Friday, May 20, 2005
Two Nations Redefined
I often mention to people how India is becoming more like the U.S. and how the U.S. is becoming more like India – and, people who know both countries tend to agree. In the case of India, the comparison is both good and bad. The good can be found in the increasing high-tech industry found there. More and more young people are entering the technical field and doing very well financially and otherwise. The fall-out of this is both technical and cultural. Everyone I saw there had a cellphone, a home computer and cable TV. The roads have improved immensely as well. Whereas before, there were one-and-a-half-lane highways, there are now four-to-eight-lane autobahns. Overall, India has improved materially and is playing a quick catch-up to the western world.
In spite of all this, there are a few drawbacks, the major one being the materialism found among the young with their newfound wealth. Once they’ve acquired their well-paying jobs, they’ll often indulge themselves in buying the latest toy – cellphones being just one example. I saw more cars on the road, which means that there’s more traffic on those four-to eight-lane autobahns I had mentioned. Instead of driving scooters, they’ll drive cars. The problem is that they drive their cars like they’re driving scooters! The cultural fall-out is the brazen attitude that the young now have. When, once, they would have been more modest and respectful of their elders, the young in India decide to follow what they consider “western attitudes” and push the envelope of decorum.
So, India is becoming more like the U.S. in both good and bad ways. The only place where they don’t emulate the West is in politics – which brings me to the United States. Overall, the U.S. doesn’t emulate anyone. Here, we expect people to emulate us. However, in one disturbing way, the U.S. is following the examples of the developing world, and that is in the political arena.
My Indian-American friends and I often complain about the corruption found in India. Of course, corruption can be found in America too, but it wasn’t as open as it is in places like India. Now, I see a similar type of open-faced corruption. When, once it would have been hidden behind closed doors, today’s politicians seem to enthrall themselves in money. One famously claimed “I AM the Government!” (If there’s justice, he may rue the day he said that!)
This open corruption is bad enough, except there’s one other issue that I see both India and America now have in common, and this is communalism. In India, communalism is when people divide themselves into factions, usually religious, and would attack each other, first verbally, then physically. India’s newspapers would be filled with the latest communal riots between Hindus and Muslims. Granted, the majority would not be involved, but all it takes is a determined, vocal minority to make life a living hell for the rest.
Now, in the U.S. we don’t have any such riotous atmosphere – at least, not yet. What we do have is a growing communalism where one religious group – or one faction of a religious group – claims that it’s being persecuted and exerts its power in a bullying fashion. This is what was witnessed on Justice Sunday a few weeks ago. This was when a large group of conservative Christians gathered and claimed that the Democrats are anti-Christian because they oppose some judicial nominees to the federal courts. They were joined by no less than the leader of the U.S. Senate. Their solution – besides praying – is to have the Senate get rid of the filibuster – a long-standing Senate tradition used to help bring checks and balances in the government.
My criticism of the religious groups involved is not over their support for the judicial nominees, nor even their involving themselves in the way government works – which is bad enough. Religious people have a right to their opinion the same as anyone else. What I’m concerned about is the blatant communalism and demagoguery in the way this group is expressing these opinions. What’s worse is that they have influential politicians joining them in this line of argument.
How is someone anti-Christian when he opposes a judicial nominee? Why does a Senate leader even accept this view? Some people claim that the separation of church and state is a myth. They want more religious involvement, which is a good thing in itself. It becomes a problem when they use religion as a political tool.
This is what brought communalism in India – unscrupulous religious leaders and corrupt politicians who foment religious feelings among the masses. They claim that their religious views have been slighted by the opposition, so the only recourse will be to fight them – verbally, or, if need be, physically. The opposition could be religious or political. In India, it’s often religious (Muslim, Hindu, or even Christian). In our case, it’s political (“secular” Democratic politicians).
Many people – even religious people - are disturbed by this mix of religion and politics, but they don’t exactly know why it’s wrong. They just know that it can produce bad results for all involved. Obviously, the religious people who are mixing religion and politics don’t even have a clue as to what they’re getting into. Many naively believe that they’re doing what is right. After all, isn’t God on their side?
So, why do an increasing number of people wish to mix religion and politics? Many have the naïve belief that Godly people will always do what is right. For the leaders, their motives are mixed. Some are plain power-hungry and just hide behind the patina of faith to get their way. Others follow a philosophy called Dominionism where they believe that the U.S. government should follow biblical principles. Now, do you see why they believe that church-state separation is a myth?
First of all, the separation of church and state is not a myth. It was a policy given to us from the founding of this country – the main reason being to avoid the blatant demagoguery that we’re hearing now. The Constitution itself states that there will be no religious test for anyone working in government.
Even though all the founders were at least nominally Protestant, they knew that any introduction of sectarianism would produce enmity and animosity amongst each other. They may have had prayers when they opened their sessions, but they made sure that it was non-denominational. After all, if an Episcopal priest read from the Book of Common Prayer, how would the Presbyterians and Methodists feel, let alone the Baptists? So, the best way to avoid this was to not be specific in public about their beliefs. Thus, they avoided establishing a state church.
What this did was open religion to all. Churches had to compete for congregants, so began the uniquely American form of Revivalism with circuit riders and itinerant preachers roaming the countryside winning souls for the Lord. (We see the modern-day equivalent with television evangelists.) So, without an established religion or state church, faith became a personal choice. This is how America became more religious. If we had a state religion, it would have been seen as a burden and a chore, like it was in Europe. Instead, people had the freedom to choose whatever belief they wanted, and they weren’t under any obligation from the state.
What this did for government was that it allowed a more diverse group of people to get elected and work for the government. So, one didn’t have to be Episcopalian or Presbyterian or Congregationalist (the established church in Massachusetts and Connecticut). In fact, one didn’t have to be Protestant. So, Catholics, and later Jews and Eastern Orthodox could join. Even atheists can get elected!
With this (potential) diversity of views, no one group may impose its beliefs on others. Whenever one did (and it happened on occasion), a later session would overturn those laws. For example, back in the 1840s, when Congress was led by the Eastern-seaboard establishment, it passed a law banning mail delivery on Sunday since it was the Sabbath day. Well, this hurt the Western, rural crowd who lived for Sunday mail delivery because that was the only day that many of them had free. Since they had to get the mail at the post office, it was an opportunity to meet others as well. So, banning Sunday mail delivery put a damper on their lifestyles. Anyway, a later session of Congress, led by a Georgian Baptist, overturned the law. So, the westerners won out! (Western meant places like Kentucky and Illinois.)
Our government is made with many checks and balances. This was done in order to prevent tyranny. The founders of this country feared tyranny of any stripe. It wasn’t just the lone tyrant that they feared, but the tyranny of the majority as well. This was why we have three branches of government. It’s why we have a federal system where there are federal and state governments. It’s also why Congress made internal rules like the filibuster so the minority can have the chance to oppose the majority – sometimes successfully.
When the majority decides to impose its power over the minority using faith as a weapon, it’s demagoguery. It’s an abuse of power that will result in resentment. Most importantly, it will associate that religious faction with demagoguery and tyranny. The result of this will be that when the current majority finds itself in the minority, the people of faith who naively believed that they were doing the Godly thing will also find themselves out.
Politics is relative. It changes with the wind. Faith is absolute. It’s full of certainties. The danger becomes when you impose absolutes onto an institution run on expediency and compromise. When a politician claims to do something with absolute certainty (with God on his side), it’s the beginning of tyranny – even if it’s well-meaning. If we don’t understand or believe this now, we will eventually.
Politics is full of give-and-take, whether we like it or not. That’s why it’s messy. The irony is government works best when our leaders compromise. When government is run by uncompromising zealots, then we should conclude that tyranny has won out. After all, even uncompromising zealots somehow end up compromising something. As Lord Acton stated, “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
In spite of all this, there are a few drawbacks, the major one being the materialism found among the young with their newfound wealth. Once they’ve acquired their well-paying jobs, they’ll often indulge themselves in buying the latest toy – cellphones being just one example. I saw more cars on the road, which means that there’s more traffic on those four-to eight-lane autobahns I had mentioned. Instead of driving scooters, they’ll drive cars. The problem is that they drive their cars like they’re driving scooters! The cultural fall-out is the brazen attitude that the young now have. When, once, they would have been more modest and respectful of their elders, the young in India decide to follow what they consider “western attitudes” and push the envelope of decorum.
So, India is becoming more like the U.S. in both good and bad ways. The only place where they don’t emulate the West is in politics – which brings me to the United States. Overall, the U.S. doesn’t emulate anyone. Here, we expect people to emulate us. However, in one disturbing way, the U.S. is following the examples of the developing world, and that is in the political arena.
My Indian-American friends and I often complain about the corruption found in India. Of course, corruption can be found in America too, but it wasn’t as open as it is in places like India. Now, I see a similar type of open-faced corruption. When, once it would have been hidden behind closed doors, today’s politicians seem to enthrall themselves in money. One famously claimed “I AM the Government!” (If there’s justice, he may rue the day he said that!)
This open corruption is bad enough, except there’s one other issue that I see both India and America now have in common, and this is communalism. In India, communalism is when people divide themselves into factions, usually religious, and would attack each other, first verbally, then physically. India’s newspapers would be filled with the latest communal riots between Hindus and Muslims. Granted, the majority would not be involved, but all it takes is a determined, vocal minority to make life a living hell for the rest.
Now, in the U.S. we don’t have any such riotous atmosphere – at least, not yet. What we do have is a growing communalism where one religious group – or one faction of a religious group – claims that it’s being persecuted and exerts its power in a bullying fashion. This is what was witnessed on Justice Sunday a few weeks ago. This was when a large group of conservative Christians gathered and claimed that the Democrats are anti-Christian because they oppose some judicial nominees to the federal courts. They were joined by no less than the leader of the U.S. Senate. Their solution – besides praying – is to have the Senate get rid of the filibuster – a long-standing Senate tradition used to help bring checks and balances in the government.
My criticism of the religious groups involved is not over their support for the judicial nominees, nor even their involving themselves in the way government works – which is bad enough. Religious people have a right to their opinion the same as anyone else. What I’m concerned about is the blatant communalism and demagoguery in the way this group is expressing these opinions. What’s worse is that they have influential politicians joining them in this line of argument.
How is someone anti-Christian when he opposes a judicial nominee? Why does a Senate leader even accept this view? Some people claim that the separation of church and state is a myth. They want more religious involvement, which is a good thing in itself. It becomes a problem when they use religion as a political tool.
This is what brought communalism in India – unscrupulous religious leaders and corrupt politicians who foment religious feelings among the masses. They claim that their religious views have been slighted by the opposition, so the only recourse will be to fight them – verbally, or, if need be, physically. The opposition could be religious or political. In India, it’s often religious (Muslim, Hindu, or even Christian). In our case, it’s political (“secular” Democratic politicians).
Many people – even religious people - are disturbed by this mix of religion and politics, but they don’t exactly know why it’s wrong. They just know that it can produce bad results for all involved. Obviously, the religious people who are mixing religion and politics don’t even have a clue as to what they’re getting into. Many naively believe that they’re doing what is right. After all, isn’t God on their side?
So, why do an increasing number of people wish to mix religion and politics? Many have the naïve belief that Godly people will always do what is right. For the leaders, their motives are mixed. Some are plain power-hungry and just hide behind the patina of faith to get their way. Others follow a philosophy called Dominionism where they believe that the U.S. government should follow biblical principles. Now, do you see why they believe that church-state separation is a myth?
First of all, the separation of church and state is not a myth. It was a policy given to us from the founding of this country – the main reason being to avoid the blatant demagoguery that we’re hearing now. The Constitution itself states that there will be no religious test for anyone working in government.
Even though all the founders were at least nominally Protestant, they knew that any introduction of sectarianism would produce enmity and animosity amongst each other. They may have had prayers when they opened their sessions, but they made sure that it was non-denominational. After all, if an Episcopal priest read from the Book of Common Prayer, how would the Presbyterians and Methodists feel, let alone the Baptists? So, the best way to avoid this was to not be specific in public about their beliefs. Thus, they avoided establishing a state church.
What this did was open religion to all. Churches had to compete for congregants, so began the uniquely American form of Revivalism with circuit riders and itinerant preachers roaming the countryside winning souls for the Lord. (We see the modern-day equivalent with television evangelists.) So, without an established religion or state church, faith became a personal choice. This is how America became more religious. If we had a state religion, it would have been seen as a burden and a chore, like it was in Europe. Instead, people had the freedom to choose whatever belief they wanted, and they weren’t under any obligation from the state.
What this did for government was that it allowed a more diverse group of people to get elected and work for the government. So, one didn’t have to be Episcopalian or Presbyterian or Congregationalist (the established church in Massachusetts and Connecticut). In fact, one didn’t have to be Protestant. So, Catholics, and later Jews and Eastern Orthodox could join. Even atheists can get elected!
With this (potential) diversity of views, no one group may impose its beliefs on others. Whenever one did (and it happened on occasion), a later session would overturn those laws. For example, back in the 1840s, when Congress was led by the Eastern-seaboard establishment, it passed a law banning mail delivery on Sunday since it was the Sabbath day. Well, this hurt the Western, rural crowd who lived for Sunday mail delivery because that was the only day that many of them had free. Since they had to get the mail at the post office, it was an opportunity to meet others as well. So, banning Sunday mail delivery put a damper on their lifestyles. Anyway, a later session of Congress, led by a Georgian Baptist, overturned the law. So, the westerners won out! (Western meant places like Kentucky and Illinois.)
Our government is made with many checks and balances. This was done in order to prevent tyranny. The founders of this country feared tyranny of any stripe. It wasn’t just the lone tyrant that they feared, but the tyranny of the majority as well. This was why we have three branches of government. It’s why we have a federal system where there are federal and state governments. It’s also why Congress made internal rules like the filibuster so the minority can have the chance to oppose the majority – sometimes successfully.
When the majority decides to impose its power over the minority using faith as a weapon, it’s demagoguery. It’s an abuse of power that will result in resentment. Most importantly, it will associate that religious faction with demagoguery and tyranny. The result of this will be that when the current majority finds itself in the minority, the people of faith who naively believed that they were doing the Godly thing will also find themselves out.
Politics is relative. It changes with the wind. Faith is absolute. It’s full of certainties. The danger becomes when you impose absolutes onto an institution run on expediency and compromise. When a politician claims to do something with absolute certainty (with God on his side), it’s the beginning of tyranny – even if it’s well-meaning. If we don’t understand or believe this now, we will eventually.
Politics is full of give-and-take, whether we like it or not. That’s why it’s messy. The irony is government works best when our leaders compromise. When government is run by uncompromising zealots, then we should conclude that tyranny has won out. After all, even uncompromising zealots somehow end up compromising something. As Lord Acton stated, “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
