Religion Vs. Secularism

Religion and Secular Public Policy

The relationship that never worked

In the American presidential election of 2004, faith-based policies and issues of religion were at the center of the controversy. With his religious stances on abortion, gay marriage, and faith-based education, as well as his campaign's success in painting him as a man of religious conviction, President George W. Bush commanded the pious, Christian population, which appeared in great numbers at the polls. Senator John Kerry's campaign, alternatively, painted its candidate as an intellectual, academic politician. The senator appealed to the more secular and intellectual population that, in the end, proved less populous than the pro-Bush voters. Though it is difficult to formulate a credible argument that the outcome of the election was in fact undemocratic, it is not difficult to find flaws in the election. This is one of the first times in American history that religions have almost entirely aligned themselves with political parties. Such alignment calls into question not the Separation of Church and State nor the legitimacy of the American democracy (though each issue has been raised in reaction to the prevalence of religion in government), but it calls into question the soundness of any democracy that claims secularism as an intrinsic value but whose laws and elections are shaped and influenced by religious beliefs. Because religion is the type of institution in which citizens hold unwavering belief, whereas politics and government require open-mindedness and secular, academic responses to specific social problems, the amalgam of the two institutions Ð'- religion and politics Ð'- is truly unethical. Not only is it dangerous for politics to apply something so absolute as religion to such a relative institution as public policy, but it is also risky for a religion to have itself attached to the adaptive nature of politics. Thus, as a matter of ethical practice, not only should religion and public policy not commingle for the sake of political integrity, but such interaction between the two is actually mutually harmful.

Secularism must be an intrinsic value of any democracy if the citizens of that nation aspire to achieve the most perfect possible government. In his seminal 1835 work, Democracy in America, Alexis de Tocqueville observed that religion and politics seemed to be both interconnected and autonomous of one another, with priests having "divided the intellectual world into two parts: in one, they have left revealed dogmas, and they submit to them without discussing them; in the other, they have placed political truth, and they think that God has abandoned it to the free inquiries of men."1 De Tocqueville was impressed with the ability of the American public to find a balance between religion and politics. Even more than by the apparent balance between the two institutions, de Tocqueville was impressed with the ability of the American government to recognize the importance of both institutions Ð'- religion and politics Ð'- but still understand that religious beliefs were not meant to infringe on discussions of public policy. He continues, saying "the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom almost always move in contrary directions."2 Thus, it is evident that the best possible scenario for a relationship between a religion and a government is one in which neither infringes upon the other Ð'- essentially, a secular government.

However, at the same time as he praised America's ability to draw the line between religion and politics, de Tocqueville was aware of the incredible interconnectivity between the two, affirming that "one cannot say that in the United States religion exerts and influence on the laws or on the details of political opinions, but it directs [its subjects], and it is in regulating the family that it works to regulate the state."3 Though de Tocqueville recognized the virtue of a truly secular democracy, he noted that American politics is heavily, albeit indirectly (technically), influenced by religion. This very problem, which de Tocqueville first observed in the 1830s, has become even more pertinent in the light of the American presidential election of 2004.

A pre-election trip across the Arkansas countryside is all it takes to see evidence of religion's coupling with politics. Removable letters outside a church in Conway, AR displayed not the usual reminders of church services, but instead reminded voters that "a vote for Bush is a vote for God."4 Because most truly religious people hold allegiances to things higher than their countries, such as the Vatican or God Himself (the laws of God are above the laws of Man), religion itself has a blinding effect for these people who also hold the right to vote. This church, clearly favoring the President, employed guilt tripping as a tactic to bolster the Republican vote in the area. Religion tends to define the lines between issues: it tells its followers what to believe. Such messages, whether literally displayed on church lawns or subliminally implanted in campaign advertisements and speeches, do not call the legality of religion in politics into question (this discussion is not about the separation of church and state) but instead call into question the ethics of casting a vote in the political arena based on a belief held in the religious arena.

The problem with the relationship between secular politics and religion is that it is entirely unnatural: the two institutions are both necessary and both omnipresent. Religion and public policy are two institutions that are independent of each other, though many citizens are dependent on both. This dual association of religion and politics within each citizen constantly puts the two at odds with one another. Religion's influence on public policy greatly limits the application of secular democracy, whereas politics constant trial and error and dynamic nature would leave taint religions if they were tied to the success of various public policies. Any two institutions that are mutually harmful to one another should have no relationship. In the field of biology, mutualism describes a relationship between two organisms that is mutually beneficial; communism describes a relationship between two organisms that is beneficial for one party and neutral for the other; and parasitism describes a relationship that is good for one party and bad for the other. However, there is no term describing a relationship between two things that is mutually harmful because such relationships are not meant to occur in nature.

The very fact that politics and religion take place in entirely different arenas is what makes each institution's involvement with the other not only harmful

...