Funny how topics seem to emerge out of the blue and suddenly begin to take on a life force of their own.
Rose-Anne Clermont’s thoughtful explorations in her series “A Current between Shores” of the role different life issues have played in the lives of her mother and her mother in law have always been interesting. Other people’s lives and views always are, to me. But her joint interview “On Religion” seems to have special relevance this week.
Starting on Sunday evening, in what seemed to be a total departure, the political dialog in the United States has been strangely focused on defining the place and merits of religious faith — something many believe should be exclusively a matter of private choice, not a matter of public policy. On Sunday the curiously named (and to me, even curiously conceived)first-ever “Compassion Forum” was televised from Messiah College in Pennsylvania, in which Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, the two Democratic contenders for the presidency, took questions from two TV reporters, a select group of ministers from various religious traditions, and from an evangelical Social Justice outreach group called the Sojourners.
The candidates responded thoughtfully and at length as to how their Christian faith informed their political views and how it would influence their leadership if they should become President. Topics ranged from “Why does a loving God allow innocent people to suffer” to predictable and surprisingly blunt issue-focused questions such as “Do you believe that life begins at conception?” Regardless of their answers to specific questions, what was clearly demonstrated was the very real role that faith plays in the lives of both Democratic contenders. The very revelation that these highly educated, highly intelligent people put a high value on faith makes some of their more secular supporters squirm with discomfort…
The event also marked the emergence of a Democratic party which seems to have finally realized how important faith, and the values informed by faith, are for much of the American electorate. It is also an acknowledgment of the historic role that faith-informed values have played in the American experience. In past elections, this entire topic was presumed to be an area reserved more for Republican politicians.
My own adult daughter was close to horrified to hear Barack and Hillary speaking of having faith and was definitely offended that ministers and Sojourners were getting to press their concerns. My own feelings were more ambivalent.
I was raised by devout Irish Catholics who never questioned their faith. It never occurred to them that their children might not continue to live that faith as fervently as they had done. I have one first cousin who is a priest, who worked among runaways and street people in Boston for years and later ran a parish for decades. His sister was the President or head of a national order of nuns. Although we are more than 20 years apart in age and I grew up in suburban DC, not in an Irish neighborhood in Boston, I know them to be exceptionally bright people who committed themselves very early on to doing what they could to make the world better for others, and who consciously committed to living their own lives in a continuing attempt to be the best human beings they could. I believe such people exist and that their motives and efforts are to be respected. I do not believe they are always right in their judgments, but that they try compels my respect. I place equal value on their fellows among Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and every other religious or ethical group making an honest attempt to live a spiritual, selfless life. They may not succeed, but they try.
To my amazement I realized that the focus on faith would take on yet another dimension on Wednesday, April 16th, when Pope Benedict will arrive for a six day visit to the US amidst a huge media blast. Curiously enough, in the first such move in his presidency, President Bush together with Mrs. Bush and his daughter Jenna will meet the Pope’s plane, “The Good Shepherd,” on the tarmac in Washington DC. The Pope will go on to appear in New York City after DC. The response of the faithful will border on the frenzied, I would think.
Planned or not, all this is taking place in the midst of a hotly contested political primary race. The next primary election will be held in Pennsylvania on April 22nd. There are nearly 70 million Catholics in the United States, about 20 percent of the electorate, and they represent about 30% of the Pennsylvania electorate. This has led to speculation that Catholics, who could tip the balance in a close contest, especially in Pennsylvania, may be looking to the Pope for some guidance. Yet what he spoke of pre-trip (admirably) was that he was “ashamed” of the rampant pedophilia which has been exposed within the US Church in recent years. As he should be. His positions on abortion, on Islam (hostile), on immigration and on solving poverty are also sure to get attention. Whether one of those issues turns into a political football because of what the Pope says remains to be seen.
Rarely in my lifetime has religion garnered so much attention in a political campaign in one week. “On Religion” gives us a historical context in which to view this week’s events. Although it’s a long time since I’ve considered myself religious, perhaps it’s time we took a dispassionate look at the concerns of those who are, and give them credit for what they feel and what they contribute to our society. There has to be room for us all at the table or we are not the people and society we think we are and want to be.
Feedback?
Is Faith Just Another Political Buzz Word?
Posted in The WIP Talk, Uncategorized
I have a tough time with organized religion. Frankly, most of the time I just can’t get my head around the idea that such vast portions of the human population are so intimately devoted to formal, organized belief systems, many following centuries’ old tenants to the letter. I’ll freely admit that I tend to be biased against such ideas, and, though I’m loath to admit it, the people who follow them. But I am also aware that my opinions and beliefs are not shared by everyone, nor should they be. And healthy debate and discussion is always to be encouraged. As such, I too have found this week’s focus “On Religion” really fascinating. My first reaction was to balk at all of what I saw as misplaced attention on a private issue–religion. But the juxtaposition of Hilary and Barack’s positive, inspiring speeches about the influence that religion has had on them as individuals against the onslaught of negative publicity that religious groups have gotten lately–polygamist strongholds, rampant child sexual abuse, intractable corruption–is a welcome change, even for a devout secularist.
Even though I consider myself more of a spiritual and less of a religious person, I cringe at how often (and strategically) politicians in America refer to God, as if there is some kind of point system and everytime they say the magic word, ding! another point is tacked on. I have long felt that American politicians abuse people’s faith by including it in their politics simply to get votes.
I don’t think religion should play such a big role in politics, it can be divisive and it is a very emotional topic. As my mother said in this week’s interview, ” Every religion tells you to love your brother, but that’s not how people really are.” Which is why I think American politics, as Obama has initiated since the beginning his campaign, needs a rhetoric of universality, and not just about race. Bickering about faith amongst political candidates, is hardly unifying. If America is really secular, then this debate needs to be put on the shelf.
The United States was founded to be a secular democracy by persons for whom established religion had been oppressive. The First Amendment of the US Constitution says:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
The founders wanted us to be both free from an official state religion and free to practice whatever religion we care to or none at all.
I have spent time since the installation of the Bush regime studying the Constitution and the era of US history when it was conceived and written and adapted. Some of my heroes from that time were outspoken about their own beliefs certainly. Patrick Henry, that firebrand whose “give me liberty or give me death” speech I love to quote, said in that speech:
“Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power.”
Like some of his peers, he believed in a “God of nature” and was not hesitant to reference his belief. Careful readers will note that he does not refer to a Christian notion of God here.
That speech was delivered to the Virginia House of Burgesses, which was meeting in a church. I doubt that there were any members present who were not from the Christian tradition of the time. There may have been persons who were not able to believe the creed of any contemporary Christian church, but their ancestors would have or at least would have had to pretend to in countries with established religions. I haven’t researched the issue, but I doubt that there was even one person from the Jewish tradition present at that meeting, certainly there were not Muslims or Buddhists or Hindus. Even so, the founders understood that religion did not mix well with government and the very first of the rights established by the Bill of Rights was that no religion would be established and the practice of none prohibited, paving the way for persons of many religions or none to live together in freedom.
Some Americans today think that it is only right and natural for the US to be “christian.” Often these persons are just not well schooled in US history and fail to appreciate the freedom that the founders wanted to protect. In addition, an element of US society that is narrowly christian, strongly intolerant of other religions, and filled with hatred of the “other” was exploited to help put the Bush regime in place.
A discussion by the candidates last week of their religion seems to me to be motivated by a desire to fit in with the use and abuse of religion in recent US history by political interests, principally aligned with the Republican party, that do not respect the US Constitution. Democrats continue to allow this agenda to determine how they frame issues.
I regret that the Democratic party finds it necessary to pander to that agenda.
The diversity of religions practiced by US citizens now as well as the number of US citizens who practice no religion is certainly a tribute to the tolerance that the framers did provide for in the Constitution. That diversity seems to threaten many today and the resulting fear is used by cynical parties wanting power. Just as many Americans encounter racism and sexism in their daily lives, many encounter religious intolerance.
Does the televised discussion of religion by these candidates make it more or less likely that all Americans can experience the fullness of the freedom that the First Amendment guarantees? Where does sincere practice of religion by political candidates begin and exploitation of their religion start?
What would an unaffected and natural discourse where candidates just are themselves be like? I find that religion does inform some people’s conversation and thinking. I want to be able to determine for myself whether a particular candidate’s attitudes and ideas are likely to make her or him a good office holder. I want others to have that opportunity. In the context of a political campaign, I do not want the focus to be diverted from the job the candidate is being elected to do and how she or he will do it. I believe people can decide whether a person’s interjection of religious intolerance would make them undesirable in office. People can also see that another person’s principles, from whatever source, would make her or him a wise and reliable office holder.
I want to hear leaders whose personal convictions from whatever moral, ethical, or religious inspiration, say that torture is untenable and that the US must stop it and hold the Bush regime accountable for it. Both of the Democratic candidates are in the US congress, the body empowered to hold the administration accountable. Neither of them has challenged torture in the way that would help me believe that they are fulfilling their oath to uphold the Constitution or that they will stop torture once in office. One of them says his Attorney General would investigate, but how can I believe that when as a Senator he is not demanding investigations?
I want to see leaders who understand that the Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act must be repealed if we are to restore the democracy that the Constitution gave us. Neither of these candidates has been working to do so. I have heard one of them say she would restore the Constitution, but as a member of the Senate, she has done nothing substantive toward that end.
And, of course, I want to see leaders who demand the end of the illegal and immoral occupation of Iraq and the occupation of Afghanistan and the withdrawal of all US personnel from occupied lands immediately along with provision for payment of reparations to those who have suffered from US aggression and oppression. Neither of the candidates pledges to do so, and even if they did, their votes to continue to fund the occupations would make a mockery of their words.
Dear Rose-Anne, Nancy and my “devout secularist,”
Thank you so much for taking the time to offer your thoughts and perspectives on religion and what place it should have in public life. As three of the brightest and most thoughtful women I know, I read your observations with great interest. It is striking that all three of you feel discussion of religion in the public forum is inappropriate.
Yet Kelly points out that Hillary’s and Barack’s explanations of what their beliefs mean to them offered her food for thought and provided a counterpoint that surprised her to the rabid news coverage of pedophilia, polygamy and intolerance as depictions of religion today. The news is designed to promote sensationalism, not truth. It’s too easy to believe that sick hypocrites’ and close-minded zealots’ misinterpretations of religions are an inevitable outcome of religious belief. We shouldn’t let our disgust and revulsion at abuses within religious organizations lead us to dismiss what’s worthwhile in a belief system.
I truly think it is crucial, especially now, when there are such bitter, deep gulfs dividing our nation that those of us committed to a secular society nonetheless acknowledge how important their religious beliefs are to a sizeable portion of our population whom we MUST engage in dialog if we are to build a just, fair and tolerant society. We must find the common principles among us all and move forward together, if we are to move forward at all. Or so it seems to me.
A couple of years ago, I went to Bush’s Faith Based Initiative event at the San Diego convention center. Mainly it was out of curiosity and to have lunch on the president, but it was an afternoon worth pursuing. At that time, introducing the idea of funding faith-based initiatives by the federal government was scandalous and many of us in the social service community couldn’t believe Bush’s audacity at blurring the lines between church and state. During the event, attendees were told how to “modify” their budgets so they could get the most out of their federal funds without actually using it for “religious purposes.”
I don’t think that religion should be politicized because as we’ve already noted, more often than not, it’s used as a way to continually divide us. And that’s precisely why I was so uncomfortable with Bush’s initiative in the first place.
I’m not saying that many of the faith-based organizations weren’t doing great work – many were and still are. But in my mind, to focus only on programs that had a religious component was both exclusionary to social services in general and a good indication of an administration that obviously felt it could do whatever it wanted, regardless of a supposed separation between church and state.
Faith is such a personal thing to me because it’s mine (I’ve never been a part of an organized religion), but I’m always happy to talk about it with anyone who’s curious. Just like I’m always open to hearing about other faiths and experiences without feeling like everyone has to agree with my perspective. Discussing our differences and similarities can only lead to more understanding.
But I don’t think that my faith has anything to do with my ability to do my job, so why should it be any different for the president?
Pat:
I loved that you said:
“I truly think it is crucial, especially now, when there are such bitter, deep gulfs dividing our nation that those of us committed to a secular society nonetheless acknowledge how important their religious beliefs are to a sizeable portion of our population whom we MUST engage in dialog if we are to build a just, fair and tolerant society.”
I agree that people must come first and that religion is important to many people. I also observe that when people are not heard or are marginalized, they can behave in unfortunate ways.
At the risk of anthropomorphizing the behaviour of groups of people, however, I also think it is important for good boundaries to be set. A difficult part of the restoration of our democracy, if there is going to be one, will be setting those boundaries while simultaneously respecting a group of people who have been shamelessly exploited for political ends.
We need good leadership now more than ever. I wish I saw it emerging now.