Every now and then I end up in a political discussion with a certain person at work, and their arguments always seem to come back to the same thing: religious people should keep their religion out of their politics. Naturally, being a religious person, this doesn’t sit well with me. Granted I’m biased, but there also seem to be some very fundamental things wrong with that argument that should bother more than just religious people.
For one, based on our discussions and the evidence I see around me every day, what they really want is for religious people to keep their religion out of politics only when it disagrees with their own. The number of people I see regularly who normally think Catholics are out of touch, if not downright evil, but who gush and fawn over the Pope whenever he says something that agrees with their beliefs is stunning. It’s a bizarre case of “This broken clock is right only twice a day, but when it’s right, I intend to hold it up as the source of all wisdom.” This really only shows that it’s not that some people use religion to drive their political beliefs, it’s that their religion takes them in a different direction than the one they support. They just don’t like it that people disagree with them, and religion is a convenient scapegoat.
Secondly, the people who want to exclude religion as a valid foundation for public opinion seem to begin from the premise that religion is incorrect, and the people who believe it are uninformed, misguided, and misplacing their faith. And yet as often as not, these same people, when directed to discuss specific examples or cases, will often admit they haven’t been paying attention–or simply refuse to accept that counter-arguments could have any validity. They usually seem frightfully under-informed on basic concepts of economics, sociology, the scientific method, and history. They seem more than willing to repeatedly place their faith in government authority, or government programs, or political parties based on little to no real evidence that these are effective, and sometimes over direct evidence to the contrary.
So which is really worse, allowing religious people who are uninformed, misguided, and with misplaced faith to have a say in public policy, or allowing secular people who are uniformed, misguided, and with misplaced faith to have a say? It sounds to me the only real difference is what they claim to worship.
Thirdly, America is based on the ideas of majority rule and enfranchisement. The history of America has been one of increasing the variety of people who get a say in government, not decreasing it. And that’s a good thing. In a democracy the more opportunity for everyone to get a say, the better. But at the end of the day, we still operate on majority rule from as large a population based as possible. One of the basic, foundational disagreements we had to overcome in forming this country was over who was allowed to have a say. Some only wanted the majority of educated landowners to decide things. Others argued against that as encouraging yet another form of tyranny, as people inevitably vote to advance their own self-interests. Can you imagine the riots we would have today if we tried to step things back to where only well-educated white men who owned land could vote? In spite what some people think, no one would choose that today.
Similarly, there has been no “belief test” to determine who can vote. You can believe that a log talks to you and tells you what to do, and there is nothing in the law to stop you from voting. There is nothing in the law to force you to vote. You can be a self- and openly-avowed misanthrope and anarchist, determined to bring down the entire system, and so long as you abide by the laws, there is nothing to stop you from voting. Nor should there be. Any government that imposes laws on what you can believe is open to abuse and tyranny.
Fourthly, not all religions are the same. Not all religious adherents are the same. It is bigotry and prejudice to assume they are all alike, and all seeking the same goal of imposing their religion on everyone else. While it’s true that some are and do, it’s the sign of an unsophisticated, un-nuanced mind to assume all do (see point #1). Just like it would be a mistake to claim my co-worker is a typical liberal (she holds some very strong conservative views in other areas), it would be an error to assume that all religious people think and believe and vote the same way. Quite frankly, it’s prejudice, approaching bigotry.
Fifthly, any time you would limit or remove the rights of someone else you set precedent to have the same done to you. Suppose it really was possible to exclude people from applying their religious beliefs to their political thinking? Does that not, then, set the precedent for some other group to exclude people from applying unscientific or unmathematical beliefs to their political thinking? Suppose there was a law in place that says you can’t push for anything that can’t be scientifically or mathemetically proven will work.
The funny thing is, I’m a religious white male–the bane of Western Civilization. And I don’t care what you believe. You should never be excluded or discouraged from being able to vote for and lobby for what you believe. It is your right as a citizen of this amazing country, no matter how much I may disagree or agree with you. I believe that whole-heartedly. I also believe, however, that unless your beliefs become the majority, you should not get your way. Only if a majority of the governed believe or want the same thing should that ever become the law.
And do you know where I get that idea? From my religious beliefs. It’s spelled out quite plainly in several of my cherished religious texts, and continually reinforced through modern scripture and revelation. My particular religion believes very strongly in the right of every person to choose for themselves, and for a key role of government to be to protect that right. I’d like to think I’d react just as strongly if someone told me that atheists should not be allowed to let their atheism inform their political thinking. Everyone who is governed by our laws should have a say in those laws, no matter what their beliefs or motives may be, or how educated and well-informed they may or may not be.
There’s no denying that this opens–and has opened–our system of government to inefficiency and corruption. But it’s still the best game in town. I’ve yet to see any other system work as well for as long as ours has. As someone has said, Democracy is the worst form of government–after everything else.
FOOTNOTE: Call it morbid coincidence, but the day most of the commentary occurred we also got this: Oregon gunman singled out Christians during rampage. (Headline not entirely correct. He shot non-Christians, too, just in the legs instead of in the head.)
Bottom line:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mG5v2udwOPY
My main objection to religion in politics is that way too many people seem to believe that they can substitute “God said” or “the Bible says” for an actual argument when it comes time to discuss something. Everyone has a right to their beliefs, but if those beliefs aren’t back up by sound reasoning as well as faith, I’m not going to have a lot of respect for them nor will I want that person in a position of power. It’s like that county clerk in Tennessee who decided that her promise to do her job fairly and legally meant nothing the moment she was legally required to do something that went against her precious beliefs. If she’d come up with a better reason for her position than “God said”, or if she’d stepped down from her position in protest, she’d be worthy of at least a modicum of respect. But what she did and continues to do instead – that is why I personally don’t want religion in politics, I don’t want everything deadlocked by people who jam their fingers in their ears and go “la la la, the angels say I can’t hear you” everything someone says something they don’t like. I don’t like the Pope, and I don’t like the fuss everyone made over him last week. But if the Pope wants to talk about things and is willing to take of his Hat of Divine Authority for the conversation, I’ll gladly have that talk with him.
I apologize for wall-o-texting, I do agree with most of your points. I don’t want to make religious people take their ball and go home, I want them to actually play the game with me instead of declaring themselves the winner.
(and I apologize if my response shows up here after I thought better of it and deleted it. You didn’t say what I initially thought you said, and on second read I don’t necessarily take exception with what you said)
And luckily this showed up before I finished MY post about how it looked like we were violently agreeing on this subject. ::grin::
This cartoon is almost completely irrelevant to the discussion, but demonstrates violent agreement: http://www.viruscomix.com/amtaham.html
Perhaps the only thing I would point out here is to reiterate my point that it’s not entirely fair to single out religion. There are plenty of people, if not entire groups (which would be rare), who mingle their beliefs and their politics with no more rational thought than some religious people appear to do.
I may not agree with someone, I may not respect their point of view, and I may think they are entirely irrational in how they arrive at those beliefs, but I will defend their right to believe how they wish and advocate for whatever their beliefs lead them to advocate, be their beliefs be arrived at through reason, ouija board, D20, or the voice of Zuul in their refrigerator. One basic right is the right to be as rational or irrational as makes us happy.
I’ll agree that there are irrational people everywhere. My only counter-contention is that religion (in a general sense, not going to single out a particular religion) has the longest history of use as a shield against reason. “My meatloaf told me X” needs no rebuttal because it’s extremely unlikely that anyone has ever accepted the meatloaf’s word as proof of anything. But if the meatloaf’s advice is actually objectively sound, ie “my meatloaf told me not to play my bagpipes at 2am on my neighbor’s lawn”, then I can agree that non-post-midnight-bagpiping is a good idea no matter what I think of your meatloaf.
True, but that’s like saying we should ignore ISIS because Al Qaeda has been trying to blow up the world longer. Religion may have the longer history as scapegoat, but clearly, they’re not the ones calling the shots any more. If religion is so powerful, why does it lose so much lately? Just because there are longer-term patients around doesn’t mean it’s a good idea to put the newer inmates in charge of the asylum.
I’m not trying to say that religion is “more invalid”, I’m saying that irrational people who operate solo on the fringe are easier to spot and refute than irrational people who claim to belong to groups that also contain a portion of rational people. Individuality vs. group identity is one of humanity’s knotty and frustrating bits that can produce both wonderful and infuriating behaviors.
Huh. I thought you were defending singling out religion. I must have misunderstood what you were counter-contending.
No. I stand w/ you on this issue … mostly. The point that I was making, poorly, with the clip was, the basic argument boils down to, “I don’t like your opinion, and claiming that you are a religious jerk and being religious disqualifies ANY position, is the easiest way that I can summarily dismiss you without having to actually consider your merits or the merits of your argument, because, well, frankly I want what I want and any other position is wrong, because it disagree with me and what i want, so, shut up.” Or more simply, “shut up”.
No. I stand w/ you on this issue … mostly. The point that I was making, poorly, with the clip was, the basic argument boils down to, “I don’t like your opinion, and claiming that you are a religious jerk and being religious disqualifies ANY position, is the easiest way that I can summarily dismiss you without having to actually consider your merits or the merits of your argument, because, well, frankly I want what I want and any other position is wrong, because it disagree with me and what i want, so, shut up.” Or more simply, “shut up”.
Right. There’s people all over the place whose ability to support their position amounts of “….shut up you monster”.
Everywhere.
I would have to contend that religion is the “excuse” not the “reason”. I say this as someone who has, because of his faith, had to change an opinion or two.