rivka: (dove of peace)
rivka ([personal profile] rivka) wrote2003-10-15 10:39 am
Entry tags:

Politics and religion.

[livejournal.com profile] 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 [livejournal.com profile] 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.

[identity profile] lysana.livejournal.com 2003-10-15 11:51 am (UTC)(link)
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).