Religion and Politics
by Mischa Gelman
(published 8/30/00)

  When the Christian Coalition reached prominence in the early 1990s, many
spoke out against this new organization. Sadly, the criticisms generally
relied on a twisted interpretation of the First Amendment, one which would
utterly separate religion from politics. More appropriate criticisms would
have looked at the policies backed by the Christian Coalition, or more
preferrably, how those policies ran counter to biblical teachings (best
demonstrated by Rev. Jim Wallis, in his book "Who Speaks for G-d?") Too
many Americans, especially in the media, seem to think we should not have
freedom of religion, but rather freedom from religion. Some go so far as
to say politicians should never arrive at their stance by looking at the
teachings of their faith (on the other hand, I would say more politicians
should look at those teachings).
  This shows an utter lack of understanding of the laws of our land. The
First Amendment, as Yale Law Professor Stephen Carter shows in "The
Culture of Disbelief", exists to allow for the protection of religion from
the state, rather than vice versa. It also exists to protect minority
religions in a culture that may not respect them - a rule often violated,
especially where the religious rights of Native Americans are concerned.
The Supreme Court reaffirmed this in 1946 when it stated that the
Amendment "requires that the state be a neutral in its relations with
groups of religious believers and non-believers...state power is no more
to be used so as to handicap religiouns than it is to favor them." Try
explaining that to the ACLU and other libertarian groups, whose goal it is
to cripple religious freedom to the point where it is entirely a private
matter. As G.K. Chesterton pointed out six decades ago, "Religious liberty
might be supposed to mean that everybody is free to discuss religion. In
practice it means that hardly anybody is allowed to mention it." Even
prominent secularists like Norman Lear have concluded that their
ideological allies have shut their mind on the topic, refusing it even
open discussion.
  Perhaps the most hilarious part of the whole debacle is that the attack
on religious freedom has often been led by the left. Jim Hightower, in
"There's Nothing In The Middle of the Road but Yellow Stripes and Dead
Armadillos", points out that "one of the strangest, most kamikaze
political strategies yet devised is the ongoing campaign by some liberals
to get religion out of politics." Hightower actually bothers to look at
the stats, which show that religious folks are more likely to support
unions, welfare, universal health care, government action to reduce income
inequality, living wages and the like - pretty obvious conclusion for
anyone who bothers to study the Torah, Bible or Koran (or numerous other
religious texts). Of course, such a biblically inspired agenda absolutely
terrifies libertarians, who aide those kamikaze leftists in the
anti-religion campaign.
  Of course, this is not to say G-d is a liberal, as some do. Often when
clergymen or laymen make such proclamations (or the similar G-d is a
conservative, G-d is a socialist, G-d is whatever my side is) they help to
demean truly religious involvement in religion. Prof. Carter, in his book,
points out numerous instances of ideologues using G-d as a cheerleader,
and thus helping to trivialize true conviction. When someone's politics
are inspired by their religion (rather than the far too common opposite
scenario), they are impossible to place on the political map. Where does
one place the Pope, who is against abortion, against the death penalty,
for Third World debt relief, for anti-poverty measures, against gay rights
and against both unbridled socialism and unbridled capitalism? Such
religious politics transcend the world of labels, and are what we should
try to emulate, rather than the sham politico-religious movements like The
Christian Coalition or liberation theology.
  I can only be thankful that the extremist secularists did not have their
way in past decades and centuries. They would have banned Rev. Martin
Luther King Jr., Rabbi Heschel and the Southern Christian
Leadership Council from fighting segregation, militarism and income
inequality. They would have fought Vietnam War opponents like William
Sloane Coffin, Dorothy Day and Fr. Daniel Berrigan. They would have
censored Archbishop Oscar Romero in his battles against military abuse and
poverty in El Salvador. They would have silenced Archbishop Desmond Tutu
as he led the charge against apartheid in South Africa. They would have
told Social Gospel preachers like Fr. John Ryan or Rev. Walter
Rauschenbusch when they worked to strengthen workers' rights at the turn
of the century. Those who wished an end to slavery would have been cast
out of the political debate. It would be a sad world indeed.
  Many sins have been done in the name of religion. But, as Swami
Vivekananda pointed out, "Religion is the great milk cow of humanity. It
has given many kicks - but never mind, it gives a great deal of milk. The
milkman does not mind the kicks of the cow which gives much milk." Let's
not lock this great milk cow out of our political arena.

  Mischa Gelman hopes his politics are in line with his religious beliefs.
He wishes that a fellow Jew, Joe Lieberman, pays heed to the word of G-d,
should he get elected.