It seems like the rest of the Western world has answered the question of religion. England, Italy, Germany and France, themselves the ancient seats of one brand of Christianity or another, had slaughtered each other under the auspice of religion for nearly 10 centuries. Though an old statistic, it is worth repeating: These same countries have almost no church attendance. They’ve killed each other over it too much. Sure, things like the English Civil War were caused by economic changes like the rising middle class — but it was the Protestant Reformation and religious ideology that moved men to pick up the weapons.

The Anglican church, or Church of England, is still sponsored by the state (yes, completely by taxpayer dollars), yet about 2 percent of the population regularly attends. Religion in England is a cultural relic; its sponsorship by the state is written in stone to this day. America has a reported attendance of 43 percent, and the foundation of our country also has something definite to say about religion: Under no circumstances will the state have anything to do with it, aside from assuring the freedom of its pursuit.

Then, there’s the de facto political reality that we’re all too aware of: the skewing of religion’s role in politics, due most directly to the exploitation of voter demographics, that’s responsible for the most controversial cultural issue of our time despite the clear role that is written in our Constitution. What causes (media sponsored) public figures like Christine O’Donnell, who, despite her defeat, remains the top-queued “Christine” if you Google the name, to feel justified in not just subverting but entirely blocking out the portion of our Constitution that demands religious freedom?

The open contempt for one clause in the Constitution, seen in the most optimistic light, might seem like a valid stance that doesn’t necessarily reject America’s founding document as a whole. Unfortunately, the clause the separation of church and state is in prevents such convenient selectiveness, like à la carte interpretation:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

To reject the first clause of this amendment is to undeniably reject it as a whole. False dilemma? For the government to restrict or promote religion, a very natural form of expression, in any way would unravel the rest of our founding’s cardinal amendment. Yet the delusion persists.

England, whose religious intolerance motivated the intellectual founders to yearn for religion to be a political nonissue, has culturally “outgrown” strong religious identity as a culture despite its continued legislative bias. America, intended from Day One to be free from religion’s infinitely biasing effect on the functions of government, especially a purposefully limited one, is now far more religiously biased and intolerant than England. A grand irony and a testament to maddening complexities of culture and the failure of government-sponsored religion in the modern day.

Historically, what do we have to quickly explain this turn of events? We can’t ignore the success that is the free market of religion. From the wording in the First Amendment, the founder’s themselves craved a freedom from religion as much as the freedom to pursue it. But they were the governors, the “elitists” of their time. The colonists that continued to pump into America had a much different perspective; in a way, it was they, in their new, huge environment that preserved the religious intensity that continues to demand treasonous political inclusion.

The Republican Party has transformed its campaigning process to exploit this strong cultural identity — exploit, because it actually does nothing to support Christianity besides claiming a general solidarity with Christians. Why? Besides the First Amendment, Christianity operates on a cellular level: There are simply too many brands that don’t have a strong enough bond. There’s nothing monolithic about it.

The pick-and-choose attitude of the multitudes is not limited to the Constitution — American Christianity itself has no consensus. The Old Testament can only really be understood in the cultural context of ancient Judaism; capitalism itself ignores the fourth commandment — keep sacred the Holy Sabbath — by working on Sunday. What does the Bible demand of people who work on the Sabbath? Death (Exodus 31:15), same as the other commandments, because “thou shalt not kill” meant don’t kill your fellow Jews unprovoked.  Without the possibility of literal translation there can be no consensus. And good luck getting people to focus literally on the New Testament: It takes a real “liberal” interpretation of Jesus’ teachings for them to complement conservative economics. There’s just no excuse for promoting a cultural identity at the scale it’s being done. There is no controversy: It’s a direct attack on the only thing ensuring America’s theoretical moral superiority.

— Wiley Robinson is an undecided sophomore. He can be reached at rrobin23@utk.edu