“POLITICS AND RELIGION, 2004"
A Sermon by the Rev. Bruce Clear
Sunday, October 2, 2004
All
There
is some debate over the question of whether the religion Jesus taught was
primarily political or primarily a religion about inner harmony and personal
salvation. I don’t intend to settle that
debate, but for this morning’s consideration, I offer as “Exhibit A” the first
words out of his mouth once he began his ministry.
According
to the Gospel of Luke, Jesus prepared himself by going to the wilderness for
weeks, where he faced and resisted a number of temptations. Upon his return, he went directly to the
synagogue where worshipers were gathered.
He picked up the Bible and read a passage from the book of Isaiah. Here are the words he spoke:
The Spirit of the Lord is
upon me,
because he has anointed me
to preach
good news to the poor.
He has set before me to
proclaim
release of the
captives,
and recovering of sight to
the blind,
to set at liberty
those
who are oppressed,
to
proclaim the acceptable
word
of the Lord.
Then
Jesus closed the book and said, “Today this scripture has been fulfilled in
your hearing.” Then he sat down.
Now,
you tell me if Jesus mixed politics with his religion!
I
have spoken often from this pulpit in support of separation of church and
state. I believe that constitutional
principle is vital to the health of religious freedom, and religious freedom is
both at the core of our own religious tradition, and essential to the health of
our democracy.
To
look at the title of my sermon today, one might think that is the point of my
remarks this morning. It is not. My topic this morning is the flip side of, or
perhaps better, the mirror image of, the principle of separation of church and
state.
I
speak on “religion and politics.” It may
seem at first like I’m splitting hairs, but there is a profound difference
between these two subjects. “Church and
state” must be kept separate by a legally constructed wall of protection for
both. “Politics and religion” can never
be separated, nor should they be separated.
What is the difference?
“Church”
and “state” are institutions, legal and social institutions. “Politics” and “religion” are human qualities
and activities – something characteristic about being human. For most people, our political ideas and our
religious convictions are interwoven, and cannot be successfully divided.
The
separation of church and state is a constitutional doctrine of law that tells
what government may or may not do to either advance or impede church doctrine
and what churches may or may not do to use government to advance their
doctrines. Many of the issues coming
under the rubric of “church and state separation” are familiar, and I have
spoken on them before: prayer in schools, government subsidy of religious
institutions, the teaching of creationism as science, public display of the Ten
Commandments, and so forth. I do not
intend to address these issues today, because my topic isn’t “church and
state.” It is “politics and
religion.”
An
individual’s religious convictions and his or her political beliefs cannot be
separated, nor should they be. Like
Jesus reading that passage from Isaiah to introduce his own ministry, a
person’s politics and religion are bound to arise out of the same set of personal
values, and each supports the other.
Religion and politics are not social institutions, like church and
state, but rather they are expressions of values of individual human
beings.
The
great prophet of nonviolence and freedom, Mahatma Gandhi, once pointed out that
anyone who thinks politics can be separated from religion doesn’t understand
either one. He may have been the most
important political leader in the history of
“For me, politics bereft of
religion are absolute dirt, ever to be shunned. . . . I cannot isolate politics from the deepest
things of my life, for the simple reason that my politics are not corrupt, they
are inextricably bound up with non-violence and truth. . . . I could not live for a single second without
religion. Many of my political friends
despair of me because they say that even my politics are derived from
religion. And they are right. My politics and all other activities of mine
are derived from my religion. . . .
Indeed, religion should pervade every one of our actions. Here religion does not mean
sectarianism. It means a belief in
ordered moral government of the universe.
It is not less real because it is unseen. This religion transcends Hinduism, Islam,
Christianity, etc. It does not supersede
them. It harmonizes them and gives them
reality.”
This
distinction between church and state on one hand, and religion and politics on
the other, is often confused. There is
no question that religious convictions have fueled movements to political
change – admittedly sometimes for the worse, but also often for the better.
The
opening reading from Justice Douglas about the impact of Unitarian movement in
Any
review of the abolition movement in
More
than a century later, it would be religious convictions that fueled the most
important political revolt of the twentieth century in
Martin
Luther King was a Christian minister, and the foundation of his cause was
religious belief in essential human dignity.
His strongest support from around the country came from the
churches. Among his famous appeals was
during the protest march from
Throughout
the civil rights movement, churches everywhere were struggling with the moral
and theological meanings of this cause.
Ministers tried to articulate what the concerns were, and church members
everywhere were struggling with what this issue meant to their religious
values. It wasn’t always the case, of
course, but more often than not people of faith came to realize that the
practice of segregation and racial discrimination were at odds with their
religious values.
Like
the abolition movement before, it is probable that the civil rights movement of
the fifties and sixties would not have happened without the mixing of religion
and politics among millions of people.
There
are Catholic churches of
Religion
has inspired people to advocate for all manner of important political causes:
women’s rights, anti-poverty programs, and so forth.
In
fact, it could be argued that the very doctrine of separation of church and
state is itself a political issue, and the strongest voices for defending that
position come from churches who support groups like Americans for Religious
Liberty, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and the
Interfaith Alliance.
Of
course I don’t deny that religion has inspired destructive movements as
well. It is important to remember that
while Dr. King was organizing churches in support of civil rights, other
churches were preaching theological defenses of racism. There are religiously inspired perspectives
that reject tolerance and acceptance of diversity. I am not unaware, of course, that the loudest
voices against gay rights or reproductive choice or other forms of human
justice are coming from churches.
Those
voices shouldn’t be silenced any more than the religious voices for freedom and
human dignity. Religion is
what inspires most people, perhaps, to work for what they view is right in
society, and competing views of what is right deserve to be heard. It is the political mechanisms of democracy,
not the silencing of convictions, that will determine which visions of right
will be adopted.
Last
week I spoke on the religion of Abraham Lincoln, which turns out to be one of
the most complex examples of the relationship between religion and
politics.
Yet
Most
Presidents since his time have also brought religious language into their
public speeches – sometimes, I know, just for show, though sometimes from
genuine conviction. Our current
President does as well, perhaps more than many of his predecessors. He has every right to do so. In fact, it would be quite dangerous to
democracy if he based his policies on religious values that he kept
secret.
Further,
I would say, he has every right to develop public policies inspired by visions
of right and wrong as defined by his religious convictions. All policies, of course, are subject to
democratic review. Governments do not
have the right to impose a religious doctrine on the nation, but
they have every right to shape policy, subject to democratic checks and
balances, based upon the ethics arising from their religious values.
Jimmy
Carter did this. Ronald Reagan did
this. No one with sincere religious
conviction (among whom I include our current President) can do any else. Religion and politics are inseparable. But I can say this only because we live in a
democracy. Policies are proposed and
implemented, and the result of those policies will reflect just how sound their
religious ethics are. To the extent that
policies result in greater human suffering, it reflects on the poverty of the
values that gave rise to those policies.
To the extent that policies result in increased liberty and honor human
dignity, it reflects those religious values, too.
Some
years ago, Yale law Professor Stephen L. Carter wrote a provocative book
entitled The Culture of Disbelief: How American Law and Politics Trivialize
American Religious Devotion. Carter
wrote as a political liberal, as well as a liberal Christian, and he spoke of
concern about how American liberals seem to want religious conservatives to
refrain from expressing their religious beliefs publicly. He believes that this does damage to the
democratic system which ought to encourage all expression of opinion and
belief. Here is part of what he said:
“Because of this ability of
the religions to fire the human imagination, and often the conscience, even of
nonbelievers – as, for instance, the civil rights movement did – the religions
should not be forced to disguise or remake themselves before they can
legitimately be involved in secular political argument. As one who believes deeply in the importance
of both religious tradition and liberal dialogue, I consider it vital that this
accommodation be made. If it is not,
secular political disaster may ensue as more and more religiously devout
Americans turn their backs on the intellectual traditions that have built and
preserved our free institutions. For
unless liberal theory and liberal law develop ways to welcome the religiously
devout into public moral debate without demanding that they first deny their
religious selves, the caricature of liberalism offered by the radical right
will more and more become the truth, for liberalism will continue its slide
from a pluralistic theory of politics to a narrow, elitist theory of right
results.”
I
sympathize with those who lament those times that politicians wear their
religion on their sleeve, or speak to the nation as if they were preaching to a
church choir. I too am uncomfortable
with that kind of talk. Sometimes it
seems that they are insincere in what they are saying, and only using this
language as a political strategy. That
is scary. Sometimes they seem entirely
sincere in what they say, and sound like they would believe what they believe
regardless of the consequences on society.
That too can be scary. There are
also times, though, when it is reassuring that they are inspired in seeking
justice from the deepest reaches of their inner conscience. When that happens, it can also be reassuring,
even inspiring.
But
I don’t question their right to say what they say, or how they wish to
say it. That is the whole point of our
system of freedom and the purpose of a marketplace of ideas. I understand those who feel uncomfortable
because it can feel like someone else’s religion is being “shoved down their
throat.” Well, that is part of the cost
of a free society. The doctrine of separation
of church and state defines a line that cannot be crossed, and that is when the
institution of government attempts to impose or promote a specific religious
doctrine. But free speech does not
cross that line, and free speech allows you and me to speak as well. To the extent we try to silence another’s
speech that we may find distasteful, even in a politician, we are permitting
the practice of stifling speech itself, and cannot complain when someone wishes
to silence us.
Robert
Benne, Director of the Center for Religion and Society at
“If it is possible and
desirable to separate church and state, it is neither possible nor desirable to
separate religion and politics. It is
not possible because of the nature of religion. . . . The moral visions of religion are relevant to
all of life – economics, politics, and culture.
This means that religious citizens and political leaders will
necessarily express their religious and religiously-grounded moral beliefs in
their politics.
“It is not desirable to
separate vital religion from democratic politics. Such a separation would in time be a disaster
for Western politics. However, it is
important that religious institutions and persons maintain a proper humility
about their political offerings. It is
rare that a specific (public) policy follows from the core of religious or
moral values. Almost always there are
three or four steps in arguing for a particular policy from that core. Persons of intelligence and good will often
part company with each step. Religion
and politics must be accompanied by humility in participation.”
Let
me not mince words here. I don’t want my
point to come across as too oblique. So
let me bring into to this discussion, by way of illustration, two of the most
heated political topics on the national table: abortion and gay rights.
The
leading opponents of abortion and gay rights are up front and honest that they
come to their position through their religious convictions. This honesty often seems to be unsettling to
those on the other side. It somehow
feels threatening to hear people claim religious grounding to their political
opinion. Quite frankly, I find it
refreshing.
It
seems to me that honesty would demand that those who support abortion and gay
rights ought also to confess a religious grounding to their positions. It may not be religion grounded in creeds,
and it may not be religion issuing from ecclesiastical decree, but it seems to
me obvious that deeply held beliefs about the dignity and worth of individuals,
the equality of human beings, and the acceptance of all people are, in fact,
religious beliefs by any philosophical, sociological, or anthropological definition.
The
supporters of abortion and gay rights have nothing to fear about confessing
this reason for their conviction, and being as honest about it as those on the
other side. These issues will not
ultimately be decided by determining who is or is not trying to promote their
religious views. They will be decided,
like everything is decided, according to the democratic system we have in place
in this country.
There
is one area of religion and politics, though, that probably crosses the line
into “church and state” issues subject to the doctrine of separation. This is especially important as we approach a
national election.
One
part of keeping church and state separate, and therefore keeping both free, is
the long-standing legal requirement that churches may not endorse political
candidates for office. There are, of
course, no restrictions on what churches may do to support and promote any
controversial public policy issue, and no restrictions on churches taking
public stands on everything from abortion to war, for these are protected as
free speech issues. These are concerns
of religion and politics, not church and state.
But when it comes to partisan politics, the endorsement of a political
candidate, churches will lose their non-profit, tax-exempt status. Churches can hold forums about elections, can
invite candidates to speak (if all candidates are invited), can register voters
in non-partisan ways, and can distribute non-partisan voter guides. But they cannot endorse a political party or
candidate.
Most
people can see the sense in this rule. A
formal endorsement of a candidate crosses a line that is meant to separate
church and state. Government is to
remain “neutral” toward all religions, and candidates who aspire to government
office on the basis of sectarian religious endorsements will have their
neutrality tainted.
In
fact, it shouldn’t be said strictly that churches “can’t” endorse partisan
candidates. The only penalty for doing
so is losing their tax exempt status.
The justification of tax exemption for non-profit religious groups is
that such groups typically are a benefit to society, an asset to the
community. It is good to encourage
people to support such groups financially, and therefore, contributions are tax
deductible (and property of the group is also not taxed).
There
is a legitimate debate over whether churches ought to enjoy tax exemption in
the first place, but that is for a different sermon. The point is that if any religious
institution wishes to endorse a candidate, no one is going to jail, or even
paying a fine. They simply lose their
eligibility for government tax exemption.
The
Christian Coalition founded by political evangelist Pat Robertson was so cited
in 1999 when it lost its tax exempt status for blatantly distributing voter
guides that were clearly endorsing specific candidates.
The
need for neutrality is important.
Here is a story that many of you may not have heard before. It has nothing to do with churches endorsing
political candidates, but it illustrates how crucial it is for government to
remain neutral toward religion.
The
Red River Unitarian Universalist Church in
That
point, of course, is lost on anyone who is ignorant about religious traditions
other than their own. What should be
obvious to any impartial observer is that it is dangerous in a democracy when a
politician is given the power to make theological judgments that affect
religious practice of the people.
The
follow-up on this story, though, is positive.
After receiving a flood of letters from many different religious leaders
explaining to her the Unitarian tradition, and after the prospect of wide newspaper
and TV publicity that would broadcast her ignorance and jeopardize her future
political ambitions, the Comptroller rescinded her decision.
I
tell this story to underscore why churches are expected to stay out of the
political endorsement business. It is
one thing for politicians to wield the spoils of victory to punish their
opposing party, or even special interests who supported their opponents. It is another thing for politicians with a
grudge to determine which churches have government approval.
Let
me make this even more complicated. I
began by affirming the institutional separation of church and state. That is to say, the institution of government
should be entirely neutral toward religion, and churches should have no role in
government. The next proposition I offer
heads a different direction: the
inseparability of religion and politics.
In this I affirm that people have not only a right, but an expectation
that their most deeply held values will influence their political choices, and
their political choices will serve to advance their values. Then I offer a qualification to this
statement. Churches may not do anything
to endorse partisan political candidates.
This proviso is important to acknowledge especially during election
time.
Now
I complicate it just a bit more. Among
the religious values of this particular church – All Souls
Unitarian – is the respect for freedom of belief and honoring the diversity of
opinions. That is something easily said
but not always so easily practiced. In
other words, it is wrong to expect or even assume that everyone in this church
agrees on any given policy issue or any given candidate. It is wrong to assume that everyone is a
Democrat or Republican, or in their hearts ought to be a Libertarian or, if
they’re honest, a Naderite.
Let
me offer one example. Among our
principles is the affirmation of the inherent worth and dignity of every
individual. One person can embrace that
principle and have it lead us to favoring policies of affirmative action
because it offers a partial remedy to generations of damage done in this
society by denying inherent human worth and dignity. Others may believe that this principle should
guide us toward a totally color-blind society, and that affirmative action perpetuates
a system of discrimination that we should, by principle, deny. Both views, one pro and the other con, are
rooted in the same value: affirming the inherent worth and dignity of human
individuals. The point is not which
policy position is correct; the point is to respect the views of others who
share the same values, though they are led to a different expression of those
values. The point is further to respect
that people allow their deepest values to guide their political choices, and
it’s the values that are worthy of affirming, far more than the policy
choices.
There
are legitimate differences of opinion worthy of respect which arise out of the
values we affirm as Unitarian Universalists.
Our religious values do not dictate, for example, what is the right
national policy for taxation, or what is the best national health insurance
policy, or the right national defense policy, or even whether Interstate 69
ought to be extended to
Now,
of course, I know the right answer to all these questions! But then, so do you. The real question is whether you or I are
grounding our answers in affirming the values that our religious tradition
promotes. Our values may lead one person
to support one candidate, and another person to support another candidate, and
a third person to hold his or her nose when entering the voting booth and vote
for the lesser of “evils.”
All
this leads me to say that even if churches were allowed legally to endorse
partisan candidates, I believe that would be inappropriate in a church like
ours. If we truly believe in respecting
the freedom of others, we also accept that our shared values might lead another
person to political conclusions different from our own. What we do hope – and what I hope – is that
religion and politics among Unitarian Universalists can be mixed enough that
the values of freedom, reason, and tolerance, respect for inherent human worth
and dignity, and so forth, can find expression in the public arena.
Among
the qualities of this congregation that make me proud is the fact of its
diversity. I hope that election season,
or any election season, doesn’t interfere with that important
characteristic.
© Bruce Clear 2004
from William O. Douglas, An
Almanac of
One
religious controversy that, in end result, gave powerful impetus to liberal
thought and social reform in this country was loosened by the great Unitarian,
William Ellery Channing. Beginning about
1815, he undertook to attack orthodox Calvinism in
The
thesis had broad implications that did not end with theology. These Unitarian tenets began to be translated
into political terms. Channing wrote:
“It is because I have
learned the essential quality of (humanity) before the common Father, that I
cannot endure to see one (person) establishing arbitrary will over another
(person) by fraud, or force, or wealth, or rank or superstitious claims. .
. It is because I’ve seen in (people) a
great nature, the divine image, and vast capacities, that I demand for (each
person) a means of self-development, spheres of free action – that I call
society not to fetter, but to aid (a person’s) growth.”
It
was this idea that quickened the social conscience of the country. . . . The social conscience which Channing helped
awaken had profound effects. It set in
motion great impulses of reform. In
1830, there were many abolition societies in