If we analyze the core views and conflicts between the extreme religious right and those more moderate in religious beliefs and those who support secularism, we will discover there is no room for the religious right in politics.I want to specifically discuss secular humanism (as applied to political policy) versus traditional religious right viewpoints (as applied to political policy). I am convinced the left—in this case, the secular humanists who are more likely to be liberally left as well, and the right—in this case, traditionally conservative religions who are more likely to be conservative politically—can agree upon the need for social policy if only reason and science take priority over religion.
Secular humanism is essentially defined as putting science and reason above reliance on scripture or belief in deities; secular humanists can be religious or non-religious. The primary difference is that secular humanists consider the scientific method to be the most important aspect of research. There is room for religion on an internal, personal level. Traditional religions—at the strictest point of view—consider scripture to take priority over science. [1]
I have always struggled with any religious belief that rejects scientific evidence simply because the science may contradict literal scripture. I feel blessed to have had a religious education that also promoted science. At my private religious school, I am grateful we were taught evolution, for example, and the school succinctly stated: “We cannot reject science. Although we believe evolution is guided by God, religions will self-destruct if they reject science.” I am not sure if the religious right will ever be able to compromise unless they can consider the possibility that their literal interpretation of scripture may be wrong. But in hopes of reaching a common goal that promotes social policy in our world, I present a few categories of comparison between secular humanists and traditional religions worthy of discussion.
METHOD OF THINKING
The secular humanist relies on reason. The scientific method and empirical evidence, which is fact based on observation, determines truth. Traditional religion relies on faith and confidence in scripture to reveal truth. Sadly then, the initial thought process of traditional religion is flawed. Scientific evidence cannot be rejected because of scripture. I cannot imagine any educated individual thinking otherwise, and yet I find time and time again so called “educated” people rejecting science because it challenges their faith.
Why can’t you find a balance? Why can’t you see the Bible as a source for personal growth? The only compromise I can see here is if the religious right uses scripture for personal development and makes religion an internal process. When the religious right makes religion an external process—by using scripture to dictate policy—we enter a very dangerous ground where science and reason are denounced and replaced by faith. I by no means am condemning the Bible. I enjoy it, and there is great food for thought in scripture. But we must stop using it to reject science.
VIEW OF HUMAN NATURE
The secular humanist views human nature in an optimistic manner—people are good by nature. The traditional religious right views human nature in a pessimistic manner—we are born with original sin and need God to save us. Again, the religious right must make religion internal. Perhaps you need God to save you, but I’ve known great people of all religious backgrounds who do great things for humanity. My friends in Europe and Asia are great people because they care about each other, and they do not need the traditional religious view of God to save them from original sin. This pessimistic view of the religious right certainly translates to policy. One could describe policy from the religious right perhaps like this: “You don’t need government to create policies to help you; you need to turn to God for help.” Again, I don’t intend to slam religion, but if I am unemployed for example, I will get more help from man than from prayer. I don’t condemn prayer either. The religious right can certainly use prayer to strengthen them, and in fact, many religious people seek spiritual guidance through prayer. I have prayed for the strength to be a better person and to help others, but I have never solely relied on the actions of a supreme being to solve the world’s problems. We are the source of power and change.
GOAL OF LIFE
The secular humanist is interested in bettering this life and improving the world. They commit fully to the environment and to social justice issues such as eliminating racism and poverty. The emphasis is on personal development for the sake of making significant contributions to the here and now and to mankind. The religious right is most interested in securing an afterlife and emphasizes complete obedience to the scriptures in order to secure the afterlife. The problem with this extreme right point of view is that the religious right believes God will intervene in the world’s problems. God will help the environment—they don’t have to. God is testing people through racism and poverty, and God will eventually intervene to solve those problems according to some “plan.” Again, the only compromise is that the religious right must acknowledge alternate “plans.” Perhaps God does want you to intervene in the environment and help social policies like poverty. Perhaps it is a test for you as well as all of us. The religious secular humanists believe we have the power to do God’s work now, and that a goal of an afterlife is not obtained simply through scripture but rather through the work we do in social policy to help each other. We therefore must recognize a need to help each other through social policy, and we must prioritize our goals in the here and now and not in an afterlife.
VISION OF CULTURE
Lastly, secular humanists teach tolerance. Each person has the right to individual liberty no matter race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation. To the contrary, the religious right again has such a strict adherence to scripture that the religious right claims human desires and tendencies must be restricted. The right believes individuals must restrain from any “sins” scripture discusses, even if such restrictions limit human freedoms and liberties. How do we compromise? The religious right must leave judgment up to the God in whom they believe. No matter the religion or the scripture, government—with its supposed separation of church and state—must tolerate and support human freedoms, no matter race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation.[2]
CONCLUSION
There is no room for the religious right in politics. There is room, however, for religion in politics if religion falls within the domain of secular humanism. Reason must come before faith. The scientific method must be prioritized over scripture. We must come together to make our lives and world better in the here and now, and not rely on God to intervene in the world’s problems. We can be religious, we can pray, we can read scripture, and we can also be logical enough to accept science. We can leave evaluations of culture for God and support tolerance in the here and now. No matter our religion or lack of belief—we can come together to promote social policy in our government to help humanity and the environment in the here and now.
Please subscribe to this blog by entering your e-mail in the “sign me up” box in the upper left of this page.
[1] http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?page=what§ion=main
[2] Categories and basic descriptions come from graduate level courses at Bradley University in Peoria, IL. Classes were “Religion in the Modern World” as taught by Dr. Robert Fuller and Dr. Daniel Getz.
A little more conversation, please 