When Politics Becomes a Cult

When we think of a cult, we usually focus on a relatively small group of people who are under the “spell” of a manipulative religious leader. Nevertheless, there are moments when political movements and politicians demonstrate cult like tendencies. Hitler had a powerful spell over much of the German population. Dictators frequently have such power over many of their citizens. I recently did a google search for characteristics of cultic leaders which revealed the following traits with brief descriptions in parentheses. I urge you to study these characteristics and evaluate if any current leader comes to mind. If you are under the influence of such a leader, have the courage to break free.

Grandiose idea of who he is (exaggerated self-importance)
Excessive admiration demands (narcissistic cravings)
Exaggerated power sense (rule-breaking confidence)
Boastful about accomplishments (showy self-promotion)
Unlimited success fantasies (delusional aspirations)
Exploiting others financially (financial manipulation)
Hypersensitivity to perception (concerned with image)
Center of attention craving (distracting behavior)
Blind, unquestioned obedience (demanding loyalty)
Arrogant behavior (haughty attitude)
Ignoring others’ needs (selfish disregard)
Best of everything expectation (material superiority)

The Supreme Court: What Happened to Conservatives and Freedom?

Yesterday the Supreme Court issued a ruling that essentially overturned Affirmative Action. Universities and colleges, both public and private, can no longer use race as a criterion for admission purposes. In the last 24 hours, much has been said and written in favor and against the decision. Nevertheless, there has not been much commentary regarding the ruling and its relationship to freedom. This is somewhat strange because it was the six conservative justices who united to overturn Affirmative Action. Conservatives claim to enhance freedom. They usually rail against the intromission of big government in the affairs of its citizens. They have violated their convictions with this decision.

During my teaching career, I have taught at various institutions of higher education. Two of those schools are Wheaton College and Whitworth University. Both are private schools, and both believe that greater diversity (economic, racial, and social) in their student body and faculty leads to better education. (Wheaton College had strong abolition values at its beginning and has included African American students since the mid nineteenth century.) Now, both schools are formally prohibited from seeking racial diversity on their campuses. Their institutional freedom has been curtailed. The ruling unnecessarily reduces freedom. On this particular aspect of institutional freedom of action, most people agree that the conservative majority on the Supreme Court got it wrong.

Public Policy and the “Separation of Church and State”? A Way Forward.

This is a thorny issue. On the one side are people who argue for a complete separation of church and state (the secular position). On the other side, many religious people claim that their Scriptures clearly distinguish right from wrong and that public laws should replicate this (the theocracy position). In my (not so humble) opinion, both sides have overstated their case. This is a tough issue, but there is a way forward.

People on the secular side argue for a complete “separation of church and state”. This phrase was enunciated by Thomas Jefferson, but it does not appear in the U.S. Constitution. Some from the secular position seem to have forgotten that many of the important laws in modern, secular societies (that they do agree with) had their origin in Scripture. Laws against murder, theft, and perjury historically came from the Ten Commandments. These usually came about via church/state alliances but have been reaffirmed by citizens in pluralistic societies today. On the other hand, other laws which were religiously motivated (example: the “dry laws” that prohibited sales of alcohol in the Bible Belt South or the “Blue laws” that prohibited supermarkets from opening on Sundays) have generally been dropped across the country.

People on the theocracy side believe that they know God’s will for society, based on their interpretation of their Scriptures and that should be applied to all (like the prohibition of murder). A contemporary example of this is the pro-life position of many religious people in which they affirm that the fetus’s life should be defended as of conception. Many pro-lifers had opposed the Roe v. Wade decision because it was made by members of the Supreme Court in 1973 and not by elected officials. Although Roe v. Wade has now been overturned federally, the legality of abortions is being decided at the state level.

Problems with both extreme positions should motivate us to a third way. Our Constitution guarantees the freedom to all people to choose their own religion…or no religion at all. I might not agree with their choices, but I defend their freedom to choose. Their religious choices probably influence them on a wide array of issues, including public policies. That is fine and appropriate. Freedom of conscience means that people can arrive at their opinions in the way that they prefer. Nevertheless, if they want to codify their opinions into law, there is the next step which is quite difficult. In democracies, they must persuade a majority of their fellow citizens of the appropriateness of their policies (at a district, state, or national level).

This challenge can be seen in what happened in Kansas. With Roe v Wade being overturned, people in Kansas voted on the legality/illegality of abortions in their state. Although Kansas is a “ruby red” state which traditionally votes Republican, 59% voted to keep abortions legal. The pro-lifers failed to persuade a majority of Kansas inhabitants of the “rightness” of their position. Their position would be made stronger if they supported policies that would help pay maternity costs or provide child care or other programs that would be consistently “pro-life”.

What is the third way? People have the right to acquire their personal opinions in the way they prefer. But to codify these opinions into laws, they need to persuade a majority of their neighbors about the “justness” of their positions. They are free to use religious arguments, although non/religious arguments might be better. Democracy is messy. Sometimes your positions win, sometimes they don’t. That is why freedom of speech and elections are important.