This morning, I wrote, and deleted, a blog entry. Twice. It wasn't that I was unsure about what I wanted to say. It was that I was unsure about why I wanted to say it.
Here's what I wanted to say, summarized:
Pastors who use the pulpit to organize the members of their church in support of a particular politician or political goal should be severely penalized.
The thought was prompted by an article concerning a small-town pastor -- Baptist, I believe, though I'm not sure about that -- who has become quite active in political activities which espouse the fundamentalist conservative point of view. It was augmented by an article about a different paster at a different church who insisted that members of the congregation who did not share his political views must leave the congregration (although he later recanted that statement).
I didn't, and don't, like this, for two reasons.
First, because it's promoting the fundamentalist conservative view, which I regard as dangerous, akin to the shut-up-and-salute patriotic fundamentalism of the fifties. I don't trust ideologues. I am afraid for my own freedom when they get power. Good ol' boy Taliban.
Second, because it's wrong for a person to take advantage of a captive audience to force an opinion on them in a way that plays on their faith and leads them to believe that they'll go to hell if they don't support what the person says.
I wrote all of that, more or less, twice. And I erased it twice, because I'm a liberal, which means that I try to give opposing points of view some consideration (unlike fundamentalist conservatives, who usually don't). And in this case, I kept coming back to this question:
If these guys were doing exactly the same thing, but only affecting their local town or congregation, would I even care at all?
And, if these guys were doing exactly the same thing, but for liberal causes, would reason two still apply?
I think the answers are no...and no.
And that bothers me, particularly the second. Still working on why.
I want to be fair, which is a liberal failing. At what point does a desire to be fair become an exploitable weakness?
I think I know what the ruling party's head would say.
6 comments:
One of my friends--PJ, you might remember him from many a post--is in rabbinical school and has a pulpit as part of his education. I got an email before the election including a sermon he was working on for the rural congregation he works with. The subject--the Biblical perspective on why gay marriage should be allowed. I never responded to that particular email because I was uncomfortable with him (with his liberal northeast background) using his position as a rabbi to try and change the political beliefs of this community. I suppose these particular beliefs overlap with religious beliefs which is where my discomfort hits a grey area. Obviously as their spiritual leader he should be able to try and educate them on religious issues, but how do you deal with it when they overlap with political issues and are partially motivated by his political beliefs? I don't know.
I want to believe that there are things which a church ought to speak out about, things that are beyond the normal muttered Love Thy Neighbor, Church Bingo Is At Seven Tonight. Churches should care about their society, but -- and this is the kicker -- in a way that is more spiritual than political. But how do you do that when the people running the place, the ones you want to influence, are politicians? Perhaps one answer -- haven't thought about this -- is to ask, how do politicians influence religious people, when they want to do that?
There is separation between church and state in your constitution. If people don't like a preacher, they are free walk out and to start their own church. If people don't like a government, they are free to elect some other rascal. If they don't like what is being written in the paper, they are free to start their own paper. You gonna limit his free speech somehow? Naah....you start your own left wing church across the street. People will decide with their feet.
This is not a new problem...Bishop Strahn ended up owning most of Toronto in the nineteenth century. After awhile, the charismatic leaders die off, the people look at themselves and each other, wonder "what were WE THINKING?" and move on. Strahn's empire collapsed.
The Taliban's empire would have collapsed under its own weight in a couple of years, even Mohammed's Jihads and King Philip's Cruasades collapsed after awhile. It made for some interesting history in the process though...grin! I see that Earnest Angely is back on late night TV again...that guy was proven to be a fraud about ten years ago...just shows that charisma overcomes common sense. Oral Roberts got quit of the the taint of his time in the Lucky Stiff Motel, and of course, Jim Baker has completed his prison term for fraud, and is now showing up on Sunday morning talk shows. You want to shut those jokers down? Then you expose them for what they are.
STAG
We certainly do have that separation. I'm concerned that by paying attention to people because they are religious leaders, we're acting to decrease it. I'm also displeased at the idea that people may take political action because a religious leader has indicated that it should be done. That tends to narrow the gap, too.
A reasonable person might ask 'But what if the religious person is advocating something that, while not 'religious', is reasonable? For example, could a religious leader stand up and advocate voting?' Yes, I think they could. But its a narrow line. Few would argue that a religious person should be able to urge the flock to vote for Hitler over Gandhi (Drink the kool-aid!), but neither should they be able to urge them to vote for Gandhi over Hitler. They can urge people to vote their conscience, they can urge them to vote for things that are right, but they can't name names, either directly or with a wink and a nod.
There are stories that Kennedy was voted in because of the Catholic vote which was of course driven by the church. There are also stories that the mob (most of whom are nominally Catholic)put JFK into power mostly by using threats on the churches (get out and vote, and vote in a Catholic...just like your example!) because his old man was one of them....they figured that if they could get a mobster into the Oval Office, their tickets would be punched for life. That didn't work, so it was mob justice on the family.
Those are stories, pretty well backed up, but still stories. As parables...well...one could take lessons from them. Even if not true, they still serve as a warning. Similarly to the stories about the Pope during WWII who turned over thousands of people to their eventual deaths.
There is a damned good reason there is separation between Church and State in the Constitution. Ben Franklin warned that the head of the most popular sect (Anglican) was the English King George. Thomas Payne thought that all preachers were too dangerous to be allowed to part of government....but he was pretty radical even for the time, and would be lynched were he to live and publish his stuff today. But then John Whitherspoon (from New Jersey) was a preacher himself, and was convinced that the church had no place in the hallowed halls of government.
The separation between church and state is one of the greatest contributions to the world y'all ever came up with.
A good friend of mine, an American herself who is teaching English as a second language in France told me that it is a joke in Europe that "the Americans will fight and die to separate church and state everywhere in the world, 'cept of course in America....grin! Guess it helps to get perspective.
I hadn't heard that joke before. I like it. I'd believe it. I've seen some editorial cartoons to the effect of imans trying to figure out why we want to keep them from power in Iraq but we are willing to associate our politicans with religious people here.
Not much of a Constitutional scholar (all my knowledge comes from either high school sociology or seeing the movie National Treasure (which I thought was fun)), so I don't know much on the subject. But, regarding the separation or lack of separation between church and state, I do know two things.
One is, my opinion on its worth is proportional to whether I agree with what the politician or religious person is proposing.
And two is, like porn, I can't describe it, but I know it when I see it.
Well, usually.
Post a Comment