Religion & Politics
by James Carvin 5/28/04

My political views are almost as strong as my religious views. The former tends to be subject to the latter. In my view, it would be ideal if it always was. Is your philosophy, your religion, your political orientation all united into one? Personally, I class all of this into one lump which might be called "what I believe." I am an "idealogue" and I have an "ideology." Around 20% of America has ideology that conflicts with mine. We disagree strongly on almost every subject.

However, within that group there is also a tendency to separate religion from politics and political philosophy. On the one hand, there is the problem of fascism. This is a word that gets tossed around quite a lot by political enemies either on the left or on the right. As I understand it "fascism" refers to the loss of civil liberty. "Islamo-fascism" is a word that is heard a lot these days. A certain narrow minded group hopes to impose tyranny on the whole world, setting up theocracies with all laws following the Quran. Women would be in burkas and not allowed to go to school or drive. Men would not be allowed to trim their beards. Human rights would not be a value. Democracy would have no part. That is full blown fascism in all its madness. Add to that the religious component. If you don't become a Muslim you can be killed. And you certainly can't preach the Christian faith to anyone. There is no room for any other way of thinking. The penalty is death. Hitler was a fascist. He was also a socialist. Fascism is usually associated with the political right because it is opposed to liberty and conservatives support certain policies that restrict some forms of liberty - the liberty to marry the same sex, the liberty to be private and have an abortion, the liberty to keep government spies out of my conversations by opposing the Patriot Act, etc. Generally, there is a fear that the imposition of religion on law would amount to fascism. Therefore, it is thought best to separate it from politics, particularly in the light of the ugliness and violence of Islamo-fascism.

On the other hand there is ignorance. People are grossly unaware of how vital religion can be. They are unchurched and caught up in the moral relativism that stems from a world that has sought to remove religion from the public arena. They have a very dull sense of right and wrong. When religion is offered to them they reject it because it runs contrary to the values they have selected from irreligious society. The lusts of the flesh, of the eyes, of the pocket book and of the tongue cringe when they consider it. Since so many of their habits and values work in opposition to what religion poses they not only reject religion but they hate it. They strike back with insults. And they seek out their personal liberty with all their strength, indulging in it all the more and voting and lobbying for laws to protect it. That is why the notion of "the separation of the church and state" has become central to the ideology of so many over the past forty years, particularly on the left. With a consistent move toward moral depravity, this tendency is coming to a head.

Personally, I don't understand how politics can be separated from religion. I can appreciate the idea that the state, and particularly congress, should make no law prohibiting the free practice of religion. But people all have one thing in common - "what they believe." What a person believes about God may entail a good bit of variety. But everyone has a sense of right and wrong, even if those senses are dulled. Those few who have no such sense are considered insane or they are jailed as criminals once their philosophy is practiced. They become law breakers. And law is set up to protect certain common values. We agree that certain things are good and that others are bad. Some things are "right." Others are "wrong." Therefore, we create law. Law is, thus, based on morality, even if it is natural law, rather than divine law..

It is often said that "you can't legislate morality." I partly agree. Morality is something that each person has to grow to posess. When our sense of right and wrong is dulled we tend to become lawbreakers. We will see what we can get away with. Speeding and cheating on taxes are two common examples. This is where the idea of "back alley abortions" came from too. The drug trade also exists despite law. And my father always said that Prohibition only increased our tendency to drink alcohol. For the record, I always doubted him on that one. I think it was just a notion he inherited from my great grandfather, who owned a tavern at the turn of the 20th century. Drugs are illegal but drinking isn't. I see much more drinking going on that taking of drugs. If drinking was illegal I know I would stop drinking an occasional beer or glass of wine. I suspect there would be a lot of people like me who would normally want to obey the law, whether out of respect for the law itself or out of fear of getting caught. So I suspect that law actually is somewhat effective. Morality can, in fact, be legislated.

Many people even use law as a moral guide. To break the law is immoral. And in their eyes, so long as you are not breaking the law you are not doing something immoral. What is right or wrong, for them, depends on whether it is legal or not. For these people, abortion is okay because it is legal. If it were made illegal again then it would become not okay. Personally, I find this way of thinking repulsive. It reflects a conscience that is so seared that it can't possess its own sense of morality. It is reliant on a random construct which we call "the law" for understanding.

Be that as it may, law should serve as a guide, at least to some degree. After all, it is ideally the result of elected legislators performing the will of the people, to enforce what is right. Nevertheless, I am amazed and dismayed at how many people I talk to who think this way. They do not appear to have any sense of what is right or wrong that stems from their own philosophy. It is as the apostle Paul said, "the law is their teacher." However, in this case, it is the law of people, rather than of God. Or, at least it is if we have become irreligious. And that is the problem. We are becoming irreligious. Religion has been losing its relevance in society. When we, the people, take this tendency to the extreme, then law itself becomes the only basis for future legislation.

In light of that, it is radically inconsistent that our judges are abandoning the doctrine of original intent as they interpret law. Worse, they are creating new law that is not even based on our existing law at all. They impose their personal philosophy and will on the people or even adopt it from other nations. The ACLU usually fails to speak up when this occurs because the judges who practice this are liberal. And the laws which they impose are consistent with the liberal viewpoint of the ACLU.

This can happen because legislation is complex. There are usually multiple values at stake. Abortion is a classic example. Two values - the liberty to choose and the liberty to live are in conflict. The ACLU pragmatically joins with the liberals and the democrats to favor liberty of choice over liberty of life. It doesn't matter that the ability to choose is dependent on the ability to live. Similarly, in opposing the Patriot Act they also favor the liberty of privacy over the liberty to survive in an era of terrorism through the prevention of organized crime, even mass murder. They fear the government will have too much power and will abuse it. They worry about this more than they worry about the mass destruction of bio-terror. It doesn't matter that there will no longer be any privacy once we are in our graves.

I desire consistency. Now, conservatives, even religious ones, are more hawkish. But religion itself is hardly hawkish. So explain that. In the second century Irenaeus of Lyons described Christians as a people who never picked up weapons. I find myself in an awkward state. I initially opposed the war in Iraq. But as time progressed I found myself feeling it was necessary. I came to see the face of our enemy. On 9/11 I asked myself who did it and why. When we started fighting in Afghanistan I urged restraint. I guessed that the world was looking at us. I guessed they would retaliate if they didn't believe in what we were doing. I was being told that we needed to understand why the Arabs were so upset with us. So I started to research the matter as much as I could.

What I found was that we were in very deep trouble. The enemy was disorganized but vast. And they had no intention of ever relenting. They had declared war on us, not us on them. And then came Iraq. At first this looked to me like a gift from George W. to George H. -Saddam's head on a silver platter. I thought we were entering this war for a most pitiful reason. But further study showed me our president deserved much greater respect. He did not lie to the American people. He acted on bad intelligence. He got us into this war for a noble reason, even if it was misinformed. Then new compelling reasons to continue the war emerged. The result may be a beacon of democracy in the Middle East in Iraq. Even if he may have been mistaken about Hussein's abilities and intentions I like the possibilities I now see. Freedom has come with a price. It is worth fighting for.

I find myself thinking these thoughts but feeling bad about the bloodshed. As a man who refuses to separate religion from politics I question my hawkishness. I find myself thinking thoughts like, "okay so tens of thousands had to die," (I always count the Iraqi casualties along with the American and coalition ones - shame on you if you don't), "but millions will be saved, even billions." The proportionate good allows the end to justify the means. Oooh. This thought leaves me feeling unclean. Like David, I become a man of bloodshed, unworthy of seeing what I desire - God's own holy temple. I turn to God for mercy.

I will close with this. Another consequence of separating politics from faith is ignorance of the power of prayer. We are at the mercy of God. And I believe we fail to pray for our enemies, and even for our own leaders. And we put our trust in them more than we put our trust in God even though we haven't even prayed for them. The prayer of the righteous avails much. If you have strong political views like me, may I challenge you to passionate prayer equal to or greater than your passion for your political view? You have strong beliefs because you care. You want society to be better. This is a good start. Turn to God for mercy. George Bush can't save us. Neither can John Kerry. But there is a God who can. We are not worthy. But He is. And we really need Him now.

Permission to reprint this article unedited and in full only. Authorship, title, date and reference to this web site must by included.