A quiet assumption has blossomed in the last several decades: people of faith have no business bringing their religion to bear on politics. This view assumes that a secular approach is unbiased. Religious belief is thought to be a private matter and not a serious source of knowledge regarding reality. The idea is that bringing your religion into the public square imposes that religion on others. So one should leave the faith-talk in one’s house of worship. Even our forebearers (like Thomas Jefferson, Supreme Court, etc.) seemed to declare that the wall between church and state should be kept impenetrably high.
Anyone who has skimmed a freshman history book knows that religious institutions have a horrible track record when holding the political reigns. Many of our forebearers escaped tyranny in order to establish a government free from religious entanglements. But did the framers of the Constitution intend that citizens of a democratic republic should leave their religion at home? The evident answer from history and modern practice is, “No.”
The First Amendment proclaims, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” as well as affirms our freedom of speech. In other words, the First Amendment as conceived by the founding fathers protects religion from the government’s intrusion, not the other way around. Even President Jefferson, often championed as the proponent of rigid separation, sanctioned worship services on the floor of Congress every Sunday (and even regularly attended despite his ambiguous religious convictions) to show support for this most basic right. Under the influence of the “quiet assumption,” however, the First Amendment has been adjusted (in practice) to be a “freedom from religion” instead of “freedom of religion.”
The beautiful thing about a democratic republic is that decisions are made based on persuasion and majority rule. That means it is impossible for a religious person to “impose” their beliefs on anyone. Technically speaking, all our laws (from the speed limit to the prohibition on murder) “impose” morality on the entire citizenry! Yet we consent to them as the most suitable way to dwell peacefully together. The majority decides what is best for the people through open, civil debate. The quality of this kind of civil discourse preserves and protects the rights of “free exercise” and “speech” for all.
Sadly, some people of faith (as well as some atheists) have wielded their views as a club and therefore lose the credibility to be heard. However, virtually all religious and atheistic moral codes teach some version of the Golden Rule (“Do unto others…”) preserving an indispensible respect for all people. When religious rhetoric in political dialogue turns viral and disrespectful, it should be stopped on this common moral premise. How we disagree is as important as the topic over which we disagree. However that should not imply we go so far as to exclude anyone who brings their religious views to the table, especially when done respectfully.
We all vote from a set of presuppositions, religious or not. Our worldview represents the fundamental beliefs we hold about reality and ourselves. To say that religious belief does not belong in the political sphere is to impose a non-religious framework of political discourse that is intolerant of those who view reality differently. Is it not an oppressive restriction of the fundamental rights of free religious exercise and speech when religious people are asked to leave an essential aspect of their identity at the door of political dialogue? Our ingenious political system is designed to bring varied people together to debate civic issues pertinent to all regardless of why a person votes the way they do.
The point is that religious people should have the opportunity to be influential participants in politics. By “influential participants,” I do not mean domineering, condescending, belligerent, or judgmental and especially making the government the arm of a particular religion. Rather, religious people should be winsome, thoughtful, loving, and persuasive conversation partners. If I take my belief in Jesus seriously, I will want to be known as much by my loving demeanor than for the issue I am debating! The Bible and history is filled with countless constructive examples of people who had beneficial political influence, even on non-religious empires! (I.e., Joseph, Moses, Daniel, Jeremiah, Paul, William Wilberforce, Catherine Helen Spence, Martin Luther King, Jr., Mother Theresa, just to name very few).
In a nation that runs on the “will of the people,” religious people should not be timid about joining the conversation but allow arguments to stand on their own. We should also defend that right for all people, regardless of religious or non-religious persuasion. We need a public square defined by civility and open discourse as conceived for our founding fathers. We do this not through demanding that someone leave core aspects of themselves behind but by being willing to change the tone of our discourse with those whom we disagree.
– David Taylor
Floyd
