"Religion and Politics"

pdf format: click here

The Rev. Suzelle Lynch
September 19, 2004

Religion and politics – ah, what a great topic! Some say they should never mix – that the sacred and secular realms need to be kept separate. Some say "the personal is political," and that very little is more personal than one's faith. Some say that Unitarian Universalists are too invested in politics – and that our politics exclude those among us who are religious liberals, but not political or social liberals. Others say that the very heart of Unitarian Universalism is our commitment to classical liberal values like defending individual liberty or the right of dissent from orthodox tenets or established authorities in political or religious matters.

And speaking of dissent from orthodox tenets or established authorities, I'd like to share with you an observation from one of my favorite unorthodox authorities, humorist Dave Barry. About our nation's two major political parties, he writes: "The Democrats seem to be basically nicer people, but they have demonstrated time and again that they have the management skills of celery. They're the kind of people who'd stop to help you change a flat, but would somehow manage to set your car on fire. I would be reluctant to entrust them with a Cuisinart, let alone the economy. The Republicans, on the other hand, would know how to fix your tire, but they wouldn't bother to stop because they'd want to be on time for Ugly Pants Night at the country club." (Found at www.quotegarden.com)

Clearly Barry is an equal-opportunity heckler! As a left-leaning, mostly non-bumbling liberal Democrat, I want to squawk, "not fair." But I also want to squawk "not fair" because I know so many caring and compassionate Republicans, Independents, Greens, Libertarians, Socialists, and others – and many of them are Unitarian Universalists. There needs to be room for each of us and all of us to be our full, free, faithful selves here in our congregation.

Today I want to talk to you about how our kind of religion –Unitarian Universalism -- might shape our responses as citizens. For, after all, another one of those principles our Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations has covenanted to affirm and promote is “the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large.”

Now again, I know that some of us think that religious beliefs should have no bearing on political stands. We feel threatened or frustrated when religious conservatives use their rhetoric to oppose public policy initiatives that are important to us, or to promote ones that are at odds with what we believe.

But don’t we feel great when public policy is in line with our values and beliefs? Shouldn’t we work – as individual citizens and as a religious community to try to make this happen as much as possible?

But Suzelle, you might ask, what about the Constitution? What about separation of church and State? Don’t we have long-standing constitutional and philosophical traditions that limit the influence of religious sectarianism – including Unitarian Universalism – on public policy?
Here’s an answer from the expert – from Stephen L. Carter, Professor of Law at Yale University, and author of the book, “The Culture of Disbelief: How American Law and Politics Trivialize Religion.” (Basic Books, 1993, pp. 105-106.)

“The answer to the last question – as so often in the law – is ‘not exactly.’ The courts do indeed enforce a separation of church and state, … but one must be careful not to misunderstand what the doctrine and the First Amendment that is said to embody it were designed to do. Simply put, the metaphorical separation of church and state originated in an effort to protect religion from the state, not the state from religion. …. In modern, religiously pluralistic America, where… the religions play vital roles as independent sources of meaning for their adherents, this means that the government should neither force people into sectarian religious observances, such as classroom prayer in public schools, nor favor some religions over others, as by erecting a crèche paid for with public funds, nor punish people for their religiosity without a very strong reason other than prejudice. It does not mean, however, that people whose motivations are religious are banned from trying to influence government, nor that the government is banned from listening to them. Understanding this distinction is the key to preserving the necessary separation of church and state without resorting to a philosophical rhetoric that treats religion as an inferior way for citizens to come to public judgment.”

I will admit that I dislike hearing religious rhetoric from candidates. I like hearing it even less when leaders in our nation seem to imply that God sides with America. And these days, "politicians at the highest level are wearing their religion on their sleeves and justifying policies on the basis of their religious values. We have Prayer Breakfasts; … daily prayers at the Justice Department; a prominent General likening the war on terrorism to a religious war between the Christian God and … the god of Muslim extremists; public welfare in the process of being replaced by faith-based programs; and Christian evangelicals becoming the major constituent block of the Republican Party." (The Rev. Richard S. Gilbert "Mixing Politics and Religion: The Demise of Liberalism? 11/02/03)

But while I may not agree with the faith-based judgments of people whose religion is different from mine, I know that I, too, rely on my religious values in making my judgments as a citizen. The values I hold as a Unitarian Universalist, like upholding the inherent worth and dignity of all persons, the right of conscience and the use of the democratic process; peace, liberty and justice for all, and respect for the interdependent web of all existence are an effective screen through which I can view any issue and any candidate for public office. I also believe it is of critical importance that we put our values and beliefs into action and use our power as individual citizens and as a religious community to shape public dialogue and public policy.

And indeed, on both the Unitarian and Universalist sides of our heritage, we have a long history of doing just this. Our 19th century history is filled with social reformers, one of the most influential of whom was Unitarian minister Theodore Parker, who lived from 1810 to 1860. Parker involved himself in society’s business, stating, “if the minister is to promote religion, he is to meddle with the state’s business, the perishing classes, literature, science, morals, manners, everything that affects the welfare of mankind.” (In Gilbert, “The Prophetic Imperative,” p. 41.) In the face of pressing social issues, Parker called for the “church militant,” calling for a church organization that would address social injustice – not just providing support or charity for those in need, but acting to change the conditions that created the need. In his “Sermon on Poverty,” he observed, “Poverty will not be removed until the causes thereof are removed… we need both palliative charity and remedial justice.” Parker was particularly outspoken on the issue of slavery, as well as taking action against it, forming a Vigilante Committee to help runaway slaves, many of whom he harbored in his home, keeping a loaded pistol on his desk to defend them. (Gilbert, pp 43-44.)

Susan B. Anthony was another such reformer who found sustenance in Unitarianism, leaving the Quaker faith of her childhood when it would not support her antislavery views. In a famous interview with Nellie Bly, Anthony’s words are emblematic of the Unitarian attitude toward religion. When asked, “Do you pray?” she answered, “I pray every single second of my life; not on my knees, but with my work. My prayer is to lift women to equality with men. Work and worship are one with me. I cannot imagine a God of the universe made happy by my getting down on my knees and calling him great.” Our twentieth century reformers included John Haynes Holmes, a powerful pacifist minister who spoke out so passionately against World War I that the Unitarian Association disenfranchised him, and A. Powell Davies, whom history credits with the racial integration of public restaurants in Washington, DC during the Civil Rights movement. What all of these reformers have in common is the belief that our religion is no religion unless we live it, unless we let it inspire and encourage us to make real in the world what we believe in.

It is true that we can do this without getting involved with politics. Social service – that is, providing services to those in need, is one way. We do this – for example – when we provide meals for the homeless people at Guest House. Social education – becoming aware ourselves, and the letting the wider society know of the needs, and of the causes under those needs, is another way. We have done this around issues of peace and the environment. Social witness – protesting against the forces that oppress and cause injustice – is another.

But social action – in which we apply ourselves in an organized way to altering the forces that oppress and cause injustice, is the fourth, and most powerful way. And it most often means getting political.

What do I mean by this? We know that as a church, we cannot get involved in partisan politics. We cannot endorse candidates or show favor to one political party or another. If we do, we risk losing the privilege of having the donations our members and friends give to support this church be tax-deductible.

But we can publicly comment and educate the general public and elected officials on moral and political issues. We can advocate for or against specific public policies by speaking out on decisions by government agencies, executives, or courts. We can call, write, and meet with elected officials to support or oppose specific pieces of legislation. We can conduct nonpartisan voter registration drives and register and encourage members of our congregation and others in the community to vote. We can hold candidate forums, provided we invite all legally qualified candidates for office and discuss a large variety of topics. We can do our best to educate candidates on the issues important to our congregation and encourage them to adopt a sympathetic position (this paragraph adapted from the UUA Washington Office's "Real Rules" see www.uua.org/uuawo .)
It is clear that as individuals we can address candidates and issues, and that our church can empower us and give us the information and tools we need to do so. But besides holding candidate forums and registering voters, how can we take action as a congregation? For although we hold common values like justice for all and inherent worth and dignity of each human being, the ways in which we interpret those values into a position for or against a particular public policy proposition are, perhaps, as diverse as are our personal theologies.

The answer is that we can’t take a stand on any particular issue without careful process, including most likely, a vote of our membership.

Because just as it is in the public sphere, here inside our church, voting is a sacred trust. Each of us who is a member here has the right to vote on issues that come before a duly-called congregational meeting. We have a democratic system of congregational governance, because we believe that democracy expresses our faith in the power of human beings to shape their own lives.
Some of us question whether our church actually should take public stands on public issues. And truly, some Unitarian Universalist churches do not. But I would stand with Mahatma Gandhi when he said, “Those who say that religion has nothing to do with politics, do not know what religion means.” He meant was that religion must always challenge the state to live up to the highest ethical principles. The orthodox and evangelical Christian churches in our nation do not hesitate to bring their views to bear on the political process – if we hold ours back, we lose our voice.
My colleague, the Rev. Susan Manker-Seale said something in a sermon that I agree with heartily. She wrote: "As your minister, I speak from the pulpit on issues all year long, but it is my responsibility to honor the diversity of our congregation, and never assume we have one voice on any issue. Just as I have freedom of the pulpit to speak my truth as I see it, so do you (have freedom of the pew to weigh my words in the depths of your hearts and minds and come to your own conclusions). I will never (I hope) tell you how I think you should vote concerning any candidate or piece of legislation, but I will tell you what I think about the values I cherish and believe are essential to our living together in peace and justice…. (Altered from "Passionate Politics in the Religious Community," February 15, 2004.)

So let me tell you what I believe is essential to our living together in peace and justice. I believe it is essential for us to use our power and our voice as a congregation for the public good, and that means taking stands, publicly, as a church. Our faith matters in the public dialogue of our day on same-sex marriage, on environmental issues, on prison reform, on the civil rights of immigrants, on civil liberties, on education, on health care, on the war against terrorism, and more. Will taking a stand on any of these issues be easy? No. Not all of us will agree on every issue, and we'll have to be cognizant of the dissenters within our ranks and make room even as we move forward with a decision made by a majority vote. Even those of us who stand firmly behind a decision may find it uncomfortable to discuss with friends and relatives.

But "if religion is that core of meanings, values and conviction out of which we live our lives," (Richard Gilbert) then what else can we do?

Yesterday, about twenty of us attended the Rolling Thunder "Value Your Vote and Vote Your Values" event, which was created by WISDOM, a Wisconsin-wide faith-based community organizing group we participate in via our Social Action committee. I was proud that we were there with thousands of other people, hearing speakers on key issues and the responses of candidates, even though I assume that we Unitarian Universalists know the value of our votes, and that we take the time to educate ourselves on the important issues so that we can vote our values.

It was good to be there to hear the different voices of people of faith and see their different faces. It was good join our strength with their strength, and to hear their stories of success in working for lasting change as well as stories of the difficult conditions we are working to change. It was good to be there to hear the choir singing, "No man is an island, no man stands alone. Each man’s joy is joy to me, each man’s grief is my own…" And "We are One."

It was good to be there, because those songs are true. We are one. We must know ourselves as par of the larger whole, as elements in the greater good. And when we get involved in the political arena, when we take action as citizens and use the power of our vote, we celebrate that oneness, that unity, that undergirds our liberty.

So let’s get out there and do it.

Amen.