Rabbi Lerner, in his recent post, alerted readers of Tikkun Daily to two pieces of policy legislation introduced in Congress this week: the Environmental and Social Responsibility Amendment and the Global Marshall Plan. Both aim at creating a more caring society.
In direct contrast to the humanitarian agenda of the interfaith Religious Left articulated in those initiatives stands the exclusionary and divisive agenda of the specifically Christian Right, as exemplified by the Manhattan Declaration (2009).
The authors of the Declaration describe themselves as a coalition of “Christian leaders known for their public witness on behalf of justice, human rights, and the common good,” yet they are motivated by what they see as “growing efforts to marginalize the Christian voice in the public square, to redefine marriage, and to move away from the biblical view of the sanctity of life.”
While the “sanctity of human life,” “marriage,” and “religious liberty” are ideals that most people support, an exclusionary and anti-democratic political agenda clearly underlies the Manhattan Declaration. As is their tradition, the Christian Right seeks to unify its members in opposition to the sexual sovereignty, equality, and self-determination of women and LGBT people. And their appeals to religious liberty seem to be primarily aimed at protecting the right of medical personnel to deny women reproductive services and the right of organizations to discriminate against LGBT people.
This is not an abstract agenda. In fact, this week an article in the Washington Post has documented that some Catholic hospitals have recently denied medical care to women because it violates the Church policy, even if it puts the woman’s life in danger.
>>In direct contrast to the humanitarian agenda of the interfaith Religious Left articulated in those initiatives stands the exclusionary and divisive agenda<<
Every political agenda is divisive, because every policy proposal sparks a debate. And on "culture war" issues, a proposal for a move in any direction will re-ignite simmering disagreements.
That's just the nature of politics.
So it’s God’s policy to deny medical treatment to women because a group of men oppose that? Where’s the unconditional love in that? I hope Jason isn’t suggesting that action is pointless because you’ll encounter opposition no matter what position you take.
While it’s true that any agenda is divisive in the sense of yielding supporter and opponents, there is a huge difference between an agenda that aims to be inclusive and universalist and one that is exclusionary and negatively particularist. For example, an agenda for universal healthcare includes everyone; an agenda to cut off aid to the poor and the middle class is exclusionary by design and serves the particular interests of the wealthy (corporations and individuals.)
To give any group of people a sense of persecution–unfortunately–often allows them to follow blindly using the primitive portion of the brain. The Christian right is providing that sense now. Tragic. However, to take action–even an e-mail–gives one a sense of personal power. May we all be kinder to ourselves and to each other.
It seems that if everyone agreed on an issue we wouldn’t have ‘agendas’ or the need for policy! But when we don’t agree I think it is important to remember that the other feels just as passionately about their point of view as I do. Though I might see a something as ‘exclusionary and anti-democratic’ the other truly sees it as moral and right. Recognizing that is an important step toward conflict resolution. I think it is my task to communicate and persuade rather than argue–easier said than done!
I’ll vote to offer some compassionate listening, empathic presence and non-violent communication skills to each passionate side of this divide.
Can we guess what are some of the basic human needs underlying the proposals of exclusion:
1. SAFETY – (physical, personal, social) – (“What might happen to me and/or my kids in this ‘new’ reality?”)
2. EASE – (from fear and discomfort of the different and unknown)
3. INCLUSION – (wanting to feel a meaningful, active part of the community where familiarity helps)
4. AUTHENTICITY – ( space and freedom to express real feelings of fear, doubt, confusion)
5. SELF-CARE – whatever that includes for each one of us
6. RESPECT – each person’s values and core commitments need a place under the sun in the open
(starting w/ Self respect)
Don’t we all need these and believe in their core importance in our lives?
Bless you. I have been working to keep myself heedful of this common ground; sometimes difficult when surrounded by anger. Your words are cool water to my parched senses.
I think we need to differentiate between the regular folks who support conservative religion and the leadership that seeks to manipulate them for their own aggrandizement.
Randall wrote: >>I hope Jason isn’t suggesting that action is pointless because you’ll encounter opposition no matter what position you take.<<
No, I'm not. I take the opposite position. Advocating any kind of political action always provokes opposition. Politics presupposes that people disagree. After all, if we all agreed on our values and the prudential means to achieving those values, we'd have no political controversies at all.
Go ahead and advocate whatever you want. There will be opposition, and there will be some degree of social ferment. It can't b helped. And within limits, it's a normal and health part of the democratic process.
But should we put the burden of blame always on the other side? On what basis do we say that we're "inclusive" and the other is "divisive"? Why not just use simpler words, and say "Progressives good, conservatives bad?"
I also find it interesting that some of the comments are confusing social conservatism with corporatist ideology. Some of the signers of the Manhattan Declaration are left of center on economics. Certainly the American Catholic bishops, as a whole, are "Left" on economics and "Right" on abortion and same-sex marriage.
I know many Christians who have similar attitudes. The notion that all persons who would support the Manhattan Declaration are fundamentalists or "divisive" is a gross disservice to the real diversity that exists on these issues.
My ultimate concern is pragmatic.
What happens if progressives exaggerate the unity of the Right, and ignore its real diversity? After all, political movements, like anything human, are heterogenous.
The first rule of politics is: Know your opponent.
This is the most comprehensive and well written material I have come across on this subject, You are provided an incredibly important service writing these types of articles.