I'm writing about politics more than usual because it's turning into the best real-life example of how difficult it is to understand people unlike ourselves.
Politically, I consider myself a liberal Democrat. And I have to admit that it's often a struggle to understand conservative Republicans.
Some political scientists suggest this is because politics in the U.S. have become a "civil religion" of sorts. I see the logic of their perspective.
But I have absolutely no problem understanding my Presbyterian, Jewish, and Muslim friends, even though I consider myself a practicing Catholic. Believe it or not, we seldom discuss issues of dogma. I can't remember the last time I argued with someone over the virgin birth.
Historically, religious faith in America has been socially benign. Practically no one believes adhering to his or her faith -- or even believing in God -- is necessary to be a good American.
Political belief, on the other hand, has always had a divisive edge. Plenty of political partisans are quick to question the patriotism of the other party.
When religion does become a flash point, it's usually because some politician has hijacked it. Most Pro-Life and Pro-Choice campaigns are aimed less at changing people's beliefs and behavior than at winning elections.
Religion has played a unique role in American society from its earliest days. Many of America’s first settlers came here to escape religious persecution, and most of its Founding Fathers were suspicious of state religions. The result was a clear separation of church and state.
That didn’t mean Americans gave up on religion. On the contrary, Americans are the most religious people in the developed world. Alexis de Tocqueville speculated that religion played an important role in balancing the American ideal of individual freedom with concern for the good of the community. Religious and political beliefs moderated each other.
No church institution was pulling political strings, yet the belief that we should treat others as we want them to treat us tempered the potential excesses of a free market, survival of the fittest, free-for-all.
Joining a church has historically been the most common form of association in the United States, even surpassing sports and other leisure activities.
But if most Americans are highly religious, we are also religiously tolerant, believing there are basic truths in all religions. Only 10 percent to 12 percent of us believe that salvation is available only to our coreligionists. As a result, Americans are a rarity in human society—religiously devout, diverse, and tolerant.
Unfortunately, back in the 1980s, politicians discovered the potential power of leveraging personal religious beliefs. The GOP put an anti-abortion plank in its campaign platform. The Democratic party, either out of contrariness or out of allegiance to its feminist wing, countered with a pro-choice platform.
The games were on. They have since been broadened to include -- among other topics -- gay marriage and, most recently, contraception.
I think the politization of religion may be one of the most divisive social developments of the last 30 years.
Ironically, my own church seems to be feeding this dangerous development by attacking the requirement that all insurance plans should include contraceptive services.
No one is saying Catholics have to use contraceptives (though 98 percent of Catholic women of child-bearing age do).
The health care law simply says that insurance plans should cover contraceptives so non-Catholics working for a Catholic institution that is not a church can get them like everyone else.
The Church's stand isn't a matter of religious liberty; it's politics. And a sad contribution to the politization of religion.
Dick, I share your position on the contraception flap. As you state, no one is forcing the consumer to use the pill, although I would question why it's fully paid given the relatively low cost. Provision could always be made for low-income women for whom any price might be a deterrent. That observation not withstanding, the Obama administration has the better argument on making contraception widely available, especially now that it has shifted the direct cost to the insurance provider rather than the employer.
However, on the larger issue of a federal mandate to buy health insurance, as you know, the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule in September on whether the requirement is constitutional. Here I think the 10th Amendment (powers reserved to the states) will win out over an unprecedented stretch of the commerce clause. On the bigger issue,stay tuned.
Posted by: Jack Hoey | February 27, 2012 at 11:30 AM