Lordy Lordy—Enough with All this God Talk

Fusing Politics and Religion Harms Both

American politics, particularly to a European observer, seems to be infused with religion.

Take for instance a term we hear quite often: “Judeo-Christian.” The first thing to note is that, in my experience at least, this is typically used by the Christians, not “the Judeos.” Second, it’s used more by Protestants than Catholics. Third, it’s used more by conservative, evangelical Protestants rather than by mainline Protestants.

So, what purports to be a neutral, all-inclusive concept is distinctly religious and sectarian. The same issue appears in the new Texas program to encourage what are basically Bible lessons in elementary schools. See this Oklahoma story as well.

The question is, whose Bible? Leaving aside the facts that the Jewish Bible differs significantly from the Christian Bible and that the Bible’s status in Islam and eastern religions raises entirely different questions, there are differences between Catholic and Protestant Bibles. And don’t forget all those wars of religion in early-modern Europe.

Now, I certainly am not a theologian or religious-studies scholar, so I refer you to an interesting 2005 law-review article addressing questions about the famous Ten Commandments cases of McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky, 545 U.S. 844 (2005) and Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677 (2005).

The author, law professor Paul Finkelman, states at 1483: “There are at least four separate versions of the ordering of the Ten Commandments: Jewish, Catholic, Lutheran, and general Protestant. Furthermore, these faiths, as well as different denominations within these faiths, use different translations of the Commandments. Why is this significant? According to Finkelman, “any display of the Commandments is inherently sectarian, because it must choose a translation, ordering, and numbering system that will favor, or endorse one or more religions, and therefore disfavor other religions.”

Consequently, “Ten Commandments monuments, plaques, or framed documents are sectarian, supporting the theological interpretations and biblical translations of particular groups, usually Protestants or Lutherans. These monuments and postings endorse a particular faith, and, by doing so, exclude other Christians and Jews who have a different numbering system or translation of the Commandments. They also, of course, exclude the many Americans who are neither Christian nor Jewish.”

On this analysis, therefore, there is no “the Bible” in any nonsectarian, “neutral” sense that respects the diversity of religious orientations in the United States. According to the Public Religion Research Institute’s 2023 Religious Landscape Survey, “Two-thirds of Americans (66%) identify as Christian, including 41% who identify as white Christians and 25% who identify as Christians of color. Over one-quarter of Americans (27%) are religiously unaffiliated, and 6% belong to a non-Christian religion.”

Religious diversity, PRRI continues, looks like this in detail:

Unaffiliated: 27%

White evangelical Protestant: 13%

White mainline/non-evangelical Protestant: 13%

White Catholic: 12%

Latter-day Saint: 2%

Orthodox Christian: 0.4%

Black Protestant: 8%

Hispanic Protestant: 4%

Other Protestant of color: 2%

Hispanic Catholic: 8%

Other Catholic of color: 2%

Jehovah's Witness: 1%

Jewish: 2%

Muslim: 1%

Buddhist: 1%

Hindu: 1%

Unitarian Universalist: 0.5%

Other non-Christian religion: 2%

My point is that even for those who accept it, “the Bible” doesn’t mean the same text or even the same role or same interpretation across this religious diversity.

At issue in all of this is what has come to be called the agenda of Christian Nationalism. PRRI findings say that Christian Nationalism is defined by these views:

• The U.S. government should declare America a Christian nation.

• U.S. laws should be based on Christian values.

• If the U.S. moves away from our Christian foundations, we will not have a country anymore.

• Being Christian is an important part of being truly American.

• God has called Christians to exercise dominion over all areas of American society.

Put bluntly, Christian Nationalism is a politico-religious point of view that is flatly inconsistent with the American constitutional system in general and with the existence of the religion clauses of the First Amendment in particular. My claim, which I detailed in my book, is that we are a country—not a congregation. To adopt Christian Nationalism would amount to a rejection of the central concepts of religious freedom and religious identity embodied in the Constitution.

My argument is that the essential meaning of the religious clauses of the First Amendment is what I call the “secularity principle,” which is not the same as secularism as a belief system. That principle holds that government shall not take a position, nor do anything that amounts to taking a position, on the truth or worth of religion, religious belief and values, or religious practices. No less than privileging a religion, for government to privilege secularism itself would also violate this principle. Government’s role is a kind of religious laissez-faire—hands off.

The locus of religious identity is therefore not the nation but the individual. This is what it means to say that in the American constitutional scheme, religion is a private and not a public matter; it’s the only way we can respect everyone’s religious choices. Remember the adage: my right to extend my fist ends where your chin begins. Preventing Smith from imposing his religion on Jones is not a violation of Smith’s religious freedom; such an attempt on Smith’s part would be a violation of Jones’ religious freedom.

Thus, the “religification” of American politics is a dangerous development (see, e.g., this). “Religifying” politics—making it about absolutes—ends up with politicizing religion. Telling someone to vote for political candidates because of their religion licenses us to tell someone to vote against political candidates because of their religion. This is dangerous to both the best of the American political tradition and to religion itself.

“Religifying” politics amounts to constitutional heresy. For God’s sake, don’t go there.