Buddhist politics in the US (Samantha's Guest Post)

Tuesday's elections brought two historic firsts for religion in American politics: A Buddhist senator and a Hindu representative -- both from Hawaii -- will join Congress.

 This Huffington Post article tells us that the 2012 elections brought about two historic firsts for religion in American politics. For the first time in American history, a Buddhist senator and a Hindu representative were elected to Congress. Anju Bhargava, the founder of Hindu American Seva Charities, is quoted in the article as saying, “These are all signs of dharmic communities being accepted in the country.” Bhargava believes that the results of this year’s election evidence the American inclusion and acceptance of these faiths as well as the followers of these religions. Do you agree with Bhargava? Do you think that the election of these two women points to the acceptance and inclusion of dharmic communities?

Danish Religion

Apropos of our discussion of Islam in Europe last week comes this news from Denmark.

The latest dust-up involves the Egedalsvænget housing complex in Kokkedal, a town situated some 30 kilometers (20 miles) north of Copenhagen where Arab and Turkish immigrants now comprise more than half the total population.

 At a recent meeting of the Egedalsvænget tenants’ association, the Muslim majority on the Board of Directors refused to authorize spending 7,000 Danish kroner ($1,200) for the community’s annual Christmas event.  The vote came shortly after the same Board of Directors authorized spending 60,000 kroner ($10,000) on a large communal celebration of the Muslim holiday Eid. Five out of nine of the board members are Muslims.

Cue the predictable surprise and outrage. 

But here's the interesting thing: less than 5% of Danes actually attend church.  So why are people upset?  Why are a bunch of for-all-practical-purposes atheists upset that there's no Christmas tree in the public square (or whatever)?

The article goes into an interesting discussion of religion as culture, rather than as faith.  According to some Danes, Lutheran rituals are part of what it means to be Danish.  Everyone is free to believe whatever they want, but cancelling the Christmas celebration is like cancelling the 4th of July celebration in the US.  Scholars of religion sometimes talk about how difficult it is to define religion--this is an example of how that difficulty mucks with politics, too.

Why Religious Liberty?

Sorry I haven't posted anything for so long.  Monday mornings I tutor a group of high school age homeschoolers in government, and the curriculum we use listed Sir Thomas More for our weekly reading.  Instead of reading his Utopia, though, we saw a movie version of A Man for All Seasons, about More and his resistance to King Henry VIII's divorce.  Great movie, won 6 or 7 Oscars, but it got me thinking about religious liberty again.  In real life More was a devout Catholic (now the patron saint of lawyers, actually), but in the movie he embodied a very modern Protestant stance on the relationship between church and state and individual conscience.  Anyway...

It prompted me to read a review of a recent book on religious liberty by Brian Leiter.  The reviewer panned Leiter's book, but most of his review would only appeal to a specialist in Con Law or philosophy.  One section, though, caught my eye.

Contrary to many popular conceptions today, religious liberty isn’t founded on indifferentism, or relativism, or subjectivism, or skepticism: That there’s no meaningful truth at stake in religion, or that if there is we simply can’t know it. Nor should religious liberty be understood as a right to self-authenticity, where the right of religious liberty is conflated with the right of conscience understood as being true to one’s self (especially where one’s “self” is equated with one’s desires).

No, with [Cardinal John Henry] Newman we should see conscience as a “stern monitor.” It is the faculty of rational moral judgment by which we are capable of distinguishing right and wrong and conforming our conduct to truths about what must and must not be done. This makes sense of Newman’s claim that “conscience has rights because it has duties,” for it has duties to pursue and to adhere to truth. Indeed, conscience has particular duties with respect to the most important truths in life, truths about God. Thus a sound understanding of religious liberty is that religious truth exists, and that we have a moral duty to seek it out and to live our lives accordingly.

Politically, this pursuit and adherence best takes place if it is in no way coerced; indeed religious acts have actual moral merit, actual moral worth, only if freely chosen. God, as understood in the traditions of ethical monotheism, does not desire forced worship; in fact, an act simply could not qualify as an act of worship if it were coerced. Likewise, when conflicting with religious pursuits, even generally applicable laws should take religious goods into account. This helps explain why we have our First Amendment, and why Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to ensure that any law impinging negatively on religious freedom do so only for compelling reasons and in the least restrictive way possible.

He's making a "positive liberty" claim here.  A "negative liberty" claim would be to say that since another's beliefs do not themselves hurt me, they should be free to believe whatever they want.  The reviewer is asserting something different. Distilling his paragraphs down to a bare minimum gives us this:

Humans are teleologically bound to seek some kind of transcendent Truth.  Because that compulsion is uniquely and universally human, we must be maximally free to do so. 
Two questions:
a) He doesn't offer evidence for his assertion: can you think of any for or against?  Is he right?
b) Presumably humans are also teleologically bound (alternatively, genetically conditioned) to reproduce, so even if he is right, doesn't that still keep religious liberty on the same level as reproductive liberty?

"The Religious Right is Dead"

This is from a religion reporter with the Daily Telegraph in London. 

Guys – have a quick puff of your joint before heading down the aisle with your boyfriend. In addition to re-electing Obama, various American states voted to legalise dope and gay marriage. OK, so they weren't necessarily the same states, but you get the picture. Last night was a victory for secular liberal America – or, to put it another way, America's emerging secular liberal majority.

Read the whole thing.

So...is he right?  I'll just put this out there for comments.

PS: As long as we're on the subject of Britain, the Church of England just chose a (relatively) conservative evangelical for the new Archbishop of Canterbury.  Given the liberal mainline status of the Episcopal Church USA (the US affiliate of the Church of England), expect sparks.

The Church of South Carolina

So far we've spent more time discussing how religion affects politics than the other way around, but here's a piece of recent news that goes the other way.

A friend who follows the Episcopal Church — which at this point is somewhat like watching the Titanic when it’s already a few thousand feet under water — sends the link to a story on that body’s establishment declaring that the Episcopal bishop of South Carolina has abandoned the Episcopal Church. 

Only a lawyer would enjoy reading the case's particulars, but basically, it's about politics.  The Episcopal Church (TEC) leadership is transforming it into one of the most liberal denominations in the country, on board with same-sex marriage ceremonies, transgender bishops, and pretty much toeing the line on whatever secular liberal intellectuals think.  The Diocese (region) of South Carolina, on the other hand, is, well, South Carolina.  In short, political differences about gender/sexuality are splitting the church.

This has happened locally, too.   Christ the King Anglican Fellowship began when several members left Holy Cross Episcopal over the same gender/sexuality issues. 

My favorite part of the link was from the comments:

Perhaps the Diocese of South Carolina should just declare itself THE Church of South Carolina and boldly assert that no foreign (outside the state) potentate has say in their land. It has precedent.

It's Mormon in America

Whether or not Mitt Romney makes it to the White House, his candidacy signals that Mormons have arrived in American political life. Just as President Obama’s nomination and election marked a sea change in the country’s tortured racial history, so Romney’s nomination has changed religious boundaries that have persisted for more than 160 years.

Read the whole thing at City Journal

"Take off her binders!"

Now, it can finally be revealed: Mitt Romney was speaking in code — the Mormon candidate was trying to reach out to the Catholic vote in a most intimate (but terribly sexist and misogynistic) way; yes…it’s all about the underwear!

Read the rest at the Anchoress

Politics, Religion, and Diversity on Campus

Here is an article about religious diversity on campus.  It isn't election politics per se (though it does mention the election), but it does resonate with some of the themes we've talked about so far.

It came as no surprise to me to read the recent New York Times article indicating that Muslim students feel particularly welcome on Roman Catholic campuses...

A pleasurable benefit of being educated is encountering references that you've read before, understanding the reference in more depth and how it fits with the rest of the article even without needing to read it.  In this article, you know one of the cited authors:

Robert Putnam, who teaches American politics at Harvard, emphasizes that faith communities are the single largest repository of social capital in America, but...

Full Article

Has the "Values Voter" gone MIA?

This is a piece from Religion Dispatches, a site that monitors religion and politics issues from a generally progressive slant.  Think of it as the opposite of Touchstone, the site I took two of the Religious Liberty readings from, which leans heavily pro-traditional (i.e. Conservative) Catholic/Anglican.

Thanks to watching last night’s presidential debate, I now know that Mitt Romney either wants four trillion dollars in new taxes or he doesn’t, that Barack Obama either cut 700 million dollars from Medicare or he didn’t, and that Jim Lehrer either knows how long two minutes is or he doesn’t. (Seems like he doesn’t.)

But I don’t know anything about any social or religious issue—i.e., the kind of stuff we here at RD speak about all the time. Which brings up the question: are these issues irrelevant?

link to full article

There's two sides to the "values issue."   Are both of them quiet this election cycle? 

Non-controversial writing about religion and politics

The site Getreligion is a place for religion beat journalists to talk about the media's take on religion (and often politics).  Sometimes these leads to hot debates, but sometimes they take on something mild. 

This article jumps the gun a little on our Mormon week, but I was mildly interested:

What church would Romney attend if he won?

With a bonus appearance by Mormon Democrats.  Numerous Mormons chime in on the story in the comments, which are worth reading.

Incentives

The screenshot is from instapundit.com, though depending on when you access this it may have disappeared from the top page.

Seething Midwest Explodes Over Lombardi Cartoons

This may only make sense to those of us from the Midwest, but I'll put it up here nonetheless...

Green Bay, WI - Like a pot of bratwurst left unattended at a Lambeau Field pregame party, simmering tensions in the strife-torn Midwest boiled over once again today as rioting mobs of green-and-gold clad youth and plump farm wives rampaged through Wisconsin Denny’s and IHOPs, burning Texas toast and demanding apologies and extra half-and-half.

The spark igniting the latest tailgate hibachi of unrest: a Texas newsletter's publication of caricatures of legendary Green Bay Packers coach Vince Lombardi.

Read the whole thing at Iowahawk.

Politics from the Pulpit--legal or illegal?

This article is from Opposing Views, a website that debates every controversial topic imaginable. I realize that this article is extremely biased, but the topic fits well with our class discussions, and the information is relevant to our required field work. The issue at hand is religious endorsement of political candidates. The article tells us that, "federal tax law bars campaign intervention by houses of worship and other nonprofits that claim exemption under Section 501(c)(3) of the tax code." So, after reading the article, do you think places of worship and other nonprofit organizations should have the freedom to endorse the political candidates of their choice?

Politics from the Pulpit--legal or illegal?

Submitted by Samantha H.


[Related news--Ed.]

The Archbishop of LA calls on Catholic voters to vote with their religious beliefs in fairly specific terms (Full statement here).  For example:

When Catholics go to the voting booth, he said, there are non-negotiable aspects of Catholic social teaching that they should recall. Abortion and euthanasia, and families based on a marriage between a man and a woman are among those non-negotiables. These issues cannot be disagreed about among Catholics who have formed their consciences with the Church, he said.

 But many issues are debatable among Catholics who have well-formed consciences. Archbishop Gomez pointed to issues such as taxes, government spending, how to deal with immigration and helping the poor as examples of topics that are matters of prudential judgment.

 In these areas “sincere and faithful Catholics are always going to have legitimate differences of opinion over how best to apply the Church’s moral principles,” he wrote.

In light of this year's campaign rhetoric (Romney wages 'war on women' & the Dem. Convention was a 'Carnival of Abortion'), is Archbishop Gomez's statement in effect a "religious endorsement of a candidate or party?

Countering the argument in my last post

This essay appears in the LA Times, from someone (a lawyer, presumably?) at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.   For her, the issue seems to turn on the intent of the film's creator.

A bit about blasphemy law

In a Congressional hearing last week, an official from the Department of Justice held open the possibility that the DoJ would criminalize blasphemy.  Much uproar followed.  Obviously, the DoJ is not the final authority on this, the Supreme Court is.   Some searching turned up the controlling precedent here, a case from 1952, in which the New York state censor banned the English translation of an Italian firm that portrayed Joesph impregnating a mentally confused Mary (instead of the Virgin Birth, obviously).  Reading through the actual decision (here's the link for all you prospective lawyers), I found what seems to be the key section, near the end.

New York's highest court says there is "nothing mysterious" about the statutory provision applied in this case:

It is simply this: that no religion, as that word is understood by the ordinary, reasonable person, shall be treated with contempt, mockery, scorn and ridicule. . . . [n15]

This is far from the kind of narrow exception to freedom of expression which a state may carve out to satisfy the adverse demands of other interests of society. [n16] In seeking to apply the broad and all-inclusive definition of "sacrilegious" given by the New York courts, the censor is set adrift upon a boundless sea amid a myriad of conflicting currents of religious views, with no [p505] charts but those provided by the most vocal and powerful orthodoxies.

Question 1: In America, the most vocal religious group is the religious right.  To those of you who (last Wednesday) felt that the controversial anti-Islam film should not be made/shown, the Supreme Court says that the end of the road for that idea is that the Religious Right (along with Middle Eastern Muslims, presumably) will get to decide what you can and cannot see in American films and art.  Are you okay with that?

New York cannot vest such unlimited restraining control over motion pictures in a censor. Cf. Kunz v. New York, 340 U.S. 290 (1951). [n17] Under such a standard the most careful and tolerant censor would find it virtually impossible to avoid favoring one religion over another, and he would be subject to an inevitable tendency to ban the expression of unpopular sentiments sacred to a religious minority. Application of the "sacrilegious" test, in these or other respects, might raise substantial questions under the First Amendment's guaranty of separate church and state with freedom of worship for all.

Question 2: I regularly hear (from students on both ends of the political spectrum) that the government has no business mucking around with religious idea about marriage.  A) if you believe that, can you make the case that the government does have business mucking around with religious ideas about speech?   B) If you don't believe that, does it follow that the government absolutely does have business restricting religious speech?

[n18] However, from the standpoint of freedom of speech and the press, it is enough to point out that the state has no legitimate interest in protecting any or all religions from views distasteful to them which is sufficient to justify prior restraints upon the expression of those views. It is not the business of government in our nation to suppress real or imagined attacks upon a particular religious doctrine, whether they appear in publications, speeches, or motion pictures. [n19]

As a side-note, this case also foreshadowed the decision in Citizens v United about corporate speech rights.  This 1952 decision said:

It is urged that motion pictures do not fall within the First Amendment's aegis because their production, distribution, and exhibition is a large-scale business conducted for private profit. We cannot agree. That books, newspapers, and magazines are published and sold for profit does not prevent them from being a form of expression whose liberty is safeguarded by the First Amendment. [n11] [p502] We fail to see why operation for profit should have any different effect in the case of motion pictures.

Question 3: All of that said, we now have the spectacle of the Attorney-General of the United States personally calling for the investigation of a private citizen on the pretext that he might have violated probation terms by using a computer.   In a similar vein, some of you in class suggested that he be prosecuted for "inciting violence."  Does that mean that now the government gets to arbitrarily decide who it wants to punish for blasphemy?  Is that an example of what the Supreme Court warned of as an "inevitable tendency to ban the expression of unpopular sentiments sacred to a religious minority" that would lead to unequal treatment of religions by the state?

Cardinal Dolan at the Conventions

In case you didn't hear, the same person gave the closing benedictions at both the RNC and the DNC--Cardinal Dolan.*  What makes that even more interesting is that the Catholic Vote--historically Democratic--is increasingly trending Republican.  Certainly a demographic that both parties want to capture this election.  Not only that, but (as you can read in this week's readings), Dolan and an assortment of Catholic bishops & hospitals are suing Obama's government over a requirement in the Health Care Law that they provide abortion-related insurance.

Apparently, his benediction at the two conventions was almost the same, but not quite.  The differences are interesting.

Cardinal Dolan's Two Benedictions

PS: this post is from getreligion.org, which is devoted to reviewing journalistic coverage of religious issues, just the thing for a "writing about politics and religion" class.  We'll be seeing more of it.


*For the non-Catholics, "Cardinal" means a really big cheese in the Church hierarchy.  Cardinal Dolan heads up the Catholic Church in the United States.

Beardly Theology

Yes, beards...

Amish beards and hate crimes, Nidal Hasan's trial and "good grooming," and beards as a "...as a sacramental symbol is (to paraphrase the Book of Common Prayer) a visible sign of an invisible ideology."

Religious freedom for the Taliban--in prison?

US Courts generally hold that the 1st Amendment right to free exercise of religion trumps most laws.  Here's a hard case--does the right to religious freedom give convicted Taliban supporters the right to assemble in prison for pro-jihadi sermons.  In Arabic, no less, so the guards can't understand?

Article from USA Today

Paul Ryan and the "Social Gospel"

Here is something for those of you attending Catholic (St. Liz), Anglican (Christ the King), or Episcopal (St. Luke's and Holy Cross).  The Archbishop of Canterbury is nominally the supreme leader of the Anglican & Episcopal churches, and what he says is a weathervane for what those churches' leaders are thinking.   Here he implicitly weighs in on Paul Ryan's proposed budget plan and how it relates to church ideas.

Psalm 122 is, you could say, the theme song of this vision, and it is a vision that prompts Robinson to a ferocious critique of the abstractions of ideology – including “austerity” as an imperative to save the world for capitalism.

The Liberalism of Archbishop Rowan Williams

Welcome to Politics and Religion

Welcome to PS 3001 Writing about Politics and Relgion.  This blog will host online readings to supplement our regular readings on ASUlearn.   Most posts will have a short commentary about how the reading links to our class topic, then a link to the article for you to read.

I encourage, but not require, discussion in the comments section.

Banning Circumcision in Germany

Our first post comes from outside the USA, from Germany, where the Times of Israel reports that

...criminal charges have been filed against a rabbi in Northern Bavaria for performing circumcisions. According to the Juedische Allgemeine, a Jewish weekly, the state prosecutor of Hof confirmed that charges had been filed against Rabbi David Goldberg, who serves the community of Upper Franconia for “harming” infants by performing the rite of brit milah, the covenantal ritual at the heart of Judaism.

The full story is here.   Last year, the City of San Fransisco put a similar ban on circumsision on a public ballot, before a judge removed it, saying that regulating medical procedures is a matter for state law, not city law.

This raises some issues we'll talk about later, like the question of how the parents' freedom of religion relates to their children's' rights, or distinguishing between freedom of religious belief and freedom of religious practice.

Your thoughts are invited.