Faith & Politics

[theleftone]

The issue of separation of church and state is one which plagues our generation. There are those from all sides seeking to prevent and incorporate their faith into laws. It has been suggested by some that people should keep their faith private and out of politics. Hence, upholding separation of church and state. This brings me to my question.

Question for debate: How can a person of faith (or lack thereof) practically separate their faith, keeping it private, without allowing it to become intertwined with their politics?

I would love to support separation of church and state because like many others, I don't want to give another individual the opportunity to impose his or her faith on me via legislation. Yet, practically, I find it difficult, if not impossible, to separate my "private" life from my "public" life (i.e., political life). My faith defines who I am, at least in part. It is a core element of my being, and simply cannot be turned on and off with the flick of a switch. It is a filter through which much of my thought flows, and hence my political views are shaped. Beyond this, even where there are "neutral" arguments for/against a given behavior exists (if such a thing can exist), I often find myself basing my position(s) on religious driven arguments.

So, how does one who would like to support separation of church and state, but finds their thought life intertwined with their faith, support and practically live such an idea out without becoming dishonest, delusional, unknowingly inconsistent, or nominal?

[McCulloch]

tselem,
This is an excellent topic. It is relevant, current and controversial.

I would like to point out that we should be talking about two different things. Separation of Church and State (Organized Religion and Government) and the Separation of Faith and Politics.

I believe that the first is essential to democracy and the second is impossible for people of integrity.

The government of a democracy has no business interfering with organized religion. This is not an absolute statement. Churches are obliged to obey normal criminal and contract law. What is not allowed, is for the government of a democracy to treat one organized religion differently than other organized religions or to treat an organized religion differently than some non-religious organization. Similarly, organized religions in a democracy have no expectation of special status. There should be no positions in government reserved for members of a particular organization nor should religious organizations be allowed to appoint anyone to political positions. For instance, it is a violation of the principals of democracy to appoint people to sit in the UK's House of Lords simply because they are Anglican Bishops.

On the other hand, if you hold to a particular faith, then that faith cannot help but influence your politics. In fact, I might venture to suggest that your political action (or inaction), the policies that you support or oppose, might just say more about your faith than church attendance. Abortion rights, poverty issues, tax levels and structure, gun control, military spending and activity, the environment, religious toleration; these are all political issues where your faith based ethics should have an influence. No?

[juliod]

Question for debate: How can a person of faith (or lack thereof) practically separate their faith, keeping it private, without allowing it to become intertwined with their politics?

That isn't really the question relating to separation of church and state. As McC said, that is the issue of rulers being determined (in full or in part) by a religious test or status.

The question of personal politics is much simpler. Does anyone ask that religious people not vote along the lines that they believe in? No. I strongly oppose the theist stance on most political issues, but I do not argue that my opponenet should not hold their own views.

The issue is confused by conservatives who have a history of wanting everything to be the way they want it, and throwing a fit if they don't win on every point all the time. For example, here on our forums we have a member who insists that christianity will be "illegal" if gay marriage is allowed.

Religious conservatives can't see that there are many valid points of view. For them, there is only one view, and it is both political and religious. Therefore, to them the idea of separation of church and state is a threat because for them church and state (or doctrine and politics) are identical. Thus any atheists, feminists, liberals, communists, other religionists, etc, are nothing but evil perverters, criminals, heretics, etc.

DanZ

[micatala]

Good thread.

I would agree with M and J that there are two issues, the personal and the governmental.

The issue is confused by conservatives who have a history of wanting everything to be the way they want it, and throwing a fit if they don't win on every point all the time. For example, here on our forums we have a member who insists that christianity will be "illegal" if gay marriage is allowed.

Religious conservatives can't see that there are many valid points of view. For them, there is only one view, and it is both political and religious. Therefore, to them the idea of separation of church and state is a threat because for them church and state (or doctrine and politics) are identical. Thus any atheists, feminists, liberals, communists, other religionists, etc, are nothing but evil perverters, criminals, heretics, etc.

I would largely agree. However, I think one could make a case that conservatives are not unique in this regard. One might say that the Michael Newdows of the world are also trying to have their way 100% of the time as well.

I would also add that, with respect to the religiously motivated, there is the additional dynamic of having a duty to promote their religious views within the political realm. To not do so is to fall short in one's service to God. There are verses in the Bible to support this attitude (see Peter's address to the religious authorities in Acts, for example).

Now, personally, I do not see support in the New Testament for the notion that Christians should seek to implement civil law in line with religious doctrine, especially if those laws apply to non-believers.

[theleftone]

How do we distinguish between "organized religion" and the individual with faith?

Say "xyz" denomination has a stance against abortion. While the denomination cannot vote, it can preach this stance to its members. The members can then choose to vote for or against abortion. The likelihood is that there will be some diversity, but more often than not they will vote in concordance with their "faith."

You this be an example of organized religion meddling in state, or simply individuals?

[micatala]

How do we distinguish between "organized religion" and the individual with faith?

Say "xyz" denomination has a stance against abortion. While the denomination cannot vote, it can preach this stance to its members. The members can then choose to vote for or against abortion. The likelihood is that there will be some diversity, but more often than not they will vote in concordance with their "faith."

You this be an example of organized religion meddling in state, or simply individuals?

As long as the religious group is utilizing the same powers and mechanisms that other (non-religious) groups are able to utilize, I would not see this as something we should prohibit, or as unwarranted 'meddling' of organized religion.

However, regardless of the group involved, what needs to be considered is the particular law that the group seeks to have enacted. For example, if a religious group wished to promote a law that (to take an extreme example) prohibited black people from voting, than the enactment of this law must be opposed, not because it is being promoted on religious grounds, but because it runs counter to the basic values of freedom and democracy.

I think the main concern people have about 'religious groups meddling in politics' is the perception that some religious groups would seek to enact laws that infringe on the rights of others. Usually that attempts are not as egregious as in this example, but they often are quite legitimate concerns. I would also note that religious groups sometimes seek to prevent laws from being enacted on religious grounds that, arguably should be enacted because they are important or necessary for promoting basic rights. Certainly opposition to laws overturning legalized discrimination against blacks was sometimes of this nature.

Let me offer another hypothetical. Suppose a Latino political organization sought to promote traditional Hispanic cultural values by supporting laws that enforced afternoon 'siestas' and Spanish as a language on equal footing with English. What would be wrong with their actions? Would we consider creating laws that restrict the ability of such ethnically based political organizations from engaging in the political process? Or, would we simply argue against the law on its merits and ignore the nature of the organization pushing the law?

[McCulloch]

How do we distinguish between "organized religion" and the individual with faith?

Say "xyz" denomination has a stance against abortion. While the denomination cannot vote, it can preach this stance to its members. The members can then choose to vote for or against abortion. The likelihood is that there will be some diversity, but more often than not they will vote in concordance with their "faith."

You this be an example of organized religion meddling in state, or simply individuals?

In my country and I expect yours, there are rules about the kind of political activity a not-for-profit organization is allowed to do. These restrictions usually involve overtly partisan political activity. So a church would be allowed to preach to its members on one or the other side of a public issue but would not be allowed to contribute campaign funds directly to a candidate.

[juliod]

In my country and I expect yours, there are rules about the kind of political activity a not-for-profit organization is allowed to do. These restrictions usually involve overtly partisan political activity. So a church would be allowed to preach to its members on one or the other side of a public issue but would not be allowed to contribute campaign funds directly to a candidate.

That's correct. It's becoming a problem here in the US. Many (most, in my view) christian churches are partisan political operations in support of the Republicans. You can see this in a couple of our valued members here.

Non-profits other than religions must be able to prove that they do not engage in political activity, and must maintain separation (there's that word again) between charitable/public-service arms and political action arms.

Maybe we should disallow religions taking money from people unless they can prove their services are safe and effective?

DanZ

[micatala]

Maybe we should disallow religions taking money from people unless they can prove their services are safe and effective?

Uhhh. This would be not only discriminatory but would be opening a very large can of worms. What organization would not have people going after it under this scenario? Are government services safe and effective? Should we abolish all taxes if they aren't? Who is going to decide what is safe and effective?

Do I get a refund on my baseball tickets if my team is 'ineffective' (which they arguably are this year )?

Do we close down all businesses that produce pollution because they are not 'safe'? If my broker is not able to produce results close or better than the market average, is he or she being ineffective?

Many (most, in my view) christian churches are partisan political operations in support of the Republicans.

Many might be true. Most would be an incredible overstatement, in my experience, and I am in a pretty conservative area with 27 or more churches in the town.

Non-profits other than religions must be able to prove that they do not engage in political activity, and must maintain separation (there's that word again) between charitable/public-service arms and political action arms.

Why?

Even, now, organizations ARE allowed to engage in political activity, albeit, if they are willing to forego tax exempt status.

I again submit that we should largely ignore the ideology of groups pushing particular agendas, and instead should focus on the particular proposals they are putting forward. The proposals should be judged on their own merits or lack thereof.

[juliod]

This would be not only discriminatory but would be opening a very large can of worms.

No it wouldn't. You aren't viewing this in the correct context. We have competancy standards for very many professions, basically for any job that is considered to be of serious importance. And since clerics are not regulated in this way (like TV psychics) it is fair to conclude that the profession is of little importance.

No one should be allowed to take money from people for the provision of religious rites unless they can show that their implementation of these rites is effective.

The consequences of a faulty baptism, for example, is eternal suffering agony. This is a hundred billions times worse than the worst possible outcome of medical malpractise. Yet we require mere doctors to achieve and maintain a professional licence. We should require clerics to achieve standards proportionately higher. There should be strict laws against performing baptisms unless you can show that the ones you perform work. By contrast a liver transplant is a trivial operation. Right?

DanZ