Should churches get involved in political debates?

[jonny]

How do you feel about religions taking sides in political debates or lawsuits such as this? When is it appropriate for a church to try to influence the government on issues not related to religion?

I thought about this after I read this article. I don't want to debate this specific example, but rather the topic in general.

LDS Church opposes N-site
By Joe Bauman
[font=Verdana,Helvetica,Arial]Deseret Morning News[/font]

Utahns opposed to the siting of a high-level nuclear waste repository in Tooele County have gained a powerful ally, The Church of Jesus-Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Over the weekend, the church made available this response to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's recent ruling that the Private Fuel Storage repository could be built in Skull Valley:

"We regret the decision by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to authorize the issuance of a license that would allow storage of radioactive waste in Skull Valley. Storage of nuclear waste in Utah is a matter of significant public interest that requires thorough scrutiny."

The statement was attributed to Dale Bills, spokesman for the church. No further elaboration about the matter was immediately available.

Complete article: http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,605154001,00.html

 

[Aqualung]

I think it's a good idea to technically stay seperate, but I don't mind a church telling it's members to really think about a certain issue, and to vote on it or whatever

 

[Fire Empire]

How do you feel about religions taking sides in political debates or lawsuits such as this? When is it appropriate for a church to try to influence the government on issues not related to religion?

I thought about this after I read this article. I don't want to debate this specific example, but rather the topic in general.

Simple: we think churches should stay out of political issues unless they allow the government to tax them.

 

[jonny]

Simple: we think churches should stay out of political issues unless they allow the government to tax them.

I guess you would also be in favor of nonprofit political organizations such as MoveOn.org paying federal income taxes then.

 

[CaptainXeroid]

I guess you would also be in favor of nonprofit political organizations such as MoveOn.org paying federal income taxes then.

Excellent point!

A church has just as much right as any other group of people to speak out about issues that affect them. In this case, they are not even relying on any spiritual aspect to oppose the "high-level nuclear waste repository " but rather "...Storage of nuclear waste in Utah is a matter of significant public interest that requires thorough scrutiny..."

 

[Green Gaia]

The UUA has long been involved in social justice and action, therefore we are very involved in political debates. The US courts have never interpreted separation of church and state to mean that churches should keep silent on legislative matters. In fact, the opposite has occurred. 1970 Supreme Court: "Adherents of particular faiths and individual churches, frequently take strong positions on public issues, including . . . amici, vigorous advocacy of legal and constitutional positions. Of course, churches as much as secular bodies and private citizens have that right."

UUA prides itself on being a vital voice of liberal religion within the interfaith religiously and ethically grounded movement for social justice.

uua.org

 

[Fire Empire]

I guess you would also be in favor of nonprofit political organizations such as MoveOn.org paying federal income taxes then.

No, but glad you mentioned that. Groups like MoveOn.org and the Swift Boat Veterans for truth support politicians should also be taxed. We don't believe they are really nonprofit at all since political parties are profiting from them.

 

[Pah]

Let's see - a captive audience or a loyal following, an authority figure with no more expertise in an area than the ones they lead. Yeah! That's what I want churches to do.

 

[Green Gaia]

Let's see - a captive audience or a loyal following, an authority figure with no more expertise in an area than the ones they lead. Yeah! That's what I want churches to do.

:tsk: Not all churches should be painted with that broad red brush. Some of us prefer blue.

 

[jonny]

Let's see - a captive audience or a loyal following, an authority figure with no more expertise in an area than the ones they lead. Yeah! That's what I want churches to do.

I don't think you have to be an expert to form opinions and participate in political debates, but I also believe that churches are experts in certain areas. I would hope that if a church were to take a position on a certain issue that it would do so only after consulting with people who were involved in the situation.

For example, I would bet that there are churches and other organizations out there that have been much more effective in assisting those who were effected by Hurricane Katrina than the government. In fact, many churches have welfare and assistance systems that the government could learn a lot from. When the political debates arise on these issues later on, why shouldn't the churches give their input on how the government could improve its efforts in the future?

 

[Pah]

Please don't consider that social action and political action are the same. Please don't consider advocating a solution and offering a "friend of court" are actions in politics. And please distinguish when a pastor or other church official speaks on an issue and on spiritual matters. He or she is not an expert on secular matters.

Do speak of a moral obligation to take care of the earth as a part of stewardship but don't suggest a solution to the problem. The "solution" message can be too easily confused with faith.

 

[Quiddity]

He or she is not an expert on secular matters.

Secular matter? What exactly is a secular matter?

~Victor

 

[Green Gaia]

Please don't consider that social action and political action are the same.

Well, I can only speak for UUs, but it's through social action that we hope to effect political action. Fro example, we are known for our stand on gay marriage and the fight to legalize it. That's very political. And it is part of our faith. Every issue we work socially on goes back our to covenant to affirm and promote our Principles and Purposes:

• The inherent worth and dignity of every person;
• Justice, equity and compassion in human relations;
• Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations;
• A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;
• The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large;
• The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all;
• Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part

Or maybe I'm not understanding what you mean... which is quite possible, lol.

 

[Green Gaia]

Secular matter? What exactly is a secular matter?

~Victor

A matter not specifically relating to religion or to a religious body.

 

[jonny]

Please don't consider that social action and political action are the same. Please don't consider advocating a solution and offering a "friend of court" are actions in politics. And please distinguish when a pastor or other church official speaks on an issue and on spiritual matters. He or she is not an expert on secular matters.

Do speak of a moral obligation to take care of the earth as a part of stewardship but don't suggest a solution to the problem. The "solution" message can be too easily confused with faith.

How would you differentiate between social and political action? We may agree on this point. The church should never advocate voting for a particular political party or politician, but I think it has the obligation to stand up for principles and support policies that are important to its members.

Also, I would disagree that a church official cannot be an expert on secular matters. I belong to a church with a lay ministry and all of my church's leaders had careers in various fields before become leaders in the church. Related to the example I used to start this debate, one of the top leaders in the LDS church (Richard G. Scott) is a nuclear engineer and worked as a consultant for nuclear power companies before becoming an Apostle (one of the highest positions) in the LDS church.

 

[Pah]

How would you differentiate between social and political action? We may agree on this point. The church should never advocate voting for a particular political party or politician, but I think it has the obligation to stand up for principles and support policies that are important to its members.

Social action is setting up a food bank - political action is lobbying directly or issuing a press release for free government food. The more a religion dabbles in politics and governance, the less it is sectarian. All politics, and especially within the church organization, tends to weaken the spiritual aspect of the church.

Also, I would disagree that a church official cannot be an expert on secular matters. I belong to a church with a lay ministry and all of my church's leaders had careers in various fields before become leaders in the church. Related to the example I used to start this debate, one of the top leaders in the LDS church (Richard G. Scott) is a nuclear engineer and worked as a consultant for nuclear power companies before becoming an Apostle (one of the highest positions) in the LDS church.

Sadly, that seems to be an exception.

 

[bartdanr]

Hi All, I guess I'll add my two cents.

Human issues can't always be neatly seperated into "political" and "non-political", or "sacred" and "secular", or even "private" and "public." For example, slavery. There's no question that in the 19th century this was a political issue. But I believe that all people and organizations (including Churches) who were interested in justice had the right and the duty to try to end slavery using political and other methods. (Of course, certain individuals like John Brown would include armed rebellion and terrorist tactics to end slavery. Do the ends justify the means?)

However, I can understand the discomfort that we feel in some political action undertaken by some Churches. Sometimes the issues don't really seem aligned with the basics of the faith of the Church. Sincere believers who accept all of a Church's core beliefs can find themselves at odds with their Church leadership when that leadership starts supporting a political position that isn't clearly taught by the religion's founders. For example, would it be proper for the Roman Catholic Church to hold a position on a flag-burning amendment to the U.S. Constitution? Do the historic teachings of the Church really support a view one way or another?

While I don't think I can give a blanket "no" or "yes" to the question, it is an area that requires careful treding. A Church that involves itself in issues of justice that just so happen to have a political dimension is one thing; but a Church that takes certain positions on every political issues is another.

One key thing to recognize is that the political process always involves, ultimately, the use or threat of use of force. If a Church is lobbying for the passage of a law, it is lobbying to ultimately use the sword to support that law. It may be benign in purpose and it may be necessary, but all law rests ultimately on the power of the sword. (Even such noble causes such as the relief of the poor by the government rests upon the power to tax people and give that money to others; and if the taxes aren't paid, people can be punished.) Whenever a Church--or an individual--decides to support a particular political system or position in that system, they are deciding on how best to use force.

Peace

 

[jonny]

Thank you bantdahr for your thoughful post. I agree that the church does not need to take a position on every political issue, but that there are issues where it should. What issues should a church take a position on and how should they try to influence government and get involved in the debate? Should they preach only to their members and hope that they take action, or should the church try to influence the government directly through lobbiests, etc?

 

[nutshell]

I think churches have every right to express their opinions. I hear enough from the ACLU and other groups I disagree with that a voice from conservative churches would be welcome.

Also, churches have their own financial, quality of life, etc. issues that are important to them and if they don't want a nuclear waste site in their backyard they should say so.

 

[bartdanr]

Thank you bantdahr for your thoughful post. I agree that the church does not need to take a position on every political issue, but that there are issues where it should. What issues should a church take a position on and how should they try to influence government and get involved in the debate? Should they preach only to their members and hope that they take action, or should the church try to influence the government directly through lobbiests, etc?

Hi Jonny, thanks for your post.

I think it all depends on how you believe God wants his/her people to act. In the Old Testament, the prophets often attacked political leaders directly about their injustice and idolatry. Then again, Israel was a Church-state--everyone theorectically was a member of the "Church" and so obedience to God's laws was expected on all levels (both moral and religious).

Personally, I think that certain matters of justice and injustice require a stance, and other matters should not be brought in the realm of political action. For example, a politician's religious views (who s/he choses to worship, on what day, with what people, etc) shouldn't be attacked or questioned. However, whether or not that politician's religious beliefs lead to a particular political position, that positioin is free game. For example, it doesn't matter if a politician supports slavery because s/he believes it is God's will (if you aren't a member of his/her church); what matters is that s/he supports slavery. And that is the position to take a stand against.

As to specific issues, I'm sure we all have different positions on what's worth taking a stand on.

Peace