On July 7, 2021, Cardinal Blase J. Cupich shared his thoughts in an article titled Religion, Rudder of America’s Democracy, published in the Newspaper of the Archdiocese of Chicago.  The article brought attention to observations made by the 19^th century French writer Alexis de Tocqueville, who saw religion as an important factor to understand the American political system.  Quoting de Tocqueville, Cupich said:

“He observed that though ‘the law permits the American people to do everything, religion prevents them from conceiving everything and forbids them to dare everything.’”

I assume this means democracy gives freedoms to American citizens, but religion is a moderating force that helps them act within certain boundaries of decency.  Today, many people would disagree with that assessment, and some even believe that the world would be better off without the destructive effects of religious fanaticism.  But Cardinal Cupich is not one of them.  Further quoting de Tocqueville, he said:

“When authority in the matter of religion no longer exists, nor in the matter of politics, men are soon frightened at the aspect of this limitless independence. … As everything is moving in the world of the intellect, they want at least that all be firm and stable in the material order; and as they are no longer able to recapture their former beliefs, they give themselves a master.”

In other words, if allegiance to a supreme being is no longer present to regulate human behavior, it will be replaced by allegiance to something else that is of human origin.  That could be dangerous.  But that may be happening today, in a nation torn by political divisions and in which the percentage of young people who are not religiously affiliated has been rising and currently stands at 40%.

Referring to de Tocqueville’s observations, Cupich enumerates ways in which religion can help counter the effects of corrupt politics resulting from deep polarization and partisanship.  Worship of God can address the following areas:

• Remind us that political leaders are human and can be wrong.
• Keep us humble by reminding us that only God is perfect.
• Teach us to be forgiving in view of our own imperfections.
• Help us recognize that it is human to have doubts.
• Help bring us together as communities where we share burdens, celebrate important moments, rely on each other and embrace our diversity.

Cupich expresses his hope for the near future as follows:

“As we turn the corner on the pandemic and our churches reopen, it might be worthwhile to have discussions with our families about the need to return to regular religious practice — yes, for our own spiritual well-being — but also for the good of our country. We need to encourage young people to become involved in democracy, but also in our faith communities that serve as schools for learning how to live together and appreciate our differences.”

Cupich’s ideas, as expressed above, give the impression that religion is always a force for good.  Of course, history shows that is not the case.  In an opinion published in the Washington Post on August 25, 2021 and titled Can Religion Strengthen Democracy, E. J. Dionne makes that point.  Asking the question “Is religion good for us,” he says:

“You could argue this is a foolish question. Most of us would regard a faith that promotes, say, love, compassion and justice differently from a belief system that encourages violence, intolerance and hatred.”

Dionne, who is aware of Cupich’s thoughts as discussed in the previous section, puts them in the category that promotes love, compassion and justice.  But he acknowledges the presence of a category that encourages violence, intolerance and hatred when he says:

“Debates over religion in the United States have been sharpened in recent years as large sections of the Christian right embraced Donald Trump, the antithesis of Christian values. The fusing of strains of religious conservatism with racism and nativism — it’s happened before in American history — has pushed many away from faith altogether, particularly among the young.”

According to him, good religion moves people to “acts of mercy and justice toward the poor and the excluded, the homeless and the stranger,” while bad religion leads to “wars fought in religion’s name and the intolerance and persecution bred by absolute certainty.”  In spite of his admiration for Cupich, he reacts to the latter’s article by saying:

“Cupich’s thesis is that ‘faith can have a moderating influence in a democratic state.’ It’s a perspective I have long shared but have begun to question.”

While he agrees with Cupich on the positive effects of what I have been referring to as good religion, he disagrees on the following:

“Cupich’s vision of religion is attractive, and it’s accurate about a particular form of religious faith. But the use of religion by a hard, often authoritarian right suggests that religion is not always democracy’s friend, and not always a positive social force.

And the Taliban’s victory in Afghanistan since Cupich wrote his essay reminds us that certain fervent forms of theism are implacably opposed to the tolerance and openness he preaches.”

Dionne unambiguously associates good religion with liberalism and bad religion with conservatism:

“The Chicago archbishop’s faith is, at heart, a liberal version of Christianity (we can also see its characteristics in liberal forms of Judaism and Islam) that breaks with absolutism, accepts pluralism — the need to live with and respect those with very different worldviews — and resists using the state to impose forms of orthodoxy on others.”

I will note in passing that the urge to use the state “to impose forms of orthodoxy on others” is built into the Calvinistic view of Christianity since John Calvin believed in a divinely mandated partnership between church and state.  But here, Dionne’s focus is on the Catholic Church, and he puts both Cupich and Pope Francis on the liberal side of Catholicism which tends to adhere to the conclusions of the Second Vatican Council:

“It’s no accident that Cupich joins Pope Francis in defending the achievements of the Second Vatican Council, held during the 1960s. It was a time when the Catholic Church, after a long period of resistance, embraced many of the gifts that liberalism has to offer while still maintaining a critical posture toward the hyper-individualism that liberalism can encourage.”

In other words, there are positive aspects of liberalism that help enhance a democracy by promoting tolerance and rejecting authoritarianism.  But liberalism can also stand against the spirit of the church by putting too much emphasis of individual liberties.  Dionne feels that Vatican II maintained a good balance between the two.  But he is afraid that approach is now threatened by the forces of conservatism:

“The forces contesting this more liberal approach, however, are gaining traction. In the case of Catholics, a significant number of intellectuals are turning away from Vatican II’s spirit with calls for an embrace of pre-Enlightenment thinking.  And many rank-and-file conservative Christians have come to see their faith as a form of identity threatened by the forces of secularism and diversity. This accounts for their embrace of Trump.”

From this statement, it is clear that Dionne sees conservative Christians as a tribal movement that wants to preserve its cultural identity and dominance, rather than a representative of good religion.  Given that it is a powerful movement, he has reservations about the role of religion on democracy:

“Cupich’s witness is a reminder to critics of faith that religion can provide democracy with spiritual and intellectual resources it can draw on in times of challenge. But the link between religion and democracy is far from automatic. Supporters of liberal democracy have work to do — in society at large but also within their own religious traditions.”

Perhaps Dionne’s view of liberalism as good and conservatism as bad is an oversimplification.  Even though intolerance, violence and hatred are more likely to emerge from conservative religious circles, there are conservative Christians who are decent people and reject Christian nationalism and other questionable features of American Christianity.  They are pious, Bible-believing, and do their best to live according to their understanding of the Bible.  On the surface, it would seem that Dionne did not account for them with his two categories.  In fact, such people often see themselves as the representatives of good old religion.

If religious conservatives are neither violent nor hateful, and do not show visible signs of intolerance, then it would make sense to assume they belong in Dionne’s liberal category, even though conservatives themselves usually reserve the L-word for people with loose morals.  That is actually the case.  When Dionne talks about “pre-Enlightenment thinking,” he is referring to a movement whose strength is increasing within conservatism, in opposition to an older form of conservatism that has more respect for democratic institutions.  An article published by Benjamin Wallace-Wells on September 12, 2019 in The New Yorker provides a glimpse into that situation by examining the debate between Sohrab Ahmari and David French.  Ahmari is a convert to Catholicism who thinks conservative Christian values are under an existential threat, and wants “his side to dispense with the niceties of liberalism.”  In particular, he thinks “Cultural conservatives should embrace Donald Trump’s scorched-earth approach to politics and ‘fight the culture war with the aim of defeating the enemy.’”  He seems particularly concerned about inroads made by the LGBTQ community, to which he may not be willing to grant the full benefits of freedom of speech.  French, on the other hand, is an evangelical Christian who believes the first amendment rights of all citizens should be respected, whether he agrees with them or not.  French was briefly considered as a potential Republican presidential candidate by those who did not support Trump’s reelection campaign.

With the above explanation, it is now clear that Dionne did not leave decent conservative Christians out of his definition of good religion.