Op-Ed
Political Fanaticism
Email: 
Share: 
The separation of church and state is a fundamental principle of American government, but its meaning is often murky. Several friends of mine have commented that they consider it wrong for laws to be based on religious beliefs: In their eyes, those who advocate laws on such a basis are fanatics. This is not a helpful way to view the issue, and betrays a certain misunderstanding of religion, and the religious approach to life. Thoughtless and dogmatic views of any sort are a problem; religion as such is not.
We all want legislators to pass good laws. Laws are good because they result in a good society, or good citizens. Whether a society or individual is good is a question of philosophy or religion, not one of political science. Religious individuals (at least, in the Judeo-Christian tradition) do not have two notions of good, one religious and the other secular. To believe in a religion is to believe that its teachings, and above all, its moral teachings, are true. Asking legislators to separate their religion from their actions is asking them to separate their notions of right and wrong from their actions. If legislators are not guided by right and wrong, what should they be guided by?
Sun Podcast: A podcast is available for this column. Click here to listen to or to download it.
There is no straightforward way for religious legislators to separate their religious moral views from their other moral views. For instance, “help feed the poor” is a religious teaching, and few politicians could confidently say whether their support for welfare legislation ultimately stems from a Christian sentiment, or some other moral belief.
A good deal of opposition to religion in politics is actually opposition to particular beliefs that are not as “religious” as they seem. People frequently assume that any distasteful moral views of the religious right are the result of biblical literalism. This is not generally the case. For instance, “life begins at conception” is not particularly a biblical doctrine. It is the product of philosophical argument from both scientific and religious premises — reason — and not simply faith. Clearer arguments, rather than shorthand references to God and morals, would bring out this distinction, and allow a better public discourse about morality.
If the moral views of religious legislators are sound, the fact that those views stem from a belief in a Supreme Being should not disturb us. Secular systems of ethics rely as much on unquestioned axioms as any religious system of morals. There is nothing natural or inevitable about non-religious systems of ethics, such as Kant’s categorical imperative, or the like. As generations of Marxists have shown, atheism can induce fanaticism as easily as religion can. Virtually all moral systems are based on some assumptions; whether these assumptions involve God is largely irrelevant in political terms. The real problem that critics of religion in politics should be concerned about is not faith, but rather dogmatic ideologies coupled with a false sense of certainty.
But religion, even fervent religion, need not be dogmatic. Even the very pious can acknowledge the possibility of being in error, and can act accordingly. Oliver Cromwell, England’s most theocratic head of state, famously urged toleration for those with other religious views. During one dispute about church governance, he urged the Church of Scotland to take a more enlightened view: “I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken.”
This is wise advice, for religious and nonreligious politicians alike. Being a dogmatic and rigid Christian is no better or worse in a politician than being a radical environmentalist, or a doctrinaire socialist or free marketeer. Being too wedded to a doctrine makes it hard to understand its limits, and even if the doctrine is true, being dogmatic will lead you to apply it beyond its domain of applicability, or in ways that don’t make sense. Obeying God, protecting the environment, helping the poor and economic freedom are all reasonable goals. Focusing on one goal to the exclusion of all else is not reasonable.
Moreover, doctrinaire arguments are of limited use in public policy debates. Saying, “We should do X because God wills it,” or “because the Bible demands it” is unconvincing to anybody who does not share those religious views. The same, of course, applies to “we should do X because it’s the feminist thing to do,” without carefully explaining what “feminism” means in context, and why it’s valuable. Giving dogmatic explanations is intellectually slipshod, even if the underlying doctrine is sound. If religious politicians want to legislate based on their religion, that’s fine, but an appeal to religion is no substitute for a reasoned argument.
Politics and morality are intrinsically complex, and they require us to make unpleasant compromises and difficult decisions. If religion or any other belief system hides that fact, it has done us a harm. But nothing in the nature of religion implies this sort of thoughtless dogmatism. The Bible seldom gives clear voting instructions: truly following the teachings of a religion requires thought and understanding, and not fanaticism or blind obedience to human interpretation or human interpreters.
Conversely, dogmatism is not confined to religion. Knee-jerk opposition to religion and religious legislators is all too common, and is the product of ignorance and pigheaded thoughtlessness. An absolute conviction that religious legislators are dangerous is itself an unfortunate attitude: the holders of such views should think it possible they may be mistaken.
Ari Rabkin is a graduate student in Computer Science. He can be contacted at asr32@cornell.edu. Between the Lines appears Thursdays.
Fanaticism
Very well said!