rivka | Politics and religion.

Entry tags:

politics,
religion

Politics and religion.

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.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

"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'..."

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

Hee! I did find it interesting. Although it does seem to me to be self-evident that God wants the Cubs to win and the Yankees to lose. I guess the CS Monitor can't say so for fear of losing all their New York-area subscriptions.

Not EVERYONE in the NY area is a Yankees fan (said the man who doesn't care about baseball but was raised in a National League Family)

One of my cow-orkers is a die-hard Mets fan who is also an Anybody But the Yankees fan.

I knew that the Yankees had a habit of winning, but this is ridiculous.

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.

It's not just the Christian fundamentalists, though. I'm feeling more and more alienated from my Jewish congregation because my political views don't line up exactly with the Social Action Committee's and the rabbi's.

When I disagree with them, I tell them so.

(Heh...first week I was a member of my shul, I got into an argument with the rabbi over the Pollard case. He thought that we should be protesting that Pollard got so heavy a sentence, I pointed out that he was lucky he wasn't shot)

I speak up in small groups. But when people organize for political action and represent themselves as "the Havurah group" (without a congregation-wide vote on what positions/candidates/measures to support or oppose), and when the rabbi's Rosh Hashanah speech (you can't call it a sermon, there was very little religion in it) affronts me so badly I wanted to walk out of services, I feel too alienated to make connections.

I want a shul where differences are tolerated and people are welcome to find others who agree with them and to learn from the ones who don't agree with them. I'm not getting that where I am.

But then, for a Jew I'm a contradiction. I'm pro-gun, anti-tax, in favor of smaller government and more personal responsibility. I don't fit in with the Orthodox because I'm also egalitarian (about women's involvement in services) and generally quite liberal on social issues.

You'd probably be welcome at my shul. A bit of a commute from your part of the country, but your views aren't all that far out of line with many of the people in my shul.

(I'm not necessarily pro or anti gun, myself, but I'd rather take that offline than subject LJ to it!)

Amen on the gun arguments, I was just stating that my position differs from that of most people in my congregation that I've talked to about it. For example, a proposal to make our building a "gun-free" zone, which takes away my right to defend myself by carrying when I go into a risky situation (since temples are sometimes a target of violence).

{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.

It really hurts an extra lot to go into a situation where you're expecting tolerance, and where tolerance is outwardly valued, and then trip over some of the hidden intolerances. Talk about something to make you feel crazy.

I'm sorry that happened.

Oh, gosh, no -- I'm sorry *you're* having to deal with it. I wasn't nearly as invested in being part of the community. Just remembering a bit and sympathizing by way of 'been there', except I haven't really been there, so, see, but anyway.

The whole bit about hitting hidden intolerances holds in any community that prides itself on tolerance, I think. I'm glad you guys can articulate your issues so well, because I think you can be a good. Um. A good influence, if that's not a silly thing to say.

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. (-;

I wave my hands in the direction of

ravingtheosophy, an almost completely silent community for the geeking-over all things religiously philosophicalised. :)

In fact, I think I'll start a thread there myself.

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/)

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"

"Pot, this is kettle. You are black. Repeat, you are black."

For God's sake. Someone needs to go back to kindergarten RE class and learn about how the first principle doesn't just apply to people we agree with.

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.

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...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.

Yes, exactly. I think that a lot of people with liberal religious beliefs feel very isolated as part of their day to day lives, and want church to be a place where the minority can be the majority. It's a natural feeling - if you feel challenged at every turn, you want some place to be free from challenges, where you can relax among the like-minded. A haven, as you say.

I find it much more difficult to work on accepting people and feeling in community with them in spite of deep philosophical or political differences between us. Unfortunately, I feel as though that's something that my church is supposed to be for, so I should be working on it. I have a long way to go, argh.

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.

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.)

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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

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

*grin* I noticed that too, and I was pleased.

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

I have a few times, but

curiousangel has been much more forthright about it, probably because his views are more in conflict with the average church member than mine. I'll let him tell you about it if he wants.

I've had some experience with bringing up challenges to the commonly accepted "wisdom", and the reaction I typically get isn't exactly negative, it's just... mystified. I get the impression that most of the people are willing to listen to other points of view (although those seem curiously unfamiliar to them), but there are a few people who are downright pigheaded about it.

For example... last year there was an evening session called by one of our ministers to discuss the Israel/Palestine situation. I decided that I needed to go in order that a pro-Israel position would be represented, and I was very afraid of being the one and only voice on that side. Still, it needed doing, so away I went.

Turned out that a grand total of four people turned up -- myself, the minister who called the meeting, one pleasant (albeit pretty clueless) guy, and one "peace issues" activist. I'd had run-ins with the activist before, and I gritted my teeth when she walked in the door. We began the discussion, and it quickly became obvious that nobody else in the room knew much about the history of the region -- when I mentioned the Balfour Declaration, I got some blank looks, and not much else. How can you consider yourself informed on this without knowing anything about the Balfour Declaration?

The activist wanted to argue about "anti-Semitic" being meaningless (since Arabs are Semites, too), and she was certain that the British had claimed the original Mandate teritory after WW1 in order to lay claim to oil resources. When it was pointed out to her that the Mandate had no oil, and that oil in Arabia wasn't even discovered until years later, she simply asserted her claim more firmly. I shrugged, figuring she shot down her own case more than I ever could, and the discussion went on. We talked about the establishment of the State of Israel, and how there was injustice aplenty on every side, and how the situation had progressed over the years. The activist kept getting more and more visibly annoyed, and finally burst out with, "It's too late for them to get a country! It's terrible that the Holocaust happened, but that's just too bad, and they can't have a state!"

By this time, it had gotten late, and there was obviously not much else to say, so we concluded the discussion. I followed up with later email to the minister, she gave a sermon a few weeks later on the subject, and we heard very little else about it afterwards. The activist went on to be a "human shield" in Baghdad in January and February. (A few weeks ago she was in church, and I hoped her head would explode when we sang the "When tyrants tremble..." verse of "How Can I Keep From Singing?", but it didn't happen.)

In February the Social Action Committee brought forth a resolution to the church's Board of Trustees (which includes me) condemning the looming war in Iraq, and asking the Board to endorse the resolution in the name of the church. I hadn't discussed my stance on the war with anyone there, but I couldn't let this go by. I denounced the resolution, not only because I personally disagreed with it, but because I refused to issue a proclamation on an issue in the name of the church collectively that I had not confirmed to be held by the entire church. I was fine with the idea that individual members could speak up however they saw fit, but the resolution certainly didn't speak for me, and I didn't want it going out in any fashion that others might associate with me.

On those grounds, the resolution was defeated, and several other members of the Board commented to me that it took serious guts to come out so prominently against the accepted "wisdom" on such an issue. I told them I felt it was something that I didn't have any choice about. On important matters, my respect for the democratic tradition demands that I say my piece (and listen to others say theirs) even if I'm sure nobody else agrees with me.

On important matters, my respect for the democratic tradition demands that I say my piece (and listen to others say theirs) even if I'm sure nobody else agrees with me.

Swoon.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Politics and religion.

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Room for Differences

Re: Room for Differences

Re: Room for Differences

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Taking a break from venting about the Cubs...

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject