When Freedom isn't Really Free: Church and Politics

Ever since I gave a lecture on Foucault to the undergraduates at USC, I have begun to link my interests in politics with issues of power, gender, the body, the environment, and religion. Each of these areas has their own discourse, language, and regulations. When these discourses begin to mix and gain voices in each other's spheres, problems can emerge. Consider the mixing of religion in the educational system, where scientific and religious discourses collide in how to teach the origin of humanity. Some would argue that religion should be separate from education and has no role to play, where others would defend its inclusion and right to be there wholeheartedly. Whichever side one would fall on, the reality is that the mixing of discourses complicates ideas of knowledge, power, and truth.

This specific example explores the relationship between religion and science/politics that has been a sordid affair for centuries. From recent debates about abortion, birth control to the nomination of Paul Ryan as the vice presidential nominee, religion and political regulation has risen to prominence. Whereas political discourse relies on the participation of the people and elected politicians to craft and decide regulations, religious discourse (primarily Judeo-Christian in America) places knowledge and truth within the Bible and religious leaders. The problem when they become mixed is that people who are atheists or follow a different faith are subjugated to non-universal laws. Religious discourses are better suited to personal or community spheres for those who believe, whereas political discourses are better suited to federal and governmental policies.

I was surprised at the proposed mixing of the two advocated at a sermon I attended in Pittsburgh. The overall theme of the sermon was to redefine freedom to be less self-centered and more inclusive of community, family, and religious purposes. The preacher discussed the traditional definition of freedom as "doing what you want whenever you want" as a participant in the sin of pride. He instead argued for freedom meaning the opportunity to follow God's plan and do what we were designed to do in life. While seemingly a plea for people to help others and avoid what can sometimes become a self-centered, navel-gazing activity of "I want", I found more sinister and underlying ideologies.

In a world, in a discourse where freedom doesn't mean free to choose or free to follow one's own actions, freedom is actually replaced with restriction, regulation, and oppression. When we sacrifice individual liberties in order to follow God's design, we ignore the 16% of people in the United States with no religious affiliation, those not part of the Christian majority religion, and those who do not wish to mix their religion and politics in favor, we lose freedom. I define freedom as the elusive ability to choose, to have options, to serve oneself as one desires as long as one does not harm, silence, or oppress others. Following God's law means that people do not have the freedom to choose, especially when one thinks of women's rights over their own bodies.

An inquiry into the complications and fears surrounding the female form would be a whole blog post in and of itself to fully address the issue. Suffice to say for this post that religious discourse has traditionally treated the female body as a sexual instrument, subordinate to and property of men. Even in current times, women are being denied their right to regulate their bodies, control becoming pregnant, and accessing services such as Planned Parenthood. The message that bothered me in the previously mentioned service was that by allowing for the discourses to mix, to take the personal focus out of freedom, fosters a community and ideology where restrictions on personal choice flourish. I imagine that women listening to sermons like these when they were younger (e.g., Sarah Palin and Ann Coulter) begin to believe that their rights should be restricted and they do not deserve the choice over their own body. Whether one would choose to have an abortion or not is not the issue, it is the right to be able to choose. If someone, for religious reasons, decides to keep an accidental pregnancy, they are equally without choice if it is mandated so by law.

Sermons and ideas such as these foster a culture comfortable with religious lessons and teachings leaving the Church, personal values, and family life and becoming commonplace in political discourse. When the voices of some are oppressed on the journey to power, freedom is distorted, and ultimately lost. Politicians and the general public should fight against these inclusions and keep the discourses separate. When there is freedom, true choice involved, those who wish to follow God's laws can do so as a personal choice, not a legal mandate.

Just like in American History X, I will defer to the words of others to summarize and inspire my words on freedom. I hope that in the future, human behavior, biopower, and personal choice can be left mostly unregulated, giving people true freedom over themselves and relinquishing them from the ideology of others.

Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves.

-Abraham Lincoln

Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed

-Martin Luther King, Jr.

For to be free is not merely to cast off one's chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others.

-Nelson Mandela