Why Voting And Religion Don't Mix

Religion invoked as a reason to vote for or against a political candidate - by which we generally mean invoking god and some scriptural passage or other sacred text as proof for our view - is a low-level use of religion that makes religion small, mere apologetics at best and idolatry at worst. Any religion that has knocked around the planet for a long time can be used to prove almost anything and "religious" reasons can always be marshaled to buttress one's political favorite. So not surprisingly religious conservatives always seem to use their religious sources and to trot out their religious passages to prove that voting for McCain is what god really wants and religious liberals always seem to use their religious sources and to trot out their religious passages to prove that voting for Obama is what god wants. This predominant way in which religion is used adds nothing to either the process or the content of political debate except combustible, nasty, fuel that polarizes, divides, and deflects people with different positions from actually trying to understand each other and learn from each other. The only thing we learn from people who use religion to affirm their political predispositions or who use god as a trump card to prove their position is that they are either not capable of adequately explaining why they believe what they do or do not actually understand why they believe what they do - and the more fiercely people on either side use religion this way the more they are hiding a deep unconscious uncertainty about the very view they are so fiercely holding.

Anyway, if McCain supporters have religious reasons to vote for their guy and Obama supporters have religious reasons to vote for their guy maybe god is just a wash and we ought to just try to explain ourselves to each other while leaving god out of it. Or maybe we ought to begin to realize that religion -not politics dressed up in religious language - rarely if ever prescribes one particular political position as the whole truth and that God - not god dressed up as God/the Infinite - is not some political cheerleader up in heaven rooting us on for our necessary but finite political positions and candidates to win. A religion that genuinely evokes, hints at, connects us to, and expresses the yearning for the Infinite and which generates within us ever deeper capacity for compassion, ought not to give us "reasons" to shore up our belief in some finite political view or candidate. Rather religion ought to be constantly destabilizing and undermining the political positions we are so sure about. After all God - not god - is Infinite and therefore is somehow reflected and embodied on all sides.

So if we are voting for Obama our religion ought to remind us that our political favorite as strongly as we "believe" in him has only a partial truth- even though that partial truth compels us to vote for him - and that the religious mandate is to use our religious sources to help us locate and wrestle with the partial truth on the other side so as to be ever widening our grasp of the Truth. And if we are voting for McCain our religion ought to remind us that our political favorite as strongly as we "believe" in him has only a partial truth- even though that partial truth compels us to vote for him - and that the religious mandate is to use our religious sources to help us locate and wrestle with the partial truth on the other side so as to be ever widening our grasp of the Truth.

It turns out there are always religious reasons we can marshal to support our guy. But if all citing our religious verses and texts does is support, shore up, bolster, and legitimate our existing political and psychological predispositions - be they liberal or conservative - then religion is just one more expression of our narcissism and we have made god in our image. And when god gets that small the guns- both proverbial and literal- get bigger. The far more faithful and healthier role for religion is for its wisdom and teachings to make us more humble about the political beliefs and positions to which we do commit and about the rightness of the candidates for whom we vote while compelling us to grapple with and recognize the partial truth - however small that truth might be- of the political beliefs and positions of those with whom we most disagree. It is always easy to find a religious reason to support us in voting for the candidate we already believe in- that's the political thing to do. The genuine religious thing to do is to allow our religious wisdom to reveal to us the religious reasons why the candidate we do not vote for and his supporters need to be listened to even after he loses. When the God of our religions gets this big the guns will get smaller and religion will indeed be a source of healing, wholeness, and peace.

Comments

[rjmiller]

Jefferson and Franklin's views of religion should be required reading in schools. As Enlightenment philosophers, they believed that religion holds people back from analysis. Instead of considering an issue from all angles, religion dictates a certain absolute position (supposedly). Logic and reason are the only real means of decision-making.

[Puskara]

I never thought I would say this but I agree with the Rabbi.

Religion is a terrible tool to make your decisions with. It's bad to make your political choices with and it is just as bad to make your other choices with. If religion can be used to support any candidate or political view why not any other view.

Slavery is condemned and endorsed by religion.
Prejudice is condemned and endorsed by religion.
Freedom is condemned and endorsed by religion.

The pattern here is that religion serves only to reinforce the persons existing views and to provide them with imagined moral cover.

So remember, religion is not good for making decisions, any decisions. Religion is the credit default swap of the intellectual world; not worth the paper it's printed on.

Puskara

[rabkula]

Puskara, your insight that religion both condemns and endorses the very same issues and causes (slavery, war, capitalism, socialism, tax cuts, progressive taxes, women's rights, gay rights, pro choice, pro life, yes stem cells, no stem cells, etc.) is very perceptive. This means that religion if it is important must play a role different from simply a trump card for religious people whether on the right or the left. and using religion that way is indeed the credit default swap of the intellectual world - great analogy! But what if religious people used religion differently - rather than simply using it to affirm their views they used the religious intuition of an Infinite that relativizes everything humanit to undermine our own certainty about our own political views on the one hand and a humility regarding the views and positions with which we most disagree. Religion then rather than being a handmaiden of poltics would be pushing us all to listen ever more deeply to each other and to being ever more inclusive.
Rabbi Irwin Kula

[mamacat]

Interesting article.
My 2cents worth: as long as organised religions are a part of our lives, I would rather have religious believers get involved in the political process than not. The reason is that they believe strongly one way or another about something or another, and they are going to feel strongly that they should do something about the perceived "sins" around them. In our country, people are supposed to be able to use the politic process, and that means being active in elections. In the case of Osama bin Laden, he doesn't want to control us through elections, he wants to control us through the threat of terror and by tricking us into aggressive wars. I would much rather he tried to influence things through politics.

As far as the "separation of church and state" is concerned, the application of the principle was never meant to keep people with religious beliefs out of politics, but rather to keep politicians from using the power of the state to enforce any particular set of religious beliefs on society as a whole; to protect us from sharia, if you will, and to reduce the likelihood of religious intolerance and religious wars.

[rabkula]

mamacat , Thank you...you are exactly right regarding separation of church and state and wanting passionate people involved in politics. I too want religious people to bring their passion and their values into the public sqaure and the fact that we have used separation of church and state as a way to exclude people of faith or dis them is partially responsible for the fundamentalist reaction. What I am suggesting is that relgious people (and I am one of those) use our religious faith and passion as more than simply trump cards in our putting forward our position. First, we should use our faith in the Infinite to question/relativize the certainty of our own political positons and as a goad to try to understand the partial truth of the position with which we disagree. And as important we need to find ways to describe our positions, which well may be motivated and driven by our religious faith and sources, in langauge that people from outside our religious community can understand. We have to translate our religious language, our faith language, and creedal/familial scriptual languge into a an accessible idiom that our fellow citizens can understand.
Rabbi Irwin Kula

[mamacat]

Dear Rabbi Kula,
thank you for taking the time to reply. I think there is much that we agree on. It will take time to reflect on what you have said. (Having said that, I am going to make a hasty reply anyway.)

In general, many of the problems of the world linger longer than they need to because one group or another decides to bypass the political process, in favor of making a quick grab for power. In particular, we have seen in the current election cycle that the Right side of the political spectrum is, again, using personal attacks and smears rather than honestly discussing issues. This tactic actually diminishes the political process, in that it discourages discussions and prevents the dialectic process. Everyone, including those with strong moralistic and religious views, needs to have their concerns heard, but the political tactics of the right are discouraging progress, rather than creating an atmosphere to encourage it.

To my way of thinking, those with religious beliefs are a very important part of the political spectrum, not outside of it. Thus, the Right, who have tried to make an alliance with some in the American religious movement an essential part of their political strategy, are to my way of thinking doing that Religious movement a disservice by preventing honest discussions of issues important to those with religious beliefs.

I realise I haven't expressed myself very well, but I think you wrote a very good article.

[brynn6]

I took one of those silly tests a while back that purported to be able to tell what religion you were or should be. Oddly enough, it nailed me as a Unitarian/Universalist. I did belong to that denomination for a while. I joined because I live in Texas and was tired of having my children ridiculed and taunted as devil-worshipers because they couldn't claim a church affiliation.

Another oddity was that Judaism came up very high on the list too. If your thinking is representative of Judaism, I guess it wasn't so odd after all. Thank you for your very wise words.

[anastasiabeaverhousen]

Will Rogers said it best:

"Mixing religion and politics is like mixing ice cream and manure. It doesn't do much to the manure, but it sure does ruin the ice cream".

[mandycat]

Here's one more reason to keep religion and politics separate. As one of nature's agnostics, I've always considered formal religions an inexplicable muddle of superstition, wishful thinking and power politics -- all of them more or less silly but generally benign in their effects as long as the power part of the mixture is kept in check. If people find comfort in this mean old world in saints, many-headed goddesses, reincarnation, burning bushes, virgin births and the rest of it, I felt there was no real harm done.

But no more of that. In my dreams the tax-exempt status of religious organizations is put to the ballot and I'm down at the polling place in time to be first in line to vote them out of my pocket. The Religious Right is constantly moaning about hostility to religion. Sure -- now! And if you belong to one of the denominations that hasn't spent the last 20 years grubbing for money and secular power at my expense, too bad for you. Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas.

[reginavarolli]

I greatly appreciate your article! To me, the separation of Church and State is one of the most important principles of this Democracy, without it, tolerance is difficult to attain (and maintain), and without tolerance, we will have no Democracy. I have blogged about this issue a few times because of its importance.

"The Religious Test of Pastor Rick Warren"
http://politicalsagacity.blogspot.com/2008/08/religious-test-of-pastor-rick-warren.html

"Gay Marriage, Church and State"
http://politicalsagacity.blogspot.com/2008/08/gay-marriage-church-and-state.html

And I agree with you that a religious argument in the political arena is no argument at all, it's nothing more than an appeal to a presumed "higher authority" in whom we do not all believe. Our votes should be based on Ethical principles, not on any individual religion's principles.

[forpeace]

*

Religion MUST stay out of Politics period.

*

[rockyersocksoff]

Religion is the blueprint for the suicide of the human race.

[OtayPanky]

Rabbi Irwin Kula: Anyway, if McCain supporters have religious reasons to vote for their guy and Obama supporters have religious reasons to vote for their guy maybe god is just a wash and we ought to just try to explain ourselves to each other while leaving god out of it.

===

Exactly so!

It's what I've been saying here on PuffHo for months, now. Jim Wallis' syrupy blend of lefty politics and "What would Jesus do" hurts my teeth just as much as Pat Robertson's equally syrupy blend of righty lefty politics and "What would Jesus do".

Don't tell me your political choices, leaning and actions and then back it up with a sermon from your religion. Your religion is your business, and has no place in the public dicourse of CIVICS. Everyone gets his or her values from somewhere - and where that somewhere is is PRIVATE. The only thing that matters is what your values tell you to do...and not to do.

If you're against gay marriage, I don't care why. If you think the federal government should be actively involved in various social engineering projects, I don't care why. Just state your position, and leave your version of the scriptures out of the conversation.

And then we can vote on the ISSUES as citizens - and not on metaphysical belief systems.

And the people said...

AMEN.

[rabkula]

OtayPanky, you make a cirical point...liberals may like Jim Wallis' political positions (as I do) better than they like Pat Robertson's positions but both use religion in a low level way imagining that god and scripture are on their side...But perhaps one difference between us that I would like to hear your comments is that I am actually interested in the reasons why my fellow citizens take a certain position but the answer must not resort to the authority of some god or some external document be it scritpure or one's parent. I do want to know what my fellow citizens really think - their hopes and fears, their dreams and nightmares - which are too often hidden behind religious language and scriptual prooftexting. Let's push each other as citizens not to trot out god to explan why we feel the way we do but to share more deeply with words we can all understand what we really feel and why about the issues that so divide us.
Rabbi Irwin Kula

[OtayPanky]

Unfortunately, when you ask religous people WHY they have their political opinions they inevitably to back to their scriptures, and their interpretations of them.'

I don't begrudge them that - any more than I'd begrudge someone saying he's (say) a libertarian or a marxist because that's what his daddy was.

It's simply irrelevant at best, and divisive at worst.

What religious leaders can do - and perhaps should do - is to connect the dots back from the particulars of what Jesus or Moses or Buddha might have said, to the common substrate of human concern that relies on none of them for its expression. MLK is probably our best example of that approach. Even though he wore a preacher's robes, he called the entire nation - Christian and non-Christian alike - to contemplate our deepest values of equality not because of what we believe (or not) - but REGARDLESS of what we believe, or not.

So where is is appropriate for some "reverend" to explicitly reference his religious matrix as reason for his civics? Why, when he (or she) is preaching to the congregation, of course. They've gotten up on a Saturday or a Sunday to hear his opinion at the church or temple. And that's where he should share it.

[kjstjohn]

I am a Sunday School teacher. Thank you so much for this article. It would be interesting to see if these truths could be communicated on the lower playing field of political campaigning.

[NotThisTime2008]

Hands down, one of the best articles I have ever read, anywhere.
I am not a religious man, but this piece touched a nerve. Thanks for sharing.