When it comes to politics, I would describe myself as a liberal. Pick an issue, any issue. Chances are that my views are going to be much closer to John Lewis’ than John Boehner’s.
With that in mind, you can imagine my surprise when I found myself agreeing with conservative talk show host, Bill O’Reilly. Just last week, O’Reilly came forward and attacked opponents of gay marriage, criticizing them for being seemingly unable to do anything but “thump the Bible” when it came to arguing against same-sex marriage.
To be sure, there was much more to O’Reilly’s statement, and it would be quite a stretch to say that he came out “in favor” of gay marriage. But, nonetheless, the fact that O’Reilly, a conservative pundit who has previously opposed the legalization of same-sex marriage, would even dare to criticize such a deeply ingrained social conservative position made me wonder if the debate over gay-marriage was finally starting to shift definitely to one side.
Once I pushed through the mini-existential crisis that came with agreeing with O’Reilly, I started to think a little more concertedly about the issue. Obviously O’Reilly was not throwing the full weight of his support behind gay-marriage. Indeed, he went on to say that individual states should have the final say on same-sex marriage.
Perhaps O’Reilly’s statement says more about the waning influence of religious conservatism than it does about the particular issue of same-sex marriage. No more than a decade ago, to dispute the fact that America was anything other than a “Christian nation” would have been immediately labeled as unpatriotic. Could we be approaching a time when Christian religious values are no longer readily accepted as a basis for political perspective?
Of course, this may all sound like a bold exaggeration. After all, it was one quick comment, made by one conservative commentator. But the actual magnitude of the disagreement matters far less than the symbolism behind the action. What was once unquestionable seems to have become, at the very least, questionable.
What would this change in influence mean, in terms of tangible political outcomes? Were religious conservatism to lose its unparalleled influence over the Republican party, the most immediate consequences would most likely be seen in the arena of the gay marriage debate. O’Reilly was right: there are very few, if any, compelling arguments against same-sex marriage that are not based heavily in scripture.
But will the changes stop there? Politics is an institution that relies on compromise. Groups with different viewpoints come together and work to find some middle ground upon which to improve the whole of society – at least, that would be the case in an ideal government.
While our current system of government may be far from this ideal, that does not mean that compromise on important issues is impossible. Were the Religious Right to lose its cherished place at the center of the Republican party, this reality may become all the more possible to achieve.
This is not meant to be a critique of Christianity writ large. All types of religious dogmatism make political compromise more difficult to achieve. When you believe that you are on a righteous mission from God, what room is there for compromise? When your beliefs are based on a dogma that not everyone subscribes to, how can you hope to find common ground upon which to build a compromise?
Religion should have no formal place in politics.
For centuries, the United States has preached religious tolerance while simultaneously allowing Christian values to hide in the background of some of the government’s most important policy decisions. Only now does this contradiction seem to be coming to the forefront.
I am not an expert on the U.S. Constitution, nor do I claim to know everything there is to know about the debate surrounding same-sex marriage.
Nonetheless, I believe that as a citizen who has chosen to keep his religious and political views separate out of respect for those who may hold different views, I am well within my rights to ask my representatives to do the same.
Ryan Gorman is a College sophomore from Plano, Texas.
Photo courtesy of AplhaBetaUnlimited, Flickr
The Emory Wheel was founded in 1919 and is currently the only independent, student-run newspaper of Emory University. The Wheel publishes weekly on Wednesdays during the academic year, except during University holidays and scheduled publication intermissions.
The Wheel is financially and editorially independent from the University. All of its content is generated by the Wheel’s more than 100 student staff members and contributing writers, and its printing costs are covered by profits from self-generated advertising sales.
I work for a state government in a conservative southern state and have learned that America is far from having the separation of church and state. While we may be able to take baby steps within policy, religion still matters within framing a person’s standing in society, a key factor in getting them into politics in the first place. What I really wish is that it had simply been written into the Constitution that one man’s religion may not dictate the lives of others.
“Separation of church and state” refers to the establishment clause and the free exercise clause of the First Amendment, which basically are interpreted to mean that the govt. 1) can’t establish a state religion, 2) give preference to one religion (or nonreligion) over another, and 3) forbid the free exercise of one’s religious beliefs. “Separation of church and state” does NOT mean that people can’t vote in line with their religious views. Furthermore, the First Amendment is not at issue in either the DOMA case or the Prop. 8 case.