In his article “Barack Obama on Injecting Religion into Politics: What Role for Religion?” Austin Cline argues from the viewpoint of an agnostic. He condemns the growing tendency of politicians to use religion as a means of garnering support and feels that under no circumstances should it be acceptable for a political figure to preach on how religion connects to political issues.
I can see his point on the importance of the separation of church and state and how it may be inappropriate for a political figure to advocate environmental friendliness because the Bible says that God entrusted us to care for the earth. However, I think Cline’s judgment of religion is overly harsh. He basically considers political arguments based on religion as childish and immature. Personally, I think he has missed the point entirely. For example, the issue with abortion isn’t that God doesn’t think you should kill unborn children or that God thinks you should have a choice. What makes it religious are the moral values derived from religion which guide our decisions. Separating religion, and therefore the moral arguments, from politics is completely impractical.
In his book, “With God on Our Side,” Martin explains the rise of the Religious Right, detailing how certain leaders realized all of the untapped voting power and strong opinions of evangelicals. This could lead to the conclusion that religion may not have played a huge role in American politics previously, although it is important to remember that, as we mentioned in class the other day, many feel that our nation was founded on Christian values. Regardless, complete separation of church and state is no longer an option. Once the evangelicals got involved in the political system, they are there to stay. As Martin described, there are always more battles to fight and issues for the people to rally behind. Likewise, as Robinson pointed out to Reagan, the evangelicals don’t base their allegiance on certain people or parties, they base it on moral stands. In other words, if it weren’t for the opinions generated by religion, they would not really have set political standpoints, illustrating the inherent ties between religion and politics. Our religious beliefs, or lack thereof, help shape who we are and our political ideologies. Chances are, Cline has let his contempt for religion influence his views just as much as Christians let their religion influence their views.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
While I agree unreservedly that “Our religious beliefs, or lack thereof, help shape who we are and our political ideologies”, I strongly disagree that “the issue with abortion isn’t that God doesn’t think you should kill unborn children or that God thinks you should have a choice. What makes it religious are the moral values derived from religion which guide our decisions.”
The debate over abortion is indeed a very important moral and ethical issue, but I think it is misleading and unhelpful to therefore jump to saying it is a ‘religious’ issue. While the moral judgment brought by an individual to the abortion debate may of course be derived from his or her religion, this does not make it a ‘religious’ issue any more than issues like universal healthcare, stem cell-research and marriage rights for homosexuals, all issues that require a person to make a similar moral judgment based on his/her moral compass. The danger in giving a specific issue - like abortion or homosexuality - the ‘religious’ label is first that it can lead people to come to an overly simplistic decision based purely on faith and not on the complex moral and ethical appreciations that such an important issue demands. Secondly, by brandishing an issue as religious, you immediately alienate secularists from the debate because you are failing to support your argument with a moral framework understood by both parties. On an issue such as abortion, there are extremely strong moral, ethical and biological arguments - that are entirely secular in nature - for why abortion is wrong. Yet sadly, many secularists feel unwilling to attend pro-life rallies, and weigh in publicly on important moral issues, precisely because the rhetoric of the events is entirely religious.
Surely on all these issues we must appreciate that people’s moral judgments may indeed be influenced by their religion, but that the framework of the debate itself should accessible to both secularists and believers, and I think this is what Austin Cline was trying to infer.
Post a Comment