The distinction between religion and politics is, to a certain extent, artificial. It's not hard to see political elements in religious institutions -- but what about religious elements to political institutions? Or even in political parties? Well, the current Republican Party might arguably qualify as being at least quasi-religious.
There are a lot of religious characteristics to the Republican Party right now and this might go a long way to explain how and why it's changed. After all, in normal politics compromise is the name of the game; in religion, however, compromise is normally considered anathema. A political party that won't compromise on anything is odd; a church that won't compromise on anything is fairly normal.
Gary Laderman writes at Religion Dispatches about some of the traditional characteristics of religions which can be found in the Republican Party today:
1) Mythology: Every religion has a mythology, or sacred stories that describe and explain the origins of the universe, the creation of humans, the meaning of death, and so on. The Hindus have their Vedas; the Jews look to the Hebrew Bible; Neo-pagans draw from ancient Druids for some of their myths. ...The myths of Republicanity are fairly obvious and easy to identify when uttered by the faithful: glorifying the Founding Fathers as saints, inserting God into the nation's origins, and demonizing the US government when policy disagreements occur.
Laderman has a point here, but it's undermined by the fact that "myth" isn't exclusively religious. On the contrary, nationalist myths are quite common and political parties or movements have relied heavily on myths for generations, if not centuries. Even very secular political movements have relied on myths. So his point isn't nearly as strong here as he makes it out to be.
To be fair, though, the myths being used by the Republican Party are themselves awfully religious in nature. Many of them explicitly invoke religion, like the myths about the religious beliefs of the nation's Founders and myths about religion being kicked out of public schools. So while the "myth" argument isn't very strong, the Republican Party manages to make it stronger than it should be.
2) Rituals: Every religion has rituals--communal acts that bond social groups together at specified times and with specific actions signaling ultimate values and commitments. Muslims pray five times a day to demonstrate their fidelity to Allah; Rastafarians smoke cannabis for spiritual sustenance; the ancient Aztecs engaged in human sacrifice to appease the gods.
...Town hall meetings to vent anger and frustration, public events more akin to religious revivals than political rallies, and following Fox news, religiously, at certain intervals throughout the day, are a few other examples of rituals performing their role in a religious movement: to energize the faithful, differentiate insiders from outsiders, and establish what is sacred and what is profane.
Well, every political movement has rituals, too. Pledging allegiance to the flag is a ritual, and before "under God" was added it was a completely secular ritual. The Soviet Union had all sorts of political rituals. Rituals are important parts of religions, but like myths they aren't exclusive to religions -- and they are very common in politics in particular.
But once again the Republican Party manages to salvage Laderman's point for him by emphasizing religious rituals rather than just rituals generally. They have fetishized the Pledge of Allegiance and the phrase "under God" in particular. They incorporate Christian prayers and symbols everywhere possible.
3) Ethics: Every religion has its own ethical teachings which provide moral guidelines for how to act, identify the good guys from the bad guys, and determine the right course of action in an often ambiguous world. ...Republicanity is no different, possessing its own set of ethical commitments that define its moral universe. It is like the most narrow and conservative religious cultures in its absolutist ethical positions and refusal to tolerate any difference of opinion.
Obedience to authority--at the moment embodied in prominent charismatic leaders like Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, and Rick Santorum (okay, this last one is short on charisma but people still seem to listen anyway)--is critical to the success of this religious movement, with the primary sacred textual sources legitimating the moral universe drawn from the Declaration of Independence and Constitution.
Although the other points have had their weaknesses, this has to be the weakest of the lot. Ethics absolutely aren't dependent upon religion and there is no question but that the mere presence of ethics does not mean that a belief system is a religion or even vaguely religious. There's just no connection.
The only way something close to a valid point might be salvaged is in the nature of the ethical system promoted by the Republican Party: a rigid, authoritarian system which demands absolute submission and obedience. This is true of many religious ethical systems, though one does not need religion in order to have such an ethical system.
4) Theology: Most religions have a God or multiple gods who rule the universe and the lives of humans on this Earth, leaving members preoccupied with seeking greater understanding of the power and influence of divine powers.
...Republicanity is built on a theology of divine presence in national affairs that looks in some instances like a form of theo-fascism--particularly when leaders claim an intimate knowledge of God's will and being chosen by Him (no goddesses in this religion) to purify America. If we asked all the presidential candidates to state whether they are doing God's will in the world certainly most, if not all, would answer in the affirmative.
The presence of a god is a much stronger indicator of having a religion, even though it's no guarantee, and the role played by God in Republican ideology edges it much closer to something like a religion than anything listed so far. Particularly important is the belief that there is a special relationship between God and the nation or even God and the Republican Party -- here, Republican ideology edges disturbing close to the idea that being a Republican makes one a member of a "chosen people."
So each individual characteristic is weak, but that doesn't undermine the overall case because each characteristic doesn't appear alone. Instead, they appear as a group -- and an integrated group at that. One of the important things to understand about religion is that it employs features found throughout the rest of human culture, but in a particular configuration. This means that if something really does show enough of the right characteristics together, then we're justified in at least treating it as religion-like, even if it's not a traditional religion.
On the other hand, so much of what Laderman lists as a "religious characteristic" of the Republican Party is actually derived from conservative evangelical Christianity in America. While it's true that they are expressed in the context of politics, it isn't true that they are wholly separate from American Christianity. It seems to me that Laderman is creating an artificial distinction here -- almost as if he were trying to make excuses for the problems being caused by conservative Christianity by creating a new "religion" on which to place all the blame.
The only way Laderman's position here can or should be given any credence is if he can first explain why none of this can or should be attributed to a particular form of American Christianity rather than a political party.
No comments:
Post a Comment