The Place of Politics in Religion

At the 2011 Values Voter Summit, Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association made the claim that all non-Christian churches, and he listed Mormonism specifically, were not protected under the first amendment. (1)

The first fatal flaw in Mr. Fischer’s statement is when he quite ignorantly declares Mormons not to be Christians. The official name of the “Mormon” religion is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. What more must members of this religion say to defend themselves? How any person with a brain can know their proper name and still call them non-Christians is difficult to understand, so we will just assume that Mr. Fischer is completely uninformed of the facts. 

Mr. Fischer’s second mistake is to state that non-Christian religions are not protected under the first amendment. The first amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Perhaps Mr. Fischer does not realize that the first amendment does not give theological requirements for what qualifies as a religion. Therefore, Catholicism is a religion protected under the first amendment. Methodism is protected. Baptists, Evangelicals, and Mormons are protected. And Hindus, Jews, and Muslims are all protected under the first amendment. 

These attacks, while dramatic as they are desired to be, are currently running rampant throughout the media. Their primary goal is to deface the image of Mitt Romney but Romney is not the only one being brutally condemned.

A poll recently taken in Mississippi (by Public Policy Polling) found that only 12% of those polled believed President Barack Obama to be a Christian. 52% believe him to be a Muslim and 36% said that they were unsure. (2) 

But the fact that falsely informed Americans struggle with trying to decide what religion President Obama belongs to is nothing new. Assaults first surfaced in 2008 via chain email stating that the then Senator and presidential hopeful had been sworn into office on the Quran and would turn his back on the American flag when the Senators would say the Pledge of Allegiance. (3)  

Both of these accusations are blatant lies meant only to scare people into believing the ridiculous notion that President Obama is a closeted terrorist. President Obama was sworn in as a Senator and later as President with his hand on a bible, and he participates in the Pledge of Allegiance respectfully. Disagreeing with a politician is absolutely acceptable; veiled suggestions to people that he might be a terrorist is revolting.

But all of this rhetoric brings to mind a much bigger issue: Why is a candidate’s religion even relevant?

Suddenly, the bulk of America seems to think that only traditional Christians should be allowed in the White House. But sadly, like Mr. Bryan Fischer, these Americans do not realize that under the First Amendment, non-Christians have just as much right as Christians to run for and hold political office. Surely to the disappointment of the religious bigots in our country, there is no as-long-as-they-believe-in-what-we-deem-to-be-the-traditional-version-of-Jesus-Christ provision.

For years, Americans have taken great pride in claiming that our nation was founded by various Christian sects who were desperately seeking religious freedom from intolerant governments. While it is true that some of the very first settlers in America came to be free of the religious tyranny that was being forced upon them, the settlers did not believe in what we what we think of as “religious freedom”. They sought freedom for themselves, but felt no fault when they demonstrated intolerance of others. The settlers did not allow differing religions to flourish side by side in their towns and in fact, William Penn, an early Quaker, was chased out of New Jersey because he promoted religious tolerance of others. (Penn would then go on to found Pennsylvania and promoted not only true religious freedom, but trial by jury, and free elections.)

Many of our founding fathers recognized the problems that were created when religious dominance occurred and fought for religious freedom to be included within the constitution. James Madison, the main writer and often called “the father of the constitution”, (following the lead of philosopher Adam Smith) felt that when religions were allowed to compete with each other freely, not one dominating over the others, protection against religious oppression would be preserved. (4)

But Madison did not just believe in religious freedom out of a benevolent desire to extend fairness to all, he felt that when intermixed, religion and politics were detrimental to each other. On one side, he argued that civic judges were not knowledgeable enough in religious matters to make decisions regarding faith, and on the other hand, he felt that government involvement in religion was insulting since religion continued to exist not only without government support, as well as despite the violent efforts to attempt to stop it. (5)

John Witherspoon, the only signer of the Declaration of Independence who was also a minister, wholeheartedly believed in religious freedom as well. He felt that proclaiming independence from England had nothing to do with religious liberties at all, but everything to do with civil liberties. And he even argued that in order to maintain the freedom to worship, freedom from a tyrannical government was essential. Witherspoon profoundly pointed out that “There is not a single instance in history in which civil liberty was lost, and religious liberty preserved…” (5) And if I may be so presumptuous as to point out that the inverse is true as well: When religious liberty is lost, neither are civil liberties protected.

And so if we, wishing to truly act as the proud Americans we boldly claim to be, wish to honor our founder’s intentions and continue to be a country that is tolerant of various religions, we simply cannot accept the majority while discriminating against a select few. When we love our Christian and Jewish neighbors alike, but start questioning the beliefs of our presidential candidates, we become nothing more than hypocrites. When we believe unfounded, vicious rumors or demand proof that our political leaders only believe in a God that meets our standard, we are exercising bigotry, not liberty. The rubric that we grade our potential leaders on ought to include their educational background, foreign policy experience, knowledge of US history and its laws, and demonstration of human decency because these are the skills that have a profound effect on the shaping of America.

1.       www.huffingtonpost.com
2.       www.newsbusters.org
3.       www.msnbc.msn.com
4.       The Founding Fathers and the Place of Religion in America by Frank Lambert (page 242-243).
5.       The Founding Fathers and the Place of Religion in America by Frank Lambert (page 244).