Before we move away from the election, I would like to ask you another question stemming from last week?s results:
What do the outcomes at the ballot box mean for people of faith?
That question may sound broad, but look at some of the issues:
Not only did we have a president reelected with an agenda of middle-class economics, but we had states both ratifying and defeating gay marriage amendments and approving and disapproving the use of marijuana. We also had two Senate races determined in part by the way candidates talked about God and rape.
What?s more, we had a Mormon heading a ticket for the first time. We had one party in the unusual position of not having a Protestant running for president or vice president. And we had minority voters who once had been on the fringe of society sharply shaping the outcome of a presidential election.
Mercifully, we had little religious skirmishing during the general election. But there were plenty of religious-themed issues in play.
DEAL HUDSON, President, Pennsylvania Catholics Network
Fifty-eight percent of Mass-attending Catholics voted against returning President Obama to office. Exit polls show a direct correlation ? a 39-59 percent gap according to Pew ? in all major religious groups between the frequency of attending church services and opposition to Obama: the more a person goes to church, the more he or she wanted an end to the Obama presidency. The reasons, in my view, are obvious and not worth repeating here.
So, to answer the question about the ?people of faith? ? most of them are very disappointed. Of course we can think of the ?people of faith? differently and include those who routinely say things such as, ?I consider myself a good Catholic,? but never attend Mass except on special occasions. To include those with a religious attitude, but no actual religious worship in our definition of the ?people of faith,? would strip it of all meaning. We might as well be asking about the ?people of faith? who believe in ?something out there.? They are, I would guess, feeling pretty good right about now!
KATIE SHERROD, Progressive Episcopalian Activist and Writer/Producer, Fort Worth
The election should be a cause of rejoicing and reflection for people of faith.
Across our nation, voters chose a president and in certain areas made decisions regarding the lives of their brother and sister Americans in a peaceful manner. That is a cause for rejoicing in a world where much too often violence accompanies such things.
There are other reasons for rejoicing, but then, I am a feminist, a Christian, and a progressive who hangs out a lot with folks historically pushed to the margins by the Establishment ? children, women and men of color, LGBT folk, the poor, and the disabled. I strive to seek and serve Christ in all people and honor the dignity of every human being.
From where I sit, this election looks like one in which patriarchy took some body blows. Candidates, pundits, and voters (male and female) who anchored themselves in a world of white male privilege rooted in the power of a white male God who looks a lot like them were shocked to discover that many voters do not share their world view. This is evident in the wailing and gnashing of teeth going on about ?the loss of our country? and the laments about the moral downfall of our nation.
Give me a break. Being disagreed with doesn?t make you a victim. Being disagreed with by lots of your brother and sister Americans may give you a shocking dose of reality therapy, but it doesn?t disempower you or silence you or keep you from getting a job or medical insurance or getting married to the person you love.
Not does it make those who disagreed with you ?maggots,? ?sinners,? ?takers,? or ?idiots.? Enough of the pity party and the insults.
Here?s some takeaways for the Republicans ? and for much of the media: Not all Christians are evangelicals. Not all white men are sexist souls longing for a return to the 1950?s. Women, Hispanics,African Americans and LGBT folk are not stupid ? we know when candidates are insulting our intelligence and worse, our human dignity. How would you feel if everyone got to vote on what you get to do with your own body? How would you feel if everyone got to vote on your civil rights? How would you feel if everyone got to vote on whether or not you could marry the person you love?
People on Social Security and Medicare are not selfish self-absorbed ?takers.? They earned those benefits, and they want them to be there for their children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren.
Yes, power changed hands in a few places and complacency was challenged in others, but the rich are still rich and privilege still resides for the most part in white male hands. The number of women in Congress is still ridiculously low and we have a long way to go before our ?representative bodies? look anything like the reality of the increasingly diverse population of our nation.
But this election was a big step forward in the dismantling of patriarchy, and thus a step toward dismantling the interlocking oppressions of race, sex, class, and sexual orientation/identity. For those who believe that all human beings are made in the image of God and are thus to be respected, it is cause for rejoicing.
JOE CLIFFORD, Head of Staff and Senior Minister, First Presbyterian Church of Dallas
Theologian and ethicist Charles Villa Vicencio posits three questions for our day: Who do we want to be? How do we want to get there? And finally, who are the ?we??
These are questions of morality, politics and faith. Religious communities must engage these questions in a way that recognizes the growing diversity of our nation.
Religion that divides is not needed at this point in our history. Rather we must focus on advancing points of agreement within our respective faiths in how we answer these key questions. We might not be able to agree on every aspect of who we want to be, but surely we can find common ground in some areas. We might not agree on the specifics of how we achieve those common goals, but surely we can find some pathways we can walk together.
Most importantly, we must understand who the ?we? are. We have become much more diverse as a nation. We must broaden our understand of who ?the we? are. To the degree we define faith in exclusive categories, we will be increasingly marginalized in American society. To the degree we understand the role of faith to be to contribute to the common good, we will continue to be an integral part of our society.
JIM DENISON, Theologian-in-Residence, Texas Baptist Convention and President, Denison Forum on Truth and Culture
More evangelicals than Mormons voted for Mitt Romney, in both percentage and votes cast. In fact, more conservative Christians voted for the Republican nominee than for any candidate in American history. Mr. Obama attracted even fewer Protestants, evangelicals, and Catholics than in his 2008 victory, but still won decisively.
Clearly, Christians who want to make a difference must do more than vote. Is our witness still relevant to our changing culture?
Consider this statement from atheist John Steinrucken: ?The glue that has held Western civilization together over the centuries is the Judeo-Christian tradition. To the extent that the West loses its religious faith in favor of non-judgmental secularism, then to that same
extent, it loses that which holds all else together. . . . An orderly society is dependent on a generally accepted morality. There can be no such morality without religion.?
So what now? Ed Stetzer, president of LifeWay Research, concluded after the election that Christians ?may be on the losing side of the culture war.? But he reminds us that ?when our King returns, He won?t be riding a donkey or elephant.? In fact, he will ride a white horse of victory and wear the name, ?King of Kings and Lord of Lords? (Revelation 19:16).
Until he returns, our nation needs Christians to be the ?salt of the earth? and the ?light of the world? (Matthew 5:13-16), engaging our culture with God?s word and hope by ?speaking the truth in love? (Ephesians 4:15).
Changed people change the world.
GEOFFREY DENNIS, Rabbi, Congregation Kol Ami in Flower Mound; faculty member, University of North Texas Jewish Studies Program
On the overt level, it broadened the tolerance of the American public by having a Mormon as a major party candidate for president. It simultaneously discredited bad theology used in the cause of policy.
I?m thinking, of course, of the grotesque argument made by (failed) Indiana Senate candidate Richard Mourdock that God intends the pregnancies that result from rapes that, apparently, God did not also intend. It also, in a very high-profile way, pried apart religiously-based prejudice from public policy, with the multiple victories for marriage equality in several states. Love and marriage is on the offensive, while the so-called ?defense of marriage? is increasingly being recognized for what it is ? the effort to legally privilege religious discrimination.
Much overlooked, between Obama, marriage, and pot, however, were these quiet but extraordinary tipping points ? Mazie Hirono is the first Buddhist in the Senate and Tulsi Gabbard is the first Hindu in Congress. I personally rejoice in these milestones as an affirmation of American exceptionalism and yet another stepping stone toward becoming the truly tolerant and diverse nation we have longed claimed to be. Very cool.
GORDON K. WRIGHT, Dallas attorney and a North Texas leader of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
Elections provide an opportunity for people of faith to practice the citizenship that many such people so heartily describe and defend during the campaigns. It is incumbent on those who have faith to pray for those who have been elected that they will be blessed with wisdom, foresight, understanding and the desire and ability to uphold the constitutional law of the land. While there may be some faithful adherents to a given religion or creed who hoped for one outcome in the election and others of the same faith who fervently desired a different outcome, now that the vote has been tallied, there is much good that can be accomplished if complaining and gloating are rejected in favor of civil discourse and hard work. We need to pray for those elected and then we need to act to support them in righteous endeavors.
That is not to say that everything one who is elected wants to do should be blindly accepted by the electorate. We have checks and balances and our Constitution provides a system that allows for continued debate and discussion. All sides need to continue seeking inspired solutions to the problems we face in our communities and in our nation. This can really only be done if we work together for the common good.
Jesus taught us to love and pray for those who are our ?enemies.? Surely, we can do so for those who think differently from us politically. Faithful people should be an example of this teaching.
Those who now have the opportunity to lead should seek divine guidance in doing so and should listen, really listen, to those who have differing views. Those who ?lost? the election should seek for ways to support the leadership of those elected, rather than for ways to frustrate those who are trying to lead. There must be efforts to compromise and to accomplish the work of the nation and community. Politics should be set aside in favor of prayerful efforts to do the country?s business.
We face hard choices; we should do so with honest debate concerning solutions, hard work towards understanding, and prayerful dedication to maintaining the constitutional blessings and liberties God has provided for us in this wonderful land.
MATTHEW WILSON, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Southern Methodist University
Speaking from the standpoint of my own faith tradition, Roman Catholicism, the election outcomes were a mixed bag leaning toward disappointment.
On the Church?s core concerns of life and family, the results represented a setback. President Obama?s re-election virtually guarantees that every judge nominated to the federal courts over the next four years will take the rights to abortion and to same-sex ?marriage? as givens. The rejection of traditional marriage at the ballot box (albeit narrowly) in several ?blue? states was a particularly bitter pill for the Church, suggesting that social support for a concept of marriage in line with Catholic teaching and natural law ? the indissoluble, life-giving union of one man and one woman ? continues to erode.
Moreover, the return of the Obama administration to office means that the Church will have to continue its legal battle against the government over the contraception mandate and other aspects of ?Obamacare? that it regards as infringements on religious freedom. Finally, the very ham-handed way in which Senate candidates in Missouri and Indiana articulated their pro-life positions not only doomed them to defeat, but did great damage to the cause of an authentically and consistently pro-life stance in American politics.
There was, however, also some good news from the standpoint of the Church. The Republicans? very poor performance with Latino voters (Romney won about 27%, less even than John McCain had in 2008) has prompted soul-searching in the party, and led both GOP elected officials and conservative opinion leaders in the media to finally embrace the idea of comprehensive immigration reform and a less punitive stance toward the undocumented.
Since this is what the Church has been advocating all along, Republican movement in this direction is most welcome. In addition, the continuance of divided government in Washington makes impossible the sort of dramatic cuts to social programs that many of the bishops had feared, and raises at least the possibility of a balanced deficit reduction that includes both increased tax revenue and entitlement reform ? the approach that most Church leaders (and most Americans) seem to prefer.
So, in the end, things could certainly have gone better in this election from a Catholic perspective, but there are some silver linings in the results. The Church now girds for the coming legal battles with the administration, and seeks to play a constructive role in the upcoming debates over immigration reform and budget priorities.
RIC DEXTER, Nichiren Buddhist area leader, Soka Gakkai-USA
17th century American Theologian Roger Williams explained his view of the relationship between the state and the church. He likened it to a ship. The captain?s seamanship was his guide to the job of getting the ship from one port to another. Any of the crew or passengers, be they ?Papists and Protestants, Jews, or Turks? were free to pray or not pray and conduct their affairs as they saw fit. The captain had no say in how they observed their religion. The only caveat was their conduct or religion could not interfere in business of the ship.
As American voters we are the ones who hire the ?captain? and determine how the affairs of the ship are to be conducted. Roger Williams? captain had the duty to command that justice, peace, and sobriety be observed. The people of the nation and of the different states have chosen what rules of justice, peace, and sobriety should be observed.
One message the outcome of the ballot box has for people of faith is that the laws by which we have agreed to be governed as citizens cannot be determined solely by our view of truth. The other message is that while there are some freedoms granted with which we do not agree, we are not compelled to act upon them.
Certain candidates expressed how their religious positions would inform their policy decisions. In some cases those positions were accepted by the voters. In others they were rejected.
The fact that we had candidates who were not of the same faith as previous candidates, and that voters once considered out of the mainstream shaped the outcome of the election is not a message just for people of faith, but for all Americans. As a nation of equal opportunity, our votes do count. Together we determine what path we take forward. Individually we determine how we will act along that path.
HOWARD COHEN, Lecturer in Jewish/Christian Relations and member of Congregation Shearith Israel and Congregation Beth Torah, Dallas
The analysis, no doubt, will go on for weeks, especially among Republicans who were assured by Fox News and their Christian right supporters that they would win. For them, it was a nightmare taking place while they were awake.
Eight years after their agenda of homophobia and criminalizing abortion regardless of circumstances gave the country George Bush, after a campaign that allowed the right wing nativist element of the party to attack Obama on more than his policies and character with questions that revealed a narrow and troubling definition of patriotism and who is an American, the country responded by re-electing our first African-American president, passing same sex marriage referendums in 3 states, defeating its ban in one state, and soundly defeating the two senatorial candidates who were the poster boys for no abortion under any circumstances with whom the vice-presidential candidate agreed and whom Romney would not disavow.
Given that Obama received the under-30 vote with twice the lead that Romney took the senior vote, it is not likely that we are going back to ?the good old days.?
What does that all mean for people of faith? That depends on which people of what faith you have in mind.
LARRY BETHUNE, Senior Pastor, University Baptist Church, Austin
I would not pretend to be an expert on the electorate, but it seems to me the results of the 2012 election reflect a weariness with the culture wars and the use of religion as a political force. It also reflects the freedom of conscience that religious Americans assert against ecclesiastical authority. Catholics voted against their bishops. Non-white evangelicals voted against the white religious right. And a new generation of ?nones? (in the religious preference category) voted against discrimination regarding gender and orientation. Extreme religious candidates and positions were repudiated, and voters refused to be bought by the excessive investments of the Super-PACs.
One could argue religious progressives organized more effectively against the religious right than ever before, but I suspect a general weariness with the politicization of religion. Perhaps in religion and politics both sides can draw a lesson from this election about listening more to the values and real concerns of the mainstream in formulating platforms and enacting policies that affect their lives.
Religious leaders in the political fray are easily thrown off their core message by political fights, which in turn lead people to turn away from religion. Political races inevitably oversimplify issues and polarize people. While both sides extrapolate their positions from their central affirmations, the center gets lost in the fight over derived stances. (Is the core of the Christian gospel really about abortion and homosexuality and bullying through a common moral code in a pluralistic democratic culture that has historically prized liberty of religion and conscience?)
In light of this election, religious leaders of both sides would be wise to access ?the better angels? of their core values and find ways to build consensus, community, and a more inclusive democracy, seeking peace and unity rather than power and domination. Surely religion should be a force that draws us together rather than dividing us further. At the very least religious leaders should learn the lesson that in American politics abuse of power leads to loss of power.
WILLIAM LAWRENCE, Dean and Professor of American Church History, Perkins School of Theology, Southern Methodist University
For people of faith, the 2012 election has demonstrated that America is not a nation dominated by a single religious vision or a privileged religious constituency. The election results exist alongside other data about the American people. A rising minority of people consider themselves attached to no religion. The old majority of people within Protestant mainstream denominations who dominated American life is now a shrinking minority. An increasing number of non-Christian religious dwell under the umbrella of Constitutional protections.
And within existing religious bodies, it is abundantly clear that leaders may establish policies but practitioners feel no obligation to follow them. The United Methodist Church officially opposes capital punishment and officially affirms that health care is a right, but individual United Methodists feel no obligation to align their personal views with policies adopted by the denomination. The Roman Catholic Church officially opposes the use of pharmaceutical family planning, but individual Roman Catholics make their own choices. Hence, the 2012 election shows that, for people of faith, being attached to a religion or a religious tradition does not automatically mean being committed to a political ideology.
In America, religion is a matter of voluntary association not national establishment. Similarly, adherence to religious teachings is viewed by Americans as a voluntary action rather than an institutional allegiance. Governing bodies of religious groups can say what they wish about the connection between sexual orientation and marriage, but Americans clearly will make their own private decisions about such matters.
So leaders among the people of faith need to understand that their role is in teaching their constituents not in issuing decrees to them. And leaders among the people of faith should grasp that they must help their adherents think theologically and religiously about issues, not deprive them of their freedom to think deeply. And the leaders among people of faith must recognize that their future lies in growing their constituencies not in governing their constituents? personal decisions.
DARRELL BOCK, Executive Director of Cultural Engagement, Center for Christian Leadership and Senior Research Professor of New Testament Studies, Dallas Theological Seminary
Obviously, our American world is becoming more diverse. So we will need to listen to the greater variety of voices that are a part of our society and are opting to participate in it. Issues such as immigration are now more important to address in a helpful way to get people acclimated rather than keeping things in the limbo they are in now. Religious communities can play a major role in this in terms of offering local support. Searching for some type of common ground to deal with our fiscal needs also needs significant discussion.
MIKE GHOUSE, President, Foundation for Pluralism, Dallas
This election is an endorsement of separation of church and state, and complies with the First Amendment.
The November ballot has produced two clear outcomes: A loss of control and start of Armageddon countdown for conservatives. And the beginning of freedom enshrined in our constitution for the moderate majority.
The idea of end days is common among Christian and Muslim fundamentalists, but no stranger to other traditions either.
Abortion is a major issue, and it is appalling to many conservatives that we are going against God and listening to Satan. Seven candidates lost election on this count. We may disagree with them, but that is their belief and we have to honor that, as long as it is not imposed on others.
Same-sex marriage continues to be a difficult issue and every conservative has his own understanding of Sodom and Gomorrah at the tip of their tongue. And a few of them have blamed Katrina, Haiti and other disasters as God?s punishment.
The moderate majority sees this as reaffirmation of our Founding Fathers dream: ? We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.?
As a pluralist, I don?t see it as liberals ganging up on conservatives, but rather seeking their God-given freedom to live in pursuit of their happiness, without imposing it on those who believe otherwise.
Even God did not impose his will on Adam, he gave him the choice to eat the forbidden fruit or not, and when the choice was made, God did not slap Adam or Eve for making the wrong choice. Thank God for that, I would not have wanted to miss experiencing the joy of living on the earth.
My religious beliefs are for me to practice and not impose on others. Each one of us has to live by our own moral compass.
This vision was expressed by President Lincoln in his Gettysburg Address: ?This nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom ? and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.? Did Lincoln ever mean government of clergy for the people?
ny giants brandon marshall ryder cup Kate Middleton Bottomless the Pirate Bay Hotel Transylvania looper
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.