What do you mean by ‘God’?

Of the people who left Europe for North America in the 17^th and 18^th centuries, there are two notable types who have gone on to have a significant impact on their new home – those who could not stand other people disagreeing with their religious views and hence wanted to go where they could establish themselves without challenge from others; and those who were fed up with vicious and futile religious disputes and wanted to go where religion would be a private matter and never intrude into the public domain. 

The first type can be fanatical about their beliefs and intolerant towards others who won’t subscribe to their doctrines. The second type are wary of theological conflicts and want tolerance for diverse ideas about God.  

In time, this will feed much of the polarisation in the United States.  One side hankers after a quasi-theocracy based exclusively on their version of ‘God’. Puritanically they strive to declare all but their ‘God’ is the true one and whose will – according to their interpretation – should therefore command everyone without exception.  Anyone who disagrees with them is an enemy of God.

By contrast, the other side tries to remind everyone that the Founding Fathers explicitly declared that matters of government and religion should be kept separate.  They champion cultural diversity and religious tolerance.  Invoking the name of ‘God’ (or not), people are expected to pursue their ideals so long as they do not threaten or undermine the wellbeing of others. 

Some may think of this divide as one between the faithful and the godless.  But actually it is between those who hijack ‘God’ as a cover for their own ends, and those who respectfully recognise that what God means for people is to be found in the many relationships diverse people have with the supreme ideal in their lives. 

The holier-than-thou hijackers are prepared, in the name of their ‘God’, to condemn people to be executed on questionable evidence, force victims of rape to carry any resultant pregnancy through to birth, threaten others with deadly weapons, obstruct life-saving vaccination, or prolong the excruciating suffering of terminal patients who want to end their lives.

In the opposite camp are people who would not presume to claim absolute and exclusive knowledge of God; people who appreciate that God is about love –manifested in kindness and fairness, in countless ways in different situations in life; people who care about living together, appreciating their complementariness, and learning through the growth of shared understanding.

This clash in the US has been deepening. Those who have little time for a loving God, have become more arrogant and delusional in insisting their hatred and prejudices are sanctified by the inner voices they hear.  Resisting the spread of their influence are people who, regardless of whether or not they use the word ‘God’ every time they speak, want society to be fair and inclusive so that everyone can be in communion with moral goodness that is worthy of the appellation ‘divine’.

Ultimately, who gains the upper hand in this clash will have sweeping consequences for the US, and indeed the world.