Religion and Politics in the United States
The truth about freedom of religion
By Hanna Johnson
The Progressive Teen Staff Writer
THE FIRST AMENDMENT OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievance.”
However, despite the freedom of religion being one of the principles that this nation was founded on, it has been neglected in both modern and historical politics. This conversation has not been properly addressed but did have some attention in 2015. When the outcome of Obergefell v. Hodges was decided on June 26, 2015, many in the nation celebrated not only for the federally-granted freedom for all genders to legally wed but also in the hopes that religion was being taken out of politics. However, on June 4, 2018, many were questioning if that was genuinely true. When the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Colorado baker who refused to bake a cake for a gay couple and cited his religious beliefs as the reason in a startling 7–2 vote, it triggered a conversation across the nation questioning if religion can truly ever be removed from politics. There was a notable dissent from Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, stating “When a couple contacts a bakery for a wedding cake, the product they are seeking is a cake celebrating their wedding — not a cake celebrating heterosexual weddings or same-sex weddings — and that is the service Craig and Mullins were denied… What matters is that Phillips would not provide a good or service to a same-sex couple that he would provide to a heterosexual couple.” Laws cannot be decided on the basis of religion, but more often than not, religion influences the way that politicians, judges, and justices interpret the constitution and current legislative bills. Religion and politics are immensely different concepts but are unfortunately intertwined more deeply than it was previously thought.
The disagreements in many of the most current controversial issues can be attributed to a difference in religion, or a lack thereof. This is not to say that every issue is a religious debate, but it most certainly does play a role in it. One of the arguments against abortion and contraceptives, specifically within Christianity, is that a pregnancy is “God’s will” and thus, should be respected. It is also thought that permitting either encourages “sexual promiscuity” and violates the Bible’s specifications on premarital sex. The issue with this is crafting laws that impact the entire nation on the basis of one group’s religious beliefs is not everyone has the same religion, while everyone must follow the same laws. Within Christianity, the most popular argument against gay marriage is that the Bible is against it. Leviticus 18:22 says “you shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.” However, something that is important to remember is that religious texts were written thousands of years ago, and translated from another language. Many theorize that male was translated incorrectly and initially meant to a young boy, and thus the Bible would be against pedophilia, and not homosexuality. Furthermore, religious texts are not political blueprints, and should not be treated as if they are. Letting religion influence politics raises numerous important questions to consider. How does one interpret religious texts, and ensure that the interpretations are correct? Moreover, how does one ensure that all religious documents from every religion are being equally considered?
Allowing religion to influence politics is a very dangerous game. It is one that has gone drastically wrong in cases such as the Holocaust, or more recently, in the unfair treatment against Uighur Muslims in China. Religion has been used to defend immoral choices, even within the United States. Both the former attorney general, Jeff Sessions, and the former press secretary, Sarah Sanders, were quoted in their defense of the Trump Administration’s implementation of separating families at the border via citing the Bible. Regardless of the opinion surrounding the family separation policies, justifying them with religion is wrong, unfair, and unconstitutional. Jeff Sessions said, “I would cite you to the Apostle Paul and his clear and wise command in Romans 13 to obey the laws of the government because God has ordained them for the purpose of order.” In his defense, Sanders responded, “I can say that it is very biblical to enforce the law. That is repeated throughout the Bible.” This exhibits blatant disregard to other religions, and even to Christianity itself. Defense on the basis of religion should be avoided at all costs, and instead supported by statistics, studies, and other non-faith-based strategies.
Clearly, the United States has a problem with the separation of church and state. Why does the nation avoid addressing it? To put it simply, to address it would be admitting that the government is actively disobeying the constitution. Furthermore, taking away the prominence that Christianity has in politics might allow other religions to take center stage. There is a discrepancy of the religions of politicians representing their states. Although Christianity is the most popular religion in the nation, and Congress reflects that, it does not reflect that of individual states. In many states, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, or Hinduism are second to Christianity. This, however, is not reflected in Congress: 88.2% of Congress identifies as Christian, 0.6% as Muslim, 6.4% as Jewish, and 0.6% as Hindus. Although the percentage of Christians in Congress has dropped 3% from the 115th Congress, they are still overrepresented significantly. Christians encompass the majority of the Senate: 94% of Republicans and 68% of Democrats identify as such. In the House of Representatives, 99% of Republicans identified as a type of Christian, compared to 80% of Democrats.
It is obvious that religion is interfering too much in politics, but what are the implications? One result could be death. According to the Human Rights Campaign, 128 transgender individuals have been murdered since 2013. Of the 128, 80% of those have been women of color, and one was a transgender man. In addition, according to the 2017 Youth Risk Behavior Survey, LGBT+ kids are twice as likely to be bullied at school. One reason for this may be the religious intolerance that is reinforced in America’s political spectrum. Employing potentially discriminatory policies, or even vocally speaking out against marginalized populations have real consequences. Normalization of harmful religious-fueled language will continue to result in an increase in violent attacks or negative language. This was seen in the Christchurch shooting in New Zealand, and even in the more recent Sri Lanka bombing. In the wrong hands, words can turn very quickly into actions. To combat this, principles must be established. While everyone has the right to believe what they want to believe, they do not have the right to force others to believe the same or make decisions that directly impact other lives on the basis of their religion. Religion does not give anyone an excuse to discriminate against anyone else. Religion is a relationship: the nation must work on keeping the United States out of this relationship.
