One Nation under God...or Else
By: Stefanie Williams, The Diamondback (U. Maryland)
October 17, 2006 11:05 PM

(U-WIRE) COLLEGE PARK, Md. - Lately, I've been wondering how long it will take for America to shift from a democracy to a theocracy. Hard to imagine this could happen, in a country based on freedom of religion and civil rights, but events such as the anti-gay "protests" on the campus hit close to home.

The religious right, Christian involvement in the government and the Republican's association to Christianity have all started to take their toll on my tolerance for religious beliefs.

Abortion and gay marriage have been two hot topics floating among the legislatures these days, and both have arguments that go well beyond religion - so I can understand and respect some of these arguments. But lately, issues of birth control, divorce, sex education and the push for the ideal family have made me wary of the impact this religious ideology is going to have on our future rights.

Just in our neighboring state of Pennsylvania, U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum leads with a Biblical fist and has no concept of the reality that not every American is Christian. The laws he supports and the amendments he backs are based alongside passages from the Bible, stemming from birth control, sex education, his insane lack of reality regarding the family and women's roles in society.

For example, Santorum supported a law that would allow the government to regulate a married couple's birth control prescriptions. That is to say, he supported the idea that a government had the right to tell a married woman she didn't have a choice, and if she wanted to have sex with her husband, she'd have to be ready for a baby.

His reasoning for the support stems from his belief that birth control is against God's plan for a family, along with the idea that it leads to promiscuity, adultery and unwed mothers. In his book It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good, Santorum manages to connect character and virtue to Christian fundamentals.

Basically, if you're not growing up in a Christian, church-going family, you're on the short end of the stick. Santorum has no concept of virtue outside of "the good Christian."

These fundamentals lead to his decisions as a senator, and Christian fundamentals, while well and good, have no place in the lawmaking of our secular country.

In no way am I knocking Christianity or religion in general. People have the right to believe what they want, practice what they want and pray to whomever they choose. However, when it comes to trying to figure out which laws are practical for today's society, people have to put aside their religious beliefs and realize that personal beliefs take a back seat to the greater good and understanding of our citizens.

Basing laws on religious beliefs leads to a slew of uncomfortable issues. If Christians use politics to promote their beliefs, should Jews use politics to promote laws making it necessary for all food companies to produce Kosher food? Or base laws of a specific state on select passages from the Torah?

Why should I be forced to adhere to laws that have a religious connotation when I don't necessarily agree with the "belief" the law is based on, even if the majority does?

Will I eventually have to start worrying about the government regulating my having sex, my ability to be informed about sex and safety, my ability to think beyond the Church's vision of society, just because my behavior does not embody a perfect child of God? Who knows.

Common sense and rational arguments, not rules from the Bible, Torah or Quran, should be the basis for the laws we are required to follow as citizens. There is a reason theocracies turn out so many extremists, and a reason why so many people who base their entire lives and laws on beliefs end up isolated.

Religion should be used to promote beliefs in places where people choose to follow those beliefs, like a church, temple or mosque. The public forum where laws are created for people of all creeds is not a place for scripture.

Comments

I'm not used to reading intelligent commentary on the internet. Good for you. Thanks for putting into words this working stiff has often thought about but could never have come close to articulating as beautifully as you did in this article. Thank you very much.
Posted by: Rick Garvue | October 18, 2006 12:47 AM

Stefanie, thanks for writing. In a representative democracy, we choose legislators who speak for us. If someone chooses to run for office, and has religious beliefs that will impact his or her decision making, then those beliefs should be expressed during the campaign. The voters can then make an informed choice. It worked that way with Sen Santorum. So, as far as the construction of our political system, it worked in Pennsylvania. This is NOT to say that they chose to be governed by the Bible. They chose a candidate to represent them in the Senate who made clear his Christian beliefs. I do not know the senator, so I can only assume that he and his staff hear from Pennsylvanians (and others from around the country) quite frequently, and that they listen to what their constituents are saying. If a majority of Pennsylvanians (however the Senator and his staff choose to measure that) told Sen Santorum to stop trying to hold to standards that appeared to be grounded in the Bible, he would face a clear choice--discard his beliefs while governing in order to remain in office because that is what the majority wants, or decide not to run for re-election in order not to have to compromise his beliefs. For an incumbent to buck a majority that is already expressing itself (especially on a bedrock issue of morals and standards) in a re-election campaign would not be logical. I also believe it is illogical to assume that religous people serving in government means that goverment will take away majority rights, (Stefanie's questions about goverment interfereing in her right to have sex being the obvious example) because as long as we have elections, if enough people are affected, they'll vote--and vote the "offenders" out. (Frankly, with the low turnout we always seem to have, it should not take that much "anger" to get an incumbent out if he/she really messed up...) If things don't get bad enough, the incumbents are returned to office. Since he is running, the people of Pennsylvania are about to have the opportunity to throw him out--and they just might! Stefanie said, "These fundamentals lead to his decisions as a senator, and Christian fundamentals, while well and good, have no place in the lawmaking of our secular country." There are at least two important assumptions embedded here. First, that we can know what is motivating Sen Santorum as he governs, and that what is motivating him is not the expressed majority opinion of his constituency. Neither Stefanie nor I can know the answer to that question, but we are both entitled to our opinion. Just for the record, I assume Sen Santorum, like most politicians, responds to the will of the majority as it is expressed to him. Her second assumption is that America is a secular nation. Secular generally means not religious, or having nothing to do with religion, and our Constitution clearly did not attempt to say that our country would be not religious or our could have nothing to do with religion (or even that religious people could not serve.) It says our government cannot make any laws with respect to the establishment of religion. Put another way, we are guaranteed freedom of religion not guaranteed freedom from religion. (I know, I know, it is an old, and controversial, argument that will not be solved here!) Also not to be solved here is the idea that somehow a family consisting of a married man and woman and their children agreeing on what role each will play both in the family and out in society is somehow an "insane lack of reality." If that standard offends her, are we to begin looking for the standard that does not offend anyone? Then who gets to decide how low we go? I recognize that there are individuals of various religious faiths who either fail to recognize or choose to ignore that they make others around them uncomfortable as they adbvocate their own beliefs (rather than simply practice them--an important difference.) Our goverment HAS recognized limits on advocating religious belief in certain public places. That is not what this discussion is about. This discussion is about who gets to make our laws? When citizens want to push religous people out of serving in government, it is their right to try. Hopefully the majority will remain true to the idea that individuals can express their sincerely held religious beliefs anywhere in our society--free from government suppression--even if they are elected by a constituency to serve in that government.
Posted by: Walt Leach | October 19, 2006 7:07 PM

Amazing column. I couldn't agree more.
Posted by: Melissa | November 10, 2006 4:05 AM

Post a Comment
If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.