Wyatt Smith
In debates over gay marriage and other social issues, conservatives often cite aspects of Christianity to support their positions.
“Marriage was created by the hand of God,” argued Republican congresswoman Michele Bachmann, following the Supreme Court’s ruling against DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act). “No man, not even a Supreme Court, can undo what a holy God has instituted.”
When Brian Sims, the only openly gay state representative in Pennsylvania’s legislature, tried to publically share his thoughts on the DOMA ruling, his colleagues would not let him speak.
“I did not believe that as a member of that body that I should allow someone to make comments — such as he was preparing to make — that ultimately were…just open rebellion against God’s law,” explained fellow State Representative Daryl Metcalfe, a Republican.
These instances are part of a larger trend of Republicans mixing religion and politics. Yet this is not an article about the separation of church and state. I find the priorities of conservative Christian lawmakers much more problematic than the fact that their decisions are guided by their faith.
For starters, the inclusion of religious values in governmental decision-making is not always as controversial as it may seem. While arguments rage over the separation of church and state in issues such as school prayer and gay marriage, few are concerned with the religious motivations people bring to other points of contention such as the death penalty and environmental policy. Similarly, no one seems to mind the more mundane ways Christianity influences legislation, such as the biblical root of bankruptcy law (“At the end of every seven years you shall grant a release. And this is the manner of the release: every creditor shall release what he has lent to his neighbor.” Deuteronomy 15:1-2).
As long as religion influences people’s values, the church will play a part, at least indirectly, in the state.
I wish to put aside the issue over the extent that religion should influence law and momentarily accept the evangelical position that Christian values deserve a prominent place in politics.
With this issue notwithstanding, the focus shifts to that of priorities. Why in the world do conservative evangelicals believe the government should enforce Christian virtue when it comes to gay rights, but not when it comes to poverty?
Lackadaisical Christian that I am, I do not deign to tell people how to interpret the Bible, but I would hope that everyone can recognize the emphasis placed on helping your neighbor in need.
In spite of this biblical directive, Christian conservatives accept the Republican party line that private charities are sufficient to address poverty, inequality and similar social ills. People should have the choice, so the argument goes, to donate to private organizations rather than be forced to contribute to governmental programs.
That would be all well and good if it didn’t directly contradict the conservative belief that people should be legally mandated to follow so-called Christian principles in their private lives. If someone supports imposing a conservative Christian lifestyle onto the entire population, then they better also accept society’s collective Christian duty toward alleviating poverty. One cannot apply Christianity to social issues but ignore economic problems.
This discrepancy speaks to the Republican party’s uneasy alliance between free market capitalists (those who provide the money) and religiously-conservative evangelicals (those who provide the votes). Republican lawmakers balance the interests of these two groups through laissez-faire economic policies and strict social policies.
It doesn’t have to be this way. Like other seeming truisms of American electoral politics — Democrats pander to feminists, black people don’t vote Republican — evangelical support for Republicans is a surprisingly recent development. In 1976, Jimmy Carter won the presidential election through a combination of his Democratic politics and born-again faith. It was only after a subsequent political shift among evangelicals, spurred by conservative pastor Jerry Falwell and his ‘Moral Majority,’ that conservative Christianity and conservative politics became linked.
If this relationship is to continue, Republicans must collectively decide whether the government should be in the business of promoting Christian doctrine or not. Either the government is responsible for enforcing Christian ethics, and should therefore provide social welfare, or the government is a secular body that should stop setting religious standards for private behavior.