Nice try, no cigar

I went to the forum hosted by the Over the Mountain Democrats here in Birmingham last night. The topic was "Golden Rule Politics: Reclaiming the rightful role of Faith in Politics". The forum began with a film, created by the OTM Dems, in which a number of progressive-leaning clergy people and politicians discuss how religion has been mis-used by groups on the Right to garner political power.

One of the more interesting ideas in the film was put forth by Professor Susan Pace Hamill of the University of Alabama Law School. She described the religious issues that the the Right tends to focus on as "low-sacrifice" issues (abortion, gay marriage, etc.), and says that the Bible does not describe a "low-sacrifice faith". In other words, it's very easy to oppose something like gay marriage if you're not gay or you don't have any gay friends. And, if you can convince yourself that such a belief solidifies favor with the Almighty, then all the better. In contrast, Biblically-based values such as helping the poor, cultivating a egalitarian society, protecting the environment (in order to practice love for your neighbors of future generations), are comparatively "high-sacrifice" values.

That reminds me of a line in one of Al Franken's books: "From what I understand, if you cut out all the passages in the Bible where Jesus talks about the poor, about helping out the least among us, you'd have the perfect container to smuggle Rush Limbaugh's drugs in."

That's the gist of the film: the Republican party high-jacked Christianity to get power, make rich people richer, and that's wrong.

Here Here!

But, it occurred to me that the Question was never addressed: What is the rightful role of religion in politics?

Nobody came out and said it, but at several points, it seemed like the interviewees were coming dangerously close to saying, "the Republican brand of Christianity sucks, so what we need to do is inject our own interpretation of the Christian Faith into politics."

I don't like it. Political questions shouldn't be decided on religious grounds. Political behavior shouldn't be based on religious precepts. Period.

However, if, because of his adherence to Christian principles, a politician is inclined to want to help poor people, that's fine and good. My point is that the government shouldn't help poor people for religious reasons, for the same reason that it shouldn't prevent gay people from marrying for religious reasons. There is no provision in the U.S. Constitution for making religiously-based laws.

Ideology and dogma are dangerous political forces. Are laws that help the poor inherently good laws? Are they inherently Constitutional? Obviously not. But there is plenty of material in the Constitution to justify laws that "promote the common good".

I am aware that there is a kind of "Constitution dogma" at play in certain political circles today. It goes like this: "The Constitution is an infallible road-map to a Utopian Universe!" I don't believe that. I'm what you might call a "loose constructionist". But I don't think you can criticize Republicans for trying to inject their religious beliefs, however heinous, into politics and then propose that Democrats inject their beliefs, however righteous, right?

The question is, can Progressives win elections if their answer to the Question is: "There is no legitimate direct role of religion in politics."?

At one point last night, I felt like Artur Davis was talking in code. He talked about his vote in favor of The National Marriage Amendment, which would define marriage as (I hate to even type this) "between a man and a woman". He said that (wink/ nod) "If I had voted against it, I would probably be unelectable". Hmm.

The politics of compromise have gotten us nowhere. Compromise is a slow slide down the slippery slope to increasing power for Corporations, for Corporate Religion, for politicians who feed on the fear and greed and bigotry of the weak. The only way to a better future is to do what's right, for the right reason.