statement.