Squashed

A blog of politics, law, religion, and the tricky spots where they collide.

Questions? Contact.

Why bring religion into it at all?

In response to my quotation from a National Religious Campaign Against Torture press release criticizing the indefinite detention provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act, Waskommeng replied:

This is a good goal, but I simply don’t get why we can’t appeal to basic humanity to show that torture isn’t justifiable. Why does religion need to be involved? As soon as one brings religious expression into politics, it just creates walls.

The short answer is that religion, like it or not, is already in politics. You’ve got guys like Rick Perry claiming to speak for Christianity while advocating some horrific things. Worse, you’ve got some church leaders backing him up. In other cases, you have people with strong religious convictions who are willing to turn a blind eye to things like torture because they see Perry or the Republicans as a political ally. People start making all sorts of assumptions about what churches stand for. I think it is important for people of faith to say not in our name. We need a public, religious voice against torture and indefinite detention to ensure that lawmakers cannot use faith as a cover for abominable acts.

That’s the short version. Regrettably, the loudest voices claiming to speak for Christianity tend to be some very conservative voices. But I think a religious argument plays a role beyond counteracting other voices claiming to speak for believers. Explicitly religious voices have a two-fold role to play in public expression.

First, any time you can combine a group of like minded people into a block vote, you can multiply your impact. This one is purely practical.

Second, a religious voice on an issue may remind people of what they believe, why they believe it, and help them prioritize things. Are we willing to accept a slight tax increase to ensure that nobody in the city goes hungry? Well … it’s going to cost some money. But when you phrase the question as a religious priority rather than a weighing of economic or moral priorities, many people will come to a different conclusion. Personal sacrifice is baked into the essence of Christianity. This is not to say that everybody will or should be motivated by a religious argument—only that 1) I think the religious argument has a place in the public square and 2) I think many people value that argument.1 With that said, before making any such argument, be aware that the religious argument might not be the most effective one. Many people are going to find the secular appeal to shared humanity more persuasive.

The final question is whether voices of faith should retreat from the public square. This one will, of course, vary by religion and denomination. Without delving too deeply into theology, people of any faith can ask what their faith requires of a righteous nation. In the case of Christianity, it might mean looking at what got Israel in trouble again (and again and again) through the Old Testament. Generally, that had to do with denying justice to the poor and letting the most vulnerable in society go hungry and unsheltered. There are some pretty clear political implications there that I believe we are called to live into action.

Again, we live in a democracy. If I start quoting Jeremiah at people and telling them how to vote … I might not round up as many votes as I would like.2 But as a matter of openness, I also think it’s fair for people to know why we believe what we believe. Politically speaking, a vote is a vote. I doubt many people are going to come out in favor of torture because all these religious people are against it.

Edit: Waskommeng replied to this post:

It just seems to me that it is difficult to justify arguing for something as a “religious” issue while simultaneously telling someone else that their religious conviction shouldn’t be brought into politics.

I agree. I don’t believe I’ve ever told anybody to keep their religious convictions out of politics. I’ll go so far as to say that if you bring your religious convictions into politics, we’re going to have some tough talk about your religious convictions.


  1. I also think that as soon as you bring that argument into the public square, you should be prepared to defend it. When Rick Perry says whatever he’s saying, questions about his theology, his commitment to his faith, why he believes what he believes, and so on are all fair game. Once you throw something like that out their, you can’t just say, “It’s personal, I don’t want to talk about it.” 

  2. I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that no more than only 30% of the people who read anything I write care what the Prophet Jeremiah reportedly said. And half of that 30% only care what Jeremiah said so they can emphasize how crazy it is that the remaining 15% still cares about Jeremiah.) 

  1. squashedcomments reblogged this from thecallus and added:
    So that’s actually why I think it’s important for moderate to progressive liberal voices to be heard. Here are the...
  2. waskommenmag said: It just seems to me that it is difficult to justify arguing for something as a “religious” issue while simultaneously telling someone else that their religious conviction shouldn’t be brought into politics.
  3. squashed posted this