From Pulpit to Podium to Policy

By Richard Tobias

Today, many fundamentalist Christian members of Congress find it simpler and more comforting to disregard complexity and science when creating US law and, instead, wield faith like a righteous sword. In the making of new legislation, these Congressmen go so far as to cite biblical events, claiming, for instance, that the Great Flood was an example of climate change, although, "…that certainly wasn't because mankind had overdeveloped hydrocarbon energy." These Christian lawmakers even make frequent allusions to being 'led by' or 'inspired' by God when deciding legal policies and ignore scientific findings that contradict their faith in favor of legislation that benefits powerful corporations.

 

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." Thus reads the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. Yet, as Dr. Richard Tobias argues in From Pulpit to Podium Policy, decisions by the Supreme Court and repeated opposition by strong religious Congressional members against the separation of church and state put the longstanding ideals of democracy in danger.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Richard Tobias
• Release date: Jul 31, 2021
• ISBN: 9798201129408

Book preview

From Pulpit to Podium to Policy

Why the unbalanced influence of Faith over Reason

could bring an end to Democracy as we know it.

Richard Tobias, Ph.D.

Copyright © 2015 - Richard Tobias All rights reserved.

Printed in the USA

ii

Dedication

To my dear wife Diane, without whom this book would never have come to pass. Through her unrelenting focus on details, she wove together the myriad wisps and strands of ideas for the book into a coherent whole, bringing order out of chaos.

Disclaimer

There is no question that almost every word we utter is fraught with ambiguity and idiosyncrasy. Throughout this book, I use two terms for which this is especially true: strongly religious and faith.

For the purposes of this discussion, both terms are used solely with respect to their application and influence in the political process and policymaking of the country at large.

In general, the strongly religious politicians to whom I refer have the following characteristics in common:

They belong to evangelical Christian denominations commonly referred to as fundamentalist.

In their political speeches, they have made and continue to make frequent allusions to being led by or inspired by God and/or the Bible, and regularly claim supreme authority of their own esoteric interpretations of the Bible, even over other Christian denominations.

They have consistently and repeatedly disregarded, denied or attacked scientific findings that they perceive to conflict with their interpretations, especially findings relating to the theory of evolution and human contribution to observed trends in global climate change.

•  They refer, with scorn, to the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution and its corollary—the separation of church and state—as a myth, and maintain, despite documents written in the Founding Fathers’ own hands that explicitly state otherwise, that the United States was formed as a Christian nation.

•  They imply that they have expertise in fields of study for which they have neither basic familiarity or credential, grossly manipulating public opinion by conflating misinformation as truth in the face of clear evidence to the contrary.

With respect to the word faith herein, I do not refer to the human experience of wonder or reverence, or the capacity of a person to affirm life and maintain an optimistic frame of reference in spite of what life brings one’s way and despite the existence of doubt and uncertainty.

Instead, I refer to unyielding reliance on doctrinal creeds and religious dogma to the exclusion of critical analysis, rational thought and scientific evidence, especially when engaged in the formulation of policies that have impact on the lives, liberties, and opportunities of others whose personal beliefs do not conform to one’s own.

No statements made in the following should be construed as opinions regarding the existence or non-existence of a Supreme Being. The sole intent of the author is to raise consciousness of the potential dangers posed by the fundamentalist mindset to the political process of the United States and, ultimately, to the principles of democracy itself.

Introduction

W

e are living in a chaotic world. The chaos is driven by powerful ethnic, religious, psychosocial and environmental forces. All the world’s cultures are inextricably linked by a sweeping array of technological advances such that all the crises impact each other, breeding an order of complexity and uncertainty never before experienced in history. Whole nations wink in and out of existence in a matter of days. The very foundations of civilization appear to be crumbling.

What and who can shore up our confidence and allay our fears? Where are the transcendental and ultimate truths to which we may turn? Teeming masses ask these questions daily, sometimes screaming for answers.

Many have reflexively turned back to the comforting embrace of religious certainty with increased ardor. But in turning the clock back to the realm of strong religious orthodoxy, we are arming ourselves with antiquated, inflexible precedent and formulaic thinking—a kind of mindset (set mind) that does not have the flexibility to meet the uniqueness and order of complexity unfolding before us in today’s world.

In embracing this view reflexively, the strongly orthodox find it simpler and more comforting to disregard complexity and reason and embrace faith. We will explore this dynamic in detail, as well as its impact on our politics and our democracy through the policies promulgated by some of our more devout lawmakers.

One example of the effect of religious orthodoxy on debate in the halls of Congress is the Keystone Pipeline, a significant and controversial project. Although it is capable of bringing countless barrels of tar-sands oil from Canada into the United States, many Democrats—led by the Obama administration—oppose its construction, because it does nothing to decrease the U.S. economy’s dependence on fossil fuels. According to the vast majority of scientists who study the climate, irrevocable damage to the environment is being done by a runaway greenhouse effect—caused by the carbon dioxide gas released into the atmosphere as the result of fossil fuel exploitation.

Yet, despite losing two straight presidential elections—largely due to political stances that cater to Christian fundamentalists—the Republican Party continues to oppose legislation that seeks to curtail global warming. Most of the time, their reasons are neither explicitly scientific nor moral—instead, they are religious.

I don’t think it’s a secret that I’m a proponent and supporter of the Keystone pipeline, Texas Rep. Joe Barton said during the Subcommittee on Energy and Power hearing on H.R. 3, the Northern Route Approval Act. "I would point out that people like me who support hydrocarbon development don’t deny that the climate is changing. I think you can have an honest difference of opinion of what’s causing that change without its automatically being either mankind-caused or all just natural. I think there’s a divergence of evidence.

I would point out that if you’re a believer in the Bible, he continued, one would have to say the Great Flood is an example of climate change and that certainly wasn’t because mankind had overdeveloped hydrocarbon energy.¹

Such a statement begs the question, What makes men such as Rep. Joe Barton, who has a M.S. in Industrial Administration and has earned academic scholarships, invoke religion when speaking of scientific matters?

What we see is that the influence of religion is pervasive—due to the mindset many adherents who hold strong religious beliefs have in common. Religious orthodoxy demands intellectual submission to its tenets and naturally affects how people think and act.

This examination of the impact of religion on democracy was prompted by the observation that at the time of this writing, a group of lawmakers have consistently blocked legislation designed to mitigate the effects of human-induced global warming and other environmental problems. They have also attacked, in strident and derogatory terms, credible science supporting the contention that humans have contributed to global warming—dismissing it on no basis other than its divergence with religious doctrines they have swallowed as fact. Simply put, this failure to recognize the link between climate change and human activities will have deadly and long-lasting consequences for all of mankind—regardless of religious belief, creed, nationality, or heritage.

Thesis

Fundamentalist religion, which by necessity requires unquestioning adherence to dogma and articles of faith, is contrary to the vital thought processes necessary for democratic self-government—in fact, to the survival of our very species.

I

t is my belief that a strongly religious mindset adversely and severely impacts one’s capacity for critical thinking and decision-making. In order to support this premise, in the following pages, I will focus on a number of recent political decisions and statements emerging with the compassionate conservative era of the George W. Bush administration, and follow it to the tea party brand of conservatism. What I will attempt to demonstrate is that even though political stances must sometimes shift due to expedience, the mindset of the fundamentalist politician remains rigidly consistent.

We cannot simply ignore the existence of this mindset and expect it to go away. It is important that we take many of these politicians at their word and make our evaluations based squarely upon what they specifically espouse.

Let it be understood that it is not my intent to address presumptions, including the idea that these politicians are in any way disingenuous or are simply pandering to their respective constituencies. It is critical that we take this mindset seriously and make every effort to understand its impact before it deleteriously affects our thinking and policymaking in a democratic and international setting.

The nature of modern democratic governance requires the ability to critically analyze multiple issues and make rational decisions based upon the best available evidence. This approach is fundamentally in conflict with the religious traditions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, all of which have historically taught their followers to restrain their free thinking. It led historically to religion’s denial of scientific findings in astronomy (Galileo) and, in the modern day, manifests itself in relation to the studies of biology and the climate.

When we look at the actions of fundamentalists, though they are capable of rational thought, we will see that as a matter of course, they will jettison science, facts, and reason when their conclusions are contrary to those required by their religion.

The fundamentalist is wired to believe that faith trumps reason, even in the face of natural evidence. By default, it is not only possible but required that a religious person purposely manipulate empirical thought so that it fits with any of his or her preconceived religious notions, or disregard it completely.²

The Battle Against Evolution

I

n recent years, ultra-conservative Republicans have aligned themselves with the self-proclaimed Tea Party. The movement is strongest in the