Religion and Politics

Those of us on the more secular humanist side of the spectrum have a habit of saying that we fervently support the separation of Church and State (or to take it even further, religion and politics) not only to protect the State from religion, but to protect religion from politics.

Often when we say this, I think most people think we're being insincere or maybe to put it a little more mildly self-serving. After all, many secularists aren't religious, what do we care what happens to religious communities etc.? Aren't we just saying that to get more people on our side?

Well, frankly... no, we're not.  The early history of secularism in the United States is generally the history of religious groups and people fearing persecution (many of whom were Catholic of Jewish).  The ACLU, which gets branded an "atheistic" organization for its firm belief in a separation of Church and State has argued many landmark religious freedom cases on behalf of religious people. 

I bring this up in the wake of the Prop-8 mess, and the resignations by prominent artistic leaders who were Mormons who supported Prop-8 because they were told it was their religious duty.  This is exactly the sort of thing secularists like myself worry about in terms of religious organizations involvement in politics.... I don't think in the long term the Mormon Church's experiment in intervention is going to be positive for either California or the Mormon Church or its members. People are losing their jobs because they obeyed a religious directive from an organization that abused its authority (and I would argue tax exempt status) and the trust that people put in it.  That's bad all around for everyone.

And by "abused its authority" what I mean here is that I think there's a real difference between the Church of LDS saying "we believe marriage is between a man and a woman and shouldn't be changed" and saying "it is your religious duty to work and contribute money to make sure Proposition 8 gets passed". Similarly, there's a difference between the Catholic Church saying "life begins at conception" and saying "we will not offer communion to people who voted for Obama because he's pro-choice". The former in both cases is an action that reflects a point of view that I strongly disagree with but is well within the bounds of what is appropriate, the latter is using one's religious authority to create a very real threat (of hell for example) to compel people to do something. Which is, you know, abusive.

Comments

[Paul Rekk]

Actually, I am just trying to get more people on our side when I say that.

I know very few people who haven't either changed religions or at least had a moment of questioned faith at some point in their lives. Monotheists, despite what some of us not in the group wish to believe, are not sheep. They are making a decision and it is a decision that they at times, the most extreme cases excepting, question. If they can receive a religious order to support Prop 8 and go through with it, it's their decision and not their church's -- and I don't buy the "But, the damnation!" argument. Blind faith is a rarity these days; people are no longer willing to accept someone pointing at them accusingly unless they've chosen to make themselves complicit with the accusation.

But then again, I'm also of the view that supporting Prop 8 is no more a reason to refuse to work with someone than voting against it is a reason to choose to work with them. There's a bunch of douches and bunch of good people on either side. Yeah, it's a touchy subject, but shaming people into support (and forcing them from their jobs) isn't any more upstanding than what the churches are doing.

Summation: To hell with religion and politics both, I support the separation of church and state because it's a more ideal societal setup for myself.

[Brijmohan]

This is a wonderful opinion. The things mentioned are unanimous and needs to be appreciated by everyone.

forclosed homes