Pew 2008 Report - Religion & Politics - Secular Values in America

I came across the Pew Report on Religion and Politics some time ago and one of the things I was
curious about was on how secular values from the "Founding Fathers" of America were reflected
among the religious denominations in America.

"Separation of Church and State", approach to war and foreign policy, etc.

The American government nor the nation itself wasn't founded as a Christian nation or an atheist
nation or as an irreligious nation, but as a secular nation, hasn't it?

Although a great deal of Americans are Christian (77%), there are people of various other
religions and simply religion itself makes up a large majority of the American population.

Many of the discussions here idealize secular values, where it's advocated that religious beliefs
are not supposed to influence government at all, but also that (to a lesser extent) people be
protected for their religious beliefs.

The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life has reports on a survey conducted as a random
sample of Americans and about religious beliefs of those of different religious groups as well as
those who are unaffiliated:
http://pewglobal.org/
http://religions.pewforum.org/reports
http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/report-religious- landscape-study-full.pdf

I pulled out most of the ones that dealt with political values that the Founding Fathers had
addressed in the Constitution to see how they relate to the secular values the American
government was founded upon.

Some of the results were surprising, but they also seemed to reflect distinctions of teaching
between denominations and religious groups.

There are several main questions that come up on what the Founding Fathers had advised and
what secular values we hold on government.

What is your stance?

1. Separation of Church and State - Should religion influence politics?

Jefferson acknowledged public opinion that the American people did not want a state religio n
nor did they want government to further the private interests of religion. This is also reflected in
the 1st Amendment to the Constitution:

http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html

I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared
that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishme nt of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and
state.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

Amendment 1

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishme nt of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people
peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

What do the denominations think of this ideal?

The highest percentage of respondents to the survey that said religion should keep out of
governmental affairs were the Jehovah's Witnesses (82%) and the lowest percentage of those
who said that religion should express views in political affairs were the Jehovah's Witnesses as
well (with a distinct 12%).

Evangelical and historically black churches are most likely to embrace the union between
religious values set in politics.

2. Foreign Policy - Should Ame rica get involved in foreign affairs and alliances?
America had already been involved with in overseas treaties by this time, but George
Washington, acknowledging this, had warned against any permanent political alliance with other
nations in his Farewell Address at the end of his political career, noting that America's
independence would keep it self-sufficient against external harm:

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp

Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If
we remain one people under an efficient government. the period is not far off when we may
defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will
cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when
belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly
hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by
justice, shall counsel.

Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign
ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our
peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or
caprice?

It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign
world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capab le of
patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than
to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those
engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and
would be unwise to extend them.

Jehovah's Witnesses are the least likely to embrace the idea of getting involved in world affairs
(13%) and are along with the historically black churches in saying that more attention sho uld be
kept on problems at home (with 68% and 64% respectively). 10% of the Jehovah's Witness
respondents refused to answer this question.
3. Political Parties in America - Ideal stance on party affiliation?

George Washington was not part of a political party himself and he had actually warned against
it to a great extent in the Farewell Address, saying that multiple political parties are ult imately
detrimental and should be discouraged:

George Washington's Farewell Address:

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp

I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference
to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more
comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manne r against the baneful effects
of the spirit of party generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions
of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled,
controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness,
and is truly their worst enemy.
The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpe ned by the spirit of revenge,
natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most
horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and
permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of
men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the
chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this
disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

Without looking forward to an extre mity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be
entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are
sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates
the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one
part against anothe r, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign
influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the
channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the
policy and will of another.

There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the
government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably
true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with
favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in gove rnments purely
elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will
always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant dange r of
excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire
not to be quenched, it de mands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame,
lest, instead of warming, it should consume.

Most adherents of religions said they take a stance that leaned towards one particular party or
another, even respondents who aren't part of a religion ("Unaffiliated" includes agnostics and
atheists as well). The Jehovah's Witnesses are distinct in saying that they take an independent
stance on this (a significant 75%), only 10% and 15% saying they lean towards one political
party or another:
4. Religion and Politics - Does religion influence your political vie ws?

George Washington mentions the role of religion as well as simply morality itself in a nation,
saying that they are "indispensable supports" leading to "political prosperity." He also notes that
patriotism in one's country does not lead to such political prosperity, but would "subvert these
great pillars of human happiness" and "props of the duties of men and citizens."

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp

Of all the dis positions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality
are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotis m, who
should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the
duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to
respect and to cherish the m. A volume could not trace all their connections with private
and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for
life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation
in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be
maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on
minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality
can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

Religion influences and plays an important role in the political views of the Jehovah's Witnesses
(a distinct 60%) more so than with another other religious group:
The media actually isn't reported to have played as strong an influence on political views among
most any religious groups, including the unaffiliated.

5. Religious Vie ws on War and Diplomacy - Is the endeavor of military strength or

diplomacy most likely to ensure peace?

George Washington stated that the Constitution's allocation of power over declaring war means
to make sure that any prospect of war is heavily analyzed before making a final decision:

"The constitution vests the power of declaring war in Congress; therefore no offensive
expedition of importance can be unde rtaken until after they shall have deliberated upon
the subject and authorized such a measure."

James Wilson, one of the framers and ratifiers of the Constitution, explains that the purpose of
the requirement is to keep the government from hastily going into war:

This system will not hurry us into war; it is calculated to guard against it. It will not be in
the power of a single man, or a single body of men, to involve us in such distress; for the
important power of declaring war is vested in the legislature at large.

Practically all of the religious groups and unaffiliated have a strong number of respondents that
said diplomacy is best, while a minority would say that military strength is more effective.
Evangelical churches and Mormons have the highest percentage of respondents who prefer
military strength (38% and 37% respectively). Jehovah's Witnesses are the lowest percenta ge of
respondents who said that military strength ensures peace (9%). Diplomacy is preferred with the
greatest unanimity amongst the Muslim and Hindu respondents (at 84%):

A distinctly significant percentage of the Jehovah's Witness respondents sa id "Neither/Both"

(21%) or "Don't Know/Refused" (14%), and a distinctly large percentage of Jehovah's Witness
respondents choosing either one of those replies is a trend as a response among all the other
political questions in the survey.

I think this has more to do with the fact that Jehovah's Witnesses largely do not have faith in
government, which would probably be why not as many of them said diplomacy would work as
other religious groups did. This attitude is reflected in the talks and the literature of the Jehovah's
Witnesses:

http://www.watchtower.org/e/20071201/article_02.htm
The application of Bible principles has accomplished what human governments cannot

In fact, just as I had expected, Jehovah's Witnesses largely do not vote (13% registered, 74% are
not registered):
Even though only 13% say they are registered to vote, it is actually surprising to me since
Jehovah's Witnesses advocate political neutrality, not siding towards one nation or another.
However, I know that, although Jehovah's Witnesses are not exactly discouraged from voting at
all, they aren't encouraged to do so either.

For my personal response to these questions:

1. I think religion really should have nothing to do with government. In "voting" for God's
heavenly government, this supersedes any desire to have faith in any one government around or
another.
2. Personally, I'd prefer if America were more isolationist, like in the years before entrance into
World War I and World War II. I'd generally like there to be great alliances, but, in practice,
alliances either are not effective enough for their purposes (i.e.: the United Nations on stopping
war) or too problematic (World War I and World War II).
3. I don't lean towards one political party or another, and despite liking some things about one or
another, even in this past election, I really don't want to get registered. Also, I'm not sure if I
should either, even though if I become a Witness it probably wouldn't matter.
4. Military strength is effective, but not the best way in the long run (i.e.: Bush + Iraq). However,
I have little faith in diplomacy anyway. People are more effective at pushing the tides of war or
peace regardless of their government's stance. Diplomacy is preferred, but I'd say neither is
what's best to ensure peace.
5. Despite having been an ex-Jehovah's Witness for nearly a decade, I just don't want to vote; I'm
not registered and I'm not sure if I'd ever want to be.

What is your stance on some of these questions and issues?