IN THEORY:Time for a political break?

David Kuo, a former top official in the White House’s faith-based initiative, recently wrote “Tempting Faith: An Inside Story of Political Seduction,” a book in which he claims the president’s top political advisors privately ridiculed evangelical supporters and only embraced the religious activists for their help getting votes. Kuo has warned that evangelical leaders are being used and that they should “fast” from politics for at least a year. Should religious leaders take Kuo’s advice and take a break from politics?

David Kuo’s advice to religious leaders to take a break from politics is long overdue. Over the last six years, the Bush administration’s efforts to selectively merge some religious and political causes, while giving significant sums of money to selected churches to use as they see fit (which was opposed by even the majority of the president’s own party), has required the abandonment of time-honored secular values. And that at the hands of a president who claimed that he wanted to be the president for all the people, but apparently only cared about trying to keep his voting blocs solid.

A real problem with religious interference in the management of the country is the fact that it can only result in creating such single-issue voting blocs, where even the members of the voting blocs, in order to be effective, have to ignore everything the administration does that actually is contrary to their best interests as far as their health and economic day-to-day life is concerned. Such bloc voting by those who deny scientific facts and who expect the rapture to occur any day now, could actually create a self-fulfilling prophesy of doom by discouraging and preventing any changes that could help to correct the serious environmental problems that the world is unquestionably facing at this time.

Bush believes that God wanted him to be president, and therefore apparently anything that his gut feelings tell him to do is already approved by God. That is a truly frightening part of having a shallow, two-dimensional person at the head of our government. Analysis or study is never required.

Clearly, as Thomas Jefferson insisted, there should be a wall of separation between church and state. The obvious example of what happens when religious groups effectively get control of a government is Islam, as in Iran, Iraq and other countries. Most religions do not allow for any sense of humor or irony, or doubt in any sense, but Islam is extremely sensitive on that score. The two main branches of Islam take themselves so seriously that they are willing to resort to torture and murder against each other as well as any others who might dare ridicule them.

But control of the government is a heady goal, and many religions would not be squeamish about the means to achieve such a desirable end. How far would fundamentalist Christians be willing to go to achieve such an end, with the laws of the land reflecting their particular religious dogmas and with their churches and church schools fully supported by the government?

JERRY PARKS

Member

Humanist Assn. of Orange County

I happened to hear David Kuo interviewed on TV, and I found his experience to be consistent with my observations concerning the Bush administration’s behavior. Action always speaks louder than words, and although I have heard a lot from this administration and how it intends to meet the needs of the poor or disadvantaged through faith-based programs, I have not seen the action that backs up the words.

What I have seen is a concerted effort to court certain religious groups in order to garner their political support in return for the government’s financial assistance. Evidently, Kuo finally encountered the elephant in the room, and as a result he is now suggesting that religious leaders shouldn’t talk to this political elephant — a good idea but one that will probably be ignored. I am awaiting Mr Kuo’s next book, “Ministers Who Run with the Elephants” (all puns intended).

SENIOR PASTOR JIM TURRELL

Center for Spiritual Discovery

Costa Mesa

A respected historian incriminates 19th century religious leaders for unnecessarily prolonging the Civil War. He posits that both the Union and the Confederacy, repulsed by astounding casualties, hungered for the conflict’s end after its first year. That it continued was owed to preachments in the North and South that God blessed their respective cause. Culpability for the war’s continuation could be ascribed to the interference of clergy, whose theological certainties maintained divisiveness.

How do spirit and body politic relate? The Star of David or the Cross should cover the Bible, not the Stars and Stripes. To rage against moral dissolution is to uphold the legacy of the prophets, but to make a pact with a political party is a Faustian bargain.

To aver that only one brand of politics is acceptable to God, or that certain political positions are sanctified and others are blasphemous, or that one party’s platform is congruent with Biblical inerrancy, undermines democracy and takes the Lord’s name in vain. Those who stamp America with the seal of doctrinal morality, who inject sectarian pieties into politics, who charge candidates with being on the wrong side of the battle between light and of darkness, assault the diversity of an America whose Constitution does not reference God. The moral voice of religion is necessarily compromised when it cozies up to “conservative” or “liberal” camps.

Religious leaders can be cynically exploited, used as props to win legitimacy for a policy. Yes, we must see life from God’s perspective, be agents for change, speak truth to power, confront evil, and stand for compassion and righteousness. We must preserve the dignity and sanctity of life and express Biblical values in our national debates. We must “proclaim liberty throughout the land unto all the inhabitants thereof,” “let justice well up as waters and righteousness as a mighty stream,” and fulfill the mandate to “love your neighbor as yourself.”

But truth, evil and justice mean different things to different people, even to those within the same denomination. We all recognize that the poor have a claim upon our concern. We may, though, believe that government should lead in ameliorating poverty or that government is more the problem than the solution. Preaching that God demands that we vote for a candidate, or support social engineering legislation, or apply an economic theory, imposes our own version of the Bible, a book not to be confused with the Federalist Papers.

Does Scripture lead to only one political angle of vision? Do religious leaders not deal with enough politics in their houses of worship that they thirst for more?

In the 19th Century, preachers perpetuated strife that could have been brought to an earlier resolution. From the Civil War to the uncivil discourse of many clergy today, pulpit pronouncements that pander to one side or another demean the Word of God.

RABBI MARK S. MILLER

Temple Bat Yahm

Newport Beach

It looks like many evangelicals did take a break from voting, given Tuesday’s election results. But their staying home sent a strong message: It’s time to recoup, reprioritize and look for trustworthy and capable leadership.

I think it is always good advice for religious leaders to take considerable time out to go deeper into the core of their faith tradition. It is too easy to get caught up in the mission of the church, administration, funding and the day-to-day tasks of handling the needs of the congregation. It is much harder to sustain a vigorous, joyful and sane faith practice and to consistently share that with the community.

But, overall, I do not agree with the dichotomy David Kuo is making between the political and religious spheres. Taking a break from politics is also political, as was Jesus’ 40 days in the desert and Buddha’s seven days of meditation under the Bodhi tree. Whatever priorities and good works evangelicals bring forward in the following years will be as members of a body politic — whether it be of their church, their local community, or their country, let alone their political party. If evangelicals again decide to stay home in the 2008 election, their anti-vote will still be counted.

When we don’t take time out for reflection, prayer or meditation, it is not likely that we can function in civil harmony with others or live with elegance. Religious leaders especially must protect times of silence in order to keep their beginners’ minds, with the freshness, energy, and naivete that they first brought to their faith. It is this continuous renewal of our beginners’ minds that is the ground for religious leadership.

REV. CAROL AGUILAR

Zen Center of Orange County

Costa Mesa

Should politicians take a break from religion? Certainly not! To do so would be unhealthy for their souls. And one need only look at the covers of the current issues of Time (“God vs. Science”) and Newsweek (“The Politics of Jesus”) to learn of religion’s interreationships with all of American life. Politicians ignore this at their own peril.

A core and comprehensive definition of “politics” is “the total complex of relations among people in society.” How can religious people take a break from that? The political and religious are inextricable in such concerns as justice, equality, peace, restraint of violence, dignity, human rights, the sacredness of life and good stewardship of creation.

People of faith must be motivated by our beliefs to do our best to leave this world a better place than we’ve found it, to ensure that relations among people are, in ol’ Beatles’ lyrics, “Getting so much better all the time.”

Before one criticizes another for “bringing down Jesus with him,” he or she would do well to be mindful of Scripture, such as Matthew 7:1-5 and Luke 6:41-42 in which Jesus says, “Do not judge, so that you may not be judged…. Why do you see the speck in your neighbor’s eye, but do not notice the log in your own … You hypocrite!” Events like the recent scandal in Colorado Springs should make us acutely aware that we are all sinners saved by grace, that we can focus on the relationships to which we’ve made a commitment and for which God holds us responsible, and — first and foremost — that we must pray for Ted Haggard and his family.

And given the definition of “politics,” isn’t prayer political?

(THE VERY REV’D CANON)PETER D. HAYNES

Saint Michael & All Angels

Episcopal Church

Corona del Mar

With all the sex scandals on Capitol Hill, the personalities of the individuals as public officials, as representatives of the government, has overshadowed the work that they are doing. Religious leaders too are guilty of sexual indiscretions.

As a rabbi, I believe the governmental system is predicated on the existence of the community above its private opinions and individual lifestyles. The laws of the land seek ethics and morals when it comes to one’s sexual mores. This applies to its leaders and followers alike. The existence of our country demands its leaders to live up to these higher moral and ethical obligations. Our government does not speak on the rights of the individual leadership, but on the rights of the citizens it represents. Many have broken these rights and should put their personal lives together before they try to fix America.

The concern of a politician should be on the correct workings of government. They should take a back seat on advising the president and what to do and what not to do as religious leaders. Let them preach to their congregations, not for and to public officials.

The purpose of the leadership then appears to be the participation and the contribution to the government through adherence to its laws first. Although the individual is valued and has rights and merits, the integrity of the community cannot be compromised for the sake of its leadership. If there is garbage in the church or government and it smells, clean it up. Practice what you preach, before you preach it to others.

This applies to all religious leaders and to every public official.

RABBI MARC S. RUBENSTEIN

Temple Isaiah

Newport Beach

No one should take a break from politics. Though, as a Christ follower, I think the way Christian leaders have been involved in politics should be reevaluated. The religious right’s blind acceptance of Republican doctrine has left it them looking like a people who love war and have no compassion. The religious left’s blind acceptance of Democratic party doctrine has left it looking like a group that has compromised its beliefs for a few welfare checks.

I switched my political affiliation years ago to independent when I could not align myself with either party. The “Contract with America” (and particularly its implementation) was un-Christlike. I have since longed for a party that cared for the poor, protected the environment, valued life over liberty, viewed democracy as a responsibility and not just a right, a party believed businesses owe the American people for their success and not the other way around, and that fighting for freedom isn’t just about the freedom to import American goods and pornography.

It is unfortunate that Christ-followers in both parties who agree on their basic values can’t come together as a force in the middle instead of empowering the extremes in both parties which has only encouraged a division in the body of Christ. Yes, they should reevaluate their roles, but no, they should not take a break from politics.

RIC OLSEN

Lead Pastor

The Beacon