Politics and religion.

[rivka]

curiousangel and I spent a lot of time talking about religion during the Cubs game last night, although probably not in the divine-retribution way that most people were.

One of the things that bothers us both about our church is the tendency some members have to blur the distinction between a Unitarian-Universalist church and a Green Party convention. The strongest example of this is the reflexive assumption that everyone in our church opposed the war in Iraq, but there's a whole spectrum of other political stances (disapproval of Israel, for example, and support of gay marriage) that almost assume the role of tenets of our faith. It's a strange position for a non-creedal religion to be in.

So curiousangel and I were discussing where the line should be drawn between politics and religion. I have no problem with the idea that religion informs people's political judgments. Most of my political beliefs are founded upon principles that I consider to be part of my religion: the UU first principle of respect for the inherent worth and dignity of all human beings, for example, and the Christian obligation to protect the weak and provide for the needy. Religions provide people with principles for how they should behave in the world, and as such, they affect political opinions.

The problem, to me, comes when you assume that there is a unitary relationship between a set of religious values and a set of political positions. My personal interpretation of affirming "the inherent worth and dignity of all human beings" leads me to be pro-choice, but it may equally lead another UU to be pro-life. The second principle's call for "justice, equity, and compassion in human relations" may lead some to be pacifists, and others to see the necessity for certain just wars.

That's not to say that the seven principles can be twisted to support any political position, or that there can be no religious debate about political issues. But just as I think it's ludicrous to claim that God self-evidently objects to loving queer relationships, I think it's ludicrous to assume that God - or liberal religious spirit - must self-evidently be on the side of Palestinian suicide bombers. And I think we'd have a better church if people were a little more ready to apply our UU tolerance of diverse religious perspectives to diverse political perspectives.

Comments

[pernishus.livejournal.com]

"Hear, hear, dear Rivka and CuriousAngel. How I agree with your conclusions! You would not be surprised to hear, I know, of the preconceptions which kick into gear when folks come to learn that I am a strict Calvinist... and I don't mean 'Calvin and Hobbes'..."

[filkerdave.livejournal.com]

You might find this article (http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1015/p03s01-ussc.html) an interesting read.

[patgreene.livejournal.com]

The problem, to me, comes when you assume that there is a unitary relationship between a set of religious values and a set of political positions.

Definitely. That's the whole problem with Christian fundamentalism in the U.S. Most of the things people think of as religious arguments are really arguments about definition -- people taking their religious beliefs and reasoning out a political stance from there. Which is perfectly valid -- most people of faith do that -- but it becomes a problem when a person decides that their line of reasoning is the *only* one that is allowed or makes sense.

For example, I have come to think of the abortion debate as not being a religious debate at all -- it's a debate about how people have reasoned about the meaning of life and when it begins. The people who have claimed divine support for their pro-life position cannot, in fact, point to any Scriptural definition of when life begins, because it doesn't exist.

And in fact, people become so invested in their political positions that they lose sight of the bigger picture. When a suicide bombing takes place, laying blame or claiming divine sanction for either side's actions does nothing more than ensure that there will be more suicide bombers. I think it is entirely possible for a person to both condemn the Israeli policies that lead to such despair that people are willing to blow themselves up and also condemn the suicide bombers for their wanton taking of life.

Sometimes, I think God simply looks at us and weeps.

[mittelbar.livejournal.com]

{sigh}

OK, so, this is actually one of the things that people I was involved with were icky about, now that I have a chance to reflect on it. Pretty much exactly.

Doesn't justify my prejudices (faded largely since 100 things meme, and largely formulated along the lines of "don't buy the 'tolerance' spiel, 'cuz they probably won't be"), but you know how people are.

[kightp.livejournal.com]

You know, this sounds like it would be a wonderful subject for a community discussion, at least in the right religious community.

The local UUs often sponsor self-exploratory dialogues on topics of spiritual/ethical interest to the congregation. Does your church do that sort of thing? It might be kind of cool to suggest it as a subject for thoughtful discussion.

You know, in your copious spare time. (-;

[starstraf.livejournal.com]

THANK YOU
So good to hear others voice "One of the things that bothers us both about our church is the tendency some members have to blur the distinction between a Unitarian-Universalist church and a Green Party convention." (You can make the same comments replacing UU with GLBT)

You can imagaine the looks I get when folks find out I have a Republican/Catholic partner. I stopped going to the local UU fellowship after the 6th time someone chided me becasue they had not seen me at the peace rally that happens here every week. I explained that I did not want the friends I had serving to see me next to a "only idiots enlist" sign and I would not goto the ralley. Someone actually said to me "You better review your UU principles"
I still consider myself UU - but a member of my church in C/U that I only make it to once or twice a year. I'm hoping that I'll have better options once we moved to DC area in a year or so.
I am also considering the American Unitarian Conference (http://www.americanunitarian.org/)

[hobbitbabe.livejournal.com]

I just read part of this to P, and said "That's why I read LJ. Well, that and the gossip."

My current denomination, the United Church of Canada, is also known as "the NDP on Sunday mornings". My immediately previous denomination was American Baptist. In both congregations, I noticed people assuming that a social or political belief that was very unpopular in the general population would be universally held in that church. An example was that during Gulf War I or whatever it was called, people in Ohio were overwhelmingly pro-intervention, yet people in the church tended to assume that everyone in the church was strongly anti-intervention and anti-military, to the point of really offending a few people who had different political opinions and/or military relatives, and who had thought the congregation was open minded. I had the same tendency myself, maybe because I felt so marginalized and foreign elsewhere during that war that I wanted my church to be a comforting haven of like thinkers.

And then there was the time I attended a poly discussion group, where some people started making cheap jokes about Baptists, so I asked if this was the right time to come out as a Baptist.

[ororo.livejournal.com]

The problem, to me, comes when you assume that there is a unitary relationship between a set of religious values and a set of political positions.

Well put, especially the bit I quoted.

I'm wondering if some people need a label to give them a set of rules to live by. That's fine by me if there's the flexibility to acknowledge other points of view are valid. Example in action: I know a Buddhist vegetarian. I eat meat. Neither of us declares the other "not a Buddhist" because of this.

[kiya]

A couple of my friends are overall political conservatives and pagan; there are a couple of generally leftish political positions that are at the same sort of creedal status in pagan communities, producing the same sorts of ngrrrrraaaagh feelings in some folks.

(Recently on the discussion forum for the temple I'm vaguely associated with, someone took the presumed agreement of his audience to mean that he had free rein to be an ass on a political subject. Irritated me, not only because I can't consider an ally someone who is that willing to behave badly, but because the forum was, to my mind, obviously inappropriate.)

Taking a break from venting about the Cubs...

[rmjwell.livejournal.com]

To say that I am in strong agreement with what you are saying here. I've noticed a similar problem with several bay area polyamory communities.

I get concerned when people start trying to add things to a core definition that are not any part of the core idea.

[lysana.livejournal.com]

I go through this with pagans and queer folk as well. Being a gun-owning bisexual makes me very weird to the mainstream non-hetero thought police out here. The fact I'm not a Wiccan keeps my Second Amendment stance less than strange for my faith, but I'm also not as rabid a peacenik as some people (not to mention the fact I'm not much of a socialist). The last two keep me on the fringes of both groups. RJ already noted the local poly communities having similar issues. We're not all rampaging pinko-lefties, and I am tired of feeling like I'm supposed to in order to get laid (not that I'm suffering in the sweetie department these days).

[mittelbar.livejournal.com]

Ha ha! I just thought about the fact that I sometimes feel this way where I work -- that it's OK to just assume people are more or less 'progressive', and that I can air my political views fairly freely. Of course, it took a while before I started being so presumptuous (I had to be convinced over time that the majority of my peers were kinda with me), but still. It's there, that desire to have a safe place to be a librul.

[oursin.livejournal.com]

The problem, to me, comes when you assume a unitary relationship between a set of religious values and a set of political positions
As a (lapsed) Methodist who sees English Methodism as having a historical connection to working-class and humanitarian struggles, it set my teeth severely on edge to hear M Thatcher claim her own Methodist heritage in support of her political beliefs...
What you said.

[lerryn.livejournal.com]

Understood. Intolerance of any kind is difficult to deal with, and intolerance which claims a religious basis is that much worse. That's one reason why the only "organized" religious activities I attend are dreamingclaw's ceremonies, unless you count my wedding and me performing aladriana's wedding.

[therealjae.livejournal.com]

You know, our posts of today were pretty darn similar. This amuses me. :-)

Have you ever (gently) challenged your church on their political assumptions? I bet they'd be receptive.

-J