The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press released a survey on August 21 which reveals that for the first time in a decade, the majority of United States residents believe churches should stay out of politics. The overview of the survey begins with these words:
Some Americans are having a change of heart about mixing religion and politics. A new survey finds a narrow majority of the public saying that churches and other houses of worship should keep out of political matters and not express their views on day-to-day social and political matters. For a decade, majorities of Americans had voiced support for religious institutions speaking out on such issues.
The new national survey by the Pew Research Center reveals that most of the reconsideration of the desirability of religious involvement in politics has occurred among conservatives. Four years ago, just 30% of conservatives believed that churches and other houses of worship should stay out of politics. Today, 50% of conservatives express this view.
As a result, conservatives’ views on this issue are much more in line with the views of moderates and liberals than was previously the case. Similarly, the sharp divisions between Republicans and Democrats that previously existed on this issue have disappeared….
I’m part of the majority that believes that churches should stay out of electoral politics. I don’t think churches or clergy should support individual candidates, nor do I think that churches or clergy should even do things like host presidential debates (yeah, I mean you, Rick Warren). Speaking in my role as a minister, I don’t believe that I should get involved in supporting or promoting any candidate or political party, at the local, state, or national level. (Frankly, I don’t even want to be in close proximity to politicains — oh wait, that’s my personal revulsion creeping in — go back into your cave, personal revulsion, this is a serious post!)
My reasons for wanting to stay out of politics are religious reasons. No political party or candidate lives up to my religious ideals. For example, my religion tells me to recognize the inherent worth and dignity of all persons, which means I cannot ignore anyone — whereas politicians can safely ignore those who cannot or do not vote, such as non-citizens, the poor, and the disenchanted. Or here’s another example — both major presidential candidates have proposed health care initiatives that will not cover large numbers of Americans, but I find this unacceptable because my religious values tell me that all persons should have equal access to decent health care.
But while I’m part of the majority that believes churches should stay out of electoral politics, it’s only a narrow majority. What’s your opinion — should churches stay out of politics, or not? You can write your answer in the comments section below — and if you do, tell us what your reasoning is for your answer….
My experience has been that churchgoers, in both Roman Catholic and Protestant congregations in the area, generally don’t appreciate political views or candidate endorsements coming from the pulpit.
“I don’t come to church to hear that stuff — there’s enough of it on the evening news”, is the typical reaction i’ve encountered.
I recall one incident in which the infamous petition to insert a ban on same-sex marriage into the state constitution was circulated during a religious service, with the clergy’s full knowledge and support. Parishioners just sat there, many staring at their shoes, waiting for the clipboard to come around to their pew. Now, I’m sure there was a minority who thought it was completely appropriate, however, most people appeared embarrassed, some were outright shocked. “Do this outside of a grocery store, but not in church” One disgusted person sarcastically remarked to me: “Nothing like a good dose of discrimination to start off my week!”.
Whether or not we are personally revulsed by them, politicians are responsible for enacting policies that have the power to make many people’s lives more miserable or less miserable. To the extent that I respect the inherent worth and dignity of all persons, I will advocate personally for policies that ease suffering for the greatest number of people, and therefore for the politicians who are most likely to enact these policies. I would not endorse particular politicians from the pulpit, but I would advocate for policies that best reflect and advance my religious values in the world.
And what about the inherent worth and dignity of the politicians themselves? If we are to take seriously what our religion “tells us,” don’t we need to respect politicians’ inherent worth and dignity, no matter how low they may have sunk and how little regard they may seem to have for the worth and dignity of others?
Finally, what are we to make of our principle that supports the use of the democratic process “in society at large”? I believe that the democratic process involves more than simply voting. It also involves education, discernment, and advocacy.
I think the rules as they stand now work pretty well. I certainly don’t go to Church for political insights either. I never have regardless of where I’ve stood politically.
I do think Clergy and Religous thinkers owe congregations some guidenance on moral issues. We UUs say we favor Marriage Equality but that’s a political slogan and says next to nothing about marriage. It ads more confusion if anything. Will a UU minister marry any couple (or more?) as a right? People want more than a slogan here.
Same goes with Sexual Justice… what the heck is that? I found embroynic stem cell research troubling. Science tells me life begins at conception and experience told me this was a path to harvesting human embryos. Sexual Justice is a slogan and offers nothing in the way of ethics.
So we really need fewer slogans and more harding thinking on ethics from our Church… in my opinion.
Bill
dwight — Thanks for the example of a church going… a little… too… far.
Jim — Personally, I like the few politicians I have met in person. They tend to be nice, likeable people, and I haven’t yet felt revulsion towards someone I have met. I have felt revulsion towards some of their actions, but that’s true of an awful lot of people I know.
Bill — You say, “I do think clergy and religious thinkers owe congregations some guidance on moral issues.” I agree with you there — as long as it’s guidance, in the sense of advice given based on careful thought and study and reflection (or one might say prayer), and always subject to revision and change in light of new evidence, thinking, study, reflection/prayer.
As for “marriage equality,” it’s not a phrase I use. I say that I support the right of same-sex couples to be married in a Unitarian Universalist church — that’s very clear to me. Then when we start talking about legal marriage, things get less clear — I’m not sure that government should be in the business of providing over 400 legal privileges to couples just because someone pronounced them married — especially given the wide range in criteria that wedding officiants use to determine whether a couple should be married.
I thought “sexual justice” had to do with gay/lesbian rights?… Anyway, I agree that it’s a fairly meaningless phrase.
re: “marriage equality”… I much prefer your statement and when I mentioned something similar at Social Justice the response back was “people” would never agree with that. Not certain who “people” were and the meeting was closing, but it did throw me for a loop.
Compare the costs of a license to get those 400 legal privileges vs the costs of hiring a lawyer to draw up a contract for you. It’s thousands of dollars typically and probably one of the most persuasive arguments for allowing same-sex marriages.
The trap UU’s fall into here I think is we try and play politics and come up with the slogan of “marriage equality” because we think its vague enough people will agree with it, and it’s got this nice equalitarian sound to it.
We then overlook sexual ethics and marriage all together e.g. plural marriages and then just throw around this slogan and can get rather indigant if people question it.
Mixing ethical understanding with the nuts-and-bolts of “politiking” ends up with fuzzy ethics, and ineffective politics. It’s really the worse of both worlds sometimes.
bill @ 5 — One minor correction… To the best of my knowledge, “marriage equality” is not a Unitarian Universalist phrase — Unitarian Universalists who use it have borrowed it from someone else.
You also say: “Mixing ethical understanding with the nuts-and-bolts of “politiking” ends up with fuzzy ethics, and ineffective politics.”
I agree with this statement, but saying so is generally perceived as hopelessly cynical. Most politicians do have fuzzy ethics — if they don’t have fuzzy ethics, we are liable to label them as “ideologues” or “hardliners,” and these are the politicains who are usually less effective.
Thus it makes sense to me that religious leaders uphold idealistic ethical standards, while politicians deal in effective compromise. We religious types hold the politicians accountable when they drift too far from ethical standards, and the politicians hold us religious types accountable for actually going out and dealing with real problems in the world.
A more general way of putting this is that conflict is good — when it energizes everyone to make things better.