At National Review Online, Steve Waldman (founder of Beliefnet) does a good job straightening out some of the recent loose talk about religious belief and politics:
Let’s say a Senator A opposes the Iraq war on practical grounds. He thinks it’s a distraction from fighting al Qaeda that erodes our credibility overseas. He votes no on the war. Senator B also opposes the war. He’s a Catholic and has read up on just-war theory and concluded that this war is immoral because it was preemptive and could have been avoided through peaceful means. He votes no, too.
They both voted no — and yet one did so for reasons practical, and the other for reasons moral and theological. Is one an appropriate vote and the other not? Slice it further. Let’s say Senator C also voted against the war and, like Senator B, did so primarily for moral reasons. But in his case, Senator C read no Catholic just war theory; instead, he came to view it as immoral after seeing Fahrenheit 9/11. So Senators B and C both voted against for moral reasons: in one case, from having seen a secular movie, and in the other, from having read a religious document.
Are we really saying that only Senators A and C, the ones who didn’t draw upon religion, used legitimate thought processes?
This seems exactly right to me. Whatever else “separation of church and state” may mean, it doesn’t, and shouldn’t, mean that religious believers have to bracket their beliefs when acting in their capacity as citizens. First of all, is that even psychologically possible? If I have a moral belief, informed by my religion, can I somehow suspend that belief when I enter the voting booth? Secondly, it can’t possibly be right to demand that I do this, since it clearly violates my right of conscience.
Waldman, however, also challenges religious conservatives to use non-religious arguments to convince their opponents:
There is, however, a problem with the way some religious conservatives approach the political sphere. The problem is not dogmatism, but laziness. Someone who rests the argument for a certain position entirely on the fact that his religion told him to is not really attempting to persuade. Even if one is motivated by faith, one still has to convince others using secular, or at least broad-gauge, moral arguments.
I think Waldman strikes a good balance here. It’s entirely appropriate for religion to motivate one’s stand on political issues, but in a pluralistic democracy you have to make your case to people who don’t agree with you. And not everyone is going to be convinced by a handful of Bible quotations.
Waldman’s article is a good rejoinder to this atrocious piece by Robert Reich from a few weeks back. Reich, a former Clinton administration official, thinks that the real threat to America in the 21st century is not terrorism carried out by Islamist fanatics, but religion per se:
The great conflict of the 21st century may be between the West and terrorism. But terrorism is a tactic, not a belief. The underlying battle will be between modern civilization and anti-modernist fanatics; between those who believe in the primacy of the individual and those who believe that human beings owe blind allegiance to a higher authority; between those who give priority to life in this world and those who believe that human life is no more than preparation for an existence beyond life; between those who believe that truth is revealed solely through scripture and religious dogma, and those who rely primarily on science, reason, and logic. Terrorism will disrupt and destroy lives. But terrorism is not the only danger we face.
Just try and count all the false dichotomies in that passage!
On the other hand, Michael Novak is just off the rails:
Finally, there is the matter of faith, even of the sort Tom Paine showed in 1776. Paine was no Christian, but he did believe that God had created this vast and splendid universe in order to share His friendship with free women and free men, and for this reason the Creator put freedom at the core of things. Tom Paine had no tolerance for the Bible, and less for Biblical fundamentalists, but he was not so much an atheist, he wrote, as to believe that the Almighty Who made the universe for liberty would allow the cause of people willing to die for it to come to naught. Paine couldn’t bring himself to believe that God would favor George III.
In that same spirit, I find it hard to believe that the Creator who gave us liberty will ignore President Bush’s willingness to sacrifice his own presidency for the liberation of Afghanistan and Iraq — their 50 million citizens, and perhaps their progeny for ages to come. A kind of cosmic justice (which does not always materialize, I recognize) calls for vindication. Especially when the president has been so unfairly calumniated by his foes, domestic and foreign.
I think it’s just possible that engineering George Bush’s re-election may not be at the top of God’s “to do” list.