Religion and politics: here to stay

I've always admired the candidacy of John Stuart Mill as described in his autobiography. He told the party that came to run him for office that he would not make any promises to them whatsoever about how he would vote if elected. Those were his terms. He also declined to discuss any personal matters--and that included religion. (He was an athiest.) When elected, he proposed and past the first legistlation in England that assurred women of the vote.

The problem in this country is that it is more likely to vote for anyone with a high profile rather than a philosopher with a conscience. America likes them pretty and photogenic, but don't let them be too smart.

Being "different" isn't particularly appealing either...

BUT ... do they have to stay together...?

I guess the choices are cross my fingers, or just hope that maybe . . .

Myriad: no one seems inclined to pull them apart and I see Dacey's point that if you can't keep religion out of the pub lic square, you ought to push it into the light and subject it to the same analysis you'd subject anything else to. Wonder if that will happen...or whether it could happen?

Owl: doncha hate those choices?

not necessarily here to stay. some societies manage to run themselves without overt god-bothering.

but the usa is not one, and would-be officers of state are scrabbling to be holier than him, due to well-known psychological mechanisms. just one more reason to despair:

copenhagen looks more serious, there will be no public health system, war is 'necessary,' and tweedledum doesn't make any effort to disguise his relation to tweedledee anymore, as the morlocks are too feeble to revolt.

Yah-huh. I have huge problems with an admixture of religion and politics. I could go into a long riff about exactly why, but I won't clutter up your excellent post.

I think you are absolutely right to end this with a "maybe".

I hope for open and welcoming discussion, but most people are so sure that "they" are right, they aren't willing to listen. We need much more listening in our religion and our politics.

"Most Americans have trouble distinguishing between the idea of a good person and a faithful one."

Good point--piety has returned as a living concept, and piety is the idea of being good merely by demonstrating one's faith, usually loudly and over and over again. Thirty years of breast-beating on Christian TV has reintroduced the concept into American pop-culture, and I fear it will remain for a while. Rated.

Try growing up a stone's throw from Utah. Moving anywhere further from there separates church and state enormously. Religion and politics will always be intertwined, and personally, I'm happier when people are up-front about it. The Danforth Center could actually be a good thing; time will tell. As always, a provocative and interesting article, Nikki. Thanks for posting on it.

I think it is a good thing, and my own alma matre, Baylor, also has a well regarded Institute for Church-State Studies. Like it or not, religion always has, and always will, play a role in American politics. Institutes like that envisioned by Danforth and others should have the goal of understanding how religion influences policy, and to define the boundaries of proper influence of religion in politics. That is a good thing.

The real problem is not the existence of academic studies of religion and politics. The real problem is two-fold: First, the general public, not just academia, needs to understand the boundaries of religion and politics, and the history of the concept of "separation of church and state." Second, we have far too many politicians and preachers who prefer to demagogue religion and demonize those whose beliefs may differ from the mainstream.

Geez, an intelligent article on religion and politics. One that makes me think. . .I'm not sure what to say now! You didn't slam anyone, cast a judgement, imply a lack of basic humanity. . . . You keep this up and this Danforth place might work!

I say might, as you say maybe, because I'm a great admirerer of Paul Tillich who said that doubt is an essential element of faith.

I'm thinking of James Madison right now. I'm not thinking he's happy.

John Danforth who introduced Clarence Thomas to the Senate as my good friend. Another member of the American taliban

A common culture of morality is the ultimate path to peace, social justice and order. The study of comparative religion and the consequent dialog should result in a victory of honesty and rationality over insane hateful tribalism. Once preachers of all faiths stop preaching that one group or another is going to hell, we will reach a much needed state of civility.

Great food for thought.
Rated.

al: we shall see
boanerges1: you'd never mess up with your comments!
Gwendolyn: a recurring theme of mine (or rather, nightmare)
BOKO: my concerns too
Kathy: yes, upfront and out in the open are always best
Proco: I'm keeping an open mind
Chicago guy: so does the Talmud, I suspect
at home: thinking the same thing
Sheepdog: there is that

Nikki---that's where Tillich got it from!

Interesting question. Before you asked whether this was a good thing, I think I assumed it was fine for academics to study the interaction between religion and the state. I'm certainly fascinated by it myself. But you're right; maybe it's my assumption, as an American, that the two go together hand-in-glove that's the problem. And it is possible that opening such high-minded centers just reinforces the notion that religious ideology should influence government policy--which is a very baaaaaad idea.

When I was kid in school in the 1950s, there was still a prayer which in one class had a Jesus reference. I was sort of a Jewish kid. Not religious at all. Just the cultural thing. In English we read the Merchant of Venus. From all of Willie's plays, this high school teacher chose the one with the old Jewish money-lender.

These days the prayers are gone, as is Shylock, at least from public schools.

But here's the odd thing. That time, the 1950s, seemed more rational to me than today.

Go figure. Cause I can't.

Belief in a Big Invisible Bi-Polar Daddy Who Lives in The Sky is organized insanity.

For a good example of what happens when Church and State are one see Ken Russell's film of "The Devils."

A BIG maybe. Unfortunately.

Faith did indeed loom large in the 2008 Presidential election. The fundamentalists where caught in a conundrum. Most of them are staunch Republicans who could not and would not vote for any ticket with Sarah Palin as the vice presidential nominee. Not because they didn't like her. They did.

If they had (and there are millions of fundamentalists, some extremists) voted with her on the ticket, they would have gone against the Biblical mandate of the Law of Submission strictly outlining the role of women in the church and thereby the country.

Their women don't vote because of it, and the men couldn't vote for their own party for the same reason.

Can you imagine 18th century Christians telling secular abolitionists, "We don't need to free our slaves. That's 'good works.' We don't have to 'work' for our salvation. Abolition is 'so much garbage.' We called on Jesus three times. We don't need to free our slaves..." ?

Church-state separation can be a blessing as well as a curse!

I would like to see organized religion take up the struggle for animal rights. Religion has been wrong before. It has been said that on issues such as women's rights and human slavery, religion has impeded social and moral progress. It was a Spanish Catholic priest, Bartolome de las Casas, who first proposed enslaving black Africans in place of the Native Americans who were dying off in great numbers.

The church of the past never considered human slavery to be a moral evil. The Protestant churches of Virginia, South Carolina, and other southern states actually passed resolutions in favor of the human slave traffic.

Human slavery was called "by Divine Appointment," "a Divine institution," "a moral relation," "God's institution," "not immoral," but "founded in right." The slave trade was called "legal," "licit," "in accordance with humane principles" and "the laws of revealed religion."

New Testament verses calling for obedience and subservience on the part of slaves (Titus 2:9-10; Ephesians 6:5-9; Colossians 3:22-25; I Peter 2:18-25) and respect for the master (I Timothy 6:1-2; Ephesians 6:5-9) were often cited in order to justify human slavery. Some of Jesus' parables refer to human slaves. Paul's epistle to Philemon concerns a runaway slave returned to his master.

The Quakers were one of the earliest religious denominations to condemn human slavery. "Paul's outright endorsement of slavery should be an undying embarrassment to Christianity as long as they hold the entire New Testament to be the word of God," says contemporary Quaker physician Dr. Charles P. Vaclavik. "Without a doubt, the American slaveholders quoted Paul again and again to substantiate their right to hold slaves.

"The moralist movement to abolish slavery had to go to non-Biblical sources to demonstrate the immoral nature of slavery. The abolitionists could not turn to Christian sources to condemn slavery, for Christianity had become the bastion of the evil practice through its endorsement by the Apostle Paul. Only the Old Testament gave the abolitionist any Biblical support in his efforts to free the slaves. 'You shall not surrender to his master a slave who has taken refuge with you.' (Deuteronomy 23:15) What a pittance of material opposing slavery from a book supposedly representing the word of God."

In 1852, Josiah Priest wrote Bible Defense of Slavery. Others claimed blacks were subhuman. Buckner H. Payne, calling himself "Ariel," wrote in 1867: "the tempter in the Garden of Eden...was a beast, a talking beast...the negro." Ariel argued that since the negro was not part of Noah's family, he must have been a beast. Eight souls were saved on the ark, therefore, the negro must be a beast, and "consequently, he has no soul to be saved."

The status of animals in contemporary human society is like that of human slaves in centuries past. Quoting Luke 4:18, Colossians 3:11, Galatians 3:28 or any other biblical passages in favor of liberty, equality and an end to human slavery in the 18th or 19th century would have been met with the same kind of response animal rights activists receive today if they quote Bible verses in favor of ethical vegetarianism and compassion towards animals.

Some of the worst crimes in history have also been committed in the name of religion. There's a great song along these lines from 1992 by Rage Against the Machine, entitled "Killing in the Name Of".

Someone once pointed out that while Hitler may have claimed to be a Christian, he imprisoned Christian clergy who opposed the Nazi regime, and even Christian churches were subject to the terror of the Nazis. Thinking along these lines, I realize that while I would like to see organized religion support animal liberation (e.g., as was the case with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and the American civil rights movement) rather than simply remain an obstacle to social and moral progress (e.g., 19th century southern churches in the U.S. upheld human slavery on biblical grounds), this support must come freely and voluntarily (e.g., "The Liberation of All Life" resolution issued by the World Council of Churches in 1988).

Religious institutions can't be coerced into rewriting their holy books or teaching a convoluted doctrine to suit the whims or the secular political ideology of a particular demagogue. American liberals argue that principle of the separation of church and state (upon which the United States was founded) gives us freedom FROM religious tyranny and theocracy. Conservatives argue (the other side of the coin!) that one of the reasons America's founding fathers established the separation of church and state was to prevent government intrusion into religious affairs.

I agree with Reverend Marc Wessels, Executive Director of the International Network for Religion and Animals (INRA), who said on Earth Day 1990:

"It is a fact that no significant social reform has yet taken place in this country without the voice of the religious community being heard. The endeavors of the abolition of slavery; the women's suffrage movement; the emergence of the pacifist tradition during World War I; the struggles to support civil rights, labor unions, and migrant farm workers; and the anti-nuclear and peace movements have all succeeded in part because of the power and support of organized religion. Such authority and energy is required by individual Christians and the institutional church today if the liberation of animals is to become a reality."

I initially cringed at the prospect of entwining the study of religion and politics, but thought better of it. I recall hating the NPR program, Speaking of Faith, thinking it was a right-wing, agenda-driven addition to their programming by the newly implanted Republicans on the CPR Board. I was surprised to hear a vast range of faiths and creeds discussed with respect and intelligence on the program. It's possible that tolerance and understanding can be furthered with the right approach. I think that possibly the Danforth Center might achieve the same effect.

Danforth has been known to make some good statements pushing strongly for Republicans to back down on their invasion into people's private lives and to leave religion as a private matter. A quick web search turns up this and this, for example. He favors small, non-intrusive government. So it depends a lot on what instructiosn he gives this project. Given how the Republicans have co-opted ownership of the Founding Fathers and rewritten their history to say they were interested in a god-fearing government, there's good reason to be fearful. In fact, although among these people were many god-fearing folks, they wanted to practice religion privately and for government to stay out of it; and there were atheists there from the start as an integral part of things, too, of course.

Ditto what BOKO and ChicagoGuy said.

I think that it is easier (and more ethically justifiable) to have politics without religion than the other way 'round. The most important religious figures in the 20th century were folks like MLK & Ghandi, i.e. those who made their mark 0n human history though the skillful injection of religious ethics into crucial political struggles.

However, p0liticians are much more than likely to do the opposite, i.e. take cynical political motivations and cloak them with religious authority, like when Dubya said that his oil war was a religious crusade, or now, when conservative politicians lead prayer meetings against health care reform on the grounds that socialized medicine somehow supports abortion.

I think that things are seldom as simple as they appear at first glance.

Nonetheless, there are good theological arguments for the separation of church and state, just as there are political ones.

Rated

In my dream world only atheists are allowed to hold office, but all the religions get equal lobbying opportunity.

The Founding Fathers mixing religion and politics was a bad idea -- destructive for religion as well as the political world. People with God on their side have little compunction about killing other people to save their souls. Leave mine alone.

this the good way to think better for others understand the problems of the society to maintain and groom the best relations among religion and as well nations

forex trading

Wonderful, clear post about one of the real problems in this country. Thanks, Nikki.

You've got to keep your eye on those Episcopalians.

Interesting historical tidbit: Thomas Jefferson, the ultimate separation of church and state advocate, supported a proposal to allow all religions to establish churches and schools of instruction on the campus of the University of Virginia when he was a rector there. Probably assumed that nothing would defang religious leaders like making them into academics, who never accomplish anything.

My elder son is a second year student at Wash. U. I personally think the place is some kind of cult all by itself--all the students are so deliriously happy.

By contrast, I went to the University of Chicago, where the student motto is "Where fun comes to die."

Martha: exactly; the center, no matter how high-minded, is predicated on an assumption
Cypher: it almost seemed more upfront back then
David: noted
Blue Roses: didn't think of that
Vasu: a very in-depth way of viewing the essential unchangability of so much religious thought

Boomer: yes
Ardee: All things are possible, including discussions on ethics and religion
Kent: why my eyes are open on this one
Indiana: and those arguments for the separation will hopefully have a platform at this center -- maybe
Feminist: heh
Steve: I know
Ahmed: if the center is used for understanding, that's all well & good
Lea: thanks

Con: it's the koolaid, man

Nikki,
Great article on a touchy subject.
I would hope that they would shed light on how these two interact. The Catholic church has been making me uncomfortable lately with its heavy-handed political manuveurings.

You continue to make us think... intelligently and well.

Here's a pretty clear quote for you, just, you know, for historic reference... "The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." George Washington

@sally -

The Treaty of Tripoli, which most people don't realize and (we do not teach in the public school system), signed and ratified in the late 1700s is here:


Article 11 has been a point of contention in disputes on the doctrine of separation of church and state as it applies to the founding principles of the United States.


Article 11 reads:

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Advocates of the separation of church and state claim that this text constitutes evidence that the United States Government was not founded on the Christian religion. The Senate's ratification was only the third recorded unanimous vote of 339 votes taken. The treaty was printed in the Philadelphia Gazette and two New York papers, with no evidence of any public dissent.

I don't think they were atheists, but many of them disavowed organized religion who ruled with a sharp sword, which is why they left to form a more perfect union.

The universe came into existence about 13.5 billion years ago with a big bang (theory actively pursued by hypothesis driven investigation). Earth came into existence about 4.5 billion years ago. The first microorganisms some 500 to 600 mill years ago. The first animals came to land some 250 to 300 mill years ago. There have been at least 4 major extinction periods in earth history alone where life was almost eliminated. Life however perseveres. About 1-3 million years ago, humans arrived on the scene, and were among the first animals to be able to think of the past and the future and started to ask questions. Why are we here? What is our purpose? What happens when we die? Man’s innate curiosity led him to try and find answers to these and other question about their surrounding earth.
Organized religion is a few thousand years old. Politics, is now a necessity to run this complex society we have managed to weave. When juxtaposed against the time scale of the universe though, these concepts and norms are blips. New pictures from the UK telescope Vista, is shedding new light on the formation of the universe. Trying to understand the complexity of human nature, as well as the relationship to this physical/chemical and biological earth and universe is going to keep us all happily occupied as long as we exist. So bring on the universities and schools and subjects and furore over it all. Knowledge is the beginning and end of it all.
Rated for information.

O'Stephanie - the maneuvering is old as the hills.
Sally - yes, although there are other quotes from Washington that contradict that statement

Blue Roses - yes, thank you for the clarification. From my readings of both Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, they weren't atheists but recognized and wanted to restrict religion's power to adversely affect social laws. It's part of what I call the "moral authority" problem -- if you point up and claim your authority comes from above, who will argue?

Traveller1 - the key is both to recognize our place in the context of the history of the universe and to recognize the limits of our ability to truly know.

Nikki, There are no limits to knowledge. For any one human it may seem a huge task but for the collective humanity?? Two steps forward, 3 steps back...so what?
AND you just made my point . We are so amazingly insignificant that knowledge for knowledge's sake is good enough for me.

I'm with you on that, T. It's always best to keep on the path of inquiry...

good post.

Here to stay? So let's transform religion: let's keep the benefits of small communities and support, lovingkindness, forebearance, humility, lighting candles, compassion, morality, justice, personal conscience. Let's phase out gods, mumbo-jumbo, magical thinking, superstition, intolerance, injustice, heaven, hell, demons, angels, all manner of flying superhero pixies, and theological apologias masquerading as intellectual achievement.

Should take, oh, about 1,000 years. Hey, things are improving already!

Greg: that sounds suspiciously like ethical humanism...;-)

This is very informative and superbly written. Thank you, Nikki.