A Republic Without A Religion?

What importance should religion have in our lives today?

For those of us practicing an organized religion, no doubt we would say it is vitally important in our lives. At least personally, that is.

For those of us who believe we have somehow escaped the necessity of religion, perhaps we would say it holds little-to-no importance in our lives.

And for those who embarrass themselves with statements about how they aren’t religious but rather “spiritual,” I have no idea what you would say, but I imagine you have very little to contribute to the conversation anyways.

What about in our political lives? Does religion matter? Does it matter even for us who are not religious?

The Argument Against Religion In The Government

I think many of us — religious or otherwise — would probably say something along the lines of: no.

Even the religious tend to make vague references to the importance of the “separation of church and state” and that must mean the government is to be secular through and through.

After all, if the government were religious in any way, then it might favor certain religious groups over others — and that would be the cardinal sin of discrimination!

So in order to protect everyone’s basic human dignity, the government must remain perfectly secular.

In addition, not everyone shares the same religious beliefs. If the government became explicitly religious, it might try to enforce its "version" of morality on other people!

Forcing one’s private religious beliefs on someone else is offensive and wrong!!

That’s why, I am told, the government must be secular, both now and always and unto the ages of ages….

What a ridiculous philosophy.

Before I give you my own answer to the question, however, let’s hear what George Washington had to say on the matter.

Washington On Religion and Government

If you have never read Washington’s farewell address, I highly recommend that you do. It is a beautiful piece of writing, and my favorite of our founding fathers.

Reading Washington’s farewell address should also give you a sense of how far our literacy has fallen over the past two centuries, but I digress…

If you haven’t read it, likely you can only say two things about it — it’s mostly a warning against political parties, and secondly against foreign wars.

That’s what we all learned in school, right?

While it’s true Washington spends a considerable amount of time talking about political factions, he also dedicates a great portion of his speech to religion and government.

Here’s a section —

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice?

Moral virtue, according to Washington, is indispensable to the functioning of a healthy democratic-republic.

Uhh yeah, no one would dispute that Eric, but you don’t need a religion to have morality, okay? So the government doesn’t need “religion” to be morally good, alright?

Washington continues —

And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule indeed extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?

And he continues at some length.

Washington seems to come down squarely in the camp favoring religion in government. He is not alone among our famous patronage in that regard (see Further Reading).

The Argument For Religion In Government

In what is no doubt a surprise to you, reader — I would answer that religion should play a very important role in our political lives.

If everyone in our republic agrees that our government ought to be aimed at securing the highest good and safety of our people, then of course religion should play an important role in that enterprise.

Religions are extensive philosophies — highly metaphysical moral philosophies grounded in the existence of supernatural beings.

Religions thus compete with other philosophies (like secularism) over claims about moral goodness, among other things.

If one moral philosophy (or religion) ends up being objectively better than any other, wouldn’t we all agree it should influence our politics?

This is actually an unavoidable phenomenon. No person can avoid letting their philosophy influence what they do.

Insofar as politicians must decide what is right or wrong for their citizens, then their philosophies are being enforced by the government.

All we have done over the last 70 years or so is to cede the ground to one religion — secularism.

To see how, let’s reply to the objections I gave above to having religion in government:

(1) In order to keep the government from favoring certain religious groups over others, it must have no religious affiliation whatsoever.

This objection fails on two accounts:

1. The claim that it is objectively good not to favor certain religious groups over others is a religious/philosophical claim that is merely assumed, and that is certainly false.

2. A non-religious (aka secular) government is itself a religious affiliation that favors a particular religious group — namely secularists.

In favor of the first point we see that the claim “we ought not favor any religion over another” is a moral philosophical assumption.

The defender of that claim would need to give reasons why the assumption is true, and at any rate it is an expression of a moral philosophy that would be at odds with other religions.

In other words, the government would be favoring that moral philosophy over other religions, so the assumption is self-refuting.

In addition the assumption is just obviously false.

Satanism is a religion. It is also quite comfortable with both child rape and child sacrifice.

I will assume everyone reading this believes that both of these actions are quite reprehensible and should remain positively illegal.

In order to believe that, we would need to admit that the moral scheme envisioned by Satanists is objectively wrong and/or inferior to the moral scheme envisioned by other religions.

In favor of the second point, we see at once that secularism is just another philosophy/religion filled with metaphysical claims such as “God does not exist” as well as moral claims like “abortion is permissible.”

Obviously not every secularist believes the latter claim, but not every Christian believes baptism is a regenerative sacrament either.

While some secularists might not agree with all the claims of other secularists, the essential dogmas are the same. Only doctrinal differences occur.

If we enforce the moral scheme envisioned by secularism in our public governments, then we are in fact supporting one religion over others. It just happens to be a religion that totally sucks.

If our laws conform to the moral scheme envisioned by secularists, then all the dangers of favoring one religious group over another are already open to us.

We might as well, therefore, debate whether secularism has as much to offer our society as other religions, because neither makes us free of the dangers of favoritism.

What about the second objection:

(2) If the government wasn’t secular, it might try to enforce a religion upon other people. Enforcing one’s private religious beliefs on others is always wrong!

Hopefully it’s obvious this objection falls prey to the same responses as the previous objection:

1. Secularism is a religion, so if the government is secular it may try to force secularism on people who aren’t secularist.

2. Clearly it’s not always wrong to enforce one’s religious beliefs on others.

Again, secularism is just another set of moral, metaphysical, and philosophical claims.

The implicit assumption in arguments that the government should be publicly secular is that secularism is a superior philosophy to all other religions.

That claim is not only contestable, it’s laughable.

Secondly, it’s obviously not wrong to enforce one’s religious beliefs on others, if those beliefs are objectively right.

Once again, many religions would claim it is wrong to perform child sacrifice, or even animal sacrifice. Yet for a Satanist, these practices are obligatory.

If it is objectively better that we not allow child sacrifice, then enforcing those beliefs through law on Satanists is not an evil thing.

Ergo — religion in government can be a good thing.

Why It Matters

Okay Eric, we get it. But what exactly are you arguing for, theocracy? You really believe that Christians should just rule everything and that there should be no separation between Church and State?

The real question I’m asking is whether the government should be guided by religious principles, and my answer is yes.

Not only should it be guided by religious principles, it should be guided by Christian principles, because as far as I can tell Christian theism is the best moral philosophy.

But that is not the same thing as a theocracy.

Theocracy is just another buzzword our fourth-grade teachers repeated to us until we believed religion was a bad thing, ok?

Theocracy refers to the idea of a priest-class of society ruling over everyone else. I’m not in favor of dismantling the republic so that my priest can become governor.

Separation of Church and State means that there is no theocracy, it means that the church and the state will not be the same thing — as it was in England under the Anglican Church.

It does not mean the government must be secular. The government must absolutely be guided by religious principle, in fact it is unavoidable.

What’s the significance of getting this wrong?

We no longer have public prayer, we no longer allow teachers to discuss God in public schools, we enforce secular morality on all non-religious organizations, etc. etc.

These are just beliefs of secularism which we enforce at the expense of competing (better) beliefs of other (Christian) religions.

The consequences of these actions seems to me to be a rise over the last 100 years in corruption, political deceit, the pornification of society, the loosening of sexual virtues, the collapse of the family, of crime, of illiteracy, and more.

Getting this right might mean a reversion back to solid moral philosophy which guided the West’s greatest civilizations to amazing heights.

It might mean less corruption, less crime, less hatred, and more peace.

Even if it doesn’t mean all that, it likely results in a better, happier, society because secularism is a sickening philosophy that poisons everything it touches.

Just like, you know, my opinion man!

As always, thanks for reading!

Further Reading

The Farewell Address of George Washington

"In my view, the Christian religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children, under a free government ought to be instructed. . . . No truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people.”

—Noah Webster, preface to An American Dictionary of the English Language, 1828

“If Virtue & Knowledge are diffused among the People, they will never be enslav’d. This will be their great Security.”

—Samuel Adams

“There are two types of education. . . . One should teach us how to make a living, and the other how to live.” Also: “Children should be educated and instructed in the principles of freedom.”

—John Adams

“I consider knowledge to be the soul of a republic, and as the weak and the wicked are generally in alliance, as much care should be taken to diminish the number of the former as of the latter. Education is the way to do this. . . .” Also: “For avoiding the extremes of despotism or anarchy . . . the only ground of hope must be on the morals of the people. I believe that religion is the only solid base of morals and that morals are the only possible support of free governments. Therefore education should teach the precepts of religion and the duties of man towards God.”

—Gouverneur Morris, founding father, author of the Preamble to the US Constitution