“..And one nation, Under God…” As schoolchildren this was a phrase we all repeated on a daily basis when it was time to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. But as we get older, our views do not stay the same. Not everyone continues to believe that we are “under God.” Church and state are supposed to be separated, and to an extent they are, but how many politicians can you list off the top of your head that are openly atheist or not a follower of Jesus Christ? Not many, if it all. Today, I would like to explore deeper into the connection between religion and politics and why it is so necessary to be a follower of God to be considered a worthy leader.
Many people would consider that only Liberalists would be atheists, and it's true that you'll probably find more liberal than non-liberal atheists. Atheism represents a challenge to or dissent from traditional beliefs and traditional religion. Liberalism, through most of Western history, has also challenged traditions and traditional ways of doing things. Liberalism has additionally generally done more to promote the rights of various minority groups, something which atheists obviously benefit from, given how much discrimination they tend to encounter. Atheism among conservatives is unusual, but not unheard of. Conservatism seeks to "conserve" traditional values and ways of doing things; atheism, however, challenges or rejects many traditions. Theistic religion is a sort of storage area for traditions in the West and if atheists don't accept such religions, upon what can they base their conservatism? It's not impossible, but it's more difficult than for many theists and presents a real challenge.
Only one of the 535 members of Congress, Representative Pete Stark, Democrat of California, publicly identifies as an atheist, according to the Secular Coalition of America, a lobbying group based in Washington. For that matter, the coalition has existed for only three years and runs with two staff members and an annual budget of about $300,000. As both presidential candidates were fervently court religious voters, atheist support is considered so controversial that several Democrats writing on the atheist blog “Petty Larseny” joked that the best way to hurt the Republicans was to form a group called Atheists for McCain. One problem with turning out the atheist vote is finding it. Atheists do not reside visibly in certain neighborhoods like blacks or Hispanics or gay men and lesbians. They do not turn up on the databases of professional associations like doctors or lawyers. And as nonbelievers, they do not come together for worship, since they do not worship anything. So where do they fit in the world of politics if they are virtually invisible? The problem is that they don’t. It is still so frowned upon to be a non-believer, and not only in politics, in other aspects of life. With someone that has very religious parents and grandparents, I know that they would be EXTREMELY upset if I was an atheist and would most likely think that I was just rebelling against the system and trying to be different.
The fact of the matter is that atheism is not accepted yet, and while I doubt that there will be riots by atheists to get fair treatment, because they do, politics hasn’t exactly welcomed them in with open arms quite yet. Many people think if a leader doesn’t have a certain belief in Jesus, then they do not hold the qualities to lead a country which is quite disappointing. In a country where there is a decent percentage who says they have ‘no religion’ in the census, it is odd that there aren’t more politicians who say they are atheists. According to religioustolerance.org, only 13% of people view atheism as positive and only five out of ten would vote for an openly atheist leader. Another poll I found was even more eye-opening: the participants would rather have a homosexual leader then an atheist leader. In fact, it was the least appealing to all of the given options, which included black, Jewish, a woman, Hispanic, Mormon, married for the 3rd time and older than 72 years old. (http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/black_president_more_likely_than_mormon_or_atheist_/) Out of all the research I did, I think that was the biggest sign of them all. Atheism clearly does not have a spot in politics no matter how much is claimed for the separation of church and state, because the separation between the two is so completely blurred.
What are the main issues that people have with atheism to make them view them as such terrible leaders? To start, intelligence is a factor. How can intelligence come from non-intelligence? How can blind chance result in intelligence? How can an intelligent human mind come from mindless random processes? If there is no God, no original intelligence, then where did intelligence come from? That is a very fair argument; however, that is an assumption. I would bet that not many Christians actually look into atheism and why a person would come to settle in that view. Another common problem is the problem with morality. If someone doesn’t have the 10 commandments to follow, then what do they follow? Do they believe in sinful behavior, or are they indulgent in whatever they want to do? People can be atheists but believe in righteous behavior, just as a Christian could go to church and read the bible, but be a murderer. It goes both ways and it is unfair to view atheists as dumb crooks.
Bill Maher recently came out with a movie, “Religulous” where he explored religion throughout the world and tries to dig deeper to why people believe the things they do. He was frequently greeted with hostility when he asked why they believed in a certain way instead of just explaining their view point. The main point is that we cannot judge someone on their religious beliefs if they want to be a leader. Church and state MUST be separated and that currently isn’t happening. Let’s leave it with a quote by the late, great Bob Marley: "Who are you to judge the life I live? I know I'm not perfect - and I don't live to be. But before you start pointing fingers... make sure your hands are clean."
I believe that one day atheism in this country will be kind of like being a homosexual or how being black was back before the civil war and Malcolm X and so on. But for now its hard to imagine that in a nation where the separation is in the constitution that it can play such a large roll. The roll of religion in our politics is interesting; we find ourselves connecting with them on a religious level and trusting them because they have moral beliefs similar to our own. But what if one day we come to find out that that person we trust so much and followed because of our beliefs was actually based on nothing because they lied to surpass the ridicule that religion brings? Would we uproar? Or would we take a step back and realize that their job is to not be partial or biased based on religion or their race? Isn't that in their job description?
ReplyDeleteWow! Great post! I have always struggled with this idea myself. Why should religion matter when it comes to politics? There was a reason why separation between church and state was written into the constitution. I have a hard time with this whole issue because I do not like the fact that in order to win the presidency, you must be a christian. To me, that should not matter. What matters is that the elected officials can do their jobs correctly and run this country. Great research too by the way. Really interesting stuff!
ReplyDeleteI think as a long as politics exist it will be very difficult to separate church and state. There will always be arguments on both sides of the coin. Some will argue that our country was founded on protestant beliefs that are still relevant today are extremely important to any political movement. The other will argue that these religious beliefs are only rules much like common law that are beneficial in some ways but for the most part are outdated.
ReplyDeleteThe debate will continue to rage as long as the right is backed by the evangelists that our country has supported for so long. Our country will always have a hard time distinguishing between morals and religious dogma. Until we can do this, the discrepancies between fiscal conservatives will be grouped with a party the predominantly uses religion as its key talking point. The other party (Democrats) will continue to avoid the issue to keep their votes, which unfortunately at the end of the day is what drives these stances.