I find it interesting first that the religious leaders would establish themselves as a source and proponent of freedom, given that religion was actually quite the opposite merely 150 years ago. As discussed in "Religion and Politics in the United States, by Kenneth D. Wald and Allison Calhoun-Brown, religion was popular for the lower classes because it gave them hope for the next life, and the upper classes propagated it because it encouraged the lower classes to accept their position in life as God's will, and helped pacify them. Looking at such a history, it appears that religion and the political freedom advocated by Jefferson are mutually exclusive ideals. I agree with Carroll in this point, that Romney's speech lacked factual basis, but despite the other examples he mentions, I do not see the connection between his early argument and the statement that "every religion is a religion of myth". With this remark, Carroll makes the transition from an argument that is reasonably well documented, or at least convincing, to raining fire and brimstone on the basis of religion, which causes me to rethink his opening point. Without taking such a position, Carroll's column would be much more credible, but an important part of being a columnist is inciting heated discussion, right?
Monday, January 19, 2009
Fire and Brimstone?
In his December column, "The politics of religion in America", The Boston Globe's columnist James Carroll joins the ranks of innumerable others by taking a stance on how those very subjects are intertwined in America. Initially inspired by Mitt Romney's "Faith in America" speech, Carroll's column expounds on the confusing differences between religious and political freedom. He argues that although the religious, including Romney, claim that America's mandate for political freedom springs forth from religious values and ideals of freedom and equality, the "most overtly religious people" in our country actually oppose freedom. According to Carroll, the religious right is responsible for supporting many of the negative parts of our political system that "secular" Europe already eliminated, such as the death penalty and an insatiable desire for war. Closing out his column, Carroll attacks all forms of faith, not singling out Mormonism, and ensuring that this views on faith come through clearly.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
Andrew points out that Carroll comments "every religion is a religion of myth," which seems to alienate religious readers. However, I think Carroll's aim in associating "myth" with "religion" is to differentiate it from "politics" which he associates with "history" rather than to assert that religion is invalid.
Andrew also makes an interesting point that Jefferson was opposed to organized religion and believed that religion and political freedom were mutually exclusive. I would like to add that amongst the Founding Fathers there was a wide variety of religious beliefs. Some Fathers were strongly traditional in their religious beliefs. Accordingly, it seems that the government may have been created with the understanding that the governed were a people whose traditional religious beliefs and nontraditional religious beliefs would influence them.
Unlike Carroll, I do not think that religion and politics fill the same niche. Religion seems to give people a guide for beliefs and values, and politics gives people a way to change societal circumstances based on their values. Based on this, I cannot see that politics and religion will be mutually exclusive. That said, I do agree with Carroll that the intersection between religion and politics has been greatly abused by some religious leaders and the religious right.
I’d first like to point out that Athira has made an excellent point: As religion provides us with a set of beliefs, and politics a process to enforce our beliefs in society, religion and politics are inseparable.
Furthermore, I take issue with the assertion that religious leaders who advocate freedom are being hypocritical. This stance focuses only on the negative aspects of religion, obscuring the greater picture. Yes, religious doctrine has been used to justify various oppressions and atrocities; but at the same time, it’s important to acknowledge that religious values can provide an imperative for liberation as well.
I personally prefer James A. Morone’s account of religion in American history. Morone argues that every great American social movement, good and bad, has found its genesis in moral panic. In many cases, this moral panic lead to suffering: Native Americans, African Americans, and Chinese immigrants were all targeted in turn as “corrupt, subversive classes of people” who warranted suppression and restriction for “the greater good” of America’s moral character. Just as often, however, religious moral outrage can lead to justice and progress. When society’s view of African Americans was reconstructed in the 1960s, not as a threat, but as a decent, deserving people facing unjust persecution, the moral outcry gave rise to the now celebrated civil rights movement.
Regardless of what one feels about today’s “religious right,” I think it’s shortsighted to condemn religion as a strictly constricting force. What we need is a broader historical context: Looking back on our nation’s history, it’s obvious that religious values can lead to great things, as well as great travesties. It all depends on how we interpret and apply our beliefs.
Post a Comment