rivka | 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

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).

Politics and religion.

no subject

no subject

no subject

Room for Differences

Re: Room for Differences

Re: Room for Differences