Religion – What is it?

 

The vast majority of Americans believe in God. The majority are also Christian. Most of those majorities believe that this is a “Christian nation,” the constitution being founded on Christian, therefore religious, principles. The provable fact that this is not the case is not something those believers chose to find and verify through research into our history. The majorities also believe that, because of this originating influence of Christianity on the formation and governance of our nation , the separation of church and state not only does not, but should not exist. At the same time, many who espouse certain features or symbols of religion as being acceptable to a secular government, claim that such things are not really religious, but are simply aspects of our culture and our history and should not be considered as intrusions into the supposed secular government.

 

I propose some rules of the road in this area; rules that I have invented but that I believe fit the current dialogue. My rules define what is religious, as it may pertain to our government, our institutions, our education system and our public discourse:

 

1. Whatever is said that has as its impetus or source any religious text or teaching or preaching is itself religious.
2. Whatever is done, based on a religious text or teaching or preaching is a religious act, and therefore is religious..
3. Whatever is displayed that has a religious nature, character or suggestion and is based on some religious text, teaching or preaching, is religious.
4.  Whatever is taught that is based on some religious text, teaching or preaching is a religious act, and therefore is religious.
5. If “God” or “Christ” or any other unquestionably religious figure or reference is involved in public discourse as supporting some position, that activity is religious.

 

It has been claimed that displaying the nativity scene is not religious, but only an expression that relates to the holiday season, is simply traditional, however suggestive, and historic, more than religious. I deny this, according to my rule 3. above. The Christmas holidays themselves are religious, since they represent  a celebration of the birth of Christ, the founder of the Christian faith

 

I know that the faithful hold to the idea that our moral base is and must be religious, since without an irrefutable, permanent and transcendent foundation for our morals, we would be adrift without a moral compass to guide us on the right path. They do not accept the separation of church and state, (as espoused by Thomas Jefferson) because they make the assumption that the founding fathers had as their moral compass the Bible and the teachings of Christ, regardless of the fact that our constitution makes no mention of Christ, God, or the Bible and in no way depends on religious dogma for its contents. Those who rail against abortion or homosexuality, for example, frequently use the Bible as their guide for argument, but would be loathe to use the same Bible in defense of other practices, some unquestionably horrific by today’s standards, mentioned in the Old Testament – i.e. they pick and choose where and how to use the Bible. Their religious practice is tailor-made to their personal proclivities and beliefs, usually based to what they have learned early in life from parents and preachers.

 

Recently, much is being made of why Creationism or, lately renamed  “Intelligent Design (ID)” should be taught along with evolution in high school, as an equally viable explanation of how organisms, and everything else, came about on our planet. These ID advocates are careful not to mention God as the agent for the ID so as to make the “theory” out to be more scientific in nature and a fair competitor for evolution – more specifically, Darwinian evolution. They claim that evolution as it is typically taught today is just a theory, not a fact, and that ID, also a theory, surely deserves equal footing as for teaching young minds about biological realities. These people are clever in choosing to try and disassociate religion from their ID propositions. ID implies an intelligence; whose intelligence? That “who” cannot be any other than some kind of supreme being – let’s not kid ourselves here. One needs to look no further than the book of Genesis to see the implied source of this intelligence. “God said: Let the earth bring forth living creatures….” Of course, God is the supreme intelligence that is hinted at in the ID argument. It is simply blatant subterfuge and dishonesty to disavow any connection between religion and the ID idea, and therefore, to propose teaching it along side evolution, is indeed breaking my rule number 4. If those ID proponents deny that God or religion has anything to do with the issue, they might be questioned as to whose intelligence is being presented in the concept. In addition, the ID proponents (all of whom are in some way connected to religious organizations and beliefs) might explain how ID is not only as rigorous a theory as evolution, why it is necessary at all, or, perhaps  more to the point, why it might be superior to other concepts.

 

When the president invokes God in one of his speeches, regardless of the venue, he is being religious -- breaking my Rule 5. By doing this he is clearly mixing his religious faith with his office as head of state. Should we be concerned about this?  Yes. From his history and his behavior these past four years, we know that his God references are not innocent .His active pursuit of installing “faith based initiatives,” for example, that use federal funds, is a blatant breaking of the Jeffersonian rule of preserving the “wall” that should separate church from state. It is not necessary to promote any single faith to break that rule, but only to invoke or use a connection to any single deity, or any general deity (God). This invocation is a religious act, make no mistake about it,

 

What is so bad about this? Why should we not accept the general consensus that we are a religious or a Christian nation, and go about our business as if all is well? What could be any possible consequences of such an open embrace of God in our system of government, in our laws, in our education and our justice systems? The answers are not hard to find. Here are a few:

 

1. Appeals to a religion frequently go against science, if that science is seen to challenge any tenet of the faith. It is no secret that the split between science and religion exists today, much in the same way it has for millenia. The religiously based admonitions against stem cell research is an example and shows how the intrusion of religion can thwart scientific attempts to save lives and cure disease
2. If the US government is seen to support any specific faith or even to support the belief in God or Christ, this is a de facto bifurcation of the population into those for and against that belief or faith. This would cause even more of a polarization of the populace.
3. Such an embracing of any non-Islamic religious faith would intensify the conflict with the Muslim nations, for obvious reasons. We may have forgotten the Crusades of the 12^th and 13^th centuries – the Islamic nations, especially their religious leaders, have not.
4. Basing our constitution and our laws on religious doctrine de-secularizes our governing institutions and brings them into the religious forays. This would cause internal conflicts we don’t need in our country. It’s bad enough as it is now.
5. Religious intrusion into government would give religious leaders the power to influence law-making and court decisions, even more than they have now. Legislation from the church pulpit is a formula for trouble.

 

Does all this mean that government officials have to be very careful as to how they handle their own faith in public? Yes. Does it also mean that they must be very careful in how they handle their faith in their law-making and jurisprudence? Yes. Does it mean that we the public should demand that any aspect of religion cannot be the basis for governmental decisions and funding? Yes. Does it mean that we will become (if following those proscriptions) a nation of unruly pagans with no moral fiber and bent on anarchy and bloodletting as we choose? No. Governments do not, or should not dictate one’s personal morals.

 

I have heard those on the religious right demean references to the Crusades as examples of the effects of religion. But it is hard to deny that Pope Urban II, who instigated the first Crusade on religious grounds (taking over the holy lands of Christianity), was acting in a religious capacity and that the next hundred years of slaughter in those holy lands can be laid at the feet of religion.