Religion and Politics: Oil and Water

August 9 2004
Counterbias.com
Dennis Jones

``Our founders expected that Christianity - and no other religion - would receive support from the government as long as that support did not violate peoples' consciences and their right to worship. They would have found utterly incredible the idea that all religions, including paganism, be treated with equal deference.'' - Family Research Council

"The Republican Party of Texas affirms the United States of America is a Christian Nation ..." - State of Texas GOP Platform, 2004

"Ladies and gentlemen, Christianity offers the only viable, reasonable, definitive answer to the questions of 'Where did I come from?' 'Why am I here?' 'Where am I going?' 'Does life have any meaningful purpose?' Only Christianity offers a way to understand that physical and moral border. Only Christianity offers a comprehensive worldview that covers all areas of life and thought, every aspect of creation. Only Christianity offers a way to live in response to the realities that we find in this world -- only Christianity." - Tom DeLay, Majority Leader of the House of Representatives

Statements like these help to explain the depth of feelings in the body politic. They are the raw meat that fuels the extreme animosity that characterizes American politics today. I thought that America was supposed to be a place of great diversity. I thought that all were equal; not that some were more equal than others. I do not suggest that people who believe thusly have no right to express their beliefs. Far from it, but because of the exclusivity of their nature I believe that they pose a great danger to American democracy. But I could be wrong.

Religion has served as a valuable anchor in the lives of millions of people since the founding of our republic. Because of the first amendment the variations of religion in the United States is truly staggering. It is said that America is the most religious of the major industrialized states and I believe it. We have religions that believe in the use of hallucinogens (I like those); religions that believe that your money should be theirs (read: Falwell, Robertson et al); many religions that believe that they are the chosen people and the rest of us are toast; religions that are proud of the objectification of women; religions that worship animals and others that worship plants. We have Catholics, Methodists, Mormons, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, Christian Scientists and many more. If you want to divine the future by reading the entrails of a liberal, knock yourself out. We have so many different religions in this country that if you can't find one that you like then you ain't trying! And if you don't find one, make up your own. In itself that idea neither paralyzes me with fear nor rejoices me. If religion is what it takes to help you get through your life, then more power to you, brother.

I should point out here that I have nothing in particular against any religion or against religion in general. I am a believer, but I am not attracted to any organized strain. I hold no prejudice against anyone's beliefs. I am convinced that non-believers are just as moral as the rest of us. This makes me an alien in many circles. Likewise I hold no animus for those of the right who band around their faith and use it to organize for political purposes.  They have every right to do so. It would be ludicrous for anyone to argue that in the political sphere a person should be completely divorced from his faith. However, I don't think that Jesus was a monetary conservative. And I am almost positive that he never expressed a belief in the untrammeled right to bear arms in any quantity and of any quality. But I could be wrong, so it doesn't bother me that others seem to hold those views.

The intrusion of religious morals into policy is another matter. In this country when I say religion, I mean Christianity. Adherents of the other major religions seem willing to coexist without forcing their views on the rest of us. The reality of their numbers says that they have no choice. That doesn't mean that Christians are mean, arrogant, stupid, uncaring, and biased or anything else. It means that because of their overwhelming numerical superiority they have been emboldened to try to advance their beliefs as law. In my opinion that is the wrong way to go, but I could be wrong.

I'm not talking about 'under God' in the pledge of allegiance. I'm not referring to prayer in public schools, public squares, political venues or anywhere else. I'm not considering whether or not 'In God We Trust' should be on our money. Where to post the Ten Commandments doesn't bother me too much. Those and similar hot buttons in the public discourse are of very little consequence to me. I think that in the perfect secular world for which our government is supposed to strive the answer to those arguments would be obvious. Like oil and water, religion and politics do not combine well. Contrariwise, the warriors of the religious right seem to think that freedom will rise or fall on the outcome of those clashes. I remain unpersuaded, but I could be wrong.

The issues to which I refer strode onto the public stage beginning on January 22, 1973. For those of you to whom history remains a complete mystery, that was the date that the Supreme Court handed down the decision in Roe v. Wade. The issue of abortion is undoubtedly one of the most contentious in this country since the end of slavery. I understand why those in the pro-life movement oppose it and I do not mock them for their belief. I am pro-choice but I personally do not like abortion. To me it all too frequently substitutes for birth control and I think that's wrong. But I don't feel that the government should be in the business of telling women that they have no control over their reproductive rights. Why don't the right-to-life people put their efforts into making abortion much less common? If abortion is to be made illegal, what will the penalty be for a woman who has one, or a doctor who performs one? Are pro-lifers prepared to build more prisons to hold these people? Are they ready to address the many, many problems which will inevitably follow from all of those unwanted births? Are pro-lifers ready to address the problem of decent sex education in schools and easy and quality contraception to help prevent the situations that now all too commonly result in unwanted pregnancy? I doubt it, but I could be wrong.

Many on the right push for the introduction of 'creationism' into the school curriculum and the expulsion of the theory of evolution. Without any evidence of any kind they believe that we should start teaching religion in our schools. They believe that we should ignore the record of history which seems to point to the validity of evolution. I have no problem with the theory of creation, but lacking evidence I would like to see it remain in the realm of religion. I have faith in the youth of our country that when the two are presented to them they will be able to sort things out for themselves. Would the introduction of religion into the school curriculum be anything but contentious? But I could be wrong.

For substantially the same reason that they oppose abortion, many conservatives believe that we should outlaw the idea of embryonic stem cell research. I could not look people in the eye who suffer from diabetes, spinal cord injury, Parkinson's disease and many other afflictions if I believed that we weren't doing everything possible to help relieve their suffering. I understand the views of the right, and I don't believe that they should be forced to participate. But for couples who want to donate their unused embryos instead of seeing them destroyed why can't we go forward with what may be the greatest breakthrough in medicine since the discovery of antibiotics? Those who oppose this research argue that their taxes shouldn't go to support something which violates their moral principles. I agree. We'll use the taxes that I pay which would otherwise be used to create a missile defense program which does not work now and probably never will work.  Of course, I could be wrong.

Finally, the warriors of the right ask us to cut out a portion of our countrymen from the group and deny them the basic rights and privileges which the rest of us enjoy. For months now I have repeatedly heard opponents of gay marriage decry the very idea that the 'sanctity' of marriage will be destroyed and that marriage for heterosexuals will crumble if we grant gays this privilege with its numerous attendant rights. If just one of them would advance one way that might happen I might agree. They have not. Many of us dance around the subject by using the term 'civil union' to avoid committing to what we believe is right. If that is what it takes to get opponents to go along its okay by me, but it would have to include all of the benefits that go to straights. If you ask me it is a stupid exercise in semantics. But I could be wrong.

The long history of our country has been a constant effort to correct the errors that our founders made when they adopted the Constitution. We ended slavery, introduced women's suffrage, assured the right to vote and established a Bill of Rights - all to correct those deficiencies. Others remain, so the work goes on. Only once have we been seduced into inserting a moral ban into that great document. In 1918 we banned the sale and consumption of alcohol. I know that those who backed the idea were well meaning, but it was a miserable failure. It was so bad that we quickly repealed the idea - the only time in our history when we have done so.

Now we are asked to discriminate against gays  because some of us think that homosexuality is 'wrong' by inserting an amendment into the Constitution prohibiting gay marriage. I'm not buying it. They argue that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. I find that idea ludicrous. Who really believes that millions of our fellow citizens choose to be outcasts in society? It flies in the face of reason and it ignores the evidence in nature. I had an anthropology  professor in college who pointed out that anything which exists in nature is by definition 'natural'. It may not be normal, meaning that it differs from the norm, but natural it is. To my knowledge homosexuality exists in every other species on the earth. Who knows why, but it clearly isn't a personal choice.

And what is it that underlies these issues? Clearly it is religion. Liberals believe that morality is subjective and conservatives believe that it is unchanging. Liberals argue that morals are defined by all as we live our lives. Conservatives are positive that the Bible is the unerring guidepost to living to which we all owe obedience. The world is a big enough place for both sides to have their views. Who am I to say which is correct? Who are you? I know that this may come as a complete shock to my conservative friends, but the Bible has no standing in law in America. Not even a little bit. It may be the absolute word of God. Or it may be just a religious book. Who am I to say? Who are you? The foundation of law in the United States is the Constitution in which there are no references to that work. There is also no reference to God. That emphatically does not mean that the founders were not religious men. And it doesn't mean that religious men should be banned from politics. On the contrary, the first amendment specifically guarantees their participation. What it means is that the founders believed that there was a place for religion in life and a place for law and that the two were not one and the same.

I am not asking anyone to change their views. I am asking that I not be forced to change mine. If a clear damage to another does not exist I do not believe that personal morals belong in law. If we are to be truly free in this country then we must be able to live side-by-side with those with whom we do not agree. You are free to live your life according to your personal beliefs. I am having a difficult enough time getting through my own life without telling you how to live yours. If you persist in trying to impose your morals on me, then we shall have much angst in the public discourse. If we are to get past all of this hatred and vicious name-calling then we are going to have to accept that we may be  wrong in our religious beliefs and that others may be right. Instead of the incessant judging of others, we may have to leave the judgment to the Creator. About that I am sure that I am right.