Religion In Public Life

Joe Lieberman, the Democratic Vice President candidate in the 2000 election, received some criticism for his discussion of the role of faith, religion and our belief in God in making a good society. His message that such matters are important today as ever in creating and continuing has been criticized by the Anti-Defamation League and others because it might be taken to suggest that those who do not believe in God are not moral or good citizens. Furthermore, the tradition of separation of church and state appears to counsel such political figures in particular not to send a message that public life requires religion (especially a particular type of religion, even if it is as broad as monotheism that can include Christians, Jews, and Muslims). Also, it seems to some that Lieberman is suggesting he knows best in the area of religion, when he really should not concern himself as Vice President (or senator) in such areas.

Finally, such religious talk by public officials (or the argument public life requires religion as compared to private life) might very well empower those who selectively want to support certain religions, including in such areas as vouchers to private and religion schools, prayer in schools, laws against things some feel immoral such as abortion and homosexuality, and so on. Lieberman was chosen in part because of his moral vision; is his use of religion and God as factors in his move for a public morality crossing the line? A nation who at least nominally vastly believes in God, especially those the matter in the election, might not think so, but let me try to give you a summary of my thoughts on the issue.

The argument that religion has an important role in private and public life on one hand is a no brainer, though it really boils down to how you define religion. The popular understanding of "religion" is a belief in God or the supernatural and the tenets that such beings or forces have helped led us to set up as a guide on how to live our lives. Nonetheless, even if it is a minority, there are quite a few people in the country who do not believe (or doubt the existence of) God, as well as others who do not follow the tenets of monotheism, including many who follow Eastern religions such as Buddhism, Taoism, and the like. Though some of these religions have some sense of the supernatural, the belief in God or gods clearly does not end matters in the area of religion.

Religion in my view is better seen as our belief in the ultimate, that is, what we conceive as the ultimate thing to guide us in our lives, even if we can not logically explain it. For many, this ultimate is God, but for many others it is not, so the use of "God" (in this country usually seen as Christian) to equal religion is wrong. Furthermore, the suggestion that those who do not believe in God are irreligious with all its connotations of immorality is also wrong, dead wrong in fact. There are quite a few moral people out there (hopefully I among them*) who question the belief of God, but who still have some type of religion to guide them. The reverse is also true -- belief in God and/or a "religious" label does not mean you are automatically a good person, especially if your religion is a misguided one.

Given the fact that human beings are religious animals, the importance of religion in public life is clear, since our beliefs and how we act upon them affect how we act publicly. Lieberman is thus correct to recognize the importance of religion, while trying (though not totally successfully) to not single out a particular religion as more important than anyone else. Nonetheless, it is important to note that our public morals, how we live our lives in the public arena, ultimately does not depend on how we pray to or believe in God or if we do not do so at all. It clearly is a factor, but both things are not interchangeable, and suggestions by some that we need to allow (and often by private pressure compel) certain religious rituals in public to uphold morality and the public good is wrong.

The way religion and certain ways in believing God are combined by many, talk of religion in the "public square" risks a move by some governmental officials to selectively support certain religions, just what the First Amendment and religious freedom demand they do not. It is one thing to honor religion, it is quite another thing to only honor certain religions, or suggest certain religions must be in the public arena for a good society to exist. This holds whatever your stance is on another issue of Lieberman's, namely argument popular culture is more vulgar -- enjoyment of vulgarity does not necessarily equal how religious or moral you may be.

This area is fraught with controversy, one reason why discussion of religion as well as inserting it into public life is often seen as so problematic. Religion belief and action from such belief have been the spirit behind many in public life through history from those who first came here to serve their God better up to the present where the movement for civil rights often has religious themes (e.g., Rev Martin Luther King Jr and Rev Al Sharpton, the Nation of Islam, and the strong religious themes in many white supremacy groups, showing both the good and the bad). Therefore, the public arena (including clubs in schools) might include religious themes. This includes many laws, including equal protection, which was further by many by their belief of all believers being equal under God.

On the other hand, when we require religious belief or action (prayer in school vs. moments of silence without influence on what to do during it, requiring Sunday to be the day of rest even for those who have other holy days, etc.) in public, or use certain matters of morality very much in dispute (abortion, homosexuality, and so on) to guide our laws, we have crossed the line. It might be a fine line (e.g., when does government support of religious schools cross the line? when does religious displays in public support a particular religion? how far can dissenters try to change or prevent things they oppose, even matters of personal freedom like abortion?), but it is very important, as many religions still are oppressed throughout the world, and many religious minorities even in this country are looked down upon in many communities.

I also get a tad cynical when religion (and its close kin "morality") is used these days. All too often in my eyes, "morality" means that I live in a way that you do not approve, not in a way that really is "immoral." If I kill or lie or hurt someone else, it is immoral; if someone chooses not to believe in God, love someone their own sex, or even choose to have an abortion when she feels it is right, it is quite a different thing. Religion seems to be more a matter of culture than belief in God or such, since religious differences tend to be more cultural than doctrinal. Though religious doctrine is important to some, many beliefs held to be religious (abortion, place of women in society, homosexuality, etc) actually arise from cultural beliefs with religion used as a cover to give them some kind of overriding justification.

Furthermore, I do not like using religion as a type of "opium" (to quote Karl Marx) to either ignore or cloud reality. Religion (and I am using it now in its more popular sense) has and continues to do much good, including giving a sense of purpose to many people, who hopefully uses it wisely. Nonetheless, when I read how many members of the Coors family (I'm reading a biography of the beer dynasty at the moment) became "born again" and suddenly found purpose and joy to life, I got cynical and just a tad angry. The book suggests their lives had many problems in it, problems that still remained, even if they put their minds elsewhere.

Furthermore, the use of belief in something that really cannot be disputed to justify your actions is not only somewhat of an easy way out, it has potential to be rather dangerous. This is especially the case when God (and Jesus Christ, Mohammad, etc.) is used toward ends much different from they might have want to be so used. Using faith alone to justify things is a problem, since faith is such a personal thing, and rather hard to use to convince people. This is one reason I like public school, since a diverse group of religions are forced to interact in some way, even if they disagree. Finally, purpose in life and morality does not require certain religions or religious faith to exist, especially if such faith brings excess baggage that only complicates matters.

Man is a religious animal, perhaps the only one that can be seen as one, if we define religion as the belief in and guidance of certain ultimate truths that requires a high intelligence and sense of awareness to exist. This broader view of religion helps include everyone under its banner, as compared to the minor narrow view of religion many champion. Furthermore, such a broad view does require we understand that religion has a role in public life, but does not require that only a certain sphere of religion controls. Those who argue that religion should be in the public square are therefore partly correct, but also all too often cross the line and suggest only certain religions are the correct ones. Finally, even if religion is important, it also remains quite controversial and even dangerous if misused, making too much religion in the public square a potentially (and in many cases already a) problematic thing.

* My argument here does not rely on my religious beliefs per se, but suffice to say, I think that the problems with the concept of "God" as popularly understood, only makes it stronger. My problem with "God" is basically simple: an all powerful, all knowing, and all good being just does not make sense given how things are today. Perhaps, this is why people who claim to believe in God do and justify so many bad things, things that their God clearly would not support — God is not as good as s/he/it is believed to be. There is too much pain and suffering in this world, and the idea that free will, life after death, or whatever makes it worth it in the end just does not cut it for me. It also is just a tad funny how we question "God" when something bad happens to us, when bad things happen and have happened to others for quite a long time.

Using God to explain all the good stuff, which usually can explained in some other way, does not help with the bad. Finally, though belief in a better life after death or that the things that occur are "meant" to happen might be nice, but that does not make it true. We learn Santa Claus and fairies are fantasies or symbolic eventually, I think the same holds true with God. It is better not to use illogical beliefs to guide our lives, especially since there is another way. It might be harder, but then is some said the same thing when people said that the people themselves should rule, not kings and lords or certain select groups in society. Life is not all rosy after the fall of communism in the Soviet Union, but that did not make belief in it the better path (ironically those guided by the man who called religion the opium of the people used another type of religion in similar fashion).

Furthermore, using God as a way to explain things is problematic. First, things we might think as supernatural, can just be things we do not yet understand. Also, putting aside natural laws, if God created everything, where did God come from? A five-year old can see such things, but just cannot understand the jargon or crafty arguments used to explain them away. There also need not only be one God, especially if we want to explain why there is evil in the world. Finally, use of faith and mystical happenings to justify belief in God kind of ignores how such things also were used in belief of things most of us do not accept. Perhaps, the same applies here, especially given how past beliefs (including beliefs that use ancient manuscripts that tend to be interpreted incorrectly in many cases or are themselves written long after the things occurred) influence what people believe today. I myself see science as the way to explain how things work, while trying to live life in the way to make a better world is my religion, even if being good in my case does not require belief in a God that will strike me down or hold me back when I do bad.

Further Reading: This subject is obviously too broad to properly be dealt with in one short essay, so I do suggest those interested do some further reading on the topic. I found a good essay that suggests a thought experiment on the subject of suffering, part of an interesting website with many essays on the subject of secularism. Inputing a particular religion in your favorite search engine is good way to learn more about faiths that are different from your own, including about which you might know little -- I included the About.com search results above for your convenience. As always, I welcome any comments or questions.