|
July 1, 2003
Can Religion be Democratic?
People who want to inject "a little
religion" into the government need to think it through.
By Scott Anderson
Increasingly strident voices, from Iran and Iraq to
America, are insisting that religion should play a greater role
in democratic governments. How can a little religion hurt, especially
if the people want it? But this notion is confused: religion and
democracy are fundamentally at odds. Religion is not democratic.
The faithful aren’t expected to vote on the word of god. In most
religions, god long ago passed his word down and it is simply not
up for discussion.
Imagine being able to vote on god or the angels. What
would happen if some state (probably California) voted for Zeus?
What does it even mean to vote on religion?
But if religion can’t be democratic, can democracy
be religious? There's a better case to made here. People can elect
a strong religious ruler, like Iran's Khomeini, who can then recast
all the laws to bring them into compliance with scripture. Life
may be difficult for the religions that lose the election, particularly
with religions that urge death on infidels, but a democratically
elected state religion is certainly nothing new.
These are not very satisfying democracies though,
because the faithful are typically told how to vote by their preachers.
After all, if you're accepting religious rule, you're also accepting
the word of god, and you're back to the futility of questioning
the almighty.
Effective democracies welcome dissension and variety.
They posit that decentralization is essential – to let everyone,
in accordance with their local knowledge and environment, make the
important decisions in their own domain. That’s why we let any old
yahoo cast a vote: that yahoo might actually know something.
Religion, with god at its center, is not very keen
on decentralization. Religions refer to their yahoos as infidels.
When religion runs the government, an infidel is also known as an
outlaw, and in some cases, dead meat.
But doesn’t the Declaration of Independence base American
freedom upon an endowment from our creator? Yes, but this purposely
vague reference was simply a way to justify the prerequisites for
democracy, namely life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Like
a mathematical conjecture, these are the postulates that you can’t
prove, but without which the theory can’t be elaborated. The founders
weren't expounding on religion, they were nailing down axioms that
are so essential to democracy that they must never be abrogated
– even by a vote of the people.
Outside of these inviolable rights, the entire corpus
of law is pretty flexible. It isn’t easy to change the constitution,
but it is possible and even anticipated. The word of god, on the
other hand, cannot be so cavalierly edited.
A Catholic might object, pointing out that the Roman
Curia updates and revises canon law all the time. Catholic law,
in this regard, is not immutable (unlike certain pronouncements
of the Pope which are considered to be infallible). Likewise, religious
scholars of every stripe are continually reinterpreting their scriptures
in the light of modern day novelties. Because birth control, black
holes, stem cells and napster downloads are not well covered by
most bibles, these scholars have their work cut out for them.
But in changing the law, religious leaders don’t consult
the faithful, they consult their bible. The whole point of religion
is to instruct and guide the people. Religious leaders are teachers,
and information about god and the church goes one way, from the
shepherd to the flock.
Could a strictly limited amount of religion be inserted
into a government? Perhaps it could work out, but what theologian
would countenance implementing, say, only two of the ten commandments?
It’s one thing to appeal to a vague Creator; it’s quite another
to incorporate an established religion with an extensive doctrine
into your law. Who picks which words of god to heed, and which to
flout?
Religion can certainly be mixed into government,
but the more religion you have the less democracy you have and vice
versa. Once the revealed truth of god is granted a government seal,
it is hard to see how one could justify employing it piecemeal.
Religion swells to fill its mandate, and theocracy is the result.
That doesn’t make it a bad government – the Vatican is pretty healthy
and wealthy for a state with less than a thousand people – but it
doesn’t make it a democracy, either.
Copyright © 2003 by Scott Anderson
For reprint rights, email the author:
Scott_Anderson@ScienceForPeople.com
Here are some other suggested readings on the
separation of church and state:
|
