The Biggest Threat to Our Liberties is Religious Faith
Photo by Edward Kimmel from Takoma Park, MD, CC BY-SA 2.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0>, via Wikimedia Commons
Over the last dozen or so years in the state of Iowa, we have seen a new assault on the rights of its citizens that have put the future of our state in a precarious situation. It seems every other week there are reports and new sets of statistics tarnishing what was once a sterling record for Iowa on the wellbeing of its citizens. We have seen Iowa lose its destination status for those looking for an excellent public education as well as a dearth of coverage for mental health care. Iowa now ranks the worst in OBGYN coverage per capita in the US and is consistently cited as an example of what not to do when it comes to stewardship of our waterways. On top of these dire statistics, we are also seeing unprecedented assaults on the civil liberties of Iowans from banning books (and earning a slew of wasteful and costly lawsuits because of it) to banning transgender Iowans from participating in sports to restricting the right to privacy and healthcare for half of the state’s population.
Things aren’t going so great for many citizens in Iowa and the future may actually look darker for our most vulnerable citizens. However, it should be noted that while most of the policies that have led to these dire statistics do indeed come from one side of the aisle there is actually a more concrete and direct golden thread throughout the changes that have come to Iowa.
That golden thread is the erosion of the wall between church and state.
Time and again we have seen the rights of Iowans under assault and the origins of these assaults are consistently backed, supported, and framed in strictly religious terms by religious organizations. This was true back when Iowa was among the first in the nation to legalize same-sex marriage. The backlash against this decision was swift, with religious organizations marshaling large and eventually successful campaigns to unseat the justices that were up for election after that particular decision. The opposition was specifically worded in religious terms with nearly all the resources being marshaled by both in and out-of-state religious groups like the Iowa Christian Alliance and The Family Leader, both explicitly and exclusively sectarian Christian organizations. History repeats itself in 2023 with Gov. Reynolds signing the “fetal heartbeat bill” that replaces scientific medical reasoning and civil rights consideration with religious dogma and faith-based claims, marking another intrusion of church into the affairs of the state.
Yet again we are seeing religious organizations and churches forming alliances with groups like “Moms for Liberty” in order to replace access to information and science-based education with religious indoctrination and conspiracy theory misinformation. The trend continues with Gov. Reynolds’ “bathroom bill” that bars transgender Iowans from using a public bathroom that aligns with their gender identity. This is a more egregious example as opposition to the bill came from professional medical, legal, civil rights, education, community, and yes, religious groups. The only folks in favor of taking away the rights of Iowans were religious groups, particularly groups that are demonstrating an outsized influence on government by using that same erosion of church and state to push religion – particularly sectarian Christian tenets and principals – into government. On one hand we have science and secular government in favor of protecting rights; on the other, we have groups like The Family Leader. This is not just a recent trend either; historically religious groups, particularly white Christian Nationalist ones, have often been at the heart of the most egregious attacks on human and civil rights in the United States. That trend continues today.
This is not to say that all religious groups or religious people are responsible for the negative trajectory Iowa has been on. Far from it. There are champions for civil and human rights in every corner of the state and from every background. There are sitting legislators that are religious or even members of clergy that stand in stark and direct opposition to these examples of bigotry above and are strong supporters of church state separation. They recognize that for every Iowan to have the most liberty and happiness possible, we cannot have church and state melded into one; theocracy is literally un-American and un-Iowan. The actions of groups like the Interfaith Alliance of Iowa and even entire denominations like the United Methodists (which has lost 1/5th of its membership over acceptance of LGBTQ+ people!) show that being religious doesn’t mean that you ought to be tarred with the same brush as Christian Nationalists.
While it is crucial to highlight the negative consequences of the erosion of the separation between church and state, it is equally important to recognize the positive contributions that many religious groups and individuals bring to our communities. Throughout Iowa’s history, religious organizations have played pivotal roles in charitable work, community development, and providing support to those in need. Many individuals find solace, purpose, and a sense of belonging through their religious beliefs, fostering a rich tapestry of cultural diversity in our society. It is essential to distinguish between the actions of specific religious groups that contribute positively to our communities and the potential negatives of religious influence in the political sphere. Emphasizing the need for a robust separation between church and state does not diminish the positive impact of religion in individuals’ lives or the community. By fostering a respectful coexistence between religious and secular perspectives, we can work towards a society that upholds both individual freedoms and collective well-being.
However, we must also recognize that it is not the secular groups that are assaulting the wall between church and state; all of these attacks are coming from exclusively religious sources for exclusively religious reasons. Every time there is an attack on the rights of Iowans, whether it be the right to marry in the state or the right to read a book or the right to healthcare access or even the right to use the bathroom, the opposition is always the same familiar Christian religious groups. In contrast, secular groups have historically been on the side of expanding civil and human rights. When we look at the data and actions taken by the “nones” – those with no religious affiliation, including atheists, agnostics, and secular humanists, the fastest growing “religious” demographic – no other demographic has a better track record on rights. From Thomas Paine – a staunch secular abolitionist – to the formation of American Atheists – whose leader championed women’s equality in the 1960s – through today, the data overwhelmingly shows that secular groups lead the way on human rights. Groups like the ACLU, Iowa Atheists and Freethinkers, and One Iowa champion the rights of all Iowans and find themselves opposite religious groups in their fights for those rights. This goes further than organized groups as well, Pew Research has shown that the demographic that has the most consistent position in favor of egalitarian and science-based reasoning are the “nones”.
Secular groups are not looking to bar religion from the public arena – that would be as impossible as it would be un-American – but rather to keep the government secular in order to protect the rights of everyone. As the data and history demonstrate, the more the wall between church and state erodes, the worse it is for equality under the law, the worse it is for human rights, and the worse it is for an accountable and transparent government. Religious doctrine having an outsized influence on the government has resulted in a worse outcome for Iowa by any of the measures that we find valuable and important to us. Essentially, the more religion and faith-based reasoning we have in government, the worse off we all seem to be.
The solution is to rebuild that wall of church-state separation, for Iowa to go back to its roots and lean on science, reason, and empathy to build a better state and future for all of us. This is going to take all of us, religious and non-religious alike, but it is also going to take some tough looks inside of ourselves and at what faith means to us in the public square. If we want to follow that golden thread back to where Iowa used to be regarding civil and human rights, it is going to mean repairing that wall. It is going to mean challenging many of our preconceived notions about religion and what it means to us to have a government that respects and represents us all. It will also mean unraveling a lot of religious beliefs and influence on our legislature.
Our Liberties We Prize, and Our Rights We Shall Maintain means all Iowans. Not just Christian, not just atheist. Not just gay or straight. Not just black or white. It means ALL Iowans. If we want to live up to the motto of our state, we will need to keep in check the faith-based groups that are assaulting them while supporting secular groups that protect them.
Sources:
Iowa: The Land of 751 Polluted Waterways
https://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/04/us/politics/04judges.html
Ouster of Iowa Judges Sends Signal to Bench
Agreed.Report
Everyone is free to persuade each other, and everyone is free to build their political beliefs on whatever they choose. So I don’t see any of what’s discussed in this article as a diminishment of the separation between church and state as our founders would have understood it. There is no particular church that’s punching above its weight here, right? Nor are the people voting in policies that support one church over another. They’re neither acting unfairly nor using their clout to make the system unfair.Report
We need to also be honest that it isn’t “religions” which pose the threat to freedom, it is one religion in particular, the Christians.
We don’t see Hindus picketing slaughterhouses or ultra Orthodox rabbis phoning in bomb threats to Red Lobster.
The minority religions- Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims- have largely accepted their status as minorities. Christians haven’t.
They constitutes a diminishing minority, yet insist on having the right to rule.Report
God told me I’m supposed to be in charge.
If you have an organization where that has worked, then at some point, in order to grow, it needs to deal with other groups. Traditionally religious orgs mellow out at that growth stage so they can appeal to neutral outsiders.
Another way to grow would be to take control over the levers of power. You can’t get hostile outsiders to join you but most people will just go along with whatever.Report
“From Thomas Paine – a staunch secular abolitionist – to the formation of American Atheists – whose leader championed women’s equality in the 1960s – through today, the data overwhelmingly shows that secular groups lead the way on human rights.”
The abolitionist movement came from Christianity. William Lloyd Garrison, like William Wilberforce in England, was motivated by his faith. Harriet “Moses” Tubman was literally a Christian visionary. Sojourner Truth, I mean, I could just say the name and it should be obvious. The Quakers. Frederick Douglass. Abraham Lincoln. A hundred years later, the civil rights movement was religious. Half of its leaders (among them Rev. King) were preachers. Broader than that, the entire concept of human rights originated in the Christian tradition. And as this article points out the positive impact of religious faith, it actually refutes its own title.
ETA: I should have also said that the women’s rights movement was initiated by many of the same Christians I listed above.Report
Religion was on all sides of that one. Pro-slavery forces could point to the Bible as endorsing it.Report
Worth noting that some of today’s biggest offenders on the subject of separation of church and state are in denominations that came into existence largely or entirely because they supported slavery (e.g., Southern Baptists).Report
That’s true, but almost _everything_ in the Western world, and especially America, can be asserted to have come from Christianity.
Slave-owners use Christianity to justify slavery. Bigots claim that Black people were under ‘The Mark of Cain’ to prove they were lesser. Antisemitism can be argued to have originated from, and is certainly encourages and enflamed by, claims that Jews killed Christ.
And as for women, women’s equality was, and is almost entirely a struggle against the gender roles that were created by and backed up by Christian church. Yes, some of the people fighting _for_ them were Christian also, but literally 50% of the opposition was the church itself, or people using religious claims to back up their opposition.
You can’t pretend that a group originated something when almost everyone involved in the fight on _both sides_ was that group, and the actual organized institutions were main opposition to it.
Also, weird that you stopped there, at the civil rights positions that Christianity has mostly, vaguely, somewhat come around on. (Except the parts that haven’t and the places it hasn’t.)
It’s almost as if you don’t want to address the idea of, I dunno, gay marriage.Report
“That’s true, but almost _everything_ in the Western world, and especially America, can be asserted to have come from Christianity.”
congratulations you agree with him that pointing to some horrible thing and saying “Christians were involved in this!!!” doesn’t actually say anything meaningful
“women’s equality was, and is almost entirely a struggle against the gender roles that were created by and backed up by Christian church.”
the suffrage movement was primarily about getting Prohibition passed, and that was being done to curb a culture of binge drinking and violent misogyny, neither of which two things were particularly lauded by Christian culture of the time, so I don’t know what you’re on about hereReport
It looks like Dark Matter and DavidTC both agree with me for questioning the “overwhelming” data that secular groups led the way on human rights. Christians may have been nearly the only game in town, but we were the game that produced the standards and worked to achieve them.Report
If you’re on all sides of the slavery debate, then no, you don’t get credit for ending it.
It’s like claiming that ending slavery was a male thing, or purely a white thing.
Religion is about power and organization, not ethics. As an organizational tool, it is at best neutral.Report
keep in mind that ending slavery also had plenty of racism involved (in the “America should be a white country for white men, without any icky black blood polluting the race” sense.)Report