(no subject)
Nov. 3rd, 2004 11:24 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
winterbadgerI posted this as a reply in mintogrubb's LJ, but I wanted to copy it to mine so as to retain a copy of it. My apologies to anyone who thus has to read it twice.
America, I believe, is a secular and progressive nation at heart. This is just a phase they are going through, and I believe they will soon grow out of it.
I don't agree that America is at root a secular nation. America, IMO, is a fundamentally religious country, which has been moved by its moral conscience in different directions at different times. It was a national appeal to morality and conscience that ended up bringing about the Civil War and the emancipation of slaves, and those at the hands of a Republican president who talked a good deal more about God's plan for America than this president has done. It was a strong appeal to morality that created the New Deal. It was a strong appeal to morality, coming in part from a broad sweep of religious leaders and a Texan president that brought us the Great Society. It was the national conscience, moved in part by one of the greatest American religious leaders of all time, that brought us desegregation and the Voting Rights Act.
Religion is, for better or worse, a major element of American life, political as well as social. We proclaim ourselves "one nation under God" and that "in God we trust". We assert the rights that are given to us by "our Creator". I think that religion is not necessarily regressive, nor is its absence necessarily progressive. I'm not religious myself (at least not at the moment), but I recognize that most of my countrymen are, and that that has, in the past, been what drove many of them to do things to make our country a better place as well as what moves many of them now to do things that (I think) would make it a worse one.
What I do see lacking in America today is an overt sense of faith in the liberal/progressive part of the political spectrum, a strong voice or voices for religious liberalism. And I think that that's what makes many middle-ground Americans, for whom religion is part of their life, fundamentally uneasy with liberal politicians. I think we need someone who, while not inclined to pray on street corners, will make the case for the progressive social agenda from a religious or moral viewpoint *as well as* the practical political/economic viewpoint.
America, I believe, is a secular and progressive nation at heart. This is just a phase they are going through, and I believe they will soon grow out of it.
I don't agree that America is at root a secular nation. America, IMO, is a fundamentally religious country, which has been moved by its moral conscience in different directions at different times. It was a national appeal to morality and conscience that ended up bringing about the Civil War and the emancipation of slaves, and those at the hands of a Republican president who talked a good deal more about God's plan for America than this president has done. It was a strong appeal to morality that created the New Deal. It was a strong appeal to morality, coming in part from a broad sweep of religious leaders and a Texan president that brought us the Great Society. It was the national conscience, moved in part by one of the greatest American religious leaders of all time, that brought us desegregation and the Voting Rights Act.
Religion is, for better or worse, a major element of American life, political as well as social. We proclaim ourselves "one nation under God" and that "in God we trust". We assert the rights that are given to us by "our Creator". I think that religion is not necessarily regressive, nor is its absence necessarily progressive. I'm not religious myself (at least not at the moment), but I recognize that most of my countrymen are, and that that has, in the past, been what drove many of them to do things to make our country a better place as well as what moves many of them now to do things that (I think) would make it a worse one.
What I do see lacking in America today is an overt sense of faith in the liberal/progressive part of the political spectrum, a strong voice or voices for religious liberalism. And I think that that's what makes many middle-ground Americans, for whom religion is part of their life, fundamentally uneasy with liberal politicians. I think we need someone who, while not inclined to pray on street corners, will make the case for the progressive social agenda from a religious or moral viewpoint *as well as* the practical political/economic viewpoint.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-11-03 04:44 pm (UTC)I'm with you. Certainly looking from the outside, the prospect of our (Canadian) national leaders honestly professing to take guidance from their faith is completely horrifying; I don't share it, and don't =want= to live by it. I don't care what religion it is, that's irrelevant to me; I don't want to live under =any= type of theocracy.
no subject
Date: 2004-11-03 04:51 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-11-03 04:56 pm (UTC)Religion does not equal moral conscience. Often, IMO, they are diametrically opposed.
no subject
Date: 2004-11-03 05:07 pm (UTC)I do agree with this, but
I think we need someone who, while not inclined to pray on street corners, will make the case for the progressive social agenda from a religious or moral viewpoint *as well as* the practical political/economic viewpoint.
I don't agree with this (amazing, as we agree almost word for word with other issues) - if only because *which* religious or moral viewpoint are we going to base the social agenda on? The 10 Commandments (several of which I've broken already), the teachings of Jesus, the "do what ye will lest ye harm none" of the Wiccans or karma?
Or is my exhausted brain so muddled that I misunderstood the point you were making? If so, I apologize.
no subject
Date: 2004-11-03 05:42 pm (UTC)I think that an inability to show that one has a moral compass based on something other than personal opinion is a considerable obstacle for someone seeking national office in the United States. I think that American liberals, believing that one's religious faith, if any, is a matter of personal conscience not appropriate for public discussion, are severely handicapped when seeking the support of people outside their faction.
I don't think it's necessary to be Pharisaical about one's religion just to get votes. But I think that American voters want to believe not just in a candidate's positions but in *why* he or she takes those positions. And a significant number of Americans, I think, are not comfortable with someone who says "oh, well I just believe this" without it seeming to be part of a coherent pattern; they want to know *why*. They want a guide to what a candidate might do with an issue that hasn't come up; they want to feel that they have a grasp of a candidate's moral bases.
And, for better or worse, they identify religious faith as being both a coherent guide and a reliable, consistent pattern. If someone can describe, overtly or implicitly, how their faith shapes who they are, then I think most Americans are going to feel more comfortable with and able to support that person than a different person whose positions seem to be only a matter of opinion or political convenience.
I suppose a candidate might be able to provide the same comfort level by describing a humanistic belief system that was part of their upbringing or part of a deep personal search for truth and meaning, but I think that would be an uphill battle. Religion is simply a language, a metacontext, that instantly enhances and amplifies a message. I don't think it's a guarantee; if someone talks a lot about religion but doesn't seem sincere then I think that would backfire.
And I think a liberal politician can describe a religious context without necessarily subscribing to one very closely defined sect. Jefferson did a pretty good job, IMO, of making it clear that he believed in a God of Nature and derived his moral code from those beliefs without directly implicating himself as part of one of the religious factions of the day.
I certainly *don't* think that one could be successful by adopting a sort of UU agenda, including bits of all sorts of different religions or representing a faith that most Americans aren't familiar with or find legitimate. Look at Jerry "Governor Moonbeam" Brown, and that was how many decades ago? But I think that someone who could speak a liberal, progressive message from a Christian, Jewish, or, yes, even Muslim or Buddhist denomination would get a better hearing than someone who seems to speak only from themself and their own personal experience and conviction.
I think that Kerry could have done much better at representing the role of his religion in shaping his character and his philosophy and therefore his policy decisions. I think he shrank from doing that because, like many liberals, he avoids talking about politics and religion in the same breath, avoids talking about religion at all publicly.
I *don't* think people want to hear that a politician is so deeply wedded to one sect that he's just going to follow them down the line and not think for himself. But I *do* think they want to hear where his or her convictions come from; and I think that religion is a grounding that gives them more confidence that a person's moral compas is firmly fixed.
no subject
Date: 2004-11-03 06:01 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-11-03 07:12 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-11-03 07:30 pm (UTC)They only sought to ensure that no one would create a state religion and use civil law to enforce adherence to one particular religious sect. I think there's a very important distinction between including religious beliefs in the public debate and giving one particular religion or sect the power of government.
no subject
Date: 2004-11-03 07:40 pm (UTC)And you don't think we have given that to Christianity?
no subject
Date: 2004-11-03 09:30 pm (UTC)1. Christianity is not a single religion. There are 10-12 major branches or denominations of Christianity in the U.S., and that's not even counting the smallest groups like Christian Scientists. There is no unified "Christian Church" that acts as a partner to government in the way established churches were when the constitution was written.
2. Christianity does not have the kind of power of government today that the founders were reacting to. In the 17th and 18th centuries, in Great Britain and some of the other countries from which Americans had come, conflict over religion had been a force for destruction like nothing that this country has ever seen. I would venture to say that even the struggle over slavery in 19th century America did not produce the kind of national destruction that religion did in Germany in the mid-17th century. Even in places where it did not spawn cataclysmic wars, it divided entire nations and caused thousands, tens of thousands of deaths, dismemberments, brutalizations, and refugees. No one could get past the idea that a nation-state should have one single religion. Even *that* idea had been a compromise, coming out of the wars of religion of the 16th century, after which it was generally agreed by the European states that different nations could have different religions, as long as people didn't try to challenge the religion of the state in which they lived.
My icon shown above, William Laud, is a classic figure of this kind of government. He was Archbishop of Canturbury before the British Civil Wars, at a time when that post was an integral member of government, one of the king's chief ministers, holder of considerable legal and political power, either ex officio or because of the other offices he held. He was a moderate in matter of religion _for his time_ which meant that he was prepared to tolerate those who worshipped in forms other than the approved Church of England, as long as they did so *privately*, did not preach or convert others, and as long as they also obeyed all the laws that supported the position of the established church (including mandatory attendence and paying for its upkeep). But he also enforced the discipline of the church on its ministers, on its parishoners, asserted the rights of clergy to special treatment because of their status, used the religious courts to prosecute what we would think of as political cases and to further teh economic and legal power of the church, and used both the civil and religious courts to punish dissent, either political or religious, fairly harshly.
This kind of state-religion government had even carried over into the British colonies in America, where even the dissenters who had fled the strict rule of the Anglican Church established their own mini-theocracies.
What the writers of the Constitution were attempting to prevent was a government that forced everyone to obey the rules of one church *because* those were the rules of that church. They were *not* opposed to laws or policies that took their inspiration from religion or from the ethics fostered by religion; indeed, I think most of them would have argued that those were the only places that such ethics could legitimately be grounded.
We do not have a government that fines people who do not attend church, that forces people to pay money to support churches, that prosecutes people for blasphemy or heresy, or that restricts peoples' rights because of their religious belief. *That* is the sort of power of government the framers were trying to avoid, IMO.
no subject
Date: 2004-11-03 11:46 pm (UTC)2. Whatever, Jan. I'm sorry that my not-particularly thought out choice of phrase triggered one of your politico-historical dissertations. I didn't mean, obviously, that we have fewer rights now than we did a few hundred years back. I was merely refering to my own unhappiness with the current level of influence that religion has in our country. It's true that it's better than it once was; many things are, but that doesn't mean I agree with them. A bad choice of words on my bad, obviously...
no subject
Date: 2004-11-04 03:02 pm (UTC)Some may call it that, but it doesn't act or have the effect of single religion.
Whatever, Jan.
Ah, one of my favourite words, signifying the turning-off of a brain...
Part Three - and the last part!
Date: 2004-11-04 03:30 am (UTC)Well, it’s okay if you are one of the “Big Three”, but what if you were an alternative religion. Would it be a good policy? Does the public want to hear about it? What if Kerry's religion doesn't really play a huge part in his life? It wouldn't be genuine to talk about it as if it did. It's hard to discuss religion when several religions out there think that they are right and you are totally wrong if you don't believe what they believe.
I *don't* think people want to hear that a politician is so deeply wedded to one sect that he's just going to follow them down the line and not think for himself. But I *do* think they want to hear where his or her convictions come from; and I think that religion is a grounding that gives them more confidence that a person's moral compass is firmly fixed.
But religion *is* such a personal thing. I believe in gods – not one – but many. When I was a Christian I was a very *strict* Catholic. My viewpoints have changed with age, but one thing is for sure, if we use the bible as our moral compass, there are as many interpretations of the bible as there are of any other religious document.
Thank you so much for an excellent discussion!!! I must collapse now. I am so tired I fear that this didn't make much sense, but I needed to write some thoughts. I won't be responding any more as this is lengthy enough, but I wouldn't mind discussing in person some time as I respect your opinion.
Re: Part Three - and the last part!
Date: 2004-11-04 03:13 pm (UTC)No, but I'm talking about what I think the Democratic Party should do in serious national races. And, as unfair as it may be, I don't think there's any chance whatsoever that any major party is going to run someone who is a publicly active member of what is perceived by most people as a "fringe" religion. Jews have been part of American society since before there was a Untied States, but Joe Lieberman was the first Jew to run on a major-party presidential ticket. We've elected only one Catholic to the White House. We have never elected a woman, an African American, or a Hispanic to the presidency. The US electorate tends to go for white male Protestants, probably because for most of our history that's been what the majority ofhe electorate was.
What if Kerry's religion doesn't really play a huge part in his life? It wouldn't be genuine to talk about it as if it did.
Obviously I'm not advocating hypocrisy; I thought I had been clear about that. But, to be blunt, if we're going to speak to the electorate, we need to find someone who can talk their language.
It's hard to discuss religion when several religions out there think that they are right and you are totally wrong if you don't believe what they believe.
No, I don't think it's hard to discuss religion at all. Nothing says that discussing religion has to mean engaging in a fruitless debate about whose religion is best. Let the other guy try that; people will see through it fairly quickly.
Part One
Date: 2004-11-04 03:22 am (UTC)No, I don't think that you misunderstand me; I think we may just disagree.
Perhaps, but I am trying to look at your point of view through the eyes of a Christian (I was one for many years and trying to remember what it felt like) and you need to remember that I am a polytheistic pagan, which isn’t one of the more “popular” religions out there, so I am debating this as someone who doesn’t follow the bible for my moral code. I also want to point out that I am very "Christian friendly” – maybe more so than a lot of other pagans I know.
I think that an inability to show that one has a moral compass based on something other than personal opinion is a considerable obstacle for someone seeking national office in the United States. I think that American liberals, believing that one's religious faith, if any, is a matter of personal conscience not appropriate for public discussion, are severely handicapped when seeking the support of people outside their faction.
I don’t know if liberals believe that faith isn’t appropriate to public discussion, but rather, I think that liberals are afraid to talk about their faith if it isn’t bible based. I remember the flack that Kerry took from catholic leadership and some conservative Christians because of his stance on the right to choose.
I don't think it's necessary to be Pharisaical about one's religion just to get votes. But I think that American voters want to believe not just in a candidate's positions but in *why* he or she takes those positions.
I would agree with this, however, it gets mighty uncomfortable when someone says, “I don’t believe in gay marriage because the bible says…”, especially when the document in question has so many interpretations. Even Christians can't agree.
And a significant number of Americans, I think, are not comfortable with someone who says "oh, well I just believe this" without it seeming to be part of a coherent pattern; they want to know *why*. They want a guide to what a candidate might do with an issue that hasn't come up; they want to feel that they have a grasp of a candidate's moral bases.
This is an intellectual point of view and I don’t want to diss the intelligence of the average American, but I don’t see a lot of them caring why someone believes what they do as long as it’s a monotheistic god with a capital “G”. See, we don’t have a lot of candidates who are from alternative religions, although we are starting to, and how can we when a lot (and I’m not saying all) of people say things like wicca is just the same as Satanism. Yes, it takes education, but if you are a Christian the basis of the religion is to convert and there is only one true god. No amount of education will change spiritual beliefs if it’s what you *believe*. It’s all based on faith and can’t be measured by facts. Creationism vs Evolution proves that point.
Re: Part One
Date: 2004-11-04 03:18 pm (UTC)Well, if you mean non-Judeo-Christian religions *shrug* I'm talkign about practical politics, and running a pagan for national office is not, at this point in our country's history, a practical option.
Re: Part One
Date: 2004-11-04 03:29 pm (UTC)You're correct - it isn't.
That's all I'll be saying because I think we hashed this out pretty well. However, I wanted to thank you again for a conversation that didn't descend into a screaming match.
Part Two
Date: 2004-11-04 03:28 am (UTC)And, for better or worse, they identify religious faith as being both a coherent guide and a reliable, consistent pattern. If someone can describe, overtly or implicitly, how their faith shapes who they are, then I think most Americans are going to feel more comfortable with and able to support that person than a different person whose positions seem to be only a matter of opinion or political convenience.
I can easily describe how my faith shapes who I am, but most Americans are going to think I am a nutcase! ;-) I mean, I have to admit, that Bush didn’t do a very good job of defining what he believes exactly, and you posted a good article about that a while ago. He mentions prayer, he mentions god, and people assume that he is Christian, but when pushed, I bet most Americans couldn’t discuss exactly what he believes – because he hasn’t gone into specifics. He's very vague.
I suppose a candidate might be able to provide the same comfort level by describing a humanistic belief system that was part of their upbringing or part of a deep personal search for truth and meaning, but I think that would be an uphill battle. Religion is simply a language, a metacontext, that instantly enhances and amplifies a message. I don't think it's a guarantee; if someone talks a lot about religion but doesn't seem sincere then I think that would backfire.
I would agree with this, for the most part, but the American public is very very forgiving in many ways.
And I think a liberal politician can describe a religious context without necessarily subscribing to one very closely defined sect. Jefferson did a pretty good job, IMO, of making it clear that he believed in a God of Nature and derived his moral code from those beliefs without directly implicating himself as part of one of the religious factions of the day.
Yes, and he is someone that I wish more people would know more about.
I certainly *don't* think that one could be successful by adopting a sort of UU agenda, including bits of all sorts of different religions or representing a faith that most Americans aren't familiar with or find legitimate. Look at Jerry "Governor Moonbeam" Brown, and that was how many decades ago? But I think that someone who could speak a liberal, progressive message from a Christian, Jewish, or, yes, even Muslim or Buddhist denomination would get a better hearing than someone who seems to speak only from themself and their own personal experience and conviction.
And with this I agree in that not all Christians, Jews or Muslims are fundamentalists, and some are very liberal. Several years ago, in England, I took part in a discussion with members of several liberal Christian groups and druids. One person asked why the CoE wasn't represented very much. We invited them, but they turned us down. The Church of England called these talks “dubious” and “dangerous”. Dangerous? Can you understand why I am a skeptic and don’t really see why religious issues should have a bearing on politics?
To see more about this go to:
http://www.celticcrow.com/news/article519.html
I am aware that this was a conference in the UK, but I hear a lot of the same thing in the US.
I think that Kerry could have done much better at representing the role of his religion in shaping his character and his philosophy and therefore his policy decisions.
This would be very interesting indeed, if Kerry were, say, an Asatruar. I can imagine the speech now:
“On my honor and Odin’s and with the help of the Aesir and Vanir I want to thank you for electing me president. I make an oath to you, my fellow Americans, that the war dead from this war and all others will rejoice in Valhalla as we fight the war on terrorism in Afghanistan and around the world.”
Re: Part Two
Date: 2004-11-04 03:15 pm (UTC)True, but I wasn't talking about you, sweetie. :-)
This would be very interesting indeed, if Kerry were, say, an Asatruar.
*shudder* Thank you for giving me nightmares; I've had some contact with that particular community, and a worse example of altrernative religion I really don't think you could come up with.
no subject
Date: 2004-11-03 11:46 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-11-04 03:02 pm (UTC)