Faith and Politics

As a non-religious person, this presidential election should be a no-win situation for me. All three choices remaining in the race, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John McCain, are what Richard Dawkins playfully calls “faithheads”. It should be agonizing for a non-believer to choose between three professed Christians. It isn’t. The religiosity of the candidates does not bother me in the slightest.

For me, atheism is a rational conclusion based on the available evidence. It should be no more controversial than disbelieving in unicorns or fairies. The fact that so many people disagree with my conclusion does not impress me. I do not consider faith to be a reliable method of testing knowledge, so any beliefs based on faith will not hold much sway with me. If the faithheads ever turn out to be right about anything, it will be by accident.

I don’t think I will shock anybody by saying human beings are imperfect. We perceive the universe imperfectly through our senses. Our imperfect brains imperfectly process the data they receive. Our imperfect ethics cause us to make imperfect decisions that sometimes result in disaster. Because of our inherent flaws, it is unrealistic to be absolutely certain about anything. Don’t get me wrong, we can have a very high degree of certainty about some things, but nothing that reaches the standard of absolute. This means that any person, at any time, can be wrong about anything, no matter how firmly they believe it. That includes me.

Acknowledging the possibility of being wrong prompts a respect for the right of others to hold contrary opinions. Some have honestly looked at the same evidence I have seen, and have reached a different conclusion. Perhaps someday they will change their minds, or perhaps I will. The presidential candidates, indeed most politicians in America, profess to believe in something that I do not think is real. That fact is less important than their political philosophy.

Atheism is a private conclusion. Secularism is a political value that concerns public policy. One need not be an atheist or agnostic to be a secularist. Christians who believe in the separation of church and state—to protect the church, in their view—can be just as secularist as I am. Secularism follows from the liberal belief that the government should operate in the public sphere, while all religious matters are private. About this subject, Thomas Jefferson said “it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” (1)

Secularism is at odds with religious conservatives who believe that America is a Christian nation, and that our laws should reflect the values prescribed in the Bible. Setting aside the theological problems with this idea (which Biblical “values” do you wish to cherry pick?), it runs contrary to modern ideals of freedom. Conservatives are more concerned with imposing their idea of goodness on the population than they are with freedom. Freedom allows society to change and meet new challenges, which inevitably threatens those who benefit from the status quo.

It is far more important that a candidate believe in the separation of church and state than the candidate share my atheism. I usually don’t have much to worry about with liberal candidates, as religious freedom and the secularism of the state are modern liberal values. Decisions about religious freedom will be decided by the Supreme Court, and the next president will appoint at least one new Justice. John McCain will receive constant pressure from his Republican buddies to appoint another conservative justice, which will give the conservatives a solid majority on the Court. Neither Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton will face such pressure, though they may confront a filibuster if they appoint a Justice who is too radically liberal.

We also have to consider the fact that no non-religious candidate could be elected to high office in the United States. Atheists are still a much distrusted group. Because believers have been taught that their morality comes from faith, they mistakenly believe that anyone without faith cannot be moral. Very little headway has been made against this myth. Until more Americans soften their view of nonbelievers, all the choices in elections will likely be religious. I suspect that there have been a few atheists in high office, maybe even in the White House, but we will never know. It would be political suicide for a president to question the existence of the country’s favorite deity.

That is not to say that our presidential candidates are not genuine about their faith. In fact, if they are secularist and believe in the separation of church and state, it is better that they are genuine. They can speak to other believers on their level, using their language. Barack Obama made a speech at Pastor Rick Warren’s church in 2006. (2) I challenge anyone to read the speech and find any signs of disingenuousness. My hope is that the Democratic candidate will inspire the faithful in this country to accept a more liberal kind of faith. It is possible for the devout to live in peace with the doubtful. Conservative Republicans have used religion to divide the country and stir up hatred. Liberal Democrats, one hopes, will use religion to unite and to smooth over the differences between those of different faiths, and those of no faith.

Let them preach. Let them sing hymns. If it is a genuine expression of their beliefs, they have a right to do so. It is still a free country. If we elect a president who will carry on the standard of secularism in the public sector, the country will remain free.

© 2008 Bryan Lower

Feedback: