Exclusion, Fusion, or Dialogue: How Should Religion and Politics Relate?

Abstract

Th e 1976 presidential campaign produced a great deal of specu lation about Jimmy Carter's religion, sometimes outstripping dis cussion of his political views. Watching a successful presidential candidate so naturally and sincerely bring his religious perspectives and commitments into the political arena has been for many a novel and unsettling experience, which raises anew the question of how religion and politics do and should relate. There are three basic options: (1) an archaic fusion, in which religion sanctifies the state and its rulers; (2) a historic dialogue, in which religion limits, guides, and challenges the state and its governors; and (3) a modern exclusion, in which religion ignores the state and its officials. Currently, all of these options are present in the United States and have been practiced at institutional, personal, and intermediate levels. At the institutional level, the Constitution prohibits the establishment of religion and encourages religious liberty, a combi nation popularly known as separation of church and state. From independent positions, therefore, church and state can bolster, chal lenge, or ignore each other. At the personal level, the Constitution forbids a religious test for an individual to hold office, thus allowing politicians to advocate the religious perspective of their choice. A president, then, may use religion to idolize himself, embrace it as a source of guidance and criticism, or disregard it. At the intermediate level, a variety of forces interact, representing competing types of civil religion. In formulating a political strategy and the reasons for it, a candidate may heed religious and ethical views from church pronouncements, government documents, preach ers, politicians, newspaper commentators, citizens, and his own conscience. These contributing views and the resulting position reflect archaic civil religion if they identify the divine with the state, historic civil religion if they place the divine over the state, and