|
Implicit in "On Faith's" latest question is a broader one affecting the interests not just of all religions, but the geopolitical interests of democratic nations as well: To what extent can “outsiders” influence the struggle for moderation within religious communities?
Just because you have a right to do something does not make what you do right – or wise. Hence while there may have been just cause to remove Saddam in the abstract, it does not make the decision to go to war or the way we fought the war right.
The expansion of the rights of women was one of the great revolutions of the 20th century. Completing the march toward full and equal rights for women, I believe, will be viewed by future historians as the greatest achievement of the 21st century. Religion, paradoxically, will be a great impediment and catalyst in this enterprise.
Drawing the line correctly between appropriate and inappropriate religious rhetoric and activity in American elections and political life could significantly ease tensions in America’s culture war. "Appropriate," rather than “lawful” because religious candidates have the same constitutional rights as others to say and do what they please. But exercising that right does not make what they do good for either democracy or religion.
Does the power of Jesus’ message of ethics and love change one iota if it is determined that these are his bones?
Jesus’ call to prioritize the poor, the sick, the prisoner, the hungry speaks to a radical alteration of the social order.
During the 2000 primaries, the Republican candidates were asked to name their most influential political philosopher. While others named Abraham Lincoln, Jefferson, John Locke, George W. Bush created a minor controversy by stating “Jesus; because he changed my heart.” Some Christians objected because of the suggestion that Jesus was political. Some non-Christians, including, many in my own community, objected to his “Christianizing” the debate.
Fifty years from now, most religious communities will look back with astonishment on the controversy over same sex relations the way we do today on yesterday’s bans on miscegenation.
How can anyone doubt the positive impact that the religious community has in addressing these issues? Let me deal with very real ways that day in and day out religion, religious groups, and religious individuals play vital roles in the fields of international relations and humanitarian assistance.
One can list about 20 basic dos and don’ts regarding the appropriate use of religion in our elections. Governor Romney got a number right – but disturbingly, three crucial ones wrong.
What he got right was his affirmation that there should be no religious test for office, that no religious authority would control his actions as president, that the oath of office he would take as President to preserve the Constitution would be his relevant promise to God, that the separation of church and state has been indispensable to the strength of religion in American culture, that America’s religious pluralism has been indispensable to our success and that electoral candidates should, inclusively, focus on the moral values that America’s religions share: equality; liberty, commitment to help each other . This could be a primer for electoral candidates to study in getting the use of religion in our elections right.
So what did he get wrong?
The integration of religion fully into our lives, including the need to use it to address the great moral issues of our time, is something to which Jews can strongly relate. So as Pope Benedict used this quote in this speech, I fully concur. However, while keeping religion as purely a private matter endangers it soul, so too does a response that makes religion a government matter. Such a relation was not what the Pope suggested in his speech, yet out of context, the quote in the question might have inadvertently lent itself to that interpretation.
What Islam Really Says About Violence, Rights and Other Religions
Gomaa, Fadlallah, Mubarak, Khan, Siddiqi, Ellison, others | On Faith
Comments (20)