Alliance Meeting 4/15/2024: How religious or moral beliefs inform our political views

Fairfax Alliance Meeting April 15, 2024

Topic: Panel Discussion on How Religious or Moral Beliefs Inform Our Political Views

(Click here to view or download as a PDF of the notes.)

The Fairfax County Braver Angels Alliance held a combined panel and group discussion on the topic of how religious or moral beliefs inform our political views. The topic is one that agitates and energizes, and has become a substantive issue in the upcoming election as it relates to home-grown ideologies as well as foreign policy discussions. We decided to follow up the April discussion with invited guests who shared their own perspectives coming from different faith communities, which included Judaism, Islam, Catholicism, 2 Protestant perspectives (non-denominational/Antioch and Episcopalian), and Agnosticism.

Three questions were posed to participants and panelists, who held a roundtable discussion before answering questions from other participants.

1.       How does your religious (or moral/spiritual) belief system inform the way you and your faith community respond to the political climate in the US?

2.       What are some intracommunal challenges that the polarization of the last decade has created?

3.       What role can your faith community and the wider spectrum of faith communities play to reduce the sharpness of political rhetoric during an election year?

Below you will find a collection of bullet points capturing comments made by our panelists as well as other participants. A general consensus can be found around the idea that communities of faith are forces for good when they emphasize reconciliation and peace through social connection and communication. The legal framework separating church and state is challenged by the intersection of politics and various religious beliefs but can provide space for discussion and common ground. A variety of religious and anti-religious beliefs is as much rooted in theology and scripture as it is in ethnic and national cultures, and again provides the possibility for negotiation over polarization. That said, polarization is becoming more extreme due to more specific events such as Israel’s war against Hamas. 

·         Julie noted that within the Jewish faith there is generally no particular political position that unites the faith, and personal approaches toward the faith depends largely on one’s cultural and/or ethnic heritage.  Yet the current Israel/Gaza conflict is very polarizing and causing new realignments of political support both in the US and internationally.

·         Ibrahim described a two-part approach to the question from his personal perspective and the more communal perspective in his role at the Rumi Forum:

o   From a personal perspective, there exists a dynamic of self-reflexivity versus absolutism.  In the US, while church and state are separated religion and politics are not.  He suggested the phrase “God does not cancel” as a way of constructively combining religion and political views.  For him, something can be simultaneously “awful but lawful” such as burning the Koran or disbelieving the Holocaust.  Religion shouldn’t draw lines that seek to block those awful-but-lawful actions but instead look to open doors and conversations about the differences between the two.

o   From a communal perspective, one’s roots (cultural/ethnic) matter.  Experience with US policy varies within those communities, often based largely on the nature of prior US support.  For instance, while many would find Islam more aligned with conservative values in the US, the post-9/11 climate pushed Muslims toward the Blue end of the spectrum.  However, current events have caused many Muslims to feel politically homeless and betrayed by current US policy.

·         Douglass described a Christian, non-denominational perspective that seeks to embody the teachings of Christ with a focus on integrating truth and love so that one speaks up about untruths rather than letting them pass, but does so with compassion.

o   When someone believes an untruth, the focus continues to be on love for that person, which helps to keep the door open to conversation. At a personal level, this means approaching each day and any challenge with an open heart of respect and love toward others, without compromising what he believes to be true. Keeping the door open and maintaining dialogue is an attempt to create conditions in which the truth can speak for itself.

·         Lindsay described the Episcopalian perspective beginning with the baptismal covenant that includes treating all with dignity, related to the commandment to love thy neighbor as thyself. 

o   This approach continues to evolve over time and is not without continued conflict and discomfort. It was key to the church’s involvement in the civil rights movement and has been challenged by scriptural and theological debates over issues the ordination of women or LGBTQ members. For example, today’s theology known as The Beloved Community is based on Biblical ideals and commits the Church to racial reconciliation, justice and healing.

·         Dan described the relationship of atheists and agnostics within the category of “Religious Nones”.  Literature generally describes theism/atheism as binary, but the gnostic/agnostic level of certainty as a full spectrum.  This is a growing segment of the US population (now about 28% according to Pew Research) and a key tenet is to base political decisions on what’s best for society independent of any guidance from religious leadership; a loose comparison might be thought of as seeking to promote ethics (right versus wrong actions) as contrasted with morals (the principles regarding right and wrong)..

·         Rebecca is in the final stages of launching the Braver Angels Faith Caucus, which she spoke briefly about, as well as her own Catholic faith.  The church promotes “values” over “candidates”, and focuses on sacrifices for the greater good (such as the preferential option for the poor).  Morality includes what’s good for the soul in addition to the body.  Some teachings are relevant to politics (i.e., abortion and death penalty are wrong) but with those guidelines, one is expected to follow one’s own conscience.  A concern is that expressions of righteous indignation seem to be increasing, leading to greater contempt or hatred of others.

 

Anne invited questions and comments from the audience, and many suggested books, articles or films to look into – those are found below.

 

·         Across many faiths, the nature of how people relate to their houses of worship is changing as the pace of life becomes faster.  Some think this may be prompting a second Axial Age as adherents seek philosophies that are most relevant to them.

·         The rise of Christian nationalism is a concern to many, summarized in the recent film God and Country. 

·         The challenges in how politics and religion interface served as a segue for continuing to review answers to all three of the panelist questions:

·         Answering Q2, Ibrahim noted that when a society allows a religion to be co-opted by politics, the short-term effect harms the integrity of the religion, and ultimately history shows political advantages tend to also be short-lived.  The US policy separating church and state makes the nation more able to examine religious teachings because the government does not have the authority to enforce dogmatic religious rules. 

·         Julie noted that many Jews identify the term “Jewish” more with a heritage than with a religious faith.  And in seeking relevance in a community of faith, a challenge is that any organized religion likely does not fully align with any individual’s beliefs.

·         The group discussed reconciling religious and secular creeds.  What are the foundational values of the US, and who owns the “American story”?  The general sense was that underlying American values are established in our founding documents (and by extension the ensuing system of checks and balances) and maybe best summarized in the phrase “We the People”. 

·         Ibrahim noted three aspects of intracommunal changes and challenges:

o   In the past six months, younger Muslims are increasingly being “Palestinianized” and hoped they would seek a Muslim identity based on faith rather than current events. They can be considered “theologically deprived”.

o   The US can help address this theological deprivation; because the US has no governmental authority to direct the “right answer” on Islam, its guidance is more relevant (i.e., free from theological deprivation).

o   Muslims should be challenged to (individually) support positions that are internally consistent across different contexts (i.e., the same policy should be applicable anywhere regardless of the current political dynamic).

·         Douglass noted that governments have the ability to “tilt the playing field” by adopting policies that support or counter moral positions.  The challenge for government is to create a “level playing field” that lets people freely follow their conscience.  He offered the following quote as a ‘yardstick’: “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s”.

·         Dan noted that Religious Nones may offer two particular perspectives in depolarization:

o   The (a)gnostic spectrum of certainty in one’s belief system applies to politics and religion equally and is a tenet of urban canvassing (introducing the idea that for most people and most beliefs, there is naturally some doubt which can lead to constructive exploration).

o   To the extent that religious beliefs may create an additional layer of complexity in public policy, the perspectives of those without such beliefs may provide useful insight.

·         Julie noted that a new generation of Jews is seeking to distance themselves from Zionism/Israel, and are looking to be more inclusive in terms of recognizing individual humanity. However, she echoed Ibrahim’s concerns that the current conflict may be increasing polarization.

·         The dynamics related to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict are similar to some of the concerns regarding authoritarianism in seeking tit-for-tat reactionary solutions from ‘both sides’.

·         Zionism emerged in the late 19^th century in reaction to new waves of antisemitism, and its final impetus was The Holocaust; its influence is now waning.  In other eras, religion was basically government before there secular government was codified.

·         We need to focus as a nation on our shared story and defend our institutions.  Leaders on the right and left are absent in this regard.

·         Rebecca (re: Q3) - Faith groups can help bring political conversations into a moderated friendly arena.  One might take the “What Would Jesus Do” meme and ask not just what, but “how”?  Two starting points for answers:

o   The US Conference of Catholic Bishops “civilize it” campaign

o   The book The Church’s Mission in a Polarized World by Aaron Wessman (see a conversation with the author in this webinar:

§  youtube.com/watch?v=813_2uYtyII)

·         Lindsay (re: Q3)

o   Faith communities can be petri dishes and can hold the conversations recognizing the differences of opinions within their own congregations.

o   Recognize that people have multiple identities (i.e., nationality, creed, vocation, etc.) that can be used to explore how each affects and is affected by their values.

·         Continued cross-pollination – not just interfaith but other identifying elements is valuable.

·         Within each of our faith communities, we can use Braver Angels resources to hold workshops and other activities aimed at depolarization

 OTHER REFERENCES

 ·         The book When Bad Things Happen to Good People by Harold Kushner offers a spiritual but pragmatic approach to feelings of grief and loss.

·         The book Alienated America: Why Some Places Thrive While Others Collapse by Timothy P. Carney describes how the strength or weakness of communal ties (whether religious or secular in nature) influenced the attraction of a charismatic leader like Trump; his primary support was strongest where civic activities were weakest - a more divisive message may be more attractive.  For example, while a Utah majority voted Republican in the general election, they did not support Trump in the primaries.