American Unitarian Conference Forum

Full Version: Religion & Politics (More Blog Entries)
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Another blog entry of mine on religion and politics! Enjoy...

Politics and Government are Not the Answer



"Government is not the solution to our problems, government is the problem"
-Ronald Reagan

Amen, preach it brother! I am not a true libertarian in my political beliefs (nor am I a particularly big fan of Mr. Reagan) but I share the contempt of that particular wing of American politics in my contempt for the effectiveness of government. Government is, in the words of George Washington, "a dangerous servant and a fearful master". The overuse of government has resulted in nothing but wasted money and incompetence at best and a lot of bloodshed at worst. And perhaps, most disturbing of all, is the passionate belief of countless Christians-both liberal and conservative-who believe that government is the answer to their prayers, the tool handed down by God to achieve their goals. Politics is the way to solve problems. "Salvation by legislation" is the way to get things done. Whether it is a crusade to ban homosexuality and abortion or to care for the poor and save the planet Jesus has been co-opted by the Right and is on the verge of being adopted by the Left...who else can claim that distinction?

There are several problems here, both from a political and a religious perspective. Let's take a look first at the political and then the religious.

POLITICAL:

1. It doesn't work. Big government has had far more failures than successes. The welfare state is a failure-in the words of one wise man the world is a graveyard of failed socialist experiments. Socialism doesn't work. Over-regulation, massive government programs, big-time spending...the list could go on and on of the many things we've attempted to do with government. It doesn't work. The government is incompetent. Even with legislating behavior it doesn't work-for one enforcement of some rules (like coveting thy neighbor's wife) is for all intents and purposes impossible, but the nature of liberty and the failure of something like prohibition are suggestive that more rules are likely only to create more heat as people move to evade the rules. Many of the social and economic programs adopted by political Christians are simply impractical and some just don't fit with our government.
2. The extremes-communism and fascism among others-are quite undesirable. When pushing an agenda backed by religion government rarely stays in a safe and stable place.
3. Politics is a dirty business and one that is essentially amoral by nature. Trying to do anything moral with politics is like trying to practice chastity by having sex with a prostitute.
4. Finally...it isn't government's job to do many of these things. Some of these belong to individuals, families, businesses and communities. Oh yeah-and the Church. This shouldn't be about passing the buck.

RELIGION:

1. Jesus wasn't a politician. Shocking but true. That little comment about Caesar's coin is often ignored, but the concept there is that there some things that are only God's and some things that are for the government.
2. The nature of Christ's message does not fit neatly into a left-right political paradigm. While Christ talked a great deal about personal sin, the need for personal regeneration and had a great deal to say about ethics his message was not the harsh, quasi-fascist message of today's Religious Right. And while his stresses on social awareness and the responsibility we have for our neighbor he was not as some would believe the first socialist. He was a social prophet who demanded a better vision of the world (as Marcus Borg has pointed out) but did not use politics to achieve his means.
3. The mixing of religion and politics is bad for both-it damages the political process (when God enters the mix there can be no compromises) and corrupts religion. And let us not forget the history of theocracies, the countless number of lives taken in the name of God in the old days of Christendom and today in the Middle East. And let us not forget-Christ was killed by an alliance between political leaders and religious leaders.
4. To re-used #4 from the above-we have shirked our responsibility and passed the buck. The CHURCH was commanded to care for the poor, not the government. The government cannot do what we can do as Christians.

But is there a better way? YES!

A New Vision



So what is my solution to the government-politics divide? In true politician fashion I will offer a 5-Point Plan to address the problem. Here goes!

1. Respect the Separation of Church and State. We must accept that there are separate spheres for the church and the state, that God's authority cannot and should not be legislated and that there are better ways to do our work then to jump in bed with the government. On the other hand the knife cuts both ways and we should fight to protect our right to worship free from interference by Big Daddy, Big Mommy or Big Brother government. Also, the nation should not ever become an idol. Extreme patriotism (read nationalism or ethnocentrism) is idolatry).
2. Be Good Citizens But Use Faith as Shield, Not a Sword. We should participate in the Democratic process and be politically astute. But we should use our faith as a personal inspiration and source of strength, not as a weapon to be used on the political battlefield.
3. Accept Our Responsibilities: The World is Waiting: Come to terms with the fact that Christians must change the world, that we must care for the sick, the poor, the hungry, the dying; that we must fight for equality and justice; that we need to stand for ethics and values; that we must set an example.
4. It Starts Small: Our actions as individuals and through the local church will be the primary way of loving our neighbor and carrying out the commands to care for the sick and lift up the weak.
5. Be Creative: Instead of crying out for government help or running to politics look to more creative public-private and faith-driven solutions to problems in the world. The government should only be used when absolutely necessary-and then, without a political agenda or partisan bias.

The essence of this plan is to reject the idea that only government can accomplish our goals or that politics helps the church. If anything, politics only tears a deeper rift in the church and too easily reduces religion to being a mouthpiece of a politician or political organization. This is not the way. We must accept that we have responsibilities to the world: To fight for the right to worship, to stand for morals and ethics, to care for the poor and to fight for justice and equality (charity and justice must go together). We must change the world, we are the hands of Christ, the hands of God. God's kingdom will never become a reality without this work. Cesar cannot help us with this.

Politics is addicting, it's easy, it's narcissistic-hence why so many churches leech onto it. But it is not the way to do things. Government has failed. We must move on. There are better ways.

* The Grameen Bank project of Muhammad Yunus is a great example of a better way to fight poverty than welfare handouts
* Private organizations like The Nature Conservancy and grassroots movements are better at saving the environment than Al Gore could ever be
* The movie Freedom Writers (I just saw it the other night) shows the incredible impact compassion and a good teacher have on individual students
* The church does better with social programs than the government does-prison ministry, health care ministry-faith-based outreaches may well be the key

The crux of these ideals is the power that a religious organization can bring. Organizations dedicated do justice and charity are likely to burnout without divine fuel. And after all, it is the responsibility of the church.

What about government? I am not a believer in liberation theology, I'm not a modern big-government liberal and I'm certainly not a socialist. Regardless, I am not a true libertarian either. I think there are moments where the government must intervene to protect the weak from exploitation, to help protect the rights of the oppressed and to insure that the government can keep the economy running reasonably smooth (I do support some regulations to protect worker's rights, the environment, etc). Here the church must step in, as Martin Luther King did. It is true that laws cannot change hearts and minds, but as Dr. King once remarked "The law cannot make a white man love me but it can keep him from lynching me and that's just as important" (let it never be said that Dr. King did not have a sense of humor). The fact is occasionally we must turn to the government, but the church should not mingle too closely with political parties, and should be extremely careful in its positions. All Christians (well, almost all) agree on the ends of social justice. But we do not agree on the means. Some are absolute pacifists, some believe in the "just war" doctrine. Some are pro-choice, many are pro-life. We need to find some common ground and we can't do that with hardcore partisanship.

But the most vital part of this new "third way" is to understand that such love begins with ourselves. We must practice love, peace, compassion, tolerance and respect ourselves. We need, as individuals, to work to strengthen our families and practice a way of life based on honesty, integrity and respect for values. When we see someone in distress we need to reach out. It is US who need to offer kind words, a helping hand, the kiss of peace. We cannot delegate our responsibility to our neighbors. "Love your neighbor" does not offer a 5-Point government plan or a political platform. It is a way of life. We can live together as a community, and work to change society but this begins as individuals. It can't be imposed from above.

When we all begin changing our lives and doing the simple, little things that are based on love of God, Neighbor and Self; when we work together as the Church to care for the world; then the Kingdom of God will begin to make itself known. Caesar, Uncle Sam and the rest cannot help us with this. This is our job.

What are we waiting for?

Fredl Wrote:
Hi Logan.

Interesting Post.

Are you familiar with the Melinda and Bill Gates Foundation? It had an annual budget about equivalent to the UN's WHO prior to Warren Buffett's recent contribution. I don't know how they compare now. Care to speculate on their relative effectiveness?

Recently, a number of prominent figures were querried on what the single best thing to make the world a better place would be. Howard Gardner of Harvard replied that it would be for the governments of the world to confiscate the excess wealth of the richest and distribute it to the poor in a way to create greater economic equality. In other words, Good Bye Melinda and Bill from the World Stage.

What is it that makes folks like Gardner think they know better than Bill Gates what should be done with his money?

Fred


Let me speculate...done! I think we all know which is the more effective! Smile I don't understand why some people believe that the only way to create equality is to rob Peter to pay Paul (which is essentially all liberation theology is). I think this is nothing more than a cop-out...and as mentioned a failure! Socialism does not work! The Great Society...great idea, nice try. But it has failed.

There are better ways to do this. I don't believe Economic Redistribution is the way to go (creating equality and justice doesn't usually happen by playing Robin Hood). Besides, as you pointed out, many of the rich are more generous with their money then we give them credit for (including, it appears, even conservatives like Dick Cheney).

It's easy to say that government has failed if you limit your view to the present administration.  After all, our borders and ports are no more secure than they were before 9/11, the reconstruction of the Gulf Coast is a long way from complete, nearly 50 million Americans lack health insurance, and the gap between rich and poor is as wide as it was during the Gilded Age of the late 19th century.  Yes, we have responsibilities as individuals, but (unless we have the resources of Bill and Melinda Gates, of course) individuals can't make a dent in the problems we face as a nation. Charity will always be necessary, but the ultimate goal must be justice.
I think social justice is important but I do not believe the rhetoric of many religious liberals who over-focus on victimhood and sometimes suggest that the systems are more evil than the people (Marcus Borg, despite the fact that I love his work, is periodically guilty of this).

I think that faith has political implications but there are multiple ways to get to the same destination, hence why I reject direct partisan overtones. One could get to liberal ends with conservative means. Just as a for instance projects like the Grameen Bank are more effective than welfare, one can care for the environment without being a member of the Sierra Club and I believe the 'just war' concept can be seen just as 'Christian' as absolute pacifism.

eruonen Wrote:
In my experience, the term "social justice" has been in reality a code word for various socialist solutions to perceived societal/economic/legal /environmental etc. ills....however, it may mean different things to different people.  Philosophical interpretations by Rawls or Catholic social teaching or Green Party ideology etc. are not necessarily identical.


More often than not that's true.  The interesting thing though is that Catholic social teaching is of course not the same as Green Party ideology (unless you're specifically focusing on liberation theology, which is a different animal).  To me the definition of "social justice" is simply ensuring that social systems (political, economic, etc) do not oppress a certain group or class of people.  Civil rights would be social justice by this definition.  Poverty is a different matter, as I see that solution being more in the realm of personal empowerment than systemic change (social justice for me has nothing to do with the environment, that's another matter).

Realistically, I think the older form of social justice has less relevance today in America.  One can rail about social inequalities all they wish, but closing such gaps is easier now than ever before.  From this point forward I think any real major changes to the social structure are or more less socialist.  

The vision of liberal Christians like Borg, etc is one of a perfect society where there is, to paraphrase FDR, freedom from want.  All well and good as a concept...the problem is I don't think Jesus ever presented this utopian ideal.  

Making God's kingdom on earth may be possible but I think it has far, far more to do with personal transformation than "social justice".

"Hasn't government almost always failed or been inefficient?"

No, I don't think it has, and I'm not about to buy into this sort of right-wing rhetoric.  Take Social Security, for example.  It has done exactly what it was intended to do for seventy years now; provide a reliable source of income for the elderly.  It was never intended to be an investment, and it is foolish to base one's retirement plans on SS alone.  It may be necessary to tweak the program to account for increased longevity and fewer children per family since the inception of the program, but the basic idea is sound.

You may be familiar with the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP.  SCHIP helps states provide health coverage to children whose parents do not qualify for Medicaid - which is, of course, another of those evil government programs conservatives like to rail against.  SCHIP has been in existence for ten years, and is up for reauthorization this year.  At the current level of funding, more than 3 million eligible children are not being served, and increasing health-care costs threaten a further erosion of service.

The Senate Finance Committee has prepared a SCHIP reauthorization bill that provides more money than necessary to maintain current levels of service but less than the level supported by Democratic members of the committee.  The top two Republicans in the Senate - Trent Lott (R-MS) and Mitch McConnell (R-KY) - and House Republican leader John Boehner (R-OH) have all voiced opposition to the proposal, and President Bush has signaled his intention to veto it on philosophical grounds, despite the fact that 84% of Americans support expanding SCHIP to cover ALL children.

In case you think the position taken by the GOP leadership is incredibly mean-spirited, I must point out that it is nothing more than pure, laissez-faire conservatism carried to its logical conclusion; i.e., government cannot and should not provide for the needs of the people.  As you have probably surmised by now, I cannot support this ideological position.

admin Wrote:
As much as we want to encourage discussion on our board, I just want to remind everyone about point #3 in our general guidelines. While letting others know what political views we have is fine, debating them here is discouraged, because we have such a broad spectrum of opinions in that area, and we don't want people who are coming here for religious reasons to feel unwelcome because of the political views they may hold.


At least visitors will realize we're not of one mind politically, and we choose to gather here for some other reason...

Or a different Senator/Representative/Governor/President/Country...
Pages: 1 2
Reference URL's