RElgion: private medicine, social benefits but politically dividing.
Note to CLN-KY group. This is an Op Ed response to Fagan’s panegyric on the value of religion in Saturdays Herald Leader. Draft #3. Jan 8. Please comment and make suggestions. My subject is the complexity of talking about religion in public life.
OP Ed submission, response to Pat Fagan, “Religion Good Medicine for America’s social ills,” (Herald-Leader, Jan 6, 2007, p. A15) :
Suggested heading: Religion: private medicine, social benefit but politically dividing.
Most of us can say “yes” to Pat Fagan’s Op-Ed essay “Religion Good Medicine for America’s social ills,” (Herald-Leader, Jan 6, 2007, p. A15) but he states only one side of the issue. Fagan ignores what is actually happening in America that most mainstream media does not address. That is the complexity of the public uses of faith and religion with the attempts of many politicians and preachers today to use religion to divide us. . For example:
When a Kentucky state legislator publicly attacks the Hebrew faith of a fellow legislator but receives no reprimand from the Ethics committee likely because the majority of the body is also Christian..
When in Kentucky, public funding of a new professional school is proposed despite that school’s faith view forbidding equal and fair treatment to a class of people regarded as inherently sinful by the school’s mission and authority.
When politicians eagerly endorse new laws and restrictions because a large number of religions people believe to grant equal partner benefits to people of gay and lesbian orientation is somehow a threat to the institution of marriage–even though 50% of heterosexual marriages end in divorce anyway.
When a President uses his faith to justify his decision to wage war on a country that did not attack us despite advice from many religious leaders, contrary to principles we signed as part of the United Nations and against our own traditions.
When Christmas displays on public property become illegal. When does public posting of the Ten Commandments become a endorsement or establishment of a particular faith view? The Supreme Court has stated: sometimes no, sometimes yes.
When the Supreme Court endorsed public funding via tuition vouchers for parochial schools and funding for other religious charities– when does that become endorsement of a particular religion? Yet the G.I. bill after World War II allowed veterans to select their own colleges and universities and many of these were religious.
When White House funding of Faith Based Initiatives funded only conservative Christian projects while rejecting requests from other types of religious organizations? When the former director of this program resigns in protest and disgust of the personally observed political manipulations from inside the White House?
When politicians (including the President, in the Schiavo case) rush to endorse one particular faith view over others, over all others, is this an public endorsement of one view over others?
When pulpits, both Protestant and Catholic , are used to endorse one candidate or one party is this a mis-use of their exempt tax status? Please note that the legal prosecution of such cases occurs only when the pulpit view is contrary to the prevailing conservative religious thrust of the Powers that be. (In California)
When we disallow any talk about God, Providence, the role of faith and religion in our history, public life or in cultural affairs, are we, in fact, endorsing a legal secularism by contemporary political correctness? Founding Fathers and many presidents, have invoked God and believed our national project was especially blessed.
When the President holds a daily prayer meeting inside the White House and staff are invited, is this not an implied endorsement of one faith view, social pressure with an intrusion in the personal faith views of staff who may feel or believe differently?
Are the graduation ceremonies of tax supported organizations open only to the prayers of those I who represent the majority faith view? Can that public pulpit be used to promote a particular faith view?
To what extent should religious entities be exempt from taxes while they preach America is a Christian Nation and anyone who resists that notion is either un-Christian, blindly wrong or an agent of the devil?
When military commanders use their rank to promote a particular faith view with their troops? When Air Force and Army generals and colonels in uniform at the Pentagon appear in a promotional video distributed by the Christian Embassy, a radical Washington based group dedicated to building a “Christian Nation”
When chaplains used by legislative bodies to open their deliberations employ specifically Christian concepts? When the Pentagon holds or allows bible sessions with by its own count some 40 generals with weekly prayer breakfasts in the executive dining room each Wednesday at 7 to 7:50 a.m. ? Is this a form of social coercion for younger officers? (See Truthdig, Christ Hedges: America’s Holy Warriors)
When right-wing preachers use the pulpit to condemn most American institutions as corrupt and godless, from federal agencies that provide housing and welfare to public schools and the media? Then declare those who disagree with them as enemies of God and even traitors?
Are we overlooking the mass movement being built by the Christian right as fascist at its core, since it does not believe in dialogue, brooks no dissent, and judges anyone who differs as evil?
We are naturally divided in the role of religion in public. Others follow their own faith but we ourselves surely and sincerely follow the right path! We forget the sad history of religious persecution. We forget that the practice of slavery was justified by the Bible and most all religious denominations for almost two thousand years. We forget the great human cost of our own Civil War.
Primarily, we overlook the vast temptation to use religion for political purposes in a pluralistic society. Temptations of human pride and power give us rose-colored glasses blind to our own partisan bias.
Our founding fathers were aware of this tendency. James Madison was sure that freedom of religion would itself prevent mis-use and bias. The Baptists of Virginia disagreed and said . “You may trust the Anglicans but we don’t. We want it written down.” They refused to send Madison to Congress unless he endorsed the Bill of Rights.
Contrary to his declared intention, Madison did. Ironically it was the Baptists of Southern Virginia who obliged him to do this. They were 40% of his vote. (See Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, forum on The Christmas Wars with scholars Novak and Meachem, Dec 12, 2006)
Not only should we debate the role of religion in public life, but our founding fathers have debated it from the very beginning. The problem today is one of aggressive Christianity. People genuinely believe that there is a war on Christianity in this country. And they feel they are losing and this is a recipe for extremism.
Liberty is our fundamental value. But what is its source? It comes from the view that liberty is rooted in the human conscience. That truth came from Judaism and then Christianity and most other religions do not get to that. The beauty of this, as Michael Novak says, is that it is a self-denying rule. Neither Christians or Jews by this very principle have any right to impose on anyone else. This is the beauty of our American Way. We shall continue to debate its application
Paschal Baute is a pastoral psychologist and facilitator of the Spiritual Growth Network of Kentucky, an interfaith group. He also leads an interfaith group of volunteers who teach spiritual tools of change to addictive offenders at the Fayette Detention Center.
Tel 859.293.5302.
OP Ed submission, response to Pat Fagan, “Religion Good Medicine for America’s social ills,” (Herald-Leader, Jan 6, 2007, p. A15) :
Suggested heading: Religion: private medicine, social benefit but politically dividing.
Most of us can say “yes” to Pat Fagan’s Op-Ed essay “Religion Good Medicine for America’s social ills,” (Herald-Leader, Jan 6, 2007, p. A15) but he states only one side of the issue. Fagan ignores what is actually happening in America that most mainstream media does not address. That is the complexity of the public uses of faith and religion with the attempts of many politicians and preachers today to use religion to divide us. . For example:
When a Kentucky state legislator publicly attacks the Hebrew faith of a fellow legislator but receives no reprimand from the Ethics committee likely because the majority of the body is also Christian..
When in Kentucky, public funding of a new professional school is proposed despite that school’s faith view forbidding equal and fair treatment to a class of people regarded as inherently sinful by the school’s mission and authority.
When politicians eagerly endorse new laws and restrictions because a large number of religions people believe to grant equal partner benefits to people of gay and lesbian orientation is somehow a threat to the institution of marriage–even though 50% of heterosexual marriages end in divorce anyway.
When a President uses his faith to justify his decision to wage war on a country that did not attack us despite advice from many religious leaders, contrary to principles we signed as part of the United Nations and against our own traditions.
When Christmas displays on public property become illegal. When does public posting of the Ten Commandments become a endorsement or establishment of a particular faith view? The Supreme Court has stated: sometimes no, sometimes yes.
When the Supreme Court endorsed public funding via tuition vouchers for parochial schools and funding for other religious charities– when does that become endorsement of a particular religion? Yet the G.I. bill after World War II allowed veterans to select their own colleges and universities and many of these were religious.
When White House funding of Faith Based Initiatives funded only conservative Christian projects while rejecting requests from other types of religious organizations? When the former director of this program resigns in protest and disgust of the personally observed political manipulations from inside the White House?
When politicians (including the President, in the Schiavo case) rush to endorse one particular faith view over others, over all others, is this an public endorsement of one view over others?
When pulpits, both Protestant and Catholic , are used to endorse one candidate or one party is this a mis-use of their exempt tax status? Please note that the legal prosecution of such cases occurs only when the pulpit view is contrary to the prevailing conservative religious thrust of the Powers that be. (In California)
When we disallow any talk about God, Providence, the role of faith and religion in our history, public life or in cultural affairs, are we, in fact, endorsing a legal secularism by contemporary political correctness? Founding Fathers and many presidents, have invoked God and believed our national project was especially blessed.
When the President holds a daily prayer meeting inside the White House and staff are invited, is this not an implied endorsement of one faith view, social pressure with an intrusion in the personal faith views of staff who may feel or believe differently?
Are the graduation ceremonies of tax supported organizations open only to the prayers of those I who represent the majority faith view? Can that public pulpit be used to promote a particular faith view?
To what extent should religious entities be exempt from taxes while they preach America is a Christian Nation and anyone who resists that notion is either un-Christian, blindly wrong or an agent of the devil?
When military commanders use their rank to promote a particular faith view with their troops? When Air Force and Army generals and colonels in uniform at the Pentagon appear in a promotional video distributed by the Christian Embassy, a radical Washington based group dedicated to building a “Christian Nation”
When chaplains used by legislative bodies to open their deliberations employ specifically Christian concepts? When the Pentagon holds or allows bible sessions with by its own count some 40 generals with weekly prayer breakfasts in the executive dining room each Wednesday at 7 to 7:50 a.m. ? Is this a form of social coercion for younger officers? (See Truthdig, Christ Hedges: America’s Holy Warriors)
When right-wing preachers use the pulpit to condemn most American institutions as corrupt and godless, from federal agencies that provide housing and welfare to public schools and the media? Then declare those who disagree with them as enemies of God and even traitors?
Are we overlooking the mass movement being built by the Christian right as fascist at its core, since it does not believe in dialogue, brooks no dissent, and judges anyone who differs as evil?
We are naturally divided in the role of religion in public. Others follow their own faith but we ourselves surely and sincerely follow the right path! We forget the sad history of religious persecution. We forget that the practice of slavery was justified by the Bible and most all religious denominations for almost two thousand years. We forget the great human cost of our own Civil War.
Primarily, we overlook the vast temptation to use religion for political purposes in a pluralistic society. Temptations of human pride and power give us rose-colored glasses blind to our own partisan bias.
Our founding fathers were aware of this tendency. James Madison was sure that freedom of religion would itself prevent mis-use and bias. The Baptists of Virginia disagreed and said . “You may trust the Anglicans but we don’t. We want it written down.” They refused to send Madison to Congress unless he endorsed the Bill of Rights.
Contrary to his declared intention, Madison did. Ironically it was the Baptists of Southern Virginia who obliged him to do this. They were 40% of his vote. (See Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, forum on The Christmas Wars with scholars Novak and Meachem, Dec 12, 2006)
Not only should we debate the role of religion in public life, but our founding fathers have debated it from the very beginning. The problem today is one of aggressive Christianity. People genuinely believe that there is a war on Christianity in this country. And they feel they are losing and this is a recipe for extremism.
Liberty is our fundamental value. But what is its source? It comes from the view that liberty is rooted in the human conscience. That truth came from Judaism and then Christianity and most other religions do not get to that. The beauty of this, as Michael Novak says, is that it is a self-denying rule. Neither Christians or Jews by this very principle have any right to impose on anyone else. This is the beauty of our American Way. We shall continue to debate its application
Paschal Baute is a pastoral psychologist and facilitator of the Spiritual Growth Network of Kentucky, an interfaith group. He also leads an interfaith group of volunteers who teach spiritual tools of change to addictive offenders at the Fayette Detention Center.
Tel 859.293.5302.
posted by Paschal Baute at 1:48 PM
|
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home