Religious intrusion into politics is nothing new. For over 600 years, the Catholic Church ruled over the conglomeration of countries now known as Europe. In the Middle East today, into the distant past, the current unrest is nothing more than a battle of religious ideologies and their desire for political power. These ideological battles for political power have often been defined as political battles in the name of religion, but if history is to be used as a gauge, these are battles for the sake of religion. It is (and continues to be) ideology that defines the politician by many voters in many countries, just as it was the Catholic Church that defined western Europe for so many years. Politics is a power-based endeavor, and it is power that religions need in order to fulfill their particular and clear-cut goals. In the current political farce for the presidency, a great percentage of the U.S.A is voting based on religious ideology rather than political issues. To those religiously minded voters, there is only one issue: their own religious viewpoints, and their personal desire to make these viewpoints law.
Since the inception of the Constitution, and before, it has been the nationalization of the doctrine of Christianity that has been the goal for a small but vocal minority of this country. They have continually tried to position their religious opinions as being political facts; their intentions are to try to somehow justify their ideology in order to gain political access by gaining public respect, if not voluntarily then by force. This idea of constituents of a nation promoting religious doctrines is nothing new: it is commonly known as manifest destiny if it is an action aimed at a foreign country (such as Iraq), and it is known as a form of theocratic motivation if it is done within one’s own country (such as the United States or any one of the middle-eastern countries). However, good governments by definition are not supposed to be the puppets of any ideological belief. Rather, they are to be bodies of officials that organize and administrate societies in a fair and impartial way. No religion is impartial, and no religion seriously desires a good government. Rather, they want one that is conducive to their particular religious goals.
One of the most ubiquitous arguments is that the USA is a Christian nation, but it was not set up to be such by the founding fathers. Thomas Jefferson wrote of “building a wall of separation between church and state” in a letter to a Baptist church. Furthermore, the United States Bill of Rights clearly makes the separation between church and state the intentions of the founding fathers in two clauses: the establishment clause and the free exercise clause. This being so, many theologians continue to argue that because many of the founding fathers were Christian, it was their purpose and hope that the USA would be a Christian nation. While it may be true that many founders of the United States were Christian, it does not necessarily follow that their purpose and hope was to create a theocracy. This is dubious reasoning given that it was freedom from religion that they were in part trying to establish in founding the United States in the first place. But, for the sake of argument, given that the founding fathers were mostly Christian and wanted the USA to be a Christian nation, such a nation is not necessarily the best kind. As I stated in ID 2: The Political War of Religion, there are at least three reasons that this is so.
“Even given that the founding fathers were “mostly Christian” and wanted the USA to be a Christian nation, it is not necessarily the best thing for any nation to become a theocracy. First, theocracies are intolerant of other nations and peoples which have different belief systems. This has been and continues to be a leading cause of the downfall of nations and wars across the globe. Secondly, theocracies are authoritarian. Authoritarian governments do not allow for the questioning of their authority, but rather expect that its authority be accepted unconditionally. This leads to political corruption, the slow degradation of social faith in the government, and the eventual downfall of those societies. Without the ability to decide, question and choose autonomously, societies deteriorate. Thirdly, theocracies tend to be dogmatic in their belief that God has condoned their existence. Manifest destiny has been used to justify unjustifiable acts of war as well as unjustifiable acts against the societies that are governed by theocracies. Even if the founding fathers were mostly Christian and desired the American government to be theocratic by nature, it is surely not a good decision to do so.”
Religious voters are not simply irrational, but have a clear and concise goal that they want achieved. As Bruce Chapman, an ID adherent was quoted as saying in regard to the Discovery Institute’s actions: “We are not going through this exercise [condoning ID] for the fun of it. We think some of these ideas are destined to change the intellectual-and in time the political-world (emphasis added).” Religious voters are not going through the exercise of political manipulation “for the fun of it”. People who vote solely based on their personal beliefs alone, rather than the full range of issues believe that their flavor of religion ought to be the reigning political foundation for this country. These people are nothing less than irresponsible, narrow-minded, selfish, and often dangerous if allowed to steer the reigns of politics. Given the dubious motivations, both moral and intellectual, of religion and religious motivation, and the seemingly inevitable consequences of theocratic governments, it would seem to be in the best interest of every individual if religion was unconditionally refused access to political power of any kind. Some adherents of religion argue that this is disregards their rights as individuals, but it does not. As individuals they are free to worship if they choose, but they do not have the right to make worship the law of the land. Faith in one’s religion is a right that the religious have but it does not give them the right, nor does it make it the ethical choice, to politicize any belief system, as has the recent actions by rogue preachers have tried. The efforts of religious people to erase all separation between church and state are based on nothing more than emotional desire and ignorance if not outright stupidity: none of which are the basis of a healthy country.
While it is true that everyone in a free society ought to have the right to vote, it is not true that everyone should have that right regardless. Religious political efforts by both churches and religious individuals are nothing more than a thin disguise for their true goal: to gain political (and hence ideological) power in order to further their own, personal beliefs. Churches, if they are to regard one politician over another, as an entity, need to be taxed as an entity. It is incredible that this country continues to allow churches to continue to be tax-free for no other reason than an antiquated and ridiculous belief that all religion is to be “respected”. Furthermore, if persons (religious or not) cannot differentiate emotional from intellectual reasoning, than perhaps an IQ test should be given to all people who would register to vote. Otherwise, this country becomes nothing more than the political product of the ignorant and incompetent.
Search This Blog
