« Putting it lightly | Main | Drive By Media »
April 16, 2006
Wonderfully Fair Opinion Piece about Religion in Public Life
I do not agree with all pionts, but I think Jon Meacham offers a great illustration of religiousity in American life.
George H.W. Bush was nearly in tears. Standing in front of deep burgundy curtains on a stage in College Station, Tex., late one afternoon last week, the 41st president was presenting an award for public service to his longtime friend the Rev. Billy Graham. Now 87, white-maned, hard of hearing and able to move only with a walker, Graham sat near the former president as an emotional Bush talked about prayer and the presidency.
"Many of you here have heard me quote Abraham Lincoln, who once said that 'I have often gone to my knees in prayer out of the conviction that I had no place else to go,' but sometimes even that is not enough. No matter how deep one's faith is, sometimes you need the guidance and comfort of a living, breathing human being. For me, and for so many occupants of the Oval Office, that person was Billy Graham. When my soul was troubled, it was Billy I reached out to, for advice, for comfort, for prayer." Bush's voice cracked with emotion; perhaps, given Graham's fading health, it was one of the last times they would be together.
I get choked up reading it.
Following Homer, who said "all men need the gods," John Adams once remarked: "Religion always has and always will govern mankind. Man is constitutionally, essentially and unchangeably a religious animal. Neither philosophers nor politicians can ever govern him in any other way."
Yet the Founding Fathers knew they would be governing a pluralistic nation. In 1790, his first full year as president, George Washington wrote a powerful letter to the Hebrew Congregation in Newport, R.I., underscoring the American commitment to religious liberty: "It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights," Washington said. "For happily the government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance. . . . "
I believe that no one should feel compelled to be of a certain religion or be religious at all. I don't believe, however, that a president should be denied his faith and his level of enthusiasm for his faith.
At a service for Reagan's second inauguration, Graham reflected on the tensions between God and Caesar. "It is true that we are a pluralistic nation," he said in a sermon at the National Cathedral. "We have a Constitution which guarantees to all of us human freedoms, of which religious freedom is foremost. In America, any and all religions have the right to exist and propagate what they stand for. We enjoy the separation of church and state, and no sectarian religion has ever been -- and we pray God, ever will be -- imposed upon us." The Founders would have understood and approved.
This is where a lot of the frustration begins with people who believe there is a "religious right" out to put a stranglehold on politics. I disagree. Government should not intrude into matters of faith (like establishing a state religion) or telling churches what they can and cannot say (like telling pastors to stay out of political issues), but that does not mean that religion must stay out of politics--there is a difference between government and politics.
Politics deals with matters of morality and most people find morality in religion. Therefore, when issues like the death penalty, war, abortion, education and public good arise, people need to understand that religion should be allowed into the discussion. When people refuse to allow religion as the basis for a person's morality, they themselves create the feeling that that religion is being shoved down their throat. For example, they feel that if a person supports the outlawing of abortion because s/he believes abortion is murder (based on his or her faith) that it somehow uses the government to force the abortion proponent to be more Christian.
The abortion proponent then uses this to somehow disqualify the opponents participation in the political process, and I believe that is fundamentally unfair--by denying a fellow American a voice in an important debate based on his/her religion.
This exlusion is precisely what the First Amendment and the Founding Fathers sought to prevent.
Posted by Aaron at April 16, 2006 10:55 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.lifelikepundits.com/cgi-bin/mt3/mt-tb.cgi/2319
Comments
George has the misty-eyed thing down cold. It works well for him.
There's no way to keep religion out of the discussion, but that's not to say it's a useful addition. Morality can be derived separately from religion, and, given the differning views of morality that come from religions (it's good to blow your self up; it's ok to kill infidels; only Christians get to see God; God doesn't hear the prayers of Jews; drown witches.... etc ad nauseum), one might wish that morality be more reality-based. To wit: I know I'm capable of joy and sorrow. I know, therefore, that others are, too. Therefore I ought to live my life in such a way as not to bring pain and sorrow to others. Or something like that. The golden rule, it turns out, derives from reality.
So. Did the Terri Schiavo debacle teach us anything about why we ought to keep religion out of politics? Public life: different thing. Politics: when government tells me what I can and can't do. If it weren't for religious views, it would be clear that gay marriage, for example, harms no one.
And most egregious of all: when George Bush leads us into war believing God is guiding him, and when that belief, in his mind, justifies ignoring reality, well, we see what happens. So fine. Politicians are allowed to have and profess faith (and, pseudo wars on Xmas, the easter bunny, chrisitanity aside) the fact is you couldn't get elected in this country without professing faith. But when ones faith -- given how diverse are the faiths of people -- is allowed to guide policy above all, then we become what we are ostensibly fighting: taliban. As John Meacham said, quoting I forget whom referring to keeping church and state separate, we ought to resist strongly changing a system that has served us so well, in favor of a system which has served the rest of the world so poorly.
Posted by: Dr. Sid at April 16, 2006 12:26 PM
Aaron, you hit the nail right on the head with the example of a person who opposes abortion solely based on the religious conviction that it's murder. If your only argument for ANYTHING is that it's against your religion, then that argument doesn't belong ANY the debate on government and law.
Otherwise we eventually get to the point where Catholics are not allowed to own property or work at a trade or profession. Or Jews are rounded up and killed. (Im not talking about the WWII holocost here. it happened in Russia in the late 19th century, too.) Or Native American and Gypsy children taken away from their parents and forced into church schools where they weren't allowed to speak their native language of pray to their own gods. Or for that matter adopted by Mormons.
Any time any American finds themself voting to restrict something because its against their religiion they need to question their own motives.
This is the Land of the Free. Not God's Country.
Posted by: IaintBacchus at April 17, 2006 04:53 PM