Op-Ed: Religious crusaders must choose causes, techniques wisely

Twitter
Facebook

 Email This Post
Reddit
Digg

Tell us what you think!
Send a letter to the editor about this or any other article in The Maine Campus.

Given the common theme in recent controversial events, I think it would be appropriate to reflect on one question: What role, if any, should religion play in government?

The arguments over Question 1 in Maine and federal funding of abortion in the House health care bill seemed to be more a clash of ideologies than a practical disagreement over the merits of either option. In both cases, one side was apparently motivated largely by religious convictions, and many are rightly considering whether this breaches the separation of church and state.

The American public sphere has become increasingly secular since 1947, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that allowing state funds to be used for transportation to religious schools violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The principle of the separation of church and state has been the primary support for the secularization movement, but some may be surprised this phrase is not anywhere in our Constitution.

Instead, it comes from an 1802 letter by President Thomas Jefferson, responding to a Baptist congregation in Connecticut, which feared the dominance of the Congregationalist church in their area would limit others’ religious freedoms. Jefferson assured them the First Amendment had built a “wall of separation between Church and State” that would protect their religious expression. He elaborated on his views later, in an 1808 letter to the Virginia Baptists, saying, “We have experienced the quiet as well as the comfort which results from leaving everyone to profess freely and openly those principles of religion which are the inductions of his own reason and the serious convictions of his own inquiries.”

Secularists are using Jefferson’s idea in a distinctly different manner these days, arguing that religious beliefs should have no part in shaping governmental policies, even in voting. I understand their position, but the fact is that everyone, religious or not, makes their decisions based on personal ideologies. The presumption is that viewpoints based off anything other then religion is inherently better than ones that are. What makes a person “bigoted” if their philosophy comes from faith in a sacred text, and “objective” if their philosophy comes from culture and personal preference?

There is no doubt few Founding Fathers would have asked the same question. Frank Lambert, who wrote a book in 2003 about their beliefs, found that more than 70 percent adhered to formal religions, mostly Protestant. And many of the greatest causes in our nation’s history, from most civil rights movements to the American Revolution itself, were largely motivated by religious figures and ideals. I doubt today’s outspoken secularists would be yelling for religious people to shut up if we were still fighting for women’s suffrage or the abolition of slavery.

We are a far cry from seeing those just causes today, as so many religious advocates are choosing to crusade for moral issues instead of social justice. There is good wisdom behind the separation of church and state — spiritual decisions were meant to be a personal choice. Even if a faith-based viewpoint on morality is the right one, it should not be forced on an unwilling people through legislation. If someone truly believes in their way, their aim should be to win the hearts and minds of the general population, not Congress.

Earlier believers excelled at this, but today’s religious representatives instead are resorting increasingly to subversive and deceptive campaigns to gain support for their agendas. In many cases, it is not the ideas religious people promote, but the methods they use to spread these ideas, that opponents find so disagreeable and offensive.

Valuable insight can be gained from religion, and it would be damaging to push for these views to be excluded from the public forum. However, for their part, religious people in the political arena should be as principled in their campaigns as God would have them be, and seek the support of the people in championing policies they truly believe will make the country better.

Tyler Francke thinks there is still too much injustice in the world for churches to pick homosexuals who want to get married as their main opponent.

This entry was posted on Thursday, November 19th, 2009, 1:57 am. You can follow any responses to this article through the RSS feed.