Political Discussions
The Role of Churches in Politics
Posted by MadameX • 11/16/08 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: civil rights, proposition 8, religion and politics
Ministers were on the front lines of the civil rights movement in the United States, and churches were instrumental in that movement both through direct action and by delivering the message from the pulpit that racism was inconsistent with the Christian concept of the dignity and worth of all humans. The liberal organizations advancing that cause were, for the most part, happy to have the help. Conservatives who wished to maintain the status quo objected vociferously, arguing that it wasn't the place of churches or ministers to make political statements. Numerous religious figureheads actively protested the Vietnam war, with similar reactions.
The argument of those churches and ministers who did choose to participate was, in essence, that they were doing God's work. That was welcomed by those who agreed with their ends and objected to by those who did not.
I find myself questioning how that was different from churches today working to restrict or outlaw abortion, or against same-sex marriage. It seems the the opposition has flipped--that the liberal people and organizations who were all too happy to have the help of the churches and ministers in the 60s and early 70s now think it's "inappropriate" for churches to be involved in politics, and the conservatives who were outraged when ministers took to the streets in favor of desegregation now think they SHOULD be taking to the streets in favor of Prop 8 and against abortion.
But at the end of the day, isn't the truth that churches either should or should not be taking active positions on political issues? In each case here, regardless of whether we as individuals or the political parties or organizations with which we affiliate ourselves agree, the church is acting on its own good faith belief in God's plan and the kind of world God wants us to be creating here--that's what motivated ministers in the civil rights movement, and it's what motivates the churches advancing Prop 8.
I'm very interested to hear whether anyone can draw a logical distinction here based on anything other than agreeing with one position and not the other. Or should churches stay out of politics entirely? Should they have stayed out of the civil rights movement?
User Comments
-
It is a hard question that you ask because the issues are so far removed from each other.-
I disagree, Phoenix. The "issue" is whether or not churches should take an active role in political issues based on their religious beliefs.
-
-
I would first venture to ask you if you have anything to provide us that pertains to just how much and how the churches helped in the civil rights movement.
Please understand that the KKK is a "Christian" group, and many churches then were just as racist. Just how prolific was their assistance? Another note to think of is that the civil rights movement was not funded by the churches - there were no propositions being backed by religious groups to further civil rights causes - they may have made a showing on the protest line - but not in the same manner that has been discussed here - financing a campaign to enact specific political legislation.
Personally speaking I take no issue with religions making their support/lack of support known. They have that specific right.
I take issue with religions when they seek out, financially support/fund, or organize special groups for the specific purpose of trying to enact their religious beliefs into law - when their restrictions fly in the face of both the constitution, the ideals of this country, and even their own core religious beliefs.
In that way they become lobbyists seeking to change, create, or abolish legislation according to their religious doctrine, thus forcing their religion onto those who do not believe in it. That is going too far, in my opinion.-
"In that way they become lobbyists seeking to change, create, or abolish legislation according to their religious doctrine, thus forcing their religion onto those who do not believe in it. That is going too far, in my opinion."
Yet, that's precisely what the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., Ralph Abernathy and their ilk were doing. Was that "going too far"?
Re the history--are you familiar with the Southern Christian Leadership Conference? -
I am not familiar with the Southern Christian Leadership Group.
However, Martin Luther King Jr et al did not promote religious doctrine in the civil rights fights.
he may have called on religious compassion - but that is not the same thing as using Christian or religious doctrine outlined for one specific religion, and using that as a guideline to create law.
No where in the bible does it say that races were equal/unequal, and no where in religion does it explicitly state or imply how race relations ought to be handled.
This is very different from legally legislating something because "the bible says so/it's against my religion", guided by specific doctrine.
I am not Christian, I do not believe that homosexuality is a sin against god. I am not Muslim, I do not believe showing one's hair is an affront to Allah. I am not Jewish, I do not believe that pork should be abstained from. I am not Buddhist (well, I sort of am) I do not believe we must walk the middle path.
Most people are not Pagan, and they do not believe what little Pagan doctrine there is.
I think we should be very careful not to indoctrinate our constitutions, laws, and legislation with specific religious doctrine. The issue of gay marriage is an issue directly relating to religious doctrine.
By the way - I would be just as opposed to large corporations making such financial contributions to propositions in this manner as well. It's not just religions.
-
-
You raise good points, Tiffany. And I don't see how we can restrict speech, though members of congregations can vote with their feet and donations (or lack thereof). I'm now even more unclear about the whole tax-free thing for churches, though I guess in most cases the political activity is *one* thing a church does, not *the* thing. That's at least relevant to the IRS, I should think.
-
"The Role of Churches in Politics"
I am sure a hundred million people who were slaughtered by the nazis etc. in world war 2 would have appreciated the Vatican playing a role in politics rather than collaborating with the Nazis...
Personally I do not have a problem with churches being involved in politics...
The real problem with churches is their claim to be speaking for g-d based on their interpretations of books and fairy tales...
MadameX recently in a blogcatalog discussion commented...
"G-d doesn't hate anyone--murderers, child molesters, bank robbers, people who con little old ladies out of their life savings--but that doesn't mean he doesn't hate some of the things they do."
This type of blasphemy{claiming to speak for G-d) is the biggest problem with churches etc...
Claiming to speak for G-d but in reality worshipping books and wearing sunglasses to the problems of mankind is most churches biggest downfall...-
@ gerry,
"I am sure a hundred million people who were slaughtered by the nazis etc. in world war 2 would have appreciated the Vatican playing a role in politics rather than collaborating with the Nazis..."
Q. Gerry why exactly did the French resistence, the Dutch resistence, the Greek Resistence called themselves an underground movement? Why did they need to operate underground? Try analyzing that before laying the death of millions at the foot of the Vatican, including 3+ million Catholic Poles
It's that type of ignorance of historical truth and the buying into anti-Catholic propaganda that limits our ability to discover truth, were we come from, how our western institutions, laws and rights were first established, how they were were nutured and who defended them.
I suggest you do a google search for a chief rabbi of Rome aka Israel Zolli.
then google Pius XII, Golda Meir United Nations speach 1958.
Gerry you really need to drop the charactization and discover the hate-doctrine you've fallen into because I know you actually like to think you're on the other side -
In 1958, at the death of Pope Pius XII, Golda Meir, then Israel's Minister of Foreign Affairs, delivered a eulogy on behalf of the nation of Israel to the United Nations, stating: “We share the grief of the world over the death of His Holiness Pius XII. During a generation of wars and dissensions, he affirmed the high ideals of peace and compassion. During the 10 years of Nazi terror, when our people went through the horrors of martyrdom, the Pope raised his voice to condemn the persecutors and to commiserate with their victims. The life of our time has been enriched by a voice which expressed the great moral truths above the tumults of daily conflicts. We grieve over the loss of a great defender of peace.”
-
@kevinatserieatalk
I certainly do not blame the death of hundreds of million of Earthlings on the Vatican their deaths were due to hitler,hirihito,mussolini and associates...
Debating the actions of the Vatican or lack of actions during the world war two era is not a hate crime...
I have a lot friends of the catholic faith however our friendships our based on being school chums,neighbors,co-workers,business associates and community sports,events and voluteering etc., not religion...We respect each others beliefs and rarely engage in religious debate...Generally speaking the Catholics who live in my community are hard working, kind hearted, set a good example to their children and are a great asset to the community...
Internet forums are a great place to debate and learn about religions... -
Gerry the following statement appear to contradict care to elaborate on what you actually mean?
"I am sure a hundred million people who were slaughtered by the nazis etc. in world war 2 would have appreciated the Vatican playing a role in politics rather than collaborating with the Nazis..."
and
"I certainly do not blame the death of hundreds of million of Earthlings on the Vatican their deaths were due to hitler,hirihito,mussolini and associates..."
references:
The Church In Holland
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Netherlands_(1939-1945)#Persecution_of_Jews
www.angelfire.com/pa3/OldWorldBasic/PiusXII.htm
"In 1942 the Catholic hierarchy of Amsterdam spoke out vigorously against the Nazi treatment of the Jews. The Nazi response was a redoubling of roundups and deportations; by the end of the war, 86% of the Jews in Amsterdam had been killed. Jewish relief officials were in complete agreement that a public Vatican attack on the Nazis would not have the slightest effect on Hitler yet would jeopardize the lives of Jews hidden by the Church."
The Church in Poland from Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Poland
www.msz.gov.pl/Nazi,German,Camps,on,Polish,Soil,,During,World,War,II,6465.h...
In the land annexed to the Reich, the Germans fought systematically and ruthlessly against everything Polish. They liquidated Polish education at all levels, from elementary schools to universities. They banned or liquidated Polish cultural, community, and economic institutions. Locking up over a thousand churches, all of which they looted, the Germans persecuted the Roman Catholic Church, which had done much to defend the Polish identity of these territories in the 19th century. They arrested numerous Catholic clergy and placed them in concentration camps in Germany (Dachau). They murdered many priests—in some dioceses, almost half the priests....
In the initial phase of their existence, the tasks of the concentration camps included the isolation and neutralization of the Nazis’ political opponents. Therefore, the first people imprisoned there were German communists, social democrats, labor union members, Catholic and protestant clergy, and, after Kristallnacht (November 9-10, 1938), German Jews -
@kevinatserieatalk
re:
"Gerry the following statement appear to contradict care to elaborate on what you actually mean?
"I am sure a hundred million people who were slaughtered by the nazis etc. in world war 2 would have appreciated the Vatican playing a role in politics rather than collaborating with the Nazis..."
and
"I certainly do not blame the death of hundreds of million of Earthlings on the Vatican their deaths were due to hitler,hirihito,mussolini and associates..."
My first comment was made in context with the actual discussion topic "The Role of Churches in Politics"...I would welcome the Vatican or any other religion church to play a role in present politics regarding to help end war and genocide and human rights violations etc. on this planet...
Regarding the Vatican's collaboration with the nazis and Pius XII "abstained from signing the Allied declaration condemning the extermination of Jews" and "maintained his neutral position throughout the war". in world war 2...
I feel the Vatican's explanation "that Pius did not speak out more forcefully because he was afraid of worsening the fate of Catholics and Jews and worked behind the scenes to save Jews" is reasonable but lacks the heroism of the world war 2 Veterans who gave their lives to save the free world... -
@gerry
"My first comment was made in context with the actual discussion topic "The Role of Churches in Politics"...I would welcome the Vatican or any other religion church to play a role in present politics regarding to help end war and genocide and human rights violations etc. on this planet..."
I understood this as such however your choice of Occupied Europe circa WWII isn't a good example. I don't believe the Nazis went to the polls to seek a second term during the conflict. The Nazi party was not part of a democratic leadership race, there was no white knight in shining armor to appeal to, the current topic obviously pertains to the reality of peace-time.
There was absolutely no political leverage for a Pope, who was pretty much under house arrest in the Vatican. Most operations undertook to make the situation better, had to be done in a clandestine manner, such as instructing the churches and monasteries to open their doors and shelter the persecuted. It should be stated, Pius XII wasn't silent or as silent as some factions would like us all to believe. During those terrible times and circumstances he was a voice to the extend he could be without causing greater harm. -
re: your claim of, abstained from signing the Allied declaration condemning the extermination of Jews" and "maintained his neutral position throughout the war". in world war 2..."
these are extremely suggestive comments and do not reflect the time or situation accurately. To the point, the Pope did not abstain from comdemning the exterminations of the Jews, I suggest reading the pope's Christmas message of 1942, which condemned the extermination of people based upon their "race or descent" was extremely important, because it put the pope squarely and publicly against the Holocaust.
It came only a week after the Allies had published their own condemnations of the Nazi genocide, the two actions should be seen as part of the same anti-Nazi campaign.
Sir Martin Gilbert, a leading historian on World War II and the Jewish Holocaust and Winston Churchill's official biographer has explained,
"The Allied declaration and Pius XII's Christmas message were directly and inextricably linked acts of denunciation."
-
-
I would say that the role of churches in political discussion and activism is no different than that of any other interest group.
The tax status of such organizations is, for me, a separate issue completely. I oppose all taxation of any group, commercial, charitable or otherwise.-
That's very interesting, Dane. You're not prone to precipitous statements, so I assume you've done the math (or read the math) on that. Might be an interesting subject for another thread.
-
It's pretty simple math really. Organizations don't pay taxes. They build the cost of taxes into their products or services and pass them on to those who fund or consume them.
This amounts to a hidden tax on those end users and backers.
I think the government should have to justify every cent of taxation directly to those who actually have to pay it.
But I'd be happy to discuss it at grater length in another thread if you like. -
@Dane
re: The tax status of such organizations is, for me, a separate issue completely. I oppose all taxation of any group, commercial, charitable or otherwise.
It's pretty simple math really. Organizations don't pay taxes. They build the cost of taxes into their products or services and pass them on to those who fund or consume them.
This amounts to a hidden tax on those end users and backers.
I think the government should have to justify every cent of taxation directly to those who actually have to pay it.
But I'd be happy to discuss it at greater length in another thread if you like.
It sounds like blog fodder to me. What say you? -
In a perfect world DaneMorgan I would disagree with you. I do not believe that any place of worship regardless of religion in this nation should be allowed to be active in politics. That goes against the seperation of church and state, a foundation which the United States prides itself on. Obviously this is not a perfect world. Religious instituitions will always engage in politics, for better or worse. Since they will be active in the political life of our country, the biggest problem I have is when they preach politics as the word of G-d. I believe that this is absolutly wrong and religious leaders need to put pressure on the people who do preach politics as the word of G-d. -
"That goes against the seperation of church and state, a foundation which the United States prides itself on."
Actually, it does not in any way violate the actual constitutional prohibitions on the state establishing a religion or the state becoming excessively entangled with religious institutions. -
MadameX, you seemed to have missed my point. I said that in a "perfect world" religious institutions would not play a role in politics. Clearly we do not live in one. My point is that if religious institutions are going to participate in politics, they should not be preaching their political positions as the word of G-d.
-
So you view "separation of church and state" as an element of a perfect world, and just coincidentally used the same words that millions of people use to misstate the U.S. Constitutional principle?
"My point is that if religious institutions are going to participate in politics, they should not be preaching their political positions as the word of G-d."
This makes no sense. What would be the purpose of a religious institution getting involved in a political issue if it didn't believe that it was doing God's will? -
You do understand that you are advocating disenfranchising groups based on their beief systems? This is not different from saying that animal rights groups should stay out of politics, or at the least not allow their beliefs about the nature of animals to influence their contribution to the discussion.
-
-
-
Some very interesting comments here. I certainly believe in the right of free speech and non-violent protest. I think the question comes when an institution violates its legal status (an area that I know almost nothing about). And I also question the right of a religious leader to incite violence from the pulpit.
And of course, we're not just talking about Christian churches here. This is an issue for all religious groups. -
I think the problem with a connection between church and state is that you end up with a mob mentality. All the individuals who are a part of the group/church build an infinity to their organization and therefore feel obligated to follow the groups political beliefs. However I believe this stands on the opposite side as well. Those who do not belong to a religious organization also find ways to come together and follow their groups political beliefs. In all honesty the church is really nothing more then an interest group who is more successful then most at bringing people together for a specific cause. I am not religious and I don't think law should have a religious influence but to say religion isn't allowed in law would be to discount millions of people opinions. Religion will always have an influence on law. I just think that blatant displays of one specific religious group such as the 10 commandments or crosses on political buildings should in no way be allowed.
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
