The Public Intellectual (Part 1 of 3): The Public Intellectual, Religion And Politics

The concept of the public intellectual has at times been mired in anonymity and tension. Many people wonder just who or what a public intellectual is, what their role encompasses, when and where they operate and most importantly, why they do what they do. From one perspective, they appear to be public commentators on issues of today, but on the other hand, they appear to be dissenters. On the matters of public intellectuals, many argue over issues such as whether they are to be guided and, to a certain extent, restricted in their rhetoric. Indeed, questions are raised in which people wonder if these intellectuals truly are public commentators governed by their own opinions and belief systems, or whether they are merely the mouthpiece of the American public, compromising their personal beliefs in favor of representing the public opinion. Coupled with an ever changing world and media along with the growing uncertainty of his role, the public intellectual faces these challenges. One of these complicating challenges is the issue of the dichotomy involving politics and religion. Is the public intellectual to argue by logic, reason and politics? Or do his own personal convictions and religious beliefs shape his rhetoric? The two major problems that seem to be plaguing the public intellectual seems to be how they are to reconcile the roles of logic and politics and personal religion in public forums and second, what the role of the intellectual is in the present day and if they are facing a possible decline in society.

In looking over America’s past, the 200+ year old nation’s beginnings have been inundated with politics and religion. After all, the beginnings of America is laced with countless numbers of Puritan colonials, such as John Winthrop, leaving England for a new beginning, politically and religiously, in America. It’s seen in many other points in our history as well. This study reveals the fact that the founding fathers, the 56 signers of the Declaration of the Independence all had religious affiliations. Another incidence shows up in the first amendment in guaranteeing the freedom of religion and speech among other rights. In this example, the fate of religion and press and speech are intertwined. The irony is, our nation whose foundation has roots in these two ideologies also is at the same time, divided by them. As Stephen Mack put it, “they are, more or less, alienated kindred vying for the same space in the human imagination”. Mack makes the point that religion and politics have been driving forces that give our lives a purposeful meaning and a sense of existence but at the same time, paradoxically polarizes society as a whole. Indeed, any unity that has existed between the two has been uneasy. In fact, it was as early as 1635 when Roger Williams highlighted the tension between church and politics when he was kicked out by the Massachusetts colony for being critical of their mixing of religion and politics.


As this nation continues to witness the dichotomy of religion and politics, the public intellectual finds himself in the middle of this mess, deafened by the polarizing results. However, as polarizing as these forces have been, there is historical precedence in there being some coexistence, albeit an uneasy one. Thus, it makes more difficult for the public intellectual to determine where he stands in the middle of that mess. In fact, it has become an issue of “either us or them” in public debating, which is for the intellectual, a key aspect of his existence. Do they stick to the language of politics and logic, supposedly the language of the public masses or base their rhetoric on personal belief and religion? For the former, Peter Beinart of The New Republic states:

It's fine if religion influences your moral values. But, when you make public arguments, you have to ground them--as much as possible--in reason and evidence, things that are accessible to people of different religions, or no religion at all. Otherwise, you can't persuade other people, and they can't persuade you. In a diverse democracy, there must be a common political language, and that language can't be theological. (Beinart)

and for the latter, Stephen Mack countered with two flaws that arise out of Beinart’s argument. First, it’s hard to argue for the lack of credibility of religion in public debate and conduct when America’s history has been one filled with and shaped by “activist theologians from the right and the left”. Second, as Hugh Heclo put it, Beinart’s demand “amounts to a demand that religious believers be other than themselves and act publicly as if their faith is of no real consequence”. This is a conundrum that has personal implications for me. Personally speaking, I am a Christian, and yet, I find myself actually agreeing with the side that I shouldn’t, that is, I understand Beinart’s rationale that religion is something that is not a common language and thus won't appeal to everyone. I also understand that having been built on logic and reason, those should still be the only things driving public debating to this day. However, the essence of being a public intellectual, I believe, is in expressing your views and opinions and how they relate to the matters of the world today. And it goes without saying that, to be deprived of your fundamental beliefs and religion means to lack the passion and core values that shape your arguments in the first place. I believe that just as the fate of freedom of religion and speech were intertwined in the First Amendment, it should hold true in public debate today. For anyone who calls themselves a public intellectual, they owe it to not only the public, but for themselves to stick to what they believe in.

I believe though, much of the skepticism regarding the church-state and any derivatives of, comes from examples that are of a national level. On an individual level, in public forums, what I believe is that one should always be governed by what they know and believe, otherwise, their rhetoric comes off as nothing but a resounding gong. However, at the national level, things are a little unclearer, even as a Christian. Not everyone is of the same religion, but political regimes and governments are institutions that usually have the approval of the majority, even if it is an uneasy one. On the one hand, many of the basics and beginnings of America, the right of the individual for one, and many movements such as abolitionism of slavery, women's suffrage and civil rights all drew upon these basic human rights and Christian values. And the point that Mack makes from one side is that:

(John) Winthrop teaches us that a people deeply committed to a religiously inspired vision of society will inevitably try to make that vision law. And our history teaches us that American democracy would not be nearly so liberal or humane if they hadn't. In the American experience, in short, religion and civil society are political codependents. (Stephen Mack)

Thus, in one respect, many of the greater political developments have risen out of a Christian foundation, but the skepticism expressed by those like Beinart grows when people are aware of Roger Williams' recognition of the fact that Mack reveals, that, "this codependency had a dark side". That the fear of religion mixing with politics isn't mostly due to its clashing with people's beliefs, though it plays a part, but rather it seems a dangerous contradiction to them that a democracy, which is built on compromise, teamwork and tolerance, could be headed by religious zealots whose personal beliefs can only be defined as being uncompromising. Luckily, the role of the public intellectual is one that isn't of any formal affiliation or official position, but one that is guided, at its root, by the same right that the rest of us possess, that is, our freedom of religion, speech, press and assembly. In fact, if a public intellectual were to be involved at the national level in some level of government, there would be a very dangerous risk that not only would the political leadership be compromised, but also their own personal beliefs. By entering politics and their religion into a melting pot, not only is the reputation of their religion at stake, but their conduct as called for by their religion is likely to come into conflict with political duties. Alexis de Tocqueville wrote on this point that when religious leaders become politicians, they end up having to possibly "defend allies who are such from interest rather than from love".

It is an interesting paradox that even when you think you have it figured out, you find yourself back at square one. Because I believe that the role of the public intellectual is limited to that as a third party, non-political citizen, for reasons which will be explored later, the complications that arise from the national level cannot impede him. That is, because his role finds its roots in public forums and speech, and I argued earlier that he has the right and also the responsibility to stay true to his beliefs, his role is clear. Now if we were talking politicians, that would be a different story.