The Intersection of Religion and Politics: Lets Cross It Safely Rob - PDF document

The Intersection of Religion and Politics: Let’s Cross It Safely Rob Boston, senior adviser, Americans United for Separation of Church and State UUPLAN, April 25, 2020 Marcus Aurelius was a second-century Roman emperor who dabbled in philosophy. During his reign, Germanic tribes on the northern frontier of the empire invaded. The Romans considered these people to be barbarians and went to war to push them back. In the midst of this war, Marcus Aurelius wrote a series of philosophical maxims that have come down to us. They are known as the Meditations. In Book One, Aurelius warns us that every day we will meet with people who are, as he puts it, “ungrateful, aggressive, treacherous, malicious and unsocial.” Yet he also advises us to remember that these people, as unpleasant as they are, remain our brothers and sisters, although they may be, in his words, “ignorant of true good and evil.” Despite this, he tells us, they share “a spark of the divine.” The first principle of Unitarianism reminds us of the “inherent worth and dignity of all people.” I have spent 32 years defending the principle of separation of church and state, which means I have often had to confront those who oppose that constitutional principle, some of whom even argue that church-state separation is a myth. In confronting these people, I will admit that I have sometimes struggled with the first principle of Unitarianism because I have encountered many of the types Marcus Aurelius warns us about – ungrateful, aggressive, malicious people. At meetings of Religious Right groups I have attended, I’ve heard people talk about how they have cut off and cast out their own children – because those children are members of the LGBTQ community. They speak of this proudly, while cla iming to be “pro - family.” I’ve listened as politicians outlined plans to take away the rights of members of our families, our friends, neighbors and co- workers. I’ve watched people nod in approval. In my darker moments, I have been challenged to find that spark of the divine, or to remember the worth and dignity of those who oppose us. Yet I know that we must remember their humanity even as we oppose them – and that means political

involvement. Since basic human rights are at stake, we do not have the luxury of disengagement. With that thought in mind, what I’d like to do this morning is outline some rules for the intersection of religion and politics. Some of these rules may seem obvious to you, or you may feel that they are rules that those who work against our vision of a just America need to hear. And yes, those folks do need to hear them. But I would ask that we all bear them in mind as we cross the sometimes dangerous intersection of religion and politics. One: God does not have a political affiliation. Furthermore, God does not want you or anyone else to be president, governor, mayor, city council member, etc. This may seem like a no- brainer, but let’s remember that in 2012, at least three GOP candidates said God had told them to run. In 2016, we heard similar claims coming from Republican hopefuls. God is not your campaign manager. When candidates say God has anointed them to run, what they really mean is, “This is how I interpret the desires of God” or “I think it’s likely that God would agree with me” or even “I’m hoping so much that God’s views jibe with my own that I’ve just decided that they do.” Unitarians speak of a god that encompasses “transcending mystery and wonder.” It’s a nice w ay to think of God because it breaks free of the traditional patriarchal vision of an angry deity who is all-powerful, white and male – that is to say, a god made in the image of those who, throughout much of our history, held the power and often still do. In fundamentalist Christian theology, it is this image of God that transforms his son – who spent an inordinate amount of time talking about the poor and the needy and admonishing those who focus on wealth – into a bootstrap capitalist. The problem with these depictions of God is not that they are wrong – although many of us doubtless believe that they are – it’s that they are used as kind of trump card to choke off debate. After all, if God is on my side, why do we even need to discuss yours? The answer to “God is on my side” is not, “No, he’s on mine.” It is to remind us that any god with his/her/its salt is on all of our sides – whether you believe in God in a traditional sense or as a transcendent force for good that moves through all of us.

Two: U.S. laws must have a secular basis. We are not a theocracy. Again, this may seem obvious – but a significant percentage of Americans would take issue with this assertion. Think back to the debate over marriage equality. We challenged opponents to articulate a secular reason why two people of the same sex should not be able to legally marry. These opponents could not do it. At the end of the day, their arguments always boiled down to a passage from Leviticus or a papal decree. In a secular rep ublic, we have the right to ask “What else ya got?” And they didn’t have anything else. Now, there are plenty of issues that have a religious dimension to them. For example, many people oppose the death penalty on religious grounds. But those people can also list a number of secular reasons why the death penalty is problematic. The Bible is not the basis of our government. And too often these days, political debates can sound like a proof texting contest with one side citing its favored biblical passages and the other side quoting its favored passages. These debates aren’t just counterproductive, they are irrelevant because U.S. law is not based on anyone’s interpretation of the Bible. And let’s be clear, interpretation is what these debates are about because there is no agreed- upon definition of what “biblical law” even means. Our government is secular, and that’s a good thing. Although that term is often considered a dirty word by the Religious Right, it shouldn’t be. Secularism is the platform upon which our religious freedom rests. We should embrace it and celebrate it. Three: Just because an argument is religious in nature does not mean it is beyond criticism. Its religious nature does not confer upon it some sort of special status. Nor is criticism of such a position an example of religious bigotry or an attack on religious freedom. The people who work against us have an agenda. It is a controversial one. It would affect people we love by stripping away their rights. We oppose this agenda. We speak out against it. The debate is spirited, sometimes heated. That’s how politics

works. Any group that comes into the public square with a controversial set of policy proposals must be prepared for pushback. When it comes to ultra-conservative proposals, our side often leads this pushback. We should be nice as we engage our opponents , but that doesn’t mean we have to roll over. Four: No religious group has the right to use the engine of the state to enforce its theology. If you want people to live under your religion’s rules, then persuade them to voluntarily adopt those rules. Persuasion is fine. Force is not. To be sure, every religious group has the right to be heard. But no religious group has the right to be obeyed. Furthermore, it’s all right for us to point out that some people want things they cannot have, at least not under our existing Constitution. We are a multi-faith, multi-philosophy democracy. We were not founded to be an officially Christian nation. As I’ve already noted, o ur Constitution is secular. Not only does the U.S. Constitution provide no safe harbor for theocracy, it actively mitigates against it. This is a good thing, and we should not hesitate to say that. Five: We have laws that govern the intersection of religion and politics. They ought to be followed. A federal law called the Johnson Amendment bars intervention in partisan politics by tax-exempt nonprofits, and this includes houses of worship. All 501 (c)(3) nonprofits must follow the Johnson Amendment. It bars these nonprofits from endorsing or opposing candidates for public office. It does not ban or curb issue advocacy in any way. You can speak out on issues all you want, but you must stop short of telling people which candidates they should vote for or against. Remember, tax exemption is a benefit, and it comes with conditions, one of which is the no-politicking rule. Conservative churches sometimes break this law. We should not. Six: Let’s not be afraid of a little transparency. Conservative groups tend to do a lot of things in the dark and hide wh at they’re up to. That’s not a good look for the folks on our side. L et’s be open about what we’re doing and put our agenda up front.