The proper interaction of religion and politics (or government, which is what politics is mainly about) is an important question and hotly debated in the blogosphere. However, much of the debate tends to be dogmatic. Those who are "religious" seem to argue that religion is good while those who are not religious seem to argue that religion is bad. I have occasionally expressed the view that when I get promoted to God, and have to decide what scourges to eliminate, I will first look at religion and cancer and then eliminate religion first, because it has done more harm than has cancer. I now have a few doubts about this position, and the purpose of this article is to stimulate some discussion of the matter.
A suit was recently filed claiming that the Federal Government
violated the Constitution by contracting [with] a Roman Catholic entity to help victims of human trafficking.
The American Civil Liberties Union said the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops was imposing its beliefs on victims of human trafficking by not allowing federal grant money to be used for contraception or abortion. . . .
The suit asks the court to stop the department from allowing its grants being spent in a way that is restricted by religious beliefs.
Contracting with a religious organization to provide humanitarian assistance which is consistent with its religions doctrines, even though the organization declines to provide ancillary services which are inconsistent with those doctrines, strikes me as neither bad or unlawful; there are doubtless many other organizations, religious and otherwise, willing to augment the organization's services along those lines. More to the point, I don't understand how Governmental support for an organization which declines to do something contrary to its religious beliefs (as distinguished from insisting on doing something solely religious in nature) constitutes anything approaching an establishment of religion. The situation would be quite different if an organization required, for example, that recipients of Governmentally supported benefits attend mass, confess their sins, or pray in order to receive those benefits. Still, there must be some valid basis for the notion that religious doctrine should have absolutely no impact on Government. Right?
This subject cannot reasonably be discussed (should that even be possible) without first attempting a working definition of religion. That is difficult, because it is quite easy to be excessively inclusive or exclusive. The following attempt at definition is based primarily on my perceptions of Christianity because, although I am not one, I think I have a better understanding of Christianity than of any other religion. And, of course, in the United States Christianity is at the moment and has historically been the most widely professed (if not all that widely followed) religion. For the purposes of discussion, Christianity will serve as an exemplar for religion, although it is not the most widely professed in the world. This is also useful because for most of us Judeo-Christian tradition is probably the most familiar.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Dr Dreadful
Interesting and thought-provoking piece once again, Dan. Just one thing (for now, anyway - provoking thoughts at this hour is like trying to provoke a lion who's just eaten a zebra):
"The other doctrinal teachings seem to have equally little to do with practical morality, with the exception of the existence and purposes of Heaven and Hell. These are seen as rewards and punishments for good and bad moral conduct..."
Actually, no - not with Christianity. Although Christians are encouraged to do good and emulate the example of Jesus, good deeds by themselves will not get you into heaven. The primary and only qualification for entry through the Pearly Gates is the acceptance of Christ as your lord and savior. Fail to do that, and even if you lead an impeccably selfless, charitable, philanthropic, ethical life - it'll still be Mordor for you.
I'm speaking in broad terms, of course - there are some Christian denominations with a less rigid view. But that is mainstream Christian doctrine.
2 - Brunelleschi
Well written and thoughtful.
I would only take issue with the part about notions of good and evil coming from religion. Religion adopted and grew by taking those subjects on.
Western ethics came from Aristotle, about 350 BC. You don't need any religion to do ethics.
As far as the general question from the article-is separation of church and state really so important, I would say yes, very much so. Government must get religion at arm's length and remain secular.
In some regions, religion and politics are the same thing. Look at Jerusalem and the mess Israel is in right now. That is what happens when religion and politics overlap.
Religion can not possibly guide government because there is no chance everyone in society will follow the same religion.
In America, the overwhelming majority claim to be Christians, and Christianity basically asks it's members for a pledge of allegiance one way or the other. That means these believers will put their allegiance to church or god ahead of their responsibilities to the public should they hold office. That's dangerous.
3 - Roger Nowosielski
Dan (Miller),
Just a preliminary comment. I'll have read your piece much more closely, so my present take on it may wrong. Still, food for thought.
Notice, please, your opening sentence:
"The proper interaction of religion and politics (or government, which is what politics is mainly about) is an important question and hotly debated in the blogosphere."
Having said that, you then go on - in that very first paragraph, mind you - setting yourself on the business of dealing with that question fairly and, to the extent possible, as objectively as can be, for a very good reason of course: people tend to get dogmatic/emotional, etc. whenever religion becomes the topic of the conversation. And then, when you throw politics into the pot, it's surely a double-whammy. Let's clear the air, you say, and think about these matters in a reasoned way.
All fine and good, Dan, except. . . . You start with a thesis concerning a relationship between R & P; and if that wasn't enough, you even bring in the idea of a "proper" relationship. I submit that the very relationship you speak of is, for all intents and purposes, nonexistent in present-day American politics. It may have had some validity going back to past civilizations and cultures, perhaps even to the early beginnings of American polity (though I'm not certain even of that and would have to re-think it) but it certainly would seem to me that it is absent from the current political scene.
Your listing of topics and hotly-debated issues - abortion vs. pro-choice, gay rights, etc - doesn't signify at all that some such relationship exists, only that a great part of the voting populace is still conflicted about those and other issues; and furthermore, that the divisions in question seem to (and perhaps even do) reflect divisions in with respect to religion (i.e., whether they're Christians, Protestants, atheists or agnostics). The fact that politicians are posturing to these widely divergent views is no proof either that the relationship in question exists; nor does the fact that these matters often find their way to the courts for resolution.
As I said, these are just preliminary comments based on a very superficial reading of your article, and I may well be wrong. I will do my homework and retract if and when I see that I was wrong. I hope you don't mind, however, my having posted them - in all likelihood prematurely - in case there be a need to strengthen your argument. Will get back to you soon.
Roger
4 - Dan(Miller)
Doc,
You are, of course,
rightcorrect, that belief in the trinity, acceptance of Jesus as one of the three parts of the trinity, the virgin birth, resurrection of the body, etc. are essential to Christianity. That's why I included those doctrinal aspects in the definition. True also, under my proposed definition, one can't properly be considered a Christian and therefore get into Heaven without belief in those things. Still, I consider them subordinate to belief in Heaven and Hell, since belief in them is the way to get into the one and to avoid the other; although I am told that passage into Heaven can be obtained by saying on one's death bed (and presumably meaning*) "I believe all that the Church believes and the Church believes all that I believe." So, in that sense I yield the point to you.However, it still seems to me that the need to get one's ticket punched doctrinally as a requisite to getting into Heaven and avoiding Hell has substantially less impact on morality than do the non-doctrinal teachings of Christianity. I don't see how belief in, e.g., the trinity can be a stimulus to doing good works or refraining from doing bad things, while acting on the precept "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" can be. Of the doctrinal teachings, only the promise of Heaven and the threat of Hell seem to impact upon actual conduct.
*Really meaning this would seem to require an exceptionally sophisticated knowledge of all that the Church believes and of all that one believes; a pretty high hurdle on one's death bed.
Dan(Miller)
5 - Mark Eden
If a religion boils down to dogma plus precepts, then how does it differ from a government? That is, aren't we actually looking at competing governments?
Mark
6 - Andy Marsh
Dan(Miller) - When I was a kid they always taught us in catholic school about this place called purgatory. A place where all the little BS sins were basically, burned away. Kind of a medium heat hell, if you will. Sometime during my kid days they (the church, the nuns, the priests, I'm not really sure who) did away with this "theory".
But I've always heard the argument that without religion there'd be no morality.
So, I guess the real question is, where do our morals come from? I don't think we're born with them. I think if you took a couple of Tarzan type people, you know born and raised in the wild, that they'd act just a bit differently than those of us raised in "civilized" society. That morality, at least what most people consider to be morality, doesn't really exist without the concept of religion, does it?
In the animal kingdom there's no do unto others, it's survival of the fittest...
7 - Brunelleschi
Andy-
It's only "survival of the fittest" IF it has evolutionary value.
A tiger doesn't eat it's cubs. It protects them. Why?
Not only does man have morality/ethics, you can see examples of animals making decisions about others too.
BTW-read above. Aristotle developed what we call ethics about 350 BC. He was not religious, and could not have been a Christian.
Why do people try so hard to hang on to this notion that morality/ethics belong to faith? Faith just borrowed those concepts from philosophy.
8 - Andy Marsh
I said religion, not christianity as the basis for morality....just to clarify. I use christianity as MY basis, because that's the way I was taught.
Some tigers will eat cubs, if they see that cub as a threat...or if that cub is not "fit" for survivial. Male tigers have been known to attack the litters produced by other males.
And it's all fine and dandy to say Aristotle developed ethics and all, but let's be real...how are they communicated to MOST people today? In this country and many others it's through religion. People aren't spewing Aristotle, they're spewing Christ!
9 - Andy Marsh
Or some other diety...Buddha, whatever...but not Aristotle.
10 - Ruvy
Christianity will serve as an exemplar for religion,
Dan, Christianity is NOT the exemplar for all religion on the planet.
You would have been wiser to name this article: "Does
ReligionChristianity Affect Politics? If so, Why, and Should it?"You were once a Christian, and most Americans claim to be Christians. And your understanding not only of "religion" but also of the division between "religion and state" comes from Christianity and the examples provided by the United States, Canada and Western Europe.
If there is a real problem with this piece, it comes from the sentence set in italics at the top of this comment.
11 - Mark Eden
Dan, my guess is that folks will be unable to use your definition of religion as requested for the purposes of this discussion as it neglects the concept of deity that Andy raises. Is there something fundamentally different between the statements: "I believe in God..." and "We hold these truths to be self-evident..."?
Mark
12 - Brunelleschi
Andy-
Christ led a small-time Jewish traveling magic show that got into too much trouble by predicting the end of Roman rule and the overthrow of church power.
He had 12 followers who he had promised a share of the kingdom to when "dad" steps in to wipe the slate clean.
Instead, the Romans killed him and left the 12 with no "401K," to use the modern term. So, they made up stories and kept going. The rest changed history, unfortunately.
Yeah, I want the whole world to get their morality from nutjobs like that! Not!
Face it, you are wrong. Religion and morality are not the same thing. Morality came first. Religion just markets morality for it's own agenda. It's been successful, but their morality is bullshit.
13 - Dan(Miller)
Brunelleschi,
I agree that religions adopted moral (and also doctrinal*) teachings from the cultures in which they evolved, carried them forward and further adapted them to the societies in which they became dominant. To gain acceptance in various cultures, Christianity also took on much of the doctrinal baggage of those cultures.
It strikes me that religion, by acting as a vehicle to carry forward moral (as distinguished from doctrinal) prescriptions and proscriptions from earlier times, has produced more socially useful than pernicious results; there have clearly been some of the latter, but it seems likely that most have had more to do with doctrinal than with ethical matters.
Admonitions against homosexuality can probably be found in most religions, even in the parts dealing with practical morality: be fruitful and multiply is difficult (but no longer impossible, due to modern technology) for female homosexuals. In modern Christian society, it is not one of the more widely followed admonitions. The teaching that engaging in sex for any purpose other than procreation is evil seems no longer to have much impact on how people behave. I suspect that the animosity many people feel toward homosexuality has more to do with the doctrinal than with the moral teachings of religion.
You say that Religion can not possibly guide government because there is no chance everyone in society will follow the same religion. I agree insofar as the doctrinal teachings are concerned, but not insofar as the generally accepted moral teachings are at issue. I think that Government is and can properly be guided by commonly accepted moral teachings as embraced by the dominant religions even though not everyone may agree with them. For one possibly far-fetched example, laws against murder do and (I think should) apply to human sacrifice, even when practiced by adherents to religions which encourage it. Ditto laws against assault and battery, even when beating wives into submission as permitted or even encouraged by some religions. The same is true, I think, regardless of whether a law has anything to do with religious teachings. Freedom of speech is a fundamental concept in the United States even when it involves attacks on religion, despite the problem that not all religious sects think much of the doctrine. Some who have disparaged religious view have, even recently, been condemned to death by religious leaders for doing so.
You also say, believers will put their allegiance to church or god ahead of their responsibilities to the public should they hold office. That could happen, but I haven't seen much of it in the United States. The notion was largely abandoned with the election of JFK. The main area where I think this is currently a problem involves the dogmas of the secular religion of man made global warming, the questioning of which has come to be viewed as heretical and the promotion of which has become public policy.
*I understand that virgin births were part of several pre-Christian religions.
Dan(Miller)
14 - Andy Marsh
Brunelleschi - you need to come up with a shorter name!
I like that...travelling magic show bit! No 401K...guess they shoulda held on to those baskets with the loaves and fishes!
I never said religion and morality are the same thing. I said people get their morality FROM religion...and yeah, some of it is really perverted! As a matter of fact, the way I stated it was as a question...where do we get our morality from?
For the most part people get their morality from their parents or lack there of and for the most part, those parents, whether you like it or not, got their morality from a church, mosque, synagogue or whatever....
I don't dispute that, as Jesse the Gov said, "Organized religion is a sham!" Yeah, I spent to many years in catholic schools and churches, but the right and wrong I learned, I learned from those places and my living room at home growing up, not from Aristotle.
They, meaning the church, may have taken Aristotle's ethics and used them for their own gains, and twisted them and warped them for their own gains, but that's still where they get disseminated! It probably would be better if it said In Aristotle we trust on a dollar bill, but...it don't!
15 - Dan(Miller)
Ruvy, what I said was,
I recognize the difficulty you raise, but my focus was mainly on the United States where Judeo-Christian tradition is predominant, and what little I understand about religion is mainly based on Christianity.Dan(Miller)
16 - Brunelleschi
Dan-
Well put. So you clearly see a distinction between religious doctrine (the company line) and moral teaching.
Why insist on allowing that doctrine in politics? It will only lead to Jerusalem-type problems.
Everyone has their own opinion on how well religion has carried the "philosophy ball." I think they have done a bad job and should be replaced. Religion has brought us countless wars, executions, and guilt trips. We can't shut them down, but we can at least hold the line and keep these dangerous people out of government.
17 - Heloise
This article is way too long. If you have that much to say about it then write a book or get a hotel room with your opinions.
The age of Aquarius is still hundreds of years off. This is the age of Pisces and that means that zealotry and bigotry will be with us for a long time to come...we better get used to it.
The true idealism of brotherhood is yet a long way off. Obama's presidency won't change minds but it might change habits. Many white people (religious and political) will "act as if" there is racial equality. Heloise says "perish the thought." So before we get our butts in a bunch we better first fight the battle of keeping state and religion separate. Besides I thought that was already taken care of in the constitution.
And no I only read the first page because this is more like a tome than an article.
Heloise
18 - Heloise
Translation of my above comment: Why do we have to debate separation of politics and religion? Why should anyone care, I mean it just is. I don't get it. And I am not about to read four pages to find out.
Heloise
19 - Clavos
And no I only read the first page because this is more like a tome than an article.
Then you're really not entitled to an opinion about the article, even as to its length.
Why do we have to debate separation of politics and religion? Why should anyone care, I mean it just is.
Perhaps because it's one of the most important aspects of our politico/cultural system -- one which doesn't even exist in much of the contemporary world?
I don't get it.
Obviously.
20 - Andy Marsh
Because based on this "separation" some people don't want the gov't to give money to religious based shelters and things of that nature...how far does the separation need to be?
Don't take offense to this folks, but liberals want the gov't to help the needy, Personally, I don't give a damn, but when the gov't tries to use the organizations that help the needy the most and that already have infrastructure in place, it's somehow a bad thing because they're religious organizations. A soup kitchen feeds the homeless, who gives a shit if it's run by the local baptist church?! They can do more with $5 than the gov't can!
Personally, I say to hell with 'em all! But the bleeding heart types that want the gov't to do more should leave stuff like this alone.
21 - Roger Nowosielski
Heloise,
I agree with you entirely. It IS there one the theoretical level, which is the ONLY point of interest. But Dan seems to discuss it on the level of practice - e.g., why Christians or other religious groups tend to vote this one rather than another, and what if anything should be done about that. I don't think there is anything to be gained from such a discussion.
22 - Ruvy
Dan,
You do not recognize the difficulty I raise at all.
Christianity is the only set of "religious" beliefs that contemplates a split between the civil and religious authority where both have legitimacy.
Islam (real Islam, not the hate-filled Wahhabi shit that poses as Islam) prescribes a unified faith/government. So does the faith of the Children of Israel, which is its governing code of law. What is commonly called Hinduism is actually know as Dharma, 14 principles by which all people are expected to live (there is a lot more, but this is basic). For a Hindu, it is ridiculous that a governing authority would not embody these 14 principles. Buddhism is a way to rid oneself of pain and is not concerned with governance per se. If you want to understand Buddhism at all in western terms, it is a "protestant" movement against what Hinduism developed into.
Confucianism is a code of ethics which are expected to infuse Chinese society. While the philosophic concepts differ from Dharma, the same the basic approach to society is - of course the Confucian ethics will govern Chinese society and governance.
So, Dan, the split that is the basis of your article is found only in Christianity.
If you look at your article, you will see that in it, you negate that split, in essence asserting that "of course Christian ethics will infuse governance and politics..." what you do not add is the essential phrase "in Christian societies". The fact that you yourself do not subscribe to the religion of Christianity does not negate your recognition that Christianity is related to governance in the Americas, Western Europe and Australasia in much the same way that Dharma relates to governance in India, or Confucianism relates to governance in China.
Your problem is that you do not really understand what Christianity is. And neither does Brunelleschi, as his comments show.
23 - Ruvy
If you want to get a clear view of what Christianity really is, read the works or Dr. Eugene Narrett. You won't find it pleasing, but that is not the point. It will give you a clear view of why this argument between "religion and state" is possible in Christian societies.
24 - Christopher Rose
I think Ruvy's description of where these matters are at is pretty accurate.
I would go further and say that Christianity is the first time religion has been successfully largely removed from governance, which is a big plus in its favour. Hopefully it won't be too many more years before the rest of the world starts to catch up.
25 - Christopher Rose
I actually had a quick look at Eugene Narrett's site, where I saw lots of evidence of how religion corrupts the thinking of even quite intelligent people, rendering them babbling in incomprehensible tongues. Kinda.