Modern Politics and Religion

Over the 20th century, the growth of big government and the increasing influence of science in political and military decisions led to a tension between church and state. After witnessing the magnitude of the Manhattan Project and a myriad of important scientific discoveries by Einstein, Teller, Fermi and Oppenheimer, many Americans realized the potential for scientific and public policy to alleviate world conflicts and therefore placed more emphasis on science rather than religion in structuring their daily lives. Now in the 21st century, Americans must ask themselves the question: should we sacrifice religious freedom in the face of other values? Should we allow political efficiency and societal progress to eclipse the role of religion in our everyday lives?This modern dilemma has two feasible solutions: one forces the government to fabricate plans that are conducive to all faiths. The second affirms the actions of the government but asks the citizens to adapt their traditions and assume “ownership” over their beliefs. Acknowledging that we live in a melting pot of backgrounds, religions and nationalities, I believe the latter best balances individual and societal needs. In my opinion, we must accommodate faith for modernity without changing the fundamental values of our respective religions. Limited by our desire to dovetail with social trends and fit in with our respective social palettes, we must no longer approach our religious teachings as a set of rules but rather as a moral compass that orients us in the “right” direction. More importantly, every person should interpret their religion according to the prevalent historical or cultural circumstances of their time. So what happens when the government creates a law that inadvertently or indirectly interferes with the practice of a group’s religion? We must adapt to these changes, keeping in mind that external pressures are inevitable in a nation so religiously diverse. And yet to prevent outside scenarios from infringing on our religious lives in the first place, we must seek an even greater divide between church and state.The Pew Research Center has found that the number of Americans that have reservations about voting for an atheist presidential candidate has been declining over the years. This phenomenon does not suggest a declining concern for or devotion to religion amongst Americans but perhaps the opposite: a request for a greater separation between church and state and a desire for the government to make decisions based solely off of political commitments. Take, for example, the recent legalization of same-sex marriage; how can Orthodox Christians and Jews cope with this statute? I believe Americans of all faiths must draw a distinction between their political and religious lives, realizing that most governmental decisions contain purely political subtexts.It is our duty to create and maintain a sharp separation between church and state. In the 2016 presidential campaign, Trump has used harsh language against Muslims. Ted Cruz consistently brings religion into his campaign speeches. When we bring religion into political debates, we blur the lines between these two starkly different spectrums. We risk turning something political into something more personal and more emotional. In the process, we unknowingly change the image and structure of a religion, making its followers uncomfortable and insecure. This is not a plea to make our religious lives private. Rather, it is a warning to both the government and the people: the only way to control our religious heritage is to make ourselves responsible for it.