Thoughts on Carter

Whenever I hear a debate about separation of church and state, it seems like the debate is usually framed as religion vs. atheism. It’s a lot more complicated than that. Even though 81 percent of Americans identify themselves as Christian (American Religious Identification Survey), that doesn’t necessarily mean that they are practicing Christians. My parents never go to church, but I am almost certain that they would answer “Christian” on a survey. They do believe in some Christian ideas, and there’s not really anything else that they would identify with. I think there is a big difference between being an active member of religious organization and having some religious beliefs. Also, many people are hesitant to identify themselves as nonreligious. They’re even less likely to say that they are agnostic or atheist. I think those words, especially, atheist, seem to imply that the person is “against” religion and anything that has to do with it. We tend to think of atheists as the kind of people who want “in God we trust” removed from currency. If you’re an agnostic or atheist politician, you would probably avoid saying so. It may be better to not say anything at all than lose a large numbers of voters by saying you don’t believe in God. I think this is interesting because there are lot of areas in which you would be instantly less credible if you say that you are religious.

Either way, I think that the extent to which a person is religious (not just whether they are or not) plays a big role in how they perceive the issue of separation of church and state. Some people, while they may not be very religious, wouldn’t mind if the government funded faith-based organizations. But I guess they would mind if the program conflicted with their own beliefs…and that could very easily happen. Then there’s the question of whether the government funding religious programs with inherent biases. This is difficult question, because I don’t know how the government could do that without promoting one religion over another. It might be easier for the government to exclude religion completely.

Still, that’s probably not even possible because voters and politicians do have religious beliefs. Carter says that “faith may be so intertwined with personality that it is impossible to tell when one is acting, or not acting, from religious motive.” That may be true. Sometimes, it may not even matter if someone is motivated by their religion. As long as the program promotes something good and it’s not forcing anyone to follow religions when they don’t want to, it’s probably okay. While someone’s religious beliefs may influence their decision to support certain programs and legislation, their religion probably shouldn’t be the only basis for their opinion. They need to have other logical reasons for making such decisions, instead of doing something like claiming that the Bible says it’s right. I don’t know how often that actually happens. Either way, the separation of church and state isn't an "all or nothing" issue, because people don't necessarily have "all or nothing" religious beliefs. The way we deal with the religion and the state should be a compromise that reflects this.