The Nation is the Sacred Concept

Stephen Jay Gould proposed that religion and science could live together, because they were what he called "non- overlapping magisteria", which is to say, they operate in different spheres. Science rules over the "how"and the "what" and religion over the "why", and as long as they keep to their respective parts of the world, all will be sweetness and light.

Well, whatever one thinks of that as a basic formula for coexistence, it's hard to see it actually working. Religion keeps intruding in the realms of reality, making real-world claims that science has the actual say over.

There's another set of these regions that supposedly don't overlap. Religion's in one of them again, but the other this time is occupied by politics. In this country, for some time, we've kept the two apart, but of late the fence is weakening here, too.

Ed Stoddard quotes a professor in his article about McCain's pastor in today's Washington Post:

"In the United States, the sacred cow is the concept of the nation -- someone who is a religious minister can say almost anything they want and not get into trouble in the political realm unless they go after the nation," said David Domke, a professor of communication at the University of Washington.

The nation is the sacred concept.

I actually agree with this - though not quite in the way Domke meant it, though he's right, mostly.

What he's saying is that preachers can rant about abortion, drugs, homosexuals, anything they want - including saying that gays don't deserve rights or the abortion is murder and God will destroy us for it - as long as they don't say "I hate America". There's a lot of truth in that. But some guys get awfully close to that line - they manage to separate "America" into two groups and blame one group for all the bad things that happen. Some even manage to say that America deserves bad things because it allows people to reject God. Check your Phelps - and your more mainstream Falwell and Robertson, for that matter. McCain's endorser (not pastor) Hagee told New Orleans it had earned God's wrath and deserved to be destroyed. I'm quite sure the country is full of preachers who stand in their pulpit and rail every Sunday against godless liberals destroying the country.

So it's okay to preach hate and intolerance as long as you manage to plunk yourself down on the side of "America."

But there's something more disturbing in what Domke said. That's the "someone who is a religious minister can say almost anything they want and not get into trouble in the political realm".

In other words, ministers can stand up in the pulpit and say things that would in fact get other people "into trouble" - they can incite hatred and even crimes (arson, hate crimes, assault, even murder as long as they're just inspiring rather than ordering) and it's all fine and dandy. Things that would result in other people having to resign their jobs if not actually go to jail are okay coming from ministers.

Why is that? Is it just because being religious is an exemption from civilized behavior? It's an exemption from other things - like taxes - and certainly we as a people are inclined to "respect" religious people. Their beliefs are held up to us as things that can't be questioned or insulted. Even calling one of them into question brings anger and outrage. And it's not a big jump from 'what I believe can't be questioned' to 'I can say anything I want if it's based on what I believe'. And a lot of people are willing to allow that to go unchallenged.

This licenses professionally religious people to interject themselves into public discourse on every level - along as they don't say "God damn America" or "I'm ashamed of America" - as long as what they say is "I want to save America" they're okay. And if people didn't take them seriously that wouldn't matter. But they do.

Politicians compete for their approbation and endorsements. And it seems that as long as they haven't crossed that line - insulted that "sacred cow" Domke mentions - their endorsements are seen as positive. Contrast Wright and Hagee, just for example, or look at the other people McCain has cozied up to since he decided being president was worth more than sticking to his principles.

That's bad enough. Worse is when the politicians themselves decide that they're religious. Politicians who begin making religious pronouncements - talking about doing God's work by spreading democracy, for instance - are trying to co-opt the mantle of religious invulnerability for themselves, to cover their policies in the un-criticizable aura of religion.

That's bad for politics. And it's bad for religion.

Because Dombe's right: religious figures can in fact (whether they should is a different question) say pretty much whatever they like, with only a very small exception, and politicians would kill for that license - and that invulnerability. But that invulnerability is illusory, not genuine; it's the invulnerability that comes from an agreement not to attack, not from any actual strength. And once that invulnerability is invoked by a politician, it risks attack.

We've seen some signs of that recently - when a few people question Hagee's support of McCain or, more accurately, McCain's seeking out that support and embracing it. So far, the questions aren't as much about Hagee's right to say what he says - that seems granted - but McCain's right to associate himself with someone who says those things. Let McCain begin saying them, and the bets are off, and then, then, perhaps people will begin to wonder about Hagee. (Note that so far McCain is certainly not saying them, nor even appreciating (in public) that Hagee does.) People are wondering why McCain seems to embrace Hagee - not as many as wonder about Obama and Wright, of course, but still.

It seems evident to me that, whatever one thinks of the idea that the religious leaders among us have license to say whatever they want, one should be wary of extending that license to politicians. Not merely because basing the policy that governs a country on the tenets of a religion, any religion, is a bad idea; not every one agrees with that idea. No, it's because once the religion actually crosses over the line into the political, it becomes fair game.

And once the questions and attacks are licensed, not the invulnerability, religion may find it doesn't like the game.

(Find the Blogswarm Against Theocracy listings here)

Go to First Freedom First to find out what you can do.