I have mixed feelings (though mostly negative) about a new piece at HuffPo by William B. Bradshaw, “Religion and politics do mix.” Bradshaw, by the way, is religious; he’s described at his site as “a graduate of the University of Missouri majoring in English and Yale Divinity School studying for the pastoral ministry, earned a PhD degree at the University of St. Andrews, Scotland.” He’s also written a book on grammatical mistakes.
The piece is, by and large, lame: it’s unworthy of a high-school essay much less a HuffPo piece (in fact, the two have many similarities). But there are two things I like about it. The first is Bradshaw’s claim that, given religion’s importance in the life of believers, they should he discussing it constantly:
No two subjects are more important for one’s total well-being than religion and politics. Politics is all about one’s well-being when living in this life, and religion is all about one’s well-being in the life to come. What could possibly be more important than these two subjects? So why shouldn’t we be discussing religion and politics with our friends, neighbors, family members, significant others, and in the wider community?
By all means! But that holds for nonbelievers, too. So when the faithful bring up their religion, Bradshaw must surely agree that we should be free to criticize it. After all, that’s “discussion,” isn’t it? And, of course, when you realize the importance of religion, and its claims about reality (i.e., about your “life to come”), then surely you must take great care in assessing which religion, if any, to embrace. To those like Karen Armstrong and Terry Eagleton, who dismiss claims about heaven and afterlives as false assumptions by New Atheists about what people really believe, note that Bradshaw is not talking about a Ground of Being here!
I also like Bradshaw’s frank admission that, for many Americans, the separation between church and state is regularly abrogated when it comes to the ballot box, for many Americans do vote according to the tenets of their faith. In fact, many Americans would like a theocracy.
Although our politicians contend that there should be separation of church and state, how many times do we see religious convictions and political issues intersect in such a way that religion cannot possibly be separated from the state? I speak, for example, of such basic religious and political issues as: school prayer, sex education in public schools, abortion, legalized marijuana, euthanasia, same-sex marriage, tax abatements for not-for profit organizations, war, torture of prisoners, religious symbols and statues on public property, and opening public meetings with prayer. It is absolutely ridiculous to suggest that religious convictions don’t influence political decisions! By how much is a bigger question.
Bradshaw, however, buttresses his argument with the familiar but specious claim that this country was founded on religious principles:
Early European history teaches us that religion played a major role in the political development of Europe. In turning to early United States history, “God” and the “Creator” are clearly mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, but God is not mentioned in the United States Constitution or the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the Constitution). Yet if one reads the papers and speeches of the founding fathers of our country and the framers of the Constitution, there is absolutely no question that their belief in God and divine providence played a consequential role in the early history of the United States and the framing of the Constitution.
After a comprehensive tour of the White House, the Capital [sic], the United States Supreme Court Building, the Library of Congress, the Washington Monument, the Thomas Jefferson Memorial, the Lincoln Memorial, Arlington National Cemetery, Union Station, and statues throughout Washington, one cannot help being greatly impressed by the number of times “God” is engraved in marble or stone. And let us not forget our country’s motto: “in God we trust”; the fact that our country’s motto is included on all coins and paper money; that there are chaplains for both houses of the U. S. Congress; and that “under God” is in the Pledge of Allegiance. Yet, God is not mentioned in our national anthem, The Star Spangled Banner. The First Amendment of the Constitution makes it clear that no religion shall be established by any branch of the United States Government–hence, separation of church and state. But that same amendment guarantees freedom of religion.
Bradshaw doesn’t mention that “in God we trust” has been the country’s “official” motto only since 1956, that it first appeared on coins only in 1864, and, as members of the Freedom from Religion foundation know well, was printed on paper money beginning as late as 1957 (at the FFRF’s annual meeting, they raffle off “clean” money—bills made before 1957 that lack the offending slogan).
And what about that “consequential” role of religion in the framing of the Constitution? What exactly would that be? The only consequential role I know of is the insistence by our founders that church and state be kept separate. People like Franklin, Jefferson, and Madison were at best deists, but more likely were agnostics or atheists who couldn’t confess unbelief because of the social climate of 18th century America. Bradshaw, of course, gives no example of the importance of “belief in God and divine providence” in our early history and framing of the Constitution. I’ll grant that many people came to America for religious freedom, but that’s precisely why we’ve kept religion out of government.
What I don’t like about the piece is Bradshaw’s claim that people should vote according to their religious scruples:
Every year is important for religion, as we need the continued influence of religious convictions for all those making decisions in our various houses of government. Your religious convictions speak as you go to political rallies, visit with office holders, write letters to the editor, and step into the ballot box. Furthermore, we never know when accidents or illness will take us or our loved ones from this life. What you believe about life after death–about heaven, hell, purgatory, or nothing at all–should always be a high priority in your religious life. You owe it to yourself, your family and friends, and to your country to be well-informed about, and committed to, your spiritual convictions.
Yes, of course people are going to vote according to their religious convictions and morality. What else could they do? If your faith tells you that homosexuality is a sin, you’re certainly not going to vote for a politician who supports gay marriage. If you think a zygote is a person, you won’t support a pro-choice candidate. But voting on the basis of religious conviction is about the worst thing you can do, for religious ethics are far inferior to secular ethics. Religious ethics are absorbed without reflection or rationale; secular ethics require—or should require—not only reflection, but justification.
And reflexive voting based on what your church teaches often means voting in favor of retrograde values that are impervious to social change. It’s no accident that it is religious voters who, by and large, are against gay rights, women’s rights, equality for ethnic minorities, assisted dying, and, indeed, abrogation of the First Amendment itself. It’s the faithful who want to dismantle the very strictures inserted into our Constitution by our founders: a strict separation between government and religion. If Rick Warren were President, we’d see copies of the Ten Commandments in every courthouse and government office in the land.
No, we don’t need “the continued influence of religious convictions” in our government. What we need are the influence of secular and reasoned convictions: those free from ancient superstition and unthinking adherence to dogma.
Shame on HuffPo for publishing this—except that they are not capable of shame. Their guiding principle is to publish anything that’s even halfway literate, and to enrich themselves by exploiting writers, like Bradshaw, who couldn’t place such essays in places that would pay for them.
h/t: Steve
