Advertisement

IN THEORY:Reconciling politics, religion

Cardinal Roger M. Mahony this week denounced proposed California legislation that would allow mentally competent individuals who have six months or less to live to obtain drugs that can end their lives. Mahony singled out Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez, who has said he was “ready to buck my church” on the issue. A Nunez spokesman framed it as an issue of “individual choice, where the overwhelming majority of Catholics have a different perspective than the official position of the church.” With surveys showing many evangelical Christians setting aside their opposition to abortion to support pro-abortion-rights GOP presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani, are you concerned about this apparent trend of voters and elected leaders prioritizing politics over religious beliefs?

International cooperation, the war in Iraq, nuclear weapons, the environment, immigration, healthcare or education? Voters must prioritize the issues and vote for candidates who best represent their concerns, recognizing that it will seldom be a perfect fit. What a welcome change to see some groups voting for reasons other than to oppose legal abortion and gay people’s civil rights. All of the issues are spiritual issues, not just those dealing with pelvic morality.

What are the pros and cons of permitting terminally ill people to have access to drugs to end their lives? I believe it should be a legal option, but one that is limited and monitored carefully. As a hospice chaplain, I met with many people who were worried about becoming physically or mentally incapacitated and who would prefer dying quickly to being a burden to others or experiencing helplessness.

Advertisement

Much more needs to be done to prepare people spiritually for the challenges of aging and the final stage of life.

Another issue is freedom of choice in a democracy where faith groups have different teachings on ethical issues. There is a difference between what is legal and what is moral. The “Vatican 24” was a group of Roman Catholic nuns who believed that abortion should be legal and that individuals in the United States should be free to follow their own faith’s teachings and guidance in making ethical decisions. It is common knowledge that the official teachings of the Catholic Church on sexual issues are not embraced by the majority of rank-and-file Catholics. Catholics who run for public office are in a tough spot.

The interplay between politics and religion calls for the complex work of putting beliefs into action. Figuring out how this will be best accomplished is the responsibility of each of us.

REV. DR. DEBORAH BARRETT

Zen Center of Orange County

Costa Mesa

I have long been concerned that Americans vote their pocketbooks and “winning” over moral convictions. We see on a regular basis the satisfaction with our leaders changing as often as the economic or opportunist winds change. Politics is founded on the “poli” — the people. When we are most concerned about politics, we are most concerned about the will of the people.

As a republic, we have a representative form of government. We are intended to elect people who will represent us, not based on our day-to-day whims, but on our convictions. We are meant to elect people with moral fiber who will lead with conviction. Unfortunately, we often elect people who are influenced more by power and money than by conviction. So they end up being like a thin reed blowing in the winds of change, dependent on the kindness of the wind for survival. When we do get political leaders with any moral conviction, who don’t bend to the winds of convenience, they are chided as stubborn, imperialistic, ignorant and out of touch. Unfortunately, even people in the pews are not immune to this trend, especially if they are not people of conviction themselves.

It is ironic that the same people who demanded Bill Clinton be impeached for his moral behavior are pushing for the election of someone whose behavior makes Bill Clinton look like a Boy Scout.

RIC OLSEN

Lead Pastor

The Beacon

Anaheim

How many Americans are aware of their religious beliefs affecting their politics?

Religion comprises sacred beliefs, symbols, values and practices focused on questions of ultimate meaning. So religious people should consciously allow their religion to affect their political positions. For example, on this particular issue, a person of faith should be able to say something like, “I agree with Cardinal Mahony because God gives the gift of life, and I think that only God can take it away” or “I agree with Speaker Nunez because I believe God is more concerned with quality of life than with the number of its days.”

Perhaps, for (too) many, politics has become religion.

(THE VERY REV’D CANON) PETER D. HAYNES

Saint Michael & All Angels

Episcopal Church

Corona del Mar

Should religious beliefs inform government policy decisions? The fact that we refer to “beliefs” signals that no unified and definitive religious response can be made to any issue. Religions present understandings that cannot be demonstrated, that conflict with those cherished by other religions and that dwell along the spectrum even within particular denominations.

I favor the privatizing of religious belief. Lawmakers in a secular democracy should not be pressed to adopt the sectarian position of a certain sacred community. I applaud people of faith who, despite their personal religious convictions, respect the pluralism for which America stands.

A philosopher at Notre Dame counsels that citizens should present secular rationales for advocating public policies: “Conflicting secular ideas, even when firmly held, can often be blended and harmonized in the crucible of free discussion, but a clash of gods is like a meeting of an irresistible force with an immovable object.” While religions may agree on life’s sacredness, they define life differently, arguing either that it begins at conception or only upon emerging from the mother. These respective, mutually exclusive “truths” are not liable to objective standards of proof and should not intrude into the political realm. Our legislative strivings should coalesce around public reason, not personal faith.

We can concur across denominational lines that political candidates should model moral character. We may differ, though, on what lines must be crossed to qualify as immoral. Several presidential aspirants have divorced, told untruths about their upbringing or reversed long-upheld positions on core issues to better appeal to certain constituencies. If we could not agree on whether being thrice-married is congruent with “family values,” how could we find common ground on the origin of life?

Our democracy is better served by restraining the impulse to foist our religious views on others through legislation, to lobby our lawmakers to advance our particular religious agendas. God may be guiding the destiny of America, but he is not occupying the Oval Office.

The litmus test for political candidates should not be upholding Scripture, and a particular version of Scripture at that, but whether they will better serve our nation’s worldly interests by upholding the Constitution. Carrying a Christian or Jewish view into the voting booth is more suitable to a theocracy.

A Notre Dame law professor asks: “Are the anti-death penalty activists’ attempts at public advocacy more justifiable if they cast their opposition to such policies in the language of Humean sympathy, Kantian deontology or Millian utilitarianism rather than in theological terms?” To which I would answer, “Yes.” In a secular democracy, home to people of divergent faiths, the quality of human sympathy, the emphasis on duty and the urge to bring the greatest measure of happiness to the greatest number of people are more appropriate criteria for civic consensus than the teaching of Genesis: “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man will his blood be shed.”

RABBI MARK S. MILLER

Temple Bat Yahm

Newport Beach

Many people have mixed feelings about euthanasia. The Catholic Church is not wrong for opposing this policy, and I’m not wrong for holding a different point of view. Religion and politics are not far apart on this issue. One seeks to control the moral high ground, the other seeks to find the middle ground. There’s pressure from all sides.

But ultimately most people want a political bridge they can cross over, if and when they change their minds. What they don’t want is a religious or political gatekeeper.

Truth is we’re all terminal, but our spirit is forever. So get on with loving your life and thanking God each day for the opportunity to be a blessing. And make sure you tell all the people in your life just how wonderful and important they are — even your enemies.

PASTOR JIM TURRELLCenter for Spiritual Discovery

Costa Mesa

I think what is happening is quite refreshing. It is the opposite of what happened in past decades. Politicians, even conservatives, are getting more liberal and are straying from religious fundamentalists. In the past, I think that many politicians responded to religious groups and told them what they wanted to hear to gain votes and get elected. Once elected, some politicians seemed to forget who elected them and they did whatever they wanted or felt was right.

The battle between church and state has gone on for centuries all across Western European countries. People suffered because of it. In addition, “the divine right of kings” separated Christians into many Protestant denominations and has caused many wars. Several religious issues have forced the migration of many peoples, particularly, Jews.

For many centuries in different lands, Jews were ghettoized from Gentiles. Political edicts based on religious laws forced Jews into exile.

The Talmud teaches us that “a certain Jew in Rome happened to be walking down the street when the emperor Hadrian crossed his path. The Jew said hello and was executed for speaking to the emperor. Word spread throughout the land what had happened. So the next day when the Emperor Hadrian greeted a different Jew, the Jew did not answer. Hadrian shouted that this Jew, too, should be executed for not acknowledging him with a simple hello. The emperor’s counselors said, ‘We do not understand sire; a Jew was executed for responding and one was executed for not responding. They cannot survive no matter however they respond.’ Hadrian replied, ‘Whatever the Jews do is wrong.’ ” That is an example of being rigid and extremist; the thought that if I am right, you are not only wrong, but you are not part of my kingdom. This caused people to flee, perish or hide. They were not part of the country they lived in.

Now in our wonderful country, we are becoming more tolerant and more progressive in our thoughts, and politicians and religionists alike are straying from many archaic beliefs that need changing in the modern world.

RABBI MARC RUBENSTEIN

Temple Isaiah

Newport Beach

For every birth there will be an eventual death. Hopefully, every life will be filled with enjoyment, contentment, accomplishments, companionship and love, with as little pain and suffering along the way as possible. That should be the goal. That would be the proper culture of life. Personal liberty and dignity are important values, and the quality of life along the way should be considered. But when someone realizes that he or she has nothing more to give, is living in continual pain and simply wants release, allowing — even enabling — such release would be the humane thing to do.

When Cardinal Mahony insists that a long period of agony must be endured by some unfortunate people in order to fulfill what he calls the culture of life, no matter how painful or degrading, that seems more like an evil culture of agonizing death. Some would prefer to never have been born in the first place. And all so unnecessary.

JERRY PARKS

Member

Humanist Assn.

of Orange County

Advertisement