My knowledge of historical and contemporary political issues is very basic, and possibly wrong, but here goes nothing.
Some of the original immigrants who came to the U.S were fleeing religious persecution, weren't they? Granted, some of them had crazy religions, but they wanted to be free to have their beliefs, and proclaim them, and worship how they saw fit. Instead of a religious don't ask don't tell, they wanted to be able to proselytize and not get into serious trouble. So to start with, culturally, "Americans" are worried about other people preventing their communion with God.
Of course, because there were lots of people with different beliefs, they couldn't just establish one state religion, because it would create the same situation they had fled. So while the first amendment prevents the establishment of a single nationally adopted religion, it also preserves the right to worship to each person.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
Essentially, you've got a lot of people who are pretty keen not only on God, but also the particular fashion in which they worship God. People who believe that their religion is right, while others are wrong, and who will never, ever be allowed to formalize that in law.
But again, an individual's right to have and express a particular religion is just as strong as the prohibition of religious legislation. But if your lawmakers are all of your religion, who needs an official law? If every legislator is Christian, the things which Christian religion prohibits will be prohibited, with or without the mention of God as the driving force behind those prohibitions.
The States are so big. There are so many people, and so many regions, and so many diverse issues at stake. While it would be better if we all addressed each candidate individually, looking at their voting record and comparing that to their stated positions and extrapolating their capacity for truthfulness and integrity. But it's exhausting. So we cheat. How do I know what kind of political decisions are right for a Senator of Illinois to make? I don't. So the voter looks more broadly at what kind of person a politican is. They look at party membership, and general values. And for some people, religion is a major factor. Plus, when it comes down to it, the political is personal. It's harder than it should be to talk about "political values" without being blinded by social issues.
It's one thing to dismiss a statement about "believing in traditional family values" as being unimportant. But if that person is going to go on to draft and vote on legislation that concerns welfare, or maternity leave, or support for single parents who need childcare, maybe weighing a social position is important.
As for the swearing on the bible, and the pledge, I think it's more traditional than anything else. A promise is a promise, however you verify it. It was seen as the most important thing to swear by, so people swore by it, and it was enshrined by tradition.
Here, you have an established religion, and the history of bloodshed that unfolded in its wake. So eventually you produce more robust protections to prevent that kind of chaos happening again. At least, that's how I imagine it.
Some of the original immigrants who came to the U.S were fleeing religious persecution, weren't they? Granted, some of them had crazy religions, but they wanted to be free to have their beliefs, and proclaim them, and worship how they saw fit. Instead of a religious don't ask don't tell, they wanted to be able to proselytize and not get into serious trouble. So to start with, culturally, "Americans" are worried about other people preventing their communion with God.
Of course, because there were lots of people with different beliefs, they couldn't just establish one state religion, because it would create the same situation they had fled. So while the first amendment prevents the establishment of a single nationally adopted religion, it also preserves the right to worship to each person.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
Essentially, you've got a lot of people who are pretty keen not only on God, but also the particular fashion in which they worship God. People who believe that their religion is right, while others are wrong, and who will never, ever be allowed to formalize that in law.
But again, an individual's right to have and express a particular religion is just as strong as the prohibition of religious legislation. But if your lawmakers are all of your religion, who needs an official law? If every legislator is Christian, the things which Christian religion prohibits will be prohibited, with or without the mention of God as the driving force behind those prohibitions.
The States are so big. There are so many people, and so many regions, and so many diverse issues at stake. While it would be better if we all addressed each candidate individually, looking at their voting record and comparing that to their stated positions and extrapolating their capacity for truthfulness and integrity. But it's exhausting. So we cheat. How do I know what kind of political decisions are right for a Senator of Illinois to make? I don't. So the voter looks more broadly at what kind of person a politican is. They look at party membership, and general values. And for some people, religion is a major factor. Plus, when it comes down to it, the political is personal. It's harder than it should be to talk about "political values" without being blinded by social issues.
It's one thing to dismiss a statement about "believing in traditional family values" as being unimportant. But if that person is going to go on to draft and vote on legislation that concerns welfare, or maternity leave, or support for single parents who need childcare, maybe weighing a social position is important.
As for the swearing on the bible, and the pledge, I think it's more traditional than anything else. A promise is a promise, however you verify it. It was seen as the most important thing to swear by, so people swore by it, and it was enshrined by tradition.
Here, you have an established religion, and the history of bloodshed that unfolded in its wake. So eventually you produce more robust protections to prevent that kind of chaos happening again. At least, that's how I imagine it.
I feel so thoughtful now.
Reply
Leave a comment