Religion and Politics

Increasingly, I am noticing the open and unapologetic use of religious ideas and arguments in political debate. This is quite a departure from recent decades.

For the last 50 years we have seen signs and bumper-stickers from “Free Love” to “Keep your laws off my body.” Such slogans opposed the “intrusion” of biblical morality into policy debates about sexual ethics—from birth control and abortion, to divorce and child-rearing.

James Carville ran a successful 1992 presidential campaign on the slogan, “It’s the economy, stupid.” This mantra was repeated during the Lewinski scandal in 1998. Defenders of the president fanned out across the media outlets to explain that the moral failings of politicians were of no consequence, so long as the economy was booming.

During these decades, much of the morality, ethics and character that came into Western culture via Christianity has been stripped from legal code and public expectations. They have been overthrown, not by sound arguments that they are bad for human society, but by raw claims that all religion should be driven out of politics.

Since 1947 (Everson v. Board of Ed.), the phrase, “separation of Church and state,” has been drummed into the ears of media consumers. By sheer repetition, many perceive this phrase to be “constitutional,” even though it is only found in a private letter of Thomas Jefferson.

So why is it, after all these years, we are seeing a resurgence of religion into public policy debates? It’s not Christian conservatives who are leading the charge. Rather, those seeking to overthrow historic Western morals are claiming a superior moral ground—calling their political opponents “haters,” “discriminators,” and “bigots” – all morally charged words.

The first thing we should notice, is that today’s trends are not replacing morality with amorality. They are replacing one morality with another. Put more starkly, they are replacing one religion with another.

The second thing we should notice is that this is a natural human impulse. Nature abhors a vacuum. When one religion is chased out of the front door, two more slide in the back.

Human beings simply cannot live without religion. The relationship between human beings and the divine is unbreakable. Whether or not you, personally, believe the words of Scripture, “God created man in His own image,” you live by this creed.

We all justify our desires, aims, and behaviors by appealing to the nature of God.

• Those who think the Bible infallibly describes the one, true God, seek to conform their lives to every word of the biblical text.

• Those who think that there is no God, set “nature” in His place. This religion seeks to live as though matter, energy, and instinct should guide them at every step.

• Those who think that God is always changing along with the culture, then treat the latest cultural changes as being sacrosanct, and the only civil opinion allowed.

The thing to notice here is that these three opinions (and there may be more) do not offer the possibility of no religion. They force us to choose one.

This may rankle Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, but even they operate by this principle. Their recent lawsuit, filed in Wisconsin, challenges an IRS rule going back to the 1954 Code 107(2) by claiming a clergy tax exemption for themselves. That's irony.

So, why is religion unavoidable? Because the Latin root of the word “religion” is “ligio,” “to bind or tie.” It is about how human beings are tied together in human society. The prefix, “re-,“ means “again.” Religion recognizes that people who were once bound together have been cut apart and need to be re-connected – i.e. religion.

That’s exactly what American society needs right now. As we spiral apart, everybody is seeking a common religion to bind us back together. The bad news, is that there are at least three distinct opinions. The good news is that only one of them can be true.

Ultimately, there is one God capable of binding all mankind together. There is a truth, and a way, and a life that is common to all of us. To find it (or, to be found by it) can re-establish the bonds of love.

Notice here that society is all about bonds and ties. It is not, and can never be, about radical freedom which recognizes no duties or permanent relationships to other people. When people say, “Civil society demands that we not make any moral judgments,” they are speaking utter nonsense.

The very word, “demands,” speaks of a duty to behave in a certain way towards a certain person. Anybody who utters it, no matter from which side of the aisle, is proving my main point. Justice demands recognition of the truth—truth about God and truth about man.

In fact, denial of the truth can only lead to injustice. When Jesus is asked about the greatest commandment, He replies: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Matthew 22:37-39).

Love for our neighbor flows from our love for God. Without the love of God, no love of neighbor is possible, and vice versa. Love for both begins by recognizing the bonds between us. To acknowledge that we are all tied to God as creatures, is to recognize that we are also tied to one another and have duties toward one another that are given by our Creator, and not subject to our wishes or feelings.

For the past century, Western society has been hacking away at natural bonds between people. Beginning over a hundred years ago, the bonds of husband and wife were weakened by making divorces more and more simple to obtain. This was kicked into hyperdrive with so-called “no-fault divorce” in 1970.

When a society denies the duties that a man has toward a woman in marriage, the duties that he has toward women, in general, are also denied. The main culprits in the “#MeToo” movement are Hollywood moguls who have made millions undermining marriage on the silver screen and powerful men and women who have been undermining marriage in law and culture. Are we supposed to be surprised?

Also, we have seen the denial of natural bonds and duties between mother and child / parents and children. The breakup of the modern family has neither benefitted children, nor society at large. Can anybody argue that our neighborhoods and towns are stronger as a result of more broken homes?

As we enter a new phase of political debate, where religion is more openly discussed, I am encouraged that we have a renewed opportunity to talk frankly about the things that matter most. In a sense, James Carville was right. It is about the economy.

But we have forgotten that “economy” comes from the Greek word “oikos,” meaning “household.” We will never get the economy right if all we can think about is wages and prices, Wall Street and Main Street.

In fact, the economy is about Elm Street and Center Street. It is about supporting the household of fathers, mothers, and their children. To recognize and protect those natural bonds between persons, is to advocate for a just society. For, when these bonds are recognized and protected, so also are the bonds and duties of all other human beings toward one another.

America’s founders were not all Christians, but they were realists. They didn’t agree on the nature of God, but they did recognize that there is only one, and that the more perfectly his nature is recognized, the “more perfect [will be] the Union” (Declaration of Independence). That’s “re-ligio,” a binding together of society. “One nation, under God.”