In This Day and Age: Living With Politics and Religion

The following is a guest post from Adam A. Kirby, a teacher at Little Rock Central High School, an ordained United Methodist minister, and my brother.  If this one doesn't get you talking, nothing will.

Enjoy.

# # # #

Benjamin Franklin in 1749 spoke of “the necessity of publick religion.” What is the state of public religion? What is the responsibility of public religion?

I.

In my book club this month we are reading Politics, Religion, and the Common Good by Martin Marty and Religion in the Public Sphere by Jurgen Habermas.  Both of these works focus on my two favorite things: religion and politics.  The Marty piece approaches the topic almost like a how-to manual.  He admits readily and freely that religion and faith play integral parts in our political system.  Marty argues that not only do our politicians have to proclaim a faith, they must be seen as living that faith.  The argument evolves into how people of faith engage responsibly in the political sphere.  Marty does not claim a conservative or liberal bias but a scriptural one that calls for an adherence to sound biblical principles when engaging in politics.  Marty’s writing and style are easy to follow and designed for a lay reader of both religion and politics.

Martin defines public religion as the places where it will have an "identifiable and potentially extricable influence on public life."  Martin defines politics as: 

"political activity which  is a type of moral activity; it is free active, and it is inventive, flexible, enjoyable, and human; it can create some sense of community and yet is not, for instance, slave to nationalism; it does not claim to settle every problem or to make every sad heart glad, but it can help some way in nearly everything and , where it is strong, it can prevent the vast cruelties and deceits of ideological rule."  

For me, this is a great definition of politics; it seems to encompass the best aspects of our political system.  Martin defines religion as:

accomplishing many of the same ideas: it focuses on an "ultimate concern," it builds community, it appeals to myth and symbol, it reinforces through rites and ceremonies, and it demands certain behaviors for its adherents. 

The overlap seems to be promoting the common good at every turn.

Martin ends with these theses to stimulate the conversation on public religion and its role in society:

...public religion can be dangerous; it should be handled with care; public religion can and does contribute to the common good; individual citizens energized by an awareness of possibilities based on their beliefs and the effects of those beliefs provide hope for improving the republic; traditional institutions-congregations, denominations, and ecumenical agencies-provide an effective public voice for religious people, but the political power of such groups has decline;, for the foreseeable future, religious people will most commonly funnel their political energies into special-interest groups, voluntary associations, and parachurch organizations; it is important for the common good for religious people to join the political conversation-and get involved.  

I do not want to truncate Reverend Marty’s book to these few thoughts; however, I believe one can get a sense of what he is calling us to in our struggle with public religion.

Habermas does not differ much in his general assessment, though unlike the Lutheran minister Marty, Habermas is writing from a philosophical standpoint gearing his argument towards intellectuals.  Habermas is questioning "this ongoing strong religious consciousness" in America (one of the more modern states).  Habermas is attacking the same issue that Martin is, only for Habermas he seems concerned that the growth of public religion is pushing America towards fundamentalism, which he draws parallels to Africa, Southeast Asia, and the Middle East, where this neglect of modernity and rise of fundamentalism creates conditions ripe for zealots and terrorist. A brief part of his argument:

Two days after the last Presidential elections (2004), an essay appeared, written by a historian, and entitled ‘The Day the Enlightenment Went Out’.  He asked the alarmist question: ‘Can a people that believes more fervently in the Virgin Birth than in evolution still be called an Enlightened nation?  America, the first real democracy in history, was a product of the Enlightenment values...  Though the founders differed on many things, they shared these values of what then was modernity...  Respect for evidence seems not to pertain any more, when a poll taken just before the election showed that 75% of Mr. Bush’s supporters believe Iraq either worked closely with Al Qaeda or was directly involved in the attacks of 9/11.  Irrespective of how one evaluates the facts, the election analyses confirm that the cultural division of the West runs right through the American nation itself: conflicting value orientations—God, gays and guns—have manifestly covered over more tangibly contrasting interests.  Be that as it may, President Bush has a coalition of primarily religiously motivated voters to thank for his victory.  This shift in power indicates a mental shift in civil society that also forms the background to the academic debates on the political role of religion in the state and the public sphere.

Habermas ends this line of reasoning by saying this shift in civil society is what forms "the background to the academic debates on the political role of religion in the state and the public sphere."  Habermas seems to squarely nail the problem with religion and politics.  There is deterioration of both religion and politics when they are corrupted by political strategists.  Though both parties perpetuate this ill, below is a section from an interview with Atwater about the Republican Party’s “Southern Strategy” which they have used in form or fashion since the late 60s early 70s.

Atwater: As to the whole Southern Strategy that Harry S. Dent, Sr. and others put together in 1968, opposition to the Voting Rights Act would have been a central part of keeping the South.  Now [the new Southern Strategy of Ronald Reagan] doesn't have to do that.  All you have to do to keep the South is for Reagan to run in place on the issues he's campaigned on since 1964 and that's fiscal conservatism, balancing the budget, cut taxes, you know, the whole cluster.

Questioner: But the fact is, isn't it, that Reagan does get to the Wallace voter and to the racist side of the Wallace voter by doing away with legal services, by cutting down on food stamps?

Atwater: You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger."  By 1968 you can't say "nigger" — that hurts you.  Backfires.  So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff.  You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites.  And subconsciously maybe that is part of it.  I'm not saying that.  But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other.  You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger."

Today the strategy is carried out with religious voters instead of racially motivated ones but the goal is the same as is the effect.  Rove and Atwater and many of the talking heads of the Republican establishment believe that to maintain political power they must manipulate the electorate through religious or racial fears.  BEFORE I LEAVE THIS SECTION TO BE FAIR, DEMOCRATS PLAY THE SAME GAME IN TERMS OF PANDERING TO VARIOUS DEMOGRAPHICS: UNIONS, BLACKS, AND LATINOS.  Exploiting the fears and faith of individuals for one’s political gain is sick.  It's a corrupt type of politics that fosters the worst in Americans, and creates a division that takes all that's good in humanity and rips it apart.  Our nation was certainly founded on devise and passionate ideas represented by people on both sides of the spectrum.   Recently those passions and divisions have been exacerbated by people whose soul purpose is the maintenance of their own power. 

II.

Religions, whether they are of the Abrahamic traditions, or Buddhism, or Hinduism, or even many tribal religions, at their core are humanity-defining, and work out concepts like love, community, togetherness, faith.  When religion gets exploited by people who have no truck with it and desire only to gain and maintain political power it not only hurts Religion it also hurts our political system.  In his blog at Sojourners, Jim Wallis said, "Christians must never worship at the altar of politics.  It is not our primary vocation and faith should not be squeezed into its narrow categories — that always misshapes our faith."  He went on to add, "People of the kingdom should not serve politics; but we should serve the common good — seeking the welfare of the city we are in, as the prophet Jeremiah instructed.  And we only engage politics when it is necessary to help the common good."  If politics and religion both serve the common good how should one separate their actions/involvement?  Does the exploitation of religion only deepen the culture wars?

The silver bullet in the conversation is education (which I have written enough about education and DO NOT want to get sidetrack on it BUT PROBABLY WILL).  Habermas reminds us of this in his article.  One of his major thrusts in his paper is twofold.  One is to make secular and religious citizens alike aware of their cognitive responsibilities.  Another is to make citizens apply the same epistemic attitudes to their counterparts.  Habermas in other words is saying, that one must be able to stand outside their faith and examine it critically realizing that what counts in the political realm is "neutrality towards competing world views."

The ways the parties use their power to exploit those of faith rest on the maintenance of the status quo.  One way to achieve the status quo is education.  Test this premise by looking at the following maps.   Look at the counties which elected Bush, and then study the map of college degrees by counties in this country; it doesn’t take a political junkie to see where political parties are striving to gain votes.  

What is going on here?  To me it seems obvious that to win elections Republicans split the Roosevelt coalition and now to hold their own they must wage a war not on religion but on education.  Religion is the tool used to "trick" or "manipulate" the southern voter into supporting policies they otherwise might be against.  If education continues to wane particularly in the south then Democrats are in political trouble and those of us who consider ourselves thoughtful people of faith will remain like Sisyphus rolling the rock pointlessly up the hill. 

40 years ago, Republicans realized what they needed to do to become politically viable.  And to their credit they did it.  Now when will the Democrats have that epiphany?

III.

The intent of the First Amendment is to prevent that state from establishing a religion (like the Church of England); it is also protect the free exercise of whatever religious beliefs one may hold.  These two ideas should not be held as opposite.  Both can co-exist, but how?  Politics has become Machiavellian and corrupted what faith should be.  Jim Wallis is probably right that faith is too big for the narrow confines of politics, but part of the religious covenant is to strengthen community in a democracy the best way to do that is through a political process.  Has the exploitation of religion by those who hold less then "holy" goals in mind some how ruined faith and politics?  Ben Franklin said public religion is necessary.  How do we live with that in this day and age?

Comments

[Barrett Goodwin]

Religion involved in civil society is neither inherently a good thing nor inherently a bad thing; it all depends on how it is involved. It is only natural that religion would play a role in politics since it is religion that often serves as the guide to “what is right” or “what is good” for many people. Republicans recognized this long ago and have made calls for more religion a key part of their platform. But that in no way implies a monopoly on faith. The Democratic Party has just a big a faith-based tradition as the Republicans. It was faith that guided the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. He didn’t use his faith to rail against Big Government or homosexuality, but the issues he did focus on (civil rights, economic rights, and in the later years of his life the war in Vietnam) were politicized. The point here is that we must not let the current atmosphere surrounding public religion blind us to the possibilities, as I believe Rev. Marty is saying. Mr. Habermas, from the excerpts provided in the article, seems to be speaking, quite accurately, of the current environment. Religion becoming deliberately politicized is not just dangerous but also a disservice to the benefits of politics being influenced by religious teachings. Washington, and the rest of the country, could use some of the wisdom of “Love Thy Neighbor” in today’s polarized society. That may seem an odd sentiment to some on the Left. But it’s true. The value of religion lies in what in teaches us about humanity and our role within in. That is a power that cannot be left by the wayside but must instead by harnessed for the potential it possesses.
The role religion should play in our politics and our society is always a hot issue. Many point to the Establishment Clause as a barrier to any such discussion as it would interfere with the intent of the Founding Fathers: a secular state. Others point to the Free Exercise part as protecting the expression of religious belief in both private and in public. Both sides are right. The United States is not, nor has it ever been, a Christian nation. The Founding Fathers grounded our system of governance in the school of the Enlightenment instead of any formal theocracy. That said, there is indeed a legacy of faith mixing with politics in our country’s history. We must not ignore that but rather embrace the moral guidance it has provided. More often than not this marriage has led to moderate faith begetting radical change (the end of child labor, abolition, etc.), instead of the other way around. To go back to my point in the previous paragraph: we must let faith guide our politics instead of dominate it. The key to keeping faith as a compass instead of a whip is to understand just what the “Establishment Clause” and “Free Exercise” means. This comes from education.
It’s no surprise that the areas with the lowest levels of education were also the areas where faith was “exploited” by the GOP in 2004. Education has been described by some as the key to being able to take part in civil society, and rightfully so. It is through education that people learn to think critically as well as practically. This extends to not just the political sphere but the religious one as well. One must never become blinded by faith no matter how devout the practice. It is education that can help those of faith point themselves in the right direction. Then their faith can serve as a compass for the journey ahead. Without this direction, however, religion becomes twisted into extremism (as Habermas seems to write about) as well as just general ignorance. If the population is uninformed and content to just, as the saying goes, “follow the crowd”, then both religion and politics would indeed suffer. The Democratic Party has an obligation to be steadfast in the fight for education, both in the South and across the country. This is bigger than an issue of losing votes to the GOP. It’s about losing votes in general: real, informed decisions based on what is best for the country. If religion is being used as a tool to contribute to this herd mentality, as we can all agree it is, then the Democratic Party also has an obligation to encourage the proper role of public religion in society. For the Democratic Party is about nothing if not the advancement of the American people. To not take a stand for public religion and its benefits, and their promotion through education, would be a disservice to our country.

[Samuel Wui 4B]

Religion and politics went hand in hand, even from the beginning of the 11th, 12th, and 13th century; religion was the excuse in eastern Europe to expand one's empire. Today the latter would parallel to political leaders manipulating Religion to gain political influence within one's nation. To clarify, religion was never the main cause of anything, it was just an excuse for people to obtain what they wanted; religion was also just another method to justify for their actions. When the Europeans first began to colonize Africa in the 18th century, they would justify their actions by claiming to civilize and even Christianize the African nation. When Spain first desired to explore the new Americas, they fist sent missionaries to the new world to convert the natives to Catholicism. Spain used this as a tactic to gain favor from the pope to convert more people, but also as a cover up to show good intentions while being granted permission to colonize the Americas. All throughout history religion is manifested as a cover up for the main cause of events.
In our political society today, religion comes as a package with the leaders we vote to maintain control of the Government. Why would we vote for these political leaders in the first place if they didn't have any ideas we advocated? In an ideal society, political leaders should stand up for their own beliefs and hope for the masses to appeal to support his cause. However the U.S system itself is created Democratically so that the political leader with the most votes has the most power and influence within our nation. Therefore many political leaders cannot manifest their true polices, and must appeal to the masses to gain a sense of power. This is why manipulating and supporting certain social issues may gain more voter to support themselves.
Education would also play a crucial role in political leader being able to maintain and expand their polices in the future. By being able to implement what is taught to the public, the political leaders have the power to influence a whole future generation of people within America. For example, if the political leaders said it was a requirement by law to teach children that fighting was the solution to all problems, this ideology would be the norm for future generations. With this mindset society itself would become very unstable. If the political leaders supported this mindset then they would be very satisfied with the results. The scary thing is, any concept can be implement though education and soon become the norm of society. Ultimately though education, the political leader scan create a society supporting their values throughout the country.
Ben Franklin said public religion is necessary. His quote applies to the united States in a diluted state in today's society. Here in the U.S there is no "national religion", the first amendment prohibits that. However each individual has his/her own religion and their religion is tolerated by every other individual, and people function though the equilibrium of different religions. As a result politics and religion does not really coexist but is in a constant struggle with each other.

[Maryssa Barron]

Over the course of United States history, every president has been affiliated with Christianity. And of those, only one has not been of a protestant denomination. Today, only about 15 out of the 541 members of Congress are not associated with the Judeo-Christian belief system (two are Buddhists from the predominantly Buddhist Hawaii). How many of those do you think are actually devout though? Is it uncouth for a candidate to lie about his religious affiliations in order to be elected? Perhaps…but it would seem equally unfair to reject a perfectly viable candidate based on his church-going practices or lack thereof. Unfortunately, we live in a world where most people cannot separate politics from religion and most politicians cannot express their true beliefs. To use the fundamental values of religion as the basis for decision-making and political action is a great thing. However, instead of practicing their religion and, ya know, caring for the poor and “loving thy neighbor” and stuff, people are using religion as an excuse for hate and discourse.
This attitude takes a lot of the blame for the corruption of political candidates. Their rejection of anything other than the norm forces the candidates to conform. And when you have to sacrifice a part of yourself to do even get into the position to make positive change, it corrupts the soul…..Well..maybe not, but seriously…that’s asking a lot of a person.
I’m not sure what to say about how politicians are manipulating their constituents: Republicans via lack of education and Democrats via the oppressed. I believe it is happening. And not until we can actively critique and evaluate our religions/beliefs will we be able to take a stand against it.
If only religion could be used for good-what’s it supposed to be used for then it could be a positive force in the political sphere.

[Adil Khan]

Religion in the political sphere is such a messy topic because it seems to manifest itself in so many different aspects in daily life. The state of public religion varies with the eyes of the beholder. From any citizen’s point of view, it is something that is an integral part of their daily lives. Whether it is something as subtle as having a federal holiday for “Christmas Break” or something more obvious like limiting homosexuals’ rights; we tend to see Christian religion shape a lot of things in the US. Marty seemed to base his argument around those ideals. I am not bashing on Christianity, but the way it gets manipulated to feed the people in power. It was no doubt the dominant religion of our founding fathers and now it’s the #1 religion in the nation which makes it easily exploited. I prefer Habernas’s philosophical approach because it is more applicable to a wider audience. A philosophical approach seems to be the best way to integrate religious (or moral) beliefs into politics. He might not be so wrong in assuming that we are breeding fundamentalism. The way politicians use religion to their advantage irks me. They prey on the people with deeply Christian ideals in order to stay in power. Why was Obama being allegedly Muslim such a bad thing? God forbid, he would impose some of his fundamentalist, heretical beliefs on our good people. It is very important to look at politics through a neutral perspective and if not, you will be easily swayed. When education wasn’t highly valued in rural areas, politicians appealed the next best way: religion. As seen in the election maps of ’04, where college degrees were absent, religion dominated. And that’s where the Republican candidates focused. Fixing this is simple: educate. Religion and politics should be mutually exclusive, and educating people will help them make a less biased/ignorant decision. If someone was in power and wanted to pass legislation based on religious roots, it wouldn’t be proper legislation. What makes it improper is the fact that the legislation was based on one set of morals from one religion. Legislation is meant to be for the betterment of the majority, but the same set of ideals don’t apply to everyone. But what makes targeting religion so different? Why does its exploitation seem to bother us that much? Religion serves as the basis of our personal morals therefore all major decisions stem from religion. At the root of all religion lay basic human morals. Whereas religion in politics is an issue and does exist, it is only one of many things that get exploited: other things that politicians try to appeal to besides religion are class and ethnicity. The solution to this all, is educate people as much as possible and get them to see things through a secular perspective. Doing so would provide the solution to a plethora of possible future problems.

[Anna Parker]

Religion is certainly one of the more difficult issues facing our country right now. And I hate to label someone's faith and personal beliefs as an 'issue', but it is doubtlessly corrupting and may be destroying our political system. A country can only be ruled well when its leaders are focused on improving and engaging the country. When those in power are sidetracked, the country suffers. Now, in a democracy focused on self-ruling, when citizens focus their political goals and speeches and influence on something other than public policy, the country suffers.
But religion is more difficult to fix than a president who doesn't do his job. In fact, our country was founded on the basis of free religion, a value important to me and to the United States. It can go too far, as when a group focuses solely on religious values when voting or running for office, pressuring the rest of the country to look and thing similarly.
But can you blame them? It would be hard to believe completely in your faith and not wish to spread it, to feel that those without it are condemned to hell for eternity and not wish to save them. If people with religion didn't feel like that, I would honestly think there was something wrong with them. Now, I believe that religion and total acceptance is possible. But just as our country stands to not force faith upon others, it stands to not mold that faith when it is present. It would be an outrage to tell someone that their faith can't guide their political beliefs and personal actions. That's just as bad as forbidding a certain religion.
So here lies the problem with religion. For those whose personal relationship with faith does not allow other views (again, I in no way think this is the only exercise of faith, but I do believe it is a valid one), how can they stand up and vote for anything other than religious values? It would be impossible. And I don't think there is any outside solution to this conflict, which is different for me. Usually I think answers can always be found, that with enough research and time and thought any problem can be overcome. The only way for religion to leave politics is for religious people to stop involving it. Maybe eventually we can get to the point where religion is a completely personal mission and statement, but I doubt that will happen. And I can't blame people of faith, any faith, for involving their religion in their political views.
Now, I can and will blame politicians for how religion is used by our government. They are really the ones responsible for the rampant religious corruption in elections and policies. Religion is a calculated and careful statement by parties and politicians. But they will keep using it until the electorate stops responding to it, which, again, probably won't happen.

[Joseph Berleant]

Firstly, I think an important distinction needs to be made in terms of organized religion and a more personal religion. For my purposes, a personal religion is the internal set of beliefs that a religious person subscribes to (belief in Jesus, Supreme Being, need to do good, etc.) whereas organized religion is the institutions that purport to bring together those of similar personal religion. The beginning of the article focuses on organized (or in Marty's words, "public") religion as providing a voice for the religious. I believe that Franklin's quote, though, refers more to a publicly acknowledged set of morals (tied to some religious dogma), which determine the direction of lawmaking chosen by elected officials, among other things. In this sense, Franklin's "publick religion" is more a commonly held personal religion that keeps people's actions ethical. It is my opinion that organized religion is the more harmful form; the institutions that claim to bring together those of similar faith seem inevitably to fall to other motives less commendable -- profit and political power. And religious institutions that try to influence policymaking have no place in a society that prides itself on religious equality. I'll try to explain this view in more detail later.
Benjamin Franklin and, to an extent, the other authors cited in the article see religion as essential because it provides the morals that guide policymaking. Thus, what are actually essential are the morals, not the Supreme Being and religious rites that go along with them. It was a product of the time to believe that religion was needed for deciding proper moral behavior. A more correct view would cite the proper source of morality as culture, which includes religion, social norms, and (though we rarely like to admit it) a significant amount of arbitrariness. Religion is not necessarily needed for moral behavior; not all atheists are psychopaths seeing no need to restrain the desire to steal or kill. Indeed, religion often seems to provide the wrong motivation for not stealing and killing. Should we really need an angry god threatening eternal damnation to prevent us from treating each other cruelly? As Einstein said, "If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed." He could not be more correct. We rarely do good simply because a god tells us to. Social expectations, along with that warm, fuzzy feeling, are generally more compelling.
As I see that morality not religion is truly needed for successful politics and "promoting the common good," I have no qualms in rejecting Franklin's need for a public religion.
Politics enters the arena because morals themselves provide little help in actual daily life. Our morals -- things like "value life" and "respect other's property" -- require us to take those morals and use them to justify "moral action." Thus, "respect other's property" becomes a law against stealing. Since its beginnings, religion has taken the responsibility of deciding how morals can be extended to determine correct action. Politics, which takes that extension and makes it law, thus (to an extent) reflects the decisions of the religion of the majority. As an example, to take a particularly contentious public issue, some forms of Christianity, the majority religion in the U.S., has extended the moral of "value life" to mean that abortions are immoral and a form of murder. Thus, the laws in the U.S. reflected that sentiment for many years.
But religion is no longer a necessity in making that extension from morality to action. Religion in its current form serves to blind the public, to force (often archaic) views on a people that need to reform and revise to keep up with new discoveries and advancements. The job of religion has been taken by science. As science reveals more about ourselves and our world (intelligence of animals, homosexuality, etc), we use it to clarify true moral action, basing the extension to action not on arbitrary texts or godly precepts but on evidence and experiment. So must policymaking keep up with and conform to the rational (not religious) extension of our morals. This is why I believe that religion's time (at least in politics) has passed. It lingers, because we are used to falling back to religion to make our decisions, but the more we rely on religion in public policy, the more we infringe upon that First Amendment and deny others the right to fall back on their own religion's interpretations of moral behavior.
The exploitation of religion by those in power to stay in power is an unfortunate consequence of allowing a static set of laws (religious law) to determine what should be dynamic and fluid (state law). People fear change, and as they fall back on religion, politicians use religion to label themselves as the upholders of a sacred law. The solution, then, is to remove religion's influence from politics. Keep the morals and ethics but lose the religious interpretation of those morals in favor of a scientific interpretation. Though science doesn't make everyone happy, at least the decisions resulting from it are understandable and defendable. Even if morals can be arbitrary, at the very least we can ensure that our actions are not.