Repression of Science and Education in the U.S.: A Theory
Written on
When science and education are stifled by rigid and authoritarian ideologies, we lose the opportunity for a brighter future. As we hold onto outdated beliefs and shaky foundations, we risk being surpassed by others. The dread of transformation and the gradual acceptance of new ideas have hindered our progress. Although our societal frameworks may appear broad and supportive, underlying forces seek to restrict our advancement, inhibiting the potential for a more progressive society.
The theory of repression and regression in science and education I propose is shaped by the way the American political system integrates its religious, economic, and historical narratives. The United States exhibits numerous unique religious, economic, historical, and political characteristics. While some may not be entirely exclusive to our country, the complexities and divisions they create are difficult to compare with other contexts or to simplify into a single narrative. My aim is to unify these collaborators under a coherent and comprehensible framework.
Disclaimer: Writing about science without a scientific background presents challenges. My reflections echo that dilemma. However, by avoiding overly complex jargon, there can be merit in an amateur attempt to elucidate the fundamental aspects of science for those eager to learn. I hope my perspective navigates a middle ground between dense academic papers and misleading information from uninformed sources. Furthermore, my concise explorations aim to clarify the repression and regression engendered by government influenced by religion.
Additionally, I do not support the blending of religion with science or public education—fields that should serve as the primary foundation for American youth. In this essay, I articulate my reasons for this stance, though I acknowledge that my straightforwardness might come across as critical of religion.
In the following sections, I will address how religion has impeded our nation's progress, particularly regarding science and education. The often ambiguous and covertly applied faith-based ideologies are detrimentally intertwined within our governmental frameworks and decisions. Many governmental interactions also raise constitutional concerns.
After the introduction, I will delve into scientific explanations. I will investigate why certain scientific concepts are frequently misconstrued and how these misconceptions are exploited to undermine the significance of science in various areas of life and governance. Following the explanations, I will address several social issues related to science and education.
The intersection of religion and science education presents significant complications. Its impact is evident on two fronts: within classrooms and in the broader political landscape, making it a national issue. While the church-state conflict may seem less pronounced locally due to familiarity, communities where a single religion holds sway often experience reduced concerns about its influence, thereby diminishing objectivity due to generations of conditioning.
We are perpetually inundated with ludicrous and damaging falsehoods, many cloaked in religious dogma, which serves as adhesive for their persistence. This type of religiously motivated propaganda erodes our approach to policies and investments in scientific research and education.
Moreover, other fields, such as medicine, economics, history, and social sciences, become entangled in this same convoluted mess. Conservatives tend to amalgamate various disciplines and policies with religious ideologies, aiming to incite public sentiment. No progressive and future-oriented democracy can endure, let alone flourish, when it operates as a religious-themed state.
This raises the question: what type of secularist, infidel, Sunni, Shia, Christian, or Yazidi faction are conservatives attempting to rally? Are we meant to replicate the atrocities committed by our imperialistic military complex in unjust wars? Instead of fostering unity among our diverse population, Christian nationalists often trigger factional strife, leading to disunion and national self-sabotage.
Additionally, conservatives often label secularism as a religion to undermine the value of secular spaces, thereby dismissing them entirely. This ironic tactic serves to disparage liberals and dissuade discussions surrounding secular society; does it imply that all religions are now perceived as threatening? Perhaps all religious constructs are redundant or inconsequential. Essentially, equating diverse societal structures with religion undermines the very essence of faith in a higher power.
While dreaming of a utopia is unrealistic, coercing acceptance of a specific faction or sect of Christianity as our guiding principle is fundamentally flawed. Such demands subvert the core tenets of a free society. Relying solely on generalized morals intertwined with religious beliefs may form a valid national value system, but being coerced into someone else’s doctrinal framework is not.
I see no freedom under the constraints of imposed religious dogmas. Unless, of course, it’s my hypothetical cannibal cult that society must worship… envisioning bite rites, blessed spices, and the classic Adam’s rib sauce. After stuffing with headcheese, we’d give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, garnish with a laurel wreath, and add an apple in the mouth… but I digress.
The exaggerated scenario above highlights why Christianity—or any religion—cannot be forced into our science and public education curricula. Such imposition creates a disordered and distasteful presentation, both orally and visually. Your deity does not operate schools; humans do, which means your conception of divinity holds no more authority than mine in determining educational or scientific standards. We must keep our gods in our places of worship, not in public schools or science classes across the U.S.
Religious Mixing Fuels Pseudoscience
Will some adherents continue to merge science with religion indefinitely? Likely. Is this mixing unconstitutional in every instance? No. Yet, except in areas concerning ethics and morality, the infusion of religion often leads to detrimental interference, or serves as a political maneuver rather than a genuine attempt to honor divinity. For instance, while abortion may be morally contentious from a religious standpoint, misrepresenting the scientific facts is contrary to both the biblical God and reality, and is a despicable way to sway public opinion.
How can we cultivate, discover, or even freely discuss new ideas—scientific or otherwise—when societal norms are dominated by religious ideologies that claim to have all the answers? Apologists for the blending of church and state fear this kind of intellectual freedom. If that’s not the case, why is secularism perceived negatively? Secular does not equate to the eradication of religion; rather, it signifies a plea to keep religious ideologies separate from secular spaces.
Those who attempt to force the mixing of oil and water fear their own cognitive space. The sectarian zealots, who highlight frightening instances where secularism allegedly faltered, overlook that religion has produced its own alarming historical moments. Many of these negative instances stem from the long-term positive transformations brought about by secular, democratic, and pluralistic societies. Recall that early American colonies were often unwelcoming to Catholics until the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, and animosity toward the “papists” persisted until recent decades. The Mormons also faced severe persecution in their early history.
Apologists for the mixing of church and state must engage in extreme rhetoric to undermine science, education, and other secular principles, thereby ensuring that the landscape for Americans remains perpetually unstable. How does confusing citizens about truth and inciting animosity toward the state aid us in progressing as a nation? It does not; it constitutes a treacherous assault on our collective future.
The issues of educational repression and regression manifest in scientific studies, impacting our understanding of gender, race, religion, and associated norms and policies. Given that a primary role of science is to shape the educational narrative surrounding physical discoveries, it frequently encounters opposition from various religious beliefs. Some contradictions stemming from new findings are swiftly dismissed by theologians, while others cultivate defiance over time, and a few provoke immediate outrage.
The historical confrontations between the church and science are epitomized by figures such as Copernicus and Galileo, who challenged the geocentric view of the solar system around 1600. Darwin’s theory of Natural Selection, introduced in 1859, faced a similar backlash, as did the modern discourse on human-induced climate change.
Misleading Science Presentations
The challenge with many scientific theories—leading to significant misinterpretation—lies in our incomplete understanding of their origins or the subsequent developments made by various scientists. Religious proponents often exploit inaccuracies or exaggerated claims regarding these misunderstandings or historical gaps in scientific knowledge.
For example, Darwin’s theories took years to gain traction before subsequent scientists refined and solidified them. If one only examines Darwin's original work, they miss out on a comprehensive understanding of the robust theory of evolution. Such historical gaps are often manipulated to misrepresent evolution and other scientific ideas.
One isolated element, or a single statement in a scientific text, can be disproportionately inflated beyond its original context. In Descent of Man, Darwin made problematic remarks about race and class, influenced by Malthus’s theories on overpopulation. However, scientists are human and may not always grasp the intricacies of their peers' work. Critics may misinterpret Malthus, leading to skewed representations. Thus, we must be discerning when consuming both positive and negative critiques, including my own.
Additionally, statements made by a scientist pivotal to a theory can be both accurate and inaccurate, yet the value of any theory does not hinge on those statements. Science transcends individual contributions.
Consider a hypothetical scenario: If I were the most reprehensible person alive today, yet my theories led to a cure for all cancers a century from now, future historians might disregard my personal legacy while still valuing my scientific contributions in classrooms worldwide.
Consequently, whenever you hear someone disparaging science based on a single scientist's commentary or actions, recognize that they are perpetuating poor science. The essence of science is not confined to individual personalities or their missteps; guilt by association only implicates the errant scientist, not the science itself. Only robust, honest, and thoroughly peer-reviewed scientific inquiry can challenge and rectify outdated theories.
Furthermore, religious groups often conflate terms like Darwinism with negative connotations, attempting to vilify the science of evolution. These juvenile responses and reductive narratives about scientific discoveries represent a grave misstep in civic discourse. Evolutionary science is not solely the domain of one individual; no scientific discipline can be attributed to a single person.
Indeed, while Darwin's contributions were monumental in shaping our understanding of species' origins and developments, subsequent eras have seen significant advancements and refinements in the theory of natural selection.
Pundits, religious leaders, and politicians who equate science with religion engage in a disingenuous transformation, leveraging this falsehood to deceive their followers. By inaccurately framing science and secular ideas as religions, they engage in a contemporary form of blasphemy, inciting discord against new knowledge.
These manipulators prey on the fears of Christian Americans, conjuring images of futuristic, secularist Druids cavorting with their Stonehenge® app in the year 2999. This narrative serves to instill fear of a multicultural future.
Evolution is biology, and biology is medicine. As we age, most of us will require medical care. How many Americans will reject evolution in the coming generation? My estimate is that only a few isolated groups will persist in their denial.
Another tactic of dumbing down scientific discourse involves linking valid science to pseudoscience or associating it with unethical practices. For instance, eugenics, a pseudoscientific ideology, was rhetorically inflated by Francis Galton, inspired by Darwin's Origin of Species.
Imagine a skin graft successfully placed over my eyes, even though I wished to see. Does this mean that the theory of skin grafting is flawed because one application was misguided? No. Skin grafting is founded on solid science, but even rigorous science can be misapplied.
Dismissing the scientifically validated skin grafting theory simply because of one dermatologist's error is irrational. Yet, proponents of pseudo-science will exploit every misrepresentation, fabrication, and distortion to create confusion.
We also conflate scientific studies with complete understanding. For instance: The butter is good for you this year, bad for you next year. While the terms theory and hypothesis are often used interchangeably, I view a scientific study as a hypothesis based on limited evidence, and a theory as a well-supported scientific conclusion. (My definitions may not align perfectly with dictionary definitions.)
Remember that many of these studies are communicated through the media, which often exaggerates findings or distorts their context. Headlines, in particular, can present extreme interpretations that extend beyond what a single study validates. This sensationalism may not always be intentional, but arises from a desire for higher viewership or from the errors of less experienced science writers.
The concept of scientific consensus is not inherently scientific; for the general public, it indicates a theory that has undergone thorough investigation by most scientists in a field, possessing predictive capability and remaining unrefuted.
This leads to my concluding thoughts on our scientific understanding. Science is an ongoing construction of knowledge. It may appear complete at times, yet remain unresolved. Gravity serves as a prime example. While most of us recognize gravity as a force and may have conducted experiments demonstrating its presence, scientists still do not fully understand what gravity actually “is,” only how it operates.
Scientists can possess extensive knowledge about a subject while presenting evidence that may seem tentative. Why is that?
Consider a meteorologist predicting a 100% chance of rain in your town, only for your neighborhood to remain dry all day. It did rain in town, but perhaps the meteorologist failed to specify what “in town” entailed. When discussing theory, scientists tend to exercise caution.
Scientists are generally reluctant to make broad claims without qualifying the parameters of predictions based on theories. This cautiousness is especially prevalent in climate science to prevent overstating conclusions. Nonetheless, the public may hear edited soundbites or live statements from scientists that lack necessary qualifiers due to time constraints. Moreover, inaccurately reported science by the media can further sow confusion.
Mistakes, out-of-context remarks, and isolated studies by scientists who focus solely on contrarian viewpoints serve as the most regrettable forms of scientific misinformation. They give rise to various conspiracy theories; the 2009 email climate gate incident is merely one example of how out-of-context statements can be manipulated.
If people still believe the moon landing was faked or that the earth is flat, it's unsurprising that many Americans resist more complex concepts like human-caused climate change and evolution.
Bear in mind that thousands of scientists are currently investigating climate realities, constructing computer models, and drafting reports. It is reasonable to conclude that some studies, models, or reports will contain erroneous data or projections. Such mistakes may be seized upon by climate science deniers, who will distort them into theories that undermine consensus.
One of the foundational reasons we understand climate change to be driven by human activity has been established for over a century. Scientists have thoroughly examined the properties of CO2. Simply put, increased CO2 levels contribute to global warming. The combustion of fossil fuels is the primary driver of rising carbon levels in the atmosphere. No alternative explanation accounts for the continuous increase in CO2 emissions year after year.
Religion is not the source of specific answers regarding the contemporary world:
CO2 science does not appear in the Bible; even the most tragic passages in Leviticus do not address it. The sermon on the mount failed to mention the warming planet, and Egyptian hieroglyphics were silent on climate science. Pilgrimages to Mecca did not include discussions about climatology, nor did Moses note rising sea levels after encountering the burning bush. The deity of Hinduism did not issue decrees concerning livestock emissions. Buddha, in his quest for enlightenment, did not meditate on fossil fuels.
The only significant uncertainties involve the speed at which global warming will inflict severe climate damage and the specific locations and timing of its impacts. Forecasting continues to improve. Will scientists soon be able to determine exactly how climate change will affect you, your town, or your state? No. That level of specificity requires numerous qualifiers. Waiting for complete accuracy in scientific predictions is highly problematic.
Perfect clarity is unattainable; science is not merely about straightforward equations. Instead, scientific theories are nuanced and qualified. I liken climate change theory to a medication commercial featuring disclaimers laden with dire warnings. A medication may be 99.999985% effective, but the drug company cannot predict its specific effects on any individual.
If we expect climate scientists to determine specific local warnings, it will be too late to reverse the rising tides and temperatures.
Word Usage Rule Intermission: Science is not a belief, even though both religious and non-religious individuals may use the term in reference to scientific matters. However, it is advisable to avoid using the terms belief and believe when discussing science with others, as these words can blur the lines between religion and science. Instead, use phrases like science indicates that… What I have learned is logical and sound. I believe climate science is accurate because it is supported by a multitude of data from various physical, biological, and environmental sources. Evolution aligns with other scientific disciplines, fossil records, and systematic reasoning.
The Shifting Goalposts of Science
How can we effectively educate everyone if we are never aligned on scientific principles? Using flawed science or misrepresenting scientific concepts to instill fear is deeply problematic. Science does not aim to invalidate religion. Religious advocates encounter difficulties when they assert that scientific uncertainties validate their belief in God’s supremacy.
Once someone claims, “Because science does not comprehend this phenomenon, God remains valid and supreme,” they have trapped themselves. The fervent promotion of creation theory among certain Christians stems from the realization of the earth’s age based on scientific evidence. This group has made the age of the earth an immovable goalpost—a grave mistake.
Analogy: Reframing the religious validity goalpost to align with gravity theory and suggesting that God exists within the unknowns of gravity is yet another trap. We might die before anything new about gravity is discovered, yet proponents of religious mixing will inevitably need to adjust the goalpost—likely in secrecy to avoid immediate embarrassment.
Religion should not hinge its validity on the cessation of scientific discoveries in sensitive domains, regardless of our current ignorance. In blunt terms, shifting goalposts is illogical and embarrassing. Relying on fabricated concepts, such as young earth creationism—an exaggerated interpretation of the Genesis narrative—or the nonsensical notion of intelligent design, represents a sad and ineffective attempt to curtail ongoing scientific inquiry.
The anti-evolution pseudoscience known as intelligent design serves as an example of how some religious groups distort reality to shield their beliefs from scrutiny or what they perceive as persecution. When one must resort to deception to gain acceptance, one must question their authenticity as a believer.
The False Claims of Persecution Among U.S. Christians
The distinction between perceived persecution and actual persecution is relatively straightforward. Yet, a considerable number of Christians feel they are being marginalized by secularism, which they believe is excluding them from society in harmful ways. However, the grievances they claim are not constitutionally protected. The myth they cling to, asserting their unique right to dominate societal norms, lacks substance.
Generally speaking, every American has access to the same spaces and opportunities as any other American. Whether one wears a yarmulke, a Catholic veil, or a hijab, access is granted. All individuals can express their opinions and ideas, regardless of religious affiliation. However, the Constitution does not mandate adherence to the religious tenets of any faith—be it Judeo-Christian or Islamic.
If Americans exclude specific religious beliefs from public policy, spaces, actions, or activities, this does not constitute persecution. Selectively barring individuals from practicing their faith is different, but maintaining specific religious ideologies in our collective consciousness and legal frameworks is neither mandated nor protected. Our Constitution was crafted by citizens of a democracy, not by religious leaders or institutions, emphasizing that governance cannot be dictated by any single religious doctrine.
Let us consider a scenario: if we transitioned from laws influenced by Southern Baptist ideologies to a system devoid of any religious laws, no persecution would occur. In such a case, the influence of Southern Baptist perspectives would diminish. But such is life!
Religion can coexist alongside the body politic and within individual citizens. The issue arises when zealots insist on infusing religious dogma into science and education policies. The underlying message from church-state advocates is that religion should overshadow governance because they believe their religious beliefs are superior to others. But which sect ultimately wields the most power?
The use of states' rights to inject religious ideologies into science curricula is reprehensible. However, this trajectory has been pursued since our nation's inception, undermining the integrity of education, particularly in the South. This has created a dual narrative in American history, contributing to dramatic disparities in educational performance, with Southern states often ranking lowest.
In 2020, anti-intellectualism does not fully dominate the South, nor do Republicans, conservatives, or Christian nationalists possess complete control. However, the elite white class of the Jim Crow and Antebellum South thrived on anti-intellectualism by offering minimal education to the impoverished white majority, which, in turn, meant that Black individuals received even less educational opportunity.
Anti-intellectualism persists today, exacerbated by the denial of scientific advancements. The peculiar blend of white nationalism and conservative Christianity resembles a Talibanization of education. While contemporary Christian conservatives approach these issues differently, many of the same sentiments endure. This is not solely confined to science.
The lack of commitment to educational opportunities for those unable to afford them is widespread. Republican-led school funding initiatives often result in inadequate resources. While funding does not always guarantee quality education, it significantly impacts the overall value derived from it. Neglecting to invest in every child means forfeiting immense potential.
How long can we sustain ourselves, let alone lead the world, when we maintain such an educational trapdoor?
A Brief History of Science Repression
Six years post-Darwin’s publication of Origin of Species, a monk near Prague authored a paper on dominant (D) and recessive (r) traits in plants. Gregor Mendel discovered that dominant traits appeared in “DD,” “Dr,” and “rD” plants, while recessive traits manifested only in “rr” plants—one in four. He shared his findings with fellow monks and circulated 40 copies of his paper to various scientists.
However, it took 34 years until his ideas gained traction, by 1899. While some claim Mendel exemplifies the church's role in scientific development, his story underscores the repressive and regressive societal structures that hindered scientific progress. First, it took decades for his research to permeate the scientific community, delaying the dismantling of unfounded evolutionary theories. Second, monks had historically been the sole educated individuals in society, with the church monopolizing financial resources until the late 18th century.
Monks also had the luxury of time for research, as they received tithes from parishioners and lived communally, free from familial obligations. Darwin, too, was able to devote himself to research largely due to his father’s wealth and the assistance of household staff. Meanwhile, contemporary scientists were often constrained by religious interpretations of the natural world, which stifled new ideas for decades following Darwin’s publication.
The experiences of both Darwin and Mendel illustrate that it is not merely genetics, financial status, or social standing that determines scientific advancement, but rather access to education, monetary resources, and sufficient free time for exploration. In many ways, despite our purported meritocratic society, both Darwin and Mendel were overlooked and undervalued, yet their passion for discovery led to groundbreaking revelations. Neither corporations nor religious institutions monopolize such ingenuity.
The diminishing returns and confusion stemming from intertwining divinity with science can be summarized succinctly. Below are “scientific theories” regarding the existence of God in our origin story:
- God is always present, hears our prayers, and created everything, including countless species—be it 33.61 million billion trillion or some similarly vast number—either through a big bang 4.5 billion years ago or 6,000 years ago without it. God is responsible for mass extinctions, natural disasters, and even fossil fuel consumption, thus absolving humanity of guilt regarding climate change.
- God created the universe, Adam and Eve, and a few animal species 6,000 years ago, remaining attentive to our prayers.
- God initiated the big bang and then allowed everything to unfold autonomously, maintaining a presence in some form.
- God initiated the big bang but subsequently distanced Himself from creation.
- God had no part in crafting the universe, yet is available to us in various forms, including having a son.
These points illustrate the myriad perspectives on the universe's origin and God’s role within it. Each of these theories is inherently unprovable, lacking consistent mathematical, observable, or physical evidence. Furthermore, no one can replicate double-blind experiments yielding consistent and verifiable results. The existence of multiple interpretations and sects only serves to complicate matters.
This raises further dilemmas: what happens when scientific discoveries reveal that God was not behind the big bang? Where do religious adherents shift their beliefs after such revelations?
The various theories regarding the universe's origin and God’s involvement highlight the absence of a straightforward path to scientific truth. The Christian religion lacks a unified or definitive stance on these matters. Such inconsistencies in religious interpretations cast doubt on any single religion's claim to possess exclusive access to scientific truth in various contexts.
Will churches continue to adapt to the current discourse, or will they persist in basing their beliefs on scientific knowledge? The lack of progress in this regard over the past quarter-century is perplexing.
So far, God has not been discovered as a force behind scientific phenomena. Quantum physics illustrates that the limits of science cannot and should not be tethered to our current understanding. How much further must science progress before believers recognize that God is “nowhere” from a scientific perspective?
In sum, science is distinct from religion, and religion cannot influence legitimate scientific inquiry. God does not exist before, after, or during scientific exploration; God is not a discoverable entity, nor is He an atom or a quantum particle. God operates parallel to science, remaining outside its realm. Ultimately, belief in God is optional in a secular, diverse, and pluralistic democracy.
The Excessive Influence of Religion in Society
I do not aim to dismiss the concept of God. The issue at hand revolves around the insistence that religion, science, and democracy must be intertwined. Are there moral considerations that intersect with scientific practice? Certainly. However, the influence of religion should not exert more sway over government policy or societal standards than any individual citizen, regardless of their beliefs.
The disproportionate impact of fundamentalist religion on education, science, history, and policy remains overly restrictive in a rapidly advancing era. We have witnessed a transition from state religions through the Articles of Confederation to the ratification of the Constitution. At that point, the doctrine of slavery rose to prominence, experiencing only a slight decline in religious influence during the westward expansion following the Civil War, particularly in the Jim Crow South.
During the exaggerated fears of communism from the 1920s until the early 1990s, religion regained some of its national prominence. This religious era peaked when the fervent zealots introduced the phrase “under God” into the Pledge of Allegiance in 1951. Notably, fear often precedes a surge in religious authority. Americans struggle to confront the fears of damnation that have persisted in our consciousness due to centuries of religious influence.
It is crucial to recognize that this religious influence poses significant challenges to our governance. If religious faith remained a deeply private matter, yet one could discuss it freely in public, the impact of faith on political discourse would be far less pronounced. We would engage in more rational and coherent decision-making without the overwhelming influence of religious dogmas.
When will we cease the harmful practices and misguided studies we still conduct today under the guise of religion, and move toward genuine progress?
To some extent, our wars on everything, including terrorism, stem from the intersection of religion and policy. Consider how many fewer conflicts we might have endured if Christianity had not been so deeply woven into the institution of slavery. The animosity generated from this racial conflation has perpetuated the hostility toward those who differ from us. We have yet to disentangle religious convictions—often steeped in prejudice and ignorance—from the shameful chapters of our history, including slavery, Jim Crow laws, the war on drugs, the Chinese Exclusion Act, the repatriation of Mexican Americans, Japanese internment, and the banning of Muslims.
If slavery successfully incorporated Christianity, there is a significant risk that dangerous religious ideologies could infiltrate other societal and governmental domains. Thus, expanding our understanding of belief beyond religion may help illustrate how human cognition can shape belief into any form.
Consider the myriad belief systems that have emerged since our nation’s founding. Some are religious, while others operate on a spectrum of conspiratorial thinking. These range from QAnon to Jim Jones, from the KKK to neo-Nazis, from the John Birch Society to Scientology, and from Mormonism to the Nation of Islam.
While these groups exhibit considerable diversity, none can claim immunity from serious flaws or negative legacies; all religions have, at some point, engaged in harmful practices. Their commonality lies in the fact that their adherents hold beliefs that many of us find untenable. How can we justify the mixing of science, education, and governance with Christianity in any meaningful or sustained manner?
It is essential to recognize that Christianity has historically validated abhorrent forms of government-sanctioned racism for at least the first 190 years of our nation’s existence. The war on drugs and the resulting mass incarceration have further perpetuated this entanglement, extending into the present day. Religion has sanctioned the slaughter of a significant portion of the indigenous population. In Indian boarding schools, Catholics brutally enforced assimilation upon Native American children, stripping them of their cultural identities.
Jim Jones represented an extreme manifestation of belief, but America continues to sanction war, torture, and execution through its religiously influenced governance. The narrative that “the only true God follows us, the righteous, into battle” is a dangerous one.
Protestant and Catholic Christians are not inherently the worst actors. However, the issues arise from the fallacy that they possess an unassailable perspective on truth, fairness, and reality. Could Christians possess unique qualities beneficial to a well-functioning nation? Perhaps. However, this does not justify granting them greater political influence based solely on their purported righteousness.
If I am not mistaken, arrogance and pride are recurring themes in what some Christians deem their sacred texts. Neither progressive nor conservative Christians—or adherents of any religious sect—hold an exclusive claim to truth, fairness, or honesty, even if some may exhibit more hubris than others. Were everyone within a ruling sect to embody the virtues of their idealized deity, perhaps no one would object to the governance of religion; but that is manifestly not the case.
In a pluralistic, diverse, and secular society, religion must not elevate its doctrines above the rights of citizens. While a sect may engineer an electoral victory, the rights of individuals must never be dictated by a minority or majority bloc.
Women's suffrage serves as a prime example of why voting cannot dictate individual rights. For an extended period, men—particularly wealthy white men—exercised control over this issue, while their spouses benefitted from their exclusion. Thus, women could have been denied suffrage for decades or longer. Such rights should always be self-evident and inalienable. Unfortunately, we continue to regress in many areas.
Religion has been weaponized to deny rights to various marginalized groups, with slavery representing the most egregious instance. There are two primary domains where religious beliefs exert a detrimental influence: LGBT rights and the legal system. While religion is not irrelevant, an overreach by any single faith in a democratic society is predisposed to abuse. To curtail this issue, we must examine each situation without reference to religious texts as constitutional benchmarks.
Basic morality has evolved through cultural and familial mechanisms, with religion serving as one component of that evolution. To attribute the origins of morality solely to religion is overly simplistic and circular in reasoning. For instance, the question of whether we require divine intervention to discern the wrongness of murder was addressed by Plato over 2,500 years ago. The notion that one Middle Eastern religion should dictate human morality is even less tenable.
Despite the legalization of same-sex marriage nationwide through a Supreme Court decision in 2015, not all Americans have fully accepted this change. The societal divisions surrounding this issue hinder our progress in numerous ways. Absent religious considerations, resolving rights issues would likely be more straightforward. Yet, judges often inject their religious biases into rulings.
The anti-same-sex marriage justices would have aligned with Roger B. Taney in his Dred Scott decision, with only minor textual modifications. Laws prohibiting interracial relationships and marriages were fueled by “Christian” morals. An elaborate theological framework was constructed to justify these “immoral” acts, including slavery. The discomfort many feel regarding related sexual activities, influenced by theology, predisposed justices and voters to fabricate extralegal reasons for excluding Black Americans and same-sex couples from mainstream society.
While interracial and same-sex marriages may be viewed differently by various religious adherents, the foundation for excluding either group from rights afforded to heterosexual couples stems from a convoluted mix of theological precepts. Should the laws of Leviticus hold greater weight than those supporting slavery? Perhaps we should let Scientologists or the most recently established religion have the final say.
Morality is what we collectively assert it to be as a nation, as long as it does not vary simply based on race, gender, or personal choices. Allowing one religion to dictate our collective morals today, only for another to prevail tomorrow, is nonsensical. Why should I accept your Christian nationalist morals simply because your ancestral faith arrived first, having also crafted a despicable theology that condoned slavery?
The legal system is another arena where conservative religious ideologies dominate our perspectives, policies, and punishments. Retribution has gained prominence over the last 40 to 50 years. Our prison system has deteriorated into a profit-driven enterprise, reminiscent of the Jim Crow South after the abolition of slavery, which still sought a cheap labor force. Now, corporations own the prisons, benefiting from the alliance between the Republican Party and conservative Christians that emerged in the late 1970s. This unholy coalition perpetuates increasingly draconian laws and exacerbates the exploitative gig economy.
While conservatives argue that abortion constitutes murder, they simultaneously permit the harassment, over-policing, and brutalization of Black Americans—who are disproportionately arrested, imprisoned, and executed—by law enforcement. Note that Black Americans also face significant disparities in wealth compared to white Christian conservatives and other Republicans. This correlation is far from coincidental.
Over the last four decades, the systematic dismantling of programs aimed at assisting the poor reflects the priorities of this coalition. The fusion of retributive religious ideologies, racism, states' rights violations, and greed ensures that Black Americans are continually marginalized.
The collaboration between fundamentalist religious groups and the wealthiest political elites represents a contemporary iteration of the papal state. The ruling class excommunicates competitors, neglects the education of the masses, and exploits the most vulnerable, including the mentally ill, impoverished, and homeless. This means that today’s Galileos and the broader serf population, like myself, must remain vigilant and prepare to rise against injustice.
The Religion of Economics
It seems futile to address this topic for those entrenched in extreme economic ideologies, as changing their minds appears unlikely. However, I aim to engage citizens who occupy a middle ground or those struggling to comprehend our economic system. Regardless, economics operates as another powerful, faith-driven enterprise—at least in part—therefore warranting discussion.
I am skeptical of socialism, capitalism, “free” markets, and collectives. My acceptance of economic theories proposed by Smith, Marx, Hayek, Keynes, Friedman, and Krugman is lukewarm at best. Just as with individuals, the ideas put forth by economists are not infallible, nor are the theories they produce, regardless of whether they have received Nobel recognition. While sound science builds upon itself, economics often dwells in subjective ambiguity.
Consequently, economics is more susceptible to faith-based manipulation. This phenomenon transcends traditional religious beliefs, as individuals on both sides of the spectrum may share common ground.
The spectrum of economic beliefs ranges from staunch socialists to democratic socialists, centrist market proponents who support some regulations, laissez-faire libertarians, and dogmatic survivalists. My perspective hinges on whatever genuinely works best. Yet, acknowledging reality often lacks the emotional appeal needed to resonate within the human experience, where even the most rational approaches may struggle to gain traction.
The amalgamation of religious absolutism, veneration of billionaires, conspiracy theories, and faith-based economic ideologies complicates the pursuit of solutions that prioritize practical efficacy. This is not solely a conservative issue; liberals may also find themselves entangled in these dynamics, hindering their ability to forge consistent paths forward.
Separating the emotional dimensions of belief from problem-solving may offer a way forward. Numerous books and articles suggest that gradual transformation—akin to the populist movements of the 1890s or FDR’s policies in the 1940s—could yield significant change over time. Labor unions underwent similar transformations until their influence was stifled by conservatives.
Implementing the gradual, dogmatic, and pragmatic strategies that Republicans have employed over the past fifty years may be necessary. Achieving meaningful change often requires a generational effort. While liberals and progressives achieved notable successes prior to the Nixon era, numerous setbacks occurred during the Reagan and Bush administrations, and now under Trump. If it takes another 20 to 30 years to rectify these failures, should we not consider alternative strategies that align with contemporary realities, our diverse coalition, and the tumultuous emotions driving unproductive activities on all sides?
We the People require a more robust advocacy network capable of bridging polarized politics.
Even after nearly 250 years, we still do not provide equal education for all children. As an advanced nation, we are reducing funding for science, hampering innovation, and failing to support individuals equitably in their pursuit of success. Are we truly content to wait for a faith-based “free” market to magically elevate fifty million working-class individuals into healthcare, food security, and stable housing? If so, we must view tens of millions of Americans as irresponsible. What kind of Christian endorses such an assumption?
Many adherents of Ayn Rand's philosophy advocate for minimal government involvement, asserting that no assistance should be offered to those in need in the 21st century. This perspective, rooted in an ancient text or perhaps an outdated interpretation, fails to account for modern realities. Ultimately, any human interpretation that posits certainty about what Jesus would think in a contemporary democracy regarding taxation is mere wishful thinking.
The Empire of the Empty Suits
These arguments against religious influence may come across as exaggerated to some Americans. “The power of religion is not that evident or pervasive. You are merely an overreacting liberal, the kind of secularist we should be wary of!” This may hold true in isolated instances, yet my focus is on the cumulative and overarching impacts of religious zealotry on politics, science, and education.
Being fervently devoted to one's religion is acceptable, but our nation—and every state—cannot belong exclusively to any single person's or group's faith.