religion and politics

[Guest guest]

My dearest friends and Siblings,

A Roman Catholic bishop in the US City called

Colorado Springs made an announcement recently. He

decreed that beginning now, any Catholic in Colorado

Springs who votes for political candidates who oppose

the Church's teachings on various subjects (gay

marriage, abortion, etc.) will be denied the right to

participate in Church sacraments such as holy

communion. Thus Senator John Kerry, candidate for the

Presidency, would be denied the right to receive

communion if he were to visit Colorado Springs.

This raises an important issue that I wish to

address. What is the proper way in which religion and

public politics should interact? This is hardly a new

question. Indeed, it is many thousands of years old. I

would like to offer my hunble thoughts.

Each religion has its own ethical teachings.

Judaism produced the Ten Commandments; Christianity

has the "Golden Rule" (Do to others as you would wish

them to do to you), Hinduism has the concept of dharma

or proper behavior, etc. These sets of ethical

standards differ from one faith to the next, although

there are some similarities among major world

religions.

Each faith certainly has a right to believe in

its own teachings. Believers in that faith will comply

voluntarily with the ethical guidelines if they truly

believe in these teachings. True devotees will quite

naturally be enthusiastic about living their lives the

way that their religion advocates.

The problem arises when a given community

contains members of more than one religion. Does the

majority have the right to force the minority to

accept the ethical codes of the majority? Certainly

not, so long as these do not interfere with the rights

of the majority to act in their own manner. Do Moslems

have the right to force Hindu or Christian women to

wear veils? Certainly not. Conversely, Hindus and

Christians have no right to force Moslem women to

remove their veils. Each woman should be free to do as

she wishes, following the dictates of her own

conscience.

How does this bishop in Colorado Springs fit this

criterion? The Roman Catholic religion teaches that

homosexuality is evil and should not be accepted

within the Roman Catholic Church. Fine. They have

every right to this belief and it is not for those of

us of other faiths to interfere. However, there are

other religious groups in the same community that

disagree. Methodists, Episcopalians, Unitarian

Universalists, and several other groups in the United

States believe that homosexuality is acceptible.

Indeed, each of these has a significant number of

openly homosexual clergy. Do the Catholics have the

right to dictate to these other groups that they

should change their beliefs? Certainly not. But this

is exactly what they are doing when they encourage

public governments to outlaw homosexuality for

everyone.

Does this mean that religious leaders should

never become involved in politics? Were Desmond Tutu

and Martin Luther King in error in their efforts? No.

In both of these cases, these leaders saw injustices

in the societies around them, powerful people denying

basic human rights to the less powerful. Our criterion

before was that no religious group had the right to

dictate to another; it follows from this that no group

in society should have the right to dictate to

another, to deny to another group the right to aspire

to improve its lot and live as it desires. In such

cases, religious leaders have not merely a right but a

moral obligation to work toward defending the weak and

supporting freedom and tolerance. If they wish this

freedom for themselves, the right to teach what they

with want without outside interference, they must be

willing to fight for the same right for others.

 

Sister Usha

 

=====

Sister Usha Devi

Founder, Divinely Female and worshipper of the Sacred Flame that shines inside

every woman

 

 

 

 

 

 

SBC - Internet access at a great low price.

http://promo./sbc/

[Guest guest]

Dear Sister Usha:

 

Thank you for this thoughtful post. You noted that:

 

*** A Roman Catholic bishop in Colorado Springs made an announcement

that beginning now, any Catholic in Colorado Springs who votes for

political candidates who oppose the Church's teachings on various

subjects (gay marriage, abortion, etc.) will be denied the right to

participate in Church sacraments such as holy communion.***

 

One word springs to mind: Grandstanding!

 

How exactly does the good bishop propose to *know* who voted for or

against these things? Will Jesus tell him, just like he told George W.

Bush to invade Iraq in spite of massive domestic and global

opposition? Or will the bishop ask the congregation to submit to an

honor system? "If you've voted for bad things, then let us know so we

won't give you any communion!" That's garbage. Those people who (a)

disagree with the Church's social pronouncements, but (b) have decided

to keep going to Catholic Mass anyway have -- by definition -- already

made their decision: They accept and believe in the Roman Catholic

Church, but they do not accept the interpretations of the human beings

who currently administer that Church. They are precisely the same

people who will not give the slightest credence to some nutty neo-con

bishop's reactionary posturing.

 

So the bishop is just shopping for headlines. He's looking to

advertise his social views. Thank you very much, bishop. Now sit down.

 

It's no secret that the Roman Catholic Church is at a decisive

crossroads. It is hemorrhaging members at an alarming rate. The

pedophilic priest controversy, and the Church's rather appalling

attempts to avoid accountability for it, have caused many loyal

Catholics a crisis of faith. After the liberalizing measures of the

early 1960's, the conservative factions within the Church seem to have

definitively reasserted control. The result is an unbending dogmatism

that is increasingly unresponsive to the needs of women and men who

must live in a difficult and rapidly changing world.

 

It's as if a buggywhip company kept producing their product without

changes into the automotive age. It seems insane, I know, to compare a

religion to a product and the faithful to consumers. But that's what

it is! When you stop meeting the needs of your public, your public --

however loyal -- eventually begins wandering away.

 

So let the good bishop turn Holy Communion into a private,

conservative country club, defining itself by who it excludes. I am

sure that Jesus of Nazareth would be very proud of him. Perhaps when

his Church is completely emptied out, the bishop will feel that he has

succeeded in purging those elements who are so impure as to not think

like him.

 

DB

[Guest guest]

My dearest friend,

You are of course quite correct that the bishop has no way of

knowing which members vote for which candidate. Indeed, they do not

even check names of people who are lined up for this communion

ceremony. I have attended this and seen for myself. Anybody who wants

to participate does so silently and anonymously. As I read the

newspaper, this statement by the bishop seems directed largely at

Senator Kerry personally, in an attempt to force him to change his

political beliefs.

Remember European history, please. The Roman Catholic church was

first created during the Roman Empire as an arm of the Empire. It was

the only piece of the Roman government to survive the collapse of the

empire 1500 years ago. The Church still acts imperiously today,

dictating to people what they should do and how they should behave,

punishing those who disobey. Times are past when the "Holy Mother

Church" could burn people alive for disobeying. All with which they

can threaten people is refusing permission to participate in these

ceremonies. Refusing permission for Communion is an empty threat, as

you say, but refusing permission for weddings and funerals might

create more problems.

 

Sister Usha

[Guest guest]

Dear Usha (and Jimmy):

 

I guess this thread doesn't have much to do directly with the board

topic, but it is interesting as a discussion of religious intolerance

in general. So I'll keep the ball in the air! :-) Usha wrote:

 

*** As I read the newspaper, this statement by the bishop seems

directed largely at Senator Kerry personally, in an attempt to force

him to change his political beliefs. ***

 

Yes, and since no sane person would expect John Kerry to change his

political beliefs in order to take communion in Colorado Springs, I

stand by my position that the bishop is grandstanding and seeking

cheap publicity.

 

*** The Church still acts imperiously today, dictating to people what

they should do and how they should behave, punishing those who

disobey. ... Refusing permission for Communion is an empty threat, as

you say, but refusing permission for weddings and funerals might

create more problems. ***

 

True. Which is exactly why I noted that those who (a) have emotional

and traditional bonds to the Church and to not want to leave it; but

(b) do not agree with the conservative interpretations of the Church's

current stewards -- these people have already made their compromise.

They must lie or not take communion, lie or not get married in the

Church, lie or not bury a loved one with Church rites. The Church has

literally forced them into (what Jimmy correctly characterized as) a

"don't ask, don't tell" position. I understand that this is a common

corollary of any conservative philosophy, but it doesn't strike me as

a particularly promising basis for the long-term health of an

organization whose supposed purpose is to serve the spiritual needs of

its followers.

 

Along these same lines, I'd also like to disagree with Jimmy's

assertion that my reply to Usha "completely missed the point." Jimmy said:

 

*** The bishop is perfectly correct and justified in his actions.

anyone who follows a don't ask/don't tell policy ... in order to

receive communion is being dishonest with themselves. If a person

doesn't believe and accept two main principles (Holy Communion and

Church hierarchy/leader's authority) of their religion, change

religions! That is why the Protestant faiths developed. Perhaps more

importantly it is why many westerners were drawn to Hinduism, etc. ***

 

Far from countering my point, I think you are reinforcing it. That is

why I noted that it is unfortunate when Church leaders seem to measure

their success by the number of people they can turn away from the faith.

 

Logically, of course, you're right -- unhappy Catholics should simply

find a new religion that jives better with their social and emotional

reality. But for many people, lifelong bonds of tradition, family,

sentiment, conviction, and patterns of belief aren't so easy to break.

And to say Catholics must "accept the heirarchy/leader's authority"

oversimplifies matters.

 

There are Catholics who still don't accept the Vatican II reforms of

the early 60's -- they still like their Masses in Latin, and their

music on the pipe organ only. The Church accepts these deviations from

the currently prevailing norm, endorsed by the Pope -- which would've

gotten the heretics burned at the stake 500 years ago. History has

turned numerous Popes into villains, and numerous hertics into saints.

 

You say, "the bishop is perfectly correct and justified in his

actions." Perhaps so. But so, arguably, are those who continue to take

communion, get married and bury their dead in his congregation, paying

no heed to his publicity ploy.

 

Shall we agree to disagree?

 

DB