I was listening to the iTunes podcast of Bill Moyer’s Journal, and he was discussing the idea of separation of church and state, beginning by reporting on the Pope’s concern that the United States was becoming a “secularized” society, as if that were some form of evil, like creeping fascism. I griped internally that it never fails to tire me when religious people try to force religion into the public square and down our throats. But in an effort to see things from both sides, I then reflected on the idea that maybe they see people like me in the same light: trying to shove my secularism and science down their throats.

But when I got through, I came out with the conclusion that secularism and science are appropriate as a public standard whereas religion is not. The principle behind that is the ultimate fairness of the neutral starting point: we begin at zero, with no pre-standing biases or beliefs–a level playing field, in other words–and work from that point forward.

Secularism is very close to, if not the embodiment of, that fair and equal starting point; nobody gets an advantage, all are treated equally. In contrast, having religious faith be a public standard is far from that; it disrespects those who choose not to have a belief in religion. And let’s face it, in most cases, people who say they want “faith” or “belief” in general to be the standard really want their faith, to the exclusion of all others, to be that standard–which is why Christians became furious when a Hindu was allowed to give the invocation in the U.S. Senate. And it’s not just other religions; when it comes down to it, any other sect tends to become the enemy just as easily. In which case it is not just the atheists and agnostics who suffer, it is every religious sect aside from the dominant one who suffers. Not a level playing field, by far. Thus, secularism is the best safeguard for the freedom of all beliefs, including religious beliefs.

Resentment against such fairness comes from the propensity of individuals to consider their preferred state as the starting point, instead of a truly neutral environment. A person of faith might actually consider a state of religious faith to be the “neutral” or fair environment from which to build; their bias could preclude them from considering the idea that others may not share their views, or that such people are by nature evil or at least lacking any sense of morality. But intolerance is not a good benchmark for equality, and thus the “equal” or “fair” judgment of such people falls somewhat short.

It’s kind of like arguing with militant smokers, who will not accept that a room with clear air is a fair starting point, instead insisting that the starting point is that you do what you want and I do what I want, and if you want me to stop smoking, then we negotiate from there–if I even feel like negotiating.

Again, I have to consider the idea that maybe my starting point of a blank slate is unreasonable, and I have tried to work that out. The answer I come away with is that the blank slate can always be fairly applied, whereas the “everyone is doing whatever they want” starting point, or the “my way is the natural way” starting point can easily be shown as unfair by applying it to any number of situations you would naturally recognize as unfair (e.g., you want everyone to have privacy, but I want to photograph you in the shower; shall we start from there?).

The more reasonable approach to the injection of religion into public affairs is to say that “my religious faith is part of who I am, and I cannot leave it behind when I act in public.” The pope expressed this when he warned of the dangers of secularism:

“Is it consistent to profess our beliefs in church on Sunday, and then during the week to promote business practices or medical procedures contrary to those beliefs? Is it consistent for practicing Catholics to ignore or exploit the poor and the marginalized, to promote sexual behavior contrary to Catholic moral teaching, or to adopt positions that contradict the right to life of every human being from conception to natural death?”

This claim is reasonable only up to a certain point: when it stops being about what the person of faith does related to their own private lives, and starts being about what other people choose to do. When your faith begins to impede on the free choice, beliefs, and actions of others, you have crossed a line that cannot rightly or fairly be crossed.

The pope skimmed very close to the line of being objectionable (and crossed the line when he touched on abortion); he held back only by saying that it was wrong to promote actions or ethics the church found unreasonable, or to commit actions that could universally be regarded as wrong. Okay, as far as that goes, I agree; I would not expect a Christian opposed to abortion on religious moral grounds to promote abortion for the sake of secularism. It is, however, a completely different matter if that same person tries to ban abortion for those very same reasons. Not promoting is a personal choice; banning is interfering with the choice of others, which clearly crosses the line.

And that line is defined by a neutral starting point: neither one person’s Catholicism nor another person’s Atheism is the defining standard from which we must move forward, nor is anyone else’s belief system. It must be a neutral starting point. What likely ires many militant religious people is that a neutral starting point, to them, seems like Atheism. That’s why they tend to see Science as some Atheist plot; in order to stay true to scientific principles, you must begin from a neutral, objective starting point–which is also why Science is appropriate as a subject in public schools, free from interference by “faith” or religion: Science teaches us only what is observable and demonstrable. If the real, measurable, observable world comes across as an “attack” on your religious faith, then that shows up a problem in your religious beliefs, not a problem with the fairness of the science curriculum in our schools.

And it is no reason for me to surrender the precious and invaluable gift of secularism (a gift to those with religious faith as much as it is to everyone else) just because those with “faith” cannot bring themselves to play fair.