Currently, in the U.S., the only laws that mention religion are the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause; both talk about citizens’ rights to freedom to practice whatever religion they want. So why do people now want to infuse the laws with their own religious beliefs, especially when it comes to Christianity?
Despite the amount of references to faith in patriotic media today, the United States was not created under any one religion. It was originally pioneered very distinctly for the separation of religion and politics. In the early 1800s, Thomas Jefferson ran for President and strongly argued for religious freedom and separation of church and state. His faith wasn’t considered as heavily as people would argue today, meaning that the religious beliefs of political figures were not as emphasized and taken into account as strongly.
Around the same time, waves of Catholics began to immigrate to America, and the Protestants claimed that the Catholics’ loyalty to the Pope made them “unfit citizens.” Then, reliance on prioritizing religion over the law was seen as unjust and unsupported. The idea that citizens would look to religious figures over their political leaders was heavily frowned upon.
This prospect of holding influence as a religious figure was put to the test in 1827 when a Presbyterian minister named Ezra Stiles Ely advocated heavily for a “Christian Political Party”; he believed in the complete synchronization of politics and religion. In a sermon he gave on Independence Day that year, he said, “Every ruler should be an avowed and sincere friend of Christianity. He should know and believe the doctrines of our holy religion and act in conformity to its precepts.” Utilizing his influence on people as a minister, he amplified his personal ideology that church and state should be intertwined, but it ultimately didn’t amount to much, as seen by how that never came to pass.
Over time, politicians have learned how to utilize religion as a ploy to gain more voters, whether or not they have a strong personal faith or not. In 1960, John F. Kennedy was accused of being an “unpatriotic Catholic Communist,” causing many Americans to have weak opinions of his character. To combat this, he gave a speech where he downplayed his religious beliefs and argued, “I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute– where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote…”
In May 2015, Hillary Clinton made headlines for going into a South Carolina bakery to buy cupcakes and conversing with a Reverend about the Bible passage he was reading. Hillary Clinton is a Methodist but hardly displayed in the media, causing people to assume she is irreligious. This conversation led to her winning him over as a voter and many others like him. She utilized her knowledge of religion to gain new voters. As a public relations tactic, it makes sense to display yourself appealingly to various demographics.
More recently, in the 2024 presidential election, social media controversy stirred, labeling Kamala Harris as an “anti-Christian” candidate. Harris was making an appearance in Wisconsin when pro-life protesters were chanting praise such as “Christ is King,” when Harris allegedly told them, “You’re at the wrong rally.” This caused Christian influencers and republic media to infer that she renounced Christianity and henceforth labeled her an invalid candidate. A Fox News article covering the ordeal quoted vice-presidential candidate J.D. Vance, “There is something really bizarre with Harris’ anti-Christian rhetoric and anti-Christian approach to public policy.” Should religion have such a strong control over the public opinion of political candidates?
In an article written by a Boston University student, Julie Butters, she said, “If the Democratic Party’s challenge is knowing when to talk about faith, the Republican Party’s is knowing when to stop talking about it.” Democratic representatives tend to utilize religion to amplify themselves to voters; however, how can voters tell when it is a genuine belief or hefty PR? Republican representatives, on the other hand, have to be strategic on when to mention religion so as to not scare away voters with a different belief system. There is pressure on all candidates to utilize religion as a means of gaining new voters, but when using religion as a marketing weapon, it takes away the power behind religious beliefs.
Currently, in America, there is a rise in spirituality over direct religion. A report in 2023 from the Pew Research Center found that 70% of Americans describe themselves as spiritual, with 22% being non-religious with spiritual beliefs. The report points out, “Some news articles have speculated that young Americans may be turning away from organized religion and replacing it with their own mix of spiritual elements drawn from many sources… Media coverage has often focused, in particular, on people who describe themselves as “spiritual but not religious.”
With the rise of spirituality, why is there also a rise in people’s need to insert religion into the political system? One of the most heavily debated topics in America right now is abortion. The biggest argument against abortion is the moral implication of “killing another life.” Randall Balmer, a Religious History professor at Dartmouth College, said, “It shows the pliability of Scripture — the way that each group tries to marshal arguments on its behalf… The Bible can be manipulated.” It is very challenging to argue against a person using religion as their belief system without simply saying you don’t believe the same thing, and by doing that, they tend to disregard you entirely as an immoral person.
It is perfectly reasonable to live by the rules of your religion and use that as your guide to life, but it gets muddy when people denounce anyone who disagrees with their beliefs as unethical or dishonorable. American citizens put weight on religion to show the personality behind candidates that they do not personally know, under the belief of “well, we’re both Catholic, so they have all the same beliefs as me,” without truly unpacking and understanding the complexities of people’s belief systems.
So, how do we draw the line between using religion as our personal moral compass and inflicting our religious beliefs onto others?
