Religion in Today's Government

I had to write a report on Religion in our Government today and thought I would share a few thoughts from that report.

Essential in each of our lives’ today is a form of belief. This can be based upon any certain principles, and mustn’t be the same as a neighbor, brother, parent, or friend. This can come as well in the form of unbelief. But the desire of the human heart is to have something to turn to, and what better than a set of beliefs? How then, do we as people, use those beliefs in the way we govern ourselves? Is it fair to use those beliefs against others, because they aren’t the same views? How does one come to a compromise? In agreement with Hatzenbuehler and the ideas of Jefferson and Lincoln, religion should play a personal role in each of our lives and is for each of us to decide personally between us and God, leaving it as an unnecessary evil for a government to take a role in personal beliefs, choosing a set of beliefs at the expense of others. Religion should not play a role in our government because an entire nation cannot be defined by one set of beliefs, and the government has no right to do so. The US President then has the obligation to see that religion doesn’t become a factor in decisions and that each individual maintains the right to worship freely.

Although the concept of the American Nation was founded upon religious principles, those religious principles were not the primary, driving force for change. The Founding Fathers were each religious, but we often have no record of personal worship or of their religious beliefs reflecting their decisions as leaders of this progressing group attempting to become a nation. Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to a friend, said, “I have ever thought religion a concern purely between our God and our consciences, for which we were accountable to him, and not to the priests. I never told my own religion, nor scrutinized that of another. I never attempted to make a convert, nor wished to change another’s creed….for it is in our lives, and not from our words, that religion must be read.” (Hatzenbuehler 74). This opinion of Jefferson rings true in my ears, and I, as well, firmly believe that each person should keep that personal relationship with God to themselves. We show how we feel and what we believe through our actions.

Furthermore, in those days, religion was able to present an opinion and even influence others for the common good, the progression of man’s thoughts and ideas. Religion should be able to present opinions and have influence in our government, but as soon as we make decisions based solely on religion, or allow religion to take charge in our choices, we create a bias and a prejudice. As we compare the issues of our Founding Fathers to our issues today, we see that in the past, it was commonly thought that good, moral individuals often possessed some form of religious belief in their lives. Can our issues today, such as gay rights and abortion, be presented as questions of moral goodness? If so, religion has the ‘big hammer’, to say that those who support these values have little moral virtue because religion is not an influencer in their decisions. If we were to have a national religion, with an ability to make decisions for everyone, we would see more inequality and several more moral issues. Religion was thought of as a way to better one’s self. James Madison said, “Religion and Government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.” To emphasize that point, we see as well that although our nation was founded on Christian principles, the nation doesn’t need to adopt principles for each of its’ citizens. The founding fathers and the Constitutional Convention obviously made thoughts about this, and thus, the First Amendment to the Bill of Rights in our Constitution was created, establishing religious freedom. Each may practice according to his or her own belief, but nobody has any business forcing his or her opinion on the other. It tends to become relatively difficult when religion comes into play, as Jefferson found out early in his tenure. (Hatzenbuehler  68). Jefferson, having made wayward comments addressing the banishment of religious intolerance, found that the media could be quite brutal very quickly. Just a week after his remarks, there were articles published both for and against the things he had said. By introducing religion and specifically religious tolerance into his argument, Jefferson had compounded a situation into something more complex. This complexity is the last thing we need in a government that is already extremely difficult to run. As things are kept simple, bias and prejudice left out, the personal relationship is left to each individual, to decide how they wish to worship God in their lives. As we view this today, we see as well that it is difficult to govern upon principles. We govern upon laws and upon logic. It is impossible to govern upon a set of agreed-upon principles from a small group of the whole. Jefferson also found fault with the Virginia Constitution of 1776, which slated the Church of England as the preferred church above all other faiths. (Hatzenbuehler 69). In this regard, Jefferson said, “This is a summary view of that religious slavery, under which a people have been willing to remain, who have lavished their lives and fortunes for the establishment of their civil freedom… the legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are 20 gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” (Hatzenbuehler 70).

Lincoln’s view was much the same. Significant to note is that before he became President, hardly anyone would have known his religious views. (Hatzenbuehler 74) Just as Jefferson, Lincoln found it necessary to live to the best of one’s ability, flaunting personal religious principles aside. Just like Jefferson as well, Lincoln found his belief under attack early in his tenure. He responded that he did not belong to any church at the time, but had never denied the existence of a Supreme Being, or denied that the Scriptures were true. (Hatzenbuehler 75) Lincoln and Jefferson both frequently quoted from the Bible and publicly invoked the blessings of an Almighty God on those around them during their addresses and speeches. This is a great example of the role of the US President. The President’s job is then to make sure that religion is not a major factor in decision making, and that religious freedom is observed. Jefferson and Lincoln both saw that this freedom was observed by actively showing their freedom to speak on religion and seeing that the American people understood that it was not the President’s job to infer God’s will for all mankind.

In conclusion, we see that the best role religion can play in a government is simply that of religious freedom. As Jefferson and Lincoln both showed, government has no right to go further and it becomes unlawful to do so through the pick-and-choose style of beliefs, leading to bias and prejudice against differing groups. The US President has an obligation to play the role of making sure that religious freedom is enforced and that religion doesn’t oppress others through bias or prejudice by influencing decisions in the nation.