|
The relationship between religion and politics in American life is complex, depending on the context and the definitions applied to both. Allow me to make a number of arguably non-controversial, even banal observations on the subject of religion and politics generally and the American case in particular.
1.Religion is a basic element of human landscape across time and cultures. This is true even if we agree with Norris and Inglehart (Sacred and Secular — Religion and Politics Worldwide, Cambridge, 2004) that economic and political change determines the strength or weakness of religious belief in respective cases. While contemporary Europe may offer an example of how increasing security and well-being decrease religious belief and practice, the usefulness of such a model for analyzing the present global context of relative insecurity and instability seems like special pleading.
Practically speaking, global religiosity including the American case continues to suggest that even if "mood swing" responses to the condition of a nation's political economy may diminish religious belief and behavior, religiosity remains an imbedded part of cultural life, usually penetrating core elements of society like the individual, the family, the laws and customs, the military, the arts, literature, etc. Like many other societies in the world today including those of the Muslim, Christian, and Jewish Middle East, America is and always has been deeply religious at many levels. In recognizing this, we have said nothing about whether religion is a good or bad thing for human beings.
|
In recognizing that America is religious, we have said nothing about whether religion is a good or bad thing for human beings.
|
2. The relationship between religion and politics is fluid, changing form and substance depending on context and constituents. Religion manifests itself in so many ways that generalizations are hazardous. Whether in private or the public square, religious belief and practice express so many needs and relationships. As an intrinsic expression of human need along a spectrum of fear and desire, the religious impulse can manifest alternately sublime offerings that elevate people and nations, or degrade deeds that embarrass even the basest of souls — and sometimes it can do both of these in the life of the same individual or nation!
Because the particular nature of religious belief and practice in respective cases is contingent, it seems fruitless to either defend its sublimity or to condemn its degradations.
| Religious influence in political life has and continues to inspire some of the greatest social movements of world history. |
Even if one could recite a catalogue of misdeeds and follies associated with organized religion or religious thinking — the catalogue would be very thick — it would only prompt volume two, the story of man's attempt to find a morally superior substitute. Would we find it in a more humanistic ideology? Perhaps, but more secular "isms" — communism, socialism, nationalism, Nazism, atheism, etc. — have arguably left us with a trail of devastation surely equal to the plague of religious ignorance and intolerance! There is no reason why a person cannot be nonreligious and moral at the same time — but the prospects for this too seem contingent.
But whatever the real or perceived foibles of religious influence in the life of many societies from East to West, it is foolish to ignore the genuine offerings, mercies, and graces inspired by religious life — charities, hospitals, educational institutions, emotional well-being, poetry, art, music, film, even science, etc. The list is as long to some as the failures are to others.
And whatever I said about the alternatingly negative interaction between religion on politics above, it is obvious that religious influence in political life has and continues to inspire some of the greatest social movements of world history from Africa and Asia to the Middle East and the Americas. Those interested in a wonderful, mixed account of religious influence in American history are directed to James Marone's often humorous but always interesting Hellfire Nation — the Politics of Sin in American History (Yale 2003).
|
Those who are suspicious of the role of organized religion in political life are on solid ground.
|
3. Those who are suspicious of the role of organized religion in political life are on solid ground. In some respects, the term "secular" belongs to the Enlightenment belief in the unaided use of reason as a means of determining facts and values as well as rights and duties. Such beliefs emerged not only from intellectual currents in science, frustrated by the stranglehold of organized religion over the interpretation of nature and social reality. They also grew out of hostility toward unholy alliances between established churches and the state, alliances often characterized by religious passion and prejudice mobilized in the service of unjust wars for the sake of official political and religious interest. Rightly or wrongly conceived, this kind of negative presumption toward the organized church and its abuse of religion found its way into the US Constitution as the anti-establishment clause.
In general, I favor of the negative presumption mentioned above as a part of our Constitution. The history of state-sponsored religion — any religion — is too full of abuse, misuse, manipulation, malice, crime, and cruelty to ignore the benefits of separating these two institutional pillars of human life and subjecting both to effective checks and balances.
I agree with those who argue that there are occasional injustices associated with state sponsorship of religion in the American case. For example, I disagree with President Bush's "faith-based initiatives," the idea that the government can fund religious organizations to perform charitable work otherwise provided by either private or non-religious agencies. While such programs may succeed on occasion in serving genuine human need, they end up corrupting both religion and the government by creating too many unhealthy incentives to perpetuate either funding at the expense of religious principle, or religious principles at the expense of human need. Personally, I feel that in the Middle East generally, Islam and Christianity and Judaism would be more vibrant politically and spiritually, if they disengaged their institutions from the state.
|
The key word is manipulation, not religion!
|
Those interested in probing this question, for its relevance to any culture, can do no better than to read the establishment clause cases of virtually any constitutional law book. This is a gold mine into the heart of American civil religion and the role of religion in American life generally. One good source is Constitutional Law and Politics, Sixth Edition, Volume 2 (Paperback) by David M. O'Brien.
The simple point here is that given the history of organized religion as a classic "majority" to violate the rights of "minorities," however defined, I am fully supportive of government attempts to assure that any majoritarian tendencies are subject to the constitutional checks and balances. Such views are not anti-religious, but rather like the Baptist tradition, considered safeguards to the integrity of both religion and political life.
Conclusion
America can be both religious and secular at the same time, since both are simply states of mind, and the same individual or group can be both in different contexts.
The US government is not a Christian government — the term makes no sense given the anti-establishment clause. This does not prevent a congressman or other political leader, like American voters generally, from expressing their views, religious or secular, in political agendas and proposed legislation. As long as the government is not funding or favoring religious institutions in some unconstitutional manner, religiously motivated political agendas, like secular ones, are entirely permissible.
While the US system is widely considered to be "democratic," Americans sometimes vote in their politicians on religious grounds. In what way does this affect America's "secularism"? This dichotomy was always based on a misunderstanding; the anti-establishment clause does not outlaw religion as political expression, it only seeks to limit state sponsorship of religion — churches, schools, religious organizations, or other forms of religious expression. People are free to vote their morality, religious or secular, any time they wish, and they do!
Meanwhile, concerning the idea of using of religion in political or election campaigns, I think it is the same as I think of any idea: It has the potential to do both good and harm. But there are many books out now about how politicians have manipulated religion for the sake of political gain. This will never stop as long as humans are humans, and it is the same with more secular ideas. The key word is manipulation, not religion!
|
