Judging by his comments last week, United States Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.) apparently thinks liberalism is a movement that spews hatred of God. He could not be farther from historical accuracy, and hurling these statements less than a fortnight before our national Independence Day, he grossly insulted large swaths of our American population.

Recently responding to a question about NBC’s omission of the words “under God” from recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance at a golf broadcast, Akin said, “at the heart of liberalism really is a hatred for God and a belief that government should replace God.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Straining under the spotlight of media attention, Akin first tried to temper his statement by indicating he was only talking about liberalism’s approach to God in public life. Then he attempted what was at best a lukewarm pullback: “As Christians, we would never question the sincerity of anyone’s personal relationship with God. My statement during my radio interview was directed at the political movement, Liberalism, not at any specific individual. If my statement gave a different impression, I offer my apologies.”

Anyone who took this as an adjustment of his original statement, however, is straining credulity. For liberalism is a movement of people, and absent people embracing liberalism, no movement would exist. Therefore, Akin’s logic would continue to ascribe antitheistic beliefs to those who adopt liberalism as their political or cultural beacon.

And that is simply wrong, as many clergy, including Jewish voices, pointed out on the heels of the fracas. For there are millions in this nation who consider themselves adherents to the liberal strain of thought (a movement that counts the Enlightenment, general and racial equality, and many other forward-thinking steps in human development) that are fully devoted to the presence and existence of God.

The current interpretation of liberal philosophy in our country does generally take a stand against governmental pronouncements that include God references. But this is a position that serves all of us mightily, regardless of our political or ideological affiliation. It protects us from the tyranny of one religious belief system running roughshod.

Liberals (and of course, many others across the spectrum) take very seriously the Establishment Clause portion of the First Amendment, that precludes the federal government (and the states, via the Fourteenth Amendment) from creating or supporting a particular religion.

Any American kid who in grade school thought it was cool to learn how to spell the superlong “antidisestablishmentarianism” was becoming rooted in the true history, whether they knew it or not. For this word describes those who opposed separating the Church of England from the sovereign.

We, on the other hand, side with Thomas Jefferson and most Founding Fathers as Disestablishmentarianists. That is to say, we support the full separation of church from state. Any church, that is, not just the Anglicans. Jews, Catholics, Protestants, Mormons, Muslims, you name it.

Now, here’s where there might be a murky area where we can quibble about the accuracy of Akin’s statement. For generic references to God have often been tolerated as part of public ceremonies, even if tying the government to Christianity or other specific strands of Eastern or Western religions have not.

But the origin of  “under God” in the Pledge shows just how perilous even a fairly innocuous statement in support of monotheism can be.  

The addition came during the heydey of Sen. Joe McCarthy’s (R-WI) reign of political terror in the 1950s.  The “loyalty test” aspects of that added snippet were intended to distinguish “God-fearing Americans” from “atheistic Communists.” McCarthy was indeed trying to drive a wedge between and among Americans, and for a good time, he succeeded.

The miscalculation of McCarthy, and of Akin, is that the First Amendment was intended to not only make freedom of religion, but also freedom from religion, inviolate. So if a “flag-waving” American chooses to live his or her life as an agnostic, atheist or the so-called “secular humanist” (often bringing sneers of derision from some in religious circles), it simply doesn’t matter – he or she is every bit as American as you or me.

There is nothing funny about Akin’s semantic missteps, and in fact there’s something rather dangerous in them. For by suggesting an ideological movement in America infers animus toward God, he is trying to separate us, which is exactly the opposite of what our forefathers wanted when it came to religious issues.

So next time Akin chooses to open his mouth about religion, perhaps he can say that he respects all Americans’ right to choose their relationship with God, or choose not to have such a relationship, no matter their political, religious or moral preference. Then he’d be doing something that is constructive during this holiday season: Uniting, not dividing, all of us as Americans.