Religion in the Public Sphere

This year’s US presidential election features the first time a major party has nominated (well, soon to nominate) a Mormon (aka Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints).  There’s lots of chatter about whether a Mormon should be president and whether his Mormon faith could or should affect his decisions as president.

Now whether or not Mr. Romney would let his faith affect his decisions, the first item to realize is that the US Constitution forbids any religious tests to hold public office; you cannot disqualify anyone from office because of their religious beliefs.  If one believes that those beliefs are not consistent with the Constitution or that their beliefs show a lack of judgment, that is a completely different matter and a different set of standards.  It also requires the individual making those judgments to understand the person’s beliefs well enough to make an informed decision rather than acting out of ignorance and bigotry.

The second issue I see arising is a sense that some people believe that a person can, or would be better off to, act without regard to their beliefs.  If I hear someone say this, I am immediately suspicious.

One’s beliefs are an inner moral compass; they affect who you are and how you see the world.  To act without regard to one’s beliefs is to act without have a moral guide.  The only type of person I know of that can do this is a psychopath.  No offense, but America has enough problems keeping her politicians honest without electing psychopaths.  Clearly, most people do in fact make decisions based on some set of moral values.  The person who says otherwise either isn’t telling the truth or doesn’t realize what they are saying.

Some politicians will say that their personal beliefs will not get in the way of performing their elected duties.  That may be possible to a limited degree, but I contend that such a person really doesn’t hold the level of commitment to their beliefs that they think they do.

Very well then, what about those who would reply that, if you  believe that Christianity is the only way to God, then if you’re not seeking to pass a law declaring everybody should be a Christian, then you aren’t a very good Christian?  This approach has been tried before and failed (the Roman Empire under Constantine) because Christianity is a personal choice that cannot be forced on someone, so no ,the question does not apply.

In our constitutional republic (sorry folks, we’re really not a democracy), our officials owe the public the benefit of acting as who they are; all of who they are.  But a second question arises: doesn’t this run afoul of the separation of church and state?  Unless the official is trying to set a religion in which citizens are required to participate.  Besides, the second part of the religion issue in the First Amendment also applies – US law cannot deny the free exercise of religion either.  Once again, just because someone had religious convictions cannot disqualify them.

Chick-fil-A

I am amazed how rapidly a societal norm over the past 3,000 years of Western civilization has become thought of as a symbol of hate.  Case in point: the CEO of Chick-fil-A said in an interview that he supported the traditional definition of marriage.  He was immediately savaged in the press as a hate monger for not supporting gay rights.  Lots of folks that are usually very vocal on such issues chimed in (activists, celebrities, lefts, et al).

Couple of items come to mind.  Logically, being for one thing does not automatically translate to being against something else.  The press hasn’t exactly been forthcoming on which position is the most prominent in the US.  If one gauged the position by laws passed, traditional marriage wins hands down, as every state that has put the item on a state-wide ballot has passed (total of 30 states).

I’ve also noticed the hypocrisy of those folks screaming about how awful Chick-fil-A is for their position.  These people are trying to make Chick-fil-A a social pariah.  The irony is that quite a few of these same people preach tolerance and cultural diversity as long as the subject in question means open up society to their way of thinking.  (An interesting side item – are you really tolerant if you do not tolerate those that won’t tolerate you?)  These folks seem to confuse the tolerance with acceptance; I can and do tolerate many viewpoints in society that I do not accept as my own.

So what is my viewpoint on this subject?  Well, that is a little bit complicated.  The bottom line is that, to me, it doesn’t matter what my personal opinion might be.  Huh?  This issue, like many others, is tied directly to my view of faith and how that faith should direct my world view. 

As a Christian, I read that Jesus himself talked of marriage as one man and one woman.  Other biblical writers conveyed the same sentiment; that man and woman are a compliment to each other and that the pattern of husband/wife is a metaphor for the relationship of Christ to the church.
I have Christian friends that disagree with me and say that God would not hate gay people so much as to deny them the right to marry.  My reply would be that their question ignores the plain meaning of what Jesus himself gave to marriage.  I’ll accept what God plainly says before I try and get into God’s head.

If I didn’t look to my faith first, I might have a different view.  I understand why a gay person might not like traditional marriage; I’m in the arts and have many gay friends.  Nevertheless, I do look first to my faith, so any personal view would be irrelevant.  I would be a fool to think that God got it wrong.

The argument might be raised that my faith should not be used to define public policy.  Well, my faith is part of who I am as an individual, and as an individual, I have the right to participate in public society.  As such, my faith comes along with me.

More on that in my next post ….

Tragedies

Tragedy strikes in America.  It’s horrifying to think that there are nut cases who do something like this.

What saddens me almost as much that folks use this to blame their favorite (or, if you would, least favorite) thing in society for such an event.  It’s guns, or violent movies, or political movements that they disagree with.  I think there is one particular thing that can be blamed, yet it never gets the blame for such tragedies because the blame lies not outside the perpetrator, but inside them.  All these other things may contribute to the problem, but they don’t address the primary cause.

We fail to understand these tragedies because we (I’m speaking of the collective “we”, not the individual “we”) fail to acknowledge the nature of mankind.

People are capable of doing many great and charitable things, but they are also capable of horrific acts.  In fact, without external restraints, the later are more likely than the former.  Many names exist for this human state: the natural man, the savage man, the sinful man.  No matter what you call him, he exists and unless something reins him in, he can and will do awful deeds.

A strong social contract can sometimes do the trick - live in peace with the rest of us, or we’ll punish you.  To this end, governments are instituted to police human behavior.  Yet even so, punishments are still needed as this merely mutes wicked desires rather than eliminating them.
Who can one trust to free our base instincts when we all have them, and therefore everything we touch will be flawed?  Sounds like a job for Superman?  Well, kind of.  Only Superman in the comic book variety doesn’t exist.

Can we derive a code of conduct from nature?  Perhaps, except for two problems: 1) how can we know if nature itself is free from the same curse that plagues mankind? and 2) unless the blueprint is so clear that all mankind can read it, who gets to interpret nature on behalf of mankind?

We fail to properly address the root cause of tragedies because we (collective “we”) refuse to acknowledge our base nature.

If not ourselves or nature, what can correct our inner flaws?  One of two options exists: either there is something outside us and nature or there isn’t.  If there isn’t anything else, then we are screwed; just realized how awful we really are and manage our affairs for certain disasters.  If there is something, which some call “God”, then one of two options exists: either God will help us or God won’t help us.  If God won’t help us, we’re still screwed.  But if God can, why not give God a try.  Looking at the other options, what do we have to lose?

God and Country

As a child, I was taught that being a good American was as important as being a good Christian.  God and Country was just that – not God then Country; God and Country were on the same level of importance.  At times, this arrangement could be justified.  After all, we were fighting an atheist enemy.  Not only that, the practitioners of this ideology killed more of its own citizens that any group in the history of the world.

This hierarchy of allegiance was confusing to me as a kid.  Over the years, I’ve settled the issue, not by thinking about the relationship of the citizen as much as thinking about the character of the individual. 

We are all flawed beings.  As such, how can something we create be on the same level as a perfect God?

Here’s another factor that muddies the waters for a lot of people: The Bible tells us that we should be in subjection to the powers that reign over us.  True.  Yet, America has a rather unique place in the history of nations.  As a representative republic, the power to which I am supposed to subject myself to also desires my input.  I am permitted to have my say pertaining to the direction of my government.  Permitted, but not required.  I am not forced to participate.

So, the second tier of my allegiances wants me to be an active member if I so choose.  So does the first, but that is a subject for another day …

What am I thinking?

I am going to write about hope, even though it won’t always seem that way   Hope for tomorrow and today.  You see, when tomorrow comes, it will be today.

I don’t expect anyone to agree with my thoughts; everyone else has as much right to be wrong as I do.  I also don’t really care if anyone if offended by my thoughts; I’ve never seen anything that says an individual has a right not to be offended – I’m not even sure such an attitude is healthy.

And so, my adventure begins.  If you are reading this, understand that having readers is nice, but more important to me is the opportunity to hone my writing skills and clarify my thoughts and beliefs.

My topics will range from personal observations to faith and social issues.  While I find politics fascinating, pure politics is not really my thing.  Politics is only interesting as it relates to how I believe I should live my life.

I’m not asking for approval, just an open mind.