Religion, morality, and civics

Pam raises some interesting questions on the blurring between church and state that takes place, not at the ballot box or city council meeting, but in the hearts and minds of each individual citizen and voter.

I also have respect for those that do work to build bridges within faith communities.  I was moved by my dinner and long conversations with Bishop Gene Robinson.  I have met and bonded with LGBT mormons, open-minded Christians, and other spiritual people.  

I appreciate their beliefs and would fight to defend their right to have them.  Yet I’m also a fierce advocate for the separation of church and state.  Personal beliefs are just that- personal.

So my struggle comes with new laser-like focus on reaching out to faith voters to accomplish our political goals.  When we come to them on their terms, are we really weakening ourselves in the future? 
[…] This ramped up effort to go into churches to get them to vote for us, rather than bring them into the public debate outside of their religious beliefs, has me concerned.  By reaffirming the idea that their personal religious views trump basic human and civil rights (and I’m not speaking just about marriage, but housing, employment, and other protections), we further blur the already thin line between church and government.

I know that after the defeats at the ballot box (Prop 8 in California, Amendment 2 in Florida, Arizona’s 102, and the Arkansas Adoption Ban), we are looking at how to best move forward and again gain momentum.  And these defeats were all at the hands of organized religious establishments- the Mormon Church, the Catholic Church, Baptists, even Focus on the Family.  How do we defeat them the next round if we are reaffirming their rightful place in the civic political process?

Shouldn’t we instead be trying to separate the freedom to have personal religious views from tyranny at the ballot box?  Is that even possible?

I have no answer.  I know in a perfect world people can do what they want in church, but leave me alone in the public square.  But how do we separate the morals and beliefs from people’s politics?  Doesn’t one shape the other?

It seems we are forced into this never ending cycle of decrying religious bigotry from some organized religions, while reaching out to others.   

Quoted at length, largely because I wasn’t sure what to cut out.

Pam’s conundrum is a legitimate one, but misses the point. “Organized Religion” is not some Giant, Magic, Evil Monolith muttering in the corner and shooting out stink bombs from its eye sockets. It’s all individuals, with individual religious beliefs and morals. And those beliefs and morals are not — and cannot — be separated from people’s politics.

By “cannot,” I assert that that we don’t want to have people divorcing their morals (and the beliefs that drive them) from the political discussion. It was morality that drove the civil rights movement. It was morality that drove the outrage over torture. The problem is somehow magically separating “right” morality (what I believe in) from “wrong” morality (what all those scum-suckers over there believe in). 

The organized religion facet of this is that folks who believe the same tend to cluster together. And they tend to be further influenced by leaders within those organizations, who then motivate them to go out and interpret their moral beliefs in certain ways in the ballot box.

But is that separable from a belief in “basic human and civil rights”? Certainly you can believe in those without being a part of organized religion? Sure. Can you believe in those without a religion? Sure. But ultimately, unless you’re taking an utterly pragmatic view that “society functions most efficiently when civil rights X, Y, and Z are pursued,” those are reflections of moral beliefs. Freedom, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, are not utilitarian (and the disadvantage of a utilitarian equation is that it’s prone to being shifted by argument as to what “works” better).

So the question is not “how do we get people to leave their religion at the door to the voting place.” They can’t. And, to the extent that religion is their morality, their belief system, we shouldn’t want them to. The question is, how do we reach a livable consensual social morality, recognizing our doctrinal and ideological differences and diversity, but avoiding every clash of moral visions becoming some sort of a mini-Armageddon. How do we get people to see that the state cannot serve any particular church without ultimately serving none of them, and that churches in power in the state swiftly lose their spirit by ruling a “kingdom of this earth.” How do we reach a point where people don’t feel that everyone else is imposing their moral code on each other, and instead recognizing the value of tolerance and compromise in the public square, regardless of what we feel we must do in our private lives? How do we get to a point where the constitutional guarantees of freedom, especially as protection of minorities, is seen as a positive thing, not an imposition on real or perceived majorities.

And, of course, how do we, beyond that, create a consensus behind the “right” morality (stuff I believe in, of course)? Which is a bigger issue conflict that I’ll just have to bide my time on.

(I jest. Sort of.)

That sort of consensual society is — like ours is — dirty and messy and imperfect and always in flux (what I consider morally trivial may be a huge hot button for someone else — and it’s difficult to argue that I’m correct). But it’s essential if we are to actually make what I consider to be progress. But we’re not going to do it either dismissing folks who espouse a religion, or telling them that they need to not let their religion-informed morality be part of their civic life, or telling them that they are just superstitious ignoramuses, or that their morality is somehow inferior and less suited to civic life than our morality. We’re going to do it by reaching out as humans, by emphasizing the importance of our shared national morality of valuing liberty and freedom of conscience, by noting what we have in common more than what separates us. 

It’s the latter that is the tactic of the hard-liners, the ones who are always looking to separate us, to enhance their own position (or, charitably, the position of their fellow-believers), not realizing that e pluribus unum isn’t just a pretty phrase, but a source of strength, and a ward against tyranny that will oppress all people, even the “right-thinking” ones.

So, yes, personal beliefs are “just” personal. But it’s persons, not institutions, who vote, who represent, who administer, who elect and are elected. And personal beliefs inform what people do. It’s not possible to split beliefs from actions. Indeed, when they are, we call those people hypocrites. What we need to do is not try to create moral schizophrenics, but help people to understand the difference between how they lead their lives, how they want others to lead theirs, that everyone feels the same way, and too much pushing to extend all the details of one’s personal moral vision upon others leads only to everyone losing.