Mr. Mattingly penned an essay that was published in the Mountain Mail on 6 October, offering an argument imploring for less religion (specifically, Christians) in government. He offered some statistics describing the current demographic of U.S adults to be roughly 60% Christian, 19% Unaffiliated, 13% Agnostic or Atheist, and the balance ‘Other’, suggesting that the demographics of representative government should reflect, at least in some degree, the constituents they represent, and not to be so overly loaded with people of the Christian persuasion. He also stated that the Christian demographic was ~78% as recently as 2007, and that the decline from then until now should be seen as a ‘canary in the coalmine’ for the turning tide of the American psyche.
In the byline at the end of his essay, Mr. Mattingly was kind enough to share that he is a ‘retired farmer, cancer kicker, and declared atheist’. He also makes the claim that non-Christians, though unorganized, are fundamentally decent people who would probably stop to help me if I were stranded on the side of the road. To this last claim I would say that I know a good many of non-Christians that are ‘fundamentally decent people’; many of whom (even atheists!) I am fortunate to call family and friends. But as to whether or not they should be considered for positions to govern society because of their atheism is the subject of my response.
The questions that I believe are at the core of Mr. Mattingly’s essay is: “Which people, or group of people, are best suited to govern well? Is it really the exclusive or primary purview of people of Christian belief? Or would it be better served to include people representing a greater diversity of beliefs more in-line with the demographics of the population?”
To start my response, I will make a couple of claims myself:
Firstly, that the purpose of living together in society is to ‘live well’, a thing which the individual man living alone could not attain, and that ‘good life’ is ‘virtuous life’. Therefore, virtuous life is the end for which men gather together. (Reference, St. Thomas Aquinas on Kingship, to the King of Cyprus)
Secondly, that the purpose of good government is to enable human flourishing and support the pursuit of one’s salvation. Now we may all have slightly differing definitions of human flourishing, but hopefully we can all agree in general what that looks like: warm, dry and clean living conditions; sufficient healthy foods for everyone in the family; happy & healthy children; a good job that provides for the necessities of life; etc. And salvation, for those of us who believe in such concepts, is the pursuit of eternity with God Himself in Heaven.
Perhaps Mr. Mattingly has different ideas of why men live together in society, and what good government looks like, but that’s where my arguments start. From there, we can hopefully derive what people who govern us should look like.
It does not seem prudent nor realistic that the makeup of our governing class should reflect the demographics of society as a whole, for who amongst the average citizenry has more than a passing thought or the skillset to govern well? Take intelligence for example: an IQ of ‘100’ is, by definition, the average of the population. And as Mr. George Carlin used to quip, that means that half of the population has an IQ lower than 100. Should our government, with such a weighty and demanding responsibility as governing the entirety of 300+ million souls be comprised by 50% of those of sub-average intelligence? Ideally, I think not (although by the words and actions of our current elected officials one might think we already have that). The same could be said of ethics and morals: Should our elected officials be sub-average in those categories too? Of course not; but again, I fear this is already the case.
It seems self-evident that those that govern should be a ‘cut above’; they should be reflective of the best amongst us. Is that not what we look for in those that lead us, whether it be in business or athletics or juris prudence? I imagine one who is mature, experienced, wise and virtuous; he should have a solid understanding of history, and the abilities to reason and communicate well.
To consider Mr. Mattingly’s argument – that there should be more atheists and less Christians in government – let us ask, ‘why?’ The distinguishing characteristics between those two groups is specifically that the former disbelieves in a supreme being, and the latter believes in one. For the sake of this discussion, that distinction becomes relevant in how such persons would make decisions of governance. For at their core, all political questions are moral questions; and all moral questions are, at their core, theological questions. So in the end, all political questions and issues will be assessed and decided based on one’s theology (or lack thereof). The Christian has a set of guidelines decreed by God Himself by which to govern their decisions and lives: The Ten Commandments, the Sermon on the Mount, the parables of Our Lord in the Gospels, etc. The practicing Christian should (and hopefully does) factor all of those lessons into every decision made every day. Such rules are unchangeable, immutable, eternal. God does not change the laws of nature nor the laws of man from age to age, from generation to generation. They are literally the foundations of the universe. Without God, what does the atheist have to base their decisions on? The only thing left is himself and his fellow men. Man – who is fickle, weak, soft, sinful; who changes the definitions of ‘good’ and ‘evil’ not just every generation or so, but on nearly a daily basis to suit one’s current desires and conveniences; who often makes his decisions not on what is objectively good, but on what he can get away with. Man, who is full of pride, envy, lust, greed, and must fight those inclinations on a daily basis; that is all that is left to turn to if God is eliminated from the picture. This is not to say that all Christians are always good, and all atheists are always bad; quite the contrary. For Christians are also men, and struggle with the same weaknesses and flaws as atheists. But the point remains that God, the omnipotent being that designed and created the entire universe and every one of us, is the most solid of foundations on which to build a society, not merely mankind who is really just struggling to get through his day.
So, if living well can be attained by living virtuously, and governing well by promoting & enabling human flourishing, it should be obvious: The people in positions that define laws and govern society should be…Virtuous People. What does that mean? For starters, think of the Four Cardinal Virtues: Fortitude, Prudence, Temperance, and Justice first described by Plato and Aristotle. These are examples of ‘natural virtues’, of which I’m sure Mr. Mattingly has cultivated to a great degree (for farming is a challenging vocation that demands the possession and utilization of several virtues to endure and master). Those who govern should be learned and intelligent yes, but not without a moral compass (think the cliché ‘evil genius’). We certainly don’t want people who pursues vices (pride, greed, lust, etc.) as if they were virtues, or counter-virtues as defined by the character of Commodus in the movie Gladiator (ambition, resourcefulness, courage -acknowledging it may not be on the battlefield- devotion).
My guess is that much of what disappoints Mr. Mattingly about our current government & the people who comprise it is the fact that they often seem to be practically the exact opposite of virtuous. Can you name a living politician that you would hold up as an example of a wise pillar of virtue? I might posit one or two, but not many.
So the question then becomes, where can we find such people? The answer should be, ‘in Christ’s Church’. The God-Man Jesus Christ was the only perfect (free from sin and error) man to ever live, and His teachings are the path to perfection. He told us how we should live (love God and love our neighbors), and if we actually did those things, the world would be in much better shape. Those that profess belief in and follow Him should be a ‘safe bet’ of where to find good people. And in many cases, that is the case. But in all-to-many cases, it also is not; and that is the source of our discontent.
So, Mr. Mattingly, I would suggest not fewer Christians in government, but instead, better Christians, and more of them.
Christopher Williams
Buena Vista, CO
Support Independent Local Journalism — High Country Advocate was created as a real alternative to regional media that too often silences dissenting voices while taking sides in the political struggle. Producing in-depth, unflinching reporting like this series and others is expensive: servers, editing, research time, and legal review all add up quickly. If these articles have informed you or given you new perspective, please consider supporting HCA with a paid subscription — every subscriber helps keep this reporting strong and independent. 