Religion and Politics: When to get involved?

Martin Luther King, Jr., in A Letter from a Birmingham Jail:

In the midst of a mighty struggle to rid our nation of racial and economic injustice, I have heard many ministers say: "Those are social issues, with which the gospel has no real concern." And I have watched many churches commit themselves to a completely other worldly religion which makes a strange, un-Biblical distinction between body and soul, between the sacred and the secular.
(...)
So often the contemporary church is a weak, ineffectual voice with an uncertain sound. So often it is an archdefender of the status quo. Far from being disturbed by the presence of the church, the power structure of the average community is consoled by the church's silent--and often even vocal--sanction of things as they are.

Thoughts?

This plea for support makes sense insofar as the "black church" was the sole institution in the segregationist American south that could offer human and economic capital to the civil rights movement (in addition the churches' social capital). The support of these churches was a material (i.e., secular) necessity more than a religious one.

Doug MacAdam, Political Process and the Development of Black Insurgency, 1930-1970
Aldon Morris, Origins of the Civil Rights Movements
John D. McCarthy and Mayer N. Zald, "Resource Mobilization and Social Movements: A Partial Theory," AJS 82, 6 (May 1977)

>2 theoria: the "black church" was the sole institution in the segregationist American south that could offer human and economic capital to the civil rights movement (in addition the churches' social capital).

In some ways this describes the position of the Church in many development and liberation dynamics in Africa. For much of the 1983-2005 civil war in Sudan the Church was the only institution which retained its infrastructure and remained on the ground with the people. I allude to this in my recent book.

The support of these churches was a material (i.e., secular) necessity more than a religious one

Many Africans have a more holistic understanding of life than north Americans and Europeans and would not view it in these binary terms. However this is an artificial distinction which I sometimes use when trying to explain the role of the Church in Sudan and South Sudan to some of our international partners.

Pope Francis: “A good Catholic meddles in politics” (Vatican Insider)

Politics, according to the Social Doctrine of the Church, is one of the highest forms of charity, because it serves the common good. I cannot wash my hands...

The problem with religion in politics comes when working for your religious values turns into imposing your religious beliefs. Secularists never face this dilemma, but politically-active religious people navigate it constantly.

The problem with religion in politics comes when working for your religious values turns into imposing your religious beliefs. Secularists never face this dilemma, but politically-active religious people navigate it constantly.

You never face this dilemma? So secular people never impose their values on secular values on others? I guess there are two classes of values--secular ones, which are correct and natural, the default and no imposition whatsoever on anyone--and whatever those religious people value, which is totally different. Remarkable. And to think this is actually the way you think? I guess it all makes sense once you marginalize the rest of us.

>5 southernbooklady: I tend to agree with Tim, here, Nicki, and I seem to recall that this has come up before on LT. Surely each one of us who gets involved in politics in any way (even simply by voting) is doing so according to our own personal values, however they have been formed?

>6 timspalding: You never face this dilemma? So secular people never impose their values on secular values on others?

Well, I should have made it explicit-- in a secular society, a society, shall we say, committed to the separation of church and state, it is not really an issue. My values may or may not be in sync with the rest of society, but one thing I don't have to worry about is whether or not I'm poking holes in that boundary. And it must be a boundary that people are conscious of, because otherwise why ask the question "When to get involved?"

And sure, people vote how they vote no matter what motivates them. (And they congregate together to But eventually we may reach a point where what we want is actually unconstitutional--against the basic principle upon which the state is founded. In a secular state, religious values need to find secular rationales. I just don't have that hurdle.

Consider the example of Martin Luther King and the AME Churches. Now I don't for one moment believe that Black church participation in the civil rights movement was simply a matter of providing material support. There's no doubt in my mind that churches, and church-goers, were behaving as Christians in their commitment to Civil Rights.

But in the end, the argument that had to be won was a Constitutional one. It was "Men are all equal" not "God made us all equal" and not "this is what Jesus wants us to do."

I guess it all makes sense once you marginalize the rest of us.

The faithful in America do not appear to me to be suffering much from marginalization.

>8 southernbooklady: in the end, the argument that had to be won was a Constitutional one

Of course, but that's true for everyone. Why single out people who make political decisions based in part on their religious background? We all make political decisions based on a whole range of influences including our culture, education, social class, occupation, nationality, language, political experience, gender, sexual orientation, race, religous beliefs (including lack of religious belief)... in fact based on our whole life experience.

The faithful in America do not appear to me to be suffering much from marginalization.

Even the Muslims don't suffer any marginalisation?

>9 John5918: Why single out people who make political decisions based in part on their religious background?

Actually, I'm more inclined to single out organizations, not people. I'm all for people believing what they believe and voting their conscience, but I'd like corporate interference in American politics severely curtailed.

I will say that I'm reading a fascinating book at the moment called Nature's God which I'm guessing many people on this forum wouldn't like because it is an argument for the radical "atheistic" foundation of the American Republic. Basically, the author makes the case that "Deism" is code for "infidel" or "atheist."

But one of the possibly unintentional side-effects of the thoroughness of his argument is that it has made me conscious that America has never really had what you might call "true separation of Church and State" -- the churches have always been hip-deep in the muck of American politics and no one has ever really challenged their right to be there. Sure we tell that Southern good ole boy Judge to take down the copy of the Ten Commandments he posted in his courtroom, but it's merely paying lip-service to the notion of separation of church and state. Mostly, we don't question the way religion encroaches on the work of the government....I suppose precisely because we have a hands-off attitude about what any given person professes to believe as a matter of conscience.

Even the Muslims don't suffer any marginalisation?

Not so much if they are white. But in this country we don't do well with brown-skinned people of any religion.

>10 southernbooklady: I share your concern about organisations when it comes to lobbying, although I suspect that highly-paid and extremely powerful corporate interests such as the military-industrial complex have more influence than churches do.

But ultimately it is the right and duty of individuals to vote according to their conscience, and it is the right of these individuals to form groups, whether political parties or pressure groups, to try to influence voters to vote for their ideas, wherever those ideas come from. In theory, at least, these ideas will never be accepted into law unless a majority of citizens come round to agreeing with them (although I know that democracy is flawed and it's not quite as straightforward as that).

I'd like the country of my birth to become more socialist, more socially progressive, more welcoming to immigrants and other minorities, have a better National Health Service, re-nationalise the railways, become less militaristic and a host of other values based on my whole life experience which of course includes my religious values, but so far those who think like me are not having too much success in influencing the voters.

But in the end, the argument that had to be won was a Constitutional one. It was "Men are all equal" not "God made us all equal" and not "this is what Jesus wants us to do."

I'm not sure how one tells that.

1. We shall ignore out of respect for your sensibilities that the phrase "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" has something to do with the United States.

2. You may point out this is in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. But consider your argument that "It was 'Men are all equal'." Nothing remotely like "men are all equal" occurs in the Constitution--the philosophical principle of equality is as absent as the theological principle that undergirds it. It doesn't even occur in the Bill of Rights—which sticks to dry particulars about what the Congress can't do.

All this is clear. Yet who in their right minds would claim that the Bill of Rights was not fundamentally an expression of natural-law thinking, or that "all men are equal" was not at the beating heart of the American project? No, the Founders understood the difference between legal texts, and hortatory, philosophical and theological ones. That doesn't mean they thought the two were indeed separate.

3. One can say that part of the Civil Rights movement was decided on purely "legal" grounds. But the larger part was a feedback loop between organization around the issue and changing minds. Brown v. Board of Education didn't end the Civil Rights era. It was marches, persuasion, agitation and eventually legislation. The argument was won, and all arguments are won broadly--a grand agreement across spheres ethical, religious, legal, practical, political and self-interested. But faith played an absolutely central role in that struggle.

The faithful in America do not appear to me to be suffering much from marginalization.

I was not, of course, referring to "the faithful of America," but to your condescending dismissal, and the logic of "your values are forced on us," and never the reverse.

A current real-life example of the Church "getting involved in politics":

DR Congo unrest: Catholic Church backs protests (BBC)

The Catholic Church in the Democratic Republic of Congo has thrown its weight behind protests against President Joseph Kabila extending his rule.

It called on people to peacefully oppose his move to delay presidential elections...

>11 John5918: I share your concern about organisations when it comes to lobbying, although I suspect that highly-paid and extremely powerful corporate interests such as the military-industrial complex have more influence than churches do.

It is, perhaps, a different order of influence. Corporations have money, but churches have emotional capital. I think of the influence wielded by a church along the lines of the influence wielded by one's family. If family is important to you, then their concerns become your concerns. In the end it might be easier to withstand the kind of influence bought by money than the kind of influence that works on your heart and soul.

But ultimately it is the right and duty of individuals to vote according to their conscience

Absolutely.

and it is the right of these individuals to form groups, whether political parties or pressure groups, to try to influence voters to vote for their ideas, wherever those ideas come from.

But what happens when their concerns involve the suppression of other people's ideas and concerns, as must inevitably follow. I suppose I tend to think that religions tend to resist dissent and non-conformity, and prefer systems that tolerate dissent and non-conformity. But of course it is never so cut and dry. That's why I find corporate influence in American politics as corrupting as I find religious influence in it problematic. From my outsider perspective, it all distills down to a fight for power of people, who should be allowed to think and act for themselves.

>12 timspalding: We shall ignore out of respect for your sensibilities that the phrase "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" has something to do with the United States.

No, by all means, do not ignore it. In fact, I think it is telling that the original draft of sentence does not use the word "Creator":

We hold these Truths to be self evident; that all Men are created equal and independent; that from that equal Creation they derive Rights inherent and unalienable; among which are the Preservation of Life, and Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness

I think the Declaration is to be regarded as a kind of mission statement of the American Republic, and worth consideration on that premise alone. But I think the first part of the statement is the most significant part: that there are truths that are "self-evident." -- That suggests truth is not something "revealed," but something we determine ourselves, based on the evidence before us. It suggests truth is determined by reason, by rational consideration. It's a statement of commitment to freedom of thought, don't you think?

So you could say that the inherent tug of war I seem to feel so keenly in American politics is the difference between a country based on the principle of freedom from religion, versus one based on the principle of freedom for religion.

Brown v. Board of Education didn't end the Civil Rights era.

One might say it is still not ended, or else racism would be a thing of the past. And it clearly is not. But Brown vs. Board of Education was what was necessary to make the discrimination many found immoral, actually illegal. And when we are talking about when and how to get involved in politics, we are talking about what should and shouldn't be legal and illegal, for everyone.

I was not, of course, referring to "the faithful of America," but to your condescending dismissal, and the logic of "your values are forced on us," and never the reverse.

I suppose it looks that way to you, in the same way that your contention that a moral system not based in the idea of an absolute moral good is useless (the word you used once was "a joke") looks condescending to me. But really it is a matter of perspective and starting assumptions.

There's no place in the courtrooms of a secular state for religiously-founded arguments. So the religious person, who surely acts in the world in the way their faith calls them to, still needs to find a secular way to promote his religious values. Just as if I lived in a theocratic state, I would have to find doctrinal support for the values I wanted to see implemented.

>8 southernbooklady: "Now I don't for one moment believe that Black church participation in the civil rights movement was simply a matter of providing material support."

If you read the snippet of the "Letter" in the OP, it is apparent that some ministers didn't view the civil rights struggle as having a religious imperative.

King: "I have heard many ministers say: 'Those are social issues, with which the gospel has no real concern.'"

If King's letter had been written and distributed today, it would have had an envelope for the enclosure of donations of $25, $50, $100, etc. attached to it. But as I noted in >2 theoria:, he also sought human capital (leadership skills) and social capital (networks) the churches could offer a movement that was starved for such capital in the American south. To gain these resources, he makes rhetorical use of a religion-centered justice frame: after all, his audience is a recalcitrant ministry. Beyond this target audience, his religious rhetoric resonates because it appeals to the idea of a universal humanity that requires no religious justification.

>15 southernbooklady: There's no place in the courtrooms of a secular state for religiously-founded arguments.

Would that it were so. I draw your attention to the travesty that is Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores.

>17 paradoxosalpha: yes, well, that would be an example of freedom "for" religion in action. I hate pretty much the entire gamut of implications that derive from that ruling.

>14 southernbooklady: But what happens when their concerns involve the suppression of other people's ideas and concerns, as must inevitably follow

What happens if anybody's concerns involve the suppression of other people's ideas and concerns? It is a potential danger within a democracy, the tyranny of the majority, but why single out religion over and above a political ideology or an economic system? And why must it inevitably follow? In most modern democracies I would say it hasn't happened in practice.

The example I gave about the church in DRC is precisely the opposite of suppression, but rather trying to support the political space for people to be free, just as with Martin Luther King, or the church in apartheid South Africa, or the church which expressed the voice of the ordinary people of South Sudan during their liberation struggle, or the church which developed liberation theology in Latin America and elsewhere, or so many other examples that one can name.

>19 John5918: why single out religion over and above a political ideology or an economic system?

Because the topic of this conversation is "Religion and Politics, when to get involved"?

I could expound on similar theories for capitalism, or socialism, or militarization. My general principle of balancing most self determination and least harm means I have opinions on all these things. But religion is what was asked about here.

>20 southernbooklady: Fair enough. But then let me put it a different way. In my experience (and not denying that the opposite can also be the case) religion in politics is often on the side of opening up the political space, not suppressing it, of giving people freedoms, not imposing something on them. That's certainly what my religious values lead me to.

My general principle of balancing most self determination and least harm

That resonates with Catholic Social Thought - the common good, the dignity of the individual, the principle of subsidiarity.

>21 John5918: religion in politics is often on the side of opening up the political space, not suppressing it

Of course. The methods by which this accomplished is what changes from situation to situation, from political system to political system, from state to state. I would imagine the underlying values that drive action remain relatively constant, but one should be conscious of the line between working within a system, and subverting the system. Others don't agree, but I think the Hobby Lobby case mentioned in >17 paradoxosalpha: is an example of the latter.

>22 southernbooklady: Yes, I agree with you that there is a difference between working with the system and subverting the system, but your earlier comment in >14 southernbooklady: that it "must inevitably follow" needs to be challenged. It doesn't inevitably follow that religious involvement in politics leads to an imposition of values as opposed to an opening up of political space, and I think I have given several relevant examples. Hobby Lobby is a specifically US case so I wouldn't really know too much about it, but I would tend to agree with you that from a distance this does look like one of those "imposing" or "subverting" cases.

Could we perhaps agree that your experience in the USA has led you to focus more on the negative side of religious involvement in politics and my experience in developing countries broadly the opposite?

>23 John5918: it "must inevitably follow" needs to be challenged. It doesn't inevitably follow that religious involvement in politics leads to an imposition of values as opposed to an opening up of political space

I took a second look at my wording and I can see why you want to challenge it:

"But what happens when their concerns involve the suppression of other people's ideas and concerns, as must inevitably follow. "

"Their" in this context being the individuals who form groups/pressure groups, etc that you delineated -- which includes everything from religiously-motivated coalitions to the Milk lobby. I guess all I can say is that I have trouble seeing politics and government as anything but a series of negotiated conflicts of interest--where one group's ideas and values always comes at the expense of another's. It's "inevitable" in the same way that two people in the same room will inevitably have different opinions and perspectives. The trick, in government, is to find a system that keeps as many people at the table as possible. But its a chaotic, inefficient process.

You are correct that I am especially suspicious of religion in politics in my country -- surely not a surprise to anyone who has put up with my persistent ranting on the subject, but my objections on this level have more to do with the dangers of holding to an absolutist position about what is moral and what is therefore "right" than with anything to do with a call to tend to the poor. In that sense, I'm also implacably against laissez-faire capitalism, because left unchecked I think capitalism sacrifices people on the altar of money, and I'm against strict socialism, because I think people need to define and create their own successes...etc, etc.

>18 southernbooklady: yes, well, that would be an example of freedom "for" religion in action

But of course, Hobby Lobby is not a religious body. It is a commercial corporation that is being exempted from the law on the basis of religious pleading.

>5 southernbooklady: "The problem with religion in politics comes when working for your religious values turns into imposing your religious beliefs. Secularists never face this dilemma, but politically-active religious people navigate it constantly."
and
>8 southernbooklady: "Well, I should have made it explicit-- in a secular society, a society, shall we say, committed to the separation of church and state, it is not really an issue. My values may or may not be in sync with the rest of society, but one thing I don't have to worry about is whether or not I'm poking holes in that boundary."

Implicit here is that secularists do face the dilemma, precisely because the secularist imposes the belief that religious faith is not a sufficient warrant for political activity. The "secularist" can have any motivation they please to be politically active; but the religious believer? They have to conform to the secularist paradigm if they want to get involved. Thus, far from promoting equality, you've imposed a hierarchy in which secular belief is mandated and religious belief not tolerated.

>15 southernbooklady: "There's no place in the courtrooms of a secular state for religiously-founded arguments."

So if a Muslim or Jewish student sues the public schools for refusing to serve lunches that don't contain pork, they're out of luck, right? Because there isn't a secular reason for them to avoid pork. Their motivations are religious, and you've told us that the virtue of the secular state is that religious motivations are not acceptable in the public sphere.

Compare, then, the vignette that opens Giles Fraser's recent critique of French secularism in the Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2015/jan/16/france-much-vaunted-...

At the start of this year, the school in the little French town of Sargé-lès-le-Mans instituted a “pork or nothing” policy. Muslim and Jewish kids have either to eat pork or go hungry. Apparently this move is necessary to “save secularism”, according to National Front leader Marine le Pen. “We will accept no religious requirements in the school lunch menus,” she said. “There is no reason for religion to enter the public sphere.”

>26 nathanielcampbell: So if a Muslim or Jewish student sues the public schools for refusing to serve lunches that don't contain pork, they're out of luck, right? Because there isn't a secular reason for them to avoid pork.

Not quite. There is a secular reason for such a suit. The secular argument would be: "The Constitution protects my freedom to practice my religion, so you can't force me to eat pork, since my religion tells me not to."

The religious argument would be: "You can't force me to eat pork because the Torah forbids it."

See the difference?

>26 nathanielcampbell: The "secularist" can have any motivation they please to be politically active; but the religious believer? They have to conform to the secularist paradigm if they want to get involved.

You say that like it is some dreadful thing, but does this not make sense? Wouldn't you want this to be the way things work? Wouldn't you want the judges of your society to look to the law when determining the law instead of looking to the Bible? I'm sure you wouldn't want me dismissing religious doctrine as invalid because it doesn't match legal precedent in the civil sphere.

In last November's election here, I had a choice of 19 different candidates for a seat on the Court of Appeals. That was a lot of candidates to assess, let me tell you! And they ranged from liberal to conservative, from career-lawyers to small business owners to people who worked in the public sector, etc. All the candidates issued a statement of their judicial philosophy and by and large most of these statements said things like they held to strict standards of fairness regardless of political party pressures, etc.

But here are some things that raised flags for me when I was trying to determine who to vote for:

1) if the candidate said they did not believe in "activism from the bench" I crossed them off my list because I read that as code for the fact that they did believe in activism from the bench, only of a conservative nature.

2) if the candidate went out of their way to talk about their religious affiliations and the fact they went to church (four of them did) I crossed them off my list because in my view going to church is not relevant to their ability to do their job as a judge. The fact that they felt the need to mention it at all -- purely, I'm sure, as a way to court voters -- was a mark against them in my assessment of their ability to keep religion out of the way they practiced the law.

I'm sorry that sounds harsh, but there it is. I'm fine with people being religiously motivated to make a better world. I'm not fine with religion infiltrating the secular sphere of civil government. It's self-interest, of course. I don't fare well under religious systems so I want the government I live in to protect my right to live according to my own ideas of what is and isn't "good."

>28 southernbooklady: "I'm fine with people being religiously motivated to make a better world. I'm not fine with religion infiltrating the secular sphere of civil government."

You do understand that there is a huge area of overlap between those two categories--making a better world and the work of the civil government--right?

And that's what the OP was trying to get at -- if you object to the presence of religious motivation in people's politics, then you're not just objecting to the people who want to ban abortion and gay marriage. You're also objecting to the people who work passionately for civil rights, the poor, good education, etc.

"I want the government I live in to protect my right to live according to my own ideas of what is and isn't "good."

So do I. But you don't think I should get a seat at the table, because my ideas of what is "good" are informed by my faith.

And of course, the religious believer need never be worried that the secularist has bad motivations or wants to use the power of government against them. No, the secularist is assumed to be omnibenevolent; the religious believer, everywhere nefarious.

>29 nathanielcampbell: You do understand that there is a huge area of overlap between those two categories--making a better world and the work of the civil government--right?

Which is why I tend to come down hard on the political activity of organized religion in the US, not the individual motivations of their believers. You can talk to a person, you can't talk to a doctrine.

But I don't object to people wanting to ban gay marriage, I just object to using the Bible as the rationale for doing so. But if you can come up with a secular reason for being against gay marriage, by all means, make your case.

>29 nathanielcampbell:
Aren't there historical reasons for this state of affairs? The experience in europe of governments punishing some of their citizens for exercising their conscience (e.g. cuius regio etc) has contributed to secularists' wariness.

Given the economic shocks the world has suffered lately, and the role of lobby groups in bending govt. policy to their needs, maybe the next target will be corporate/financial influence on the legislature (wasn't Adams wary of banks?), but we're not there yet.

To say that secularists are privileged over religious believers in their participation in politics may be true, and should be remedied. But it's /almost/ a fallacy (and beneath you) to ignore why this is so.

>24 southernbooklady: the dangers of holding to an absolutist position about what is moral and what is therefore "right" than with anything to do with a call to tend to the poor

Yes, I can understand that, but would you accept that this is not inevitable within religion? Firstly, there are many religious people who see moral teaching as something to teach believers of that religion and not as political positions to be imposed on the rest of the country. Second, the "call to tend to the poor" is absolutely central to many religious people's political action, far more than imposing moral rectitude on others.

>28 southernbooklady: Wouldn't you want the judges of your society to look to the law when determining the law instead of looking to the Bible?

Of course I would. But this is not a religious/secularist dilemma; I want everyone to respect the rule of law, not their own particular interest.

I'm fine with people being religiously motivated to make a better world

Like the bishops of the DRC calling for elections to take place on time, for example? For me these are daily examples of the church trying to open up political space. In the USA, your daily examples are perhaps judges trying to bring the bible into their court rooms.

>30 southernbooklady:

Which is why I tend to come down hard on the political activity of organized religion in the US, not the individual motivations of their believers. You can talk to a person, you can't talk to a doctrine.

It would seem difficult to conduct politics, which is basically a form of collective action, without any collective action. Your logic here would tend to imply even political parties, unions, interest groups etc should be eliminated.

But I don't object to people wanting to ban gay marriage, I just object to using the Bible as the rationale for doing so. But if you can come up with a secular reason for being against gay marriage, by all means, make your case.

Democratic politics are not secular by definition. If the majority of a State's voting age population wanted, for religious reasons, to say legislate some aspect of the Koran it would be their democratic right to do so.

Indeed to argue they could not, because you disagree with their reasoning, would be an undemocratic and authoritarian tendance which seeks to impose your own particular values on them.

Legal arguments are, in the West at least, secular and constitutional. But politics are not, and politics are prior to laws, because laws (even constitutional laws) are in the West ultimately subject to democratic politics.

I mean there are minority rights, but these can only balance and not override majority rule, unless democracy is rejected.

>33 John5918: Another routine daily example of the church entering the political sphere: Land Grabbing Incidences “disturb” Catholic Bishops in Kenya, Use of Tear Gas on Pupils Condemned. Land-grabbing is a hot political issue in Kenya at the moment.

>34 hf22: Legal arguments are, in the West at least, secular and constitutional. But politics are not, and politics are prior to laws, because laws (even constitutional laws) are in the West ultimately subject to democratic politics.

I think this is a good distinction which hf22 makes. Once a law is made, I expect people to aide by the law and not by their own biases, whether those biases be political, economic, religious or whatever. But in the making of laws, the democratic process takes its course, and everybody effectively expresses any and/or all of their biases in choosing which candidate or party to elect, and in trying to persuade others to make the same choice.

>34 hf22:, 35 Legal arguments are, in the West at least, secular ... . But politics are not necessarily so. (FIFY)

Still, those of us opposed to theocratic tendencies we observe in society are within our rights to try and make politics as secular as we can.

>32 John5918: Yes, I can understand that, but would you accept that this is not inevitable within religion?

I am on record as saying that religion is neither intrinsically evil nor intrinsically good, so by all means, be reassured.

>33 John5918: But this is not a religious/secularist dilemma;

Well, it is at least a religious/secularist dilemma when when trying to figure out how to live under the premise of the separation of church and state, which is where I'm coming from. Secular people don't have to worry about that over much--they already are "separate." Religious people have to think about it. At least, I hope they think about it. Many of them are on record as supporting the separation of church and state as the best path to a just and humanitarian society, so I hope they think about it a lot.

>33 John5918: Like the bishops of the DRC calling for elections to take place on time, for example?

It's one thing to be a bishop in the DRC working for peace and another to be a lawyer for the Roman Catholic Church arguing for special considerations that deny women their right to good health care.

>34 hf22: Your logic here would tend to imply even political parties, unions, interest groups etc should be eliminated.

Not eliminated, perhaps, but severely curtailed. At the very least the money they are allowed to throw at candidates ought to be drastically restricted.

If the majority of a State's voting age population wanted, for religious reasons, to say legislate some aspect of the Koran it would be their democratic right to do so.

In the United States that has been tried a number of times -- we are in the grips of an Islamophobic mania at the moment and that has come out, among other ways, as proposed "anti-Sharia law" legislation. However, every time it is attempted the laws, if passed, are struck down in the courts because they are unconstitutional. So for that democratic society to change in such a way here, they'd have to change the Constitution. It's not an easy process.

I mean there are minority rights, but these can only balance and not override majority rule, unless democracy is rejected.

Most democratic societies I'm familiar with recognize the dangers of the tyranny of the majority, and take steps to guard against it. Democracy may mean "the people rule" but it also is founded on the notion that every person who is a member of "the people" gets their say.

>36 paradoxosalpha: those of us opposed to theocratic tendencies

Which of course probably includes most of the Christians in the world. I don't think that either churches or individual Christians getting involved in politics really has anything necessarily to do with theocracy.

>38 southernbooklady: It's one thing to be a bishop in the DRC working for peace and another to be a lawyer for the Roman Catholic Church arguing for special considerations that deny women their right to good health care

Does it really come down to the fact that some churches and some Christians are interested in legislation that you disagree with? For the record, I too disagree with legislation that forbids health care for women. I also disagree with restrictive immigration policies, capitalism, militarisation, the running down of the National Health Service, nationalisation of public industries and a host of other right wing policies, but I don't deny that the conservative political parties have the right to argue for it, nor to mobilise their supporters for it. Equally my side (including the churches) has the right to argue and mobilise against it. But your logic seems to be inplying that religious organisations somehow shouldn't have the same right as any other organisation in this regard.

>39 southernbooklady: they are unconstitutional. So for that democratic society to change in such a way here, they'd have to change the Constitution. It's not an easy process

But constitutions can also be changed by the democratic process, as witnessed by the number of amendments which you have to your US constitution. As you say, it is not an easy process. It's good that the bar is set higher than a simple majority, but it is possible and indeed often desirable to change constitutions.

>40 John5918: But constitutions can also be changed by the democratic process

And by revolutions. :)

Does it really come down to the fact that some churches and some Christians are interested in legislation that you disagree with?

Well, there's always legislation one agrees or disagrees with. As I said, I see the business of government a kind of negotiated series of conflicts of interest. But if you choose to align yourself with the and entity that stands for something -- a religion, with its set of beliefs, or a country, in which you want to claim citizenship, then I presume you are accepting the principles for which that entity stands. No one becomes a Catholic because they like the singing at Mass. They become one because they believe what it teaches. If you consider yourself a patriot, then you believe in whatever you think your country stands for. And if you are both religious and a patriot, then you have two ideals to serve, that may -- indeed, probably will -- conflict with each other. What do to then?

Ultimately it always comes down to one's conscience, doesn't it? (It's what I think Virginia Woolf was getting at when she said that "as a woman, I have no country." -- religions, and states, are almost never created with women in mind) So there really isn't any basis for complaining that I don't allow the validity of people's religious motivations. But it is absolutely valid to demand of those people that -- if they believe in the secular state they live in -- if they consider themselves "patriots," that they respect the principles that state is founded upon.

>41 southernbooklady: No one becomes a Catholic because they like the singing at Mass. They become one because they believe what it teaches

I think it's more complex than that, as can be seen from conversations on some of the religious threads.

If you consider yourself a patriot, then you believe in whatever you think your country stands for.

Precisely. What you think your country stands for. I have mentioned often that I was in the USA when the second Gulf War began in March 2003 and my US friends and their friends were outraged that some people called them unpatriotic ("Un-American") for opposing that war. As far as they were concerned they were the ones representing what their " country stands for", not the right wing warmongers. Who decides?

And ditto religion. Amongst the complex reasons I am a Catholic is the way I understand Catholicism, not the way anyone else understands it.

Ultimately it always comes down to one's conscience, doesn't it?

Precisely. Are you quoting Pope Benedict XVI here? I've quoted that particular piece so often on the Catholic tradition group that I won't repeat it again here.

they respect the principles that state is founded upon

How do we agree what those principles are? Clearly there are disagreements, as with the Gulf War "patriotism" which I mentioned above.

But more generally, does a state remain static? On what principles was, say, Germany or France or Turkey or Austria or Hungary founded? The modern states are founded on very different principles to earlier manifestations of those states. How far back do you go? Is the USA now the same as it was in the 18th century? These are not simple questions, and there are no simple answers.

>42 John5918: Are you quoting Pope Benedict XVI here?

Heh. I think I might be quoting the Stoics. Or Descartes or somebody.

How do we agree what those principles are?

We accept the principles of our Constitution? The rule of law in our chosen country? We try to affect change by working within that rule of law?

does a state remain static?

Ah, now here I can agree with you. No, it does not. Which is why the religiously-minded people of the United States are having to contend with things like the recognition and validity of same-sex marriage. So really the question is...how do we allow a religious person to live their life as they feel called to do. And the best answer to that, to date, is that we separate the concerns of the state from the concerns of the church. We do our best not to let either intrude upon the other.

It's a restraint the Christians in the US would feel profoundly grateful for, if we woke up tomorrow and discovered the dominant religion was Islam or Buddhism.

>40 John5918: (>36 paradoxosalpha: those of us opposed to theocratic tendencies) Which of course probably includes most of the Christians in the world.

I'm open to that possibility and I hope for it. Unfortunately, it doesn't negate the fact that the country where I live has one significantly threatening theocratic faction, and it's made up of Christians. (Please to not "No true Scotsman.")

>43 southernbooklady: We accept the principles of our Constitution?

Yes, with the proviso that even constitutions need to change (through the correct constitutional process) as the nation develops and changes.

The rule of law in our chosen country? We try to affect change by working within that rule of law?

But of course. That's what most religious people do in democracies.

Which is why the religiously-minded people of the United States are having to contend with things like the recognition and validity of same-sex marriage. So really the question is...how do we allow a religious person to live their life as they feel called to do

Well, I don't make that religious distinction. I would say, "How do we allow any individual citizen to live their life as they feel called to do?" That includes left-wingers and right-wingers, men and women, people of different sexual orientation, different races, people of different cultures within the mainstream culture, native-born and immigrants... everybody.

we separate the concerns of the state from the concerns of the church

You keep making this point, but in fact the concerns are separated in most western democracies. But any group of people are entitled to organise to influence politics and legislation, again including all those different groups I mentioned above and including religious people, as long as they do so according to the democratic process.

Look, lots of people have grouped together to impose extreme free market capitalism on me. They have formed organised groups to do so. I have the right to organise to try to change their policies through legal and democratic means. Is the fact that I do so in part because of my religious beliefs, and that many within my church organise to do it with me, any less legitimate than those who do so as part of the Democratic or Labour party, or because it is in tune with their values as secular humanists?

>45 John5918: Is the fact that I do so in part because of my religious beliefs, and that many within my church organise to do it with me, any less legitimate than those who do so as part of the Democratic or Labour party, or because it is in tune with their values as secular humanists?

And once again, the only reason your actions would not be "legitimate" would be because you were making your case using extra-legal arguments or methods. "I'm against free market capitalism because my father is against it" is a perfectly valid reason to be against it. But "We should get rid of free market capitalism because my father is against it" is not.

And as for organized political involvement -- whether you are talking about churches or trade unions or Super PACs...they need to be regulated and constrained in any system. Because power makes people voracious, and the more powerful they become, the more voracious they will be.

>46 southernbooklady: Well, I don't disagree with any of that.

>28 southernbooklady: "if the candidate went out of their way to talk about their religious affiliations and the fact they went to church (four of them did) I crossed them off my list"

So you've made the morally absolutist judgment that a church-goer is incapable of being a good public servant, right?

You'd think me theocratically-inclined if I made the opposite strike -- I won't vote for anyone who doesn't go to church. The religious believer is hateful when they discriminate against the secularist; but the secularist is virtuous when they discriminate against the religious believer. You can see why I have a hard time thinking that your point of view really is about equality.

>46 southernbooklady: "I'm against free market capitalism because my father is against it" is a perfectly valid reason to be against it. But "We should get rid of free market capitalism because my father is against it" is not.

I'm afraid I don't follow you here. I'm assuming that "I'm against free market capitalism" is the same as "we should get rid of free market capitalism", because it's hard to see how one can be against something and not want to get rid of it. Conversely, why would you want to get rid of something if you weren't against it? And how can what my father thinks be a valid reason for me to be for or against anything? Isn't that argument from authority?

>48 nathanielcampbell: So you've made the morally absolutist judgment that a church-goer is incapable of being a good public servant, right?

No, I made a judgement that a judicial candidate who considered his church-going record as relevant to his ability to judge the law was a bad candidate, since there is nothing about "the law" that requires church attendance in order to be understood or interpreted. Because we live in a society founded on the idea of the separation of church and state. If I was hiring a chef for a restaurant, the applicant's church attendance wouldn't be relevant. His ability to cook would.

And how can what my father thinks be a valid reason for me to be for or against anything?

Exactly. About the only system where "what my father thinks" would be a valid argument for proposing and changing legislation would be if you lived in a monarchy and your father was the king.

>36 paradoxosalpha:

Sure.

>39 southernbooklady:

Not eliminated, perhaps, but severely curtailed. At the very least the money they are allowed to throw at candidates ought to be drastically restricted.

On what basis is politics to be conducted then? You know, actually and in real life? How are the conflicts in society to be mediated and resolved without organisation?

So for that democratic society to change in such a way here, they'd have to change the Constitution. It's not an easy process.

Precisely. A democratic society can do this if it wants.

Democracy may mean "the people rule" but it also is founded on the notion that every person who is a member of "the people" gets their say.

Yes, but when these ideas conflict, ultimately one has to give way. I remember discussions of Afghan governance, and the general conclusion was clear. In a country with 90% + Muslim population, it could be either democratic or secular.

It could not be both, because any attempt to impose secularism, would require methods which are entirely incompatible with democracy.

>41 southernbooklady:

If you consider yourself a patriot, then you believe in whatever you think your country stands for. And if you are both religious and a patriot, then you have two ideals to serve, that may -- indeed, probably will -- conflict with each other. What do to then?

Ultimately it always comes down to one's conscience, doesn't it? (It's what I think Virginia Woolf was getting at when she said that "as a woman, I have no country." -- religions, and states, are almost never created with women in mind) So there really isn't any basis for complaining that I don't allow the validity of people's religious motivations. But it is absolutely valid to demand of those people that -- if they believe in the secular state they live in -- if they consider themselves "patriots," that they respect the principles that state is founded upon.

There is a contradiction in your comments here you need to address. Do you consider you must respect people’s consciences in so far as possible, or do you want the State impose upon people’s consciences.

Because it looks a lot like you want the State to always respect your conscience and preferred way of life, but want it to impose upon the consciences and preferred way of life of those who disagree with you.

It looks a lot like special pleading, or a form of the totalitarian tendence (i.e. I want there to be a monarchy, as long as I am Monarch).

>51 hf22: There is a contradiction in your comments here you need to address. Do you consider you must respect people’s consciences in so far as possible, or do you want the State impose upon people’s consciences.

My philosophy remains: Balance the most amount of self-determination against the least amount of harm. It's always a negotiated solution -- it does not admit what you might call a "doctrinal" solution. Life is a collection of special cases, a composite of special pleadings, because everyone is special. For this reason I tend to defer in favor of the individual over the corporate where the two are in conflict. As must be obvious to all at this point.

Unless, of course, what that individual wants will hurt a lot of people.

>52 southernbooklady:

My philosophy remains: Balance the most amount of self-determination against the least amount of harm.

Suggesting religious motivations and organizations should be out of bounds in politics, does not however, sound anything like "the most amount of self-determination against the least amount of harm".

It sounds like a completely unjustified tendance towards the restriction of self-determination.

For this reason I tend to defer in favor of the individual over the corporate where the two are in conflict.

But religious organizations in say the USA are, generally speaking, completely free voluntary associations. As are political parties, unions, special interest groups etc.

The only person positing a conflict is you. The members of these various collectives clearly don't see any impossible conflict between the two.

If anything, this view would tend to delegitimize the State rather than religions, because the State is the thing which it is hard to disassociate from (i.e. you generally have to belong to one of them). But you seem to be insisting on the State.

>26 nathanielcampbell: The "secularist" can have any motivation they please to be politically active; but the religious believer? They have to conform to the secularist paradigm if they want to get involved.

Absolutely.

Because in America, the state is a secular and not a religious institution.

"I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference; and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.

I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish; where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source; where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials; and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.

For while this year it may be a Catholic against whom the finger of suspicion is pointed, in other years it has been, and may someday be again, a Jew— or a Quaker or a Unitarian or a Baptist. It was Virginia's harassment of Baptist preachers, for example, that helped lead to Jefferson's statute of religious freedom. Today I may be the victim, but tomorrow it may be you — until the whole fabric of our harmonious society is ripped at a time of great national peril....

For contrary to common newspaper usage, I am not the Catholic candidate for president. I am the Democratic Party's candidate for president, who happens also to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my church on public matters, and the church does not speak for me.

Whatever issue may come before me as president — on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject — I will make my decision in accordance with these views, in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressures or dictates. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise.

But if the time should ever come — and I do not concede any conflict to be even remotely possible — when my office would require me to either violate my conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office; and I hope any conscientious public servant would do the same."

John F. Kennedy, 12 September 1960 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16920600

>50 southernbooklady: No, I made a judgement that a judicial candidate who considered his church-going record as relevant to his ability to judge the law was a bad candidate, since there is nothing about "the law" that requires church attendance in order to be understood or interpreted

If it really was his "church-going record" then I'm not sure what relevance that has to anything at all; is anyone really interested in whether I went to mass last Sunday? But more broadly, considering his religion, I don't think it's about his religion itself being particularly relevant to being a judge but rather just knowing as much as possible about the candidate. I am interested in many aspects of the background of a candidate - her work experience, her social class, whether she's lived and worked overseas, her mother-tongue, her education, her religion, does she volunteer at soup kitchens, what charities does she favour, etc. Surely the more I know about a candidate the better choice I can make? And while I might decide against a candidate because of some of those characteristics, I would not decide against her simply because she admitted that characteristic, if that makes sense. It's not just about the legal qualifications of a judge - it's about her character and person qualities too.

>55 theoria: in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be the national interest,

But how is his conscience formed? Presumably in part at least by all his life experiences - cultural, national, linguistic, geographical, family traditions, social class, economic status, education, work experience, and yes, religious.

Incidentally, his own oft-maligned religion actually recognises the primacy of individual conscience.

>54 AsYouKnow_Bob:

But it is a democratic institution as well.

In your view, if the democratic and secular come into conflict, which should prevail? And if the secular, what undemocratic methods are you willing to endorse to ensure that it does prevail?

Because that is where the tyres hit the road on this question.

>54 AsYouKnow_Bob: So again, you're saying that if I want to advocate for better treatment of the poor and equal access to education and healthcare, but my motivation is religious (i.e. my reasons for advocating for those positions are based in my faith convictions), then I'm out of luck, right? I can't get involved in politics to make the world a better place, because my motivations for making the world a better place are faith-based.

This is the fundamental quandary posed by the OP. As I put it in >29 nathanielcampbell: "if you object to the presence of religious motivation in people's politics, then you're not just objecting to the people who want to ban abortion and gay marriage. You're also objecting to the people who work passionately for civil rights, the poor, good education, etc."

MLK's primary motivation and conviction to work for the betterment of humanity was religious -- but as he points out in the Letter, the sacred and the secular are not so easily cleaved. To paraphrase the letter of James, a faith that doesn't push the believer to act to make the world a better place is one that is dead.

The message I'm getting from the secularists on this thread, however, is that MLK should have stayed home or never ventured outside the pulpit, because in a secular society, religious motivation for political action isn't okay.

And that's got me stymied. The neo-nazi can act politically, because his motivations aren't necessarily religious; but the pastor who wants to combat that racism can't act politically, if his motivations are rooted in his faith. That seems utterly backwards.

ETA: Though I will point out that MLK (wisely, in my opinion) never ran for public office.

>55 theoria: Do you think that's why Kennedy was so hesitant to support MLK?

>58 nathanielcampbell: you're not just objecting to the people who want to ban abortion and gay marriage. You're also objecting to the people who work passionately for civil rights, the poor, good education, etc

And in the Christian circles in which I move there are far more of the latter than the former, although I recognise that everyone's experience and perception of this is different.

>53 hf22: Suggesting religious motivations and organizations should be out of bounds in politics, does not however, sound anything like "the most amount of self-determination against the least amount of harm".

It sounds like a completely unjustified tendance towards the restriction of self-determination.

This statement encapsulates the differences in our perspectives. The truth is, we are all called to restrict our inclination towards self-determination, if that self-determination will come at the cost of hurting other people. And while our motives are beyond anybody else's control, they are certainly within our own control, our own capacity for self-regulation.

Much is made of the importance and primacy of a person's conscience. That no one--aside from one's self--has the right to dictate to another's conscience. Certainly not "the state" and according to everyone among the faithful on this forum, not "the church" either. But unlike civil government, religion does have a claim on the conscience:"the conscience" -- that faculty we have for determining what is right and what is wrong is the domain of religion. I think you once said it can be regarded as "the voice of God in your heart." That's not a negligible influence. Church attendance may be "voluntary" but faith is not a social club. It's something the believer can't help, it's something that infuses his or her life. I give it the full credit and gravitas that believers assure me it carries.

So here's the problem: Not everyone believes in the same things, or the same way. Your faith can make demands on your conscience, but it cannot make demands on another's. In a pluralistic society your beliefs have to co-exist with your neighbor's, and your other neighbor's lack of belief. You're all equal in a secular state--something that protects your neighbors, but also protects you.

So that primacy for "freedom of religion" that many here seem to put at the apex of all those human rights we hold necessary for a just society -- above freedom of expression, above right to fair and equal treatment --- I don't. In a society with a secular government, freedom of religion is one among many rights that must be negotiated in order to make sure that everyone has "the most self-determination" and still causes "the least harm."

I do tend to find the interference of organized religion in politics to be pernicious, although @johnthefireman is absolutely correct that much depends on context. It's one thing for bishops in the DRC to work to build peaceful coalitions among warring factions, but quite another for Cardinal Burke to suggest that politicians who support same-sex marriage should be refused communion. Both have religious motivations, but one seeks to further a people's capacity for self-determination, and one seeks to control and restrict it.

Religious people don't like to hear it, because faith is so central to their lives, but I think there are places where doctrine needs to be left at the door, and restraint shown. Scientific inquiry might be one such area. And determining the fair execution of civil law in a secular state might often be another.

>56 John5918: If it really was his "church-going record" then I'm not sure what relevance that has to anything at all

Exactly. It certain had no relevance in a statement of judicial philosophy. I can think of only two reasons why a candidate might include it: first, that he considered it relevant, which calls into question his ability to render a judgement not biased by his personal religious convictions. Or second, that he thought it would court favor with voters, which suggests that he is inclined to let the weight of public opinion influence his judgement. Neither case does much to highlight his integrity.

>58 nathanielcampbell: then I'm out of luck, right? I can't get involved in politics to make the world a better place, because my motivations for making the world a better place are faith-based.

A person's motivations are their own. But in a secular society, the reasons they put forth for making the world a better place have to be secular, not religious.

>61 southernbooklady: Both have religious motivations, but one seeks to further a people's capacity for self-determination, and one seeks to control and restrict it

I would argue that everyone should be seeking to further a people's capacity for self-determination rather than seeking to control and restrict it; whether their motivation is religious or secular is completely irrelevant.

Deleted the second part of this as I think I have explained it better in >63 John5918:.

Still trying to get my head round this idea of motivation. If I were to vote for a party because my father used to do so, it may not be the wisest use of my democratic perogative, but there's nothing wrong, improper, undemocratic or illegitimate about it. If I vote for the Official Monster Raving Looney Party because I think it's a good laugh, or the Lib Dems because I feel sorry for the poor sods, or the Conservatives because I'm a greedy fat cat, or UKIP because I'm a bigoted nutter, that's all fine. If I were in Australia where the law says everybody has to vote and I were to put a cross at random on the ballot paper just to fulfil my legal obligation, that's perfectly legitimate. When a lot of people in Britain were persuaded to vote Tory at the last minute by a particularly catchy headline in the Sun which perhaps tipped the balance in a close election, it's very unfortunate, but it's not illegal. But if I vote Labour in part because of my religious values, it's wrong?

I may be wrong, but I don't think the democratic process polices people's motivations. It's about crosses on ballot papers (or hanging chads in the USA, maybe). I have the right to try to persuade other people to vote for the same party and policies as me, and I have the right to cast my own vote as I see fit, but I think the idea that only people with certain motivations have the right to vote is rather dangerous. I'm not sure that's what you're actually saying, but it does seem as if you are leaning in that direction.

>59 nathanielcampbell: "Do you think that's why Kennedy was so hesitant to support MLK?"

No.

>56 John5918: "But how is his conscience formed? Presumably in part at least by all his life experiences - cultural, national, linguistic, geographical, family traditions, social class, economic status, education, work experience, and yes, religious."

He's making it plain that his own experience is not identified with the "national interests," which he prioritizes.

>54 AsYouKnow_Bob: "Because in America, the state is a secular and not a religious institution."

This is tough to swallow for people who prioritize their religious values over the Constitution.

>64 theoria: his own experience is not identified with the "national interests," which he prioritizes.

But how then does he discern the "national interest"?

>63 John5918: I think the idea that only people with certain motivations have the right to vote is rather dangerous.

Nobody but you can police your own motivations, because nobody but you can get inside your head to see them. But the law can refuse to accept extra-legal arguments in determining the validity of the law. It has nothing to do with "the right to vote" and everything to do with what we can and can't vote for.

For example, everyone was within their rights to vote for or against North Carolina's Amendment One a couple years ago. In fact, it passed and became state law. But it was subsequently declared unconstitutional, thereby rendering everyone's vote for or against irrelevant, because the rationale for the Amendment (framed largely as a moral directive and clearly religiously motivated and supported) was deemed contrary to the laws of the nation. That doesn't mean all the people who voted "yes" are suddenly not allowed to be against gay marriage. It just means that the reasons they gave to install that value as law were deemed not relevant and therefore not a valid argument for the creation of a civil law.

>65 John5918: Compartmentalization?

>66 southernbooklady: To be honest, Nicki, I'm no longer sure what you are arguing. Maybe it's a US thing which the rest of us find difficult to identify with. Of course anything unconstitutional or illegal is struck down (with the proviso that constitutions can also be changed by democratic means if enough people want to), which appears to be the case with that particular state law that you mention. But whether I vote for a political party for a stupid reason or a sensible reason or a religious reason or a secular reason, my motivation is not relevant. If there is a referendum on gay marriage, it is irrelevant whether I vote for or against it for religious or non-religious reasons; the result of the referendum will stand unless it can be shown to be unconstitutional.

>67 southernbooklady: Compartmentalization?

I wonder whether people can really do that? When I try to make a wise decision, it is the whole of my life experience which has prepared me for that decision. I'm not sure it's either possible or wise to try to separate off parts of me.

>65 John5918: Presumably (and hopefully) a President discerns the "national interest" by concerning him/herself with the good of all. And hopefully a President surrounds him/herself with expertise in relevant policy areas so that a reasoned decision can be reached.

>68 John5918: it is irrelevant whether I vote for or against it for religious or non-religious reasons

Except, of course, it is relevant to you. The question is, can you be aware enough to ascertain how your priorities affect others? I'd prefer to live in a country where no one was allowed to own guns, myself. But I'm aware that my preference is contrary to the interests of a great swath of people, many of whom have quite legitimate reasons for being armed. So rather than tell them they shouldn't have guns, or expend a lot of effort to repeal our 2nd amendment, I prefer to find a compromise solution where their interests and mine can co-exist.

I'm not sure it's either possible or wise to try to separate off parts of me.

It is, however, possible to recognize you might have a conflict of interest.

>58 nathanielcampbell: So again, you're saying that if I want to advocate for better treatment of the poor and equal access to education and healthcare, but my motivation is religious (i.e. my reasons for advocating for those positions are based in my faith convictions), then I'm out of luck, right?

Not in the least.

If you want to work on secular issues, I don't care what your motivations are.

If you want to push your religious views on others, then I care.

>71 AsYouKnow_Bob: "If you want to work on secular issues, I don't care what your motivations are.

If you want to push your religious views on others, then I care."

But MLK's whole point in the OP is that there may be no distinction between what you call "secular issues" and what you call "religious views." If my religious views are that I have an obligation to care for the poor, does that mean that programs designed to alleviate poverty are now "religious views" that I can't push on others?

The distinction that you and Nicki are trying to draw between secular ideals and religious ones is meaningless to many religious believers, because for them, the two intertwine. My religious ideals involve my duty to society and to social justice, and I cannot separate that duty from my faith. My civic duty is, for me, a result of the fraternal charity that I know because of my faith.

Thus, your statement here baffles me, because you're saying that you don't care what my motivations, except that you do care. I don't understand the distinction.

>71 AsYouKnow_Bob: If you want to work on secular issues, I don't care what your motivations are.

You seem to be saying that "better treatment of the poor" and similar interests are exclusively secular issues. Yet a number of religions, including Christianity and Islam, include charity/zakat as part of their religious program. In fact, failure to exercise charity is a spiritual failing in such religions. I don't know what kind of failure a lack of charity is within an exclusively secular worldview, if, indeed, it's a failure at all.

>69 theoria: Presumably (and hopefully) a President discerns the "national interest" by concerning him/herself with the good of all

The good of all is a key component of Catholic Social Thought. If a Catholic president works for the good of all, how can you be sure that he has "compartmentalised" himself and is not letting his religious values play a role in his decision-making?

>73 jburlinson: You seem to be saying that "better treatment of the poor" and similar interests are exclusively secular issues.

In a secular framework are they not "secular issues"?

If a Catholic president works for the good of all, how can you be sure that he has "compartmentalised" himself and is not letting his religious values play a role in his decision-making?

Presumably, if he commits to a policy that is against Catholic doctrine but in the interests of the public good, he has managed it.

>70 southernbooklady: I prefer to find a compromise solution where their interests and mine can co-exist.

But of course. What's that got to do with whether or not you are religious?

It is, however, possible to recognize you might have a conflict of interest.

Again, of course. I have conflicts of interest in many situations which have nothing to do with religion. Judges recuse themselves if they know the people involved in a case, politicians are supposed to declare their business interests, etc. What has that got to do with religion?

But also see my >74 John5918:. Many religious values are similar to secular values because actually they are human values. Should I recuse myself from caring about the common good because I do so as a religious value rather than a secular humanist value?

>71 AsYouKnow_Bob: If you want to push your religious views on others, then I care.

My religious values include the common good, human dignity, peace, justice, good governance, care for the environment, the rights and dignity of workers (cf Catholic Social Thought). I would like to push those religious views on others, albeit only democratically and lawfully.

>72 nathanielcampbell: The distinction that you and Nicki are trying to draw between secular ideals and religious ones is meaningless to many religious believers, because for them, the two intertwine. My religious ideals involve my duty to society and to social justice, and I cannot separate that duty from my faith. My civic duty is, for me, a result of the fraternal charity that I know because of my faith.

Well said, Nathaniel.

>73 jburlinson: You seem to be saying that "better treatment of the poor" and similar interests are exclusively secular issues. Yet a number of religions, including Christianity and Islam, include charity/zakat as part of their religious program. In fact, failure to exercise charity is a spiritual failing in such religions.

And well said, jburlinson.

>74 John5918: Unless JFK was lying, he's stating clearly that he'll make decisions as President of the American people, not as a Catholic. I think you understand what he's saying; real problem is that you disagree with Kennedy.

"Compartmentalization" is exactly what the separation of church and state requires of public office holders. Private citizens qua private life can conduct themselves on a religious basis if they wish. They can form separate communities (e.g., the Amish).

>75 southernbooklady: if he commits to a policy that is against Catholic doctrine but in the interests of the public good

No, he is simply making a judgement on what exactly the common good is, as the common good is clearly Catholic doctrine. In many given cases there are disagreements over how exactly the common good is best served - I think it's through socialism but there's a bunch of strange people out there, many of them Christians, who think it's through some weird invention called free market capitalism - but as a Catholic I'm bound to seek the common good according to my conscience, which has itself been formed by my whole life experience, not by a few intellectual assertions by a church or a party.

>77 theoria: I think you're making wholly artificial distinctions based on the erroneous view held by many atheists that religion is about blind assent to a set of intellectual assertions. It is far more, far more nuanced, and far more complex, than that. The President of the USA is a complete and complex human being like any other; any decision he makes is influenced by his whole life experience. So while of course he should try to make decisions which are not solely in favour of one group or based on "instructions" from one group (whether that be the military industrial complex, his party, his faith community, males, white/black people, straight/gay people, native born/immigrants, Anglo/Hispanic, north/south USA, urban/rural, etc), it is unrealistic to expect that none of the formative influences and experiences in his life have any bearing on how he will make that decision.

>75 southernbooklady: In a secular framework are they not "secular issues"?

I would guess that in a secular framework everything is a secular issue. Even religious belief would be a secular issue in a secular framework.

Not a reply to anyone, but just apropos of the general topic, my attention has been drawn to a forum at Fordham University this week entitled "Beyond Extremism: Reclaiming Religion's Peacebuilding Capacity in an Unstable World". Some of the blurb says:

In the post-9/11 world, where boundaries between faith and global politics are fluid, religion is often criticized for stoking extremism and underwriting violence. But can the enmeshed relationship between faith and politics also be the starting point for a new era in peacebuilding and conflict resolution?

How can religious leaders and foreign policy makers work together to lay the foundations for peace in hotspots around the globe?

I think these are the sort of questions which many of us religious people are thinking of when we see a thread entitled Religion and Politics: When to get involved?; how can we work for the common good and open up people's freedoms? It seems many of the atheists on LT see a different question, of religious people trying to impose certain moral teachings on everybody else, and seeking to close down people's freedoms.

I only know one of the speakers listed for this event. Scott Appleby is a respected academic in the field of Catholic Social Thought and peace-building.

>78 John5918: "I think you're making wholly artificial distinctions based on the erroneous view held by many atheists that religion is about blind assent to a set of intellectual assertions."

How do you know I'm an atheist?

Is the separation of church and state an artificial distinction?

We're discussing John F. Kennedy's own words, referenced in >55 theoria:. Do you think Kennedy is expressing an erroneous view of himself when he says he'll separate his religious faith from his decisions as President? Are you suggesting Kennedy is really an atheist?

You're really arguing with him when you suggest it would be impossible for him to do what he claims he will do. Moreover, you're disagreeing with his view of the relationship of government in the USA and faith.

I think Kennedy's self-restraint is a good benchmark against which to judge the integrity of public office holders:

"But if the time should ever come — and I do not concede any conflict to be even remotely possible — when my office would require me to either violate my conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office; and I hope any conscientious public servant would do the same."

>61 southernbooklady:

The truth is, we are all called to restrict our inclination towards self-determination, if that self-determination will come at the cost of hurting other people. And while our motives are beyond anybody else's control, they are certainly within our own control, our own capacity for self-regulation.

Sure. I would not argue otherwise.

I think you once said it can be regarded as "the voice of God in your heart." That's not a negligible influence.

I can’t help but agree with myself here 

Church attendance may be "voluntary" but faith is not a social club. It's something the believer can't help, it's something that infuses his or her life. I give it the full credit and gravitas that believers assure me it carries.

Well, I would not say that they can’t help it. One certainly has to choose to believe.

So here's the problem: Not everyone believes in the same things, or the same way. Your faith can make demands on your conscience, but it cannot make demands on another's. In a pluralistic society your beliefs have to co-exist with your neighbor's, and your other neighbor's lack of belief. You're all equal in a secular state--something that protects your neighbors, but also protects you.

But you are making demands on the consciences of others. Indeed you are seeking to restrict their democratic rights.

So that primacy for "freedom of religion" that many here seem to put at the apex of all those human rights we hold necessary for a just society -- above freedom of expression, above right to fair and equal treatment --- I don't. In a society with a secular government, freedom of religion is one among many rights that must be negotiated in order to make sure that everyone has "the most self-determination" and still causes "the least harm."

Yeah. By democratic politics.

Both have religious motivations, but one seeks to further a people's capacity for self-determination, and one seeks to control and restrict it.

Yes, but as I have pointed out, you also seek to restrict people’s capacity for self-determination. So while it is perfectly acceptable for you to seek to combat such people by democratic means, it is not for you to assert that they should be placed beyond the pale of democratic debate.

Religious people don't like to hear it, because faith is so central to their lives, but I think there are places where doctrine needs to be left at the door, and restraint shown. Scientific inquiry might be one such area. And determining the fair execution of civil law in a secular state might often be another.

Sure. In carrying out secular law. But not in making laws in a democratic society.

But in a secular society, the reasons they put forth for making the world a better place have to be secular, not religious.

No. In a democratic society, they merely have to be ones which find favour with the voters. Nothing more.

>81 theoria: I have no idea whether or not you are an atheist and did not say that you are, but I know that some of the other posters here are. I simply said it is an "erroneous view held by many atheists". It's also held by some religious people.

I think the point is that anybody can avoid making decisions which specifically favour his own constituency or which are specifically tied to a position (or intellectual assertion) held by his constituency. But if someone thinks that any decision he makes is not in some way influenced by who he is, then I suspect he is deluding himself. But he's dead, so we can't ask him, can we?

>82 hf22: One certainly has to choose to believe

Not there's a theological argument of a different order! :) But the reason we value freedom of religion in the United States is because it is assumed that one's faith is not a matter of choice -- because it is a matter of conscience.

you also seek to restrict people’s capacity for self-determination.

Every person's act of self-determination may come at the cost of another's. Restraint is a virtue each person should practice. But since it is also a virtue little valued in politics, we have laws.

In a democratic society, they merely have to be ones which find favour with the voters.

In other words, a democratic society is one that can democratically choose not to become democratic. Restraints on the tyranny of the majority, such as the principle of the separation of church and state, are a protection of democracy, especially in a pluralistic society.

>83 John5918: But if someone thinks that any decision he makes is not in some way influenced by who he is, then I suspect he is deluding himself.

Well, setting aside the notion that we may know a man long dead better than he knew himself, there are some implications to that statement. One is that JFK, if he is able to set aside his Catholicism when they conflict with his duties, is not truly Catholic, since a belief, sincerely held, cannot be acted against -- it is a matter of conscience, after all. JFK, quite sensibly, recognizes that in such a case the right thing to do would be to step down from his duties in the face of such a conflict, so he at least in some sense agrees with that conclusion.

The other implication is that one cannot stop "being Catholic" -- one cannot take off one's Catholic hat and put on a judge's cap in the real world. In other words, there is no such thing as a religious conscience and a secular conscience. One is always a Catholic, no matter what the circumstances. In which case the concept of "separation of church and state" is ultimately an absurdity. A polite fiction with no moral power against the call and demands of one's faith.

But non-religious people also have consciences, which are surely just as valid as those of the faithful. So perhaps we should drop "religion" from the wording all together, and simply speak of "freedom of conscience." Oh, wait. That's what we do when we insist on the separation of "church" and "state" -- two institutions led by people's consciences that are the most freely expressed when they do not intrude upon one and other.

>84 southernbooklady: we may know a man long dead better than he knew himself,

It was a campaign speech during a presidential election in which he was trying to reassure his protestant audience that he would not favour Catholic values. It was not an academic treatise on how human beings make decisions, and how they are influenced by all of their life experiences in doing so. And unless it was a very unique sort of campaign speech, I also rather doubt whether it was based on deep personal introspection.

I'm sure he was very sincere that he did not intend to make any decisions that would favour his Catholic constituency, and he probably succeeded (I don't know his record, but I give him the benefit of the doubt). But you and theoria seem to be confusing making decisions consciously favouring a certain position, and the fact that any human being makes decisions based on a complex mix of their life experiences, ie on who they are. You are perhaps focusing on decisions such as on abortion or gay issues, where he can consciously decide not to be influenced by the intellectual assertions of the Catholic church, and I suspect that's the reassurance he was giving his protestant audience that day. I'm focusing on basic things like his desire to make decisions based on the common good, and the deeply-ingrained mechanisms which influence that desire.

Other than that, I'm afraid I don't think I can explain myself more clearly, and my apologies for that. We're talking at cross purposes about different things, I think, and if we were discussing this face to face over a beer in a beautiful garden somewhere we would probably find that we don't really disagree.

two institutions led by people's consciences that are the most freely expressed when they do not intrude upon one and other

But people are members of church and state (and political party and social and economic class and race and gender and language and culture and...) and all of these are part of what influences their consciences. Why insist on making artificial distinctions when it comes to people's consciences? Isn't my conscience holistic?

>85 John5918: Isn't my conscience holistic?

And only applicable to you. My conscience is also "holistic" in the sense it is held by me, although it adhere's to a slightly different idea of what is right and what is wrong. (Very slight, I think, you and I seem of like opinion on many things). But yours and mine together are separate, mine with no more authority over yours than yours over mine. That's why we have laws. And why we attempt, in so far as is possible, to allow each of us the freedom to act according to our conscience, until such actions impede the ability of others to do the same.

>86 southernbooklady: No disagreement at all. Why should your conscience have any authority over mine, or vice versa? I don't think I've ever suggested that.

But we're not discussing breaking laws, or impeding others, are we? I thought we'd all agreed that we must act democratically within the constitution and law. I thought you had raised the issue of our motivations for voting for certain parties or politics. We do so according to our conscience. I also thought you had said that if part of the influence in the formation of my conscience has been religious, then somehow that conscience and the votes made by it were less legitimate or valid than those of you who do not have any religious influences in the formation of your conscience. That's what I'm arguing against. I think your conscience and mine are both equally valid and both of us are equally entitled to vote for the party and policies of our choice, and to form groups and try to influence others to vote that way, respecting the democratic process which includes the existing constitution and laws.

>87 John5918: I thought you had raised the issue of our motivations for voting for certain parties or politics.

When one is considering the answer to the question "Religion and Politics -- when to get involved?" it's reasonable to think both of religion, the faith of the voter, and religion, the organized institution -- the answer might be different depending on which you mean. Asking when to get involved also strongly suggests that there is a point where one should NOT be involved, so you can see why I keep pushing the point.

After all, do we really think denying someone Communion because they endorsed Barack Obama for president is the way for religion to get involved in politics?

>88 southernbooklady: If you read that whole article, it has more to do with conservatives than with the church, and it says specifically that it is not church policy and that the cardinal described the priest's action as "shameful and indefensible".

he doesn’t represent the Church’s thinking. Indeed, Cardinal Mahony of Los Angeles, who a month or so later investigated the incident “for the good of the Church,” said it was important to call what happened “shameful and indefensible.” I was grateful for the Cardinal’s apt description...

Shameful and indefensible political pressure can be put on people in many ways for many reasons by many different types of perpetrator; it is not a trait of religion per se.

>89 John5918: that the cardinal described the priest's action as "shameful and indefensible"

Right. So this is presumably one way in which religion does NOT cross into politics. Although the question remains, was it simply the refusal of communion, or was the topic of the sermon also included in the condemnation.

>73 jburlinson: "You seem to be saying that "better treatment of the poor" and similar interests are exclusively secular issues."
to which >75 southernbooklady: replies: "In a secular framework are they not "secular issues"?"

So who is it, again, who's imposing their beliefs on others? You seem to be saying that, if I advocate for policies that aid the poor, my advocacy must be secular rather than religious. What if my advocacy is based on my religion -- as MLK's was? Or are you saying that all of his talk about God was just a smoke-screen, and that MLK was really a secularist?

To me, as to many religious believers, this is a distinction without a difference -- and imposing it upon us does violence to our own understanding of who we are, and what our places in and duties to society are.

Who are you to tell me that my social responsibility to the poor is a secular and not religious imperative?

>91 nathanielcampbell: So who is it, again, who's imposing their beliefs on others?

Are you saying that within a secular framework, such issues should not be addressed in a secular way?

To me, as to many religious believers, this is a distinction without a difference

And for many non believers, it is. So you can see why the title of this thread is a question worth consideration.

>84 southernbooklady:

one's faith is not a matter of choice -- because it is a matter of conscience.

I don't think they are mutually exclusively categories.

Restraint is a virtue each person should practice. But since it is also a virtue little valued in politics, we have laws.

Well, if it was not valued sufficiently in politics, we would not have the laws. Our secular laws don't come into existence independently of politics.

In other words, a democratic society is one that can democratically choose not to become democratic. Restraints on the tyranny of the majority, such as the principle of the separation of church and state, are a protection of democracy, especially in a pluralistic society.

I would refer you back to the question I posed to AsYouKnow_Bob at >57 hf22::

"In your view, if the democratic and secular come into conflict, which should prevail? And if the secular, what undemocratic methods are you willing to endorse to ensure that it does prevail?

Because that is where the tyres hit the road on this question."

If you want to restrict democracy, you have to let me know how. Because that is where this idea of yours falls down.

The seperation of Church and State is a protection which, say in the US, was and is democratically supported. But it does not exist in all western democracies, and is not a requirement for a modern western democracy. The UK, for example, still has an established church.

The UK established church does not mean much today, but it is hardly the separation of Church and State. And yet they still have a perfectly acceptable democracy.

>90 southernbooklady: I don't think you and I disagree too much about the substance, but I would still phrase it differently.

one way in which religion does NOT cross into politics

This is an example of abuse of power by an individual, and that to me is the central point. Secondarily it happens to be a religious individual, but it could just as easily have been an employer, politician, trade union official, family member, community member, business partner or whomever, who put "shameful and indefensible" political pressure on someone. So to me it is not primarily an example of how religion should not cross into politics, but how nobody should behave in this manner. Religion just happens to provide this particular case study of a broader phenomenon.

>93 hf22: The UK established church does not mean much today, but it is hardly the separation of Church and State. And yet they still have a perfectly acceptable democracy.

And a number of Scandinavian countries.

>95 John5918:

And all of them much more secular in practice than many countries without an established church. Go figure.

>93 hf22: I don't think they are mutually exclusively categories.

I don't think I understand you. "choice" and "faith" aren't mutual exclusive categories? Is choice (maybe you mean free will?) a "category"?

if the democratic and secular come into conflict, which should prevail?

Does that question mean the same thing if I ask it of you? In your view, if the democratic and the religious come into conflict, which should prevail? If you want to restrict democracy, you have to let me know how.

Incidentally, I have let you know how I would answer that question: I would prioritize the rights of the individual over the corporate. So I would not let "the state" refuse a person the right to wear religious symbols or dress, and I would not let a church refuse standard medical care for their employees based on their doctrine.

The UK established church does not mean much today, but it is hardly the separation of Church and State

Well stated. The separation of church and state is hardly necessary if church "doesn't mean much." It would hardly be necessary if state "didn't mean much." Personally I prefer the former to the latter, since theocratic states do not have a good track record.

In the United States, of course, the church means a lot.

>97 southernbooklady: theocratic states do not have a good track record

But to be fair, Nicki, I don't think any of the religious people posting here have ever called for a theocracy and most are on record as being against it. Even western countries with established churches such as Britain or Norway are very far from being theocracies.

>98 John5918: no, no, I get that. I was extrapolating for the sake of the argument. Anti-theocratic states also do not have good track records. It's all about being willing to compromise so you can live fruitfully among people who are not like you.

western countries with established churches such as Britain or Norway are very far from being theocracies

I like Eddie Izzard's explanation of the difference between the Church of England and the Church of Rome: Cake or death.

>99 southernbooklady: the difference between the Church of England and the Church of Rome

We often say that the only difference is that the C of E only has one money collection at mass whereas we Catholics have two. It's also been noted that they like to save up the money and make sure they have enough to pay for the repair of the church roof before they start the work, whereas we left-footers just go out and get a huge loan and then spend the next twenty years paying it off.

>1 nathanielcampbell: "So often the contemporary church is a weak, ineffectual voice with an uncertain sound. So often it is an archdefender of the status quo. Far from being disturbed by the presence of the church, the power structure of the average community is consoled by the church's silent--and often even vocal--sanction of things as they are."

Far be it from me to challenge Dr. King, especially so close to his birthday; but I can't help worrying about the mutually contaminating effects that politics and religion have on each other. While most of the posts to this thread, so far, appear to be dealing with the undesirable consequences of religious ideology on practical politics, the reverse is, to my mind, even more distasteful. This is a problem not only with the undesirable public policies of theocracies or established churches, but also with the damage within religious communities caused by internal and external politics.

So the answer to the question "when to get involved?" might be, never. To quote the Gospel of Thomas: Jesus said : "Be passers-by."

After only 481 years, the Church of England has a female bishop. That's progress.

>97 southernbooklady:

I don't think I understand you. "choice" and "faith" aren't mutual exclusive categories?

I mean faith requires a choice, an act of will. I mean, my conscience might suggest something to me, but I don't always listen.

Does that question mean the same thing if I ask it of you? In your view, if the democratic and the religious come into conflict, which should prevail?

The democratic. People should get the government they want and deserve, not the one I want for them.

If you want to restrict democracy, you have to let me know how.

I don't want to. I have no desire for the blood on my hands that would require. How about you?

Incidentally, I have let you know how I would answer that question: I would prioritize the rights of the individual over the corporate. So I would not let "the state" refuse a person the right to wear religious symbols or dress, and I would not let a church refuse standard medical care for their employees based on their doctrine.

That is not an answer to my question. My question is, if say the population of the US democratically decided to say change its constitution to abolish the separation of Church and State, what undemocratic means (if any) would you support the State or others taking to prevent it?

If your answer is you would not support any undemocratic means, but you would be every unhappy etc, then we are fine. If you however would support extra-legal or violent means, that is not so cool.

In the United States, of course, the church means a lot.

Indeed. And perhaps partly because of the formal separation of church and state. Like I say, go figure.

>103 hf22: I mean faith requires a choice, an act of will. I mean, my conscience might suggest something to me, but I don't always listen.

If you don't act on it, doesn't that mean you don't really believe it? Is it possible to will yourself into believing something is true? Or untrue?

if say the population of the US democratically decided to say change its constitution to abolish the separation of Church and State, what undemocratic means (if any) would you support the State or others taking to prevent it?

This doesn't make sense to me. I'm not trying to be obtuse, but if the population of the United States decides to democratically change its Constitution and abolish the First Amendment, it can also democratically choose to reinstate it. We have a shining example of this in a misguided attempt to enforce temperance via Constitutional Amendment. The only good that did was provide fodder for a lot of great literature and movies (not to mention an awesome raison d'etre for organized crime).

But if the population decides to democratically abolish the United States, and form instead, say, the "Christian Republic of America" where the democratic means they used to create it were no longer legal, well then there is no longer the original "State" to object, democratically or undemocratically. Instead now there are just people whom the new state does not recognize as full citizens. (See, The Handmaid's Tale.

However, if the population decides to stage a revolution because they don't approve of the State (and because they interpret our 2nd amendment as a right of revolution against tyranny), and declare war on the State, then even if they are in the majority, they are taking extra-legal, undemocratic means to achieve their goal and thus can be resisted since presumably anyone not participating in the revolution is in favor of the state and thus democratically supports the State's actions in defense of itself.

>104 southernbooklady:

If you don't act on it, doesn't that mean you don't really believe it?

It is a belief, not a certainty. It requires an act of will. A person is not a robot. They can choose to act, or not act. Believe, or not believe.

This doesn't make sense to me.

Imagine a US President in the circumstances I outlined. He or she does not like the democratic will of the people, and wants to resist, in order to protect the secular nature of the State. What methods, if any, would you endorse such as US President using?

Abrogate the constitution and call out the army (assuming they are onside)?
Declare extra-legally that the secular nature of the constitution overrides the amendment provisions, and call out the army? Get the Supreme Court, assuming they are onside, to do the same and then suppress any dissent?

Or accept it, and try to get the change reversed democratically?

because they interpret our 2nd amendment as a right of revolution against tyranny

Heh. Following the War of Independence precedent, my understanding is even the Union in the Civil War accepted all free people have a right of revolution. It is just a Government does not have an obligation not to resist :)

>105 hf22: Imagine a US President in the circumstances I outlined. He or she does not like the democratic will of the people, and wants to resist, in order to protect the secular nature of the State. What methods, if any, would you endorse such as US President using?

Legal ones.

Abrogate the constitution and call out the army (assuming they are onside)?
Declare extra-legally that the secular nature of the constitution overrides the amendment provisions, and call out the army? Get the Supreme Court, assuming they are onside, to do the same and then suppress any dissent?

None of these are within the power of the presidency, unless you are asking if the president would try to stage some kind of military coup. In which case, "the state" he/she was elected as president of would cease to exist.

There are some avenues by which a president can make a unilateral decision that runs counter to what you might call "the will of the people." The most obvious example of this would be the presidential veto power--whereby he can simply deny legislation be made into law, even if it has received the full support of both the House and the Senate. But even here, a veto can be over-ridden by Congress. And even if it is not, the president who exercises the power of veto to kill legislation is not action un-democratically, since he/she was elected democratically in the first place.

my understanding is even the Union in the Civil War accepted all free people have a right of revolution.

But not a right to secession, I think.

>101 jburlinson: So the answer to the question "when to get involved?" might be, never. To quote the Gospel of Thomas: Jesus said : "Be passers-by."

Maybe that's why the Gospel of Thomas is apocryphal? It would seem to directly contradict the parable of the Good Samaritan and other teachings in the canonical gospels. I'm not sure how a Church which says "love thy neighbour" and which seeks to care for the poor, the weak and the marginalised can stand aside and not try to make life better in the interest of the common good. That, in reality, means entering into politics. As the pope says (see >4 John5918:), "A good Catholic meddles in politics", not "acts as a passer-by".

Edited to add: A couple more examples of how I see the church getting involved in politics:

Imminent General Elections, Violence, Boko Haram Advances among Major Concerns for Bishops in Nigeria

Catholic Bishops of Southern Africa Condemn Violence against Foreigners in South Africa

And beginning tomorrow I will be one of the facilitators of a South Sudanese Catholic bishops' meeting where one of the main topics will be what more the church can do to help bring peace in the current civil war in the country. I'm also involved in discussions with the South Sudan Council of Church and World Council of Churches along the same lines, and I'm an advisor to the independent Committee for National Healing, Peace and Reconciliation, led by religious figures from both Christianity and Islam. All of these are concrete examples of the faith communities getting involved in politics, in the broadest sense. I'm not sure how we could be "passers-by".

>106 southernbooklady:

Legal ones.

Well Ok then. I disagree with your views regarding religion in the public square, but I accept and support your right to put them, in a legal and democratic way.

unless you are asking if the president would try to stage some kind of military coup.

Yes. I was asking if you would support the President in trying to stage some kind of military coup.

In which case, "the state" he/she was elected as president of would cease to exist.

I would not say that. The new governing arrangements would, if they endured, clearly be the successor to the former arrangements. Treaties, for instance, would be assumed to continue by other States.

But not a right to secession, I think.

The US War of Independence was precisely secession (from the British Empire), and good precedent for the South, which I understand the North accepted in theory. But this "right" was only a basis to attempt it, not for the Government to accept without resistant. That is, my understanding of US ante-bellum political theory is that it was similarly accepted the British had a right to try and stop independence, it was just that they failed.

I am open to correction however from anyone with greater knowledge of the subject.

>107 John5918:

The Gospel of Thomas is gnostic - The material world is considered the work of the devil (or demiurge) and thus beyond saving. Gnostic teachings suggest a complete withdrawal from the world, because engagement is just to avoid the real purpose of life, the purely spiritual and engagement with God (i.e. it denies the incarnation).

Horrible load of nonsense IMO, and with no relationship to the Jesus except the use of his name once in a while.

>108 hf22: The US War of Independence was precisely secession (from the British Empire), and good precedent for the South, which I understand the North accepted in theory.

It's off-topic, but from what I understand, there is a distinction between the right of revolution and the right of secession in terms of the American Constitution. The latter is founded in the notion that states, as entities, voluntarily associate with the federal government, and therefore may voluntarily withdraw from that association. It was certainly so under the Articles of Confederation--which was more like a treaty than a constitution. But it is illegal under the Constitution itself (at least, according to the Supreme Court) which deemed that in joining the Union, the individual states ceased to be their own entity and became a part of the new entity called "the Union."

As you say, we went to war over it, and there were those on both sides whose opinions were divided. But going to war over "States' Rights" was not, technically, an act of revolution, which seeks to nullify the existing state and replace it. In that sense the American Revolution was not a precedent for the Civil War.

As far as the "right of revolution" goes -- the Constitution seems to recognize (or at least, the 2nd amendment seems to say) that people have a right to resist tyranny. But since you can't demand people revolt against tyranny, instead it awards people the means to do so if they like -- it lets them have guns, on the understanding that you can't resist tyranny if you can't actually shoot at it. If our founding fathers had decided that people have a right to leave tyrannical governments, then we might have been Constitutionally bound to have horses, so we could take off when we didn't like our governors.

>107 John5918: Maybe that's why the Gospel of Thomas is apocryphal?

Or it could be that it's apocryphal because its adherents, as passersby, were no match in this world for activists who wanted to get to play power games with the other boys.

It would seem to directly contradict the parable of the Good Samaritan and other teachings in the canonical gospels.

The Good Samaritan is somewhat typical of Jesus' other stories and even the events in his life story, in that it deals with one person's interaction with another person: immediate, intense, personal, individual. Not necessarily collective or societal. Salient quotation: "You will always have the poor among you, but you will not always have me."

>109 hf22: Horrible load of nonsense IMO, and with no relationship to the Jesus except the use of his name once in a while.

You certainly have the right to your O, but how about another parable that ends: "And the lord commended the unjust steward, forasmuch as he had done wisely: for the children of this world are wiser in their generation than the children of light."? The Jesus who said this doesn't seem to have much interest in hanging around the state legislature.

>111 jburlinson:

You certainly have the right to your O, but how about another parable that ends: "And the lord commended the unjust steward, forasmuch as he had done wisely: for the children of this world are wiser in their generation than the children of light."? The Jesus who said this doesn't seem to have much interest in hanging around the state legislature.

I don't really see how the parable supports your conclusion.

I accept Jesus did not see his mission primarily in terms of worldly improvements to society, and that it would be a grave mistake and betrayal to replace his actual mission with such a goal, despite the relative popularity of such an approach.

But it is equally clear his message, if lived, requires a commitment to the common good. And where the ability exists to further the common good, I think Jesus requires us to do so. On the other hand, where society wants to go its own way and we don't have the ability to stop it, I think Jesus would be equally clear that does not invalidate our Christian lives. Because while the common good in a worldly sense is desirable, ultimately all can only be fixed by God at the consummation of the world.

Still, that hope for the salvation of the material world stands in contrast in the Gnostic view, which considers all material goods to be evil and lost (i.e. not just lesser goods, not but goods at all).

Church to ask members to be active in election (BBC)

Catholics must be active in politics, no matter how 'dirty,' pope says (NCR)

Edited to add:

What Catholics can teach America about polarized politics (NCR)

> 114

The catholic church is totally discredited as a moral authority due to its worldwide engendering, promoting and covering up of multitudinous instances of child rape.

The sooner you recognize and understand these facts the better off you will be, John.

Try and have a nice day.

Ireland - Eire - just told the catholic church to go f.uck itself.

As I said the h.r.a.c.c. has no moral authority left in the world. They are seen by people who can think and read as either child-rapists, or as those that cover up and therefore sanction child-rape.

So what's next? Will countries in S. America, or Poland or Spain be the next to tell the catholic church to bugger off? It is only a matter of time.

Homily to Catalonia: the nun entering Spain's regional politics (Guardian)

Sister Teresa Forcades hopes to change a ‘sick society’ by leading a leftwing movement that could bring together parties as diverse as Podemos and the Catalan republican left...

> 117

"And, yea verily, a left-wing nun shall lead the people out of the wilderness and into the promised land." - Matthew 29:1.

Leading Catholics write to Iain Duncan Smith to express fears over welfare cuts (Guardian)

> 119

Adolph Hitler was very kind to his pet dog Blondie. Didn't mean he was a force for good in the world, all things considered.

Sister Megan Rice: the 85-year-old nun with a criminal record remains defiant (Guardian)

Rice spent two years in prison for breaking into a high-security nuclear facility in Tennessee as part of a protest but insists the crime being committed in this story is the US government’s, not hers...

>121 John5918: It seems to avoid clearly stating what crimes the US is accused of doing. If I understand it right, we're talking about the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and the claim that that treaty gives a positive obligation to the US to disarm. It seems that could have been stated without breaking into a high-security nuclear facility.

In any case, since we've discussed working at local issues, may I point out that your country, John, is one of only five on the planet to not have signed the Non-Proliferation treaty.

>122 prosfilaes: If I lived in my country maybe I'd be in prison by now for breaking into Aldermaston. Who knows? Each person makes their own decisions on civil disobedience, and on which particular issues to engage.

>123 John5918: The UK signed the NPT at its birth; South Sudan hasn't signed.

Each person makes their own decisions on what criminal acts to commit, but once you've crossed that line into breaking the law, you crossed a line into a subject where society has promised to meddle.

>124 prosfilaes: I'm not actually sure what your point is. The topic is "Religion and Politics: When to get involved?", and I'm giving an example of a religious person who chose to get involved, and not as "an archdefender of the status quo" but of the very opposite.

This is a discussion thread; I'm discussing. In this case, whether it's reasonable to break into a secure facility containing dangerous materials in order to make a point that everyone knows.

Catholicism is less skittish about politics in the ‘Two-Thirds World’ (Crux)