Guest Opinion: The bedrock of public policy should be secular, not religious
by Dr. Gilbert D. Shapiro
Arizona Daily Star Tucson, Arizona November 3, 2006
Since the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980, the United States has seen an alarming increase in the number of elected officials who cite Christian dogma as their justification for public policy decisions.
According to these representatives, in matters related to abortion, end-of-life issues, stem-cell research, gay rights, science education and the environment, proposed laws must first pass a religious test of, "Is it Biblical?" rather than a secular test of, "Is it logical, reasoned and rational?"
With the potential election of more fundamentalist candidates, I fear these latter secular principles, which are embodied in our state and federal constitutions, will continue to come under attack.
Indeed, evangelical leaders have exhorted their congregants to seek public office to promote Christianity in America.
While I do not begrudge these candidates their faith, I do criticize their intentions to impose it on our society. Intentionally, they never announce these goals in their campaigns in order to have a better chance to capture the votes of the unsuspecting mainstream. But to their constituency, they have developed a not-so-difficult-to-decipher code.
Catchphrases such as "I am principled" or "I believe in core values" signals: "Like you, I want Christian Scripture to be the underpinning of all legislation."
This deceptive approach reflects poorly on their personal ethics and on the ethics of the political party which has endorsed them.
The public must therefore ask of every candidate, "If elected, to what extent will your religious beliefs influence your politics?"
Candidates with underlying evangelical agendas need two reality checks to convince them their religion should remain personal, not public:
● Every religion claims theirs is the "true way." But one U.S. citizen's religion is another U.S. citizen's mythology. When Christians understand why they reject all other possible religions, they will then gain much-needed insight into why many people reject theirs.
Clearly, belief and reliance in the supernatural should never guide public policy. Candidates for public office who advance such theological concepts are guilty of "political malpractice." Some would still argue that since Arizona and the United States are predominantly Christian, Christian Scripture is entitled to be the basis of our laws (i.e., the majority rules).
Using this same twisted logic, the United States is then entitled to be governed only by white people. These concepts are divisive and unconstitutional.
● According to conclusions drawn from the 2005 United Nations' Human Development Report, religion is repressive to a country's societal health. This report confirms that, as a rule, open, democratic and secular countries, like those in Scandinavia and Western Europe, are among the most advanced (life expectancy, literacy/educational attainment, gender/social equality, peaceful, stable, wealthy and free).
Meanwhile, the 50 most religious ones, including some in Africa, Central and South America and the Middle East, are the most backward (violent, unstable, poor and oppressive).
And of interest for the United States, there is a suggestive cultural parallel in these opposite dimensions of societal health between the "red" (Christian) and "blue" (secular) states.
Ironically, many of our nation's visionary Founding Fathers who were Christian somehow understood the important principle today's evangelicals have failed to grasp. Government rooted in religious dogma is a blueprint for disaster. That is why there was intentionally no mention of God in our Constitution.
To candidates who have underlying religious agendas: The secular guidelines of logic, reason and rational thought must be the bedrock of any government. This is the model that will work best for all Americans.
Gilbert D.Shapiro is a Tucson podiatrist. Write to him at .
