![[back]](../../backarrow.gif){kind=small}
back to TOC
Religion and Politics
eligion and politics: two things I’m told we should never discuss - and I’m about to discuss not only both, but in the same breath. Why would I do that? Well, there is an insidious relationship between the two, and while the connection between religion and politics might be obvious to most, it’s completely new to me. So I thought perhaps there are others who are in the dark as I was some time ago. This article is for them.
I remember as a teenager asking my father what was the difference between the Democrats and Republicans, and his answer has haunted me ever since. The difference, he explained, was that the Democrats are for the average person and the Republicans are for big business. Now, that is perhaps a simplistic answer, probably because Dad was not very political, but it produced in me a concern that has only recently been laid to rest almost forty years after it was raised. That concern is this: How could any political ideology put large corporations ahead of the average person? This was an idea that was completely foreign to me. And while I too am not very political, I never attempted to answer that question, but have, in the intervening years, added other issues to my concerns regarding the Republican party. Specifically, I added the following questions:
(1) How could any rational person be against issues that are so obviously right for the country at this time - things like gun-control, environmental issues, funding of art, universal health-care, patient’s bill-of-rights, freedom to burn the flag, and choice regarding abortion?
(2) How could any rational person be in favor of issues that are so obviously wrong for the country at this time - things like organized school prayer, prejudice against gays and other out-groups, wild conspiracy theories, more military spending, and many more?
While these questions were stewing on the back-burner of my adult mind another issue emerged in the Reagan era as strongly related to the Republicans - Christianity. And this brought up a whole new set of issues that are closely related to the Republican agenda. The question then became, How could Christians and Republicans, who so righteously profess being the nation’s moral guide, be on the wrong side of so many moral issues? In my somewhat immature, culturally-limited, young mind I was under the belief that Christianity was the saving-grace of the entire world. Imagine my confusion! Christianity was supposed to save the world, but at the same time those who were involved in it were against these very basic political issues that I saw as fundamentally correct for all humanity. It wasn’t until I became a psychologist and began to understand the human mind that I finally answered these questions.
Social psychologists point out that for every issue there are three mental components. The first two correspond to the two major divisions of the human brain - the emotional part and the intellectual part, respectively. This is the same distinction between heart and head poets have made for centuries. The fundamental element of an issue is the affective component, or how one feels about the issue. This is an emotional evaluation of the issue; it is not arrived at through rational processes but is based on the combination of biology and experience. And, of course, personal experiences are the best teacher, producing in the person a sense of “truth” and “reality” that is very resistant to logical argument. This component is the original element of the issue, the one upon which the other two are based. More of a feeling than anything else, it sensitizes the person regarding the issue, producing biases in the direction of the emotion. If we use abortion as an example, the affective component is what one feels, for or against, the issue of abortion.
Second, there is a cognitive component to every issue; this is what one “knows” about the issue. This is language-based and conscious in nature and potentially more rational than the affective component. Continuing with the abortion example, this is what you would tell another person about why you are for or against it. That is, this is the intellectual rationale for your emotional position on the issue.
There is another characteristic of the cognitive component: the acquisition of information is generally driven by the affective component. That is, we tend to acquire information for the cognitive component that supports our affective component and reject conflicting information. So the affective component biases our knowledge of the issue, thereby distorting our understanding of it. In fact, issues in which people have an emotional investment are more likely to produce distortions of reality: the stronger the emotion, the greater the distortion. This type of distortion led to O.J.’s acquittal on the first trial - all the evidence in the world that he killed those two people would not have convinced the jury of his guilt. Said another way, only when there is no emotional involvement in an issue can a person understand reality with a minimum of distortion. This is, in fact, the most basic precept behind scientific investigation; science dramatically reduces the effect of cognitive distortion that is so evident in the normal functioning of the emotion-laden human brain.
The third component is the behavioral component, or what one does regarding the issue. Like the cognitive component, it is driven by the emotional evaluation of the issue, the affective component. If you are against abortions, then you probably will avoid one if you were to find yourself pregnant. But if your affective component is pro-abortion, then your behavior may well include an abortion.
In the communication of ideas, the affective component goes a long way toward the understanding of the information exchanged. If, for example, the affective component is shared by the participants in a discussion, the amount of information that needs to be passed between them is dramatically reduced because each knows the underlying implicit core of the stated messages. What this allows is a discussion that is abbreviated, deficient in content and lacking logic, because the participants intuitively understand each other and need only vague and superficial reference to the issue in the conversation. This is an absolutely delightful experience and can result in each having a good time in the discussion because deep communication is felt by each while neither has adhered to the facts or dealt with logic or rational processes. The banter goes back and forth with nothing of substance being said - the participants believing that they have just solved the world’s problems. This phenomenon can be observed in psychic readings, astrological charts, religious services, and conservative talk-shows. In everyday conversation the expression, “I know where you’re coming from,” indicates recognition of similarities between the participants’ affective components. This is also the same process that is behind a person finding a “soul-mate” (i.e., perceived sharing of affective components), and the abbreviated conversational patterns of identical twins. The twins are not reading each others’ mind as so many believe, they merely share many of their affective components.
The problem with this process is that a person with an affective component that differs from that of the participants in a conversation, or with no emotional involvement in the issue, finds the conversation hollow, irrational, and lacking objectivity. These people (Rush Limbaugh calls them pin-heads) who want to discuss the facts of the issue can’t - because the facts are never mentioned, or when the facts are mentioned they are rejected out-of-hand. This process is also behind the often strained conversational patterns between men and women, teens and parents, religious and non-religious, and Republicans and Democrats.
The insidious relationship between the Republicans and Christianity that I mentioned earlier boils down to a connection between affect and cognition of this group that results in inevitable distortions of reality. The affective component is provided by one’s religious conviction and the cognitive component is the resultant conservative political views. One need not be a strong, devout, or fundamentalist Christian; one needs only to have internalized the affective messages of the Christian culture. Once that has occurred, in childhood, the affective component (Christianity) then generalizes to a wide array of issues, depending on it’s strength. After all, religion is - as religious people will tell you - strictly a matter of the heart. One must believe without logical analysis, for religion will fail any intellectual examination.
“God is love”, they say, and incidentally, “Love is blind.” Just as “Love is blind” refers to the love-struck teen’s inability to be cognizant of her lover’s real personality (everyone in the world can see that he is a jerk but her), so too does the god-emotion distort the perception of the real world in ways that are completely unknown to the believer. This has been true from the Puritans who were kicked out of Europe for their radical agendas to today’s Republicans who, to one degree or another, have affective components that contain emotional religious beliefs.
A more concrete example of religious distortion of reality comes from a Christian family in Macon, Georgia. The son kills two people, then confesses to the father who turns him in to the police. Based primarily on Dad’s testimony, the son is convicted. Now, how does Dad explain all this? Because there is such a great need to feel good about what we do, the reality of the situation must be distorted in a way that absolves both father and son of all responsibility. First, the son said “Something had taken over me” to cause him to do this horrible thing - presumably the Devil. And, the father believes that God was testing his faith and that two people are dead, not because of anything for which the son is responsible, but because it was a function of God’s plan and some good will come of it.
In the eighties there was a rash of indictments and many convictions of innocent people for the crime of sexual molestation of children. In every case the prosecutor was encumbered by religious emotional motivations and saw “them” as driven by the devil and the children’s testimony as the truth - in spite of many outrageous claims that ran counter to the evidence. And, since the main world-model in this country has a Christian base, it was not too difficult to convince the jury of the guilt of those who were charged with the crime (recall from above the conversational patterns of people who share affective components).
Every issue that the Republicans promote can be similarly explained by the presence of Christian emotions.
The Affective Components of Christianity
“God’s country”
Many Republican views can be explained by the distorted connection between the origins of the United States and Christianity. The connection is this: The U.S. was founded on Christian values and therefore was sanctioned by God himself. The expression “God’s country” is not only taken literally but is believed to be immutable. Institutional phrases such as “In God We Trust,” “One nation, under God,” “certain inalienable rights,” and others contribute to the perceived connection. In fact, the Constitution is seen as a sacred document that is akin to the Bible and just as the Bible can not be changed and contains the truth of the world, so to is the Constitution inerrant and ultimately correct.
“Us and Them”
A major contribution to political ideology from Christianity can be seen in the distinction this group feels between “us and them.” While this tendency to categorize people in this way is normal and contributes to competition and patriotism, the “us and them” distinction made by this group is a cardinal element of their world model and a major contributor to their interpretation of reality. Certainly, if you believe that you are one of God’s people and that it is your choice to be one of God’s people, then the logical extension of that notion is that others who do not think exactly like you are inferior, depraved, sick, sinners, and so on. The “us” is the chosen few and the “them” is everyone else against whom the “us” must defend or, better, convert to be like “us.” Since these people see our national borders not as man-made but divine, the people within the borders (with more than a few exceptions) are “God’s people,” and people from outside the borders are certainly not God’s people.
There are many groups within our borders that are part of the “them” as well. Conservative Christians wage a constant cultural war with the “evil liberal left” in this country. This includes gays, the women’s movement, anti-gun factions, and Democrats, whom they often refer to as godless heathens, as well as Jews, the federal government, Atheists, and others.
In addition, Conservatives and Republicans, because of their “us and them” orientation, neither see themselves as a part of the larger world nor do they feel responsible for any elements of the larger world. On the contrary, they see themselves as distinctly separate from and superior to all others. These feelings of grandiosity and separateness lead to the paranoid idea that “them” is out to get “us.” The examples are many and include David Koresh and Jim Jones who isolated themselves from society at large because their religion was assumed to position them above the rest of the world. While these two examples are the extreme, the difference between them and the majority of conservatives is in the degree to which this paranoia motivates behavior. To the majority of conservatives, the evil forces are present and real; but the effect on their own behavior is more subtle than it was on Koresh and Jones.
Free Will
There is a third emotional issue that is diametrically opposed to all the research and common sense in the world: free will. This is the idea that a person has total freedom or equal opportunity to choose any option in an issue; that people’s conduct is not determined by physical forces but is totally under the control of the conscious self. This idea stems from the presumed existence of a soul that is completely separate and autonomous from the brain. That is, all that one is, is simply a matter of personal choice and not a function of how the brain operates. Mental illnesses and addictions are seen as nothing more than a product of a weak-will; all a person with depression has to do is “snap out of it” or a schizophrenic has only to “get a hold of himself” to be healed.
If free will were the explanation for human behavior, a Ph.D. in Psychology could be earned in only twenty minutes and there would be no need for psychologists - which, by the way, this group believes to be true. But, if all one had to do to have certain characteristics was to choose to have those characteristics, wouldn’t we all be perfect? The human brain and it’s processes are infinitely more complex than what the simplistic notion of free-will would indicate.
So what political issues then are a product of these major emotional distortions?
The Cognitive Components of the Republican Party
Helping others: The conservative argument that the Federal Government shouldn’t help its citizens is based on “us and them,” and the notion that all have free will and are thus responsible for their own problems and don’t deserve to be helped. The difference between the “us” and “them” is primarily the choices, with “us” making the correct choices and “them” making the wrong choices. In other words, if only “they” thought like “us” then “they” wouldn’t be gay, poor, without health care, in jail, an addict, pregnant...
World membership: Only a person who is without the intellectual constraints produced by the emotion of Christianity is able to feel as an integral part of the world, both as a member of humanity and as a part of nature. It is this mental freedom that provides people with a world-model that includes greater sensitivity to humanity and nature, allowing for concerns for conservation of natural resources and the helping of others when in need.
Anti-foreigner: One can readily see how the combination of “God’s Country” and “us and them” are behind the Republican’s anti-everything-foreign sentiments, including their stands on immigration, communism, Japanese cars, NAFTA, the United Nations, increased military spending, etc., that are so indicative of the Republican party. Given this attitude, try to imagine the United States accomplishing anything close to what the countries of the European Economic community have done. After countless local battles, two world wars, and hundreds of years of national animosity, these countries have agreed to dispense with their national monitory systems in favor of one form of currency.
Flag-burning: Conservatives see the flag as a sacred symbol. Thus, burning or otherwise “desecrating” the flag is akin to taking the Lord’s name in vain; it is profane and blasphemous and must not be allowed. These, by the way, are the same people who want to keep the government out of peoples’ lives, but want burning the flag made illegal.
Gun-Control: If the Constitution is sacred, then what it says must be the truth and is not subject to interpretation. Hence, the right to bear arms is seen as a necessity, and any attempt at limiting that concept is seen as a direct attack on Christianity itself. In November of 1996, on Public TV, a man who was being interviewed about guns made the shocking statement that “It’s anti-Christian and Anti-American to NOT have a gun.”
No other issue is better at disclosing distortions of reality than guns. For example, when confronted with the argument that their handguns would never hold up against the government’s tanks and B52s, they seem completely incapable of comprehending such logic. Their ability to rationally analyze this argument and see its validity, thus rendering their own argument useless, has apparently been shut down in favor of a non-rational argument that erroneously connects the constitution with handguns and reality.
Charlton Heston, current president of the NRA, was told by Bill Maher of Politically Incorrect, “Just admit that you love guns”; and Heston said, while leaning toward Maher with smug expression on his face “I love the constitution of this country.” Thus, he was saying that the need for guns is because the constitution says there is a need for guns.
Personal Freedoms: Like the Puritans of years ago, today’s conservatives tend to see any law as an attempt to restrict their religious freedom unless, of course, the law is directed toward furthering the expansion of their own views and/or restricting the views of others. For example, there is a judge in Alabama who is fighting to keep a copy of the Ten Commandments displayed in his courtroom, and the Governor is supporting him, while at the same time conservatives want no laws furthering basic rights for homosexuals and other out-groups.
Federal Government: the Republicans hate the Federal government and want to reduce its power (especially the Supreme Court) because they see it as diluting their influence. They stress states rights because they have the most power and can exert the most control at the local level. Thus this notion is indicative of the parochial attitude that is, and always has been, Christianity.
The capitalistic economic system: The Republican movement to keep government out of the economy and big business reflects the Christian view that capitalism, since the country was founded on it, is a God-given economic system and shouldn’t be interfered with by humans. This also ties into the belief that there is no shame in being rich, despite the Biblical claim that “The meek shall inherit the earth.” Not only are you entitled to be rich, since you are one of the chosen, because there is a god who loves you, he will actually help you become rich. This is also a contributor to their reluctance to provide any aid for the less fortunate in the society. After all, if you were like “us” you wouldn’t be in need.
The war on drugs: Here’s an interesting point. The typical Republican approach to the war on drugs is to reduce the supply; but in capitalism, their sacred economic system, the correct approach is to affect the demand and the supply will follow. So, in legitimate businesses conservatives want few controls (which incidentally allows for numerous abuses), so that they are free to follow the market. In the war on drugs, however, they want to arrest the pushers, and stop the influx of drugs across the borders. Which is more effective? Clearly, the demand approach is - limiting the supply simply increases the price, making it more lucrative to sell drugs. But the notion of free will has so distorted the judgment of conservatives that they believe that if people are on drugs, it is because they choose to be on drugs. Thus, this view totally denies any possibility of brain dysfunction, either organic or as a result of early learning, and the addictive qualities of the drug. The result is that conservatives don’t see the need for psychological or medical help; all the addict needs to do is change.
Abortion: The connection between Christianity and the Republican party regarding the issue of abortion may be obvious, but I shall discuss it to deepen the reader’s understanding of the affect/intellect interaction. Unlike the majority of people, conservative Christians endow the organism with a soul at the point of conception. The concept of a soul has yet to be objectively defined to me, and until it is I will never be able to counter this view; so let me make an assumption. The assumption is that the soul is one’s humanhood, that is, by virtue of being a human, you have a soul. So, at point of conception, when you were a single cell no bigger than the point of a pin, you were a soul-possessing human, and the only entity that had a right to take your life was God. In other words, the viability of this single cell takes precedent over the woman’s right to control her own destiny. But, what happens to the concept of a soul, one’s humanness, when the death penalty is considered? Well, this group, because of the concept of free-will, and the idea that one chooses to be a criminal instead of a Christian, assumes that the criminal is worthless and deserves not to live. The exception of course lies in the ability of the condemned to save their own souls by repenting and accepting the Christian faith.
Conspiracy theories: Conspiracy theories, such as were behind McCarthy’s 1950s search for communists, reflect the anti-American, anti-Christian, “us-versus-them” paranoia of Christians and Republicans. Also, the JFK assassination, and more recently, the TWA Flight 800 incident, the bombing in Oklahoma City, the introduction of crack in the ghettos to wipe out the underclass, Vince Foster, and a multitude of others, seem to survive despite evidence to the contrary. In a sense, it’s a very simplistic (although the assumed conspiracies are often very complex themselves) explanation of the unexplainable that is a quite natural offshoot of a chaotic world. I explain the connection in this way: the brain organization that reduces critical analysis and produces the belief in Christian doctrine is the same brain organization that results in the person seeing conspiracies in every ambiguous situation, especially if the federal government is involved. After all, isn’t God the source of the world’s greatest conspiracy? He knows all, and He even controls our lives and world events and He never has to explain anything. He has this big plan and keeps all mortals in the dark. God sure works in mysterious ways.
Well, there you have it, my view of the relationship between religion and politics - a far cry from that of my teenage years. Undoubtedly there are more political views that stem from Christian dogma than were named here, but I believe I made my point. However, that point brings up a whole new set of questions: if the very basis of conservative political views is Christian doctrine, then are their views any less valid than the views of others? Can we say that because these issues are decided on the emotional content of Christianity and not on the rational, logical content of intellect, that they are somehow inferior to those made after first weighing all the facts? And what about separation of church and state, if they are so intrinsically linked in the mind? Stay tuned…
Dr. Englehart is a psychologist who resides in Oklahoma.