|
07.16.00 Freedom of religion means freedom from religion by Michael Maiello Recently, the on-line magazine Salon ran a story about the influence of religion on Al Gore and George Dubya Bush Jr. They are both devout Christians, which we all know, and though they take different approaches to their beliefs (Gore is more of a theologian, Bush more member of the flock) it seems we are condemned to yet another Christian president of the evangelical variety. It's enough to make me wish for a genuine American catholic like JFK (by genuine American I mean some one who calls themselves a Catholic but doesn't actually, uh... follow the doctrine in life). What's wrong with a Christian president? If you take away the Christianity, nothing. Salon details George Bush's religious foibles. In the early 90s he said Jews would all burn in hell for not accepting Christ. Then he apologized and has been dodging the question ever since. More recently, he called Christ the political philosopher who most influenced him. Further, Bill Graham and Jesus Christ saved Bush from alcoholism. All this adds up to one conclusion: Dubya was hung over quite a bit during his political philosophy classes, and he wouldn't know a Locke if it had been changed on his front door. Meanwhile, Gore said, "I believe strongly in the separation of church and state. But freedom of religion need not mean freedom from religion," Gore said. "There is a better way." What better way? Prayers at football games? A return to Gore's old beliefs while representing hicks in Tennessee) that gays are abnormal? Freedom of religion must entail freedom from religion, by its very definition. I'm tired of listening to Christian dogma spew from the mouths of our elected leaders. It just isn't healthy. George Bush, for example, said after presiding over his most recent execution that he hoped God would forgive the victim in heaven. Well, that's a nice thought and it sure eases the guilt associated with poisoning a man to death, but if there isn't a God, it's a bit hollow, isn't it? I'm not saying there isn't a God, by the way. I'm pretty firmly agnostic. I'm just saying that people with the power of life and death over others aren't best served by having the idea in their heads that God will make everything right in some afterlife that might not be there. The idea of an all powerful, all compassionate. all encompassing which can act as a sort of correction fluid for our actions on earth is dangerous. I want my leaders to believe that there is no going back, that our choices are important because the disaster they might cause can't be remedied. There's the other side of religion that is just as dangerous. Belief in a vengeful God, instills hate and fear in the believer, rendering them unfit for Earthly tasks. Check out Jesse Helms, Pat Robertson, or Pat Buchanan for examples. Jesus was not a political philosopher. God has no interest in NAFTA or the WTO. Politics is a purely secular pursuit. So I don't feel wrong in demanding freedom from the religious beliefs of the people in Washington. I don't even want to discuss posting the Ten Commandments or teaching creationism in schools. Enough already. I don't mind hearing the religious beliefs of private citizens around me. But our public officials need to keep it in their Church because no matter what anyone wants it to be, the United States is not a Christian society. It is a secular culture, built on secular ideals and meant to keep mystical belief systems out of my way. Michael Maiello believes that there are no foxes in atheist holes.
|