Jonathan Visitacion
As I was sitting in our Christian Ethics class last week, I was mesmerized by the dialogue pertaining to the notion that faith and politics should be separated. We used the example of Proposition 8,
I have always assumed that Christian communities are chain reacting targets of the political process, where both republicans and democrats are fighting for the Christian vote. If you can get a leader of a particular Christian community, you may be able to get the vote of the entire Christian community associated with him/her. That is not to say that churches do not play an active political role; almost every church denomination has lobbyist group working at the state and federal level. However, like any community, if there are members of a particular group who acts on a belief of the general community, it may be likely that everybody in that community will believe the same thing and do the same action themselves.
How does this actually change the influence of faith and politics? A nation founded on the separation of church and state is still subject to the influence of a majority vote from Christian communities. However, Christians have this relationship of belief and action – that it is inherent to act Christian if you believe you are Christian. Christianity has been forming the last 2000 years through rebellion, martyrdom, colonialism, evangelism, revolutions, protest marches, relief work, etc…it seems that a democratic process would be a walk in the park. Trying to unpack a book written by John B. Cobb called Reclaiming the church, the commitment of the majority of Christians in today’s society has been reduced to tithing; even voter-influencing is not permitted by the church or else they lose their non-profit status. However the church stands in the forefront of social morals and ethics and acts upon them as well, even if it does show in the political arena.
Does that mean the outcome for Proposition 8 was just? I remember going to church the Sunday before the election, and the reverend gave a sermon on Proposition 8, and explained the stance of the
Could it be that the outcome of Proposition 8 was just a sign of the times? Are Californians just not ready for same-sex marriages as they thought they were? I recently took a world religions class that required a site visit at a Hindu, Jewish, Buddhist, and Islamic houses of worship, as well as listening to a religious leader associated with each. Almost everyone of those religious leaders were asked a question pertaining to Proposition 8, and almost every leader said they would be willing to marry a gay couple, but thought that their congregation was not ready to accept it. I may not agree with the ruling of Proposition 8, but I believe that it was a sign of our society; our state is not as ready as they thought they were for a marriage between homosexual couples. I may not understand how it got onto the voting ballot, but it did and people voted the way they wanted.
Posts
Jonathan--interesting post. I was particularly caught by your thinking about Christian groups being chain reactors. There are probably groups in which individuals can be ordered to react a certain way through intimidation or even bribery of some kind. But Americans in particular are a stubborn bunch and individualistic.
ReplyDeleteHere in Arizona we had a similar issue on our ballot. The Catholic bishop made a video against gay marriage and "ordered" his priests to show it to their congregations. This was met with a mixed response of passive aggressive action (I'll show it but only in the basement where no one goes on Sunday), passive submission, and outright defiance. On the other hand, the Mormon community "ordered" their congregations to donate large sums of money in support of the gay marriage ban. That group raised millions of dollars very quickly.
So what can we conclude from that? Probably not much because we don't know what's in the hearts of the people. They may contribute money because it keeps them right with their community. They may show the video because it protects their retirement plan. For some of us, gay marriage equality is a core value and we're willing to speak out and vote. For others, it's not so clear and not so safe. It's an ethical complication that's really tricky.
I agree that religion has historically been used as a means to political ends, but disagree that this was the case for Prop 8 supporters. According to religioustolerance.org "essentially all of the politically-active organizations opposing equal rights are either overtly conservative Christian associations, or organizations that are composed almost entirely of conservative Christians". Although the Hindus and Muslim clergy we spoke with last semester said that the people in their congregations would not be comfortable with LGBT people marrying in a religious context, I have never heard of a Hindu or Muslim group within the US, and certainly not an atheist or agnostic group, that focuses on opposing equal rights under the law.
ReplyDeleteI do not think that this is coincidence. I would argue that Prop 8 was most actively supported by people who see the U.S. as a Christian nation where conservative Christian values should be normative. Although distress over losing privilege is not exactly a religious value, in this case it is the particular category of beliefs which are no longer privileged. It has been a generation since my parents were expected to recite the Lord's Prayer in public schools, but the pro-8 ads were designed to appeal to a lingering memory of that endorsement of Christian beliefs and the sense that conservative Christians are entitled to amend the constitution in order to restrict the legal rights of a minority with differing religious beliefs.
I find it ethically reprehensible that my fellow Christians should value their own privilege so highly that they would waste millions of dollars, and push LGBT people and our defenders (which included many religious groups and churches) to spend millions more, on something that should never have been put up for vote. There are people with no food, people with no shelter, people who cannot pay for the medical care they need to function and live, and yet religious leaders chose to spend millions that could have saved lives to remove what was then an existing legal right of their fellow citizens. This, apparently, is the sort of value that they want to teach those children who they were so afraid might learn that two women could love each other.
I’m wondering if Rawls and Rorty are Kantians, if they think that there is a universal law that undergirds moral/ethical choices and that might therefore affect how we regulate public discourse. Which is to say, would only those thought of as being “law-abiding” in this abstract universal sense we are thought to share, be the ones allowed to speak? Would such a universal law be expected to separate out and isolate religious belief? But if there were such a law, surely major religions (at least) would incorporate part or all of it; religions have been in the ethics business for thousands of years! So it would seem we would want to encourage the participation of religious people in public debates rather than silence them. It’s hard for me to understand how anyone in a pluralist liberal democracy could seriously suggest limiting the right of any adult citizen to participate in the political process. Democracy doesn’t guarantee good results, it just guarantees that we can speak up for our views. It uses the “coercive power of the state” to enforce the rule of law, but should not use this coercion to restrict the rights of citizens to examine and criticize our laws.
ReplyDeleteAnd no, I don’t think the outcome of voting on propositions is going to be universally just. We’re pretty proposition-inclined here in Arizona, and I haven’t been happy with all of the outcomes. But if and when we make mistakes I’m certain that the way to correct them lies through participatory democracy. I don’t think demonizing and marginalizing religious people is any fairer than demonizing and marginalizing gay people.
Jon,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the post. While I see where you are coming from I'd like to ask, "So what?" So what if most don't think it's the "right time" or people "aren't ready" for equal rights for LGBT people? Most didn't think it was the "right time" for black people to have equal rights during the Civil Rights movement, and many even told them they were moving too fast, but that doesn't mean it wasn't the right time.
I would like to propose that it is always the right time, and that God's people should always be ready, to do justice and love mercy.
In other words, Jimmy - don't give up? I am reminded of the efforts of William Wilberforce to end slavery as an institution in England. Constantly voted down, he kept returning to the bar. Even those who agreed with him seem to have attempted to appease him with similar words to, "it just isn't the right time." Wilberforce didn't buy it - and neither should those who work for justice today.
ReplyDelete~Suzanne Jacobson, Arizona
Jumping on Jimmy's bandwagon, I think that the U.S. Constitution is specifically written to stand up for those whose rights are trampled by the majority. For that, there is no wrong time.
ReplyDeleteJust because you loose doesn’t mean you haven’t won (I don‘t know who said it). The results of the Proposition 8 impacted many people in different ways. For some it was a time to celebrate the advancement in civil rights, for others it was a horrifying proposal that needed to be stopped, some were indifferent, some were inactive, and some struggled. When I opened the ballot and came to proposition 8 I struggled to make a decision that I knew was right but felt was wrong. I was startled by how quickly my liberal stances became socially convenient rhetoric. I waited a day to make a decision I thought I had already made in the classroom, in relationships with others, in my theological position. Proposition 8 won because it helped me and many others to come face to face with what we really believe. It opened doors to conversation I wouldn‘t have otherwise had.
ReplyDeleteThis topic about Homosexuality is not familiar to me. However, I read the posting, I could have a chance to think of Homosexuality. Through the posting, I believe that there is no right time. I mean the time in which people are living is the right time. Also, although most people don’t agree or think the time just is right, I think that Christians need to overcome the limits which restrict justice and rights of some people who are not most.
ReplyDeleteI find it quite interesting that I TOTALLY missed this particular post until just yesterday, especially since I am directly impacted by how our communities, states, and nation deal with LGBT civil rights. Hmmmmm.
ReplyDeleteEven though I'm quite late to this particular conversation, now that I have taken note, I would be remiss in not sharing what thoughts I do have. As I read through the post and responses, I kept thinking of Martin Luther King's Letter from Birmingham Jail and how he challenged the clergy essentially saying the same thing that you wrote, Insuk, in your response: "there is no right time. I mean the time in which people are living is the right time." I'm very curious about what the United States and the world would look like if the founders of the United States, Wilberforce, King, Mandella, Gandhi, Dorothy Day, Desmond Tutu, Cesar Chavez, and other advocates for justice and rights had waited for the "right time." It seems that during WWII, a number of people "waited" rather than taking action resulting in a holocaust of Jewish, disabled, LGBT and other marginalized people.
Many of our advances in terms of how we encounter and treat people came from those willing to stand up, dialogue, challenge, and hold people accountable. Often people of faith joined with these individuals who brought injustices and/or inconsistencies in thinking and laws to light. However if I remember correctly, often the institutions of religion did not (and do not) quickly or resoundingly join the singular voices for justice until the numbers of people in the streets and the pews pushed the tipping point. Judy's right . . . some people listen to the institutional positions and then take their own actions based on their own discernment processes--sometimes acting in alignment with the institutional position and other times not. Other people abdicate using their own critical thinking and follow. I don't think we can get away from this. Thus, I am grateful for our democratic processes. Sande, you said it so well: "And no, I don’t think the outcome of voting on propositions is going to be universally just. . . But if and when we make mistakes I’m certain that the way to correct them lies through participatory democracy."
Actually, Sande, I think you also hit on one of the more prophetic stances people on any side of an issue could take: do not demonize or marginalize the other. Demonizing and marginalizing "the other" serves as a strong pillar that holds up whatever the conflict exists among the parties and stands in the way for any restoring of connection or relationship.
Am I impacted by the decisions made at the local, state, and national level? Absolutely! Do I believe I have the right to access the safeguards and protections accorded any other citizen of the United States who opts to join with another in the union we have come to call marriage at the civil/legal level? Absolutely! Can I do so? Not where I live even though I am in a committed relationship with my partner consecrated before witnesses and my God. I've even thought "why not just change all legal, civil language from "marriage" to "civil union" for all couples regardless of sexual orientation/gender. Then, I realized I would be marginalizing heterosexual persons for my own gain. So, my beliefs challenge me to engage with and not demonize the other. As always, I am called to treat others as I would want to be treated regardless of their beliefs and positions.
In the big scheme of life, I am priviledged and blessed beyond measure, even though I have to jump through hoops that others don't have to in order to protect myself and this woman I love so dearly. Jan, you helped me remember that I'm a citizen of the world, not just the USA or my home community when you wrote: "There are people with no food, people with no shelter, people who cannot pay for the medical care they need to function and live, and yet religious leaders [I would say "so many people"] chose to spend millions that could have saved lives to . . . ." We do this every day not just to defeat Prop 8 or deny other protections or rights . . . we do it when we do not remain mindful and remember the lure of the Creator, the witness of Jesus, and the love of the Spirit. If we didn't do this, we probably would not have to celebrate Earth Day today, because we would have long ago embraced our response-ability as Suchocki writes for all of creation.
Thanks for the post and the space to write.
Since the passing of Prop 8 and the resulting celebration / backlash, there has been an increasing anger at the faith-based organizations that actively and even financially supported Prop 8. The cry I'm hearing more and more is to "take away their tax-exempt status!" Or, 'what happened to the separation between church and state?"
ReplyDeleteI've only done a little research on the separation clause in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." How I read this clause is that there won't be a nationally established or declared or financially supported religious institution, and a private religious institution won't be inhibited. I don't read it as a law that faith-organizations don't get to have a voice. I don't read it as saying that persons of faith can not or should not be guided by that faith even if they're in elected or appointed positions in government.
So what might the founders have thought? Keep in mind that all the founders were Christian and even Protestant, and - although they were rebelling against a nation that had proclaimed a national religion - I'm not sure they ever envisioned divisions beyond the few denominations within Christianity. And even in that context, Thomas Jefferson wrote:
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their 'legislature' should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."
If we look even deeper into history, I argue that even Jesus himself spoke out politically. I think that in speaking out against the scribes and pharisees he was making political statements. I think that in setting aside the purity laws when he ate with prostitutes and tax collectors, he was making political statements. I think that in preventing the murder of a woman for committing adultery - punishment that would have been completely appropriate according to Jewish law of the day - he was making a political statement.
Now, some would argue that this had nothing to do with government but with religion. But remember, at this point in Jewish history, the secular and political structure were combined! Yes, the Romans occupied the area, but much of the social and political decision-making was left to the Jews themselves (which was common throughout the Roman empire; it's how they maintained control).
So with this in mind, do we argue that faith-organizations should not have voice in politics simply because we disagree with their theology, because we disagree with their conclusions, because they're flat-out wrong? Keep in mind that shutting down all political voice shuts down both sides of the conversation. I myself attend a church that organized phone banks and had a sign out front all that spoke against Prop 8. Should this church lose tax-exempt status too?
Interesting post, Bob. I don't know the answer. I think if our country imposes a "lose the tax-exempt status" for churches that advocate from the pulpit, we would need to impose it across the board, for any church regardless of the stand on a position.
ReplyDeleteI actually have a bigger issue with a church that engages in a great deal of commercial activity and claims tax-exempt status when in fact, the church is conducting a business (some to very large proportions). The church might argue that it uses the proceeds for societal good. Well, many secular businesses use their proceeds for societal good as well. History has shown that sometimes churches have leadership living in significant wealth and receiving compensation that exceeds our understanding; yet, the tax-exempt status continues for the church. I think that poses a problem.
I'm guess I'm if what really needs to be addressed is the apparent inconsistency or lack of equity in our tax code more than advocacy from the pulpit.