two very different notions of society, each flowing from religious roots

The political divisions in society flow from two very different notions, both of which are deeply rooted in religious thought. Republicans and Democrats are both supported by religionists who come from widely diverse notions of what makes society function. Political opinions are often tied to how individuals view these religious perspectives.

On one hand is the concept that society is a collection of individuals whose only responsibility is to the self. The role of government, and every other societal institution, is to keep out of the way. This ideology is derived from a deeply embedded notion called “Social Darwinism,” which posits as its primary axiom, the survival of the fittest. The naturally strong are those fit to inherit the earth. Their genetic equipment is backed up with personal drive. These are the able who have the genetic substance and the will, which allow for progress through individual initiative. If one’s religion is focused on personal salvation, this perspective is most often at root.

In modern times Social Darwinism has taken shape in the Objectivism of Ayn Rand. She spelled it out in 1962 newspaper article.
—Every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.

While Social Darwinism has long since been refuted in much of the world, it still enjoys currency here among America’s religious and political right-wing.

The opposite understanding of culture is dominant among liberal religionists who see the good of society flowing directly from their religious convictions. While individual rights are not discounted, they lie embedded in a social fabric. We are all partners of one another and have a responsibility for one another, particularly the weak. No one is an island entire to itself. Every person is connected to every other person. It is the only way society can survive. The implications of this notion run all the way from the establishment of a defense force to food stamps.

This egalitarian notion flows from the religious roots which have guided much of American history. If one is honored, all are honored. Nobody is left out. The least able are served. Justice is a societal demand. If one suffers, all suffer. You probably are familiar with the texts. Interdependence lies at the core of this notion of religious ethics.
Beyond that, our Constitution defines a government of mutual concern and support. It begins. “We the people,” and goes on to detail what the people are going to do together through their elected officials. Nowhere does the Constitution suggest that we are no more than a collection of isolated individuals.

While we are not a Christian nation, most of our founders drew their perspectives from Christian roots. This religious dynamic found common cause with a non-religious dynamic springing from purely secular sensitivities. Religionists and non-religionists came together to form the basis of America’s ethical commitments. Our day calls for a similar joining of those who share a notion of an interdependent society, albeit from widely different religious and humanistic roots.