Religion, Values and Politics, Oh, My!

Rev. Grace H. Simons

I want you to know that I am outraged - outraged - when I hear of religious leaders claiming that God wants them to vote for a certain candidate, threatening their adherents for their political opinions or financing political campaigns. I'm sure that you're aware that pro-choice legislators and candidates were refused communion in some Catholic churches during the last campaign. We know that the Latter Day Saints provided major funding for Proposition 8 in California's 2008 election. Too many churches still provide "Voter Guides" detailing support for candidates and ballot measures. And some churches told Obama supporters that they were no longer welcome as members. It is outrageous!

I go beyond irritation at talk of "family values," as if their ideas about obedience, punishment and sexist hierarchies of dominance are virtues. They speak as if no other values exist among family members; as if no one else really cares about their families!

I am offended by descriptions of so called "values voters." I don't fit those descriptions. And I definitely think I am a values voter!

Having said all that, you're likely aware that I'm a rather public advocate for marriage equality, religious freedom, equality for women, health care for all and environmental responsibility. I definitely have ideas about family values, civil rights and liberties, and what constitutes humane treatment of anyone, regardless of race, creed, ethnicity, economic status, sexual orientation, political opposition and on down the familiar lists of "frequently marginalized groups." All these positions are rooted in my religion and the principles, ideals and values Unitarian Universalists share. Furthermore, I am committed to the use of the democratic process as a matter of religious principle.

So. How do I square my faith-based political advocacy with my opposition to those other faith-based advocacies that I said were so outrageous? How do I reconcile my values-based political positions with my commitment to the principle of separation of church and state? How, indeed!?!

Well, let's talk about this. Let me start by pointing out a couple of things I want to avoid. One of them is a habit I detect among Unitarian Universalists, who sometimes rant against religion as if they aren't involved in one. In case there's any doubt, if you are a UU, you are part of a religious community. I am not going to claim that their values are suspect, even outrageous, because they are religious and mine are not. That simply isn't true. My religion calls me to justice and love, to mercy and responsibility. Many of my political positions are based on those religious principles.

I don't want to say that those who disagree with my stands are just stupid, ignorant or malicious. (It's tempting, though!) Certainly, I often disagree vehemently with the things I hear. I am aware enough of human greed and weakness to know that people aren't always straightforward about their true aims and intentions. But I'm also aware that I have my own set of experiences, different in greater or smaller degree from those of others, and so I cannot possibly understand or even imagine their perspectives fully. I know that, as much as I have struggled to form my beliefs and political understandings, I may well have missed some important factors that others see, even find over-riding. And I know that some thoughtful, conscientious Unitarian Universalists disagree with some of my positions, even though we share the same faith.

Which leads me to the Greeks. Didn't exactly expect that, did you? But it's so. You see, the Greeks had this thing about hubris and reverence. Their religious system was a lot different than those currently practiced widely in our culture, and their gods were a lot more human in terms of being subject to the whims of very human emotions - jealousy, lust, anger, jollity, parental care, pride, vengefulness, trickery, delight in food and drink; the list goes on and on. You are probably familiar with a number of the stories from the Greek myths. But despite their sometimes ordinary behaviors, the Greek gods did have extraordinary power and they didn't like it one bit when some mere mortal dared to tread on their prerogatives.

A person who did that was guilty of hubris - overweening pride or certainty. And that's one of the things that I see in the kind of pronouncements I listed earlier. I like the Greek understanding of hubris and reverence as opposites. Nowadays, a lot of us think of reverence as implying some sort of abject state, a kind of superstitious awe elicited when certain holy people or objects are encountered. That kind of reverence tends to give Unitarian Universalists the creeps. But the Greeks saw reverence as the opposite of hubris. It had to do with having a realistic perspective on who you are and what strengths and limitations you carry. Briefly phrased, it's the awareness that none of us humans are gods. They thought (and I think) it's best for us to behave with that in mind. We need that kind of reverence when we take political stands. And I'd say it's in very short supply.

A related concept is found in the Jewish tradition. Their images of God are much different from the Greeks, but they weren't too far away from warnings about hubris. When I first heard that traditional Jewish practice forbids anyone to speak or spell the name of God, I thought it was a silly, oppressive, undemocratic idea. I have changed my mind. Now I think it's a reminder that when any of us speak of what's right and true, especially about religious truth and divine commands, we'd better tread softly. The prophet Micah reminds us to "do justice, love kindness and walk humbly with your God." I have been known to remind some local clergy that we'd best be humble when we speak of the mind of God. There are plenty of things we do not know for certain. We need to remember that.

Disregard of that humility, that reverence, is one of the reasons I find some faith-based political positions so outrageous. These people claim to speak for God! Some say that God has spoken to them, told them to do or say things. Florida's Terry Jones is just the latest and, thank heaven, he changed his mind about burning the Koran. I don't know why. Maybe he thinks god spoke to him again. Some say that the Bible or another scripture is the infallible word of God. I'm afraid I just don't believe it. I say that all of the various Scriptures are attempts at understanding the powers of existence and our place in this universe. Attempts. All of them have some nuggets of insight and inspiration. None of them have all the answers. Claiming otherwise is hubris. And that leads to outrageous statements.

If, as I believe, our understandings are incomplete, it follows that no one should force or pressure others to believe as they do or act in accordance with their beliefs, unless it's something that endangers others. We like to talk about religious freedom in the United States, but too often, we mean freedom for me to practice my religion and freedom for you to practice my religion. Truth be told, that's what the Pilgrims and Puritans wanted. They were pretty intolerant folks. But by the time our founding documents were written, a broader perspective had developed. We've been living into that more expansive meaning of religious freedom. I trust we will continue to do so as American religion becomes more and more diverse. Membership in a particular religion is not a requirement for office in America. And the idea that a religious community would shun or reject someone because of the candidate they support shows attitudes that not only pressure people to conform, but flagrantly violate Christian commands to love our neighbor.

I find it outrageous that some people advocate for the law to require all our people to act in accordance with their beliefs, even when no harm to others would be caused. Furthermore, I believe that these laws - say restricting family planning or denying marriage equality to same sex couples - do, themselves, cause harm. People's freedoms and rights are restricted. They become second class citizens. My own religious freedom is curtailed when the state of California says I cannot honor, bless and legitimize the loving relationships of every couple in the same way when they want to be married. My religion calls me to honor the worth of every person. The state says I can't do that. I will not be free in this context until the law is changed.

Because both law and religion are concerned with what is right, I think there will always be influence and connection between them. In our system, the establishment of law means politics. So, religion, and the values that come from our fundamental beliefs, will always influence people's politics. I think that is simply a statement of fact. The problems come as we try to arrive at what constitutes appropriate connection and influence. That's what I have tried to explore this morning. We are advised not to talk about religion and politics in polite conversation because they tap into those fundamental beliefs, and when that happens, passions run high. It's no surprise that I find some statements of the political positions of religious leaders outrageous.

And it's a combination of disagreeing with their position (which I try to do rationally) and their methods (which sometimes incense me.) I understand that different faiths may lead to political positions that I oppose. That's one thing. And as I mentioned, we UUs don't necessarily agree, and we share the same faith. But when their methods show hubris and certainty, when they claim to speak for God, and when they threaten or pressure others to conform to their political stands, that's something else again. And that's what, to me, violates the principle of separation of church and state. Enacting one religion into laws affecting everyone is unacceptable.

And that's where I would say that my political advocacy - occasionally in the name of this congregation - differs from theirs. We both have positions influenced by our religious beliefs and values. But I try to speak with awareness that my answers are necessarily incomplete and may need a wider view, and that everyone has the right to their political and religious stands without being subject to threat. I try to take a long view and to be guided by the idea that the greatest good for the greatest number of people is the greatest outcome. And I believe that we should all have the most freedom compatible with doing no injury to others.

With this year's election season hard upon us, I know there will be times when we're all talking religion and politics. Here in California, political ads have afflicted us for months already. As usual, we have both candidates and proposals to consider. I hope that my words will be helpful as you try to have conversations with folks who have differing political ideas. I hope that, sometimes at least, we can get beyond name calling and talk about principles and ways to enhance the common good. I hope we can avoid becoming outrageous, even when we're outraged. That's a neat trick; one well worth mastering. And I believe it can lead to a different kind of conversation about values and politics, something we definitely need.

September 19, 2010

Rev. Grace Simons left us a collection of her sermons when she retired in October, 2011. We have a brief biography of Rev. Grace, and the last edition of Grace Notes, a column she wrote for our newsletter.
We also have sermons by Rev. Joe Cherry, our Interim Minister.
Our Guests, who include visiting clergy, lay people and one rocket scientist.