Apotheosize Me

The question of religious influence in American politics is as old as American politics itself.  In fact, a major pollster says the U.S. is the most religious developed democracy in the world.  Yet most studies of the influence of religion in American politics show that there is no simple ’cause & effect’ relationship; there is no pastoral ‘Red State & Blue State’ equation.  There are vast differences in all facets of the political spectrum, and the degree to which any religion can or does influence any particular political issue is very much subject to individual perception.  By and large, people consider the overall context of an issue as it relates to any given religious concept.  The U.S. is in fact very much a Purple Nation.

So as an atheist, how does the inescapable political trifecta of morality, religion and personal integrity influence my decisions in the voting booth?  Reflecting upon this, I have to admit that they do indeed influence my decisions, but probably not in the way that these things influence others.  For me, the “influence,” such as it is, isn’t on my values; rather, I’m watching to see how the candidates are influenced by these forces.  What I want to see is whether or not the person I’m going to select as my representative in government is one who can portend clearly the moral and social dimensions of a given issue, but will act in a manner consistent with established law and societal concerns.  My demand is that they represent ALL, irregardless of their own personal religious beliefs.  I don’t care if the candidate relies on their religious beliefs to guide their choices, or even if they have objections to proposed legislation because of their religious persuasions.  Nor do I necessarily care if the candidate’s beliefs “dovetail” with my own.  I do, however, care deeply if the candidate’s “religious convictions” blind them to alternative view points, or mire their rationalizations in certifiably delusional beliefs, and that they feel they must impose such strictures upon the masses.

In 1787 our country’s Founding Fathers crafted an amazingly elegant document: The United States Constitution.  Far from being silent on the issue of Church and State, they took pains to try to firewall the two from each other.  In relation to religion, the U. S. Constitution’s Article VI, Clause 3,  states in part, “…no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

This was no aberration of language, no accidental misuse of terminology.  Our Founding Fathers were quite specific in their demands that church and state be separate.  Indeed, President John Adams wrote in his manifesto A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America (1787-88), “Thirteen governments thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favour of the rights of mankind.”

In a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote on Jan. 1, 1802 to the Danbury Baptist association in Connecticut, to help quell the rumors that the new U.S. Government was attempting to disband religious activities, “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.“

And as currently as 1992, Supreme Court Justice Harry A. Blackmun (in the Lee v. Weisman ruling) wrote, “When the government puts its imprimatur on a particular religion it conveys a message of exclusion to all those who do not adhere to the favored beliefs. A government cannot be premised on the belief that all persons are created equal when it asserts that God prefers some.”

For instance, one of the most polarizing social issues of our lifetime is abortion.  If a candidate were to take a stance that Roe v Wade was, in their opinion, un-Constitutional and needed to be overturned, that would NOT necessarily mean that I would automatically disfavor that candidate.  I need to know the candidate’s rationalization for this stance; WHY do they think the way they do on this subject?  If they are of the belief that Roe v Wade is un-Constitutional because it imposed a federal mandate on what was – when it came before the Supreme Court – a state’s right issue, and that it need be overturned at the federal level and returned to the state level in order to keep parity within the application of law, then I would probably have a positive opinion of this candidate’s concern for the rule of law rather than rhetoric, and may possibly give serious consideration to voting for them, once all other salient issues were likewise considered.

However, if a candidate were to take a stance that Roe v Wade must be overturned because it offends their god, that there should be NO exceptions to this ban whatsoever, to the degree that even a 13 year old who has been raped by a blood relative must be forced to carry her attacker’s child to term in order to fulfill that candidate’s religious mandates, then I would definitely be swayed to not only vote, but actively campaign against such ludicrous and dangerous zealotry from ever being allowed to hold public Trust.

I have no qualms about an individual’s religious convictions, providing that such convictions are personal, that they illuminate a reasonable, pragmatic internal moral compass that guides them in appropriate social behavior.  Even if I have fundamental disagreements with any given religious tenants, I do not feel the need to extend my disagreements upon them, again, provided that by all accounts their beliefs are internal, and if they were given the opportunity, their ability to form public policy is not distorted by irrational  fanaticism.

I am a registered Independent; I have been since I turned 18.  I have voted for Republicans, Democrats, Independents, Green Party, and some other third-tier political parties.  I have voted in every major election, and this year will be no different.  But I do not enter the voting booth without seriously considering the stakes of what befalls my local, state and national welfare should certain individuals gain power.  I do not let raw, partisan sloganeering make my decisions for me.  I reserve the right to keep my mind free of media bias, and will defend my vote with as much truthful information as I can muster.  Likewise, I respect the Will of the People, even when I think the People must have lost their collective minds.  It is only by allowing the pendulum to swing far enough to one side will the dangers to the Body Republic become truly exposed.  And throughout our young, tumultuous history, the genius that is the Will of the People has been shown to eventually center the blade of justice.

Brian Fallon