God & the Commons
April 17, 2006
A public Colloquy organized by the MU Center for
Religion, the Professions
& the Public
Transcript
(Participant names are deleted to preserve the freely expressive
nature of the event)
Moderator:
Good evening everybody, and welcome. I'm Sandy Hodge, and I work for
University of Missouri Extension. I am a state public policy specialist.
This is one of the jobs I do for University of Missouri Extension;
I hold community forums. This evening I am working in collaboration
with the Center for Religion, the Professions & the Public at
the University of Missouri. Ed Lambeth is their director. Ed, would
you like to say something just briefly about the Center?
Lambeth:
Yes, I will. We were three years old this April 1. We've had two of our
community conversations, this being the second one. The other one was
about narrative journalism and the potential of narrative journalism
for talking across cultural and religious lines. We have a very strong
faculty, and we are looking forward to working in the community and
also on campus with our students. We have two courses: one in religion
reporting and writing and another one in journalism, religion, and
public life. We're happy to offer those and we appear to have a very
strong interest in both of those things.
Moderator:
We have a project that we're working on that is looking to have more
of these community-university conversations around the topic of religion.
XXXXX: Would you like to join us? ... Well, this evening we're going
to have what's called a deliberative dialogue. We're going to be talking
about "God & the Commons"
and the role of religion in public life. A deliberative dialogue really
looks at how can we talk about an issue and look for common ground as
opposed to polarizing or debating the subject. We're not going to have
a debate tonight. We're going to talk about our different perspectives
and explore areas where there might be common ground. And if we were
to move toward any type of decision around the subject we're going to
discuss, what might that decision be?
If we have to make choices about this issue, what are some of the
costs, consequences, and trade-offs of those choices? A lot of times
we tend to be in public discussions and because we polarize we never
really get to the point where we start asking about what are the costs
and consequences of our choices and who will they impact? So we might
discuss some of that tonight.
The first thing I'd like to do, though, is I find it very helpful as
a moderator to have some guidelines that direct the conversation. The
first one that seems to work very well is for people to use "I" statements.
That means they speak from their own experience. Another one is that
we speak one at a time. I ask you please not to interrupt. You don't
have to raise your hand because my goal as a moderator is to direct the
conversation, but I'd kind of like to disappear on the side. I don't
want you talking to me. I want you talking to each other. But I do just
ask you to speak one at a time, and be thoughtful about letting everyone
have a chance to speak. And finally, I ask that you be respectful and
be reminded that this is a conversation where there is a lot of room
for disagreement. I just ask that we disagree respectfully.
So I'd also like to ask if you feel you can live with these guidelines,
just give me a little show of hands. And if there's anything else you
think you might like to add or will this be sufficient? Seems to work.
. .? Okay, great. We'll put them up. .. I've given you a little summary
sheet, which is a synopsis of the issue we're going to talk about tonight.
Basically the issue is that a number of citizens see religion as one
of the few antidotes to a perceived decline in morality, and more public
officials do not want to check their religion at the public door. Others
from across the political and religious spectrum call our attention to
the civic purposes of religion. If we are not to ignore those religiously
motivated citizens and public officials - and recent elections indicate
that we cannot - then the fundamental political and social challenge
of these times is one of figuring out how a polity can be open to religious
insights without succumbing to the temptation to impose specific religious
beliefs through the state.
We stand at a crossroads in human history and in American life. How
will human beings in the new millennium give personal and public expression
to this perennial feature of their existence, the religious impulse?
What role should religion play in public life, if any? And so this is
the question we're going to deliberate tonight. One of the things I would
like to ask you to do is think briefly... Have any of you had any personal
experience that you can relate with this issue, this question of the
role of religion in public life, a personal story or something that you
could tell us.
Participant:
At Hickman just last month we had a big forum, about 300 students, on
stem cell research. On the panel we had five people. Certainly the
religious perspectives of each of those persons came into play in terms
of how they had formed their opinions. And so while certainly the forum
wasn't designed to impose any of those views on the students, you could
clearly see in this public dialogue that people's religious views were
a very important part of how they come to their decisions.
Moderator:
Does anybody else have a personal story on how religion has impacted
you?
Female:
I have a very, very good friend that I'm very close to. He's Dutch and
is very interesting as His family deliberated on...In the Netherlands
euthanasia has been discussed for the last 10 years. As a nation they
agreed that it was something they agreed upon. It was really wonderful
for me to witness his aunt to make that decision and such a dignified
way for her to end her life. I was just awestruck with how wonderful
it was for her to have the choice to do that when she wants to do that.
An incredible sharing for me to see that. For a wonderful women to
decide when she must end life. It was very important for me to see.
Moderator:
Anyone else what to share a personal story on how this impacts us or
impacts you personally?
Lambeth:
In the early 1990s, Columbia was experiencing the first onslaught of
AIDS. There was a community unit funded by the federal government trying
to respond to local needs of people who were sufferers of AIDS. That
began to disintegrate for a variety of reasons. My wife and I were
part of the interfaith community that established the Regional AIDS
Interfaith Network (RAIN). We did that after a great deal of planning.
We were very surprised by the extent of the support and comparative
lack of explosive reactions, provided we did the homework. It was really
rewarding experience and had fairly widespread participation.
Moderator:
How did that make you feel?
Lambeth:
Well, real challenges when you're dealing with death. Two-prong program
one is prevention of AIDS by lecture and info sessions at various locations,
not only faith communities, also public schools. We had some special
speakers, we had excellent help from Eddie Hendrick, infectious disease
control officer, at the hospital. Then we had care teams go out to
people dying of AIDS and had no way to go to the doctor, needing a
ride, couldn't get to grocery (store), needed help with groceries and
finally, some to stay with them until they died. Medicine was not as
good. As the medicine began to be plentiful in the community and the
more advanced drugs took hold. It seems at that time, less and less
involvement by the church, synagogues, mosque, whatever. In any event,
it's changed the character. I have not been active for a number of
years. Was for first several years. Very rewarding experience.
Moderator:
Have something personal to say?
Male:
Not too personal. Dr. XXXX XXXX might want to join us. Empty chair but
have to join us up here.
I called up XXXX XXXX, unsuccessful candidate for school board. Those
of you not from Columbia or CPS district. He's a local lawyer. Called
him after he lost to sort of encourage him a little bit, fifth- time
candidate for school board. At a candidate forum he had mentioned evolution,
he thought God had a place in the schools, can't paraphrase exactly what
he said, but it became a big controversy. I found XXXX not in need of
consoling at all. Quite a good attitude about it all. Interesting to
watch it play out in journalistic forums and elsewhere.
Moderator:
Do you have a personal story that you can relate?
Male:
I remember as a boy, going to elementary school. And every . . . holiday
season, if you call it holiday season, or Christmas season. We had
to go to the all-purpose room, and we'd sing about 20 religious Christmas
carols and then they'd throw in O Driedel, Driedel, Driedel, the song
for Hanukkah. There were no songs of any other religious tradition
whatsoever. We were required to do that. In addition to having to say
prayer right before the Pledge of Allegiance. I remember a feeling
. . . a sense of alienation, a sense of exclusion of marginality .
. . because of inclusion of the majority cultures religion in a school
where many people were supposed to be welcome. And delight at the age
of 11, when the Supreme Courts decided that was unconstitutional.
Moderator:
How about one more? A personal story.
Participant:
Interesting personal story with the opening because when I look at how
I spend my time and how I interact with any other human being. This
particular issue is kinda central to everything that I do ... How it
affects when I interact, what decisions I make, basically central to
everything I do and every choice that I make. Personal story pretty
much it. Really interesting and to brief the information and being
here for discussion.
Moderator:
OK, well let me tell you a little about the structure of what we're going
to do tonight. Look at issue from three approaches, 20 minutes each
approach. If I segue into the second one, I apologize if I miss you,
but our goal is two-hour forum and I like to honor my commitments ...
You all have lives too. So, what we'll do at the end, reflect on what
was said and we'll look for areas that we have seen with common ground,
common interests in the group. That will be our focus tonight. Consider
each approach and look at the cost consequences and impacts of the
approach on our choices.
Briefly put these up, approach one - Stay the secular course
I'll read what's on the sheet, but keep it up here just to remind you
in case you don't want to keep looking at the white paper about what
the first approach says.
(Reading) Proponents of this approach believe that, overall, our country's
secular public culture is good and that the enforcement of a strict separation
of church and state is essential to preserving social peace and fostering
a diverse, pluralistic society. A recent poll shows, whatever their religious
views, Americans have a healthy respect for the Constitutional principle
of separation of church and state and religion should not be used as
a guideline for public policy. When acting publicly, citizens and public
officials should "check their religions beliefs at the door" and
make their arguments for particular policy positions in rational (pragmatic
and empirical) terms and on the basis of general non-religious moral
principals.
Some of the things that people suggest that could possibly be done with
this approach is to:
- Support a strict "wall of separation"
between church and state by restricting
governmental support of religion . . . outlawing prayer in schools, the
teaching of religious doctrines such as creationism or intelligent design
- Support scientific literacy
- Keep tax dollars and government agencies out of the business of supporting
faithbased organizations
- Insist on the appointment of judges and other public officials who
do not seek to
blur the distinction between "God's justice and ours" between
secular government and religiously-guided principal
First question to start off with, what makes this issue real for us?
What makes this issue real for you? Ask you to conversation with each
other.
Female:
What makes it real for me ... personal story, trying to pick out one
there are so many. Member of minority religion that is not generally
accepted, broadly misunderstood. Personally stand to gain a lot more
freedom and chance to participate in society under this strict separation.
In some level, I would like to be able to have the opportunity to have
education about different religious choices, but I don't think we've
grown up enough in society that we open it beyond the very strict Judeo-Christian
traditions. A lot of people misunderstand whole idea of interfaith
dialogue and conversation and I'm glad to see that we have a diverse
group that goes across that. But, I've been to some interfaith organizations
where interfaith meant different sects within the Judeo tradtion.
Broad society where we can participate have to maintain wall of separation
until we become mature enough to accept whip and pentacle being on the
town square along with the Christmas decorations until we can have Hindu
teachings in school and presentation of the bible. I'm not sure we've
reached that point yet. What would happen if we allow religion into the
state is that it will be an intense amount of pressure.
I was in that class with you. We knew it wasn't us they were talking
about. There's a strong peer pressure to say "I'm a Christian" and
just sort of float through in society and ignore that. I even see that
a lot in the workplace. A lot of people I work with say privately "I
really feel pressured. I don't like all this stuff. I'm kinda generally
a Christian, but I don't like people judging me because I don't go to
church every Sunday and I don't wear my Bible on my sleeve. But I don't
dare speak up." That's what I'm afraid of if we go to any other
thing besides this strictly separate approach.
New participant female:
Very well said nervous talking about this it is a little bit scary. Don't
know that I'm 100 percent approach 1. Between approach 1 and 3. I understand
what you're saying.
Guess you would say I'm a nondenominational believer. Grew up dinostic.
Don't have a strong sense that I need to join a religion, but a strong
believer.
I think monotheism is what scares me. I may not have a full understanding
of this.
I guess my prejudice is that monotheists, by their very definition, believe
that their god is the right god. And that other people need to be convinced
that their god is correct. If we are a monotheistic country, Christian-Judeo
then the people most likely to get into power will be those to believe
their god is right. That means that if they get into playing political
power . . . majority political power . . . they will have an army and
a police force to go along with their beliefs.
My beliefs are very hard won and I kind of think what you said is right,
that we are not mature enough to go to the approach that I really believe
in - to approach 3 paradoxical approach. Semi-permeable membrane let
religion in and the secular world thinks that it crosses.
I'm not sure that paradox is something we can maintain in our culture
right now.
Moderator:
Thoughts on approach one and staying the secular course?
Male participant:
It's kind of interesting that both of you use the term mature enough.
I guess it's how you look at it. In my perspective. You can look at just
the United States or look at humanity as a whole. From my cultural background,
humanity is just now reaching the age of maturity as a whole. When you
see, even as our children, go through infancy, through toddler, youth
and then you have certain test, certain challenges that happen when you
come of age. From my perspective we are getting to a point where we can
at least have dialogue where humanity reaches a whole to be able to go
forth. If there wasn't no choice but to continue progressing.
Female:
This approach 1 is very real to me for several reasons. I am a Daoist
and my family is a Daoist for many, many centuries. We are very spiritual,
but Doaism is natural atheistic and yet we are very spiritual. So,
there lies something that people cannot comprehend out of our world,
our philosophy and way of life. But as a result, we also respect other
ways, other paths of believing, but in terms in building a society,
I feel societies that have progressed in the world today are ones that
have chosen this secular path. Strict separation of church and state
somehow gets people to not sort of clash and use religion as the basis
for that.
I was just doing some reading on the Puritans people who came here to
lead a better life they would probably support approach 1, separation
of church and state. To some extent, it's very complex the Puritans.
I know XXXX probably is like laughing. I know you know about Cromwell
and all of that. They are against organized religion. That part is very
true in terms ofthe Puritans. But, there are many aspects of that. I
feel personally that we can have a peaceful world if we really have a
strict separation of church and state.
Male:
I come to this conversation as a person of faith. I preached an Easter
sermon at my church yesterday. I also come as a person who belongs
to American Civil Liberties Union. I want to urge that in looking at
approach No. 1, that we look particularly at the legal and political
order. If we're looking at the cultural order, both of which might
be subsumed under the title public. Then I would advocate strongly
for a government, a legal political order that is secular. It doesn't
mean that I advocate secularism in the public realm, because I bring
religious values to the public realm.
In the '60s and '70s, I was working with Dr. Martin Luther King, was
working against the war in Vietnam, and in recent years, I've worked
on the human rights commission here in town. All of these are because
of my religious values that I want to inform the public realm and dialogue.
I speak as a Quaker, not born into the Society of Friends, but one who
strongly identifies with it. Quakers were the only group in the colonial
period, except Native Americans, but the only European group where its
members were put to death because of their religious beliefs. There were
four Quaker ministers who were expelled from the Massachusetts Bay Colony
by a theocracy, a word that I hope we are willing to use here. And were
told that if they came back, we'll kill you. And they came back and they
were killed. So Quakers have a vested interest in not wanting to allow
the legal political order to have the (???) might of the state to persecute,
punish and ultimately eliminate people because of their belief.
New participant male:
I guess my concern that I speak as one who is a Christian, an evangelical
Christian. I believe I am a monotheist. I believe that God is real.
I believe there are such things as truth, good and evil. Those are
all important aspects in my life and have been a part of the motivations
in my life. I also speak as an old political science professor, who
was involved in the civil rights movement in the '60s, and who has
been involved in many others, who has attended a Quaker College one
year, who has been involved in variety of different experiences and
different efforts at building interfaith or ecumenical cooperation
in local communities.
One of the concerns I have is that we sometimes forget that secularism
is also a religion. And can be as negative toward other religious beliefs
as any other religion that becomes dominant. My concern, frankly, is
in some ways, some parts of our society may have gone too far to the
point where it becomes a watered-down thing in which we equalize and
protect everybody in effect by saying,
"You poor children. None of you believe anything that's important,
so we will tolerate you." And it seems to me that what we need,
and it will be interesting when we get to approach 3, if we can get to
some of that, is something which says I believe very profoundly, very
deeply, very strongly, in my faith. I believe in God, I believe this
is truth. That does not mean that I have to throttle someone else to
force them to accept it. But, it does mean that I should be respected
enough to acknowledge that it's possible I might know something of value.
Just as I should be willing to accept that of other faiths and other
groups.
In the public arena, there are ways that we can cooperate. I can remember
growing up in an era in which the barricade between Catholic and Protestant,
for example, was total. Let alone any other group. The first major breakthrough
was in the civil rights movement in the '60s and the thing that fascinated
me about that was that I saw Jews, Catholics, Protestants, coming together.
Not saying I have to give up my beliefs so we work together. But saying
we have a common objective, a common concern, what can we bring to this
and how can we work together? Let's not worry about the fact that we're
different, let's, in fact, see that as a richness. But it was having
a common focus that gave us a chance to interact with each other in a
way that was respectful. Well, I've talked too long, I'll stop.
New female:
I read the material you sent about the three approaches. When I was first
with approach 1 and then the 2 and then I saw the 3, I really felt
that the people of approach 3 are really saying approach 1 but somehow
misunderstand in some way what secularism is. I mean, to have a strict
separation of church and state, to me, simply means the religion is
at the individual level. And the state, the political, shouldn't really
enforce one, support one or oppose another which comes to the same
thing. If you do one, you kind of would be doing the other without
actually saying that. And the people, in that sense, all are looking
for is that the state just stays out of it. It does not mean that the
people come to work, like the presidents and other public officials
that they have to check it at the door. They need to have their religious
conviction, they have that.
It would really be helpful in making the decisions, just like the examples
that we heard with the reasonable cause, such as civil rights movement.
People just came together based on their religious belief. They all came
to the same conclusion as to what needs to be done. But perhaps from
the different growing up of things. And one of the things I liked about,
which I hope is that the approach 3 is trying to say or some way to bridge,
is eventually, I don't really want to see any time that there be no separation
of church and state, even if we are exceptionally mature. But I really
would like to see what, maybe what we're trying to say is, how an opportunity
for everybody to learn about all religions and an opportunity for an
individual to be part of as many religions as they want to be. As they
are growing up in different times in their life, and may be simultaneously.
There are people who may go to more than one situations and this is not
necessarily to feel that you could only be excluded just because you
are in one religion from everything else or is to be required is also
some conviction. We would like people to have freedom to believe what
they want to believe. I think that is a good situation. I'd rather be
grounded there. If you want to believe it that is.
Moderator:
We are going to move on to approach 3. I would like to suggest that continue
to explore approach 1, because one of the things that do want to talk
about is if this approach were to become a decision pointer, we made
a choice about this approach, what might be some of the costs and consequences,
what would some of the trade offs be ifthis was one of the approaches?
Male:
Well, just by reading the description of approach 1, I'm reminded of
what's going on in France, especially in public schools in France,
where they're trying to maintain a strict separation of church and
state. But that is leading to the demeaning of people's faiths because
a lot of faiths have external, public expressions. I hate to use people
as an example, but XXXX XXXXX here you see is dressed in a certain
way, he has a beard, he's wearing certain clothes that will automatically
identify him in public as a Muslim. And in France, they are banning
any kind of religious headdress, any headdress whether it is religious
or not just as a way of saying that this is a separation of church
and state. That's directly demeaning and ignoring the fact that people
have that there's a public part to faith. People are being denied their
rights to practice their faith because of this wall.
Just there is an idea of a wall, is something that I've very against,
it's human nature to fight against walls. It's an obstacle, an obstruction.
People want to tear down walls. Physically, the Berlin wall didn't last.
I don't think the wall between Israel and Palistine will last. Even the
Great Wall of China didn't last, eventually that was toppled over as
well. The idea of having a wall between church and state, that's absolute,
that people cannot even practice their faith or go according to their
faith if they're in a public place that's something that's really impossible,
especially for people who do wish to practice their faith in their own
way. So, it's just difficult for me to accept the idea that and just
to begin with the first census the country's secular culture is good.
I don't think that we live in a secular culture, because I turn on the
TV and I see there's whole channels devoted to one particular faith.
I walk around on campus and there's people devoted to one particular
faith who express their viewpoint and I don't see them being told there's
a separation, you can't say that.
Or I don't also hear people of other faiths expressing their viewpoints
if it is going to be an equal opportunity way of expressing their faith.
I don't think the first approach is something that exists and I don't
think that it's something that can be in existence forever. It might
be possible for a short time, but again going back to the census, preserving
social peace - France is trying that and I don't see a lot of social
peace going on in France. I'm not saying it's directly related to the
separation of church and state, but I do see it as a way of submerging
real issues that end up coming out as violence or protests. I think that
it's something that cannot exist forever.
Female:
I hear what you're saying about France, because I've been looking at
that situation too. Especially the women in the schools and they are
told they cannot wear their veils or anything that is marking them
as religious. And apparantly this is the case. I have heard this is
the case in France with all categories. Basically, you can't even have
a civil rights movement over there because first you have to say that
I'm of a different group. And oops, we're going to pretend there are
no different groups. And so you can't even band together around things
that are oppressing you. And if your boss fires you for being in the
wrong group or whatever, you can't even do a complaint because legally
your group doesn't exist.
There's no difference between all these things. Which is not same kind
of situation that we have here where we have groups with identity problem.
And people grouping around particular social identity and saying I am
a part of this group and I'm participating in American society as a member
of "X"
category. I think that's a real important difference to look at our expression
with the secular culture or legal culture and France. And also I would
say that France is basically discriminating again only they are discriminating
against everybody who doesn't look like a, I mean it's got a...........
! don't want to pick on Protestants, but to me, at least in this country,
you can't tell a Protestant from an atheist or an agnostic just by looking
at them. Unless the Protestant happens to be wearing a cross or something
marking them as a particular denomination. There's no marker - guys wear
tops and jeans, shoes or well, they wear this or slacks, T-shirts. There's
no distinction and it seems like France is a society which is basically
saying we're going to eliminate the differences by eliminating the outward
markers.
But that's just basically saying it is a form of discrimination against
everybody who doesn't believe in a particular ideology. Which is not
what I'm hoping that our society is based to create. Which is where the
people have the legal structure, but within the legal structure you have
your personal variations.
Moderator:
Let me just take a quick timeout here. There's some folks in the back
wanting to say something. Are you all raising your hand?
Female:
As examples to announce it. (???)
Male:
I didn't get your name sir.
Moderator:
Not really. If you would like to join the conversation, you need to come
sit in the circle. (Movement) All right. You can bring your chair up
if you want with you. Observers' role is to not participate, so you're
welcome to come in if you like. Go ahead, you had a comment.
XXXX XXXX
Male:
I'd like to affirm what XXXX said about secularism as a world view. The
reciprocal argument of science, you can prove through science which
is scientific, you can prove the Bible what is written in the Bible.
I mean it's kind of the same thing. And what we're
talking about here with France is secularism pushed to its logical extreme.
You know, Stalin did a pretty good job of stamping out religious expression,
but we weren't really happy with the results of 30 million killed at
that kind of a price. So, the problem with going with a complete secular
wall, as you were saying. Where's the moral law come from? I mean, who
gives us that moral law upon which we base our statutes, public policy,
all the decisions we make about stem-cell research, euthanasia, AIDS.
It's impossible to say that you can leave your personal feelings of these
things at the door, I think. So, if we're not going to use the Judeo-Christian
ethic that the country was founded on, where willl that moral law come
from and who is the moral law giver?
Moderator:
I would like to ask the people that haven't had to speak to go ahead
and speak.
Male:
This use of the phrase "stay the secular course" - I don't
think we're on any secular course. Because I don't believe there is a
secular sphere. Everything that we call secular is infused with a couple
hundred years of Judeo-Christian tradition. So, when we say secular,
I think we're actually referring to kind of lukewarm Judeo-Christian
values. And so to say, how are we going to deal with these moral issues
of euthanasia, abortion, and so forth. The way that these things are
already being dealt with, the way they're being discussed in a public
forum and so forth, I don't think there's anything nonreligious about
it. I don't think the idea to pursue a secular course, perhaps, I don't
know where that would lead. But, to stay a secular course we haven't
even begun on that. And to think that we have a secular culture, is slightly
ignorant.
Female:
To back up, I'm from Europe and I've lived here for only a year. And
what I've noticed through one of these arguments of separation of church
and state is that it seems to be very selective here. And so, where
is in Europe you're taught religious studies and that means that you
have to learn every religion. And I was very interested when you said
that you don't conform to any particular religion. I'm really curious
to what you believe in and I may not agree with it, but I'd really
like to hear it and understand it. In Europe, we're taught it at such
a young age and then you're kind of left on your own. No one forces
you to do anything about it, but you go about - it's not about Abrahamic
religions and then you have about minor religions. And you take an
exam to say you understand it and that's it.
I find it really interesting that in the States, you don't teach it in
school and there are arguments whether children should pledge to the
flag and use the word "God."
And yet, when I attended the National Guard's appointment to Afghanistan,
they did and there were a lot of blessings and God and very, very Christians.
I'm sure not everyone. I find that really interesting that you choose
what seems to be a common terms - separating church and state and secular
communities and stuff, when it isn't at all. I think one of the issues
is that if you don't teach it in schools, all you're going to breed is
ignorance. Then if you carry on ignorance, all you're going to breed
is fear. Because no one understand what everyone else is talking about.
Male:
I would argue that most public schools and high schools and junior high
schools, students are taught a lot about religion. Not necessarily
imposed upon them that they are supposed to believe it, but those history
classes in the United States, I would say students get a pretty good
background in religion and have at least some understanding of it.
So, it's not as if there's a complete vacuum that religion doesn't
exist. Certainly, I think when talking about the civil rights movement,
Martin Luther King's being a Baptist minister, I think that's discussed.
Gandhii, a great (???) soul, I think those things are taught. So, it's
not as if there is an active vacuum within public schools.
Female:
But that means that it's tied to history, so it's not ever taught?
Male response:
Of course, of course. Is treating classes, religion classes <interrupted>....
Male:
Teaching, like classroom teaching?
Female:
Is it tied to history through the Crusades....... ?
Male:
I think all world religions that are taught are discussed within the
historical context. I think that's the most logical and reasonable
way for them to discuss.
Female:
Just out of curiosity, why wouldn't they be taught through a religious
context?
Male:
Well, if you're teaching a religious context in a sense that you're simply
discussing religions as part of a culture, then it seems that if you're
trying to understand culture, you're trying to create a more eclectic
society. Then indeed you have a better understanding. To teach in a
vacuum is very difficult.
Moderator:
This gentleman - you have a comment? Then, we have to move on to approach
2. I know you all are going to get frustrated by some of this, but
that's alright.
Male:
I've been to the discussion, secular, from two perspectives. One American
and one originally I'm from India. And there secularism is carried
to extreme just so that the country can prove it's secular credentials.
We have laws that are Muslim laws, Christian laws, Hindu laws. There's
no common law for the country. So secular carried to the extreme can
also create a lot of problems in the government of diverse society.
That's probably not as well understood here as secular is. It's largely
due to interest in values and we are on a separation of church and
state and nation. But laws that are practiced in India, we have laws
that are distinct different groups and trying to please everyone can
be secularism bending backwards.
Moderator:
OK, that's kind of a good segue into approach 2. Which in the interest
of time. So, Approach 2 - if you have your little cheat sheets here
is entitled "Recover our JudeoChristian Heritage."
(Reading) Proponents of this approach are most concerned that secular
humanist values have encouraged the cultural decline. They see these
values are anti-religious in all our public institutions: government,
law, education, the media, etc. And, these are not the abiding values
that shaped our nation at it's foundings, nor are they the values that
are held by most Americans today. They argue that most Americans are
religious, and that many have come to feel that their religion is under
assault by a militant secularism that allows no place for beliefs and
shows no place for culture. It is time, they argue, to recover the Biblical
values of our nation's Judeo-Christian heritage and to allow these values
to have effect in our public lives and policy.
(speaking) Now, what are some of the proponents that should be done?
(reading)
- Allow public schools to teach about the Judeo-Christian heritage of
America and
theories about natural and human origins that challenge scientific evolutionary
theory
- Strengthen the public support of faith-based initiatives and encourage
government-religious institutional partnerships for a wide variety of
societal tasks from social services to international diplomacy
- Let religious belief inform our public discourse and policy decisions
(speaking) So, let me ask you another question. What evidence can any
of you provide that this particular approach is important to us? Let's
say why this approach is a very important approach?
Male:
In what way?
Moderator:
I'll leave that up to you all.
Male:
I think it's more important that we stay away ftom this approach. (laughs)
Moderator:
Can you say a little more about that?
Male:
Not everybody here is of Judeo-Christian heritage. Not everybody here
may be that well in tune with it. It may have been taught those religions,
understand those religions, as well as many other religions they've
studied along the years. But their actual heritage, no. That may
be something that many, I don't know if I would say most, founding
fathers and those that help create the nation and the laws had in
mind. This makes me think back to first approach though. That staying
that course right there, we may be trying to get there. I don't think
we ever have had separation of church and state.
Male:
I think this phrase, Judeo-Christian itself, is kind of an odd one,
because there are profound differences between Judaism and Christianity.
It's not a single religious tradition. I find that teaching "Introduction
to World Religion" is that a lot of people think that Judaism
is just another Protestant denomination. Jews and Christians believe
in Jesus and Muslims don't, which is ironic because Muslims do believe
in Jesus as a prophet and Jews don't. I think Jews somehow got incorporated
probably sometime after World War II.
The problem with that approach No. 2 is first of all, that Judeo-Christian
concept is very recent. They talked about a Christian concept. The
Ku Klux Klan didn't say that the Judeo-Christian heritage is at stake.
It said that Protestantism is what made America, and they had a very
narrow view. Judeo-Christian isn't broad enough. We have had Muslims
in this country, probably for 500 years. They came with the Spanish.
We've had American Indians well before we were here. We've had Hindus
and Daoists and Buddhists for a long time. We've had Aftican religious
practitioners whose religions were suppressed in the 16th and 17th
century but continued to practice them. It's way too narrow.
The other problem is I don't want any politician or any government
telling me what I'm supposed to believe. I don't want the government
to decide which religion is the one that should be dominating the public
square. Most of us fled precisely that tradition in Europe, where religious
affiliation and political affiliation were seen as the same.
Male:
It is too narrow, and I agree absolutely, what are the criteria that
determine it's too narrow?
Male:
The fact that it excludes many people in this country, and even, I
would say, if it was just Christian, there's no agreement on what
is Christian. How many denominations of Baptist do we have? How many
denominations of Lutheran? How many denominations of Methodist? We
have all these different denominations. Who's gonna choose? I have
mends who were very unhappy with religious leaders in their own denominations.
Do we look at the church hierarchy? Do we look at the church grassroots?
As soon as government, which is involved in practical things and
power, starts arbitrating what is about absolute truths in religion,
we've got a problem. I don't want people doing things that are expedient
about religion as they do in the political realm of expediency about
drug policy or foreign policy or AIDS education.
Male:
Do we have any contents or do we have any procedures that would permit
us to resolve these issues that you raise, important issues, other
than some recourse to violence or might makes right?
Male:
Well, I think people can bring their ethics, the ethics that are informed
by their religions, into the public square discussion, but to establish
a particular church or claim this artificial historical construct
of the Judeo-Christian heritage, I think it establishes something
that is ultimately hollow. It is dangerous, because it interferes
with religious fteedom and the freedom of conscience.
Lambeth:
Not too long ago, a group of Jewish and Christian scholars got together,
and they produced a book called Christianity in Jewish Terms. It's
a book that very precisely, using a variety of criteria that I'm
not learned enough to articulate all of them, but I read that book,
and it set forth in very crisp terms, differences between Judaism
and Christianity as these theologians saw it. Some of them were religious
studies professors. I got the distinct impression that they both
walked away ftom the experience helped, enabled. They were able to
see their own faith in a crisper, sharper context, and I think that
that can not be anything but helpful if it's done with the kind of
respect that I saw radiating off the pages when I read it. It can
be a clarifying experience in the sense of what I think XXXX is talking
about.
Moderator:
Let me ask you all to feel like you don't have to raise your hand.
Go ahead and jump in and just be mindful of how long you speak, because
it sort of slows the conversation and you have to wait for someone
to recognize you. So, I say you go for it.
Male:
It occurs to me that in the continent of North America and in area
that has become the USA, there was a strong push in the beginning
of this country that it would be a place where people would be free
to practice their particular religions. They came primarily from
in that area, Europe, where Christianity had been a predominant force.
Therefore they were interested in avoiding the kind of sectarian
violence that had occurred in historic Europe.
So anyway, they created this as a "free country," among
other bywords. It seems to me that people have continued to flow to
this country. There is something attractive about it, and I'm not sure
what that is. I'm not sure that people come only for freedom to practice
religion, but they're clearly wanting to come here much more than their
wanting to go, apparently, anywhere else. And interestingly in the
last few decades, there's been a secularizing tendency to somehow ignore
some of those original ideas and specifically, to prohibit public arena
display of symbols of those religions.
As a Christian, I feel sort of on the defensive, that things have been
happening to erode what I see as a long-established tradition in this
country. I'm not sure. There may be instances where other kinds of
symbols have been stricken from the marketplace or the public place,
that sort of thing. But it seems to me that the appropriate American
approach would be to allow diversity and to allow those other symbols
to be displayed. Responding to the lady across here, I feel that when
we are forced not to display our symbols, then there's a certain inhibition
of learning who one might be interested in fellowshipping with.
Female:
Right, and as long we can wear our pentacles and as long as we can
when we're buried . . . there's a big campaign right now within my
religious community of the earth-based religions to incorporate the
ability to choose a pentacle pentagram on your headstone if you're
going to be buried in the veterans cemetery. There is a movement
towards that. That's what I think people want, and that's why I hate
it when the conservative Christian radio establishment bashes multiculturalism
because I think that that makes us all stronger. I think we need
to have our symbols, and I think we need to have our morals and our
ethics. I think people need to learn about us, need to know that
Wicca has earth-based values and ethics that are useful to society
in adding stewardship and how we treat our resources, that we harm
none and have these values and aren't something to be feared.
If we can't talk about it, if we're completely repressed from this
thing like we were talking about in France, then we lose that ability
to learn about each other. What I want to see is a movement more towards
multiculturalism, more towards true inner faith, towards a society
. . . .it's like approach No. 2. We're talking about faith-based. Faith-based
does not mean Judeo-Christian, but it does when you read it in the
political context of this country. It's been given that definition.
But everybody has faith, and there's a lot of faith-based moral activities
going on that we can benefit from as a society by knowing more about.
Male:
I think a lot of the attractiveness of the United States right now
is that they do have a lot more religious freedoms than most countries.
However, there are a lot of religions that have spoken very quietly
or hushed themselves under the collar, just because even in the early
days, if you wanted to do trade with somebody, if you wanted to get
along with somebody, you might have gone with the common feeling
around there, something you felt safe with. But there's a lot of
cultures from the old world that brought old religions with them,
and they are here too.
Male:
I think it's important to put in a note of historical clarification,
if you'll indulge me here. If you look at the Constitution, the part
of the First Amendment that deals with religion has two sections
to it, and nowhere is the phrase "wall of separation" used.
That comes a generation later in some correspondence of Jefferson.
It talks about Congress, the new federal government, shall make no
law concerning an establishment of religion. It did not disestablish
the official religion in states like Massachusetts, which until the
1830s was using tax dollars to support Harvard Divinity School. It
simply says the government will not take any position to establish
or disestablish.
The second clause is the free exercise clause which many people have
spoken to here. People want to be able to express their faith, and
that's one of the things that government should facilitate but not
at the expense of any one group. The Constitutional issue here, I think,
is one of prohibiting monopoly by any one religion. That's what they
had their fill of from European experience, and I would say, most of
the colonies. Let's not read back too much religious freedom. You look
at Pennsylvania. You look at Rhode Island. Those were pioneers. The
others came along later.
Female:
The Spanish conquistadors came here way before them, and the Norse
were here in 1000. So, let's be broad about our perspectives on the
history. It's not all northeast.
Female:
I was just gonna say, don't forget . . . speaking ethnically, I love
all parts of American culture. The parts that are Anglo-Saxon - us,
heathen. Just don't ignore the fact that the Judeo-Christian mirror
overlying British civilizations resting on a heathen and Welshpagan
framework. Don't forget that. We had a lot of important concepts
. . . I wish XXXX XXXXXX was here, because he's got Anglo-Saxon common
law at his fingertips being a heathen and a lawyer. A lot of important
concepts in our law system come from the heathen times. They were
not invented by the Romans.
Male:
I think when we look at this perspective, when we look at the language
being used, is when we see just how difficult this discourse and
this dialogue is, as we're seeing this evening, because there is
no clear definition for what is the separation between church and
state, just like there's not a real clear definition of what is this
Judeo-Christian heritage. If you look at the rhetoric of the 2004
election, you have John Kerry saying that Bush, in supporting his
faith-based initiatives, is violating a historical separation of
church and state. If you look at Bush's speeches though, he talks
about how he honors and adheres to the principles of the separation
of church and state. You find these terms completely different, and
I think that this is one of the biggest problems. We're not even
speaking the same language.
People within the first approach and the second approach might be using
the same terms.
Tomorrow, in Danbury, Conn., there's going to be a big rally by people
in the second approach, and they picked Danbury because it was the
Danbury Baptists that Jefferson wrote to when he coined the phrase, "separation
of church and state." They're going there to say that it's been
. . . they're for separation of church and state, but not how the secularists
and the current system that they're arguing against have defined it.
They say that this isn't how Jefferson meant it. He didn't establish
this permanent wall, this impregnable wall, but that it was to keep
the federal government out of it. They think the state government should
be allowed to be a part of it.
That was Gore's argument in Alabama. There's not even a consistent
set of definitions and terms, and so, if we can't even speak the same
language, I don't know how approach 1 and approach 2 are supposed to
come to some consensus as to what's going on here. I think that kind
of helps us capture some of the complexities of this.
Moderator:
Let me put something out here for just a second. Let me just ask you
to think for a second. What might be important about taking this
direction? Does anybody see anything important about taking this
kind of direction?
Participant:
I would be very interested to see, if you did stick to approach No.
2, how diplomatic your international relationships would be. It would
just segregate everything, because you lose the power to approach
the Middle East or Far East Asia with that.
Moderator:
So you're saying there would be significant costs to this approach?
Participant:
I would say yes, there would be massively significant costs.
Female:
I think the costs would be the alienation of others; just the term, "recover
our JudeoChristian heritage."
I work very closely with Native American students in research. My Native
American students would just . . . it would be a slap in the face for
them for us to say that, "recover our Judeo-Christian heritage." This
is not what America's all about. As many of you pointed out, many of
us came to the United States as immigrants, because we can practice
our own faith freely. We're able to do that without persecution by
the government or by others. So, it's almost anti-American, I feel,
to have that. That's what I believe in, the ability ofthis country
to sustain itself because people can practice freely.
Male:
One of the questions I think about is this, that so many people value,
is carried-on tradition. What is the tradition that carries that?
Is that tradition in jeopardy now? Is there something to be recovered,
or is there only something yet to be discovered? If there is some
tradition that values diversity, human life, that has as one of its
fundamental tenets, whatever else the word God means, it's not me.
If there is some tradition that carries that, is that a valuable
tradition, and is it in jeopardy?
Female:
It's only in jeopardy if we try to limit it.
Male:
Part of the problem is that there's always . . . pointing us back to
the First Amendment I think is useful, but the problem becomes one
if we want to control the government for our purpose, whatever it
happens to be. We need the Judeo-Christian tradition. We need the
other traditions as part of the public discourse. The great danger
in the United States today has nothing to do with any of this. The
god who is destroying freedom in the United States today is money
and the control of our political system by money. We have made it
so expensive to be a candidate for public office that you sell your
soul to whomever to get the money to be a candidate. Those of us
who have concerns based on our faith . . . there's no danger of us
controlling. The money is in control.
What we need to be is not letting the people with money manipulate
us by dangling religious symbols here and there to make us think they're
our friends, and they're buying our votes. We need to be critical.
We need to be willing to hold our public officials accountable. What
we desperately need . . . instead of worrying about how to control
it, how can we critique it? How can we criticize it? How can we work
together to challenge the authority that's really running the system?
Moderator:
Let me ask another question. Is there anybody with a different perspective
that, other than that we don't have a Judeo-Christian tradition right
now? Is there anybody that has a different perspective on this that
perhaps we might or is heading in this direction? From what I'm hearing
in the group, there seems to be, it sounds like to me, there's some
agreement in the room that this may not be the approach that you
all want to take. Is there anybody here that has a different perspective
that this may exist?
Lambeth:
I guess I have a question for XXXX that I think speaks to that. Were
you trying to suggest XXXX that the Judeo-Christian heritage in its
main outline was in fact carrying this tradition of freedom of religion
in both the same senses of the First Amendment, or were you trying
to suggest something else?
Male:
No, personally Judeo-Christian is offensive to me precisely first of
all because of what it does to Judaism. So, I'm not suggesting that.
I am open to the possibility, and I'm eager to discover if there
is a normative tradition that needs to be preserved and built upon.
Can we live successfully as a people without some normative traditions
that we depend upon, that offer us orientation and direction. As
far as I am aware, the big religious traditions are so internally
divided, there's such diversity within them that I don't know how
to speak about a single tradition, but it's something that's working
itself out through time. I don't understand it, but I'd like to help
it along if possible, but I have to understand what the tradition
is
Lambeth:
I think you're saying something important that we can work on, maybe
not here but later. Thank you.
Moderator:
Is there anybody that would like to say something that hasn't spoken
yet?
Participant:
You mean in this approach?
Moderator:
Yes.
Participant:
Yes, I was waiting.
Moderator:
Well, why don't you go ahead, because we're going to have to move on
to the next approach. So, I just wanted to give people a chance who
haven't had a comment or would like to say something to please feel
free to take this opportunity.
Female:
I was going to say something about this approach, briefly. I do believe
we have a JudeoChristian heritage, and I think it's probably
served us pretty well. What I'm thinking maybe is what's underneath
. . . maybe what's bothering everybody and certainly what's bothering
me is that in our society today, I'm afraid of a fundamentalist takeover.
I trust everybody in this room, but I don't trust the fundamentalists
to recover . . . I can't quite say what I'm saying here, because
I'm scared. I don't have a problem with our JudeoChristian heritage.
I have a problem with the fundamentalist bent that this is taking,
and that may be what is empowered by this approach.
Participant:
I guess the interesting thing to me is, in order to even have an approach,
there has to be some goal. There has to be something that if you
want to recover something, if you want to stay the course, if you
want approach 1, 2 and 3, there has to be some goal. Again, it's
interesting looking at it as an American instead oflooking at it
as a human.
I would say looking at this about the Judeo-Christian heritage, I guess
what we're talking about when we're even talking about religion is
the age of prophecy. We've have Krishna, Zoroaster, Abraham, Moses,
Buddha, Christ, Mohammed. I guess with each of these things comes a
set of values. Not only values with how you conduct yourself religiously
but also socially, different things, different regions. It's kind of
interesting that when you talk about Judeo-Christian, that you look
at the words of each of these beings, and when you look at the promises
of each of these beings and the things that they brought forth, the
civilizations that they brought forth, that we, as human beings, try
to control.
I guess that the step after the age of prophecy, from what I know,
is the age of fulfillment. I think from these approaches is everyone
is trying to get a certain level of fulfillment.
What I've found with all of these different beings is they're in the
same family. Now, I don't know what you research, but I've found that
they're all in the same family. When you look at Isaac and Ishmael,
when you look at Christianity came from one branch and Islam came from
one branch and they're all within the same family through our time.
So, it's really interesting to see how human beings with free will
try to control things, I guess things not really in their control but
are given to them to try to reach a certain level of fulfillment. So,
it's interesting seeing that and seeing the different approaches, but
I guess that I would say that we have to kind of realize, and I thank
XXXXX for taking us back to the beginning to know where it is we're
going futuristically, because we seem to forget. Also, as my friend
down there said, the language is very interesting. If you don't know
what the definition of secular is, or if you don't have a definition
of cultural or some of these things, you can be arguing about what
you're talking about.
Male:
The faith-based initiative, I think, is misplaced in approach No. 2.
It actually belongs in approach No. 3. I'll get to that, but let
me agree with XXXX that there is no Judeo-Christian heritage. That
was mostly, I think, an attempt by Christians or a certain group
of Christians, not all Christians by any means, to broaden their
appeal for support. So, they used Judeo-Christian. But it indeed
does do violence to Judaism. I think, in a rough cut, if we did have
a religious tradition in America, and I have to, because of some
useful interventions from the row down from me . . . you're right,
we have to define what we mean by American.
So, by American I simply mean that republic which came out of the English
colonies. So, putting aside the Spanish colonies and the French up
in Canada having made their way down to Louisiana, and of course, putting
aside Native Americans and their religious tradition. Out of the English
colonies, which were Protestant throughout, everyone was Protestant,
there was much Protestant evidence, although not an established church,
even in Pennsylvania, and never an established in Rhode Island, but
nonetheless, a thoroughgoing Protestant people.
Male:
Wasn't Maryland Catholic?
Male (same as above):
Maryland was established as a Catholic haven, but they encouraged the
Protestants and Catholics to come, and then, due to military action,
English Church of England established the Church of England there
around 1640s. So, there was a Church of England in Maryland that
had to be disestablished around 1775, 1776.
So, this is a definition of America which I'm ... so out that comes
a variety of Protestant groups. Now, I don't mean to say that there
weren't Jewish peoples. There were, but they were very few. There were
some Catholic people, but very, very few. So, out of this you get a
variety of Protestant groups, and then you get a new nation. Protestantism
in the new nation, 1789 to the 1830s, Protestantism just exploded.
It's called the Second Great Awakening. Methodists and Baptists in
particular, Presbyterians to a large extent as well, and other Protestant
groups. Then there was an attempt, which was quasi-successful, to have
kind of a sense of, some called it disparagingly, a least-common denominator
of Protestant hegemony. Proponents said there's sort of a broad Protestant
stream of commonality. There again, recognizing that there are Jews
and Catholics and many nonbelievers as well. As a very rough-cut, some
said hegemony which is bad, some said a positive Protestant ethic.
It was probably a little bit of both.
You take that on through the Civil War, and then it begins to feather
out even more. You get more and more Catholic immigration. Catholics
are ruthlessly discriminated against. The Know Nothing Party, etc.
and so on, but many Catholics nonetheless though they're discriminated
against. Then you get into the 20th century, still a fairly sharp division
between Protestants and Catholics, but still a Protestant culture.
It was called, disparagingly, the WASP, the White Anglo Saxon Protestant
kind of culture, but it was nonetheless roughly there or you couldn't
even name it, the WASP. And again, there's good and bad in that, but
some of those Protestants were separationists. Some of those Protestants
were not, and so to talk about approach number two, being Judeo-Christian,
it's sort of wrong in eight different ways.
So to fear a Judeo-Christian heritage is to fear something that never
was. That's different than saying, maybe there's some Protestant fundamentalists
that I'm really aftaid of. That's different. That's much more precise
and, I think, constructive, than this rendition of approach No. 2.
Then last point, the faith-based initiative is different. It's really
approach No. 3. Maybe this is your segue.
Moderator:
That's a great segue.
Male (same as above):
With the faith-based initiative, it said that No. 1, there are a lot
of charities out there that do good things. Some of them are not
religious. I won't use the word secular, but they're not religious.
They're everything ftom American Red Cross to . . . Girl Scouts is
a youth building . . . Four H . . they're not religious.
Then you have religiously affiliated and thorough-goingly religious
groups as well. So, what the faith-based initiative said is it's not
who you are that disqualifies you from government social-services grants.
It's not your nature that should disqualify you, and to disqualify
you by your nature, is to discriminate you on the basis of religion.
Instead, what matters is, what do you do with the government funds
after you get them? You have to do the delivery of services that the
government has contracted for. Not go teach catechism or pray or have
a devotional Bible study. You've got to deliver the social services.
That's all the faith-based initiative is. So, it is saying, religion
has civic value. It does charity, and in some cases, it says it does
charity extremely well, because it also brings love of human kind.
I care about you, because maybe you'd say you're one of God's creatures
or however that faith might express it. But it's still delivering the
service that the government bargained for. It's not delivering an explicit
religious observance or proselytizing you. That's all it is.
Moderator:
Well, that's a great segue. You're right. So, we now move into our
third approach, and this is "many of our nation's problems stem
in part, proponents of this approach say, from our secular culture
which has come to undermine our religious and spiritual sensibilities.
Advocates remain adamant about church-state separation as a means
to keeping religious and spiritual values out of the public arena,
but want to ensure that spiritual values retain their vital and distinct
character, uncompromised by an all anthropolitical power. So,
what attracts you about this approach?
Male:
I question automatically whether there has ever been a separation between
religion and politics. I don't think it's ever existed, and I don't
think it can.
Male:
I agree. Maybe I'm an optimist about this approach, or maybe I'm seeing
this approach through my own lenses. You cannot separate religion
and public life. It would take an authoritarian police state to do
that, and that's not America. So, you're absolutely right if that's
what separation means. So, surely it can't mean that.
Something that begins to approach it is an institutional . . . it
takes government as an institution. The government's very, very different
than civil society. Government's just a small part ofthe larger civil
society. So, it's the government that should be separated from organized
religion, but even that doesn't work, for reasons that people have
said. You cannot make law, you cannot legislate without values. I mean,
a law is a value statement of the common people through their elected
representatives. So, every law, except the most rudimentary, regulatory
laws, laws like you stop on red and go on green, could be the opposite.
We drive on the right, but in England we drive on the left. That kind
of stuf. I guess doesn't have values as long as everybody's doing the
same thing.
But most laws have values, if we're not a religious person, and we
have a worldview of some sort. It's pretty hard to be a nothing, even
to be a nihilist or just a materialist. So separation of government
from religion can't mean that governmental laws can't have embedded
in them values which some people derive from their religious faith.
Male:
One respect that you think of a group of people making a decision to
pass a law not to impose, for example, a specific prayer of a specific
religion upon everyone. Those are values that are not necessarily
coming from a religious perspective but from just a perspective the
belief in the fact that everyone's individuality should be respected
and one particular thing should not be imposed upon them. Some religions
might believe that. Others may not. I think you can come to that
value from a religious or a nonreligious perspective, but then, I
think you're basically saying you don't want that imposition on people.
Female:
Well, there will be some that are absolute, because they'll be shared
by the vast majority of all your faith traditions. No murder, stealing,
rape, assault. They're almost what you would call natural laws, because
you can't have a civilized society, you can't live without those.
But then there are other laws that are a matter of choice, like supporting
stem-cell research, euthanasia. That's accepted as a religious principle
by some but not others.
Male:
So a society can legislate on euthanasia, either for or against or
some interim position, because it can be simply a moral position
which may be informed by your religion or it might not.
Female:
I think it takes public deliberation for that. In the case of euthanasia,
in the case of the Netherlands, it took them 10 years to deliberate
as a society whether they would allow euthanasia in the Netherlands.
Ten years of deliberations like this, in groups, in cities, in small
towns. And at the end, they finally agreed that that would be a part
of what it means to be Dutch. It is really important that these types
of issues are not to be taken lightly. As a society, I think that
we have the responsibility and even the obligation to hear each other
out, to be able to see the other point of view and to think and to
be able to deliberate together as a society. It's not an easy matter.
Your value system is very important to me to understand as it is,
I hope, that you can understand from my perspective.
Female:
And they came up with a system that had a lot of checks and balances.
It protected those who did not believe in it. There's nothing coercive
about it. If you don't believe in it, you simply don't do it. It
went to vast lengths to make sure that the patients are informed
and making a free choice and are not being pressured into it by religious
leaders or economic leaders
Male:
The two of you aren't saying though, that if a society makes unlawful
use of euthanasia that somehow that violates the separation of church
and state? Is that what you're saying?
Female:
If a society, come again please. If a society . . .
Male (same as above):
If a society makes euthanasia unlawful, you're not saying, are you
that that somehow violates the separation of church and state?
Female (same as above):
If it makes euthanasia unlawful, does that violate the separation of
church and state? No, I think the public together should come to
that conclusion together.
Male (same as above):
Then I agree. I completely agree.
Male:
Can I come back to this faith-based initiative? I think there are four
fundamental problems with it. First of all, it ignores the fact that
we give massive subsidies to faithbased charities already through
tax-exempt status. If I give money to the Salvation Army or to Catholic
Relief Services or any religious organization that's doing good works,
I can get a tax deduction from my taxes. So, instead of giving it
to Uncle Sam, I give it to a religious organization. That supportive
of religious, faith-based initiatives is already there.
Secondly, if government gives money directly to religious groups for
specific ends, if that has the right to dictate how that money is spent,
and it's the open foot. What people forget is when government goes
into something, it starts telling you how to do it, and it's the end
of religious liberty if government becomes a major source of funding
for religious organizations and activities.
Thirdly, at least in the present administration, and I don't want
to be partisan about this, the vast majority of these grants have gone
to religious organizations that are coming out of the Protestant tradition.
Some of the president's strongest supporters were horrified to hear
that perhaps Louis Farrakhan would be eligible to
receive a grant. So, it's faith-based initiatives, but they want to
make sure that the range isn't too far.
Fourth is that it starves nonsectarian charitable groups and public
agencies of funds. So the social worker that represents a minority
religious tradition or no religion at all or has a "unorthodox
lifestyle,"
maybe he's gay or maybe she's gay, can't get work because the government
is now funding organizations that has as part of their faith teachings
that those are inappropriate lifestyles. So you then force minority
groups and minority lifestyles out of certain fields of activity because
you've tied up government funds in groups that are either claiming
that they have a right to discriminate. I many concerns about faith-based
initiatives, and I strongly suspect that the motivation of the government
and the people who propose it.
I actually don't have a problem with bring people's spirituality to
life. The most profoundly religious president in my lifetime was Jimmy
Carter, and I have an infinite respect for the way he let his faith
inform his political decisions. I don't have a problem with that. He
never did it in a divisive way. He never tried to exclude people in
that basis. So I don't have a problem with the phrase in that way,
but I do have a problem with the way it's being used politically now,
and I think the faith-based initiative is exactly the kind of subterfuge
which is a way to undermine various activities that are going on in
this country that have historically been through secular agencies.
Moderator:
Are there other thoughts?
Participant:
To look at this approach from a different perspective, a lot of our
talk has been about the governmental side which is important, and
I'm not sure if governmentally the third approach is really that
practical because of the pull from the people in approach 1 and those
from approach 2. Both kind of pull in opposite directions. From a
religious side, I'm really drawn to the third approach particularly
in the yellow packets and the comments of Rabbi Lerner and others
that have advocated this kind of third way. As a Baptist minister,
Baptists have been very tom lately on the issue. There's some that
want to go approach 2.
What we have is this idea that the church is pushing itself towards
political purposes, trying to build alliances with political power,
and when that happens, it scares me somewhat the government side, but
it really saddens me with the church with religious people when we
lose our calling. We lose that prophetic voice, we lose that position
as the conscience of society, and we lose that ability, I think, to
really benefit society, like churches, like religious people really
could, because we're now concerned about winning offices, codifying
our beliefs, getting more money, more political power. When that happens,
then I think society has lost, because we've lost the religious beliefs,
we've lost the churches, we've lost the synagogues, we've lost the
temples out there trying to make our communities a better place. That's
what really draws me to approach 3.
Male:
Perhaps I'm just a huge cynic, but I don't really see religion as existing
in a vacuum, or religious belief existing in a vacuum such that religious
people and religious organizations are out to do good and better
the community and that's it. Take people to a higher power, and that's
the end all, be all of religion. I don't see that at all. I think
that from the religion that I've studied and all the different kinds
of religions that I've studied, it's always about power and money
and who's in control, where do we want things to go and who's steering
the ship.
And so, to say religions are losing their freedom and are being sucked
into political organizations, the political steamboat that you can't
get yourself out of and oh no, religions have been perverted. No, it's
always been that way. I don't think religion has ever had this pure
essence to it, because it's something that is generated and perpetuated
by human beings. Human beings are based on wanting power, wanting to
be in control, and you go about these through different channels. Some
are politics, some are war, some are religion. In my opinion, it's
one in the same.
Female:
I'm hearing you say religion. You're not talking about direct, ecstatic
experience on the part of the individual. You're talking about the
organization, right?
Male:
Well, yes. We're talking about religion. You can talk about individual
beliefs, but that doesn't play as much of a role in the public sphere.
Participant:
It's kind of interesting to hear a lot of these viewpoints, and just
on my cultural background, me specifically, with my belief system,
you actually can't run for office. You can't take part in partisan
politics. It's really interesting. You can't see a difference in
the prophets of different religions, and if you see a difference,
it's almost like you're negating the whole effect of God yourself.
So, it's really interesting. Like I said, I don't know your cultural
backgrounds. I'm really not going to go too deep into mine, but it's
really interesting from my perspective seeing it from a different
viewpoint. I actually live in that age of fulfillment that I was
talking about. So, I don't really see any problems.
Moderator:
With this approach?
Participant:
With any of them. They're all band-aids.
Moderator:
Say a little more about that.
Participant:
I tried to talk earlier. When you have the adherence of humanity as
a whole, no matter what your religious belief is, whether you are
pagan, Wiccan, whether you are a Hindu, whether you're a Christian,
Muslim. Most of these people, most of this humanity, they're all
looking for a promised one. Hindus are looking for the 10th Avatar.
Christians are looking for the spirit of truth to return, the glory
of the father. Muslims are looking for the return of Jesus and also
the Imam Iti. I think that's correct. I don't know. And the Lord
of Hosts for the Jewish. So, everyone is waiting, looking and trying
to get to a certain level of fulfillment, and everything that we're
going to have . . . Like I said, if you forget the goal, it's really
hard to . . . if you forget where you're trying to go, you get sidetracked.
Earlier, they said that humanity really wasn't mature enough. I think
that finally getting to a point, to reach a level of maturity, to actually
have a certain level of peace . . . if we think that we're the only
ones in this universe, and we think that our social structure is a
perfect thing, then we reach a certain level of pride and vain-glory.
I think that if you step back and just see the unity and the diversity
would help out a lot. But anything that is a barrier, anything that
is a prejudice, whether it be religion, whether it be politics, whether
it be whatever, social, class, if it's a barrier to unity, then it's
not really a part. It's man. It's not the work of God. That's just
my personal opinion.
Male:
I very much align myself with the third alternative, and I'm very glad
to see reference to the writers, religious leaders, Lerner and Wallis.
They get together with theologians like Cornell West, the African-American
tradition, Arun Gandhi and others whose names don't come to me, are
having a conference in a couple months to bring together people of
faith to address serious issues in the public order. So, this isn't
just theoretical. It's a movement that's coming out, and as Jim Wallis
says, "the political right wing no longer has a monopoly on
claiming religious value and motivation."
One thing I like about this which is jeopardized by a certain aspect
of No. 2 is that it enhances what I call that other part of the First
Amendment guarantee, namely, the free exercise of religion, freedom
to be prophetic. I'm using maybe code words here, but the prophetic
impulse in the Judeo and Christian tradition, and for me, they come
together, is to be able to point the finger of God's judgment at social
institutions, political and economic institutions and say, "This
is wrong. That's gotta be changed. If you don't change it, all hell's
gonna break loose."
So, to be able to challenge the gods of materialism, I would say nationalism,
militarism, things which people sort of take as their existential postulace.
It doesn't really matter where they go to church on Sunday. What they
really believe is the flag or that the president should always be given
the benefit of the doubt or that the president knows best or whatever
that is.
I think that the values inherent in the third alternative are willing
to contend with the powers that be, and to me, that is the height of
religion. It brings a transcendent principle, on which I learned a
lot from studying Dietrich Bonhoeffer in the Third Reich, when the
official church, the official state - one in the same. German Christianity,
which was abominable, and Bonhoeffer says, that's not what the Gospel
is about. So people that joined with him in what became an underground
seminary, and some parts of it were a conspiracy to assassinate Hitler,
were willing to challenge social evil out of a religious motivation.
I don't think any of us are called to engage in political assassination,
but I do think we need to be able to call a spade a spade and point
out that, as Jim Wallis says, budgets are moral documents. What does
it say when we're giving tax breaks to the rich and cutting programs
for the poor? So that's all encompassed in the approach of No. 3.
Moderator:
We're gonna need to wrap up, but I'll take one more comment.
Female:
I have two questions so maybe there will be an answer, so maybe we
will have to have another comment. One question is about approach
3. It seems like it's elusive, because I cannot understand how somebody
is going to make sure that the religion and the spiritual values
. . . I don't want to use the word religion, because to me, somebody
who doesn't believe in a religion, doesn't want to be in a religion,
all the religions, atheism is
a religion, so, I'm including everything . . . how are we going to
keep the vital, distinctive character uncompromised by an alliance
of political power? How are we going to stop a religion from having
an alliance with political power? Unless you can be sure that it can
happen, then I'm all for approach 3. Who's going to stop them from
having one
religion over another, from having an alliance with a political power?
Moderator:
I think it's a great question for another forum. I'm not sure we're
going to answer it in the next seven minutes. What I would like to
do, if we could, let's just reflect for a minute because we do only
have seven more minutes. Think about what was said tonight, and did
any of you hear what might be some common areas of interest or some
common ground that you all might have agreed upon? Just throw some
things out.
Male:
I think the most common thing I've heard is there's a difference between
individual practice, and I think you use the term on the individual
level, and then, how religion manifests itself. So you should have
respect for different symbols and manifestations of people's religions.
And then, looking at religion also as institution and religion as
an institution involved in government, making policies or state institution
or religion in school, that there seems to be a little bit of a difference
in the way that people look at our individual religion and then religions
become institutionalized. There seemed to be a common theme of concern
and respect for those two areas.
Female:
I think he had something about the brewing, to come up with the idea
of America, and the world for that matter, has grown for so long,
perhaps this as a country or a society, not the Judeo-Christian heritage,
but as a country has probably grown with a lot of traditions, and
perhaps you were trying to find, I thought, something that was a
common tradition, some kind of freedom to grow naturally and otherwise.
Sometimes, some sort of a common tradition, so that everybody can
feel that they are part of it and have a name to it which doesn't
automatically eliminate everybody else, a huge section of people.
Moderator:
And if you reflect back on the three approaches, because remember what
we were talking about tonight was God & the Commons and the role
of religion in public life. Did you all hear any common ground on
any of the approaches in terms of either adopting some of the approaches?
Participant:
From the discussion it seems that approach 2 was not a full-blown approach
to a complete looking towards our government following a specific
tradition. I don't know if there was any agreement on whether there
should be none, a little bit or some mixing of church and state.
We did, at least, seem to agree that we should stay away from a full-blown
concept.
Moderator:
Would everybody say that that was common agreement?
Male:
I think there seems to be a consensus that religion has a vital role
to play in forming people's ethical decisions and how people discuss
issues in the public arena without privileging anyone in particular.
I think there seems to be a broad consensus on that.
Male:
There's a procedural consensus, that to me is perhaps most important,
that is we have these two procedures of fight or flight and those
are not followed. There's a civility procedure of conversation that
. . . I'm rarely in a room where there's so many different perspectives
represented and people speaking rather reasonably and civily I thought.
Lambeth:
Although not everyone articulated it, I think there's a sense that
we can all learn better the language of other traditions, and we
could have something to learn factually, just in the matter of knowledge
of traditions. There's an impulse to religious literacy, though broadly
conceived, and that somehow this is an era in which we can't afford
to be ignorant. We need to have more dialogue so that we in fact
practice the five freedoms that we have in the First Amendment and
understand how they work and what you have to do to get them to work.
Participant:
I think I saw a commonality in that people know what they don't want.
I saw a lot of people that when it was something that would seem
as excessive or seem as all the way on one side or another, I just
felt a certain commonality that people knew what they did not want.
So, hopefully, if we know that, then we know exactly what we're trying
to build.
Moderator:
So let me ask you all, did any of your thinking change about this issue
by participating tonight? Anything shift for you tonight?
Female:
I was sort of somewhere between 1 and 3 and I shifted a little bit
more towards 3.
Female:
I found it very helpful. Like she said, I felt myself shifting from
1 to 3 because I was feeling like it was safe, and there was a lot
of maturity in this room to accept other paths and to listen. I've
been in places where I didn't feel that way, and it's really nice
to be with this group.
Female:
I think what's interesting, what you said. I feel that 3 is rather
like too utopian perhaps. It's not something that . . . I wish it
could happen, but I'm not quite sure how we're going to organize
that society such that it really does adhere to approach 3. But I
think after the conversation we had here, I am hopeful that we can
approach that, that we are on that trajectory. It's probably the
most . . . as far as something that reconciles all the different
approaches in a way that is pragmatic for society to be a peaceful
society.
Male:
I'll share a belief with you. I believe that still waters run deep,
but there's a couple of people in this group that haven't shared
their opinion with us or what they thought about it and I'd really
love to hear from the people that have so far...
Female:
I'm one of the people that hasn't said anything. I have not studied
religion. I'm not religious. I love it that in this country my kids
can walk into any church, any synagogue, any building and not be
shot for trying to learn. Fundamentalism does scare me. I agree strongly
with you that organized religion can be really scary. I guess that's
all I have to say.
Participant:
Actually, with his comment, I'd like to hear from XXXXX, if you don't
mind.
Male:
The reason why I was quiet is because what was on my mind was said
pretty much by a lot of the other people, but my understanding of
religion is that religion is a person's way of life and one thing
that really struck me . . . if this is possible, part of the teachings
of my religion per se, either where you're ruling or you're being
ruled . . . when this issue was brought in election and John Kerry
was asked regarding abortion, said that it's against his own personal
belief, but as a ruler, he can't make that a law so everybody has
to abide by it because in some people's religion, maybe abortion
is permissible. In mine, it isn't, but
just because it's not OK in mine, doesn't mean I have to make it unlawful
for everybody.
It's difficult to find that common ground, because the reason why we
all have different religions is because we all have differences. I
think the idea of unity through diversity was thrown in, and I think
that's the . . . it can be achieved. There's nothing impossible in
this world. I think if we all try to go for it, there's no reason why
we can't get it.
[Mention of where the approaches were developed. Lambeth with brief
concluding statement. Thank you to Sandy.]
Moderator:
I think everybody's spoken so let me again thank all of
you very much. |