13 December 2013

The Atheism Problem in American Politics



In an interesting new article on Politico, author and atheist Jennifer Michael Hecht suggests that the election of atheists is the last political taboo in the United States.  Part of the problem lies with American voters, who are less willing to vote for atheists than for members of any other group tested.  Indeed, no sitting member of Congress, and only a handful of politicians at the state or local level, is willing to self-identify as an atheist.  Hecht contrasts this with the situation in 19th-century America, or even early in the 20th century, when deists like Jefferson and Madison, or people of ambiguous or uncertain religiosity like Lincoln or Taft, could rise to the highest office in the land.  Since the Cold War, she argues, religiosity has been increasingly prevalent in American politics, bringing us to this current situation.

While I think the Cold War is an important touchstone, the issue of atheists facing roadblocks in politics goes farther back than that.  Though the presidents she identifies had non-conventional religious beliefs, they each paid at least lip-service to a higher power.  They were participants in the great American Civil Religion which, I have noted elsewhere, was an idea most associated with the late sociologist Robert Bellah.  It comprises a set of references to God that in theory unties Americans in higher purpose.  Ultimately the aim is to insure, as it says on the Great Seal of the United States, that “[God] looks with pleasure on our new order of the ages.”

So, we have “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, “in God we trust,” on our currency, “God Bless You; God Bless America,” at the end of nearly every political speech, “God Bless America” sung in the seventh inning stretch.  While the instance of these certainly increased with the Cold War, the putative deity has always been lurking in the background of American public discourse.  Indeed only one inaugural address, Washington’s second given in 1797—a marvel of efficiency, it is only fourteen words longer than this paragraph—has failed to mention God, or Divine Providence, or the Almighty Being.  Most sought his aid and protection for the nation, guidance in our affairs, and invoked his generosity towards the American people.

Small wonder, then, that atheism is a problem in American politics.  The charge was often hurled against Jefferson, and its inability to keep him from the presidency is more a testament to the state of party politics in the early 19th century than to general broad-mindedness.  Today the charge, were it substantiated, would be a political death sentence.  In eschewing belief in God, one opts out not only of formal religion, but of the American Civil Religion as well, and its relaxed central tenet that what one believes is not so important as that one believes.

A small consideration for atheists.  But not, it turns out, to most religious believers.  As I have discussed elsewhere, outward religiosity serves as a marker of trustworthiness for many believers.  There are reasons in deep time for this, stretching back to the very origins of belief in deities.  Belief in gods, it has been argued, arose as an efficient method for policing morals in groups.  Outsourcing this duty to deities was a good way to free up energies of members of the group towards the business of survival.  Outward appearances of religiosity serve as markers of membership in the group, that one can be trusted.

This even extends to very cosmopolitan societies.  Roman society, for instance, was as the historian Ramsay MacMullen noted “complete, and completely tolerant, in heaven as on earth.”  Religious authorities went to great pains to assimilate the gods of conquered territories to Roman gods.  Even the Jews frequently got a pass (except when they were actively rebelling), as the Romans respected the antiquity of their faith and chief among Roman religious virtue was adherence to the beliefs of one’s fathers.  Christians, however, were trouble.  They had left Judaism or—as Gentiles converted—traditional pagan religions, a most impious act.  Worse still, they denied the existence of all other gods leading to accusations of…wait for it…atheism.  Occasionally targeted for persecution, they were suspected of disrupting religious harmony and bringing the disfavor of the gods upon the empire.

When in the fourth century Constantine legalized Christian worship, he declared in the Edict of Milan that each person should pursue “that religion which he should think best for himself, so that the Supreme Deity (to whose worship we freely yield our hearts) may show in all things His usual favor and benevolence.”  This supreme deity would be the same one worshiped by educated pagans of the time, and would be adored, even by Christians, for the good of the empire.  Constantine’s restoration of goods and buildings seized from Christians in the recent persecution, and the financing of new church construction, was accompanied by investment in pagan temples, presumably in pursuit of his stated goal.  His attempt was to rehabilitate Christians of the charge of atheism and to restore the unity in heaven that had existed before.

So it goes even now.  Historically, of course, Christianity became a dominant force in the empire and in its successor states, and famously intolerant of competitors.   This intolerance was transmitted, in varying degrees, to the colonies that formed the United States.  Even though the Constitution stipulates that there be no religious test for public office, religiosity remains for many a marker of trustworthiness.  Is there nothing to be done?

Yes.  The same researchers who asserted this connection between religiosity and trustworthiness also note that reminders of secular governance can help ease the distrust.  Apparently, being reminded of membership in a larger group (e.g. American citizens) can downplay the “tribal” distrust of believers for non-believers.  I believe a version of this same phenomenon underlies the polarizing politics of the moment, which sees the unraveling of rights gains made by women and minorities.  Atheists do not appear to have the same problems in thoroughly secularized nations. 

Whether reminders of secular authority can convince atheists to trust believers more has not, to my knowledge, been explored.  One suspects the mistrust is returned, and for similar reasons.

However, the very fact that this mistrust can be mitigated suggests a path forward—secularism.  For those problems which have political solutions, in fact, secularism is the best answer for atheists and for believers.  It allows government to deal with religious and non-religious actors equally, and provides a middle path between theocracy and strict separationism.  It speaks to the aspirations not only of non-believers, but of the faithful who are wary of government entanglement with the personal questions of faith.  

It also requires respect.  Religious secularists must respect the right of the non-religious not to believe.  Non-religious secularists must respect the right of the religious to believe.  The goal of a society where all can pursue their aspirations is much more important than purity of belief (or non-belief).  Secularism requires a sort of philosophical laissez-faire when religious and non-religious people work towards common goals.  As far as is practicable—and there will be points where the groups simply cannot agree—secularism is a path we must walk together.  

There are several reasons for this.  Religious belief is not going anywhere, and the ranks of believers far outnumber non-believers.  Were we, as atheists and assorted non-believers, to engage only those with whom we agree, we would quickly notice that it’s always the same old people in the conversation and would achieve nothing but our own frustration.  Working with the faithful, we can build alliances with those who share our goals, marginalizing the reactionary forces seeking to impose religious strictures (ham-handed attempts at proselytizing the atheist message, at arguing believers out of their beliefs, do not help us in this regard).  

If any creed can join us, it is the message of equality contained in our founding documents and which has been the most contested idea in the public arena.  It is the concern for the future shared by all of us, religious and non-religious.  Secularism has been our greatest strength and can be again.  Embracing its value decreases the value of religious belief (or non-belief) in the political realm, making it possible for atheists to openly serve their fellows, in order to build a more perfect Union.

No comments: