Politics free from religion just as important as religious freedom
Olivia Trone photographed by Isabella Kneeshaw.
February 10, 2023
Historically, religious people have been political activists seeking to reform the way America thinks about certain controversial topics. The separation of church and state is a philosophical and political concept that attempts to distinguish where the line between society and religion should be drawn. However, the issue with the fluidity of the term is that it leaves too much up for interpretation to the individual. When this happens, especially in political situations, it causes division that affects the quality of governance.
Historically, the United States has practiced secularism when it comes to conducting affairs, especially ones that relate to business. Liberalism and secularism often overlap, while religious practices and conservatism overlap as well. The minimization of religion in the public sphere is something that many people in this country support, despite the arguments in favor of non-secular practices on the basis of constitutional religious freedom, such as the freedom to pray in school. In addition to the separation of church and state, religion — and the absence of it — plays an important role in culture. Morality and ethics are both things that can be learned with or without religion. The idea of secular morality and secular ethics forces people to choose what is right and wrong without the influence of religion. Secular ethics tend to result in good being defined as what contributes to justice and the equal success of humanity, rather than an abstract concept of good based on religion.
There are several political arguments that raise moral concerns on both sides. For example, as the debate over abortion has increased with the overturning of Roe vs. Wade, religious — and generally right-wing — people have expressed concerns for the life of the baby in question. They argue that protecting the life of the unborn child is more important than prioritizing the physical rights of the birth-giver. More liberal people are typically pro-choice and believe the person giving birth should have the right to choose whether or not they have an abortion. They argue that the government has no right to issue a mandate against abortion under any circumstance. In terms of COVID-19 vaccine mandates, conservatives argue the opposite, saying “my body, my choice,” while they still think birth-givers should be forced to birth a child. Getting a safe vaccine is not comparable to forcing birth. In contrast, lots of religions preach agency, but is agency only important when it supports their own values?
One of the main questions this issue raises is: should religion be involved in politics? Religion affects morality and culture on a very deep level for people who let it, in which case the separation of the two would be very difficult. In a dream world for secularists, the two would be completely mutually exclusive. But asking a religious person to remove religion when politics enters the conversation is nearly impossible. The way to completely separate them on a surface level is to give the state complete power and religious associations none at all. Considering that most religious positions are volunteer ones, it would not be unreasonable to give them no clear power in governance. However, the state must be equally neutral with non-religious groups and religious groups to achieve full separation and impartiality. This situation sounds impossible because it is; there is virtually no way to completely separate religion and politics because both affect each other so much. Although this is true, there is still a philosophical argument for separating the ideals of politics and religion, unless the two become obsolete. “One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all” is a statement that cannot be achieved while the line between religion and politics remains undefined.
The moral debate on how to distinguish between religion and politics is something that causes both good and bad consequences. The debate will never end, and as it continues, people carry on with their lives and develop their own beliefs. This country was founded on religious freedom, therefore the freedom to practice it should remain in place. But the freedom to remove it from politics is equally as important, and the debate will never end if political morality and religious morality continue to contradict one another.
Loading ...
Colin Germer • Feb 10, 2023 at 10:27 PM
Hello! After reading the article, I thought it would be of value to dialogue and post my reaction. Central to our education is examination, challenge, and reasoning; our teachers do not let us get away with bad logic or even away with good logic without putting us in the fire of testing. For this reason, I wanted to write. I am not writing to contend with the author, but to contend with several statements, arguments, and opinions that I find contradictory and faulty, in order that the truth may be pursued. If this is not a good place for this type of interaction, please let me know where I can interact. Until then, I will post this in hopes that we can grow as students to think, examine, and test all things, and also in hopes that, with thinking minds, we may have faithful hearts that love God and love others.
Firstly, in your article, you say that the issue of defining the separation of Church and State is complex and “leaves too much up for interpretation,” which seems to be a central hinge of your argument. We may both agree the term can be ambiguous, but I think when we look at the thinking of the founders themselves, it is not vague, and I believe it actually contradicts your point. When the founders spoke of the separation between Church and State, they did not intend a separation between God and government, or religion and the state in the sense you mean. If they intended to keep all religious thought out of policy, then why does the Declaration pronounce, in no unclear terms, that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights?” Why does our money say “In God we Trust,” along with the phrase being written over many of our courts or chambers? Did the founders, being made up of mostly protestants (protestants whose religion played a major role in their politics) and some Deists, really intend to say that our country was to be entirely secular, with policies that never flowed from religious conviction? No, it is clear they did not. In fact, they seem to say the opposite, as they raise religion (especially Christianity) as vital to the nation. John Adams once said that “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other,” and the Northwest Ordinance (a vital document in our founding) lists religion as necessary and for the good of the government and happiness of mankind, and therefore is something that “shall forever be encouraged” through schools (Article 3). While the phrasing on its own may be unclear, the founders were not, and when we look at what they said, they in no way advocate for the radical division you make between religion and politics. Politics was never made to be free from religion in America, in fact, the founders seemed to think a political system free from religion would fall (See John Adams).
Further, I would point out with you that it is impossible to separate religion from politics. Why? Because religion is a worldview, just as secularism is. Why should one worldview be banned from politics and another allowed? Especially when that worldview has been the overwhelming majority for most of our country’s history. The question is not whether religion will play the role, but which. There is no neutrality. Secularism is just as much of a worldview as any religion, and therefore what makes it superior? It is not neutral, just as religion is not neutral, both have fundamental beliefs that will necessarily define policy. It is not whether but which, and just because religion holds to a belief in transcendent things does not mean it is excluded from a place at the table. In fact, I would argue that because of religion’s belief in the transcendent, it must have a place at the table.
This leads me to my central argument and problem with your article, and that is, secularism does not provide a foundation for justice and morality. You say that “Morality and ethics are both things that can be learned with or without religion,” I agree with that to an extent, because all of us are made in God’s image, so I do not deny that you and I both know right and wrong. Where I would contend with you is when you say “Secular ethics tend to result in good being defined as what contributes to justice and the equal success of humanity, rather than an abstract concept of good based on religion.” The fact is, the opposite is true: secularism provides an abstract concept of good that holds no ground. If there is no God, if we are all just evolved monkeys in a meaningless universe, then there is no such thing as “justice” or “good,” only tooth and claw, survival of the fittest, and personal opinion. To quote the popular Atheist Richard Dawkins, without God there is “no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference” (Rivers out of Eden). You may say you do not “like” evil, but at the end of the day, your worldview leaves you with no option but to say that is your opinion. Far from secular ethics resulting in good and justice, they undermine any foundation for ethics: who defines justice? Who defines equal success? Hitler and Stalin were secular leaders, and their definition of good was not ours, but according to what standard were they immoral or wrong? We both know they are wrong, but if there is no God, then this article makes no sense. Far from being “abstract,” Christianity provides a foundation for justice and equal success; we say it is rooted in God’s nature, written in man’s conscience, and revealed in His law, and therefore there is objective good and justice, because He is Himself goodness and justice. The abstract worldview with vain dreams is not Christianity but secularism. And this is why religion must play a role in politics because apart from Christ, we are only left with chaos.
In the end, you are right about this: we will never have “One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all” until we define the distinction between religion and politics; in other words, we will never have liberty and justice until we acknowledge that we are a nation under God. If we try to remove God from the state, we will never have justice, unity, or liberty, because we will be rejecting the Giver while trying to enjoy His gifts. Apart from Him, liberty and justice are but “Sound and fury signifying nothing.”
Lastly, I would like to address some of the statements about abortion, which I believe miss the issue. Firstly, I am unapologetically pro-life and for the abolition of abortion in this country. I am not against the “physical rights of the birth-giver (you mean women?),” the problem is we are not talking about the mother’s body, we are talking about the body of the baby. So when you accuse us of being hypocritical in our views of agency, I think you miss the point; in vaccines, we are talking about injection into a person’s body, when we are talking about abortion, we are talking about killing another human being in the womb. Those are two different things, and our view is incredibly consistent. One can say “My body my choice” all they want, but until they respect the choice and value of that little baby’s body, then it is a contradiction as loud as the sea in a storm. So we are not about forcing birth or removing agency, we are about protecting life. No one has the right to take innocent life. If anything, those who stand for abortion are the ones forcing the opposite of birth: death.
In summary, religion should not and was never intended to be separated from politics entirely, in fact, our constitution stands on the existence of a moral and religious people. This subject has been addressed several times on The Wolf, and I will admit, I have been disappointed at what seems to be an often very one-sided view of things. There was an article originally done on this subject that interviewed two individuals, one who claimed to be a Christian; the problem was, by all historical standards, she was not orthodox, denying historical tenets of the faith. Perhaps that is unintentional and simply a result of who joined the Newspaper, but I think it would still be good to see opposite sides. At the end of the day, we are a school, and schools are not made to be an echo chamber, but lively grounds of discussion; we grow through trial, and trial is what is contrary. For this reason I write, out of a love for the truth founded in a love for Christ, who is the truth. I do not do so to attack any individual in this newspaper, and I hope it has not come off that way. I want to challenge and attack ideas, not people, which is, in part, the purpose of our education. Thank you.