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:
Post a Comment