Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah), a Mormon, recently said:
I think there is increased hostility toward Christianity, toward organized religion in general in Washington.
I’ve started seeing a couple of things that are disturbing that I never thought I would see, just in the last few years.
I remember during the Trump administration, we started to see, for the first time ever, a couple of my Democratic colleagues, including some on the Judiciary Committee, who would say things like this: ‘I’m not comfortable with this nominee because I fear that the dogma lives loudly within her.
She was afraid that she was too Catholic and because the Catholic dogma, as she put it, ‘lives too loudly. I thought that was a little unsettling.
….
Relative to not just the founding generation, but pretty much all generations of Americans until very recently, those who are hostile toward Christian beliefs or toward any belief system when it comes to somebody’s worthiness to serve in government. That’s historically aberrational. That’s extreme.
Culturally also, throughout most of our history, we have been a religious nation. We are still a religious nation.
Whatever “hostility” there may be towards people of faith, it is mostly of their own doing. When you demand preferential treatment for your religion or demand that your beliefs be codified into law, you can expect pushback from people who reject your theocratic inclinations. Many of us know that joining church and state leads to loss of freedom and bloodshed. If we want to be the land of the free and the home of the brave, we must not permit theocrats to have their way. We do this by making sure they are never elected to office. I am not talking about religious people, in general. I am talking about Christians who demand everyone conform to their allegedly Bible-based moral, ethical, economic, and social beliefs, threatening punishment (including incarceration and execution) for those who refuse to bow a knee to Jesus, the King of Kings and Lord of Lords.
There was a time when I thought a politician’s religious beliefs were off-limits. I now realize how naive I was. If a person’s religion matters to them, then it is impossible for their beliefs and behaviors not to be shaped by their faith. Surely, most Christians think beliefs matter. And if they do, then it is fair game for people to critique their beliefs. If a politician is a rabid forced birther or thinks LGBTQ people should be rounded up and placed in internment camps, he is unfit to serve the American people.
Gone are the days when politicians such as President John F. Kennedy compartmentalized their religious beliefs.
Kennedy, in a speech given to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association in September 1960, stated:
Because I am a Catholic, and no Catholic has ever been elected President, the real issues in this campaign have been obscured—perhaps deliberately, in some quarters less responsible than this. So it is apparently necessary for me to state once again—not what kind of church I believe in, for that should be important only to me—but what kind of America I believe in.
I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute—where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote—where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference—and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.
I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish—where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source—where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials—and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.
For while this year it may be a Catholic against whom the finger of suspicion is pointed, in other years it has been, and may someday be again, a Jew—or a Quaker—or a Unitarian—or a Baptist. It was Virginia’s harassment of Baptist preachers, for example, that helped lead to Jefferson’s statute of religious freedom. Today I may be the victim—but tomorrow it may be you—until the whole fabric of our harmonious society is ripped at a time of great national peril.
Finally, I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end—where all men and all churches are treated as equal—where every man has the same right to attend or not attend the church of his choice—where there is no Catholic vote, no anti-Catholic vote, no bloc voting of any kind—and where Catholics, Protestants and Jews, at both the lay and pastoral level, will refrain from those attitudes of disdain and division which have so often marred their works in the past, and promote instead the American ideal of brotherhood.
That is the kind of America in which I believe. And it represents the kind of Presidency in which I believe—a great office that must neither be humbled by making it the instrument of any one religious group nor tarnished by arbitrarily withholding its occupancy from the members of any one religious group. I believe in a President whose religious views are his own private affair, neither imposed by him upon the Nation or imposed by the Nation upon him as a condition to holding that office.
We now have political leaders who think the United States is a sectarian Christian nation; and that the Bible should be the law of the land (except those pesky verses about adultery and greed). Their beliefs ARE relevant and they deserve scrutiny and critique. Some religious beliefs are so egregious that they should keep people from holding office. If a politician can’t separate their religious beliefs from their public duties and responsibilities, they have no business being an officeholder.
Evangelicals, in particular, have become so hostile towards secular values, that they can’t rule justly. They will continue to push their personal religious beliefs regardless of what their constituents want or what our laws demand. Unable or unwilling to compromise, how can such people rule well? If they don’t give a shit about what most Americans think, appealing only to their peculiar interpretations of the Bible, how can they possibly be good public leaders? This, by the way, applies to Democrats and Republicans alike. While it is primarily Evangelical Republicans who are in bed with Jesus and demand a theocratic state, Democratic politicians can and do invoke religious beliefs when they shouldn’t.
I understand this is a complex issue, but I refuse to give politicians a pass on their religious beliefs. Will I vote for people of faith? Absolutely. I just want to make sure that they can differentiate between their duties to God and duties to man. They were elected to serve the people, not God or the church. If they can’t separate the two, then I am of the opinion they are unfit to hold office.
Bruce Gerencser, 67, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 46 years. He and his wife have six grown children and thirteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.
Connect with me on social media:
Your comments are welcome and appreciated. All first-time comments are moderated. Please read the commenting rules before commenting.
You can email Bruce via the Contact Form.
I like JFK’s answer.
I think this goes to the root of much that is wrong with the US today. Until relatively recently, perhaps dependent on 9/11, criticism of religion, and Christianity in particular, was pretty sparse and not taken seriously. The US was drowning in its beliefs but was accustomed to it, and could laugh off the odd atheist or counter apologetic. After 9/11 a counter insurgency began that was both relentless and unstoppable. Perhaps initiated by Sam Harris, then followed by Hitchens, Dawkins, and Dennett, the case against religion was now much more out there (hence the invention of the term ‘new atheist’ as a form of disparagement). This was followed by a huge surge in counter apologetics, massively aided by YouTube (especially), with every apologetic argument debunked, and even the best apologists, for example William Lane Craig, being shown to be nothing but hot air. I’m happy to be challenged, but I would argue that the case for Christianity (all religion in fact) cannot now be reasoned, as every single argument has several counter arguments that completely undermine it. It doesn’t mean there isn’t a god but belief now is entirely based on faith, not logic.
So insofar as politicians are concerned they find themselves in a difficult position as regards religion. The outsider can see it more clearly than they can. For example, if someone is a quiet, cultural Protestant church goer then fine, that’s their right. But as it gets more intense so legitimate criticism can be levelled. Mormonism is crazy to anyone with the least discernment. It can’t possibly be true, yet Mitt Romney is a well respected politician who even came close to being President, yet is a fervent Mormon. How can this be possible? Other politicians are becoming much less reasonable in their views, and we even have JD Vance as VP nominee. He’s absurd. He couldn’t reason his way out of a paper bag (along with dreadful people like Marjorie Taylor Green), all products of the vileness that the mixture of ill-considered religious belief, bigotry, and right wing entitlement brings about.
Here in the UK politicians largely keep their beliefs to themselves. Two potential leaders of minor parties of late revealed their beliefs, played the usual ‘these are my personal beliefs and won’t affect my ability to lead’, then promptly railed against abortion and LGBT rights. They were very quickly dispatched because it was clear their beliefs led them to positions that were contrary to public opinion.
Am I the only one who’s noticed that nearly all of the politicians and other policy makers who want to ram their interpretations of their faith down everybody else’s throats are White? (Mark Robinson, the North Carolina gubernatorial candidate, is a notable exception.) How is it that Black political leaders like Rev. Raphael Warnock, who is a member of Congress, manage to balance their political and religious beliefs? I ask the same question about Muslim political figures (of whom, admittedly, there aren’t many—yet). Or Jewish ones. (There are a few Ultra-Orthodox Jews who have been elected to local offices but none hold any real power beyond their constituencies.)
I am convinced that “Christian values” are just clerical robes draped over White nationalism. Libertarianism, which I once espoused—fervently—is its economic and intellectual skin. White Nationalism is the skeletal structure and Facism—whatever name it’s given—is the muscle.
Anyway, I am no political, religious or social scholar. I am simply expressing what I see as a White woman of, ahem, a certain age!
“Culturally also, throughout most of our history, we have been a religious nation. We are still a religious nation.”
Zoe: Ignores Indigenous peoples, their slaughter, their forced conversions and their own spiritual beliefs that existed before Mr. Lee’s ancestors arrived on the scene.
Technically, a “religious nation” by force and the threat of force rising again.
There are some really interesting comments here. GeoffT offers a non-US perspective regarding the role of the New Atheists and the backlash/responses they created. Also, the incredibly easy availability of information on the internet plays a role. It seems that there are so many more hard-core players regarding religion now than there were, say, 20 years ago – lots of Fundamentalists as well as a rising number of anti-theists. It makes sense – as well as the rising number of people willing to say they don’t care one way or another about religion (the nones that have right-wingers all in a tizzy, coming up with more ways laid out in Project 2025 to platform Christianity slecofically).
Velovixen makes a good point about the prevalence of white people leading the way with Christian Nationalism. I think PRRI or Pew Research polls pointed to some Black people going along with Christian Nationalism, but we don’t hear about a lot of them – it’s still primarily a white movement.
Like Bruce, I am attuned to certain language indicating evangelical Fundamentalist white Christian Nationalism. My friends not raised that way don’t pick up on it. So when I hear JD Vance talking about miserable childless cat ladies I understand the context of Fundamentalist evangelical gender roles, women’s submission to a male husband headship, the understanding that women are supposed to be mothers, nurturers, and enablers of their husband’s career, and that they are supposed to do so silently and appear to be joyful. Therefore, women who reject that life are not to be tolerated as they are rebelling against God’s ordained plan for men and women. That’s the context I understand that my non-evangelical friends do not. I speak the language and know that a politician speaking that way is NOT a politician I can support. So yes, knowing a politician’s religious stance does sway me. That said, it’s technically unconstitutional to require a religious test to run for or hold office (which I agree with – see how it could go wrong).
“Freedom FROM religion” would have served the purpose of religious neutrality better than “Freedom OF religion”. Perhaps Tom Jefferson couldn’t get so blunt a clause past the other founding fathers. It’s yet another awkward accommodation written into the founding documents that conflict with the ethic of The Constitution as a whole. “…all men are created equal…”, Yeah right except for those who were not “men” at the time. While The Constitution can be amended to clarify, modify, and correct it, the process was deliberately made slow and difficult to insulate it from political pressures. Vague, contradictory, and badly crafted clauses of The Constitution may be refined but it may take yet another 250 years if our experiment in democracy survives that long. Jack Kennedy may have been able to keep his religion separate from his office. As a political officer, a President’s power is limited by The Constitution anyway. Supreme Court Judges on the other hand even though they can’t make law , can and do interpret what the law means. When religious Judges interpret what any law means regarding religion, they have a clear conflict of interest yet I dare say there is no case where any Judge has recused on that basis nor would I expect any such recusal in the foreseeable future. I’m not nearly so concerned about religious politicians fitness to serve in leadership roles as I am concerned about the fitness of religious Judicial officers to define and interpret our country’s rule book. Our President is proposing Supreme Court reforms in the form of term limits and a code of ethics intended to remedy Judge’s conflicts but nothing will come of these reforms in the near term.
Unfortunately, there are many areas in the rural US where people do vote religiously. Some Christians are 100% against abortion, and 100% against the LGBTQ+ community. And there is an overwhelming majority of voters who agree. Some of these Christians will abhor other Republican values, but will consider the 2 issues to be most important.
Instead of the 10 Commandments, have it mandatory to display President Kennedy’s speech in every classroom.
Ideally it shouldn’t. And for the most part it doesn’t matter with one exception. Rights to abortion. It’s been abundantly clear that evangelicals have used their political influence ovetthe decades to overturn what had been a federally protected right by overturning roe v Wade. SCOTUS nominees were outright asked if their views would influence this decision and these so-called Christians sat there in front of America and lied. But I guess they think lying for their greater good is ok.
So I guess I write all this to say should someone not be a politician because if their religion? Of course not. But it should be weighed heavily. Especially considering the how far right atmosphere has increasingly become more prominent on the local and national level.
Came across your story one the q dropped podcast. Still in the middle of listen as I type. Wishing your family all the best to heal from the cult of QAnon.
President Kennedy’s speech, I LOVE that idea ! It certainly should be on the walls of every Democratic Party headquarters, we can start there,since the Dems have lost the vision decades ago,and bought into elitism and don’t care about average citizens like they onc did. Thank you, Mr. Berwick ! I’m going to call local chapters and suggest they do it. Hell yes, politicians and their religious beliefs DO matter ? We’ve had some famous governors in California, like Jerry Brown ( Jesuit Jerry is one of his monikers) and Gavin Newsom, and these guys answer to the Vatican, have statues of ” saints” in their homes, have ignored homeless people and disabled people, Brown cut disability services to the bone. And that’s just TWO of them. People know what Reagan did here, he’ll always be remembered for ending free community college,and turning mental patients into the street. He wanted more money for ” black/ wet ops,” once he was installed in 1981. So these elites sent jobs and factories overseas. The US never recovered. Unrecognizable, basically. Yes, it’s a good question, a leader’s beliefs!
Redding,CA. has about 50,000 people, yet it still has that rural mindset that is very dogmatic,harsh and ultraconservative. The City Council up there is something to behold, that’s for sure. And the Bethel cult has a lot to do with this. Plus numerous other like- minded ” ministries.” There’s even a movement to secede from the rest of the state, and ” Jefferson” is the name they chose for this new state. Makes me wonder if Jefferson Davis is who they have in mind,him being the installed president of the Confederacy, during the Civil War era.
I feel the same about this as you do. I was taught separation of church and state was one of the things making our country great.