Religious Identity / Secular Politics
Katie McDonough writes on Salon.com:
"State Senator Jason Rapert, the man behind Arkansas’ ban on abortion at
twelve weeks, may have been elected to office to serve the 85,000
constituents in his district, but, he says, he only really serves God."
Are we electing politicians or theologians?
According to Isaac Kramnick, professor of government at Cornell University,
"It was Thomas Jefferson who established the separation of church and state.
Jefferson was deeply suspicious of religion and of clergy wielding political
power."
Why is religious identity so important?
In 1989 or 1990, around the time Bishop Maher in San Diego was denying the
sacrament to pro-choice Democrat Lucy Killer, because of her position on
abortion, someone in the Catholic hierarchy complained about most Catholic
politicians being pro-choice, saying one could find a better pro-life voting
record from a Baptist or a Mormon than from a Catholic.
Most American Catholics are pro-choice.
Pro-lifers are willing to put aside their religious differences for the
cause of life!
In the summer of 1992, my friend Tim Parks, whom I met through Life Chain,
was proud of the way differing Christian denominations were willing to put
aside their differences, and come together for the cause of life.
Pro-lifers will listen to respected pro-life columnist Nat Hentoff, a
self-described "liberal Jewish atheist," rather than refuse to listen to him
because he is an atheist.
Pro-lifers will listen to Nat Hentoff without crying "red!" because of his
left-liberal political leanings.
And pro-lifers will listen to Nat Hentoff without making any anti-semitic
slurs or gestures:
(e.g., muttering "Jew up!", "Jew ever", "always Jew!", anti-semitic yawns,
pointing their fingers at their noses, sticking their legs out mimicking a
dog taking a leak, etc.).
Pro-lifers will listen to Dr. J.C. Willke, former head of National Right to
Life, whom I believe is Catholic (and we all know how much born agains
*love* the Catholic Church!).
Heck, pro-lifers will even listen to A.C.Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, the
Hindu spiritual master who brought the 2,200 year old Vaishnavaite bhakti
tradition (popularly known as Krishna Consciousness) to the West, and his
designation of the unborn as a "baby," over Episcopal priest Joseph Fletcher
(inventor of "situation ethics") who said, "There is no such thing as an
'unborn baby.' The fetus is gametic material."
If I can borrow from the lyrics to bhaktin Chrissie Hynde of the Pretenders'
"My City was Gone" (Rush Limbaugh used the opening notes from that song in
his radio broadcasts in the '90s), "I was stunned and amazed" when the
Republicans put aside their religious differences and nominated Mitt Romney,
a Mormon, in 2012.
The only exception I can think of to pro-lifers putting aside their
religious differences:
At Life Chain in 1992 was an older woman, a Catholic, who wrote to me that
contraception is not a solution to the abortion crisis, but part of the
problem!
At one of the planning meetings for Life Chain, she told everyone about a
young eighteen year old Mormon boy who wanted to help the pro-life movement,
but she said no matter how hard he tried, they were never going to accept
him as a fellow Christian.
I don't even claim to be a Christian, so for me the point is moot. I follow
a religious tradition centuries (if not millennia) older than Christianity.
(According to secular scholars like Dr. Diana L. Eck, a professor of
Hinduism, the Vaishnavaite Hindu religious tradition can be traced back to
at least the 2nd century BC.)
I'm merely claiming to be part of mainstream secular American society.
In the late '90s, I exchanged emails with Tim Parks, while he was in Hong
Kong, serving as a Protestant missionary, preaching in China.Tim was honest
enough to acknowledge the similarities as well as the differences between
our faiths.
Tim, aware of how rampant anti-semtism is within Christianity, said he
sincerely apologized for any anti-semitism Krishna devotees might have
faced.
In a 1982 interview, George Harrison was asked, "Oftentimes you speak of
yourself as a plainclothes devotee, a closet yogi or 'closet Krishna'..."
And George Harrison said in response, "I think it's better that it is
spreading into the homes now. There are a lot of 'closet Krishnas,' you
know."
The other side treats us like a "cult" and wonders why?
Religious intolerance exists even among liberals.
In San Diego, during the '80s, Diane, a member of FOLK ("Friends Of Lord
Krishna") our congregation, and who is pro-choice, told us that she
accidentally disclosed her identity as a worshipper at the Krishna temple
among family members, and one of her relatives, an older woman, became
alarmed.
Diane said she had to placate her, saying the Krishna temple is her place of
worship, the devotees are her friends, etc.
Similarly, a few years ago, we were celebrating my birthday at Golden Lotus,
a vegan Vietnamese restaurant in the heart of Oakland.
The beautiful bhaktin Kim Grant merely made a passing reference to a couple
of older guests, Walt and Johanna, about "...the temple in Berkeley where we
worship," without disclosing our religious identity...
Even though Walt (who passed away recently) was an atheist and a political
liberal, and Johanna, a follower of Muktananda's Siddha Yoga, was previously
vegetarian for eighteen years, and still morally opposed to vivisection
(animal experimentation).
And we were dining at one of two hundred vegan restaurants worldwide run by
followers of Buddhist spiritual master Ching Hai, which Veg-News (a slick,
trendy vegan periodical out of San Francisco) unsuccessfully tried to
discredit as a "cult" (rather than seeing them as allies in the spread of
veganism), forcing Zen Buddhist spiritual master Dr. Will Tuttle (author,
The World Peace Diet) to come to their rescue!
On pilgrimage to a Krishna temple in Santa Cruz, CA with Kim several years
ago, I pointed out that there are so many different denominations within
Christianity:
Catholics, Baptists, Unitarians, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh Day
Adventists, Christian Scientists, etc...
With differing views on the divinity of Jesus, the afterlife, grace Vs
works, the Trinity, etc...
So there's no reason they can't be accepting of Krishna devotees, too, as
part of the American mainstream.
"But they (the different Christian denominations) all hate each other!" Kim
exclaimed.
She's right.
It's possible that without church-state separation, religious strife would
have torn our country apart.
A secular state is laissez-faire towards all belief and disbelief.
According to Isaac Kramnick, Thomas Jefferson was politically laissez-faire
toward all belief and disbelief, incurring the wrath of Christians by his
fervent defense of toleration of atheists:
“The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts as are only
injurious to others. But it does no injury for my neighbor to say there are
twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”
And according to journalist Rob Boston of Americans United for Separation of
Church and State, Jefferson clearly indicated in his writings that he was
*not* an atheist!
"This country (the United States) wasn't founded by Christians..."
--fallen brahmana (ex-priest, and now another FOLK member), Ron McClellan,
1990
If the government is not laissez-faire towards all belief and disbelief, if
it favors one religion over another (e.g., Nativity scenes on public
property, instead of on private property where they belong; sectarian school
prayers favoring one holy book over another; etc.), it sends the wrong
message to anyone not in the religious majority (Hindus, Buddhists, Jains,
Wiccans, Scientologists, agnostics, atheists, etc.)
It makes them feel like foreigners in their own country. It tells them that
they are not welcome here; that they are second-class citizens in their own
country; or that their faith (or lack thereof) is not as important as the
majority faith.
There's never been any reason why, in a secular democracy, in the name of
interfaith harmony, we can't all coexist in peace, respect and appreciate
each other's holy books; respect and appreciate the similarities as well as
the differences between our faiths, etc.
The secular left is more tolerant of all faiths and those of no faith than
the religious right.
In 2005, for example, on the Democrats For Life email list, when the names
of possible pro-life Democratic presidential candidates were brought up,
Dave Six, a pro-life Catholic, merely commented about Senator Harry Reid
(D-NV), "He's a Mormon. Is America ready?"
(Senator Reid, who now has a mixed record on abortion, raised eyebrows a
couple of years ago, when he referred to Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY),
a pro-choice Catholic, as "hot!")
Pro-life Christians are willing to put aside their religious differences
when it comes to the unborn. Why then, does religious identity make a
difference when it comes to animal rights as the political strategy and/or
solution to ending the abortion crisis?
And Christians in the West have embraced the past five hundred years of
secular social progress, nearly all of which contradicts biblical tradition:
...democracy and representative government in place of monarchy and belief
in the divine right of kings; the separation of church and state; the
abolition of (human) slavery; the emancipation of women; birth control; the
sexual revolution; LGBT rights...
I think it's odd they would suddenly become an obstacle to social and moral
progress when it comes to animal rights, but that's what's going on!
I'd be more impressed if Jason Rapert were a clergyman, a religious leader,
and/or a theologian proving himself to be a rational, freethinking
individual, quite capable of distancing himself from his religious beliefs,
scriptures and/or his house of worship when it comes to embracing veganism
and animal rights!
Along the lines of Jason Rapert's professed loyalty to God, in a 1989
interview with the now-defunct Animals' Agenda, Reverend Andrew Linzey,
author of Christianity and the Rights of Animals, and the foremost
theologian in the field of animal-human relations, insisted:
"...my primary loyalty is to God, and not to the church. You see, I don’t
think the claims of the church and the claims of God are identical...
"The church is a very human institution, a frail human institution, and it
often gets things wrong. Indeed, it’s worse than that. It’s often a
stumbling block and often a scandal."
Linzey expressed optimism from a study of history:
"Let’s take your issue of slavery. If you go back in history, say two
hundred years, you’ll find intelligent, conscientious, loving Christians
defending slavery, because they hardly gave it two thoughts. If they were
pressed, they might have said, ‘Slavery is part of progress, part of the
Christianization of the dark races.’
"A hundred or perhaps as little as fifty years later, what you suddenly find
is that the very same Christian community that provided one of the major
ideological defenses of slavery had begun to change its mind...here is a
classic example of where the Christian tradition has been a force for
slavery and a force for liberation.
"Now, just think of the difficulties that those early Christian
abolitionists had to face. Scripture defended slavery. For instance, in
Leviticus 25, you’re commanded to take the child of a stranger as a
slave...St. Paul simply said that those who were Christian slaves should be
better Christians.
"Almost unanimously, apart from St. Gregory, the church fathers defended
slavery, and for almost 1800 years, Christians defended and supported
slavery. So, in other words, the change that took place within the Christian
community on slavery is not just significant, it is historically astounding.
"Now, I give that example because I believe the case of animals is in many
ways entirely analogous. We treat animals today precisely as we treated
slaves, and the theological arguments are often entirely the same or have
the same root.
"I believe the movement for animal rights is the most significant movement
in Christianity, morally, since the emancipation of the slaves. And it
provides just as many difficulties for the institutional church..."
Christians have found themselves unable to agree upon many pressing moral
issues -- including abortion.
Exodus 21:22-24 says if two men are fighting and one injures a pregnant
woman and the child is killed, he shall repay her according to the degree of
injury inflicted upon her, and not the fetus.
On the other hand, the Didache (Apostolic Church teaching) forbade abortion.
"There has to be a frank recognition that the Christian church is divided on
every moral issue under the sun: nuclear weapons, divorce, homosexuality,
capital punishment, animals, etc.," says Reverend Linzey.
"I don't think it's desirable or possible for Christians to agree upon every
moral issue. And, therefore, I think within the church we have no
alternative but to work within diversity."
Rodney King, who called himself a "poster child for police brutality," asked
in the aftermath of the Los Angeles riots of 1992:
"I just want to say, you know, can we all get along? Can we get along?"
Democrats For Life of America, 601 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, South Building,
Suite 900, Washington, DC 20004 (202) 220-3066
Go on to: Religious Opposition to Vivisection
Return to: Articles