“The Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation.” That’s what John McCain told Beliefnet.com in an interview last weekend. Are we a Christian nation? If so, what does that mean?
Well, 76.5 percent of Americans are some variety of Christian. But almost a quarter of the country isn’t. In fact, 14 percent of Americans don’t affiliate themselves with a religion at all. And that 14 percent tends to think that separation of church and state is a good thing. So they might want to reconsider voting for a Republican in the upcoming election.
As it turns out, most of the Republican candidates for president do not support the separation of church and state.
Mike Huckabee wants creationism to be taught in schools, and Rudy Guiliani believes that public school teachers should be allowed to put the Ten Commandments up in their classrooms. Ron Paul feels strongly that the government should be allowed to express Christianity. He wrote in a blog post, “The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers.”
Paul is upset that “the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation that religion must be driven from public view. The justification is always that someone, somewhere, might possibly be offended or feel uncomfortable living in the midst of a largely Christian society, so all must yield to the fragile sensibilities of the few.” (Someone, somewhere? Does he mean the 24.5 percent of the country who isn’t Christian?)
Ron Paul is joined in his opinion by Sam Brownback, who says we should “stop driving God out of the public square,” and Fred Thompson, who is concerned that “many federal judges seem intent on eliminating God from the public schools and the public square in ways that would astound our founding fathers. … They ignore the fact that the founders were protecting the church from the state and not the other way around.”
What do the rest of Americans think about religion in government? A study by the Pew Center in 2006 found that all candidates’ favorability ratings were higher among those who thought them “very” or “somewhat” religious than those who thought them “not too” or “not at all” religious. Sixty-one percent of Americans say they would be less likely to vote for a candidate who does not believe in God, and 69 percent believe it is important for a candidate to have strong religious beliefs. Only 27 percent believe political leaders talk too much about their religious beliefs. The study is conclusive: Americans like religion and want it in their government.
So perhaps we are a Christian nation. Perhaps people like me, raised Jewish and now non-religious, should stop complaining about religion’s influence on American politics and law. But I can’t do that. Here’s why.
First, if we are to accept that there is no reason Christian doctrine shouldn’t be written into the law of the United States, we will have to throw the First Amendment out the window, that bit about “there shall be no establishment of religion.” We will also have to get rid of the “free practice of religion” part of it, because of course I am not free to practice my religion or lack of it if I also have to follow yours on pain of death or imprisonment. Okay. We will do that, because after all the United States is a republic, and most of us are Christians, so if we remove the First Amendment and write Christian doctrine into law we will still be representing the majority of people and what the majority of people think is best.
Then, we will have to concede that everything is only a belief: that there is no difference between “my god told me this is so” and stacks of sociological, psychological studies claiming that their evidence tells them it is so. Both are equally so, because I have to believe in sociology, psychology and science to accept their evidence, so both are simply beliefs of exactly the same variety.
Now we can indeed conclude that it is silly to argue that we should not pass laws based only on Christian beliefs.
But what are you doing to me, a non-Christian, when you throw these out the window? You’re silencing me. You’re doing to me what
I cannot talk about. Because I cannot argue with a belief. All conversation ends at a belief. If you say to me, homosexuality is wrong, and I say, why, and you say, well, because of this and this, and I say what about this, and you say, well, this, then we are having a dialogue and we are both having our say. But if you say to me, homosexuality is wrong, and I say, but why, and you say, it is my belief, my god told me so, then the conversation is over. I might say, well my god did not tell me so and it is not my belief, but if there are more of you, you will overpower me. And you might not be able to make me believe in your god, but you can certainly force your god’s rules upon me.
I maintain that this is wrong.
Patrick Roberts • Nov 5, 2007 at 4:27 am
interesting… an unintended, genius aspect of democracy is that the state of the government will represent the state of the people. We needn’t impose any particular religion on our government. Whether or not our government is morally stable will reflect the moral stability of us, the people. So how are we doing?