The Intersection of Religion and Politics: Lets Cross It Safely Rob - - PDF document

The Intersection of Religion and Politics: Let’s Cross It Safely Rob Boston, senior adviser, Americans United for Separation of Church and State UUPLAN, April 25, 2020 Marcus Aurelius was a second-century Roman emperor who dabbled in

• philosophy. During his reign, Germanic tribes on the northern frontier of the

empire invaded. The Romans considered these people to be barbarians and went to war to push them back. In the midst of this war, Marcus Aurelius wrote a series of philosophical maxims that have come down to us. They are known as the Meditations. In Book One, Aurelius warns us that every day we will meet with people who are, as he puts it, “ungrateful, aggressive, treacherous, malicious and unsocial.” Yet he also advises us to remember that these people, as unpleasant as they are, remain

• ur brothers and sisters, although they may be, in his words, “ignorant of true good

and evil.” Despite this, he tells us, they share “a spark of the divine.” The first principle of Unitarianism reminds us of the “inherent worth and dignity of all people.” I have spent 32 years defending the principle of separation of church and state, which means I have often had to confront those who oppose that constitutional principle, some of whom even argue that church-state separation is a

• myth. In confronting these people, I will admit that I have sometimes struggled

with the first principle of Unitarianism because I have encountered many of the types Marcus Aurelius warns us about – ungrateful, aggressive, malicious people. At meetings of Religious Right groups I have attended, I’ve heard people talk about how they have cut off and cast out their own children – because those children are members of the LGBTQ community. They speak of this proudly, while claiming to be “pro-family.” I’ve listened as politicians outlined plans to take away the rights of members of our families, our friends, neighbors and co-workers. I’ve watched people nod in approval. In my darker moments, I have been challenged to find that spark of the divine, or to remember the worth and dignity of those who oppose us. Yet I know that we must remember their humanity even as we oppose them – and that means political

• involvement. Since basic human rights are at stake, we do not have the luxury of

disengagement. With that thought in mind, what I’d like to do this morning is outline some rules for the intersection of religion and politics. Some of these rules may seem obvious to you, or you may feel that they are rules that those who work against our vision

• f a just America need to hear. And yes, those folks do need to hear them. But I

would ask that we all bear them in mind as we cross the sometimes dangerous intersection of religion and politics. One: God does not have a political affiliation. Furthermore, God does not want you or anyone else to be president, governor, mayor, city council member, etc. This may seem like a no-brainer, but let’s remember that in 2012, at least three GOP candidates said God had told them to run. In 2016, we heard similar claims coming from Republican hopefuls. God is not your campaign manager. When candidates say God has anointed them to run, what they really mean is, “This is how I interpret the desires of God” or “I think it’s likely that God would agree with me” or even “I’m hoping so much that God’s views jibe with my own that I’ve just decided that they do.” Unitarians speak of a god that encompasses “transcending mystery and wonder.” It’s a nice way to think of God because it breaks free of the traditional patriarchal vision of an angry deity who is all-powerful, white and male – that is to say, a god made in the image of those who, throughout much of our history, held the power and often still do. In fundamentalist Christian theology, it is this image of God that transforms his son – who spent an inordinate amount of time talking about the poor and the needy and admonishing those who focus on wealth – into a bootstrap capitalist. The problem with these depictions of God is not that they are wrong – although many of us doubtless believe that they are – it’s that they are used as kind of trump card to choke off debate. After all, if God is on my side, why do we even need to discuss yours? The answer to “God is on my side” is not, “No, he’s on mine.” It is to remind us that any god with his/her/its salt is on all of our sides – whether you believe in God in a traditional sense or as a transcendent force for good that moves through all of us.

Two: U.S. laws must have a secular basis. We are not a theocracy. Again, this may seem obvious – but a significant percentage of Americans would take issue with this assertion. Think back to the debate over marriage equality. We challenged opponents to articulate a secular reason why two people of the same sex should not be able to legally marry. These opponents could not do it. At the end of the day, their arguments always boiled down to a passage from Leviticus or a papal decree. In a secular republic, we have the right to ask “What else ya got?” And they didn’t have anything else. Now, there are plenty of issues that have a religious dimension to them. For example, many people oppose the death penalty on religious grounds. But those people can also list a number of secular reasons why the death penalty is problematic. The Bible is not the basis of our government. And too often these days, political debates can sound like a proof texting contest with one side citing its favored biblical passages and the other side quoting its favored passages. These debates aren’t just counterproductive, they are irrelevant because U.S. law is not based on anyone’s interpretation of the Bible. And let’s be clear, interpretation is what these debates are about because there is no agreed-upon definition of what “biblical law” even means. Our government is secular, and that’s a good thing. Although that term is often considered a dirty word by the Religious Right, it shouldn’t be. Secularism is the platform upon which our religious freedom rests. We should embrace it and celebrate it. Three: Just because an argument is religious in nature does not mean it is beyond

• criticism. Its religious nature does not confer upon it some sort of special status.

Nor is criticism of such a position an example of religious bigotry or an attack on religious freedom. The people who work against us have an agenda. It is a controversial one. It would affect people we love by stripping away their rights. We oppose this agenda. We speak out against it. The debate is spirited, sometimes heated. That’s how politics

• works. Any group that comes into the public square with a controversial set of

policy proposals must be prepared for pushback. When it comes to ultra-conservative proposals, our side often leads this pushback. We should be nice as we engage our opponents, but that doesn’t mean we have to roll over. Four: No religious group has the right to use the engine of the state to enforce its

• theology. If you want people to live under your religion’s rules, then persuade

them to voluntarily adopt those rules. Persuasion is fine. Force is not. To be sure, every religious group has the right to be heard. But no religious group has the right to be obeyed. Furthermore, it’s all right for us to point out that some people want things they cannot have, at least not under our existing Constitution. We are a multi-faith, multi-philosophy democracy. We were not founded to be an officially Christian

• nation. As I’ve already noted, our Constitution is secular. Not only does the U.S.

Constitution provide no safe harbor for theocracy, it actively mitigates against it. This is a good thing, and we should not hesitate to say that. Five: We have laws that govern the intersection of religion and politics. They

• ught to be followed.

A federal law called the Johnson Amendment bars intervention in partisan politics by tax-exempt nonprofits, and this includes houses of worship. All 501 (c)(3) nonprofits must follow the Johnson Amendment. It bars these nonprofits from endorsing or opposing candidates for public office. It does not ban or curb issue advocacy in any way. You can speak out on issues all you want, but you must stop short of telling people which candidates they should vote for or against. Remember, tax exemption is a benefit, and it comes with conditions, one of which is the no-politicking rule. Conservative churches sometimes break this law. We should not. Six: Let’s not be afraid of a little transparency. Conservative groups tend to do a lot of things in the dark and hide what they’re up to. That’s not a good look for the folks on our side. Let’s be open about what we’re doing and put our agenda up front.

Federal rules exempt religious organizations from the lobbying reporting requirements that are placed on secular groups. State laws vary, but only a handful have laws on the books that require religious groups to disclose what they spend on

• lobbying. And in some states, religious groups have fought laws to open up the

process and bring disclosure. That’s a mistake. Embrace transparency; don’t run from it. In 2008, Californians voted on a ballot measure to ban marriage equality. It passed narrowly, and after the vote, it came to light that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints had spent $40 million on the referendum. People were shocked and some chafed at the church’s interference – but remember, this only came to light because of California’s disclosure laws. Most other states don’t have laws like that. We want a fairer society, a better society, a more just society. We work toward that in state legislatures and in Congress. Let’s be upfront about what we’re doing. As a general rule, if you’re doing something in secret, something you’d rather people not know about, you have to consider the very real possibility that you may be up to no good. Seven: Secular values do not take a back seat to religious values. They are equal. And secular voices matter just as much as religious ones. It’s all right to doubt, to question and to debate the claims of religious groups. There is a long history of this in America. It is part of our culture. Again, it’s nice to be polite and respectful when engaging these debates – but merely raising them, merely questioning the claims of religion, is not bigotry. Thomas Jefferson once advised his nephew: “Question with boldness even the existence of a god, because if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.” It is hard to imagine a politician saying something like that today. Yet we must remember that our Constitution specifically states that there can be no religious test for federal office, and the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that attempts to limit public office to believers only violate the First Amendment. Let’s hold on to that spirit.

I began these remarks by quoting Marcus Aurelius. In the Meditations, Marcus warns us several times to avoid getting involved in anything that is degrading to the human spirit. Politics can seem unpleasant at times, and even degrading, but involvement in it is necessary. The stoic philosophy championed by Marcus Aurelius and others has much to

• ffer, but I believe it also has limitations, as all systems of philosophy do. In the

case of stoicism, we run the risk of always striving to be too far above the fray. This can feel like disengagement or a type of retreat into an extreme form of self- isolation from the world. To be clear, we all need a rich inner life, especially during a time like this. But we do not have the luxury of disengagement. Too much is at stake. There are people

• ut there who believe that only their religion is true and good and therefore, they

believe, all of us should live under its rules. They would take away our rights – and the rights of people we love. Defending ourselves and our loved ones is not an option or just something we should consider. It is a duty. It is our duty to speak on behalf of the poor, the immigrant, the undocumented worker, the asylum seeker, the member of the LGBTQ community, the disenfranchised voter. It is our duty to give voice to those whose voices have been stifled, squelched or ignored. I read a Bible where Jesus talks constantly about the poor and those in need. I admire those who are inspired by his words, or the words of other great historic religious figures, to act. But let’s say Jesus had never said one word about the poor. Would that mean we could ignore them? No. We would still have a moral imperative to act. Our impulse to stand up to injustice and inequality is not tied to someone’s interpretation of a passage from an ancient book deemed holy by some but not

• thers. Rather, it springs from our shared humanity and a recognition, if you will,

that within us all does dwell a spark of the divine and an acknowledgement that the inherent worth and dignity of our fellow humans is indeed worthy of a vigorous defense. Thank you.