In all this talk of faith, we should try to keep in mind the point - otherwise why are we even having this discussion?
Ultimately, what people believe doesn't matter at all; the only things that matter are actions and policies. If "atheists" or "religionists" don't stop me from living the life I want to live, then I don't care what they think. It's when people try to teach creationism to my children or make me take down the Christmas tree I put up in my store that I start to get pissed. And most importantly, what really matters is that we don't persecute others or fight wars based on faith.
I want the policymakers and generals to whom I give my tax dollars to be rational, down-to-earth men and women who act on the information available to protect my wellbeing while preserving fairness.
Does fairness fall into the category of morality, and thus can only be explained by an existence of God? Is it necessary to believe in God to adhere to the Golden Rule, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you?" I would say not.
Do God or religion need to get involved in the public sphere? No.
And I think it would be a healthy thing for this nation if matters of faith stayed out of policymakers' thought processes when they make decisions that affect everyone in this multicultural and multi-faith nation.
If you are a policymaker in the United States, you are obligated to act secularly in the best interests of the nation, even if your specific actions must go against your personal faith. Remember the separation of church and state? When you hold office, I would argue that you must hold the state, secularly, over your church.
I ask those who disagree with this to explain their reasoning. And don't waste your effort arguing about what the Founding Fathers really meant by all their words, as that might imply we actually adhere to the Constitution at all times.
Can someone give a better explanation of what's best for the state? Our nation has changed since its inception, and perhaps you can argue that a more modern approach is called for.
But how hard do you have to try to include God and faith in your modern explanation of what's best? I don't think that people need to have faith in God to know that oppression is bad and law and order are in everyone's best interest.
And no, I'm not saying that a faith in God is bad, only that I don't think it matters whether someone believes in Him or not. As long as you don't burn a cross on my lawn, I've got no problem with you.
So stop defining and redefining words like "atheism" or "agnosticism" or "doctrine" one way or the other, because it doesn't really matter what you call it. The only thing that matters is the actual state of things, and what, if anything, you are going to do because of it.
My take on the state of things is this: Apathy is the dominant American "religion" when it comes to most issues that don't directly affect individual Americans.
And I'm not afraid to admit that I participate. If I cared so much about everything that went on in this world, how could I function amidst the worries in my daily life?
There's no doctrine, no black-and-white, no "you-are-or-you-aren't." Everything in the universe is a gradient, and neither faith, nor apathy nor any other human tendency can claim exception.
So in the end, if you want to talk about faith in God, focus more on effects instead of validity, because there is a difference between what's private and what's public. Your thoughts and beliefs are private, your actions are public.
You shouldn't care about my private life unless I invite you to. Or at the very least, you shouldn't try to meddle.
Nick Horelik is a junior majoring in chemical engineering and is a member of the Tufts Elections Commission.
