Texas Faith: How should we incorporate faith into a secular political world?

The writer Karen Armstrong recently noted that it was through bitter experience the west learned to separate the state from religion and wonders why Muslims have “found it impossible to arrive at this logical solution to their current problems.”

“Why do they cling with perverse obstinacy to the obviously bad idea of theocracy? Why, in short, have they been unable to enter the modern world?”

We’ve all asked these questions so often. If only these extremists would lay down their arms and embrace plural, diverse societies, they would see the benefit.

But as Armstrong so clearly writes, the path to our sort of secular and plural society, where we try to divide politics and religion, has been anything but bloodless.

“If some Muslims today fight shy of secularism, it is not because they have been brainwashed by their faith but because they have often experienced efforts at secularisation in a particularly virulent form. Many regard the west’s devotion to the separation of religion and politics as incompatible with admired western ideals such as democracy and freedom.”

Acknowledging this past is important, even if it is unlikely to impress fanatics and extremists.

Perhaps more helpful questions for us are these: how do we, as people practicing and preserving our faiths, segregate the political from the spiritual in our own lives? What lessons can we offer those who want their faith to infuse all elements of their lives and are skeptical of a society and political system that calls for secularism? Are we fooling ourselves that we can have both? Are we cheating one aspect of our lives, spiritual or civic, to serve the other?

Our panelists respond on the jump.

FR. JOSHUA WHITFIELD: Parochial Vicar & Director of Faith Formation and Education, St. Rita Catholic Church
The challenges and opportunities of pluralism are nothing new. Even Paul, long ago, acknowledged a world of “many gods and many lords.” That there were innumerable deities, devotions, and creeds didn’t seem to bother him much less dissuade him. “For us,” he said, “there is one God.” His was the God of Abraham and the God of Jesus Christ, the unknown God made known in a Nazorean peasant.

Admittedly, his is a message that doesn’t easily fit within some modern thought regarding the private and apolitical place of religion. The serviceable misinterpretations of New Testament texts such as Romans 13 and Matthew 22:21, which suggest that either Paul or Jesus or both established a religion purely spiritual and personal, are just that—misinterpretations. Both Jesus and Paul used political language, and it’s hard to imagine that either of them intended their followers to be apolitical. Rather, they intended much the opposite. The question was and remains not whether Christians should be political or apolitical but, rather, how they should be political.

But before we get to that, we must acknowledge the place and power of the stories we tell ourselves about the origins of Western modernity and secularism. Some of these stories are sheer myth—ridiculously self-serving narratives, regaling us of a dark and wicked past full of torture and blind faith. Others are far more plausible and sophisticated, acknowledging the truer complexity of history and the birth of nations and of secular liberal politics. Whatever the merits of any one historical theory, however, the message is usually the same: secular politics entered a world fraught with the dangers of religious political violence as a less violent alternative, as a politics less moored to the extremes of the eternal and therefore less enamored of the sort of absolutes that can get us into rather bloody trouble.

But is this true? Talal Asad, in his remarkable book On Suicide Bombing, gives us reason to question the notion that liberal secular politics is somehow less violent. He points out quite clearly that “modern states are able to destroy and disrupt life more easily and on a much grander scale than ever before.” Secular politics, he argues, is not inherently less violent. It’s simply a different form of violence, prizing a different form of life and not life as such in all its variety. Sam Harris exemplifies this irony, for although he hallows the peacefulness of “rational” secular politics, he argues at the same time that we should keep our nuclear warheads ready for an advance strike in the Middle East, a strike that may kill millions of innocents—something he “rationally” laments but nonetheless accepts as “the only course of action available to us, given what Islamists believe.” Our politics is not less violent. It simply makes use of a different sort of violence.

Which brings us back to our earlier question: how should Christians be political in a pluralist world? The answer is that Christians are called to be the Church, that is, an alternative community with an alternative politics. Christians, of course, must be good citizens, seeking the relative peace of earthly politics. Deeper, however, Christians are to live together the virtues of charity and mercy among themselves and toward the stranger—living out before the watching world the peaceful and merciful ways of God. It is when a faith community authentically lives according to its own virtues (of charity and mercy and the like) that it best serves this beautifully diverse world. The rabbinic idea of darkhei shalom, “the ways of peace,” exemplifies this beautifully. But this is true not only for Christians and Jews, but for every one of every faith.

All of this is better understood not in political theories but in people—in persons of every faith who live quietly, rarely grabbing headlines. People like Christian de Chergé, the Cistercian monk who was assassinated along with six of his brothers in Algeria in 1996. He gave his life to the people of Islam. He dreamt of a day when, in heaven, he could contemplate the mystery of the Holy Spirit—“whose secret joy,” he said, “ will always be to establish communion…playing with the differences.” He didn’t condemn or try to prove people wrong. He simply served and prayed. When confronted by the extremism we all have now come to know, he didn’t call for airstrikes or declare a “war on terror.” Rather, he simply stayed where he was and continued to serve and pray—vulnerably peaceful in this violent world. And his prayer was simple. It’s perhaps the wisest prayer of our age, a prayer worthy of us all, whatever our faith or lack of it. “Disarm me, disarm them,” he prayed again and again—this peaceful monk. If any of us should dare to be peaceful people in this plural world—whatever our faith—this should be our prayer too.

DARRELL BOCK, Executive Director of Cultural Engagement, Howard G. Hendricks Center for Christian Leadership and Cultural Engagement, Senior Research Professor of New Testament Studies Dallas Theological Seminary
The issue in this conversation is not to choose between secularism and religious belief. We have people on each side of that divide. The issue is learning how to live well with that diversity. This means recognizing how and why each side makes its points and allowing each to make its points in the public square with the chips fallign where they may in the corporate conversation. It is the move to dictate that one side or another get banished from that public forum that contributes to the frustration either group feels when that attempt is made. Freedom does mean freedom of conscience in terms of functioning alongside each other as long the citizenship and humanity of each is respected as ideas are contended for in the public debate. So let faith and politics mix for those who sense a moral base is enhanced with its presence. The same should go for those who prefer to work strictly from secular grounds. Since government and political rights start with the people, let the people function as they see fit as individual humans seeking the best for society as each group makes its case.

HOWARD S. COHEN, Lecturer in Jewish/Christian Relations and member of Congregation Shearith Israel and Congregation Beth Torah, Dallas
I know it is “politically incorrect” in this neighborhood to support the secularist thinkers who claim that religion itself has been the greatest force for destruction and mayhem in western history; nevertheless, their argument cannot be ignored. The religious insistence that the believer has the absolute truth about the will of God and how devotion to that truth needs to be demonstrated by word and deed continues to be the source of tyrannical, imperialist, and dictatorial repression responsible for so much suffering in history. Intolerance seems to be the natural corollary of any religion that claims to have the universal answers about God and claims “absolute truth,” as if any human being could actually know the Unknowable or have a handle on absolute truth.

Mike and Armstrong are right in reminding us that secularism which decries beheadings, honor killings, and death for converts has only been with us for the last 300 years in the post-enlightenment west and with a spotty record, at that. On the other hand, that observation does not ease our reaction to the actions of the small number of Muslim terrorist extremists (thousands of Muslims out of 1.5 billion) that fill our news reports. No one wants to wait 300 years for them to catch up.

JIM DENISON: President, Denison Forum on Truth and Culture
Like Odysseus choosing between Scylla and Charybdis, it is conventional wisdom today to assume that we must decide between religion and secularism, bifurcating our lives according to our chosen priorities. But there’s a third option.

George Washington declared in his 1796 Farewell Address that “of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports.” Yet he also believed that “the liberty enjoyed by the people of these States, worshiping Almighty God agreeably to their consciences, is not only among the choicest of their blessings, but also of their rights.”

Thomas Jefferson believed that “no nation has yet existed or been governed without religion,” yet he articulated and defended “a wall of separation between Church and State.” If our Founders could envision a free church in a free state, why do other civilizations struggle to embrace a similar ethos?

Here’s one reason. With all due respect to Karen Armstrong, one of our greatest scholars of world religions, we must not overlook genuine worldview differences among the various faiths. The Qur’an prescribes an entire system of governance, complete with dietary restrictions and economic regulations. The Hebrew Bible does the same. Many who follow their teachings most fervently therefore believe that they can allow for no “secular” state outside their “spiritual” authority.

The New Testament, by contrast, offers a way to personal relationship with the Father through the Son, but no specific political or economic systems. For instance, early Christians in Jerusalem sold their possessions “and distributed the proceeds to all, as any had need” (Acts 2:45). But Paul advised the Thessalonians, “If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat” (2 Thes. 3:10).

Today’s so-called war between religion and secularism is being waged primarily in cultures where the prevailing religion can admit of no world outside itself. This is an observation, not a criticism. But it does point to the wisdom of Jesus’ edict, “render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s” (Matthew 22:21).

MIKE GHOUSE: President, Foundation for Pluralism and speaker on interfaith matters, Dallas
Karen Armstrong, in her thought provoking essay, ‘Myth of religious violence’ takes us through a journey of governance and alignment of people from religious to multi-religious to secular in several avatars, it is also a history of the rights of minorities in relation to the majorities. I was hoping she would pave the way for yet another form of governance; Pluralism, which can address some of the questions we are facing today, instead she abruptly ends, perhaps for the reader to take the next step.

Mr. Rudy Bush has picked where she left, and I am pleased to do my share of work towards answering the questions.

I have been working on the idea of pluralism in governance, religion, society, food, gender, politics, culture, race and other aspects of life. I have put in solid 20 years of research work into this, thank God, Pluralism runs in my veins now.

Pluralism is definable as “respecting the otherness of others”. Indeed, if we can learn to respect the otherness of others and accept the God given uniqueness of each one of us, then conflicts fade and solutions emerge for a smoothly functional cohesive society.

What lessons can we offer those who want their faith to infuse all elements of their lives and are skeptical of a society and political system that calls for secularism?

Radical Secularism infringes on freedom of the religious people, just as radical religion does to non-religious people. The history of Soviet Union and China has left a bad taste for generations to come; they forced Christians, Jews, Buddhist, Muslims and others to abandon practicing their faiths. It is like forcing someone not to love his mother. The resentment it created has permeated throughout the world and has earned a negative connotation of being a Godless government.

There are historic models of pluralistic governance that can be studied. The one practiced by Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), was the first its kind in human history. Four religions were practiced simultaneously in the same town without violating each other’s rights. He was the head of the State and initiated the Madinah treaty to protect religious freedom of Jews, Christians, Muslims, Pagans and possibly Zoroastrians. Each tradition was to have its own rules to abide by within the larger context of the state, everyone was free to practice his or her religion, and he called the others “People of the book” to create an inclusive mindset among the people. It’s a shame that some of Muslim nations have abandoned it.

The Second example is that of India, a Hindu majority nation. Even though it is labeled a Secular Democracy, it has always been a pluralistic democracy. There is a common criminal code for all citizens, but in matters of faith and civic affairs, each one follows his own religious traditions. It has worked beautifully for nearly 60 years, and I am skeptical of its continuance with Hindu radicalism on rise. A lot of healing is needed to fully restore the Pluralistic ethos.

The third example is that of Indonesia, a Muslim majority nation with a duly elected Christian President, and they now have a raging debate about electing a Christian governor for Jakarta province. I am sure they will honor their pluralistic constitution called Pancasila based on Madinah treaty.

The United States has been a pioneer in every aspect of human life. Our constitution guarantees liberty to every individual; however we are evolving in our declaration that all men are created equal. We have to take pride in our form of governance, which is becoming pluralistic every day.

Pluralism is nothing but an attitude of live and let live, and it is applicable in every aspect of life including culture, society, religion, politics, sexual orientation, gender, food, ethnicity, race and other uniqueness’s.

You practice your faith and I will not meddle with yours, as in the case of contraceptives for Catholics or Mormons, or do not force the church to give access to the transgender identity to their rest rooms, instead build separate for them and preserve each human with his or her dignity.
Pluralism in governance looks at the criminal as an Individual and not a Christian, Jew, Muslim or Hindu. We are not fooling ourselves, we can have both and we would not be cheating one aspect of life over the other.

You are who you are, and I am who I am. As long as we don’t mess with each other’s space, sustenance and nurturance, and mind our own business, we all will do well. If we can learn to respect the otherness of other and accept the God-given uniqueness of each one of the 318 Million of us, then conflicts fade and solutions emerge.

NITYANANDA CHANDRA DAS; Minister of ISKCON (International Society for Krishna Consciousness)
The mature fruit of the concept of separation of church and state is realized when the leadership guides by being God-conscious examples. The original intention of the concept was not to deny or ignore God, but rather to inhibit the government from forcing a particular sectarian religion. However our founder fathers have put forward this propaganda, “In God We Trust.” In governmental decisions one is forced to deal with metaphysical subjects, such as rights. A human, an embryo, nor an animal’s right to life cannot be established by mere science. It is therefore necessary to approach the such subjects with metaphysical wisdom and mercy from God.

LARRY BETHUNE: Senior Pastor, University Baptist Church, Austin
For Baptist Christians the separation of religion and state begins with belief in – or rather, recognition of – “soul freedom,” that faith can never be coerced from the outside by government or religious authority. If faith is not a free individual choice, it is not authentic (and therefore neither accepted by God nor helpful to humanity).

Soul freedom not only claims an individual right, but also recognizes the essential nature of social relationship. Protecting our religious liberty requires that we protect the religious liberty of all. Authentic spiritual community can only occur in a state where all individuals are free to choose their religious associations without fear of exclusion or violence. Religious liberty protects the authenticity of our religious expression. It follows that violent coercion in the name of spirituality or secularization is a counterproductive contradiction of the truth claims of either.

On the other hand Baptists do not believe the “spiritual” can be separated from the “civic” any more than the heartbeat can be separated from breathing. While they may be discussed separately as “aspects of our lives,” they are simultaneous and inseparable expressions of our humanity. The separation of religion and state does not mean we choose between being spiritual or civic, but that we do not use the apparatus of one to coerce participation in the other, therefore abrogating the religious liberty of fellow citizens.

Thus, the so-called “secular” state does not consist of people devoid of religion, but people who recognize the spiritual necessity of religious liberty and submit to the religious pluralism essential for different people and therefore different religions to coexist in peace.

RIC DEXTER: Senior Minister, First Unitarian Church, Dallas
Buddhist thought based in the Lotus Sutra teaches that we should not segregate the political from the spiritual in our lives. In the 13th century Nichiren taught that “A person of wisdom is not one who practices Buddhism apart from worldly affairs but, rather, one who thoroughly understands the principles by which the world is governed.”

The modern practice of Buddhism, as taught in the Soka Gakkai (Society for the Creation of Value), says that the best place to infuse our faith in all elements of our lives is within a society and political system that calls for secularism. It is there that our faith is challenged, and through challenge we grow.

Ms. Armstrong points out the danger of enforced secularism. I may point out that the opposite is also true. When religion is applied by force, or mandated by the state, history has shown a reaction in opposition. A society that enforced everything that one group or another believes may be a pleasant daydream for an immature mind, but could be a nightmare for anyone who holds different beliefs.

I have been a member of this Texas Faith panel since it started. I’ve enjoyed the responses of the other participants, and often the comments that follow. I have often seen complete agreement between my beliefs and those of other faith traditions. I’ve noticed that at times only the terminology seemed to differ. I’ve also seen areas where we disagree completely. Each agreement, slight difference and disagreement has been an opportunity to examine, and occasionally challenge my beliefs.

Our interaction within the larger world is no different. Through study, faith, and the practice of the tenets we hold dear, we demonstrate what we believe is the correct way to live. As we interact in our diverse society we see which of those ways of living we believe works well, no matter what the underlying belief system.

Through understanding these principles we can live a life upholding our values and see those values reflected in our society.

WILLIAM McKENZIE: a co-founder of the Texas Faith blog, is editorial director at the George W. Bush Institute.
I would argue this issue the other way around: Religion and politics do mix. In fact, they inevitably mix. Religion and politics are both about values, so it is only natural they will be in the same arena. In modern times, the clearest example – and most important one – is the way in which black churches and their leaders gave birth to the civil rights movement.

If they had kept their religion separate from their politics, the country never would have had this major breakthrough. Put another way, if African-American churchgoers had only adhered to personal piety, and not tried to seek justice in the larger social realm, America would have not moved forward.

There have been many other examples of people of faith acting in the political arena because of their religion. The Moral Majority gave voice to many Americans who were concerned about a cultural drift within the nation. At heart, this was a response framed by religious views.

Of course, what we want is a healthy dose of respect and tolerance to go with the mixture of religion and politics. That is what keeps people from different persuasions from tearing each other apart.

We also have been blessed in this country by the figurative line between church and state. That distinction has helped both religion and politics in America. There is more freedom in each domain because we have no official merging of church and state.

Yet I don’t see how religion and politics – or spiritual lives and the social realm – can ever be kept separate. Not when they each involve how we translate values like justice and mercy into the course of our lives together.

CYNTHIA RIGBY: W.C. Brown Professor of Theology, Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary

Twenty-five years ago I spent a year in the Philippines working as an “ecumenical associate” (meaning: a liberal missionary). I remember explaining to some of my new pastor friends, there, that Americans like to keep politics out of church.

“But how can you do that?,” my new friend asked, “Politics is about life – it is about who has the bread, and whether and how we are going to share it. And we HAVE to be in the business of life, as Christians.”

This was the first time I had really thought about politics that way.

It helped me make sense of why the average Filipino there knew more about day-to-day politics than I did. Regardless of who is elected today, I’m pretty sure I’ll have lunch to eat, tomorrow. Not true for everyone, as it turns out.

Since having that conversation, I have tried to remember that holding my politics and my faith at a distance from one another is a bogus enterprise. If I, as a person of faith, claim to care about promoting life, then this has to be reflected in how I vote and where I invest my energies, politically.

This past Tuesday I made it to the polls just before they closed, and when there was a question of whether or not I would make it, time-wise, it is not just that I feared violating my political principles or being a bad citizen. My soul kind of hurt; my conscience berated me for not leaving adequate time to get there for sure. Remembering the tired, determined, but in a good way proud-of-themselves faces of the people standing on (the rainy) line with me, I’d say that I’m not the only one for whom the act of voting was a spiritual exercise.

I like the word “infuse,” in the question. I do think our faith should infuse all of our lives. I think this is what Jesus meant when he said that we had better “let our light shine before people.” What we believe has to come into play in our politics, or we are just a bunch of hypocrites when we talk about loving our neighbors as ourselves. Love cannot be only theoretical; the way we do politics either proves it is real or reveals it is empty.

The separation of church and state, I believe, supports us in being whole, integrated people whose spirituality shapes our politics and whose politics enact our spirituality. This is because maintaining the distinction between church and state protects us from being told by the state what to believe or by the church how to vote. We are then free and, in a sense, “required” to continue working on how our spirituality and politics are in sync with one another. I think maybe it is the ongoing work of reconciling these two that both humanizes us and helps us be humanizing influences in the world.