Wednesday, September 3, 2008 at 11:11am
God and Country
Column: Roll Down Like Water
The separation of church and state is a principle revered by most Americans. We want our religious organizations to remain autonomous from the state and we want our state to function free of the constraints of religious dogma and influence. We want a firewall between the beliefs espoused at our houses of worship and the policies crafted and implemented by the White House.
As a principle, this makes good sense. Our religious diversity requires that no one faith tradition should dominate politics, and it’s hard to imagine how the competing priorities of the different traditions could be coordinated in a way that would support governing on a broad scale while respecting those who do not identify as religious at all.
For as strong as this commitment is concerning domestic politics, it is even stronger when it comes to our country’s foreign policy. In international affairs, our general belief in the separation of church and state is bolstered by the belief that states are not moral agents – states simply exist to provide security, political stability, and economic wellbeing for its citizens (according to renown diplomat George Kennan). They are nothing more than functionaries of the populations they serve and therefore cannot be thought of as moral agents any more than my car or house.
Again, there is much to commend this view. The state exists to do specific things and these things (security, stability, and economic wellbeing) aren’t easy to provide. To follow Kennan’s argument, most states dedicate all their energies to providing these functions and there is nothing left for discussions of moral action or behaving in ways that would please a particular God.
The state is not there to serve God. It is there to serve the people.
But in an important sense, the state only serves the people if it honors the values the people uphold. While the different faith traditions may prioritize particular issues differently, they all uphold the values of justice, compassion, fairness, and protection of the vulnerable. Politics may divide individuals on how to live out these values, but our religious commitments to those values do not differ.
I am a decided opponent to moralizing (using moral language to mask self-interested action), but a strong adherent to moral action. It seems that as we consider how the United States government can best provide for our security, promote political stability, and foster our economic wellbeing internationally, we could and should be attuned to how our different policy options uphold our core values – religious and secular.
Imagine how our political discussions would differ if we allowed religious values to infuse our policy discussions. We would not stand for the genocide in Sudan. Our use of force would be tempered by humility and a commitment to justice for all. Our trade discussions would center on doing right by all parties involved – not just U.S. corporations – and our willingness to commit to environmental agreements that call for real sacrifice today for environmental preservation tomorrow would be seen as a good investment, not a frivolous burden.
This approach doesn’t violate the separation of church and state, but honors our core values while protecting our vital interests. It forces us to move away from the politics of self-interest to the politics of right action, but that in itself does more to protect our security, stability, and economic health than all of the petty policies of the past.
As the presidential campaign moves into full swing, now is the time to evaluate our candidates on their commitments to move the country forward. Who best honors the core convictions of our faiths, and who possesses the conviction to fight for those convictions at home and abroad?
May the best candidate win.
Dr. Rebecca Johnson, is a visiting assistant professor at the Georgetown Public Policy Institute at Georgetown University in Washington, DC and is currently pursuing a masters of divinity at Wesley Theological Seminary. Visit her website thatstarfish.com.© copyright 2008 by Rebecca Johnson.
As a principle, this makes good sense. Our religious diversity requires that no one faith tradition should dominate politics, and it’s hard to imagine how the competing priorities of the different traditions could be coordinated in a way that would support governing on a broad scale while respecting those who do not identify as religious at all.
For as strong as this commitment is concerning domestic politics, it is even stronger when it comes to our country’s foreign policy. In international affairs, our general belief in the separation of church and state is bolstered by the belief that states are not moral agents – states simply exist to provide security, political stability, and economic wellbeing for its citizens (according to renown diplomat George Kennan). They are nothing more than functionaries of the populations they serve and therefore cannot be thought of as moral agents any more than my car or house.
Again, there is much to commend this view. The state exists to do specific things and these things (security, stability, and economic wellbeing) aren’t easy to provide. To follow Kennan’s argument, most states dedicate all their energies to providing these functions and there is nothing left for discussions of moral action or behaving in ways that would please a particular God.
The state is not there to serve God. It is there to serve the people.
But in an important sense, the state only serves the people if it honors the values the people uphold. While the different faith traditions may prioritize particular issues differently, they all uphold the values of justice, compassion, fairness, and protection of the vulnerable. Politics may divide individuals on how to live out these values, but our religious commitments to those values do not differ.
I am a decided opponent to moralizing (using moral language to mask self-interested action), but a strong adherent to moral action. It seems that as we consider how the United States government can best provide for our security, promote political stability, and foster our economic wellbeing internationally, we could and should be attuned to how our different policy options uphold our core values – religious and secular.
Imagine how our political discussions would differ if we allowed religious values to infuse our policy discussions. We would not stand for the genocide in Sudan. Our use of force would be tempered by humility and a commitment to justice for all. Our trade discussions would center on doing right by all parties involved – not just U.S. corporations – and our willingness to commit to environmental agreements that call for real sacrifice today for environmental preservation tomorrow would be seen as a good investment, not a frivolous burden.
This approach doesn’t violate the separation of church and state, but honors our core values while protecting our vital interests. It forces us to move away from the politics of self-interest to the politics of right action, but that in itself does more to protect our security, stability, and economic health than all of the petty policies of the past.
As the presidential campaign moves into full swing, now is the time to evaluate our candidates on their commitments to move the country forward. Who best honors the core convictions of our faiths, and who possesses the conviction to fight for those convictions at home and abroad?
May the best candidate win.
Dr. Rebecca Johnson, is a visiting assistant professor at the Georgetown Public Policy Institute at Georgetown University in Washington, DC and is currently pursuing a masters of divinity at Wesley Theological Seminary. Visit her website thatstarfish.com.© copyright 2008 by Rebecca Johnson.