Women’s rights. Gay rights. The rights of religious minorities to practice their faiths. In all of these areas, and many more, we have seen concerted efforts by conservative religious groups aimed at imposing their own beliefs on the nation — if not the world — as a whole. Even economics is not immune; “biblical capitalism” has become a motivating philosophy for people who believe that the Bible mandates unregulated, free-market capitalism.
Now, of course a person’s politics are going to be influenced by his or her religious beliefs, and of course everyone has the right to vote according to his or her conscience. In addition, the mere fact that religious teachings parallel public policy is not in itself a bad thing; very often, both religion and government have compatible aims. For example, prohibitions of murder appear in both arenas, and for similar reasons. But matters of public policy should be decided by appeals to the public good, not to religious dogma. If there are no arguments to be made that are not religious in nature (such as “We should not tolerate homosexuality because God forbids it”) then there simply are no good arguments to be made for why such dogma should be imposed on society as a whole.
In fact, the use of religious arguments to support a political stance undermines not only the separation of church and state, but also the very notion of democracy. Democracy — even in the indirect, representative form we have here in the United States — implies that we all have an equal voice. But if a candidate claims the mantle of God over himself or his policies, a vote against him turns into a vote against God. Similarly, when one side in an argument claims to be speaking for God, and believes God has spoken definitively on the matter, they have effectively inoculated themselves against any form of negotiation or compromise. They have elevated their voices above all others, claiming Divine right.
The irony is, the would-be theocrats use the very mechanisms of democracy to undermine it, just as they use the idea of religious tolerance to undermine our pluralistic society. Christian dominionist Gary North is quoted in the article on “biblical capitalism” linked above, saying:
“We must use the doctrine of religious liberty … until we train up a generation of people who know that there is no religious neutrality, no neutral law, no neutral education, and no neutral civil government.
Then they will get busy constructing a Bible-based social, political and religious order which finally denies the religious liberty of the enemies of God.”
So while we rightfully defend the freedoms we desire by extending them to others, it behooves us to be aware that there are those who have no interest in doing the same for us. And even Christians and other monotheists should be wary of joining forces with those who would impose their religious views on a pluralistic society — because while you might appear to be in agreement now, in the end only one point of view will prevail. The rest will be classed as heretics along with the rest of us.
Democracy is messy. Pluralism is messy. But we are all benefited by a system where “all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion,” as Thomas Jefferson wrote in a precursor to the First Amendment. And that may be the biggest heresy of all.
(This post is a contribution to the Blog Against Theocracy 2010 blogswarm.)
April 4, 2010 at 8:10 pm
as messy as democracy is, injecting religion is even messier. all religions, even the more sane and peaceful ones – have a tinge (or overflow) of arrogance and superiority – something that does not work well in democracy.
sadly <> also gives you Fred Phelps – do where do you draw the line.
i just do know
April 5, 2010 at 3:02 am
I don’t follow. First you say: everyone can vote his or her conscience. But then you say that claiming that God favors a certain position undermines democracy. In other words, it seems you are saying that you can vote your conscience, but if your conscience is religiously motivated, and leads to a conclusion that purely secular concerns would not, you have become an enemy of democracy.
Democracy is just the idea that everybody gets to vote, right? How is someone denied a vote if a candidate says that god likes them?
April 5, 2010 at 2:13 pm
Here’s the key difference for me – someone quoting scripture to express a general principle such as “helping the poor” isn’t so bad, but saying we must do something because a supposedly holy book says so “being gay is evil!” is authoritarian. Theocrats don’t seek to persuade, they seek to command.
April 5, 2010 at 2:21 pm
Thanks for your comments.
If I sound contradictory, it’s probably because I’m deeply conflicted by the question.
By saying people should be free to vote their conscience, I wanted to acknowledge that I don’t think people should be expected to keep their faith locked in a little box that doesn’t influence the rest of their opinions, including their political opinions. At the same time, however, I think people should refrain from imposing their religious beliefs on others when there is no non-religious justification for them.
To use a made-up example, if your faith says “Thou shalt not eat carrots,” then don’t eat carrots. But don’t also try to legislate that no one else can eat carrots, either.
I think of voting as the mechanism of democracy, but democracy is much more than voting. It is a system by which (in theory, at least) the people can govern themselves, and whenever you have a great many people trying to do this, there have to be compromises. The ability to debate and compromise is what is undermined by people claiming to speak for God. They claim to have the final, definitive answer from on high, which effectively quashes any further debate (or at least turns it into: “I speak for God.” “No, you don’t.” “Yes, I do.” “No, you don’t.” Etc.)
In fact, quashing debate is usually the intent of such statements.
In addition, democracy as applied in the US is not simply “majority rules.” Democracy can easily become mob rule if there are no checks put in place to protect the rights of the minority. The First Amendment is one of those checks, and in part, it’s meant to ensure that the religion of the majority is not imposed on the minority, no matter how many votes it might get.
And to answer distributorcap’s comment: yeah, freedom of religion means you do end up with the Phelpses, too. But much as I dislike them, I like the alternative (of not having such freedom) even less. *sigh*
April 5, 2010 at 3:27 pm
“Theocrats don’t seek to persuade, they seek to command.” Thank you, Batocchio!
April 7, 2010 at 9:06 pm
Very nicely written!
The more unsubstantiated and circular the claim – “The Emperor must be obeyed because he is the Emperor!” – the less tolerance there can be for dissent. The more that claims are based on documented observable fact, the more they can tolerate dissent and profit from it. As Fran Langum argues, any god worth worshiping is strong enough to tolerate doubters and dissenters and doesn’t need the hand of man for assistance.
Democracy is messy, that is its strength, and while it is sometimes difficult to tolerate we have to learn to embrace that untidiness. But all rights have limits, because left unbounded they will always expand until they over-run the rights of others. Anti-abortion rights protesters have a right to demonstrate, but in a very reasonable judicial solution they have also been ordered to stay well away from abortion clinic entryways so those exercising their equally valid constitutional right to have an abortion can do so.
Similarly, the courts should find that the Phelps fools can have their stupid demonstrations but they must do so outside of the hearing and line of sight of those who are exercising their equal right to conduct a funeral. I don’t mind idiots behaving badly in public, so long as they don’t impede my right to go about my own business in peace.
April 23, 2011 at 11:47 am
All of the things you are talking about are being twisted into “War against the family” thinking.
Hard religgies are being pounded over the head by the beaters about this weekly in firey sermons that seem to evoke attitudes more akin to Dr. Tiller’s murderer than the simple message of Christ.
“Do unto everybody else except us” is the direction political conservativism has led American evangelical/ecstatic revelation church thinking, and to me that is the biggest heresy of them all.