On Politics, Religion, and Freedom

It's unfortunate that too many people in America are confused about the place of religion in a democracy. The tradition of this country, and one of the basics of its foundation, is religious freedom. What that means precisely is that each individual is free to practice his or her own religion without government interference--provided the government recognizes that what is practiced is indeed an acceptable religion. For example, a religion that practices homicide is not an acceptable religion in America.

What religious freedom does NOT mean is that any religious group is free to impose its values on other people. That is antithetic to the idea of religious freedom in this country and such a view is totally un-American. It's a true misery that some religious groups in the United States think it's appropriate for them to impose their religious values on the public at large, on people who are not of their religion. Some Catholic bishops, for example, need to be reminded that the United States is not the Holy Roman Empire. Their ecclesiastical religious beliefs must remain separate from American politics. It's one thing for clergy to impose values on their own flock -- it's something quite different for clergy to impose values on people outside their flock. We don't do that in this country. That's not what America is about.

The fundamental problem is that we have a variety of religions in this country and legislating into law the values of one religion can easily produce government interference in the practice of other religions. That's the reason for the separation of Church and State in a democracy. The idea is to keep any accepted religion free from interference by other religions that might dominate government.

Throughout human history, religion has constantly tried to push into politics -- push in and assume control. It succeeds too often and the consequence is usually human misery on a grand scale. The other night we had some men wearing white collars on television talking about Proposition 8 in California and telling us gay marriage should be banned by law. Why? Because it's un-Christian, against the Bible, and it will lead to the destruction of marriage. That's a true unfunny joke. For the first 500 years of Christianity, the Church Fathers were against marriage because they believed marriage promoted sexual lust. No priest or church was allowed to be involved in sanctifying a marriage -- which is one reason marriage banns came into existence: people wanted to announce to the community that they had married themselves. That was the way people did it: they declared themselves married and announced it and from then on they were married.

So much for the infallibility of ecclesiastics: if their old dogma about marriage was wrong 1500 years ago, their new dogma about marriage may very well be wrong today.

Which raises the issue of dogma. In general, dogma is absolute truth proclaimed by authority. It's one of the tragedies of modern Western religions that the evil of dogma is rarely understood. Absolute truth proclaimed by authority is antithetical to any democratic society, especially to American democratic society. We're a pragmatic country, a people whose ideas are derived from many origins, religions, and cultures. We are not a theocracy and we are not a people who like ideology of any kind. In this country, we look at problems, try solutions, and then stick to what works. Any authority, religious or otherwise, proclaiming absolute truth to us is antithetical to what America is all about.

So is religion compatible with democracy? Yes, if you practice your religion or beliefs as you see fit without imposition on the lives of other people. Anything else is un-American, and that's what it needs to be called. Imposition of particular religious values by law or judicial declaration is un-American.

Comments

[SkeeterVT]

To Dan Agin, I say "Right On!" and "Amen, brother!" You comment matches my feelings exactly. In fact, Iinvite you -- and all other HuffPost readers -- to read my own take on the Prop. 8 issue and the separation of church and state:

http://www.skeeterbitesreport.com/2008/11/prop-8-unconstitutional-injection-of.html

[monam]

It's about time someone said this! Bravo to you Mr.Agin! I sent this around to all my friends. This is a must read for everyone.

[LeiftheLucky]

So, then, the worldview of humanism, i.e. a religion in a stricter sense than most admit, would be in error if its adherents forced gay marriage on the majority?

[Dave24]

Mr. Agin: BRAVO.

[we2plus4Rfree]

How can we go forward if we ever continue to step backward? History has proven itself over and over, but it continues to be made despite the constant debate.
Live and let live. But time will still stomp onward.
I tell my kids to make a good name with all they come in contact with, including being understanding and open to others who are following the same formula in their life.
I tell my kids to consider the great people in thier lives, and in history, and to follow the concept of humanity that had been a part of these great one's thinking.
If in thier observation of certain 'heros' they see conflicting idea's, it will be up to them to make their own desicion.
I cannot FORCE an opinion on my children. I can only teach them to make an informed decision on their opinion, and observations.
The desicions that are the majority in the present, will help the majority in the future to make the right choice; based on intelligent observation and cognotive opinions they are exposed to.
So it is OUR responsibility to help the future to see a balance from all of us now in the present. We need to figure out how to 'live and let live' with one another.
My 16 year old made this statement: when you have an opinion, you need to have the facts behind your opinion, otherwise; what right do you have to scream it?

[davism97]

Can anyone give an example of a time in history when religion "informed" politics and it led to a happier people? They were called the Dark Ages for a reason. Science and reason have given us the standard of living we have today, not ancient dogmatic belief systems.

[LeiftheLucky]

Read history. Christianity delivered modern science based on two essential presuppositions---God is logical and creative and we should be able to discover his creation logically (scientific method), and, there is a vast unseen world more real and more complex than the seen realm.
Rationalism only takes you so far. Faith embraces galaxies. Human wisdom always comes up short. Fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, and the entrace to discovery!

[royniles]

So you're saying Christianity delivered modern science, which then delivered the theory of evolution which the creationist Christians of your "discovery" institute are now trying to undeliver. Interesting.

[LeiftheLucky]

PS: When did religioin inform politics? How about America, circa 1750 through the present day.
Read about the Founders and Christianity.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/july/20.56.html?start=1#related

[harrync]

New English Bible, 2nd ed.: I Corinthians 5:12-13: "What business of mine is it to judge outsiders? God is their judge. You are judges within the fellowship."

[ThinkCreeps]

Tax em back into the middle ages that they try to impose on their followers

[carrieanna]

GREAT THOUGHTS!!!!

[libbygirl]

I guess I would call myself a humanist. I have nothing against anyone else's desire to belong to an organized religion but I don't want those religions effecting my rights or imposing their beliefs on government. I am really against tax-exempt status for religious groups. I've never understood why they should have that right. If Scientology can be called a religion and enjoy tax-exempt status then where is the line drawn?

[Zanti]

Personally, I'm against the tax-exempt status enjoyed by most American companies. But I don't think the solution lies in keeping business out of our democracy, and vice versa--especially given that we're a capitalist society. And given that the business world, as a whole, would last approximately five minutes if removed from the life support of the government.

Similarly, I don't believe religion should be denied a role in our democracy simply because the potential exists for religion to have undue influence. Name an institution that doesn't fall into that category.

[Zanti]

In other words, religion is "compatible" with democracy so long as it stays out of it. Suppression of religion in the name of religious freedom--how many times have we heard that theme? Lest someone repeat your talking points in response, let me clarify that I'm talking about the specific, irrational con of equating religion with dogma. And, furthermore, presuming that any interaction between religion and democracy must involve imposing a particular brand of dogma.

In fact, all institutions--including religion--are supposed to enjoy representation in a representative democracy. We don't presume, for instance, that any lobbying done on behalf of the entertainment industry (say, cable TV) is fundamentally unconstitutional because the given lobby represents a specific entertainment co. or interest (cable vs. satellite, sports programming vs. documentaries, etc.). Nor do we presume an intent, on the part of that lobby, to take over the country.

Our founders wanted no state church, and so they specified same. However, if they considered the essence of religion to be "un-American," as neo-atheists do, they'd have said so. It would have been easy enough for them to forbid any interplay between religion and government--yet, as you note, they wanted religion to flourish (as it has). You can't logically argue, on one hand, that religion is a toxic threat that must be kept from tainting our democracy, but, on the other, something our founders revered. Would they have revered something that posed a threat to democracy?

[LeftRight]

"In other words, religion is "compatible" with democracy so long as it stays out of it. Suppression of religion in the name of religious freedom--how many times have we heard that theme?"

Really? when have you heard that in America??? It's one thing for you to practice your religion, and no one will tell you that you cannot do so, provided that your religious beliefs don't break laws that harm other people. HOWEVER, we also MUST insist that your practice of YOUR religion does not harm US! Since YOUR religious beliefs are to forbid Gay Marriage, that means that it's just fine if YOU don't have a gay marriage! On the other hand, since MY religious beliefs don't preclude a gay marriage, I won't try to stop you if you CHOOSE to have a gay marriage!!

[Zanti]

And you know my religious beliefs, how? Just wondering.

I have nothing whatsoever against gay marriage.

As for the voting down of gay rights, it seems to me that civil rights should never be put up for a vote, since it seems to be human nature to deny others the rights we expect for ourselves. It's not a matter of religion but one of human nature. Someone on MSNBC (Eugene Robinson, perhaps?) noted that, had equal rights for African-Americans been put up for a vote, that issue would probably have lost, too.

Re "when have you heard that in America???" do you want me to list the last five times I've heard it? Ten? Fifteen? It's THE popular cliche of the moment on the left--religion, somehow, is responsible for every evil that exists. To encounter this idea, one simply has to be awake and aware.

[royniles]

Just how do you propose the various religious groups not preach to their own congregations about the behavior that the state has either made legal, contrary to their religious strictures, or illegal, contrary to their religious practices? To restrict religions in this area would be a violation of the very laws protecting both religious freedoms and freedom of speech in general.

Basically the framers didn't want the state or government practicing religion, but they saw no way to effectively prohibit the religious from giving advice to government without effectively banning that religion. Which was of course why many colonists had come to North America to begin with - to escape both the tyranny of government AND its preferred religions.

[LeftRight]

Which is why the goal is to not create any laws that would interfere with religions. Since that's impossible to perform completely, the actual practice is to not create laws ENFORCING a religious behavior, and if there is a valid reason for a specific religion to break the laws, allowing such.

[royniles]

Valid reason for a specific religion to break the laws? Who would decide to allow that, and how would they determine validity? Pretty hard to legalize certain forms of illegality, don't you think?

[RickR]

"Just how do you propose the various religious groups not preach to their own congregations about the behavior that the state has either made legal, contrary to their religious strictures, or illegal, contrary to their religious practices? To restrict religions in this area would be a violation of the very laws protecting both religious freedoms and freedom of speech in general."

Well, how do churches "preach" about divorce? Certainly legal, and definitely proscribed in the bible.

It probably goes something like this- "The church frowns on divorce as the bible states it is a sin. However you can certainly get one, and that would be your choice."

I don't see what the big deal is.

[happytrails]

WOW! Somehow, without being christian and without believing that the bible is more important than the dictionary, I have been in the same heterosexual marriage for 48 years. My daughters are also in heterosexual marriages in spite of having been raised non-christian and having used the King James only for literary references. And most of my friends share the lack of reverence for both organized religion and its books. Do you think divorce is in the offing for all of us? Scary!

[NoCowardSoul]

How can religion not inform politics? I'm not sure that the separation you're advocating is possible. Prop 8 shouldn't have been an issue because it's a civil liberty; but Mormons do have the right to vote according to their belief system. It seems like this giant catch-22, and I have trouble seeing as clearly as Mr. Agin does.

I blogged about it here

[papapj]

Whlst agreeing that Mormons do indeed have rights to their opinions, they should not seek to prosletise by way of influencing the ballot with campaign assistance.

That is a clear breach of the Church/State divide the very thing that made the original colonists flee Europe, and very Un-American.

[davism97]

The separation he's advocating is very clearly defined in the first amendment. Prop 8 is clearly a law based on Christian dogma. The problem is not everyone believes that homosexuality is wrong, and it's not the governments place to say that it is.

[CandideinNC]

This all sounds well and good. However, aren't there many mores which have religious roots that society codifies with law? Sexual activity is probably of the most apparent of these. Polygamy is something that is outlawed in this society for what must be considered a religious reasoning. The amount of self exposure in dress is another example. Is there any real reason in our society why public nudity is illegal other than traditional mores? So too with laws regarding pornography and prostitution.

I am not trying to oppose your thesis. As a gay man who supports the idea of homosexual marriage, I am all in favor of separation of church and state. My feeling is that these often are intrusions into our personal lives which are unreasonably supported by nothing more than superstition and tradition. However, I am interested how you argue with churchmen when churches support traditional mores. Will you argue on behalf of polygamy, public nudity, prostitution, and unbridles pornography? Or do you think I am wrong in suggesting these are equivalents. I am curious how you would respond.

[Dan Agin - Huffpost Blogger]

For the time being, let me just say I think the fundamental question is whether there is actual evidence of harm, rather than just rhetoric and whim and what seems palatable and threats about slippery slopes and whatnot. Sure, many mores derive from ancient religion--and that also means many mores are ridiculous these days. Culture evolves much faster than religion, so some old mores rapidly become obsolete. Today we accept a nude beach for those want it, yesterday we did not. Today we prohibit witch-burning, Medieval Europe did not. Our values change. It seems to me the rational question is what harm is there? What harm can be demonstrated? To say gay marriage will harm traditional marriage is an opinion not a fact. We can be pragmatic and try it and see what happens to traditional marriage. In any case, if we think about it, the idea that 10,000 years from now our rules of social engagement will be the same as today is an idea that's ridiculous. So maybe we need to stop thinking that every idea in our heads about marriage is the absolute truth. Anyway, thanks much for your somment--and the others here also.

[jesselee26]

i would say, pornography did not entitle you to put your name on another person's insurance policy. and nudity never entitled anyone to an inheritance.