Religion as a Social Phenomenon Religion serves both a personal and a political function. As a personal phenomenon, religion can provide psychological and emotional sustenance, mitigate grief, and provide solace in the midst of existential crises. Similarly, religion can help people to resolve complex questions related to the nature of transcendental experiences ranging from love and sexuality to the sublimity of nature. We all have a sense of "wonder" that religion helps address in its own unique language, using rituals, exercises, or symbols (Palmquist). However, the personal dimensions of religion are completely distinct from the social and political dimensions of religion.

As a social phenomenon, religion serves some core purposes including creating and maintaining a community. People who are members of a specific religious community have access to the services and camaraderie of other members of that community. Moreover, religion provides a sense of identity -- not only personal but also collective and cultural identity. Religion also provides a belief system and behavioral codes, therefore religion offers social order in a similar way to the secular legal system. As a social phenomenon, religion is best referred to as "organized religion," as opposed to "spirituality," which refers more generally to the personal dimension of the religious experience.

Ideally, religion serves people and helps them to feel connected to others while also resolving some of the key philosophical questions related to the origin and purpose of human life, what happens after we die, and whether or not there is a "God" and if so, what the nature of that God might be. Unfortunately, organized religion fails to function in a healthy way and has likely caused more problems than it has resolved. Religion creates an us-versus-them mentality, leading to the presumption that other belief systems are inferior and even threatening. Similarly, religion can lead to a sense of false righteousness. Because religion is based on emotionality, its core tenets are not necessarily "true," causing problems related to irrational and illogical thinking and anti-intellectualism.

Yet religion is one of the more interesting and colorful aspects of human culture and society. The great diversity of religions in the world offers the opportunity to appreciate the diversity of the human experience, and religion cannot be separated from culture in most respects. A world without religion is trending, especially in the developed world. As a result, we are witnessing greater homogeneity of culture. For example, language remains the most important element distinguishing the different countries of Europe, whereas in the past religion might have been more of a salient issue. Yet not all homogenization is bad; if global society is shifting away from the patriarchal religious codes of the past to a more egalitarian and forward-thinking future based on fact and not on passing fancy, then the world might indeed become a more peaceful place.

In the United States, as in Europe, humanism has replaced religion. Humanism is, in Smart's view, an "alternative to Christianity," (p. 5). However, the original settlers of the United States from Europe brought a particularly rigid brand of Christianity to the New World, puritanism, and there remains a strong thread of religious fundamentalism in American society. Christian Americans find themselves at odds with an increasingly secular society. While religious freedom remains protected under the law, some fundamentalist Christians seem to prefer weaving their religious beliefs into the law rather than allowing the law to respond to secular humanist concerns. In truth, it does not bother me at all that some people are deeply religious. I do disagree that those religious beliefs have any place in any legislation, whether simple local laws or the federal laws that pertain to all Americans. Some Christians in the United States seem to believe that their nation is a "Christian" one but in fact, it is a secular nation.

Personally I do not understand how secular Americans might have a difficult time electing an atheist to the highest office. The president is not a religious leader; there is no reason why the president should believe in God or be a religious person. I do understand the trepidation to elect an atheist president on a few main levels, though. One is sheer newness. Just as there has never been a female or Jewish president, there has never been an atheist president. People generally fear and resist change, so this might be one reason why it could be hard to elect an atheist president. Second, some Americans might wonder if an atheist president shares their values. Because so many values are predicated on religion, this is an understandable line of...

Values come from character and ethical integrity, not from a profession of faith or from religion. Some of the most notoriously bad people have been religious. Religion does not make a person trustworthy. Finally, some Americans might want a president who is "like them," and who can serve as a role model. Atheists will not mind an atheist president, but people who believe in God might suspect that their leader would not understand their concerns or might even somehow threaten their religious freedom, which of course is not true. Freedom of religion is embedded in the constitution.
Ultimately, religion should remain a personal choice and become less of a social phenomenon. People have the right to profess their faith and even proselytize if that is what they choose to do, so long as they are not impinging on the rights of others. Religious beliefs should never interfere with the rights of others in the United States. Ideally, people's beliefs about God will be supplemented by an equally strong willingness to accept that there either is no God, or that God is much different than they had imagined or were told.