When I first heard about this new organization, I read Burns Strider's name, then the name of the organization and blinked. Burns Strider is a Democrat. American Values Network sounds like one of the religious right organizations created in the 80s and 90s, who gave themselves benign, all-American-sounding names - American Family Association, Focus on the Family, Traditional Values Coalition - to mask their evangelical fundamentalism, and general bigotry and intolerance. Hmm.
American Values Network's heart is in the right place, so to speak. They want to focus on critical issues like poverty, AIDS and the environment, which, bleeding-heart that I am, I'm all for. It's how they want to go about it that drives me nuts. They look at these issues as "compassion issues of the Bible," and want (Christian) politicians to talk about them in Christian terms, quoting scripture and using biblical texts to inform their work. But these aren't Christian, biblical or religious issues. They're social issues that are impacting the global community and need to be dealt with from a compassionate - but practical and modern - point of view.
Faith-based groups do great work around the world (Habitat for Humanity comes instantly to mind), and, like secular non-profits and NGOs, they often have more impact than government programs because they can avoid much of the bureaucracy and its red tape. Faith-based groups should continue to do that work, because - despite the fact that I strongly disagree with the proselytization they often inflict on the recipients of their charity - it's desperately needed. Faith-based groups should absolutely not suggest that any government representative or program embrace or fund the "faith" part of their work. It's not only exclusive and a terrible, horrible, no-good, very bad idea, it's also unconstitutional.
What really gets me about American Values Network is that their main quarrel with the religious right - other than being on the opposite side of civil liberties issues - is that they don't use the Bible enough in their politics. If they're going to come at social issues from a moral, biblical standpoint, AVN says, they need to come at all political issues from a moral, biblical standpoint - that means the budget, health care, etc.
It was after reading that little gem that I really started wanting to bang my head against the wall.
The Democratic Party has been working for going on three decades to overpower the religious right. Up until this last election cycle, the general message from the Democrats was "let's leave faith out of politics, it messes with the separation of church and state, and bringing religion into the political arena just makes it even messier." That changed this time around, with the Democratic campaigns adding "faith outreach" staffers and the candidates working to present themselves as moral, religious people. (I'd argue that morality absolutely does not have to center on or stem from religion, but that's an issue for another day.)
Now this group wants Democrats to not only mimic the religious right's use of scripture and biblical finger-pointing in politics, but surpass it.
The critical point they're missing (aside from the whole being unconstitutional thing) is that not all Americans are Christian. Melting pot? Religious freedom? Diversity? Pluralistic society? Any of this ringing any bells? Oh right, they're all descriptions of America, land of the free. But part of American Values Network's raison d'être is this:
We believe America needs leaders who understand public service is a calling, and who know they will be held accountable not only by voters, but by their Creator. We should not be afraid to proudly embrace the traditional and fundamental values that have guided and defined our country since its inception and helped make America a shining beacon of hope and freedom around the world.Um, that's nice (honestly, it is - public service is indeed a calling, and public servants do need to know that they'll be held accountable for their actions - and inaction). But whose "Creator" and "traditional and fundamental values?" Oh, your exclusively Christian ones, based on that Holy Bible you've got a huge picture of on your policy page? Not nice, guys. Not inclusive and not, in fact, American.
American Values Network has, it seems, fallen into the religious right's trap of believing that the U.S. of A. is and was founded as a Christian nation, when in fact the whole point of separating church and state in the First Amendment was to keep religion and government from becoming entangled and hurting one another, as they had done in Europe and in the colonies, pre-Declaration of Independence.
The face of America isn't an old white guy (unless we're talking about the Founders, in which case it's a group of pretty awesome old white guys, some of them Christian, some of them not). The face of America is a bunch of ages and genders and colors and ethnicities and creeds, all mixed up together. It's messy, it's complicated, it often involves screaming at the top of your lungs about what you believe is right - and it belongs to every single one of us who calls this country home.
I rail enough against the religious right already - I really don't want to have to start picking on a progressive organization for the same reasons. So please, Burns Strider et al., read up on your American history, read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights already, and quit dragging religion into politics, where they inevitably both wind up in the mud.
Posts
6 comments:
Maybe the "American Values Network" should be read the same way you would read "American Cancer Society". They're not fighting "American Cancer", they're a cancer society in America. (That may not have been the intention of the network, but at least it feels a little better.)
Additionally, "separation of church and state" is not technically in the Constitution. As a history teacher, I really hate that phrase because students think they know what the establishment clause means without even reading it. I understand it to mean that our tax dollars cannot be used to fund a religion (paying clergy, evangelizing, etc.). But tax dollars can support the work of religion by helping to fund soup kitchens and other human aid.
Nevertheless, I agree with you that when politicians drag religion into the government, it tarnishes both of them. Turning religion into a political platform is dispicable as it turns an exercise of the soul (i.e. religion) into something manipulative.
It's funny, while you and I appear to be on different ends of the political spectrum, we are well-aligned on this subject. Great thoughts!
I think you're missing the point. The religious right wants to have religion inform government policy, which is really no different from what the Taliban wants. It appears to me that AVN wants to help inform people who see the world from a religious perspective. I don't see anywhere that AVN wants to entangle religion with government. Politics? That's a different animal all together. The syllogism goes something like this: There are religious Americans; Religious Americans vote; Therefore BOTH parties should appeal to their religious belief to help them decide whom to vote for. That is no different than appealing to patriotism or social justice or greed or any thing else. They are all characteristics that people possess that shape how they think and how they relate to politics. We ceded religious based messaging to the Republicans for three decades and they won because of it. Again, no one is suggesting that religion be imposed on government. That is unconstitutional. But it is not unconstitutional to be a religious American and it is not unconstitutional to appeal to religion to try to motivate people to vote for DEMOCRATS and progressive causes.
Caren - thanks for the comment!
Anonymous - I completely understand why they're doing it, but my point is that our country was founded in a way that what they're doing is unnecessary and in poor taste. Just because the religious right's manipulation of (Christian) beliefs worked for the Republicans for years doesn't mean Democrats should resort to the same under-handed, constitutionally questionable tactics. AVN is just as exclusive and evangelical Christian-centric as the religious right, which still leaves anyone who is of a different - or no - religious persuasion out in the cold. Again. Which is something the U.S. was founded to prevent. pastordan over at Street Prophets has some great points on the subject, which you can read here: http://www.streetprophets.com/storyonly/2009/4/22/155142/127
I read pastordan's blog. I still don't understand his and your opposition to our side helping Americans better understand progressive policy, such as climate change, through a context that they understand, namely religion. First, I don't see where AVN says they are evangelical. They aren't a religious organization, they are a political organization for people who happen to be religious. That is no different to political organizations for Irish-Americans or gay Americans or military veteran Americans. They are all affinity groups made up of people who have something in common. That something in common, whatever it is, shapes how that group sees the world and, in particular, politics. AVN isn't trying to convert anyone just as a gay political organization isn't trying to make anyone gay. They are appealing to issues of importance to gay people to motivate gay people to vote for candidates that will do good things for them. AVN is no different. What I detect from many on our side is a contempt for religion period and anyone that believes in one. That is a very dangerous mindset that is no different then the Christian bigotry of the right. We Dems are succeeding because we enterain, even celebrate, the differeces among us. Let's not drive anyone out. Let's reach out to ALL Americans in ways that will help them understand why Dems and progressives will America to a better place. Lol. . .can I get an Amen? ;~)
Amen, indeed, you bring up some very good points. ;)
AVN doesn't say they're evangelical, but in my experience, it's generally evangelists that want to combine scripture with policy. They say they want to "engage, and enable faithful Americans," but they deal only with Christianity, evangelical or not, which leaves out a number of the American faithful. You're right that, just like any other group of people with common beliefs, they're free - encouraged, even - to speak up and speak out. It's the fact that they seem to have the same desire as the religious right to impose their religious view of the issues that concern them on elected officials and public policy - see the paragraph I quoted from the policy page, which is now "Scripture and Policy" on their website.
Religious practice is a rich American tradition and an incredibly multi-faceted area, one that means many different things to many different people. The progressive agenda is equally rich and multi-faceted, but it - as a whole - doesn't have a collective vocabulary tied to any one religion, nor should it, since our country doesn't either. AVN is free to discuss and advocate for issues and legislation using whatever language they want, which seems to be "the traditional and fundamental values" they believe defined America (they're wrong on that, but that's a slightly different subject). They should not expect public officials to use that language, however - which seems to be their policy focus - since to do so would be to show a clear preference for one set of religious beliefs. And that's a very sticky situation for an elected official to be in, given our Establishment Clause.
Jessalyn,
I again respectfully submit that you're missing the point. You still seem to be saying that AVN, and other Dems that use the language of religion to speak to religious people. . .such as Barack Obama did to great effect, are, in fact, trying to impose their religious belief on policy. That they want religion and religion only to dictate policy decisions. No, no, no, no no! That is what the religious right wants. That is what the Taliban wants. What progressive people of faith want is progressive policy, gay rights, reduced carbon emissions, health care for all, etc, etc, etc. They happen to see those policy initiatives line up well with the teachings of their religion, in this case Christianity. So again, they simply speak from a paradigm that people of faith understand. If Nancy Pelosi says to the guy out in rural Tennessee vote for climate change reduction because it's the right thing to do, he won't listen. But if you tell him to vote for it (or candidates that support it) because it's being a good Christian, he very well might. But at the end of the day the policy initiative is EXACTLY the same. It's not Christian policy. It's progressive policy that happens to be supported by scripture.
Here is the simplest example I can think of. When doing outreach to Hispanic Americans many politicians either speak Spanish or have their policies translated in to Spanish or use interpreters who Speak Spanish. That does not mean that they want the policy to be written in to law in Spanish or for Spanish to become the official language of the US. Thus, AVN and Barck Obama and the DNC speak the language of religion to people of faith so that progressive policy is shown to have support in theology. But again, the policy is the same.
As I said above, I think that too many people on our side have an irrational hatred of religion and Christianity in particular. There is no doubt that the GOP used and abused Christianity for their own cynical purposes. If we tell people of faith that they are ignorant and stupid and hateful simply because they believe in God, we are no better than the religious right who call us those things for not believing.
Post a Comment