| Wake
Up Cape Cod Convened as a Committee of Correspondence to Reawaken Americans to the Cause of Liberty. |
||
|
Background photo: Cape Cod Sunrise by Joan Ross
|
Commentary on Religion in Politics.......
Religion and Politics: A Toxic Mix for Democracy or the Wellspring of American Greatness? Introduction Moderator, Stephen McLaughlin The country just finished the campaign for one of the most important presidential elections in American history. The campaign was, in its end stage, dominated by the economic crisis. But, underneath this issue, we continued to see many of the wedge issues that have made national politics divisive and, sometimes, ugly. Of these, few were more persistent than the religion of Sen. Obama and the views and implications of the spiritual leaders in his life. Religion appeared in both predictable and ironic ways. There were the regular references in the blogosphere to Sen. Obama being a closet Muslim, culminating in the now-famous instance where a woman attending a McCain campaign event claimed Sen. Obama was a Muslim. There were the slips of the tongue referring to Obama as Osama in political speeches. More overtly, there were the associations drawn between Sen. Obama and his outspoken former pastor Rev. Wright. Yet, we saw the irony of a Liberal Democratic presidential candidate speaking more openly about his faith than did his Conservative Republican rival. And, outside the presidential vote, there was the irony of California, where voters were of two minds —decisively going for Obama but also voting to outlaw same-sex marriage after it was already legal. Of course, these are only the most recent manifestations of religion and politics. This is an issue that has been with us since the time of the American colonies. It is also an arena of discussion with wide room for honest disagreement. We are going to plumb the depths of those differences of opinion this afternoon. And, to do that, we have an illustrious panel who will bring their life experience, work and considerable reflection to bear on an issue that may be always at the center of American democracy. Short Presentations by Each Panelist
Relationship of Christianity and Politics
Rev. Robert Swanson I have yet to see politics without religion. It is either overt or covert. Secular humanism is a religion. It is just different. The transcendent God is jettisoned for the human mind – the new god – and the autocratic new doctrines of their modified manifestoes. Skepticism is also faith based. I like the politics of people who received their moral convictions from Scripture like Wilberforce and Lincoln; not the politics of people who make up their own moral convictions, of whom Hitler and Stalin are sorry examples. The religion I bring to the body politic is Protestant, Evangelical, Reformation-friendly Christianity. We make up less than 10% of the population - less than that here in the northeast. Many more say they are part of us but when quizzed on their worldviews, personal commitments and daily disciplines, they are really living in a gray zone. We have friends of other labels: Catholics, mainline protestants, conservatives, traditionalists, but we know who we are. The tough teachings of Jesus are only accepted by Christians, and we know that. We want to calm the reaction others have of us. We do not believe in manipulation or force. That is not how we came to faith nor how we treat others. We accept the paradoxes of Jesus: humility over pride, giving over accumulation, serving over power, pleasure in discipline, not licentiousness. Rightly or wrongly, we do not have the interest in politics like our secular counterparts for whom this life is everything. For us, this life is very important, but when it goes sour, as it did in Jesus and Paul, we will buck up and carry one. Our hope is in heaven. Life today is lived in the light of eternity. On balance, that is more important. We do get involved outside our community in the name of our God and out of love. We are prepared to live in a broken world. That is why we are still in the gulf states helping hurricane victims. That is why we are sending 7 million shoe boxes filled with Christmas gifts for children around the world (nearly 3000 from Cape Cod.) And that is why we want to see our morality prevail in our state. It is consistent with our convictions. Some media firebrands have “taken it to the streets” and the majority wants nothing to do with the Parsleys, Baurs and, even, Falwells. Nonetheless, why are people nervous with diversity, and who is pompous enough to say, “Your institutions are trivial and your place in the public area needs to be regulated. Go to your corner”? In my remaining minutes I will comment on human rights and freedom. 1. Human rights. Cultural anthropologist, Carolyn Fleuhr-Lobban, now breaks with convention and intervenes when she sees women abused in traditional cultures. “Never mind it is an indigenous practice. Never mind it is the prevailing mores. Stop it! Human rights trump cultural relativism. It is violence to women and it must end.” Life without abuse is a human right. Everybody knows it. Those who don’t, need to. We hope and pray (no cliché intended) that culture will wake up. The superior court of South Carolina in the 1840s and the US supreme court of the 1850s had their indigenous reasons for denying a human right to Dred Scott, based on prevailing mores. They were wrong. Chief Justice Roger Taney was wrong and everybody knows it. In our day there is no acceptable excuse for abusing the helpless and vulnerable. Like life without abuse and legal personhood, birth is a human right! “What about choice, privacy?” They are important, as are safety and consequences. Christians care about human rights and birth is one of them. Those who don’t know that, need to. We hope and pray that MA will wake up. 2. Freedom: We think others err in permitting too much. Others think we err in condoning too little. Never the twain will meet but we can talk about alcohol consumption, gambling, consumer debt, monogamy, etc. Christians believe freedom is in becoming our potential. When the free choice produces a hindrance, the result is not freedom but bondage. Smoking, quitting high school, non- work… a freedom or bondage??? Feelings drive us to vice; virtue maximizes freedom. Virtue gets us to our highest and most joyful end. This is why we legislate morality, which all legislation is. Disciplines and restriction are out of love. To this we hope and pray MA will wake up. I speak of Freedom and Human Rights without a Bible. I could have used one. But if not using it helps, I won’t. Often times we do not need to. We know our recommendations are a very tough sell without our base: (1) a personal relationship with God through the forgiveness of sins in the atonement of Jesus; plus (2) a dynamic relationship with others of similar persuasion. Without disciplined spiritual goals and social inclusion, some Bible-friendly policies are received by the world like salad dressing without the salad: good for you, but not desired. So, for us evangelism, discipleship and ministry for all come first. But we care about the greater community and seek a place at the table of public policy.
Perfecting Faith in a Democratic Setting
Rev. Lawrence Brown Religion can be defined as “belief in the supernatural and the attempt to have a relationship with it”. I don’t suppose anything I could say would convince atheists like Hitchens that spirit is real – so it’s not for them I’m doing this thinking. It’s for us, the people who do believe, that I am writing. I’m looking for ways that Christians could be glad there are Muslims, and vice versa, and the same for Jews, and among all of those and the Hindus, Buddhists and Baha’i… grateful for the variety. After all, the only legitimate reason for any religion to spread is for people who are not part of that tradition to see it as a social asset. Atheists like Hitchens will probably never believe in God, but they should have more reasons to be glad the rest of us do. So the first requirement is that we see faith as voluntary. We renounce the uses of force in all aspects of our religious lives. To those who insist that error has no rights, we offer the observable blessings of our approach. (In extremis, we also defend ourselves.) With force forsworn, we see that democracy is the most fertile soil for spiritual growth. Democracy protects freedom of choice – and we know that religious conviction is only authentic when freely arrived at. So democracy defends Hitchens along with the rest of us. That’s what freedom has to offer. The “separation of church and state” that Jefferson wrote about protects faiths from the temptation of offering their votes as a bloc in return for the state’s enforcement of their world view. Even the fear of such an effort by one sect can set off a nasty struggle between them all. Historically, the more irrational a religious belief, the more willing its advocates have been to use violence or the threat of violence to enforce acceptance. When faith renounces the uses of force, it changes its relationship to truth from what can be enforced to what can be proved. In a pluralistic, democratic society, all laws must be justifiable in terms persuasive to all. In other words, secular law must be grounded in secular reasoning. Murder, rape, theft and extortion can all be condemned without recourse to any spiritual tradition at all. Secular Europe has lower crime rates than we do, and they are far less religious.. When opinions can only be supported by faith assertions, it should be faith alone (and not the state) that advocates for them. You’ll notice, I’m not asking religions to abandon their scriptures or to edit them; I’m talking about the social and political framework in which religions operate. Give faiths a democratic setting with a robust separation of church and state. When faiths cooperate for the common good and help create citizens who are gentle, honest and compassionate, it doesn’t matter how people conceive of God or work out their spiritual destiny. We’re all safe, and better off for their presence. You can see the truth of this right here on Cape Cod. Humanity isn’t about to abandon its religions – and shouldn’t have to. But religion’s critics like Hitchens are making points that require a thoughtful response. Claims to exclusive possession of God’s intentions… imagining God to be a petty and vindictive tribal chieftain or egotistical king… or that God requires certain ceremonies performed - have all proved more than we can handle well. We’d all be better off if we saw God as beyond insult, or somehow feeding hungrily off the rituals of man. We need the rituals, not the other way around. And we need a lot more humility than we’ve offered so far. A glance back in history shows how dramatically religions have already changed. It’s not unreasonable to ask that change to continue. Meanwhile, democratic societies already know how to encourage the progress of religions while simultaneously protecting against their historic temptations. Reading Hitchens reminded me that we have an obligation to perfect our religions, or risk having them turn on us as they have in the past… or see our posterity walk away from them in despair. 10 FUNDAMENTALS 1) Support Jeffersonian distinction between sacred (private) and secular (subject to democratic decisions). 2) Secular law must be based on secular (empirical) evidence. 3) Faith-based convictions not based on evidence available to everyone should be defended through faith-based persuasion – not politics. 4) Encourage interfaith cooperation and support interfaith efforts in your community. The interfaith movement removes much of the toxicity from triumphalist efforts that have made religious history so violent. 5) Religion must always and everywhere reject violence as a form of enforcement or persuasion. 6) Understand that religious triumphalism is a fraud. Since such efforts have begun, there are more varieties of faith than before all the violent coercion began. 7) Understand that democracy is the most fertile ground for spiritual growth because it permits religious conversion and conviction to be voluntary. 8) Understand that the world’s great religions were founded in the pre-democratic era as mostly hierarchical and authoritarian institutions worshipping an authoritarian God. It is a worth-while exercise to imagine what those founders would have said to us had they lived in a democratic society. 9) Most of all, we must avoid the temptation for faith to offer its massed support to candidates in return for advantage – or for politicians to offer secular enforcement of spiritual convictions in return for votes. 10) We approach the Eternal with a mind the size of a lunch-box. It is appropriate under the circumstances to remember to be humble – more humble than humanity has been so far.
Jesus' Third Way I have worked for Civil Rights and the anti-war movement throughout my lifetime. My grounding for this action was based on my passion for justice and peace, but my Christian base came later. I now base my political action on a deep belief that Jesus was highly political as he sought justice and peace. Martin Luther King Jr., Gandhi and many others have learned from Jesus how to confront the elite, the abuser, and those who wish to go to war by using nonviolent means to unbalance the powerful. I look to the following as grounding for my belief. Jesus chose a donkey to ride into Jerusalem on what Christians now call Palm Sunday. The Jews were expecting a military Messiah. If Jesus had chosen a horse to ride that day, he would have been recognized as a military leader. Instead he chose the donkey which represented the Messiah coming as a peacemaker. In the book Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time, Marcus Borg explains that Jesus’ actions in Jerusalem radically threatened the political and economic system. As he cured the sick and forgave the sinner on the street, he allowed the poor access to God without paying temple tax or paying the religious elite for rituals at the Temple. He was working for a just system for the poor. He allowed people access to God without buying sacrifices from those selling them at the Temple. The economy of Jerusalem was based on the Temple as a place of money exchange for rituals. The elite religious leaders got their money that way. Jesus was setting up a just system that included the outcast and in the same actions confronted those who caused the injustice. He operated out of the ancient mode of the prophet who confronted the elite. Prophets were those who were on fire with God and confronted the elite of society who set up systems to protect the elite, but were unjust with the poor. In the book, Engaging the Powers, Walter Wink describes Jesus helping the oppressed regain their self-respect non-violently in a world dominated by the Roman Empire. He says there is fight, flight and Jesus’ Third Way. Jesus was teaching the oppressed ways to unbalance the empire builders and oppressors non-violently. We have learned these passages but they have not been interpreted in terms of their own time and setting. They have a very different meaning when you look at what these behaviors would have meant back then. Example #1: Many have learned from Christianity that we are to “turn the other cheek.” That has been interpreted that we should be weak, a patsy to be walked on, or a pacifist who makes no stand against the oppressor, but rather just stands allowing another hit him again. There is another way to read that passage. In Jesus’ day the left hand was used only for toileting. It was considered unclean. If you hit someone with it, you could be fined. An oppressor hitting his slave, his wife or child would never use his left hand. He would use his right hand and backhand the one he was oppressing on that person’s right cheek. To hit with a fist also got you a large fine. Now Jesus says to the oppressed, “Turn the other cheek.” So imagine the oppressed person also turning the left cheek to be hit. The oppressor is faced with a choice. If he hits with a fist he can be fined a lot of money. If he hits with his left toiletry hand he can be fined. The only way to hit the oppressed is with another right handed backhand. However, to do that, you have to get in an enormously awkward and unbalanced position. It makes the oppressor stop and think what he is doing. The oppressed has successfully unbalanced the power. Example #2. You have heard in Christianity that we are to “walk the extra mile”. It sounds like generous behavior. Again, Jesus is misunderstood. Soldiers could conscript Jews to walk one mile carrying their 60lbs. packs. Rome did not want an uprising from soldiers being cruel to the Jews. There were laws about how far a soldier could ask a Jew to carry the pack and a mile was the limit. If the soldier made a Jew go further, the soldier could be fined a day’s pay, or have to stand guard outside the wall in risk of death. Jesus says, “Walk the extra mile.” Can’t you just see a Jew coming up to the usual mile marker and continuing on to the surprise of the soldier? The Roman soldier would go screaming after the Jew to stop walking, give the pack back, and come back here! Jesus gave the oppressed a non-violent way to unbalance the Roman Empire’s abusers by walking the extra mile. Example #3. You have heard it said that Christians are to give people the shirt off our backs. This sounds like we are to be generous. This idea comes from a statement made by Jesus that “if someone asks for your coat, give them your cloak also.” Be generous? No, Jesus is misunderstood by us. In those days, many poor people were thrown into debtor’s prison because they were too poor to pay their debts. Taxes by Rome and by the Jewish collaborators with Rome made life hard in an unjust society. Before people went to prison, they were hauled into court. They might have already lost home and land. They could be down to their outer coat and inner cloak, all they had to sleep with on the streets. Jesus was trying to help the poor stand up prophetically to those who took too much from them and caused this suffering. Jesus tells the poor that when they are hauled into court, give their coat and cloak to the one forced them to come there. If a man does that, he would be standing there naked! His nakedness in that society was a prophetic statement. It put the shame on the oppressor who asked too much. It did not put the shame on the oppressed. Jesus was teaching a move to unbalance those who created and supported such an unjust system that put so many in prison. It was a non-violent way to confront the abusers. These are only a few examples of how Jesus was trying to create a non-violent and just society. I think we are to find our own creative ways to do the same thing now. I remember the time, at the beginning of the Iraq war, that we were told we could not send medical supplies to Iraqis for those who were about to be bombed with “Shock and Awe”. The government set a package size and weight was that we could not go over sending anything to Iraq. Our group wrapped hundreds of packages of medical supplies that were over the size and weight limit. We spread out over the state of Connecticut to go to the post office with great numbers. We tied up the post offices all day as packages were weighed, measured, and refused. We read Martin Luther King Jr.’s statement on the Viet Nam war to patrons trying to mail letters. People had to stop and think why we were not allowed to “Love our enemies.” We finally sent our packages by a different means to the people of Iraq. This is a small non-violent way of protesting a rule that was not reflecting compassion for those caught in our war. I hope you can think of other ways.
Separating Religion and Politics Ed
Mangiafico
Thomas Jefferson said: “HISTORY, I BELIEVE, FURNISHES NO EXAMPLE OF A PRIEST RIDDEN PEOPLE MAINTAINING A FREE CIVIL GOVERNMENT AS THE CIVIL AS WELL AS RELIGIOUS LEADERS WILL ALWAYS AVAIL THEMSELVES OF THE POWER FOR THEIR OWN PURPOSE” More recently, Congressman Pete Stark of California said it this way: “IT’S NEVER BEEN ABOUT GOD, IT HAS BEEN ABOUT POWER FOR POLITICIANS” I do not criticize the existence of religion for its purpose. Religion is inherent to human society. Societies have always developed a comprehensive set of absolute truths expressed through a series of myths that attempt to answer the ultimate questions and create a formula for living. Religion obviously provides community and comfort for those seeking answers and hope. The concern that I will express is the use of religion in the hands of those that would use the fear of a wrathful God or Gods or hope of reward, as power in manipulating people for their own purpose or belief, frequently against the self interest of those people, even when it is well meaning. In the words of Mahatma Gandhi: “The most heinous and most cruel crimes of which history has a record were committed under the cover of religion” We need only look back to the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Lateran treaty of 1929 between the Pope and Mussolini establishing the Vatican State in return for his support of the fascist state or the Vatican support of Franco’s regime in Spain. Here in America the Christian principles applied to the horrors in Salem, MA or in the south with the KKK. Today we see the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people from their land being not only tied to presumed rights by Jewish religious leaders but supported here by evangelical Christians who see it as part of the “end time” scenario for the “second coming”. This is to say nothing of the vilification of Islam as an example of fighting authoritarian religion abroad while letting it thrive at home. Michelle Goldberg, in her book “Christian Nationalism” says: “The Bible is taken as an absolute truth by more people in the U.S than any other industrialized nation and then extrapolated by the leaders to a total political program essentially yoked to one political party claiming the supernatural as authority for their campaign” We saw this problem in the recent election in the passage of Prop 8 in CA with money from the Mormon Church and the Orange County evangelical groups. However we may feel on the issue individually, here God was evoked on one interpretation of the civil rights of another group. On the issue of religious involvement in politics, I like to draw an analogy with our economic crises. I frequently quote FDR when he said: “Free enterprise is the best economic system ever created by man, highly regulated; unregulated, it will inevitably yield to the corruption that follows greed.” We have currently seen this. I say: Religion serves an important purpose in the lives of many but unregulated will inevitably lead to the corruption of power by those that interpret their version of Gods will for their own purpose and to the exclusion of other religious interpretations. Thus it is clear that the “Establishment Clause” of the first amendment and the “Free Exercise” clause were written with important foresight by the fathers, but in my opinion it is not enough to ban support of candidates from non profits etc. as the 1954 decision and resultant IRS regulations state. Not enough because the effect can be the same by ascribing Gods will, Biblical or Koran authority to positions on an issue. As an example of the difficultly in drawing this line, I listened to the televangelist, Ron Parsley on channel 9 before the election. He said and I quote: “In this important election the parties have made their positions clear – on the left (no mention of party or candidate) they believe in abortion and sodomy and on the right the word of God”. How many people may have voted out of fear of not following God’s will as interpreted by Ron Parsley. How many in CA voted for prop 8, not on the basis of reason and logic but rather the emotional reaction that some presumed Biblical truth prohibited that civil right for same sex couples. Of course, I am not suggesting that all religious leaders would abuse that power but since the danger exists it is obvious to me that a line of regulation must be drawn and I suggest that line isn’t sufficiently clear and thus there should be no religious involvement in politics Now, it is frequently suggested that religion gives us our moral footing or standards of morality and thus there is an important role for religion in the wider society and on specific issues. It seems to me, that the basic moral principles are essentially common to most major religions (including incidentally the message of the myths). Therefore, I believe that a much healthier basis for moral decisions on political issues is simply pragmatic experience built into our DNA. E.O. Wilson in his just published book “super-organism” says: “Early Species of social insects owe success in their evolution to cooperative behavior and division of labor practices. This did also lead to group selection and conflict between groups. The residue of this is our irrational and tribal wars. The difference in humans is the intellect which allowed us to control and destroy while the insects still live harmoniously” The insect instinct, including altruism, was tied to pragmatic survival which required the welfare of the society. It seems they understand better than we that “everybody is better off when everybody is better off”. Frans De Wall the primatologist and ethicist, in his book “our inner ape”, studies the moral behavior of our two equal ancestors, the chimpanzee and the bonobo. The first is the competitive alpha male society and the other and unbelievably peaceful, altruistic and communitarian primate. He concludes: "Based on our ape ancestors we are born with a gamut of tendencies from the basest to the noblest. Our morality is indeed a product of the same selection process that shaped our competitive and aggressive side”. Therefore, I believe that we can with reason and logic understand the moral principles of interpersonal relations and societal heath without it being subject to any particular religious interpretation, as it may apply to a political issue. Another argument I hear is that it is the religious institutions that can best provide the charitable needs of society. There is certainly nothing wrong with religious institutions providing charitable services or encouraging charitable participation. However, I believe it is important that this not be the primary vehicle of society. We pay our taxes, or should, to ensure equitable distribution of benefit without being tied to religious belief. In this way we would not have the problem of the Central Union Mission in Washington, D.C. where those helped must be willing to join the Mission Spiritual Transformation Program in order and I quote “to establish the proper relationship with Jesus”. Suppose I prefer Mohamed or just nature. This is a criticism of the recently established “faith based initiatives” As it turn out, in this secular nation, we are spending millions of our tax dollars for religious specific programs. These may include teaching issues such as “abstinence only” or opposition to “stem cell” research. How far is this from the catholic bishop who Friday announced that those Catholics that voted for Obama should not take communion (power by fear) There are so many examples of the harm done be the power of religion in the public arena. Look at the affect on public schools in the south by the proliferation of Christian Academies as a way of circumventing integration and teaching a particular view of the issue. None of my comments are to suggest that religious leaders not participate in the political process as individual citizens, whether in voting good works or demonstrating etc. It is manipulating the minds of others by the power that comes from evoking God or a presumed Biblical truth, so that the people act out of fear or hope on a particular issue, that I believe is inappropriate in a secular society. Certainly none here would want to live in a Theocratic state. Though there are those who would have this defined as a Christian Nation. There is danger in assuming one religion more valid than another. As Hannah Arendt said in “the origins of Totalitarianism:” “Continued use of a particular myth leads to totalitarian control” This is because as we see around us religions don’t necessarily lead to fairness but may only promote dominance. Similarly, Noam Chomsky said: “The most effective way to restrict democracy is to transfer decision making from the public arena to unaccountable institutions whether kings, priestly casts or corporations.’ In this context we should be aware that the fastest growing religious segments of our society are the “evangelicals” and the “no religion” group. This in itself is a formula for unhealthy polarization best handled, in my opinion by a complete separation of religion and politics. I will close with a quote from Arthur Schlesinger: “Never forsake the quest for new knowledge in the interest of Ideology”
|
|