Playing the God Card

As the cloud of impeachment looms over President Clinton, and we enter a special time in the Jewish and Christian calendars, it is worth examining anew the relationship of politics, religion and morality.

For many of us brought up in the secular tradition of the United States, any public figure who links policy with faith is at best a fundamentalist, at worst a zealot. But politicians are well aware of the fact that privately Americans believe in God and have more "faith" than their counterparts throughout most of the West. Such conflict between public and private puts politicians between a rock and a hard place.

Some 'sell out' and unabashedly link religion with politics: the Christian Coalition is a prime example. Others, like Ronald Reagan, deeply identify themselves with religious ideas and infuse their speeches with religious imagery. Even the ostensibly non-religious--or those who are privately religious but feel that religion has no place in politics--still play the "God card," as evidenced by President Clinton's well-choreographed visits to church (arm-in-arm with Hillary) whenever he finds himself in yet another crisis. So we are left with the supreme conceit. Politicians wag their fingers at those who act out of religious conviction, yet dutifully put their hands together and glance upward with all proper humility when the time is right.

Private citizens are no better: we dismiss politicians who would deign to invoke spiritual belief in the public arena (or in a Undergraduate Council election), yet, if survey data is accurate, we too are not above putting in a request to a higher power.

This is a uniquely American dilemma. How can a democratic country that takes pride in its hospitality to different ideas and different peoples acknowledge faith in the public arena without stepping on any toes? Put another way, how can we bring religion into politics without ripping apart the very fabric of the Constitution?

One answer--put forth most eloquently by Stephen Carter of Yale Law School--is to emphasize that the Constitution does not proscribe the influence of religious thought on politics. Carter's point is in some ways compelling. If I am a religious person, and my religiosity helps define who I am, then there should be no reason for me to deny or underplay that part of my character simply to serve in government. If I were to do that, indeed, my constituents would not be electing the real me.

Moreover, the First Amendment establishment clause was very clearly intended to keep politics out of religion--not the other way around. Government can't interfere with religious organizations, but religious organizations (and religious people) certainly can get involved in government.

I find this argument solid on intellectual grounds, but it can easily violate another cardinal American virtue: the defense of minority rights. It's obvious that religious people have a right to vote their beliefs, but the imposition of religious symbols on public discourse leave minorities feeling oppressed and fearing for their religious freedoms.

The situation in India is instructive. The Hindu nationalist party claims that its assimilative agenda and its mission to "break Islamic exclusivism" are the only means to build a united, democratic India. Thus, by stifling minority religious sentiment, the Hindu politicians hope ironically to "protect the plurality of thoughts and institutions."

So it seems the present system in the United States is the only workable solution. That is tragic, though. All too often, we confuse "the moral" with "the religious," stigmatizing any discussion of morality in the public arena. Religion should rightfully be kept out of political discourse, but the underlying idea for which all religions stand--leading one's life in a rightful, moral manner--should never be marginalized.

I won't presume to define morality here; indeed, moral standards can change over time and space. But that's all the more reason to discuss them in the public arena. Nothing could be more democratic or more American. When we put our hands up and refuse to discuss the implications of the actions of immoral individuals--on the grounds that individual rights are more vital to the functioning of American democracy than context specific values--we do our country and our children a disservice.

Morality transcends narrow religious differences because morality, along with citizenship, is one of the few things that binds us all together. We can discuss a public official's private behavior and decide whether it is immoral or not, but the discussion has to take place. Morality certainly has a place in public discourse; simply to ignore private behavior and to say that it is personal, and thus beyond reproach, is destructive and undemocratic. Sujit Raman '00 is a history concentrator in Mather House. His column appears on alternate Tuesdays.