the occasion of this diary is reading kevin k's Priest criticizes his right-wing Bishop on which the first comment after the tip jar, by Jule Gulden, offers a subject line and one sentence:
Note to all churches:
Stay the heck out of politics....it will only harm you in the end if you don't.
While I respect much of what Julie writes here, I find that I must disagree at least in part.
Perhaps it is because I am of an age to remember that much of the support for the Civil Rights Movement, itself often led by clergy (Martin Luther King, Hosea Williams, Andrew Young, to name just three prominent leaders), gained much of its support from white clergy (two who immediately come to mind are Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel and Archbishop Iakovos). In fact, if political action were completely divorced from religion it would run a real risk of amorality.
How then might we then insure that Jefferson's "wall of separation" between government and church not be breached? Allow me to posit a personal view.
The free exercise clause of the First Amendment would seem to protect the rights of religions to express opinions and attempt to gide their adherents on matters of public and political salience.
Anyone who seeks public office may well be guided by her or his religious faith. Certainly there are many Christians whose attitude towards government intervention on behalf of poor and dispossessed people is motivated by the words of Matthew 25 that we heard read and preached upon at the funeral of Sen. Edward Moore Kennedy. The participation of many like me - of Jewish background - in the Civil Rights movement was a direct result of biblical mandates on justice, of Talmudic interpretations, and of our own collective experience of suffering discrimination, in our case because of religion, something for which we could see strong parallels and thus feel solidarity with those in the African-American community.
I would not want to wall off religion from advocating on public matters to its people - and in the public square generally - on matters of moral importance.
The issue should be to be guided by the bounds of the Constitution. A person who seeks public office should remember that s/he will, to assume office, be bound by one of two oaths or affirmations:
- As President, the specific words found in Article II, Section 1, I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
- For the rest of offices, words found in Article VI, Section 2 (and note that the requirement is part of a longer sentence, for which I present all the words) The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
by Oath or Affirmation one is required to support the Constitution, but without any religious test
A person who after having assumed office finds a conflict between his or her religious beliefs and his or her constitutional obligations either will waive his religious beliefs to remain in conformity with the constitutional obligation or else should resign from office.
Many politicians confront this issue. It was a challenge for John F. Kennedy when he sought the presidency: people worried that the Pope would give him orders. In his Sept. 12, 1960 address to the Ministerial Association of Greater Houston Kennedy stated clearly
I do not speak for my church on public matters; and the church does not speak for me.
He also at the press conference afterwards offered these words:
If my church attempted to influence me in a way which was improper or which affected adversely my responsibilities as a public servant sworn to uphold the Constitution, then I would reply to them that this was an improper action on their part. It was one to which I could not subscribe.
Pres. Kennedy made clear his strong support for separation of church and state.
More recently, four years ago Tim Kaine, while seeking the position of Governor of VA, was attacked by some because he was strongly influenced personally by Catholic teaching - he had, after all, taken time off during his education to serve as a missionary in Honduras. Kaine personally strongly opposed the death penalty, but made clear that as Governor his personal beliefs would not prevent him from ensuring that a capital sentence duly authorized under Virginia law be carried out.
The danger of advocating that religions be entirely kept out of the public square is that the next step becomes the rejection of those who are adherents of religions whose views on issues we oppose. That was a large part of the prejudice against Catholics. It is still part of the prejudice seen against those are Muslim (Keith Ellison, anyone) and in parts of the country those who are Jewish. It leads to the kind of public education that sees those of us in the traditional peace churches (I am a Quaker) subject to suspicion and improper government surveillance because we tend to strongly oppose military action of any kind (although I am personally somewhat more flexible than some of those with whom I attend Meeting for Worship).
Yes, there is the danger that some will choose to perhaps unthinkingly follow the dictates of religious leaders on matters of politics and public policy. So be it. Sometimes we may approve of the result - not only in the case of the Civil Rights movement, but on issues of war and peace or of economic equity or on capital punishment, we may find religious teaching is part of what motivates many in the direction we support. If we want that benefit, we must also tolerate - perhaps even encourage - religious activity on behalf of causes we oppose.
For me the test is whether one can find a non-religious reason for advocating for a policy. That is, my original motivation may come from my religious belief, but I must be able to express justification for the position within the bounds of what the Constitution allows. If I am to persuade those of a religious faith different than mine - or of no religious beliefs, whose non-adherence is equally protected by that same First Amendment - I must be able to find expressions and reasonings that are beyond my religion, that reach out on a more universal basis, that clearly are within the intent and purpose of the Preamble to the Constitution and in conformity with the structure built upon the overall document.
Yes, we may disagree about the meaning of the Constitution. But our arguments there must be on grounds other than theological. That is a fair tests, not violative of the statement in Article VI.
I am, and have always been, motivated in much of what I do by what I believe morally, and that set of beliefs is very much shaped by my religious experience, which is far more varied than my current membership in the Religious Society of Friends. I want the freedom to use religious expression as PART of how I explain, even as I recognize two things
- such expression is insufficient justification
- it will not speak to all I may seek to persuade.
My personal view is that religion belongs in the public square, but should not seek to impose. It has every right to speak, to attempt to persuade. Further, any religion has the right to impose its discipline upon its adherents, to restrict access to its rights to those whom it believes are within the acceptable limits of its practices. Religious leaders should remember that they may not hold their adherents on all such matters, and as a matter of law should not be using tax exempt status in a fashion that would be viewed as endorsement of a particular political party or even of a political candidate.
Individuals may choose to use religion as a basis for determining their support for or opposition to candidates, parties and issues. There is no way of preventing that - and we should not seek to be criminalizing thought or suppressing ideas with which we disagree.
It becomes our responsibility to challenge on the basis of public policy, common culture, and constitutionality.
This is my personal view. Others here may disagree. So be it.
I felt after reading the aforementioned comment that I needed to offer this.
Do with it what you will.
I am late for school.
Peace.