January 22, 2008
-
Religion & Politics
What are the moral and practical implications of the religious aspects of the current U.S. political campaigns?
America has a tradition of religious and political intertwining as old as our country's history. The very first European settlements north of Mexico were those of the French Huguenots in South Carolina and Florida in the early 1560's. They were quickly followed by the Spanish who slaughtered them (in the name of religion and Spanish political authority) after founding the first permanent settlement (at St. Augustine) in 1565.
Most of the original thirteen colonies who revolted against England in 1776 were peopled by religious and political dissenters - some as in the case of Rhode Island and Connecticut, by dissenters from the Puritan dissenters themselves.
These early Americans had two things in common: they were uncommonly religious and they pretty much rejected the idea of a state-sponsored religion. At first the Puritans of Massachusetts Bay Colony governed that colony as a theocracy, but by the time of the revolution, even they had changed their ideas.
Early foreign visitors to the new United States, such as Alexis DeToqueville and Frances Trollop, remarked about American religious fervor and its impact on our way of life. Because we were/are both religious and contentious, the very first amendment to the new constitution starts with the phrase "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
This, along with the later fourteenth amendment (which applied federal law guaranteeing citizen equality to all the states) has been interpreted as strictly separating government and religion - as least officially. Of course this has had little impact on the practical involvement of religious opinion in the government at all levels.
As religious sects and differences proliferated in America, the government has sometimes been called upon to act in the name of religion - but always with some other excuse , as with the political attacks on the Mormons in the 19th century right down to the attack on the Branch Davidians at Waco in 1993. Despite these lapses, Americans have always respected their right to religious freedom (even when overlooking their neighbor's) and have looked askance at direct religious political action. Any such action has been enough to strip that sect from its tax exclusion and this has been enough to keep direct organized church political action at a minimum.
The world-wide movement toward religious fundamentalism which is mostly evidenced here in America by Evangelical sects, had led to demands by the fundamentalists that any political decision be measured by their religious beliefs. We can expect some voters to base their selection on their perception of how the candidate matches their beliefs and how hard the candidate will work to impose those religious standards on all the country.
In a powerful, developed, and populous country this can have serious negative effects both internally and on the world stage.
Comments (15)
Surprise! You're linked
I am sorry, but though this presents some interesting history, it seems a very long way around just to say that religious belief can have a negitive impact on our relationships, both at home and abroad. Also, I don't see any mention of the moral aspects. Have I missed something here? What are the actual implications? How are our relationships affected. How is our economy affected? How are world politics affected? You see my problem.
America has had a sort of moral dichomaty respecting individual freedom and religious fervor. On the one hand we were settled by dissenters who wanted religious freedom. On the other hand we were settled by those same folks who were very much bothered by anyone they felt was not devout enough.
All through our history we have this "double standard" which has been mostly ignored because Protestant Christianity has been far the dominate collection of religious sects in America. While these sects sometimes argued against each other, I can't think of any open warfare between Methodists and Baptists. The same is not true about open warfare between the dominant protestant majority and Catholics, Universalists, Mormons, and more recently those youth oriented sects led by charismatics including James Jones (Jonestown massacre) and David Koresh (Branch Davidians - Waco); to say nothing of the non-Christian religions. During our history Jews, tribal religions, oriental religions and currently Islam have come under direct, concerted, and sometimes deadly attack.
The reason I "take the long way round" is because we tend to ignore or reject the implications of this - the main one, to my thinking, being that any religious test for public office, even demanding that a person be "religious" opens us to the possibility of theocratic domination of our government - as Huckabee advocates - with a very real possible loss of the religious freedom which has been a cornerstone of our society.
Uhm.... i was thinking about a comparison with Italy, which is since forever believed as a place where Catholicism and State are not well separated.
Actually i believe that this idea of Italy is a bit wrong. On the paper, the Church has nothing to do with the State, and the Laws cannot be inspired or restricted by Religion. There is a constant effort of the State to separate Ethics (which is the foundament of any justice) and Religion.
We can i guess say that in Italy there is a wider separation between State and Church than in America.
President Napolitano would never dare to start or end one of his speach with "Dio benedica l'Italia" or something like that, while instead President Bush always does it with the formula "God bless America".
All another thing is the interference of the Pope (which actually should be, with respect to Italy, nothing more than a foreign citizen), with the Italian Government, Justice and Parliament. We never succeeded to take off that tick, since already 20 centuries. Infact look at our brand new government crisis, driven under the table by that vampire with the white soutane and that funny hat!
dario
It matters little what our forbearers believed. It is of much more importance that our country was founded on the concept of religious freedom and that the separation of Church and state is maintained. The State is only obligated to protect people from religions, not dictate religious beliefs. Our forebearers escaped from religious persecution; they didn't do so just so that some of their descendants could force their beliefs on others.
I hate to dissagree with you Harmony, but what evidence do you have to suport your contention that:
Our forebearers escaped from religious persecution; they didn't do so just so that some of their descendants could force their beliefs on others.?
It seems to me that very often in our history those very descendants have spent a lot of their time trying to do exactly that - and still do.
Actually the First Amendment protects religions from the state - not the protection of the people from religions - doesn't it? (Congress shall make no law respecting religion or preventing the free exercise thereof...)
I am not sure i understand what you are talking about, so, in that case, forgive me please.
How ever can you say that in America religion and state are separated? In which sense?
The first Amendment (state) protect religion from the state. So the State protects religion from itself?
My problem is to see what kind of Moral or Ethics is the one that founded the Laws of the US. Because when i hear President Bush saying "God bless America" (and it's not only this formula, but it seems that everything is modeled like that, as when i cannot push out of my mind that the American People feels authorized to attack "Holy" Wars to the middle Ease because it is the Elected People who knows where is The Good and where is The Evil), when i hear that expression, i start to believe that it's not The People's Moral and Ethics that modeled the State, but instead The Religion did.
And, once again, i am not speaking about the ingerence of the Pope to the Politics, as it happens in Italy, but the oligarchy of non-laic religious people on the top of the politic pyramid. It looks it happened in the past, and it is happening nowadays.
How can you ever say that there is freedom of religion beliefs when any decision is taken with "God blessing America"? Which God? Christian God? Hebrews' One? And if there is a Muslim American Citizen should he believe that America is driven by the Infidels? Or also Allah is represented by that expression? And the problem is not which is the right God, in my opinion, the problem is which is the Religious Principles that shape the Moral for which the Political Decisions are taken on the Citizens and the rest of the world. Does President Bush speak In The Name Of God? And does America attack Iraq Inthenameofgod? and when they inhject the letal potion in the death penalty execution, that is done Inthenameofgod? Which is the God that allows to kill a criminal? To bomb innocent kids? Christian God? Jeovah? Allah? Or the Egiptian Faraon? And what about Jupiter?
And what about atheistic people? Are they represented by a president that whatever he says is Inthenameofgod? For example I believe that death penalty and the war in Iraq are immoral. I am not American citizen, but if i was, how could i say that it is immoral when those things are made Inthenameofgod, being that i don't believe in god?
As usual, Dario puts his finger on a serious point. His confusion about what we say and what we do seems to be echoed by a large part of the world right now.
What should be the relationship between American Religious and Moral values and American political (and military) action?
Should such action be driven by Religious and Moral values; if so which moral and religious values are we talking about?
Who decides which of our Moral and Religious values we inflict on others? What's the justification?
Aren't Politics fun
If it had been the intent of our forebearers to allow religious discrimination, they would not have made any attempt at all to protect religion, even from themselves (the state). Instead, the very first Amendment to the Constitution dealt with religion. If they had meant it to only protect Christianity, would they not have said "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of Christianity?" That they used such a broad term as religion in place of the specific religion which they practiced indicates to me that they intended all people to be protected under the law, not just the Christian majority. I think the fact that they didn't think to protect religions from one another is more a comment on their trust in our civility and intellectual advancement than it is an actual oversight. I doubt they expect hate crimes and religion-biased ordinances would become an issue 200 years later. If they are guilty of anything, it is that they were too idealistic in their expectations.
Uhm.... Dick....
I was not being sarcastic. I REALLY didn't understand the theme of the discussion (not that it is mandatory that i don't understand, being that i miss from these discussions since forever, already).
Anyway, the subject is the relationship between Religion and State. And that is what i don't understand.
In Italy there is a big influence of the Pope (who represent Christianity, in particular Chatolicism) in Italian politics. That influence (thanks heaven!) is brought "under the table", because Italians wouldn't accept that some political decisions were made because The Pope wanted. Italy is not a monrachy, and, atleast on the paper, politics should be driven by common people, and not by an oligarchy of potents or a single rich old furt, which is not even Italian citizen.
But there is no doubt that in Italy the line decided by that Guy are well taken in consideration by the political world. And not only on moral decisions, such as the suffered laws the parliament made about Abortion and Divorce in the past, but think also to the pression made by the Pope through the Media and the Catholic Senators in this actual Government crisis.
But i guess that it's not that kind of influence of Religion on the State you are speaking about.
If one looks to all the statistics, it looks that American people are the most religious in the world. What does it mean Religious? Actually i believe that one is defined religious when he/she answers "yes" to the question "Do you believe in any religion?". Given that, it's obvious that he/she believe that the Moral of that "any" religion is the way to establish "The Absolute Good", and so, it is a code of principles on which the Political Decisions are to be taken. Laws are modeled on a Moral, the Government have to drive the State upon the Moral, the Magistracy have to judge interpreting the laws through a Moral. And if that moral is given by God, we are sure that it is the right one, because God is Absolute, so His Moral must be Absolute too.
That's what i hear when President Bush says "God bless America", whichever God he means.
Frankly i believe that in America the Religious powers influence politics too, although in a different way than Italy. For example, I cannot believe infact that the obstinate protection of America to Israel is not some way directed by the Jewish American communities, although Israel represents a perfect military base of American economy in the Middle East also from a laic point of view.
So, i believe at the end that there are atleast three way one can interpret the subject question:
1) the political ingerence of Religious communities power in the State business.
2) the influence of Religious based morals in the shape of the political decisions
3) the mediation of the politics that gives benefits to the Religious communities in order to keep their support.
Which kind of relationship Religion/State are you speaking about?
"The world-wide movement toward religious fundamentalism which is mostly evidenced here in America by Evangelical sects"
ROTFLMAO
Seriously dude, you are victim of your education, which clouds your outlook, which diminishes my respect for you after you type out all that history and data. "mostly evidenced here in America"?! ...LOL
Lol, this reply function works brilliantly in terms of the Socrates Cafe entries. My entry also generated good conversations. I would like to kno what the serious negative effects are that you alluded to in the last sentence of you entry. Can you please elaborate on what you were thinking?
My thoughts in somewhat jumbled disorder:
Susan: If a person is nominated or elected based mostly on "religious purity", I think we might have even a worse incompetent than he who now (dis)graces the White house.
I will vote for the person that I think is most competent for the job and who's vision is closest to that I believe will be best for America.
Candace: I don't think the writers of the First Amendment were in any way trying to protect the citizens from religion, just from a state religion. They were probably attempting to insure the freedom of religion and religious diversity as well as the right of citizens to be religious.
Dario: There have been many polls and studies, at least one by UNESCO, that have attempted to measure the attitudes toward and importance of religion in various countries.
Among developed countries, the U.S. has by far the most actively religious populace. About 40% of our citizens rate themselves as "Very Religious". As I remember a distant number two was Ireland. Most European countries are in the 10-12% range. This has enormous implications for our internal politics and foreign policy. The US Constitution First Amendment was specifically set up to protect any and all religions from government interference as well as insure that we would not have a "State Religion". The constitution says nothing about protecting individual citizens from religion, just from state-sponsored or mandated religions. For example: You can pray in schools, but the state-run public schools cannot require you to pray. If the US government's policies, either foreign or domestic are excessively influenced by government leaders' religions, we are, in effect, violating our own Constitution because such influence would be "making laws (policies are included here - they have to be implemented, after all) respecting religion "
Allen: I think there is a world-wide movement toward fundamentalism - Wahabist Islam is one such and is certainly giving us (and much of the rest of the world) a lot of trouble.
There are, of course, fundamentalist movements in all the Christian Sects (Well, most of them anyway) but Evangelicals have been the fastest growing and perhaps the most uniformly fundamentalist (also the most politically involved).
Jurgens: I was thinks about how easy it is to cloud serious attempts at diplomacy and other foreign relations if your opponents can tar you with a religious label e.g. "Crusader" when you are dealing with the Arab world, especially if their suspicions have some evidence of truth, as when our President talks of a religious crusade when referring to our actions in the Middle East.
RYC, Actually, the fact that he bought beer wasn't what pissed me off. It's that he bought beer after telling me that he had no money. The reason that I bought him groceries for the week is that he said he was broke. (I didn't give him money, I went to the store and got his food for him.)
He can choose to go hungry in exchange for booze if he wants to - it's his right. But he doesn't have a right to use my money to buy his stuff so that he can save all of his for booze. If he wants more money to party, he needs to get a full time job, not lie to me about being broke. As it is, if he ever actually does need help in the future, he has one less person to turn to now.
The campaign of Mike Huckabee is actually an interesting point in American history, because while other candidates have injected religion into government, Huckabee is the first unabashed theocrat since Pat Robertson to really have a shot at the nomination. Granted, with McCain's win in Florida, a lot of the pundits have claimed McCain as the front runner and are largely ruling out the other candidates. I'm still waiting to see how he does in other states. It wouldn't surprise me if he took Georgia, Alabama, Kentucky, and Tennessee. That being said, he seems to have spooked the traditional conservatives, and to not be taken seriously by the moderates. I don't look for him to get nominated.
America seems to wax and wane on religion in government. It seems to be cyclical - we put someone in who is very religious for a while until he's thoroughly farked things up, then the true theocrats come out of the woodwork, spook people into electing someone who is less religious - the less religious politician acts like all politicians act, and his religious rival eventually comes on the scene proposing that his religiosity makes him less shady than other politicians, and the cycle begins again. It's hard to underestimate the intelligence of this country when it comes to race, religion, or politics.
Hiya, I am really glad I have found this info. Today bloggers publish just about gossips and net and this is actually irritating. A good blog with interesting content, that’s what I need. Thank you for keeping this web site, I will be visiting it. Do you do newsletters? Can not find it.