In the movie "Let's Get Frank," U.S. Congressman Trent Lott is shown taking stand behind his religious beliefs in a congressional meeting by stating that homosexuality is "a sin and a treatable condition." Some may find it controversial, even appalling that one of our own congressmen would, could, and did declare such a ruthless proclamation and get away with it. Why was Trent Law bringing his religion into a place of government, and is it just to society as a whole for a politician to do so?
The separation of religion and politics is a delicate subject that has divided politicians for centuries. Throughout time we've come to see that our congressmen tend to defend controversial laws such as stem cell research, military spending, tax reform, abortion, and homosexuality based upon their religious beliefs. So what does the majority of U.S.
populace think about this?
Religious Rights groups spent December 2008 through January 2009 threatening to delay the reopening of the Capitol Visitor Center in Washington D.C., unless specific changes were made, including the removal of the phrase "E Pluribus Unum," scripted upon the entry way. "E Pluribus Unum," or "In God We Trust," is the same phrase which has stirred up social protest in the past few years for being printed on U.S.
currency.
And in Elk Grove Unified School Dist. v. Newdow, many a person fought to have the phrase "Under God" removed from the national anthem, claiming it violated the separation between church and state.
It would appear that a great deal of society would like to keep religion and government separate from one another, however, a great majority of voters look to a politicians religion before electing him or her and many voters will even elect a politician because of his or her religious beliefs. It's obvious that a politician's religious beliefs interfere with the lawmaking process in our government, and voters acknowledge this and even encourage it through elections.
The "Elitist Interpretation" of parties and ideologies in the book "The Irony of Democracy" suggests that democratic social parties draw more Jews, and Catholics,' while republican social parties draw from "suburban Protestants." Indeed, it isn't just congressmen who back up their religious beliefs when politics come into play; society stands like a young coach to an aging boxer in the ring.
After considering how regularly religion has interfered with government in the past, can we really be goaded at Trent Lott for voicing his opinion about homosexuals? Is the distance of separation between religion and government closer than it is believed to be, and should that be changed?
I really don't believe we can blame Trent Lott for his foul remarks; freedom of speech does include government officials, whether they represent a particular party or not. Beyond that, I believe all that would remain in our lawmakers if we expunge religion from their makeup's would simply be a lack of morality; a bunch of bitter scientologists and a government based on logic and regulation over decency and compassion. It's a good thing we have such a wide array of religious followers in our congress, this way, everyone has a ability to be heardeven Trent Lott.