February 23, 2012

Is a candidate's religion a legitimate issue?

I do not usually post my weekly newspaper column here. While what I write flows from my Christian faith, I write in "secularese"--without religious language--so my stuff might seen inappropriate in this "religion" site. However, next Wednesday the following column will appear.

IS A CANDIDATE’S RELIGION A LEGITIMATE ISSUE IN A PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN?

In the fall of 1960, John F. Kennedy was in the midst of a hard-fought political race for the Presidency. Up until then no Roman Catholic had been elected to that office, and among conservative Protestants there was considerable agitation over the possibility of a President taking orders from Rome. Even at that late date, anti-Catholicism was rampant. The US had not yet appointed an Ambassador to the Vatican. That didn’t happen until 1984 when Jimmy Carter, a Baptist, did it--a move JFK opposed. In 1928, the only other previous Catholic candidate, Al Smith, was trounced by Herbert Hoover after a bitter anti-Catholic assault.

In a Houston speech before a large group of Protestant ministers, JFK made clear the relationship between his religion and the office of President. Here is a quote from that speech.

“I believe in America where the separation of Church and State is absolute…where there is no Catholic vote and no anti-Catholic vote… I do not speak for the church on public matters, and the church does not speak for me.”

That speech settled the unrest, and JFK was roundly applauded for the clarity of his position. His Catholic faith would not determine the policies of his administration. A President’s religion was no longer to be a political issue—at least until now.

A year ago there may have been a few voices among some conservative Protestants concerning Mitt Romney’s Mormon faith. Mitt has tried to avoid the controversy and has never suggested his religious commitment would control his political agenda, were he to be elected. Nobody has seriously suggested that there would be a direct line between the White House and Salt Lake City. He only mentions religion as if he were referring to some generic term—like motherhood—and he is for it. His single venture into that territory was declaring that God had selected America to be the savior of the world. While this notion might be garnered from the Book of Mormon, what politician hasn’t said the same thing? That’s just part of the political rhetoric that comes with American empire.

Now comes Rick Santorum, who flaunts his allegiance to the relationship between Catholicism and government. His support of a Catholic version of Shari’a law ought to be enough to disqualify him. While most of us try to keep religion and who holds what doctrine, out of the public discourse, Santorum has gone far over the line, and now his religious commitments become a matter of public interest. So we have a perfect right to call for his disqualification on that basis alone.

In a Michigan speech on February Feb.18, Santorum said that President Obama’s agenda was based on a “different theology,” one which is not biblical. Here is a direct quote.
“He (Obama) is now forcing people to do things that he believes that they have the right, that they should do. The Catholic church has a theology that says this is wrong, and he’s saying no I’ve got a different, I’ve got a different — you may want to call it a theology, you may want to call it secular values, whatever you want to call it, it’s different moral values. And the president of the United States is exercising his values and trumping the values of the church… If you don’t want to call it a theology, I’m fine, you can have them let me know what they want to call it.”

No, Mr. Santorum, the secular values of the United States Constitution trump the religious dogma of the Roman Catholic church. It is not that society wants to force its morality on Catholics, but that the Bishops want to force their dogma on everyone else by insisting that a medieval version of sexual morality is a divine command. No one, Catholic or otherwise, is required to use any form of birth control, and no money from the Church is to be used in support of the regulations.

During this already toxic political atmosphere, the American people do not need and should not tolerate the interjection of religious dogma that has no place outside the church that teaches it.

February 18, 2012

When questions were being raised about the relationship between his Catholicism and his candicacy,

JFK, in a speech to some conservative Baptists who had raised the issue, made it clear. His presidency would be one thing. His Catholic faith would not determine the parameters of his administration. Romney has tried to avoid the controversy regarding his Mormonism. His only venture into that territory was declaring that God--as he understood it--had selected America to be the savior of the world, at least in this century. But what Republican won't say that.

Now comes Rick Santorum, who not only flaunts his allegiance to the relationship between Catholicism and government, but to a narrow almost medieval sort of religion which he insists must be American political and governmental law. This Catholic version of Sharia law ought to be enough to disqualify him. While most of us try to keep religion and who holds what out of the public discourse, Santorum has gone way over the line, and now his religious commitments become matters of public interest. So we have a perfect right to call for his disqualification on that basis alone.

February 14, 2012

Does the new understanding of religious faith make any positive difference anywhere?

For a long time I have been a student of the religious life of South Americans—ever since the Spanish brought their conquistadores to subdue these “backward Indians.”
For a long time church leaders were in bed with the military and the landowners, who together ran Latin America for their own benefit. Most L.A. nations were military dictatorships. Probably the worst was Brazil, which was dominated by a clique of Colonels.

But a generation ago there came to L.A. a new theological movement, which has gained a significant following. It is called “Liberation Theology.” Sometime back I ran across the work of Bishop Dom Helder Camera of Recife, Brazil one of the nation’s poorest places. While he had come from the Spanish oligarchy side of the church, he found in this new theological understanding a whole different understanding. While he had always been a man of compassion, he discovered that the gospel is primarily a call to justice for the nobodies.

So he said, “I can spend all day pulling people out of the river, but sooner or later I must go up the river to see who is throwing them in.” He also said, “When I feed the hungry they call me a saint. When I ask why they are hungry they call me a Communist.”

Liberation theology—a new understanding of the Christian faith—has been vital in the democratic justice-oriented revolutions that have occurred all over Latin America. Thousands of Christian groups gather to work through the relationship between the message of freedom in the story of the Exodus, the new wine that they find in the Jesus story and how this understanding is important to their own culture. These “Base Christian Communities” work for land reform, the rights of the poor and bringing down the landed oligarchies and their military companions.

If you are interested in how the new Catholic theology works over against the old Catholic fundamentalism, discover what Liberation Theology is all about. If you are interested in how it affects North America, you may want to get hold of my book, “A Guide to Liberation Theology for Middle-class Congregations."

February 3, 2012

Religion and the new technology

My week was spent at a local seminary which hosted a conference on “the emerging church.” This young movement is composed of pastors and theological teachers from across the nation who are disillusioned with the traditional denominations, and who are looking for ways to build congregations around a new post-modern theology. The theme of the conference centered on ways to understand Process theology in building progressive religious institutions.

Instead of focusing on the theological implications of the conference, I want to reflect on the technological style of this group of young religious leaders, practically all of whom were in their 20s.

While world-respected theologians were speaking, I observed practically every participant sitting before open laptops. I have seen that before, but in this case the members of the group were also looking at their smart phones, most of them texting. They also had open a third screen reading a book or some other document. In addition many of them were taking pen and ink notes and listening to the lecture. During the question periods it was obvious that they were deeply tuned in to the lecture.

Here is my question. As you think about religious, theological or philosophic issues, what is the way modern technology influences your thinking? Current studies indicate that a difference or a change in technology alters the way the brain processes information. How have these new tools affected how you think?