The Moral Underbelly of US Politics
From the time we learn how to interact with other human beings, we start to learn and adapt to societal norms. We are taught that hitting other kids is unacceptable because of the punishments we receive and that sharing is encouraged by being rewarded. This is how we start becoming accustomed to the idea of morality. We rely on our morals to be our compass. Perhaps the most simple definition of morality is the one supplied by Google: “the principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong, good and bad.” But this definition just raises more questions. What is right and wrong? Who decides what is good or bad? These questions hold different answers to everyone. But how can morality be considered the code for how people act if everyone has a different definition of morality in their minds?
In his paper “Morality and Politics”, Stephen Schecter, an American philosopher, illustrates the sources of morality to be natural and theological. Schecter asks us to,
…consider the taboo in some cultures against eating raw fish and meat. One explanation for this practice is theological. Some faiths believe the God commanded the people in Noah’s Covenant and Law of Moses to not eat raw (bloody) meat or fish. Another explanation for this taboo is evolutionary… early human beings discovered that eating raw meat could make them deathly ill. To avoid sickness or death, people turned eating raw flesh into a taboo, and over time that taboo grew into a moral imperative (Schecter).
In Schecter’s view, morality comes from either observed trends in human behavior or religion. In other words, morality stems from one’s beliefs. In the times before science, people put their faith in God to give life meaning and distinguish right and wrong.
But as science became more and more prevalent in our modern society, people began to question the morality of God. Science brought a shift in thinking from theological to secular as people were no longer bound by the meaning of life perceived to be bestowed on them by God. People drifted away from predestination and into the world of existentialism where they began to create their own meaning, and along with that their own moral code.
Philosopher Sarah Tyler criticizes God’s morality in her paper, “The Moral Case Against the Existence of God.” She poses Plato’s ancient philosophical question: “Do the gods love that which is holy, or is it holy because it is loved by the gods?” First let’s define “gods” as any idol/idea that people have faith in, and let’s define “holy” as what is morally acceptable. Let’s say for this example that a third entity similar to God exists and is the elusive “true” definition of what is morally acceptable/unacceptable in this world. If one rested their faith in God as the creator of the universe they would be more inclined to believe that something is holy because it is loved by the Gods, because they perceive themselves to live in God’s world and therefore abide by God’s rules. However, if one splits their beliefs between secular thought and religion, that, for example, we live in the natural world but are God’s “children”, then one’s morals might stem from a more natural place, from human observation. In that case, people generally find a belief system that fits with their already established moral compass (something instilled in you from youth that adapts along with life experience), in which case it would seem more like God loves that which is holy (Tyler).
In America, a country built on the foundation of separation of church and state, one of the leaders of innovation in the world, more often than not the religious population holds beliefs in both secular thought and religion. And because of this split, they get to align their moral and religious beliefs and essentially choose exactly what we want to believe in. Morality is defined as the way you think the world should be. It stems from our perceived purpose in this world, so whether that purpose comes from religion or oneself, morals drive our rational mind and our belief systems drive our morals.
But overall, the laws and fundamental beliefs of a country are defined by morals, which is why many countries have an established religion from which they draw their beliefs from. So when there are such a variety of cultures and beliefs in a country that claims no national religion, what underlying moral code does that country draw upon when it comes to our justice system?
The founding fathers deemed America to be a country independent of religion, but the underlying Christianity in our government is evident through legislatures and stances taken on various issues during presidential campaigns. More specifically, the values of Evangelical Christianity have been used white supremacist groups such as the KKK and they have now resurfaced with our most recent election. Which raises the question, in a country founded on the basis of separation of church and state, how have Christian ethics and morals influenced American politics (Green)?
In colonial America the reliance on religion as the fundamental meaning of life was alive and well. The sect of Evangelical Christianity was shaped in New England by the Puritans. They were heavily influenced by pietism, which emphasized that faith was a wholehearted commitment to God, essentially dedicating one’s life to Him. And thus blossomed this relatively extremist sect of Christianity (History).
The 18th century in colonial America lead way to the First Great Awakening, marking the rise of Evangelical religion in early America. The Second Great Awakening lead way to what historians call the Evangelical Empire. However, while some Evangelicals were advocates of reform, others preferred their traditional roots. They were divided by region, the northern Evangelicals for abolition and southern Evangelicals against it. But by the end of the 19th century, the notion of Evangelicalism uniting the nation disappeared along with the introduction of scientific theory. The term evangelical was revived after World War II and used to unify a group of people who believed in salvation by grace through the faith in Christ, retaining the original meaning of being wholeheartedly committed to God (Scott).
But once America became its own nation, everything changed. According to Christian historian Reverend Eddie Hyatt, “Church and state were merged together, and the church used the power of the state to enforce its doctrines and practices” (Strand). Our founding fathers saw the dangers of linking Christian practices with political power. Religion no longer had a place in politics, and the founding fathers attempted to make that clear with the free exercise clause in the Bill of Rights stating that the government couldn’t make any laws forcing people to have any religious affiliation or to participate in prayers. Thomas Jefferson coined the phrase “separation of church and state” in a letter he wrote to a Baptist Church:
…religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship… I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and state (Jefferson).
But again the question surfaces: in a country founded without the basis of religion, where are the country’s morals drawn from? With the exception of Jefferson and Johnson (who had no religious affiliation), all of America’s presidents have been some form of Christian. And besides John F. Kennedy, who was Catholic, all the Christian presidents have been some form of Protestant. Therefore, whether it was intentional or unconsciously, Christian ethics have been driving the justice system and moral obligations of this country since its founding. We chant “one nation under God” in the pledge of allegiance, swear oaths with a hand on the bible saying “so help me God.” Our money has “In God We Trust” printed on it (Trump).
According to Stephen Schecter,
The purpose of morality is to provide human beings with a practical guide they can use in governing their behavior and assessing the behavior of others… the moral diversity in the world results not from the lack of universal values, but from the fact people prioritize, package and interpret those values in different ways… Politics is the process by which people attempt to resolve moral and other differences (Schecter).
One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. The rules and policies set by the country is what brings its citizens together. But even in the country founded on the basis of separation of church and state, we believe our nation to be watched over by some version of God, just as a majority of other countries are. And as past trends have shown, this God is one parallel with the beliefs of Christianity. As Schecter pointed out, there are a set of universal morals along the lines of doing the right thing. But it is the definition of what is “right” that people interpret in different ways, and religion helps give people these definitions. But in the US we have a melting pot of different cultures and religions, and so the Christian ethical codes that the government follows would be morally ambiguous.
As time went on, the underlying radical Christianity tamed itself along with more progressive movements and the start of the battle for Civil Rights. In particular, Evangelical Christianity, which was once crucial to the founding of the nation, became more dormant, until our most recent presidential election.
80% of the country’s Evangelical Christian population voted for Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election. He made several promises to the White Evangelical population, including nominating a panel of conservative Supreme Court Justices. White Evangelical Joshua Feuerstein stated, “I would venture to say he has been anointed by God to return America to its foundation, which was Biblical truths.” He also went on to say, “Trump delivered on his promise to nominate pro-life justices and people that believe in Biblical values… people who believe that there is a moral code and morality that should be at the core of American jurisprudence.” The core of Trump’s campaign for presidency were the promises he made to the White Evangelical Christians about “making America great again,” or rather restoring the country to its biblical glory. American studies professor Janelle Wong adds, “Trump’s immigration agenda is the white evangelical immigration agenda” (Kohls). According to the FBI, hate crimes have been skyrocketing since Trump got elected president, and they have even risen 17% in 2018 alone. These include crimes on the basis of race, ethnicity, ancestry, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity or disability (Ravani). This shows how the visible morals of the country shifted once Trump was elected because the people believed the morals of the country to be what the president stands for. And since Trump ran as an conservative Evangelical Christian and made his views on Muslims and Mexicans clear, the general population of the US believes that hate crimes against the groups of people the president so publicly criticized were well within their moral rights. And why should they believe otherwise? These Evangelical Christian beliefs lay dormant for so long because society shifted and those beliefs no longer aligned with morals displayed by our previous presidents. They weren’t created by Trump, rather awoken.
During the early days of his presidency, Trump gave a commencement speech at the Evangelical Christian institution, Liberty University. During this speech, he stated, “When the Founders wrote the Declaration of Independence, they invoked our creator four times, because in America we don’t worship government, we worship God.” This directly goes against our first amendment right to freedom of religion. As a country we do not collectively worship a God or religion and have the freedom to believe in whatever faith we want or no faith at all. Our country was founded as a place where religion was a choice and had no place in politics, an ideal Trump doesn’t seem to want to abide by. He claims that, “As long as I am your president, no one is ever going to stop you from practicing your faith or from preaching what’s in your heart” (Trump). And yet, one of the first things he did as president was place a Muslim ban and badmouth them as terrorists. This shows that Trump is intolerant to any religion but Christianity and is using different forms of propaganda to incite the same emotions in the majority Christian US population.
Some clear examples of how having a more Evangelical Christian centered government have affected the morals of our country can be seen through immigration policies, more specifically DACA. Obama, who was a liberal Protestant, was for this policy that allowed certain undocumented immigrants, especially children, to apply for deferred action and a workers permit (UC). Trump tightened up the borders and changed some of America’s previous values of turning a relatively blind eye towards immigrants to building a wall across the Mexican-American border.
According to Michelle Boorstein and Julie Zauzmer, writers for the Washington Post,
At pulpits across the country, pastors, priests, rabbis, and imams delivered impassioned sermons… fiercely denouncing the morality of the US government separating children from their parents at the US-Mexico border. But one major faith community’s response is more muted, and more conflicted: white evangelical Christians… the brutal headlines of children torn from hysterical parents are weighted against other concerns, chief among them what social conservatives call religious liberty regarding issues of marriage and abortion (Boorstein).
While a majority of the population, including most other denominations of Christianity, have spoken out against the cruelty that comes out of tightening the borders and separating children from their parents, the white Evangelical population stays silent primarily due to legal backlash and the effects of immigration on American society as a whole. However, the moral grounds on which the Evangelical Christians stand on have well thought out political reasons that a lot of more liberal Christians aren’t willing to hear out. For example, Idaho Pastor Constance Day told her Lutheran congregation, “I don’t really want to get political in church, but when politicians use our holy book to justify evil acts… it’s appropriate for us to speak up and say that they are wrong…” (Boorstein). Pastor Day is essentially saying that in the Bible, there are many admonitions about loving thy neighbor and treating everyone with love and respect. But on the Evangelical side, their morals lie in national pride, centered around our country first. The cause of the rift is the difference in moral obligation.
As written by the United Nations, the 29th human right is, quite plainly, responsibility. “We have a duty to other people, and we should protect their rights and freedoms” (United). As individuals, this is pretty straightforward. If there’s something you can do to ensure the protection of someone else’s human rights, you have the moral obligation to do it. But when it comes to entire countries, a bigger question is raised. Especially with the issue of immigration, does a country’s moral obligation extend to those suffering in other countries? According to David Lane, a political organizer, “This is a battle for ideological supremacy” (Boorstein).
According to Lane, “[White Evangelicals] don’t want immigrants hurt, but they want to secure the border. They are for more focused on what they see as a war ‘for the Christian soul of America’… So even if conservatives in his sphere disagree with the White House policy of separating families, they’re not going to partner with more liberal or progressive voices.” As with most political issues today, this all boils down to bipartisanship. Since the Republican political party is now more associated with Evangelicalism, there are significant moral differences between the Democratic and Republican parties. Rob McCoy, an evangelical pastor, called out the more liberal Christians who stated that the immigration control didn’t run parallel to the ideals in the Bible. He responded with, “It’s interesting how all of a sudden America’s become biblical, but we forget about marriage and abortion” (Boorstein). And that ideology is what’s causing the rift in America today. It’s no longer a question about where or what religion our morals are coming from– it’s Christianity for both of our political parties. The difference lies in which parts of Christianity they choose to believe in. The Democrats choose to believe in the teachings of “love thy neighbor” to open up the US’s borders to the world around them, while Republicans believe same-sex marriage and abortion to be a sin. At the end of the day, people believe in what they want to believe in, and most of the time attempt to use something already set in stone, like a religious doctrine, to support their beliefs. And now we’re struggling with bipartisanship because our two major political groups can’t agree upon a common interpretation of the Bible.
Church and state are separated so that everyone can maintain their own religious beliefs without the government imposing a religious doctrine over everyone’s heads to follow. But having a country with no official religion allows everyone to form their own morals, and the moral differences that come out in politics are, at the end of the day, nothing more than religious differences. At this point, America has always been a Christian nation and so the main issues is the divide over which parts of Christianity we should draw our morals from. The progressives, in their attempt to combine modernism with Christianity, attempt to throw out the parts of the Bible against abortion and gay marriage, while the conservatives embrace these parts wholeheartedly and believe in the separation between traditional beliefs of Christianity and nationalism versus modernism. At the end of the day, followers of each of these groups have their own morals and beliefs, and that should be respected until it starts infringing on the lives and religious freedoms of other people, at least here in the secular country of America. When it comes to politics, the divide between liberals and conservatives just keeps getting wider especially now that the Evangelical underbelly of America has exposed itself in our modern era. The morals of the country ultimately rest in the hands of our president and our Congress, but because of the rift we’re just in the midst of a political war with ourselves, unable to make any clear progress in determining the laws and morals in our country. At the end of the day, America is an ethically and morally Christian nation. The question is, which Christian morals will prevail?
Works Cited
Primary Sources
Jefferson, Thomas. “Jefferson’s Letter to the Danbury Baptists.”
Library of Congress, Jan. 1802, www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html
Trump, Donald J. “Read President Trump’s Liberty University
Commencement Speech.” Time Magazine, 13 May 2017, time.com/4778240/donald-trump-liberty-university-speech-transcript/.
Secondary Sources
Boorstein, Michelle, and Julie Zauzmer. “Why Many White Evangelicals
Are Not Protesting Family Separations on the U.S. Border.” Washington Post, 18 June 2018, www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2018/06/18/why-many-white-evangelical-christians-are-not-protesting-family-separations-on-the-u-s-border/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.210588a70b54.
Green, Steven K. “The Separation of Church and State in the United States .” Oxford Research
Encyclopedias, Dec. 2014, oxfordre.com/americanhistory/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199329175.001.0001/acrefore-9780199329175-e-29.
History.com Editors. “Salem Witch Trials.” History.com, 18 Aug. 2018,
www.history.com/topics/colonial-america/salem-witch-trials.
Kohls, Ryan. “Explained: Evangelicals, the Religious Right and Trump.” Aljazeera, 6 Nov. 2018,
Ravani, Sarah. “FBI: Hate Crimes in U.S., CA Surge in First Year of Trump’s Presidency.” San
Francisco Chronicle, 14 Nov. 2018, www.sfchronicle.com/crime/article/FBI-Hate-crimes-in-U-S-CA-surge-in-first-year-13389522.php?psid=4cGwc.
Schechter, Stephen. “Morality and Politics.” American Governance, edited by Stephen Schechter,
et al., vol. 3, Macmillan Reference USA, 2016, pp. 279-284. Student Resources In Context, http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/CX3629100427/SUIC?u=los42754&sid=SUIC&xid=4ae39b1c. Accessed 24 May 2019.
Scott, Donald. “Evangelicalism as a Social Movement.” National Humanities Center, 2000,
nationalhumanitiescenter.org/tserve/nineteen/nkeyinfo/nevansoc.htm.
Silk, Mark. “Religion and Politics.” American Governance, edited by Stephen Schechter, et al.,
vol. 4, Macmillan Reference USA, 2016, pp. 271-275. Student Resources In Context, http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/CX3629100580/SUIC?u=los42754&sid=SUIC&xid=4d1d7a3c. Accessed 24 May 2019.
Strand, Paul. “Why ‘Separation of Church and State’ Was Never Intended to Mean ‘Government
Versus God’.” CBN, 14 Dec. 2018, www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2018/december/why-separation-of-church-and-state-was-never-intended-to-mean-government-versus-god.
Tyler, Sarah K. “The moral case against the existence of God: critiques of the link between
religion and morality are difficult to grasp and evaluate. Sarah K, Tyler outlines some of the key issues.” RS Review, vol. 2, no. 3, 2006, p. 12+. Student Resources In Context, http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A173101275/SUIC?u=los42754&sid=SUIC&xid=f75f1261. Accessed 24 May 2019.
UC Davis. “AB540 And Undocumented Student Center.” UC Davis, 2019,
undocumented.ucdavis.edu/legislation/daca/history.
United Nations. “Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” Youth for Human Rights, 1948,