Religion, politics, and the Declaration of Independence

*First appeared in the April 9 edition of the Laurel Chronicle

My parents always taught me that proper Southern girls never discuss politics or religion at the dinner table. That's just bad manners, they said. In light of their teaching, I hope this column doesn't offend any of your reading sensibilities.

It's difficult discussing religion and politics with any sort of tact, and I assume writing about it is no exception. I'll do my best not to disappoint, overstate, dramatize, or otherwise offend readers in this piece.

Recently, sociologists from the University of California, Berkeley, and Duke University analyzed data on religious attitudes as part of the General Social Survey (a highly regarded biannual poll conducted by an independent research institute at the University of Chicago).

The analysis found that religious affiliation in the U.S. is at its lowest point since it began being tracked sometime in the 1930s. In 2012, one in five Americans claimed they had no religious preference. This is a dramatic shift from 1990 when all but eight percent of Americans polled identified with an organized faith. In 1972, just five percent polled claimed no religion.

This trend of disavowing religious affiliation is troubling, Governor Haley Barbour told a crowd of legislators and politicos at the Legislative Capitol Prayer Luncheon organized by Senate Finance Chairman Joey Fillingane (R-Sumrall). "It's bad for the nation," the former governor told the roughly fifty people in attendance.

While encouraging leaders to be strong in their faith, Governor Barbour also warned lawmakers not to exclude colleagues who don't share their beliefs. He said leaders who had deep-rooted spirituality are often better equipped to deal with the challenges that accompany leadership positions, since they know what they believe and why they believe it.

But those without a faith-based point of view may lack an inner moral compass to help them navigate difficult legislative fronts, like dealing with programs to help the poor, discussing the state's role in regulating abortion, or the morality of the death penalty.

I'm mostly paraphrasing the Governor's comments, but they resonated with me due to the broader implications of a society's decline in religious affiliation. I believe strongly in the separation of church and state, but I fear this particular trend may sow seeds of cultural instability that future generations will reap.

My Christian faith has shaped my worldview; it is the basis for what I believe to be right and wrong, the basis for my ideas on the merits of work and charity, the basis for my ideas on how others should be treated. Absent my Christian background, I assume I would rely on ambiguous, socially-acceptable ideals to form my system of beliefs.

That's worrisome, from both a public policy and cultural stability standpoint. As a Christian, I know that murder is wrong (sinful). But what happens if I a) don't prescribe to Christianity or any religion in which murder is wrong and b) live in a society that accepts murder as a fact of life with no moral quality? Does this mean murder is suddenly acceptable and that laws should be changed to reflect this new level of societal acceptance?

Granted, this may be an extreme example. I'm not someone who believes America or her states are about to legalize murder. But my point is this: I believe the laws of our nation and state are better written when determined by legislators who understand our rights come from a higher power, not the government. A decline in religious affiliation undermines this truly American belief that all men "are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."

Previous
Previous

Tea Party, MSGOP share conservative vision despite public narrative

Next
Next

In a world of seriousness, a breath (er, brief?) of fresh air