|
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?
There is a distinction to be drawn between the cultural expressions of the American people and the formal role of government.
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.
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.
Protecting God’s creation is, I have found in my travels, perhaps the most intuitively religious social issue of our day. Because it is shared by so many faiths, a genuinely interfaith effort on this issue could forge a powerful religious response whose potential would be staggering.
To deny Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state is anti-Semitic; to be critical of Israeli policy is not.
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.
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)