Protecting god from government

Last night in an evangelical church the size of a warehouse Barack Obama and John Mccain participated in their first presidential debate of sorts. The candidates were subjected to an intense value based interrogation conducted by none other than Saddleback minister and best selling author Reverend Rick Warren. While the debate seemed to have an effective format—both candidates were interviewed separately by the minister—and provided the candidates with opportunities to express their policies in more depth than the typical 20 second sound bite, the event provides an unnerving commentary on the current state of the US political system.

When did denominations become the forum for executive discourse?

Should presidential candidates be debating policy in churches under the direction of a religious leader?

Separation of church and state is a fundamental guiding principle of the US political system. In fact, it is so fundamental, that if it hadn't been for a bunch of Brits that were tired of the state sponsored Church of England, Native Americans would probably just be known as Americans and this blog would probably have something to do with Parliamentary policy.

What would Thomas Jefferson—a man who refused to put his hand on the Bible when he was sworn into office and fought vehemently to keep religion out of government—have thought about a debate between candidates vying to lead the country hosted by the leader of a church?

What would evangelical Americans have thought if the debate had been hosted in a Mosque with an Imam as moderator? Would such a forum have been an acceptable platform for a discussion of values or are we drifting towards a state sponsored religion?

There are many who would argue that the United States is a “Christian Nation” and that therefore “Christian” values should determine our legal structure. But is this notion any different than the Anglican sponsored government that the Mayflower sailed away from, or the the Islamic governments of which the current administration is so critical? And whose christianity are we talking about? Is it the Christianity of David Koresh and Warren Jeffs, or is Pat Robertson’s Christianity the only acceptable variety?

Sure, Jefferson references the creator in the Declaration of Independence as a rhetorical device (it’s widely accepted among historians that Jefferson was not Christian, but was in fact a Deist) while introducing the concept of inalienable rights. In so doing, however, he is carefully ambiguous in his reference to a creator so-as to insure that the concepts of inalienable rights are all inclusive. In fact the concept of god does not make its way into any of the other founding documents of the government of the United Sates. It appears that the founders were indeed wary of the quandary which brought the pilgrims across the murky depths.

What about “one nation under God”?

Added in 1952 as part of the national propaganda campaign designed to make the communists godless and evil thereby galvanizing the populous around the cold war cause.

“In God we trust”?

Added in 1864 as a response to a right wing faction that felt our coinage should pay homage to the almighty.

So what’s the big deal?

Most people believe in god in some respect, so what’s the problem with including a little god in government?

Reason #1: Separation of church and state is essential to preserving religious freedom.

The more one form of religion becomes favored by the state the more the laws of the state will favor that religion. This may not sound like a big deal when talking about concepts which are common among religions like banning gay marriage, but what happens when the church in question continues to advance their agenda within the halls of government?

Many evangelical churches, for example, believe the Book of Mormon and the Qur'an to be just as evil as homosexuality. It wouldn’t take a giant leap from restricting gay marriage to the restriction of speech or of religious expressions from minority faiths like mormon temple worship or the wearing of the Hijab or Yarmulke for Muslims or Jews.

In order to preserve rights for minority religions it is critical that religious factions not gain control of the government. If the US government adopts a state religion, even if it is unofficial, religious freedoms will begin to disappear, and the pilgrims dream to worship their maker as they saw fit will have failed.

Reason #2: Separation of church and state is critical to furthering political compromise for the common good.

The right wing religious political rhetoric movement has been particularly successful in making politics a matter of religious belief. This effort has succeeded in polarizing the American people by making politics a matter of religious faith rather than a mater of civic responsibility. As a result, political viewpoints are no longer merely ideas which may be subject to criticism and modified through discussion and compromise to serve the common good. Instead, political viewpoints have become a matter of religious faith and uncompromising belief. It is no longer acceptable to have a debate about how economic policy might benefit the common good because debating the issue is equivalent to debating religious doctrine.

What has been the result of this?

Nothing short of a political deadlock.

Our government is built so that the best decisions will be made when opposing sides will sit down together and find common ground. When this does not happen we are stuck with legislative stagnation and “do nothing” congresses. The public good cannot be served because nothing gets done.

Political arguments must be secular. They must be subject to debate, compromise, and logic. When political arguments become spiritual, they are no longer subject to logic, but rather to faith. Faith is not subject to debate or compromise. Faith, ideally is unwavering. A political system based on faith would only be successful if it was in fact run by the creator. Under our system, however, political arguments founded in spirituality devolve into doctrinal debates. Trying to run a political system by searching for cross-denominational agreement on doctrine would be akin to two individuals attempting to paddle an aircraft carrier in opposite directions with their bare hands.

Don’t believe me? Just try getting a Catholic and a Mormon to agree on something as simple as the nature of the relationship between God and Jesus Christ, and then you’ll have an idea of the impact Jerry Falwell’s dream has had on congress.

This is not to say that the values of religious people cannot enter into political debate. It is to say, however, that such positions must be made in a way which uses empirical evidence and rational arguments rather than religious beliefs at their core. If an argument cannot be made in such a way, it does not belong in democratic legislative discourse.

For example, as a christian I may believe that people will be happier when they behave in altruistic ways. As a social scientist, however, I cannot simply submit a paper to a scientific journal making such a claim because my church says so. The editors would laugh me out of the profession. Instead, I would need to find a way to test my belief empirically and then present it in a rational way which would not exclude others who do not have the same religious beliefs as I do.

Political discourse needs to be held to the same standard. If you cannot make an argument for outlawing gay marriage without referencing the Bible, for example, then the argument does not belong in a legislative discussion. If you are going to make such an argument, then you need to find empirical evidence that invoking such a law would serve the public good and make a rational argument based on logic (I have yet to see such an argument on this particularly issue incidentally). Then, in the service of the public good, you might need to compromise on your position as your arguments are analyzed or refuted based on other existing empirical evidence.

As long as political viewpoints are synonymous with religious belief we will remain stuck. Particularly since much of the politicization of religion has virtually no doctrinal base.

For the life of me, I can’t understand how a religion founded by someone whose only position on taxes was “render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's” can be the “source” of any sort of comprehensive fiscal policy!

Reason #3: Separation of church and state is essential to preserving religion.

It doesn’t take a person knocking on doors in Europe as a Mormon missionary very long to notice that most Europeans have an aversion to organized religion—it took me about 3 doors. It isn’t that there are not spiritual people in Europe, in fact most of the people I met in Europe were very spiritual—they’re just sick of religion.

We’re talking about a continent, where for centuries, the government abused and took advantage of people in the name of a church. Government abuses like the crusades, restriction of freedoms, and unfair taxation were frequently instigated either by the church or in the name of the church. It’s no surprise, then, that animosity for the various European theocracies of the middle ages still lingers.

Over the course of history, the governments in Europe have changed but the religions haven’t (in fact, in some countries a percentage of the people’s taxes still goes to the national church—something which many europeans are not happy about). The link between the old government and the church has created enmity between the European people and the concept of organized religion. If we continue to blur this line in our own country, the result will inevitably be the same. The only way to protect organized religion is to keep it out of government.

In conclusion, preventing prayer in schools, or removing the ten commandments from courtrooms is not a liberal plot to take god out of government. If anything, ensuring that the line between church and state is a distinct uncrossable boundary is protecting god from government.

For more on the moral majority politics feel free to read this blog from a few months ago.