Religion in America
Stephanie Nicole McDaniel
The Idea of America in European Thought
Professor Alan Levine
May 5th, 2006
This is an original paper and cannot be legally redistributed or copied without authorization from the author.
Religion in America
A principle commonly held in liberal democracies asserts that a separation of church and state must exist for a people to be free from overbearing religious interference in the government. Whether openly acknowledged by the people or not, however, religion and democracy in America are inherently linked in a relationship of mutual benefit and dependence. If this observation is entirely true, then the destiny of one depends on the other; and if religion is removed from the equation, then democracy may too fall to ruin.
This paper seeks primarily to determine whether or not it is necessary for religion and democracy to be connected in a symbiotic relationship; and secondarily, to predict what the current state of religion means for democracy in the western world. Many writers, sociologists, and philosophers during their travels have observed the nuances between the formal and informal institutions existing within America. Based on their findings, a trend has developed that would lead to an idea that religion, though intended to remain constitutionally separate, has found its way into the government of America, finding root as a check on democracy. In this way, religion acts as a moral law in areas where actual law has no force. If this “moral restraint” were to be taken away, what would that mean for democracy? What would happen if democracy were to eventually die?
Focusing on Alexis de Tocqueville, with supplements from Harriet Martineau and James Bryce, this paper will examine the nineteenth century view of religion in America, before turning to the dissection of the purported present condition of failing religiosity with the help of more modern thinkers and facts. The problem is that if religion and liberal democracy are each found to be essential for supporting the other, and current thinkers are proposing the decline of religion, then democracy will inevitably fail.
The current trend in America is not entirely conclusive as to whether or not religion is prospering or dying out. Although people are reported to be growing more religious, the religious authorities and institutions are failing. Actions that were forbidden by societal standards in the nineteenth century are running rampant in the nation today, possibly due to declining religion. Also, in comparison to America, the religious status of Europe today is one of torpor at best. If religion in Europe is practically nonexistent and will only become more-so in the future, as predicted by Habermas, then what does that mean for Europe? If nothing comes to take the place of religion once it is gone (if that is even necessary) is the entire democratized world destined for dereliction and heading straight for “democratic despotism?”
Exploring America
The nineteenth century saw much mental exploration into the ideas of democracy, expressed in a physical exploration of the land of democracy – America. Among those Europeans who embarked on this journey of studious observation were the three people from whom the main argument of this paper comes: Alexis de Tocqueville, Harriet Martineau, and James Bryce.
All three authors came to America with certain objectives. Harriet Martineau was an English abolitionist who went in search of the morals followed within American life. The daughter of a Unitarian minister, she was well versed in religious practice and believed strongly in a liberal political ideology which she helped to create. Because of her background in political and religious ideas, her study of America focused mainly on the morals and manners of the nation. James Bryce, also hailing from England, was acting as ambassador to the U.S. in Washington, D.C. during the time of his study of America. With his expertise as an historian, he placed most of his efforts in observing and describing the institutions of the nation, instead of engaging in a debate on its morals. Consequently, he is not as concerned with the status of religion within America as he is with how it affects American democracy. Finally, Alexis de Tocqueville was a French sociologist who wanted to study democracy because he predicted that its influence would soon spread out across the Atlantic Ocean to Europe. Having noticed the early signs that this process had already begun, he hoped to be able to determine the good and negative aspects of democracy so Europe would be able to promote the good and protect against the bad. Acting today as the single best descriptor of the United States in its history as a nation, he goes into great depth both in the institutional and moral viewpoints of America, describing both its forms of governance and its “mores,” as he deemed them.
The America the three authors found on their journey contributed largely in their interpretation of the balance between democracy and religion. Just before the time of their visits, the second great awakening had swept through the nation with its “exciting preaching and external demonstrations of feeling,” (Bryce 577) leaving in its wake the resurgence of protestant religiosity and liberal values. In contrast to the formal, constraining churches of Europe, “a congregation [in America] … is the center of a group of societies, literary and recreative as well as religious and philanthropic, which not only stimulate charitable work, but bring the poorer and richer members into friendly relations with one another” (Bryce 577). In America, protestant churches, people come together because of their faith and their faith makes them equal, despite their social or economic class. This feeling of religious equality spread out beyond the pulpit into the lives of everyday Americans. Religion was so apparent and forceful in the nation at this time that it affected the morals and ethics of the people not only when they were in church because church was everywhere around them.
Religion quickly became something other than itself. It became the social phenomenon of the nation and the effect of this transition still affects the country today. As Tocqueville, Bryce, and Martineau described, the rampant protestant religiosity surging across the country had a powerful link with democracy. “The spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom … these two apparently opposed tendencies work in harmony [in America] and seem to lend mutual support” (Tocqueville qtd. in Novak 59). Religion aided in shaping American democracy, was helped to strengthen and survive by American democracy, and remains a significant check on American democracy to this day.
The Separation of Church and State
The first question to consider in resolving the problem of a possible necessary tie between religion and democracy is whether or not the institution of the separation of church and state is beneficial.
In looking at the main arguments currently being proposed, one discovers two extreme opinions. Argument one: democracy will be destroyed by the interference of religion. America was founded, according to these proponents, on the idea of religious freedom because of the memory of the Catholic Church’s interference with the governments of Europe. The decision to live or die was commonly associated with whether or not one believed in the same religion as one’s prosecutor. Since the laws of the church and the laws of nations were intricately tied, many thousands were killed because they would not follow the laws of a religion in which they did not believe.
Out of the fear of a religious persecution existing in this country of freedom, the apprehensive have devised a “wall of separation” to keep religion and politics firmly apart, free from entanglement. In this system, government and politics are to be fashioned in the bleakest of equality, in which no part of either is at all influenced by religious feeling, and any religion that has had impact must be removed.
Argument two: the public needs to be continually awash in religious influence to keep them from going astray. In the world today, religious influence is losing ground and people are turning away from the teachings of the church. If the people are not reminded of their moral imperatives, as is claimed, they will only further decay into the decadent and immoral behavior that is all too easily found in a democracy. They believe that people are naturally evil and when left to their own standards, they will quickly turn towards this evil. The only institution keeping people in check, for the advocates of religiosity, is not the law of the nation, but instead the laws of religious principles, which will leave the nation with a guilty fear of God which will insure their continued behavior.
As this paper will soon argue, there can be a balance between the two extremes and to find and uphold that balance is of necessity. Religion has a place in democracy in many ways. Because the protestant religion found such solid ground in America before its founding, the moral principles of said religion were implanted into the spirit of the nation and its people in the principles of democracy.
Furthermore, the continued ardent belief in these protestant religious principles of equality and kindness has a lasting impact on the success of democracy in America. Because the people inherently follow by these principles, they are not led astray into evil even though they are granted the opportunity continuously. If people already have a reason to be moral, it is no longer necessary for the law to force them to be so.
In contrast, religion should remain separated from the state in part because of the reasons described by those fearful of the past, and in part for other reasons entirely. A state supported religion is bad for the state because the laws could be affected, unfairly persecuting those who do not believe in the religion of the majority. If religion and the state were tied, though, religion would be hurt far more in a democratic government. Religion needs to be left on its own to grow and shape itself, free from the boundaries of the government.
Is a separation of church and state beneficial? Yes and no. In due course this answer will be explained in more detail, and has been explained somewhat so far, but for now one idea is important to be left to ponder on. Whether or not it is beneficial, is there an active separation of church and state in the United States? Not being mentioned in the law as fully as the wall proposed by those fearful of the past, the constitution only provides for a freedom of religion and the promise that the state will never support any particular religion. If this is in fact true, then religion is allowed to permeate into certain spheres of the state involving morality, principles, and ethics, and already since this country’s inception. Whether or not this is entirely advantageous, however, is yet to be seen.
Religion and Democracy
As was described by Tocqueville, Bryce, and Martineau, Religion and democracy are tied together in a symbiotic relationship. Religious values form the perfect breeding ground for democratic values. Because democracy was allowed to form in an environment of universal equality and liberty, freedom came naturally to the new government. Thus religion strengthens democracy and provides a necessary check on the freedom that it helped to create. Because the people in a democracy are the source of the laws, they are free to do as they please. To contain immorality and corruption, it becomes necessary for a higher authority, id est religion, to keep the people from exercising their freedom to negatively impact others. Thus religion provides a check on the democracy it helped establish. The relationship is mutual; just religion strengthens democracy, democracy strengthens religion. Because the church and government are separated in a democracy, religion is allowed to grow and flourish within its own sphere, free from governmental interference. If religion had been tied down to the government, it would be weakened, if not obliterated, because of the narrow constrictions of government. Finally, because they are so closely tied, if religion and democracy were ever to be untied, disaster would follow. If religion were to die, then democracy, and freedom along with it, would also end.
The democracy found in America was established on the hopes of a religious minority fleeing castigation and persecution. Naturally, their history of torment had an effect upon the laws of the country they were creating. American Protestants held onto their religion so dearly that many died for the sake of their beliefs. It became ingrained into their souls, and consequently became ingrained into the laws of the land.
Religion in America is described as an all-encompassing spirit; it not only follows people when they are in church, but it permeates into their daily lives. Martineau specifically mentioned the effect of religious principles on the people of the U.S. She observed how, in “the last possible test of the conviction of human equality,” “the people of colour [were] welcome to worship with the whites,--actually intermingled with them, instead of being set apart in a gallery appropriated to them.” In a time of severe racism abounding through the country in the form of hatred and murder, skin color did not matter once people set foot in the house of god because there, all people were equal. Bryce described the source of this phenomenon well when he wrote that the “ethical standard of the average man is of course the Christian standard; [it is] the source whence he believes himself to have drawn his ideas of duty and conduct” (Bryce 580). These ideas eventually translate into the civic duty and design for government that led to the creation of the American form of democracy.
All three of the authors agree on the obvious influence of protestant religious values in the government and institutions of the United States. Martineau mentions several times that democracy in America is affected by a pure form of Protestantism; it has been “planted down deep into the Christian religion, into its principles.” The principles that both democracy and religion share, among others, are liberty, justice, and equality. “Christianity, which has declared all men equal in the sight of god, cannot hesitate to acknowledge all citizens equal before the law” (Tocqueville 16).
Easily unearthed in the documents the founding fathers created to espouse the values of the newly birthed United States, the values taught by Protestantism say that every man is at liberty to serve god in his own way, only god can be the judge of the hearts of man, and all the people, being created similarly by god, are therefore equal in the eyes of god, just as “the laws of nature and nature’s god” made all men equal and “endowed them with certain unalienable rights” (Declaration of Independence).
Being the most religious of the three writers, Martineau describes the value of Christianity to American democracy with an immense strength of conviction:
The Christian religion is specified as being the highest fact in the rights of man from its embodying … the principle of natural religion … In it may be found a sanction of all just claims of political and social equality; for it proclaims … the fact of the natural equality of men. In giving forth this as its grand doctrine, it is indeed "the root of all democracy;" the root of the maxim … that among the inalienable rights of all men are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; …
Had it not been for the religious tradition following the pilgrims over the Atlantic Ocean, the American government today might not be comprised of a democratic form of government. Unlike the other authors, Tocqueville concentrates especially on his own religious upbringing when he examines the catholic affinity to an “equality of conditions” (288). He indicates both how the hierarchy of Catholicism forces the “poor” (289) Catholics on a low level equal to one another and how the beliefs of Catholics put them in a minority of the citizens of the world. Therefore, they are likely, being neither “rich” nor “predominant,” to adopt a Democratic Republican form of government because “unless all citizens govern, they will never attain to the government themselves … [and] it is important for them that all rights should be respected so that they can be sure they enjoy their own in freedom” (Tocqueville 289).
This freedom in equality creates problems, however, because of the equality freely shared. If all people are equal under the law, then, because no one person naturally stands better than the rest, all of the people should have an equal share in ruling themselves. Consequently, if all people are granted an equal vote, the only way to decide on issues will be to count a majority of the opinions and use that majority as the deciding factor. Unfortunately, not all people will agree on all issues and there will necessarily be certain people relegated to a minority of the opinion. The minority will be then outnumbered by the majority and their voices and ideas will be lost in the count. This system of rule has been identified as a “tyranny of the majority,” because “the majority rules in the name of the people,” (Tocqueville 173) instead of a single monarch ruling.
A problem arises because of the possibility that the same oppression the pilgrims found with a monarch could come to pass under a tyranny of citizens supported by the laws of a democracy. “It is an old saying that monarchies live by honor and republics by virtue. The more democratic republics become, the more the masses grow conscious of their own power, the more do they need to live, not only by patriotism, but by reverence and self-control, and the more essential to their well-being are those sources whence reverence and self-control flow” (Bryce 583). Because the citizens of a democracy are “oppressed by an excess of freedom,” (Manent 96) they need some force to control their passions and ensure that they do not become bad people and burdensome citizens. Laws alone will not control these urges; the laws do not encompass the totality of crimes to which humans are subject.
This main source of self-control used by democratic citizens is religion. Both Tocqueville and Bryce espouse the fact that “only religion can really moderate democracy” (Manent 86). And even though Martineau never states this idea outright in Society in America, she continually makes references to duty and moral imperatives springing from religious obligations controlling behavior. Religion serves as the moderator of people’s passions. It blocks the inhumane urges inherent in man before they have a chance to reach the surface of the imagination and wreak havoc on the world. “While the law allows the American people to do everything, there are things which religion prevents them from imagining and forbids them to dare” (Tocqueville 292). Although the laws control the majority of actions that have a directly negative influence on people, there are no laws that will control indirect influences or force people to have a positive impact on the lives of others. Accordingly, religion provides the indirect source necessary to impede the more negative side of humanity that a democratic government cannot.
Religion, which offers this moral restraint, although it is not written into the laws of the United States, has a very present indirect influence on the mores (“the whole moral and intellectual state” (Tocqueville 287)) of the people inhabiting the United States. The reasoning behind this restraint is actually very simple. Tocqueville invented the idea of self-interest properly understood while writing his book, Democracy in America. A person’s self interest properly understood is merely taking one’s self interest in the long term instead of in the short term, because what is beneficial immediately may not be so later on. When good is relinquished temporarily, however, the future returns may be worth more than the original good ever was. Therefore, to get the most benefit, one must look to one’s long term self interest, or a self interest that it is properly understood.
When the idea of self-interest properly understood is applied to religion, the long term ceases to be twenty weeks or even years in the future. What people look to in this case is the afterlife. Although one may have to give up something that would provide pleasure in this life, that pleasure is limited when compared to the pleasure that might be sacrificed in a later life. Consequently, those who are religious would be wise to go through life acting with their afterlife in mind.
Because of the religion rampant in the United States, Americans are always going through the daily activities of life as if tabs were being kept on behavior; they are always “pleased to explain almost all the actions of their life with the aid of self-interest properly understood; they complacently show how the enlightened love of themselves constantly brings them to aid each other and disposes them willingly to sacrifice a part of their time and their wealth to the good of the state” (Tocqueville Qtd. in Novak, 102). People do good beyond what is expected of them because they have hopes for a pleasing life after death. If they do not do more than what they are told is necessary, in essence, if they follow only the law of the state and not the law of God, then they will be doomed to eternal damnation. Consequently, it is in their long-term benefit – their self interest properly understood as it relates to religion – to give up what material goods and time they may have been granted in this life. Religion makes being good to others beneficial to each individual person. In reality, being a good person is beneficial to mankind, but the average person does not have the capability to find merit in an outcome without immediate results.
Tocqueville admits that the potential greatness of Americans is stifled because of their need to cling to Christian morals. Thus religion, this check on democracy, stands firmly as the strongest savior of the American spirit. “American revolutionaries are obliged ostensibly to profess a certain respect for Christian moral equity, and this does not allow them easily to break the laws when those are opposed to the execution of their designs; nor would they find it easy to surmount the scruples of their partisans even if they were able to get over their own” (Tocqueville 292). Because of the intense religiosity of the Americans, they can also be expected to be more civil to their fellow man and more generous with earthly matters. The fear of God has been implanted into their minds so that they no longer need to be told that everyone is equal and must therefore be treated with kindness and respect. Those who have should give to those who do not. Americans, as is commonly said, are kinder and give more comparatively to what they have. “In works of active beneficence no country has surpassed, perhaps none has equaled, the United States.” More money, relatively based on wealth, is given; and both personal interest and effort are shown in and devoted to good works far more commonly in America than any European country (Bryce 579).
This method of being kind for the sake of kindness creates the perfect balance with the democratic system of government. When freedom is naturally more common than restraint, mankind needs some other institution to keep their freedom in check. If people are inherently forced to be good because of their religious beliefs, then there remains no need for state governed laws. Nonetheless, this system of inspiring fear and hope of a second life after death fails when people no longer consider their religion pertinent or true. “Though it is very important for man as an individual that his religion should be true, that is not the case for society. Society has nothing to fear or hope from another life; what is most important for it is not that all citizens should profess the true religion, but that they should profess religion.” (Tocqueville 290).
The question then becomes: what happens when people do not profess any religion at all? As has been the case in history, governments feared the onslaught of this very situation and tried to prevent its arrival by allowing religion to be supported by the government. As both Tocqueville and Martineau argue this is the single worst move the government can make. Once a religion is linked with a state government, it is one with that government in every way. One of two outcomes will be likely to then transpire.
“When a religion seeks to found its sway only on the longing for immortality equally tormenting every human heart, it can aspire to universality; but when it comes to uniting itself with a government, it must adopt maxims which apply only to certain nations. Therefore, by allying itself with any political power, religion increases its strength over some, but forfeits the hope of reigning over all; …” (Tocqueville 297).
In this case, both the government and the religion remain strong, but the government does not hold sway over people in other governments, or even over all of those residing within its sphere of influence. Because those people do not associate with the political power tied to the government, they do not associate with the religious power tied to it either. The religion is then immediately weakened because it will never be able to claim the hearts of all, and will thus never be truly ‘universal.’
The second possibility is that when a government has a religion affiliated with it in order that the religion may remain strong, the government itself might not necessarily remain strong. If the government fails, because the religion is so intrinsically connected to it, the religion will die as well. In accordance with Tocqueville, “To want to aid religion by fusing it to the political order is in reality to weaken it, especially in democratic centuries when political institutions are so fragile and subject to such frequent changes. In order to give religion its full force, it is necessary to leave religion to its own force alone” (88). As stated above, democratic governments are especially susceptible to complete changes of power. Every four years in the United States could possibly see polar opposites as head of state and in the different branches of government. With a support mechanism that is this unstable, attempting to align religion with the government is reckless if not impossible.
Religion is supposed to be the stability people find in life. If God created the world, God is the one thing that never changes; God is who people count on. By putting God and the eternal, sacred other on the same level as the temporary, earthly profane merely diminishes it, while simultaneously threatening its continued existence. Therefore, “Christianity needs no protection from the State, but will commend itself to human hearts better without” (Martineau).
When forming the soon-to-be American government, several of the framers realized what role religion should have in the government and what the best way to protect it was. Madison, in particular, fought for a separation of church and state. He thought correctly that “the churches would be stronger the freer they were from government assistance” (Madison Qtd. in Novak 57). The american separation that he in particular fought so frantically for “had led to an unprecedented vitality in the churches, especially when compared with Christianity in Europe” (Madison Qtd. in Novak 57).
Tocqueville too wondered in awe at the striking difference in religiosity between the American and European people. In order to discover the source of this difference he spoke with clergy and religious men across the country and always came back with the same answer. Among the men he asked, “all thought that the main reason for the quite sway of religion over their country was the complete separation of church and state” (295).
A few pages later in the book, Tocqueville acknowledges that religion is not as powerful as it has ever been as it was seen at that time in America, but he contends that its influence is more lasting. Because religion “restricts itself to its own resources, of which no one can deprive it; it functions in one sphere only, but it pervades it and dominates there without effort” (299). When it is allowed to develop and mature on its own, religion is able to shape itself to the needs of the people more wholly than if it were ever constrained by any government. It can grow both more liberal and conservative with the time at the whims of a wavering audience. If a new world is discovered across an ocean and a new, unexplained people found, or if scientists learn of other planets, other life in outer space, religion, left to its own devices, can adapt to fit into a changing world. Continually growing on the hearts and minds of the people on whom it has placed belief, God will never cease to be eternal and sacred and religion will never cease to be universal, just by being.
Therefore, as government and religion are left on their own, one can provide freedom for its people and the other can constrain the people from taking advantage of that freedom at the expense of others. “Freedom sees religion as the companion of its struggles and triumphs, the cradle of its infancy, and the divine source of its rights. Religion is considered as the guardian of mores, and mores are regarded as the guarantee of the laws and the pledge for the maintenance of freedom itself” (Novak 46). In essence, freedom and religion go hand in hand. Religion sparked the belief in freedom, while keeping the people moral and good, and that morality then ensures that freedom will not be brought to ruin by its mere existence.
This relationship, though seemingly perfect, balances on a thread of insecurity. If democracy and religion are inherently intertwined in this symbiotic relationship, is it not then common sense that they need each other to continue in existence? What should happen to democracy, and thus freedom, if religion were ever to fail? And for what reasons would religion be likely to fail?
Only on this last point do the three writers differ greatly. Although Tocqueville and Bryce paint a bleak picture of the world without religion, Martineau has a greater store of optimism for its future. Although she is consistently criticizing the clergy for becoming too lax and secular in their work in order to appeal to the masses and standing idly by while crimes against humanity like slavery occur right under their ministries of peace and equality, she does not mention the possibility that they may need to act this way in order to prevent the downward trend of religiosity. Attributing this to her background as the daughter of a Unitarian minister and a devout Unitarian herself, the reader is forced to assume she is not entirely aware of the state of the nation as separate from how she perceives it should be.
Bryce, however, adamantly states that “if morality was weakened because the beliefs on which it rested were to vanish, there [would be] a higher danger that the government might be overthrown and violence reign because in America there is no unyielding authority, merely the will of the people, who may think it right” (582). Concurrent with the theories presented above, he believes that because the laws of the state government rest on the whims of the people within the state, if they all suddenly ceased to be moral and hold the values that religions teach, they would have nothing to rely on but themselves to stop the impending harm.
Tocqueville makes a similar argument in support of the idea that religion is an absolutely necessary check on democracy when he contends that:
Despotism may be able to do without faith, but freedom cannot. Religion is much more needed in the republic they advocate than in the monarchy they attack, and in democratic republics most of all. How could society escape destruction if, when political ties are relaxed, moral ties are not tightened? And what can be done with a people master of itself if it is not subject to God? … (294)
Reiterating the central point of this paper, Tocqueville asserts that with freedom unleashed, people need some other force to constrain their natural tendencies, or destruction will follow. He asks an interesting question: if the people are indeed equal and free to rule over themselves, to what authority do they look? Who, in the end, is in charge of the well-being of the nation? The people alone cannot be trusted to know what is best for them, so who can be trusted better than God?
Current Religiosity of America
When looking at the current state of religion in America, one is presented with an apparent contradiction. Although religious morals seem to be declining with the rise of activity that used to be shunned by polite society, people are, in fact, not becoming less religious. Religion is changing in America. Spirituality is on the rise and even with church attendance waning, a belief in god remains an average trait of the common American.
In a society where social acceptance meant everything from finding a job to living in a good neighborhood, when societal standards forced the public shunning of divorced women and homosexuals, standards are rapidly falling. The old taboos have become a thing of the past. If someone was not of the norm, he would be forced to hide his differences for fear of castigation. All of that is changing now. There is prominent discussion of gay marriage as a legal right; increasingly more children are being born out of wedlock and raised by single mothers, divorce rates are sharply rising, and abortion is protected by the United States Supreme Court. All of these ideas used to be deemed unacceptable in a Christian society because of the bible’s teachings, but now they are running rampant in the face of conservative society. The question is, does this trend show proof of a failing American religiosity?
“Recent polling by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press and the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life found that 96% of the public says they believe in God or some form of Supreme Being.” Astoundingly enough, this number correlates with a similar poll conducted in the sixties, during the rise of communism and anti-religious murmurings across the world. Thus, it would appear that religious belief in the United States has remained strong through modern times. Furthermore, pew polling found that religion in the United States has not only private, but public and political implications. As it turns out, only race was a better demographic predictor of voting in the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections than church attendance.
When drawing a conclusion from this trend of declining inhibitions but constant religiosity, one is left with the conjecture that if religious beliefs are not weakening, then maybe religious authority is. Because 60% of Americans believe in “an active and higher power” as the force “behind the origins and development of human life,” (Smith; Masci) a good possibility is that people are not sticking to the stringent rules put down by the church and instead are following by their own guidelines while still retaining their principal religious belief in a higher power. If religious authority is declining, though, does that mean spirituality will eventually decline as well? If so, does that mean that democracy will lose its secure place in American life?
Religious Utils
Even if religious authority does eventually fail, this does not necessarily mean the end of religion altogether. In On Liberty, John Stuart Mill proposes the idea of morals as utilitarian when he says that not doing harm to others was in the “permanent interests of man as a progressive being.” American religion has always been “stronger in the domains of the useful and the ethical than in the domains of the beautiful and the holy” (Tocqueville 106). Preachers in America attempt to make their listeners see how daily religious beliefs favor freedom and public order, and it is often difficult to know when listening to them if the principal object of religion is to procure eternal felicity in the other world or well-being in this one” (101). Because they were also bred in the American spirit, preachers see the utility of religion and know that their audience will see the earthly utility more clearly than the heavenly utility.
In relation, Tocqueville knew that Americans may not all “have faith in their religion” but he was certain that they saw it as “necessary to the maintenance of republican institutions” (293). In his mind, however, this objective was not beneficial to religion’s existence. Tocqueville feared that eventually, if religious beliefs were not strong and people were only moral because it was in their self-interest, they would not follow self-interest as it is properly understood anymore, looking only towards short term effects of their actions. For instance, it might be beneficial for humanity in the long run to give to charities, but in the short-term, the giver is left with less money to spend for his own aims.
Thomas Jefferson also observed this phenomenon acting within the young nation. Believing that self interest was not necessarily a detriment to the survival of religion, he said that interest is not the motive of the religious, but interest is both how religions make people do good and become popular. He argued that the doctrine of self interest properly understood would not turn men away from religious beliefs, but would bring them closer to belief (Novak 104). There will always be people who look objectively at religion and see the utility it provides to be moral. Those people may not follow the religion, but they will follow the morals religion teaches.
Even if men do and are turning away from religious authority as a body of thought to look to for guidance, religion as an institution may not be entirely essential. “It is the possession of the spirit and not the profession of the form, which makes societies as well as individuals religious” (Martineau). People can be spiritual and not go to church; they can be moral and not have to get lessons on morality directly from the Bible or the Koran. All that people need to be religious is to be spiritual; all that is required for spirituality is to believe. Still, an argument can be made that if religion dies then spirituality is likely to follow.
“There has never been a civilized nation without a religion, and though many highly civilized individual men live without it, they are so obviously the children of a state of sentiment and thought in which religion has been a powerful factor” (Bryce 581). If spirituality eventually dies along with religion, who is to say that people will cease being moral? “Morality doesn't require religion to exist; morality exists because of religion's past existence" (Reuter). Religion’s influence will not expire once it has faded away. Education will continue to have a place in inspiring morals, be it from school or from the home. A person is taught by his parents who were taught by their parents who were likely to be religious. Even if the third generation in this example does not believe in a supreme being or regularly attend the local church, he will still likely maintain the moral tradition passed down by his family.
Religion can be used for its utilitarian purposes and religious beliefs and morals can exists separately and simultaneously. Democracy does not necessarily need religion itself to keep a check on its citizens. If the morals can exist without the religious authority, does democracy need religion as an institution at all?
The Problem with Europe
If democracy and religion remain tied in a necessary bond to sustain the existence of freedom, then what consequence results from the disappearance of religion from society? This question gains gravity when using the Europian Union as an example. Expressions of the level of religiosity prevalent in Europe are contradictory, if not confusing. According to the Pew Center, “although belief in God as well as attendance at religious services have remained strong in the United States and much of the rest of the world, religious faith and observance certainly have declined sharply in Europe.” Europe is apparently embarking upon a separate path from what the nineteenth century philosophers thought was wise. If those ideas are correct and Europe wants to remove religion from the equation, then they are being led into inevitable failure.
The idea that Europe is the most secular area of the world is prominent among the great thinkers of this age. Juergen Habermas has passionately lauded the European Union for their absolute secularization of the state. Claiming that citizens of Europe “regard trespasses beyond the border between religion and politics rather suspiciously,” (Habermas 4) he asserts the idea that secularization has “desirable consequences for the political future” (5). This future is one where the state regulates everything equally and efficiently, while excluding all religious thought from its directives.
Without denying that Europe has grown far more secularized than the rest of the world, the Pew Research Center makes a stunning argument against the idea that religion has no place within the continent. In a talk given on the state of European religion, Professor Gracie Davie claims that in the areas where the church does not have such a strong, authoritarian hold on the moral behavior of the people anymore, the youth are experimenting with religion. They are searching for a new kind of god within themselves. She claims that when sociologists conduct studies, they do not include this new type of spirituality dubbed “vicarious religion” in their analysis. When crises or major celebrations occur, the people are praying; they are at the churches without needing to be told. Maybe the state has allowed religion to faze out of politics, but it has not left the people. Religion in Europe has simply moved from an obligatory sort of worship, praising out of duty, to a worship of consumption. People make choices carefully and peruse the many types of religion to find which one best fits them. Moreover, because regular services are not required when one does not follow a despotic religious text, the lowered church attendance does not equate to loosening moral standards. This consumption of religion for individual purposes makes religiosity not a traditional sacred practice, but a search for meaning tailored to each person.
Belief comes in many forms. If people are no longer following traditional religious identity, they could, logically, be following a non-traditional spiritual identity instead of leaning immediately towards impiety. Not to imply that religion will never fade from the world, but just because it is not immediately apparent, one cannot surmise that it is not there.
Conclusion: The Future of Democracy?
“History tells us hitherto that civilized society has rested on religion, and that free government has prospered best among religious peoples” (Bryce 583). Free government, as has been concluded, depends upon religion. The future of religion, however, whether bleak or hopeful, is uncertain at best. Predictors show that aspects of religion dwindle while newly formed ones emerge and thrive. The United States may continue to be spiritually strong, but a similar case cannot necessarily stand for Europe.
Like an ugly mark on the future of democracy, there are “two great dangers threaten[ing] the existence of religion: schism and indifference” (Tocqueville 299). If these dangers find their place among the minds and mores of the people, then religion has little chance and complete secularization, not only of the state, but of the people as well, is immanent. Drawing from Tocqueville, one can find substantial evidence that secularization of the state will be beneficial for the state by forcing efficiency and equality. However, whether or not complete secularization is the best option for the capabilities and effectiveness of the state, it is not what gives the most benefit to people.
Similarly, the relationship of mutual support between religion and democracy does not find its key benefit in the birth and continuation of the separate institutions. The most important result of this relationship is without doubt the check on the people.
“It was religious zeal and the religious conscience which led to the founding of the new England colonies two centuries and a half ago – those colonies whose spirit has in such large measure passed into the whole nation. Religion and conscience have been in the American commonwealth ever since, not indeed strong enough to advert many moral and political evils, yet at the worst times inspiring a minority with a courage and ardour by which moral and political evils have been held at bay, and in the long run generally overcome; … ” (Bryce 583)
Free people can only be controlled by themselves. They have to want to do good things; they have to want to help other people; they have to want to allow minorities to retain their rights; and they have to want to keep morality alive. Religion instills morality into all those who believe. A lack of religion, therefore, will not give people the morality they so desperately need. But maybe religion only has to be the catalyst.
In the vein of Tocqueville, Martineau, and Bryce, religion is a necessary force to control democracy. Religion is not, however, necessary to control morality. Religion may or may not die; I am not willing to make that prediction at this point. Religion, at this moment in time, is merely changing within the world, not fleeing from it, with science and education consuming its sphere of influence. What is important to be realized is that the principals and ideals that stem from religion will not disappear if religion ever does die out. They too will take on new form and meaning as time goes on. Once religion does die, if it ever should, the study of it will become more relaxed and thorough for average people who no longer treat it as sacred and untouchable. The reason more educated people see the value of morals is because they can look at religion as an object of good. Once all people are allowed to do so by their own standards, they will come to see morals objectively.
Religious principals and values provide a necessary check to the overwhelming freedom available in a democratic society. If religion does not continue to survive as long as democracy does, for one reason or another, freedom and democracy will not disappear. People can be trusted to observe this relationship and make the decision for themselves to be good, not while being threatened by the fear of an afterlife, but persuaded by the possibility of eventual bliss on earth.
Works Cited
Bryce, James. The American Commonwealth. Vol. II. London: Macmillan and CO., 1889.
Davie, Gracie. “Believing Without Belonging: Just How Secular Is Europe?” Pew Research Center. December 5, 2005. < eventid="97">
Deneen, Patrick J. Democratic Faith. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005.
Habermas, Juergen. “After the War: Plea for European Rebirth.” May 31, 2003.
Manent, Pierre. Tocqueville and the Nature of Democracy. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, Inc., 1996.
Martineau, Harriet. Society in America. March 16, 2006.
Masci, David; Smith, Gregory. “God is Alive and Well in America.” Pew Research Center. April 12, 2006. <http://pewresearch.org/obdeck/?ObDeckID=15>
Mill, John Stuart. On Liberty. 1869.
Mitchell, Joshua. The Fragility of Freedom. London: The University of Chicago P, 1999.
Novak, Michael. On Two Wings. San Francisco: Encounter Books, 2002.
Reuter, Seth J. Online Interview. 26 Apr. 2006.
Tocqueville, Alexis de. Democracy in America. Ed. J P. Mayer. Trans. George Lawrence. New York: HarperCollins, 2000.
The Idea of America in European Thought
Professor Alan Levine
May 5th, 2006
This is an original paper and cannot be legally redistributed or copied without authorization from the author.
Religion in America
A principle commonly held in liberal democracies asserts that a separation of church and state must exist for a people to be free from overbearing religious interference in the government. Whether openly acknowledged by the people or not, however, religion and democracy in America are inherently linked in a relationship of mutual benefit and dependence. If this observation is entirely true, then the destiny of one depends on the other; and if religion is removed from the equation, then democracy may too fall to ruin.
This paper seeks primarily to determine whether or not it is necessary for religion and democracy to be connected in a symbiotic relationship; and secondarily, to predict what the current state of religion means for democracy in the western world. Many writers, sociologists, and philosophers during their travels have observed the nuances between the formal and informal institutions existing within America. Based on their findings, a trend has developed that would lead to an idea that religion, though intended to remain constitutionally separate, has found its way into the government of America, finding root as a check on democracy. In this way, religion acts as a moral law in areas where actual law has no force. If this “moral restraint” were to be taken away, what would that mean for democracy? What would happen if democracy were to eventually die?
Focusing on Alexis de Tocqueville, with supplements from Harriet Martineau and James Bryce, this paper will examine the nineteenth century view of religion in America, before turning to the dissection of the purported present condition of failing religiosity with the help of more modern thinkers and facts. The problem is that if religion and liberal democracy are each found to be essential for supporting the other, and current thinkers are proposing the decline of religion, then democracy will inevitably fail.
The current trend in America is not entirely conclusive as to whether or not religion is prospering or dying out. Although people are reported to be growing more religious, the religious authorities and institutions are failing. Actions that were forbidden by societal standards in the nineteenth century are running rampant in the nation today, possibly due to declining religion. Also, in comparison to America, the religious status of Europe today is one of torpor at best. If religion in Europe is practically nonexistent and will only become more-so in the future, as predicted by Habermas, then what does that mean for Europe? If nothing comes to take the place of religion once it is gone (if that is even necessary) is the entire democratized world destined for dereliction and heading straight for “democratic despotism?”
Exploring America
The nineteenth century saw much mental exploration into the ideas of democracy, expressed in a physical exploration of the land of democracy – America. Among those Europeans who embarked on this journey of studious observation were the three people from whom the main argument of this paper comes: Alexis de Tocqueville, Harriet Martineau, and James Bryce.
All three authors came to America with certain objectives. Harriet Martineau was an English abolitionist who went in search of the morals followed within American life. The daughter of a Unitarian minister, she was well versed in religious practice and believed strongly in a liberal political ideology which she helped to create. Because of her background in political and religious ideas, her study of America focused mainly on the morals and manners of the nation. James Bryce, also hailing from England, was acting as ambassador to the U.S. in Washington, D.C. during the time of his study of America. With his expertise as an historian, he placed most of his efforts in observing and describing the institutions of the nation, instead of engaging in a debate on its morals. Consequently, he is not as concerned with the status of religion within America as he is with how it affects American democracy. Finally, Alexis de Tocqueville was a French sociologist who wanted to study democracy because he predicted that its influence would soon spread out across the Atlantic Ocean to Europe. Having noticed the early signs that this process had already begun, he hoped to be able to determine the good and negative aspects of democracy so Europe would be able to promote the good and protect against the bad. Acting today as the single best descriptor of the United States in its history as a nation, he goes into great depth both in the institutional and moral viewpoints of America, describing both its forms of governance and its “mores,” as he deemed them.
The America the three authors found on their journey contributed largely in their interpretation of the balance between democracy and religion. Just before the time of their visits, the second great awakening had swept through the nation with its “exciting preaching and external demonstrations of feeling,” (Bryce 577) leaving in its wake the resurgence of protestant religiosity and liberal values. In contrast to the formal, constraining churches of Europe, “a congregation [in America] … is the center of a group of societies, literary and recreative as well as religious and philanthropic, which not only stimulate charitable work, but bring the poorer and richer members into friendly relations with one another” (Bryce 577). In America, protestant churches, people come together because of their faith and their faith makes them equal, despite their social or economic class. This feeling of religious equality spread out beyond the pulpit into the lives of everyday Americans. Religion was so apparent and forceful in the nation at this time that it affected the morals and ethics of the people not only when they were in church because church was everywhere around them.
Religion quickly became something other than itself. It became the social phenomenon of the nation and the effect of this transition still affects the country today. As Tocqueville, Bryce, and Martineau described, the rampant protestant religiosity surging across the country had a powerful link with democracy. “The spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom … these two apparently opposed tendencies work in harmony [in America] and seem to lend mutual support” (Tocqueville qtd. in Novak 59). Religion aided in shaping American democracy, was helped to strengthen and survive by American democracy, and remains a significant check on American democracy to this day.
The Separation of Church and State
The first question to consider in resolving the problem of a possible necessary tie between religion and democracy is whether or not the institution of the separation of church and state is beneficial.
In looking at the main arguments currently being proposed, one discovers two extreme opinions. Argument one: democracy will be destroyed by the interference of religion. America was founded, according to these proponents, on the idea of religious freedom because of the memory of the Catholic Church’s interference with the governments of Europe. The decision to live or die was commonly associated with whether or not one believed in the same religion as one’s prosecutor. Since the laws of the church and the laws of nations were intricately tied, many thousands were killed because they would not follow the laws of a religion in which they did not believe.
Out of the fear of a religious persecution existing in this country of freedom, the apprehensive have devised a “wall of separation” to keep religion and politics firmly apart, free from entanglement. In this system, government and politics are to be fashioned in the bleakest of equality, in which no part of either is at all influenced by religious feeling, and any religion that has had impact must be removed.
Argument two: the public needs to be continually awash in religious influence to keep them from going astray. In the world today, religious influence is losing ground and people are turning away from the teachings of the church. If the people are not reminded of their moral imperatives, as is claimed, they will only further decay into the decadent and immoral behavior that is all too easily found in a democracy. They believe that people are naturally evil and when left to their own standards, they will quickly turn towards this evil. The only institution keeping people in check, for the advocates of religiosity, is not the law of the nation, but instead the laws of religious principles, which will leave the nation with a guilty fear of God which will insure their continued behavior.
As this paper will soon argue, there can be a balance between the two extremes and to find and uphold that balance is of necessity. Religion has a place in democracy in many ways. Because the protestant religion found such solid ground in America before its founding, the moral principles of said religion were implanted into the spirit of the nation and its people in the principles of democracy.
Furthermore, the continued ardent belief in these protestant religious principles of equality and kindness has a lasting impact on the success of democracy in America. Because the people inherently follow by these principles, they are not led astray into evil even though they are granted the opportunity continuously. If people already have a reason to be moral, it is no longer necessary for the law to force them to be so.
In contrast, religion should remain separated from the state in part because of the reasons described by those fearful of the past, and in part for other reasons entirely. A state supported religion is bad for the state because the laws could be affected, unfairly persecuting those who do not believe in the religion of the majority. If religion and the state were tied, though, religion would be hurt far more in a democratic government. Religion needs to be left on its own to grow and shape itself, free from the boundaries of the government.
Is a separation of church and state beneficial? Yes and no. In due course this answer will be explained in more detail, and has been explained somewhat so far, but for now one idea is important to be left to ponder on. Whether or not it is beneficial, is there an active separation of church and state in the United States? Not being mentioned in the law as fully as the wall proposed by those fearful of the past, the constitution only provides for a freedom of religion and the promise that the state will never support any particular religion. If this is in fact true, then religion is allowed to permeate into certain spheres of the state involving morality, principles, and ethics, and already since this country’s inception. Whether or not this is entirely advantageous, however, is yet to be seen.
Religion and Democracy
As was described by Tocqueville, Bryce, and Martineau, Religion and democracy are tied together in a symbiotic relationship. Religious values form the perfect breeding ground for democratic values. Because democracy was allowed to form in an environment of universal equality and liberty, freedom came naturally to the new government. Thus religion strengthens democracy and provides a necessary check on the freedom that it helped to create. Because the people in a democracy are the source of the laws, they are free to do as they please. To contain immorality and corruption, it becomes necessary for a higher authority, id est religion, to keep the people from exercising their freedom to negatively impact others. Thus religion provides a check on the democracy it helped establish. The relationship is mutual; just religion strengthens democracy, democracy strengthens religion. Because the church and government are separated in a democracy, religion is allowed to grow and flourish within its own sphere, free from governmental interference. If religion had been tied down to the government, it would be weakened, if not obliterated, because of the narrow constrictions of government. Finally, because they are so closely tied, if religion and democracy were ever to be untied, disaster would follow. If religion were to die, then democracy, and freedom along with it, would also end.
The democracy found in America was established on the hopes of a religious minority fleeing castigation and persecution. Naturally, their history of torment had an effect upon the laws of the country they were creating. American Protestants held onto their religion so dearly that many died for the sake of their beliefs. It became ingrained into their souls, and consequently became ingrained into the laws of the land.
Religion in America is described as an all-encompassing spirit; it not only follows people when they are in church, but it permeates into their daily lives. Martineau specifically mentioned the effect of religious principles on the people of the U.S. She observed how, in “the last possible test of the conviction of human equality,” “the people of colour [were] welcome to worship with the whites,--actually intermingled with them, instead of being set apart in a gallery appropriated to them.” In a time of severe racism abounding through the country in the form of hatred and murder, skin color did not matter once people set foot in the house of god because there, all people were equal. Bryce described the source of this phenomenon well when he wrote that the “ethical standard of the average man is of course the Christian standard; [it is] the source whence he believes himself to have drawn his ideas of duty and conduct” (Bryce 580). These ideas eventually translate into the civic duty and design for government that led to the creation of the American form of democracy.
All three of the authors agree on the obvious influence of protestant religious values in the government and institutions of the United States. Martineau mentions several times that democracy in America is affected by a pure form of Protestantism; it has been “planted down deep into the Christian religion, into its principles.” The principles that both democracy and religion share, among others, are liberty, justice, and equality. “Christianity, which has declared all men equal in the sight of god, cannot hesitate to acknowledge all citizens equal before the law” (Tocqueville 16).
Easily unearthed in the documents the founding fathers created to espouse the values of the newly birthed United States, the values taught by Protestantism say that every man is at liberty to serve god in his own way, only god can be the judge of the hearts of man, and all the people, being created similarly by god, are therefore equal in the eyes of god, just as “the laws of nature and nature’s god” made all men equal and “endowed them with certain unalienable rights” (Declaration of Independence).
Being the most religious of the three writers, Martineau describes the value of Christianity to American democracy with an immense strength of conviction:
The Christian religion is specified as being the highest fact in the rights of man from its embodying … the principle of natural religion … In it may be found a sanction of all just claims of political and social equality; for it proclaims … the fact of the natural equality of men. In giving forth this as its grand doctrine, it is indeed "the root of all democracy;" the root of the maxim … that among the inalienable rights of all men are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; …
Had it not been for the religious tradition following the pilgrims over the Atlantic Ocean, the American government today might not be comprised of a democratic form of government. Unlike the other authors, Tocqueville concentrates especially on his own religious upbringing when he examines the catholic affinity to an “equality of conditions” (288). He indicates both how the hierarchy of Catholicism forces the “poor” (289) Catholics on a low level equal to one another and how the beliefs of Catholics put them in a minority of the citizens of the world. Therefore, they are likely, being neither “rich” nor “predominant,” to adopt a Democratic Republican form of government because “unless all citizens govern, they will never attain to the government themselves … [and] it is important for them that all rights should be respected so that they can be sure they enjoy their own in freedom” (Tocqueville 289).
This freedom in equality creates problems, however, because of the equality freely shared. If all people are equal under the law, then, because no one person naturally stands better than the rest, all of the people should have an equal share in ruling themselves. Consequently, if all people are granted an equal vote, the only way to decide on issues will be to count a majority of the opinions and use that majority as the deciding factor. Unfortunately, not all people will agree on all issues and there will necessarily be certain people relegated to a minority of the opinion. The minority will be then outnumbered by the majority and their voices and ideas will be lost in the count. This system of rule has been identified as a “tyranny of the majority,” because “the majority rules in the name of the people,” (Tocqueville 173) instead of a single monarch ruling.
A problem arises because of the possibility that the same oppression the pilgrims found with a monarch could come to pass under a tyranny of citizens supported by the laws of a democracy. “It is an old saying that monarchies live by honor and republics by virtue. The more democratic republics become, the more the masses grow conscious of their own power, the more do they need to live, not only by patriotism, but by reverence and self-control, and the more essential to their well-being are those sources whence reverence and self-control flow” (Bryce 583). Because the citizens of a democracy are “oppressed by an excess of freedom,” (Manent 96) they need some force to control their passions and ensure that they do not become bad people and burdensome citizens. Laws alone will not control these urges; the laws do not encompass the totality of crimes to which humans are subject.
This main source of self-control used by democratic citizens is religion. Both Tocqueville and Bryce espouse the fact that “only religion can really moderate democracy” (Manent 86). And even though Martineau never states this idea outright in Society in America, she continually makes references to duty and moral imperatives springing from religious obligations controlling behavior. Religion serves as the moderator of people’s passions. It blocks the inhumane urges inherent in man before they have a chance to reach the surface of the imagination and wreak havoc on the world. “While the law allows the American people to do everything, there are things which religion prevents them from imagining and forbids them to dare” (Tocqueville 292). Although the laws control the majority of actions that have a directly negative influence on people, there are no laws that will control indirect influences or force people to have a positive impact on the lives of others. Accordingly, religion provides the indirect source necessary to impede the more negative side of humanity that a democratic government cannot.
Religion, which offers this moral restraint, although it is not written into the laws of the United States, has a very present indirect influence on the mores (“the whole moral and intellectual state” (Tocqueville 287)) of the people inhabiting the United States. The reasoning behind this restraint is actually very simple. Tocqueville invented the idea of self-interest properly understood while writing his book, Democracy in America. A person’s self interest properly understood is merely taking one’s self interest in the long term instead of in the short term, because what is beneficial immediately may not be so later on. When good is relinquished temporarily, however, the future returns may be worth more than the original good ever was. Therefore, to get the most benefit, one must look to one’s long term self interest, or a self interest that it is properly understood.
When the idea of self-interest properly understood is applied to religion, the long term ceases to be twenty weeks or even years in the future. What people look to in this case is the afterlife. Although one may have to give up something that would provide pleasure in this life, that pleasure is limited when compared to the pleasure that might be sacrificed in a later life. Consequently, those who are religious would be wise to go through life acting with their afterlife in mind.
Because of the religion rampant in the United States, Americans are always going through the daily activities of life as if tabs were being kept on behavior; they are always “pleased to explain almost all the actions of their life with the aid of self-interest properly understood; they complacently show how the enlightened love of themselves constantly brings them to aid each other and disposes them willingly to sacrifice a part of their time and their wealth to the good of the state” (Tocqueville Qtd. in Novak, 102). People do good beyond what is expected of them because they have hopes for a pleasing life after death. If they do not do more than what they are told is necessary, in essence, if they follow only the law of the state and not the law of God, then they will be doomed to eternal damnation. Consequently, it is in their long-term benefit – their self interest properly understood as it relates to religion – to give up what material goods and time they may have been granted in this life. Religion makes being good to others beneficial to each individual person. In reality, being a good person is beneficial to mankind, but the average person does not have the capability to find merit in an outcome without immediate results.
Tocqueville admits that the potential greatness of Americans is stifled because of their need to cling to Christian morals. Thus religion, this check on democracy, stands firmly as the strongest savior of the American spirit. “American revolutionaries are obliged ostensibly to profess a certain respect for Christian moral equity, and this does not allow them easily to break the laws when those are opposed to the execution of their designs; nor would they find it easy to surmount the scruples of their partisans even if they were able to get over their own” (Tocqueville 292). Because of the intense religiosity of the Americans, they can also be expected to be more civil to their fellow man and more generous with earthly matters. The fear of God has been implanted into their minds so that they no longer need to be told that everyone is equal and must therefore be treated with kindness and respect. Those who have should give to those who do not. Americans, as is commonly said, are kinder and give more comparatively to what they have. “In works of active beneficence no country has surpassed, perhaps none has equaled, the United States.” More money, relatively based on wealth, is given; and both personal interest and effort are shown in and devoted to good works far more commonly in America than any European country (Bryce 579).
This method of being kind for the sake of kindness creates the perfect balance with the democratic system of government. When freedom is naturally more common than restraint, mankind needs some other institution to keep their freedom in check. If people are inherently forced to be good because of their religious beliefs, then there remains no need for state governed laws. Nonetheless, this system of inspiring fear and hope of a second life after death fails when people no longer consider their religion pertinent or true. “Though it is very important for man as an individual that his religion should be true, that is not the case for society. Society has nothing to fear or hope from another life; what is most important for it is not that all citizens should profess the true religion, but that they should profess religion.” (Tocqueville 290).
The question then becomes: what happens when people do not profess any religion at all? As has been the case in history, governments feared the onslaught of this very situation and tried to prevent its arrival by allowing religion to be supported by the government. As both Tocqueville and Martineau argue this is the single worst move the government can make. Once a religion is linked with a state government, it is one with that government in every way. One of two outcomes will be likely to then transpire.
“When a religion seeks to found its sway only on the longing for immortality equally tormenting every human heart, it can aspire to universality; but when it comes to uniting itself with a government, it must adopt maxims which apply only to certain nations. Therefore, by allying itself with any political power, religion increases its strength over some, but forfeits the hope of reigning over all; …” (Tocqueville 297).
In this case, both the government and the religion remain strong, but the government does not hold sway over people in other governments, or even over all of those residing within its sphere of influence. Because those people do not associate with the political power tied to the government, they do not associate with the religious power tied to it either. The religion is then immediately weakened because it will never be able to claim the hearts of all, and will thus never be truly ‘universal.’
The second possibility is that when a government has a religion affiliated with it in order that the religion may remain strong, the government itself might not necessarily remain strong. If the government fails, because the religion is so intrinsically connected to it, the religion will die as well. In accordance with Tocqueville, “To want to aid religion by fusing it to the political order is in reality to weaken it, especially in democratic centuries when political institutions are so fragile and subject to such frequent changes. In order to give religion its full force, it is necessary to leave religion to its own force alone” (88). As stated above, democratic governments are especially susceptible to complete changes of power. Every four years in the United States could possibly see polar opposites as head of state and in the different branches of government. With a support mechanism that is this unstable, attempting to align religion with the government is reckless if not impossible.
Religion is supposed to be the stability people find in life. If God created the world, God is the one thing that never changes; God is who people count on. By putting God and the eternal, sacred other on the same level as the temporary, earthly profane merely diminishes it, while simultaneously threatening its continued existence. Therefore, “Christianity needs no protection from the State, but will commend itself to human hearts better without” (Martineau).
When forming the soon-to-be American government, several of the framers realized what role religion should have in the government and what the best way to protect it was. Madison, in particular, fought for a separation of church and state. He thought correctly that “the churches would be stronger the freer they were from government assistance” (Madison Qtd. in Novak 57). The american separation that he in particular fought so frantically for “had led to an unprecedented vitality in the churches, especially when compared with Christianity in Europe” (Madison Qtd. in Novak 57).
Tocqueville too wondered in awe at the striking difference in religiosity between the American and European people. In order to discover the source of this difference he spoke with clergy and religious men across the country and always came back with the same answer. Among the men he asked, “all thought that the main reason for the quite sway of religion over their country was the complete separation of church and state” (295).
A few pages later in the book, Tocqueville acknowledges that religion is not as powerful as it has ever been as it was seen at that time in America, but he contends that its influence is more lasting. Because religion “restricts itself to its own resources, of which no one can deprive it; it functions in one sphere only, but it pervades it and dominates there without effort” (299). When it is allowed to develop and mature on its own, religion is able to shape itself to the needs of the people more wholly than if it were ever constrained by any government. It can grow both more liberal and conservative with the time at the whims of a wavering audience. If a new world is discovered across an ocean and a new, unexplained people found, or if scientists learn of other planets, other life in outer space, religion, left to its own devices, can adapt to fit into a changing world. Continually growing on the hearts and minds of the people on whom it has placed belief, God will never cease to be eternal and sacred and religion will never cease to be universal, just by being.
Therefore, as government and religion are left on their own, one can provide freedom for its people and the other can constrain the people from taking advantage of that freedom at the expense of others. “Freedom sees religion as the companion of its struggles and triumphs, the cradle of its infancy, and the divine source of its rights. Religion is considered as the guardian of mores, and mores are regarded as the guarantee of the laws and the pledge for the maintenance of freedom itself” (Novak 46). In essence, freedom and religion go hand in hand. Religion sparked the belief in freedom, while keeping the people moral and good, and that morality then ensures that freedom will not be brought to ruin by its mere existence.
This relationship, though seemingly perfect, balances on a thread of insecurity. If democracy and religion are inherently intertwined in this symbiotic relationship, is it not then common sense that they need each other to continue in existence? What should happen to democracy, and thus freedom, if religion were ever to fail? And for what reasons would religion be likely to fail?
Only on this last point do the three writers differ greatly. Although Tocqueville and Bryce paint a bleak picture of the world without religion, Martineau has a greater store of optimism for its future. Although she is consistently criticizing the clergy for becoming too lax and secular in their work in order to appeal to the masses and standing idly by while crimes against humanity like slavery occur right under their ministries of peace and equality, she does not mention the possibility that they may need to act this way in order to prevent the downward trend of religiosity. Attributing this to her background as the daughter of a Unitarian minister and a devout Unitarian herself, the reader is forced to assume she is not entirely aware of the state of the nation as separate from how she perceives it should be.
Bryce, however, adamantly states that “if morality was weakened because the beliefs on which it rested were to vanish, there [would be] a higher danger that the government might be overthrown and violence reign because in America there is no unyielding authority, merely the will of the people, who may think it right” (582). Concurrent with the theories presented above, he believes that because the laws of the state government rest on the whims of the people within the state, if they all suddenly ceased to be moral and hold the values that religions teach, they would have nothing to rely on but themselves to stop the impending harm.
Tocqueville makes a similar argument in support of the idea that religion is an absolutely necessary check on democracy when he contends that:
Despotism may be able to do without faith, but freedom cannot. Religion is much more needed in the republic they advocate than in the monarchy they attack, and in democratic republics most of all. How could society escape destruction if, when political ties are relaxed, moral ties are not tightened? And what can be done with a people master of itself if it is not subject to God? … (294)
Reiterating the central point of this paper, Tocqueville asserts that with freedom unleashed, people need some other force to constrain their natural tendencies, or destruction will follow. He asks an interesting question: if the people are indeed equal and free to rule over themselves, to what authority do they look? Who, in the end, is in charge of the well-being of the nation? The people alone cannot be trusted to know what is best for them, so who can be trusted better than God?
Current Religiosity of America
When looking at the current state of religion in America, one is presented with an apparent contradiction. Although religious morals seem to be declining with the rise of activity that used to be shunned by polite society, people are, in fact, not becoming less religious. Religion is changing in America. Spirituality is on the rise and even with church attendance waning, a belief in god remains an average trait of the common American.
In a society where social acceptance meant everything from finding a job to living in a good neighborhood, when societal standards forced the public shunning of divorced women and homosexuals, standards are rapidly falling. The old taboos have become a thing of the past. If someone was not of the norm, he would be forced to hide his differences for fear of castigation. All of that is changing now. There is prominent discussion of gay marriage as a legal right; increasingly more children are being born out of wedlock and raised by single mothers, divorce rates are sharply rising, and abortion is protected by the United States Supreme Court. All of these ideas used to be deemed unacceptable in a Christian society because of the bible’s teachings, but now they are running rampant in the face of conservative society. The question is, does this trend show proof of a failing American religiosity?
“Recent polling by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press and the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life found that 96% of the public says they believe in God or some form of Supreme Being.” Astoundingly enough, this number correlates with a similar poll conducted in the sixties, during the rise of communism and anti-religious murmurings across the world. Thus, it would appear that religious belief in the United States has remained strong through modern times. Furthermore, pew polling found that religion in the United States has not only private, but public and political implications. As it turns out, only race was a better demographic predictor of voting in the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections than church attendance.
When drawing a conclusion from this trend of declining inhibitions but constant religiosity, one is left with the conjecture that if religious beliefs are not weakening, then maybe religious authority is. Because 60% of Americans believe in “an active and higher power” as the force “behind the origins and development of human life,” (Smith; Masci) a good possibility is that people are not sticking to the stringent rules put down by the church and instead are following by their own guidelines while still retaining their principal religious belief in a higher power. If religious authority is declining, though, does that mean spirituality will eventually decline as well? If so, does that mean that democracy will lose its secure place in American life?
Religious Utils
Even if religious authority does eventually fail, this does not necessarily mean the end of religion altogether. In On Liberty, John Stuart Mill proposes the idea of morals as utilitarian when he says that not doing harm to others was in the “permanent interests of man as a progressive being.” American religion has always been “stronger in the domains of the useful and the ethical than in the domains of the beautiful and the holy” (Tocqueville 106). Preachers in America attempt to make their listeners see how daily religious beliefs favor freedom and public order, and it is often difficult to know when listening to them if the principal object of religion is to procure eternal felicity in the other world or well-being in this one” (101). Because they were also bred in the American spirit, preachers see the utility of religion and know that their audience will see the earthly utility more clearly than the heavenly utility.
In relation, Tocqueville knew that Americans may not all “have faith in their religion” but he was certain that they saw it as “necessary to the maintenance of republican institutions” (293). In his mind, however, this objective was not beneficial to religion’s existence. Tocqueville feared that eventually, if religious beliefs were not strong and people were only moral because it was in their self-interest, they would not follow self-interest as it is properly understood anymore, looking only towards short term effects of their actions. For instance, it might be beneficial for humanity in the long run to give to charities, but in the short-term, the giver is left with less money to spend for his own aims.
Thomas Jefferson also observed this phenomenon acting within the young nation. Believing that self interest was not necessarily a detriment to the survival of religion, he said that interest is not the motive of the religious, but interest is both how religions make people do good and become popular. He argued that the doctrine of self interest properly understood would not turn men away from religious beliefs, but would bring them closer to belief (Novak 104). There will always be people who look objectively at religion and see the utility it provides to be moral. Those people may not follow the religion, but they will follow the morals religion teaches.
Even if men do and are turning away from religious authority as a body of thought to look to for guidance, religion as an institution may not be entirely essential. “It is the possession of the spirit and not the profession of the form, which makes societies as well as individuals religious” (Martineau). People can be spiritual and not go to church; they can be moral and not have to get lessons on morality directly from the Bible or the Koran. All that people need to be religious is to be spiritual; all that is required for spirituality is to believe. Still, an argument can be made that if religion dies then spirituality is likely to follow.
“There has never been a civilized nation without a religion, and though many highly civilized individual men live without it, they are so obviously the children of a state of sentiment and thought in which religion has been a powerful factor” (Bryce 581). If spirituality eventually dies along with religion, who is to say that people will cease being moral? “Morality doesn't require religion to exist; morality exists because of religion's past existence" (Reuter). Religion’s influence will not expire once it has faded away. Education will continue to have a place in inspiring morals, be it from school or from the home. A person is taught by his parents who were taught by their parents who were likely to be religious. Even if the third generation in this example does not believe in a supreme being or regularly attend the local church, he will still likely maintain the moral tradition passed down by his family.
Religion can be used for its utilitarian purposes and religious beliefs and morals can exists separately and simultaneously. Democracy does not necessarily need religion itself to keep a check on its citizens. If the morals can exist without the religious authority, does democracy need religion as an institution at all?
The Problem with Europe
If democracy and religion remain tied in a necessary bond to sustain the existence of freedom, then what consequence results from the disappearance of religion from society? This question gains gravity when using the Europian Union as an example. Expressions of the level of religiosity prevalent in Europe are contradictory, if not confusing. According to the Pew Center, “although belief in God as well as attendance at religious services have remained strong in the United States and much of the rest of the world, religious faith and observance certainly have declined sharply in Europe.” Europe is apparently embarking upon a separate path from what the nineteenth century philosophers thought was wise. If those ideas are correct and Europe wants to remove religion from the equation, then they are being led into inevitable failure.
The idea that Europe is the most secular area of the world is prominent among the great thinkers of this age. Juergen Habermas has passionately lauded the European Union for their absolute secularization of the state. Claiming that citizens of Europe “regard trespasses beyond the border between religion and politics rather suspiciously,” (Habermas 4) he asserts the idea that secularization has “desirable consequences for the political future” (5). This future is one where the state regulates everything equally and efficiently, while excluding all religious thought from its directives.
Without denying that Europe has grown far more secularized than the rest of the world, the Pew Research Center makes a stunning argument against the idea that religion has no place within the continent. In a talk given on the state of European religion, Professor Gracie Davie claims that in the areas where the church does not have such a strong, authoritarian hold on the moral behavior of the people anymore, the youth are experimenting with religion. They are searching for a new kind of god within themselves. She claims that when sociologists conduct studies, they do not include this new type of spirituality dubbed “vicarious religion” in their analysis. When crises or major celebrations occur, the people are praying; they are at the churches without needing to be told. Maybe the state has allowed religion to faze out of politics, but it has not left the people. Religion in Europe has simply moved from an obligatory sort of worship, praising out of duty, to a worship of consumption. People make choices carefully and peruse the many types of religion to find which one best fits them. Moreover, because regular services are not required when one does not follow a despotic religious text, the lowered church attendance does not equate to loosening moral standards. This consumption of religion for individual purposes makes religiosity not a traditional sacred practice, but a search for meaning tailored to each person.
Belief comes in many forms. If people are no longer following traditional religious identity, they could, logically, be following a non-traditional spiritual identity instead of leaning immediately towards impiety. Not to imply that religion will never fade from the world, but just because it is not immediately apparent, one cannot surmise that it is not there.
Conclusion: The Future of Democracy?
“History tells us hitherto that civilized society has rested on religion, and that free government has prospered best among religious peoples” (Bryce 583). Free government, as has been concluded, depends upon religion. The future of religion, however, whether bleak or hopeful, is uncertain at best. Predictors show that aspects of religion dwindle while newly formed ones emerge and thrive. The United States may continue to be spiritually strong, but a similar case cannot necessarily stand for Europe.
Like an ugly mark on the future of democracy, there are “two great dangers threaten[ing] the existence of religion: schism and indifference” (Tocqueville 299). If these dangers find their place among the minds and mores of the people, then religion has little chance and complete secularization, not only of the state, but of the people as well, is immanent. Drawing from Tocqueville, one can find substantial evidence that secularization of the state will be beneficial for the state by forcing efficiency and equality. However, whether or not complete secularization is the best option for the capabilities and effectiveness of the state, it is not what gives the most benefit to people.
Similarly, the relationship of mutual support between religion and democracy does not find its key benefit in the birth and continuation of the separate institutions. The most important result of this relationship is without doubt the check on the people.
“It was religious zeal and the religious conscience which led to the founding of the new England colonies two centuries and a half ago – those colonies whose spirit has in such large measure passed into the whole nation. Religion and conscience have been in the American commonwealth ever since, not indeed strong enough to advert many moral and political evils, yet at the worst times inspiring a minority with a courage and ardour by which moral and political evils have been held at bay, and in the long run generally overcome; … ” (Bryce 583)
Free people can only be controlled by themselves. They have to want to do good things; they have to want to help other people; they have to want to allow minorities to retain their rights; and they have to want to keep morality alive. Religion instills morality into all those who believe. A lack of religion, therefore, will not give people the morality they so desperately need. But maybe religion only has to be the catalyst.
In the vein of Tocqueville, Martineau, and Bryce, religion is a necessary force to control democracy. Religion is not, however, necessary to control morality. Religion may or may not die; I am not willing to make that prediction at this point. Religion, at this moment in time, is merely changing within the world, not fleeing from it, with science and education consuming its sphere of influence. What is important to be realized is that the principals and ideals that stem from religion will not disappear if religion ever does die out. They too will take on new form and meaning as time goes on. Once religion does die, if it ever should, the study of it will become more relaxed and thorough for average people who no longer treat it as sacred and untouchable. The reason more educated people see the value of morals is because they can look at religion as an object of good. Once all people are allowed to do so by their own standards, they will come to see morals objectively.
Religious principals and values provide a necessary check to the overwhelming freedom available in a democratic society. If religion does not continue to survive as long as democracy does, for one reason or another, freedom and democracy will not disappear. People can be trusted to observe this relationship and make the decision for themselves to be good, not while being threatened by the fear of an afterlife, but persuaded by the possibility of eventual bliss on earth.
Works Cited
Bryce, James. The American Commonwealth. Vol. II. London: Macmillan and CO., 1889.
Davie, Gracie. “Believing Without Belonging: Just How Secular Is Europe?” Pew Research Center. December 5, 2005. < eventid="97">
Deneen, Patrick J. Democratic Faith. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005.
Habermas, Juergen. “After the War: Plea for European Rebirth.” May 31, 2003.
Manent, Pierre. Tocqueville and the Nature of Democracy. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, Inc., 1996.
Martineau, Harriet. Society in America. March 16, 2006.
Masci, David; Smith, Gregory. “God is Alive and Well in America.” Pew Research Center. April 12, 2006. <http://pewresearch.org/obdeck/?ObDeckID=15>
Mill, John Stuart. On Liberty. 1869.
Mitchell, Joshua. The Fragility of Freedom. London: The University of Chicago P, 1999.
Novak, Michael. On Two Wings. San Francisco: Encounter Books, 2002.
Reuter, Seth J. Online Interview. 26 Apr. 2006.
Tocqueville, Alexis de. Democracy in America. Ed. J P. Mayer. Trans. George Lawrence. New York: HarperCollins, 2000.
posted by S McDaniel | 12:04 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home