There is no denying that for a self-proclaimed secular nation, the U.S. has always been and continues to be a deeply Christian country.
Even today, the notion of electing a Muslim president ““ or worse, an atheist ““ is laughable. Recent claims that “Christian America” is somehow disappearing are not only misleading but also give ammunition to right-wing ideologues who vie for greater religious involvement in government policies.
As a relatively young country, the U.S. has been spared violent religious strife like the Crusades and the Inquisition in Europe. Nevertheless, embedded Christian values have, at times, influenced government policies by unacceptable amounts.
We need not look far to see how religion has played into the hands of politicians. After the Bush administration failed to find weapons of mass destruction, it claimed to have brought “freedom” to the Iraqi people; this idea that the U.S. was somehow obligated to liberate oppressed people has familiar undertones of divine right.
False altruism such as this only serves to undermine our reputation as a tolerant nation. Only now, with a new president ““ approved by the majority of the world ““ in office, can we hope to recover some of our lost respect.
It was also on moral grounds that the Bush administration halted federal funding to all but 21 stem cell lines of research.
Eight years of potential scientific advancements in diseases such as Parkinson’s and leukemia were lost because Bush stood firmly by conservative religious values.
Another prominent way religion has taken a toll on our country is in the utterly nonsensical “debate” over evolution, a theory so staunchly backed by the scientific community that it may as well be fact.
Even religious conservatives who admit creationism may not be entirely accurate want to teach it alongside evolution as a healthy, equally meaningful alternative. While the story of Adam and Eve might make a nice bedtime fairy tale, it has absolutely no place in science.
Religion isn’t all bad, though. Second-year global studies student Thomas Parkinson-Morgan, an atheist, said religion has encouraged “international aid, poverty relief programs, getting young people organized on principles of sharing, self-sacrifice. … But it crosses the line when it does not subject itself to the same review as a secular law.”
There is a delicate balance between secular neutrality and secular oppression.
As a nation, we will probably never be truly religiously neutral.
After all, the U.S. was founded by people whose ancestors faced religious persecution, and the separation of church and state was created to protect the freedom of religious exercise.
Indeed, attempts at neutrality by countries previously torn by religious strife, such as France, have even fostered oppression.
Religious symbols such as turbans, hijabs, yarmulkes and crosses are banned in French schools.
Limiting freedom of expression in this manner makes secularism, ironically, its own oppressive kind of religion.
But there is no reason why one cannot be religious and believe in the separation of religion and government.
Daphne Antillon, a fourth-year neuroscience student and the editor-in-chief of FEM magazine, a Student Media publication, identifies as both a Christian and a feminist ““ a dualism that can be difficult to reconcile.
She said that uniting religion and government “assumes that the government will always reflect what we think is right and good, (even though) the U.S. has done some pretty terrible things. … So I don’t understand why a lot of other Christians are open to saying that the U.S. government should be a representation of Christianity or any other religion.”
Ultimately, religious influence crosses the line when it interferes with the individual’s freedom of choice and implies that one religion is superior to another belief.
Second-year law student Yasmin Elhady (a Muslim) said it seems like “we don’t want religion to dictate individual laws overtly or explicitly, and that’s part of the protection of this country’s commitment … to a diverse set of views and a diverse set of backgrounds and a diverse set of religions ““ or no religion.”
It is this very commitment that draws so many to America, and yet something is inherently wrong when religion ““ or lack thereof ““ continues to preclude a competent individual from becoming president.
Only if we strive to remain as secular as possible without infringing upon First Amendment rights of expression and tolerance can we progress in society and hope to retain the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
E-mail Nijhawan at anijhawan@media.ucla.edu. Send general comments to viewpoint@media.ucla.edu.