This election year it seems like there is more involvement by churches in terms of letting candidates speak as well as candidates speaking about religious issues than I recall from the past. My memory may be flawed but Saddleback Church hosted both candidates and asked both candidates about a variety of questions. This got me to thinking about the mix of religion and politics and how we often try to separate them.
What I mean by the separation is that our society seems to place a sense of error on those that have convictions that are derived from a faith based system. These convictions are referred to as “religious” and often given less weight because of the base from which these beliefs were derived. Values that have a basis from a religious text are considered antiquated, or inferior to “current thinking.” For instance, Barak Obama raises this point in the following video from YouTube . An intresting assertion is where Senator Obama is talking about his claim that we cannot enforce laws or govern based on religious arguments because “… in a pluralistic society we have no choice. Politics depends on our ability to pursuade each other of common aims based on a common reality. It involves compromise, the art of what’s possible. At some level, religion does not allow for compromise.”
(Parenthetical comment here: By the way, I’m not picking on Senator Obama. I thought he was very articulate in this clip and although I can’t say I completely agree with his comments, they did get me to thinking. To be honest, every candidate that runs in the political systemhas to make choices about their value systems; many times when their values are in conflict with the mass opinion; it’s a tough job)
He’s right. Most “religions” do not allow for compromise over certain values that they hold to be foundational. And in many cases, these values can be in conflict. So, the question that arises is how do we resolve these conflicts? In a pluralistic society how do we choose our morality?
As stated earlier, we use the term “religious” to denote people who have a set of values based on some sense of a spiritual nature. For instance, Christians, Jews, Moslems and most religions say it is wrong to steal. There is little argument over this value and I would suspect that most, if not all nations, have some law that indicates there is a punishment for taking someone else’s property. No dispute, no long winded debates and no candidates saying “I’m for stealing and my opponent is against it.” We agree so its not a problem.
Where its a problem is where we do not agree. Abortion is an issue that has been debated for a long time and is probably one of the most polarizing issues we face in the US. Ms. Nancy Pelosi was asked a question on “Meet the Press” back in August. Here is what Tom Brokaw asked:
“Senator Obama saying the question of when life begins is above his pay grade, whether you’re looking at it scientifically or theologically. If he were to come to you and say, ‘Help me out here, Madame Speaker. When does life begin?’ what would you tell him?”
Ms. Pelosi answered, “I would say that as an ardent, practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time. And what I know is, over the centuries, the doctors of the church have not been able to make that definition. And Senator–St. Augustine said at three months. We don’t know. The point is, is that it shouldn’t have an impact on the woman’s right to choose.”
I’m not going to get into the politics of abortion except to say that we have several different view points on what the right answer is. Some say life begins at conception so abortion is wrong under any circumstances. Others say its ok if the pregnancy was caused by a rape or an incestuous relationship. Another opinion is that it is acceptable anytime before birth. Even our current laws seem to be in conflict on this issue as a person could be prosecuted for manslaughter if they caused an unborn child’s death but say its ok for the mother to terminate its life if its in the first three months. There are a lot of conflicting opinions about what the right answer is.
What is interesting is that many of the arguments against abortion are drawn from spiritual sources and most of the arguments in favor of abortion are drawn from societal desires, or morality of mass opinion. Does mass opinion trump spiritual morality? It would seem that societal morality is becoming the new religion. At least, what used to be considered moral absolutes are the spiritual minority.
My point is that whatever a person believes is derived from his religion. Whether that is the religion of tradition, spiritual enlightenment or mass morality or pure self interest; the basis for those decisions is their religion. The decisions people make about not lying, helping their neighbor or keeping the extra change a cashier accidentally gave them come from the core of their belief system, or better stated, their religion.
At the end of the day the only way everyone can be right is if there is no standard by which to measure right and wrong. I don’t think living in that world would be very pleasant. One thing is sure, every person on this planet will one day face death. In that day all the questions about morality, good and bad and who was right and who was wrong will be answered. Until that day, every one of us lives out his or her religion in the form the choices we make and the paths we choose. Choose wisely.