Shared Moral Values
As human beings, how we conduct ourselves in the world is necessarily guided by the moral values that we believe in. Ideally, as caring human beings, we want the policies carried out by our government to reflect these moral values. But confusion about the role of government and the role of religion can arise when we confuse moral values and moral judgment.
Some people ask, "Why shouldn't people of faith be active in politics and in determining public policies?" Indeed, they should. But they should do so because they are good, caring people, not because they want to impose particular religious beliefs, or their moral judgments, on others.
If religious intolerance leads to using the tools of government to impose one group's belief systems on others, we all lose. When this happens, no religion is safe, because there is no guarantee the majority will always be those who share our religious beliefs. And religious intolerance fosters a fragmented view of the world, a destructive "us versus them" mentality (see Holonomy), in which democracy cannot survive.
Current events show us another downside to linking religious doctrines to government. Unfortunately, in the minds of many, Jesus is now linked to wedge issues such as homosexual marriage, abortion, and nationalistic rhetoric (see Wedge Issues). For some, politics and patriotism have been turned into religious doctrine. Christianity has been tarnished in the process.
What too often happens is that the substantive moral values shared by all religions, such as doing unto others as we would have them do unto us (see Golden Rule in Religion), become obscured by separate religious forms. These include the specific doctrines, different rituals and particular hierarchy that distinguish one religious organization from another. We then fear those who don't accept the forms we think are essential, not seeing that this very act destroys the substance of what love is about. (see Sylvia's Story)
Only if we give primacy to the shared moral values that are consistent with love, which necessarily include respect and tolerance for others (i.e. loving others as we love ourselves), can we avoid the bitter divisions that pit brother against brother, and sister against sister.
The shared value of doing unto others as you would have them do unto you is the norm that says monomorality—one morality—applies to all, friend and foe alike. It's a win/win for all religions.
How do we put these shared values into practice? Here are common examples:
- adopt a base level of tolerance (agree to disagree);
- acceptance (I'm okay, you're okay);
- seek a conscious understanding of our oneness (the Spirit of life is everywhere present and is not uniquely possessed by only one religion).
Positive Public Policy and Church/State Issues
Let's look at the church and state issue from the positive public policy perspective, beginning with a brief review of history.
The Founding Fathers knew that the religious doctrines of one group, when coupled with the tools of government control, always wreak havoc on individual rights. They knew that every Christian theocracy in history had been brutal and barbaric, characteristics common in all theocracies, no matter which religion is in charge. They remembered the time when people were tried for the crime of heresy against the church and subjected to punishment that was as severe as treason against the state. The Salem witch trials were such an instance. They knew that establishing a wall between church and state was imperative for a democracy to survive.
In the new nation that they were forming, government would have no authority to regulate the religious life of the people. There would be no public financial support of any religion. No religious ritual or doctrine would be incorporated into public education. No religious edicts would be incorporated into public laws. And no church official would hold a government position by virtue of his church affiliation. Differences among religions were to be protected, assuring that everyone could choose how to experience his/her link to God, without governmental interference.
Government was to take on a new role with regard to religion—it was to protect the rights of all religions equally, so that the doctrines of one would never be forced on others using government as the means. This separation assured that a cohesiveness could be built among the citizens, based on their shared beliefs and interests.
There is a universal, intrinsic sense of goodness at the core of all major world religions. Though different words are used to express their beliefs about God and about loving one another unconditionally, once you get beyond doctrines unique to one religion or another, fundamental core values are shared by all. Building on these universal principles, such as the Golden Rule and a common desire to make the world a better place for our children, is a way to build community and strengthen democracy.
But it was never the intent for there to a wall between the spiritual nature of human beings and government. Tocqueville, traveling in this country when it was new, noted that every religion has two dimensions. One aspect elevates the soul above the material world; the other imposes upon each individual an obligation to humankind—a duty to serve while in this world.
It is appropriate for the churches, temples, and mosques to minister to the first, elevating the soul above the material world. But it is also appropriate for government to be used as a means to achieve the second, serving the needs of others. After all, government is one of the best tools we have for pooling our resources to serve the common good. This is a means to both achieve positive public policy and honor our core moral values, while in no way mingling church and state.
Sylvia's Story
Sylvia Clute, Chair of the Meta United Board of Directors, tells of growing up in the midst of what she calls "The Religious Wars." Her mother's family was Old Order Brethren, a strict protestant denomination. But her father's side of the family was Irish Catholic. When the two sides of her family got together, it quickly deteriorated into fights over who was going to hell the fastest.
The Brethren believed that, to go to heaven, you had to be fully immersed three times when you were baptized, and it had to be face down or it didn't work. The Catholics believed a few sprinkles were enough, so long as the sprinkling was done by a priest. Despite the fact they were all Christians, in their allegiance to their conflicting religious dogmas, they destroyed the essence of Christ's teachings--the two sides of her family could not break bread together. Woe be the day that one side or the other should seize control of government to force its religious doctrines and beliefs on the other!
While Sylvia's family fought over the correct form of baptism, they were all good, hard working, honest people. They all shared the desire that their children enjoy a better life than they had known. They all understood the Golden Rule, but unfortunately, religious dogma had been given greater importance in their respective churches. If the Golden Rule were the paramount teaching in our churches, we would not even consider using the levers of government against people of different faiths.
This helps explain why battles over the separation of church and state have escalated in recent decades—the Golden Rule is not paramount. This divisiveness has been fueled by political strategists who exploit the emotions attached to religion, and manipulate the fear and hate that some people harbor toward others of different religious traditions.
Prayer in Public Schools
Many people who were in grade school prior to 1962 experienced prayer in public school and some still bear the scars to prove it. Sylvia Clute, Chair of the Meta United Board of Directors, tells as a child of having been taught that it was a sin to recite the ending of the protestant version of Lord's Prayer by her Catholic Catechism teacher, but also having been told by a protestant classmate that she would sin if she didn't recite it.
So each day before a text book was ever opened, she struggled with whether to risk going to hell for saying the protestant ending of the prayer or going to hell for not saying it. As an adult, when she became a Methodist, each time the Lord's Prayer was recited, she revisited that childhood pain.
There are Jews, and people of other faiths, who tell of having sat outside on the school steps every day while Christian prayers were recited inside. By promoting religious divisions, prayer in public schools caused harm to many. So when it was held to be unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court in 1962, many saw it as a step toward greater tolerance and respect for one another's beliefs.
It's important to note that the Supreme Court did not ban individual prayer. The court simply held that government officials should not dictate the prayers students were to recite. The following year it held that school-sponsored Bible reading and recitation of the Lord's Prayer were unconstitutional.
The answer to the woes of our day is not to re-institute prayer in public schools, as this fuels religious discord, a lesson already learned. It is to teach tolerance, and the value of loving others as you love yourself.
