e-Newsletter - October 2006

By Courtney Erwin, Coordinator for Religious Freedom

"You know, separation of church and state is an oxymoron."

I looked up from my stack of articles addressing religious freedom and church–state separation issues. My conversations on transnational flights usually began with inquiries about my final destination or comments about the uncomfortable temperature in the cabin. Considering my line of work, I found this remark a bit controversial and deserving of my full attention.

I looked at my seatmate and he continued: "Politicians, who work in government in the service of the state, are not capable of separating their religious views and values from their political decisions. So, there you have it. There is no such thing as separation of church and state."

In the ensuing five-hour conversation, I learned a little bit about this gentleman next to me, who was a democratic senator in the Washington State Senate and an ardent and committed Evangelical Christian. A number of times during our discussion, which included our perspectives on religious freedom, church–state separation, religion and politics, Islam, and interfaith work, he told me that he was surprised at the civility and composure of our exchange. He was often reluctant to talk about these things because of the heated and emotional reactions he often encountered. I must have appeared relatively benign.

Talk of politics and religion, independently, inflames passions and elicits anxieties. Approaching both topics, together, requires patience, compassion, and an intrepid spirit. And yet this discussion is critically important. Ejecting religion and politics from polite conversation may avert distressing dinner table arguments and awkward moments at cocktail parties. But, such "isolationist" policy compromises our individual and collective competency to address an issue that is becoming more and more urgent for a number of reasons.

Religion may be declining in many countries, but according to Ronald Inglehart, Chairman of the World Values Survey, "There are more people alive today with traditional religious beliefs than ever before in history, and they’re a larger percentage of the world’s population than they were twenty years ago." Post-industrial secularization has failed to make religion irrelevant. In fact, religion’s influence in the political arena appears to be growing. Timothy Samuel Shah, senior Pew Forum fellow and author of the article, "Why God is Winning," contends, "In North and South America, sub-Saharan Africa, North Africa, the Middle East, Asia, and even in Europe and Russia, religion is enjoying significant and growing political influence—more so now than perhaps any time in recent memory."

Shah goes on to note the increasingly public role of Islam in domestic and global politics and the role of Evangelical Christians in the 2004 presidential election in this country. He also mentions some less familiar contemporary religious political movements around the world—Pentecostals in Latin America and Africa, Hindu nationalists in India, Buddhist revivalists in Southeast Asia and Sri Lanka, and Catholic charismatics in the Phillipines—that are influencing mainstream public life and shifting politics in a more religious direction.

What accounts for this burgeoning religiosity? Shah suggests that "God's comeback" is due to the global expansion of freedom. People who are politically empowered have the opportunity to shape their public lives in new ways. This includes exercising political freedoms that challenge secular restraints and allow for greater religious influence on political life. Even in some rich, advanced industrial societies, Inglehart contends that, in politics, religious issues are more relevant and value questions are more central.

Distinguishing itself, and living up to its much- lauded "exceptionalism," is the United States. It is an extremely wealthy country that is also extremely religious. According to Andrew Kohut, President of the Pew Research Center, there has been a rise in the percentage of seculars but that has been offset by the rise in the percentage of intensely religious people. This may be linked to the founding of this country as a refuge for religious dissidents and the cultural–religious–national identity that these origins created. Additionally, if we accept that greater freedom encourages religiosity, then the American exceptionalism in this area makes sense. More specifically, the religious freedoms afforded in this country are perhaps the most generous in the world.

Why does this information matter? Haven’t religion and politics always endured the benefits and challenges of a tumultuous marriage? Religion has rallied disparate groups around urgent issues of social justice and human rights, calling on the political conscience to rise above partisan divisions to promote justice. Martin Luther King Jr.'s work for civil rights, the Jewish community’s leadership on ending the crisis in Darfur, the Unitarian Universalists' commitment to the environment come immediately to mind. But, religion has also been a divisive element for hot-button political issues, which are so controversial precisely because religion is involved. Some of today's most contentious issues include the hijab (Muslim veil), conscience clauses in certain healthcare legislation, abortion, and gay marriage.

The latter issues are the type that most concern everyone, regardless of religious affiliation. They are also what compel each generation to question whether a politician’s personal religion will be involved in the political process. In other words, how much will religion dictate politics and politics dictate religion? John F. Kennedy responded to misgivings about his Catholicism, Joseph Lieberman’s Judaism was brought up during his run for vice president, and now, Keith Ellison has received quite a lot of press, largely because he might be the first Muslim in the U.S. Congress.

I do not believe that we can or should disengage religion and politics from each other. However, I strongly disagree with my friend on the flight from Seattle to DC about church–state separation. Instead, I see the separation of church and state as a mechanism for responsibly navigating the often murky waters that surround religion and politics. As the United States shows, separation of church and state has not inhibited religious expression; indeed, it has encouraged it. It has also provided us with a space to have productive debates, discussions, and dialogues about the relationship between these two inevitables of human life.

The legal, political, and social infrastructure created from the idea of church–state separation seeks to guarantee an appropriate relationship—not an absence of relationship—between religion and state. It is one, however, that must conform to the principles, boundaries, and laws established by a modern, pluralistic society. Moreover, this society will continue to redefine and challenge politics and religion while diligently questioning the responsibilities of each to the other. Rather than rigid divisions, on the one hand, or intertwined alliances on the other, the U.S. will continue its noteworthy dance, with politics leading for awhile and then religion . . . .

By Mark Hoelter, Coordinator for Grassroots Interfaith Dialogue

Faith and Politics is a large subject. The relationship between them has been approached several ways in the course of history. I'm going to abstract from those ways to present some basic options. On the one hand, it's about how free you and I should be to live out our religious tradition (or our secularity), and to follow the dictates of our individual consciences. On the other hand, it's about if, how much, and how we should press or even impose our beliefs and practices on each other.

Let's suppose I believe that I and my group have the sure and final word on the sacred truth, the whole sacred truth and nothing but the sacred truth, so help me God. It seems reasonable to me to try to impress and impose certain beliefs and behaviors upon you (and the rest of humanity). I would do this for everyone’s own best good, so that everyone could arrive at my group's version of the truly good life on this side of death, as well as eternal whatever (something supremely good) after death.

Fair enough. However, let's also suppose you believe that you and your group have the sure and final word on the whole sacred truth. And so, to you it seems quite reasonable for you to impress and impose your beliefs and behaviors upon me (and the rest of humanity). And you want also to do this for everyone's own best good in this life and something supremely good after death.

Now, we have a conflict. How shall we decide which of us gets to impress and impose beliefs and behaviors? We could fight it out to the finish, bloody or otherwise. (I'll call this Faith & Politics, version A.) Although, at the end, would we in victory actually prove which way was really true, or just which group was bigger or stronger? And if I get you to believe and behave in the way I know is best for you, but do so by making laws and imposing behaviors, will you be saved anyway? Will it be free choice, from your heart of hearts, or just a cover- your-butt conformity (to coin a theological expression)? And if it's the latter, will I, in fact, have contributed to your eternal fall? And what if my actions, with their inevitable human clumsiness, just make you mad and resentful and lead you to rebel against the good?

Well, okay, so maybe we've taken that conflict to a draw. Obviously (obviously?), it's going to be better if I persuade you than if I impose on you. So, then, I want to set up a system that allows me to try to persuade you of the superiority of my group's way. Of course fair's fair, so that means I have to allow you to do the same. (I'll call this Faith & Politics, version B) But now, what if I don't want you poking your nose in my tent trying to persuade me? Or, you don't want me poking my nose in your tent?

Well, it's starting to feel a little icy in here now, isn't it? I want to protect my purity (and time) and you want to protect yours. The saying of the philosopher, Nietzsche, comes to mind at this point: "I would consider becoming a Christian if only Christians looked a little more redeemed." Christian or Hindu or Muslim or Jew or Sikh or whatever . . . I think we're not looking any too redeemed at this point, unless you think icy politeness looks redeemed or enlightened or liberated. Not too warmly winsome. The juicy passion that makes life worth living and conversation worth having is missing in action.

Perhaps we can put together a system that allows you to visit me and listen to my way if you want to, and me to do the same with you, if I want to. Perhaps we can add the following: Let there be places and times where I may do my best to persuade anyone who will listen to me, including you, and you may do the same. And, let there be rules allowing me and my group to live and model our way, and you to do the same, but no one forces anything on anyone. (I'll call this Faith & Politics, version C)

Perhaps the highly esteemed rabbi, Gamaliel, can be a good guide to us here. In 33 or 34 C.E. some reforming Pharisee Jews of Jerusalem got so hot they just wanted to kill some other reforming Pharisee Jews of Jerusalem. The ones they wanted to kill were aggressively pushing a new version of reforms, which were radically filtered through Jesus-stories and Jesus-sayings. After some study, Rabbi Gamaliel said to the first group, his group, "Leave them alone. If their movement is wrong and totally a human creation, it will evaporate. If it comes from G*d, you won’t be able to stop it." (Hmmm . . . that could make one wonder about the religions that are older, or younger, than Judaism and Christianity, that still are around and thriving. Maybe evaporation takes longer in some cases.)

Now, in the middle of these thoughts, let us imagine a huge squall has been reported moving in, bringing a foot or more of rain. And let's say the levee on the north side of the city is dangerously weak at one point. We all know if it doesn't get yeoman-like help from the lot of us, the most helpless people in town (and more) could all drown. So, what do you think? Can we put our faith differences aside to go shore up the levee together? Can we lay purity and competing versions of the sacred truth aside for two days and nights of elbow to elbow mud and gutsy work for the good of the whole? Of course we can. It's been done before. So we do it. (I'll call this Faith & Politics, version P—for Practical)

Now a new question: what is the energy moving in us and among us as we work elbow to elbow in a fury before the fury of the storm hits? What is the good contagion I feel when you help me lift what I can't lift alone, so a third person can shove a new levee stone into place? What is it I feel when, after grueling hours of this, we three then sit down together and share mugs of cocoa and sighs of relief and hearty laughter? Or the mutual satisfaction after the storm passes and the levee held? Is it a faith thing? Is it a politics thing? Is it irrelevant? Could it be religion's ideal? Could it be the ideal of how we should live in a city as citizens (literally "city-zens," the meaning of politics—from Greek, polis, meaning "city") of any faith? (I'll call this Faith & Politics, version Px, for Praxis—action with mutual reflection.)

Another saying comes to mind, its source lost to me right now: "One of the main functions of the word 'G- o-d' is to remind us that we aren’t God." Of course I know that’s true for you, but is it also true for me and my firmest conviction? Do I know how to ask a rhetorical question or not? The Christian saint, Paul of Tarsus, also a Pharisee Jew, said that at our very best we all "see through a glass darkly." It's an exquisite metaphor worth exploring deeply in any discussion of faith and politics. On this side of the dark glass we see our reflection as much as we see through the glass. The other side of the dark glass may hold surprises for us all when we get there, however we get there.

Stories come to mind of Krishna in ancient India, the Prophets of Israel, Lao Tzu in ancient China, the Buddha, Socrates, Jesus, Paul, Muhammad, the Baal Shem Tov, and Mohandas Gandhi--of how all of them poked, prodded, and jiggled the religious establishments they were born into and, just as much or more, the political establishments around them. Almost always they are stories about breaking sacred rules to include more people. Over and over their followers are taken aback by the rule-breaking and by which people they included, without making those people pass some truth or behavior test first. It was, wasn't it, their way of reminding all folks that "You aren’t God. These rules aren't God. This institution isn’t God." Perhaps the questions, which have almost become cliché, are still good: “What would the Buddha . . . Jesus . . . Muhammad . . . Gandhi do?"

I don't mean to suggest it's easy. What if you strongly believe that for you to do certain things is to violate your conscience, offend the core of your tradition, and is really, really, really wrong? For you to harbor or permit the doing of those things by others is a grievous sin against the divine will as you understand it and against the essence of humanity. And my equally strong belief is just the opposite. But doesn’t that take us back to where we started in this article? Are we both saying we actually don't "see through a glass darkly?" On the other hand, do we really doubt that if I had been born into your family and religion I would most likely hold all your beliefs and follow your practices; if you had been born into mine, you would hold my beliefs and follow my practices?

I personally think Sir Alfred North Whitehead got it right. The only "power of God" that makes sense is not the power of force, but totally and solely the power of persuasion; the only "Faith & Politics," one that both safeguards and empowers the art of persuasion. He echoes and interprets Taoist wisdom: "Nothing in the world is as soft and yielding as water. Yet for dissolving the hard and inflexible, nothing can surpass it." I leave you with a final quote from the Oregon City born, poetic heir of Walt Whitman--Edwin Markham. I'll call it Faith & Politics, version X-Y. Here's the political process (which, of course, entails good dialogue): He drew a circle that shut me out; Heretic, rebel, a thing to flout; But love and I had the wit to win; We drew a circle that took him in.

Attending the 27th Annual InterFaith Concert on Tuesday, November 14 at 7:30 p.m. at Washington Hebrew Congregation will give you the chance to experience the song, dance, and chant that are sacred to nine of our member faith traditions.

The concert has been called "one of Washington's most inspiring evenings," and this year we are proud to honor master builder James V. Walsh – principal of Walsh Construction Company, which has built or renovated nearly every building on the Mall in Washington.

Mr. Van Gilmer, former director of the Metropolitan Washington Baha'i Chorale and current music minister at the Baha'i House of Worship in Wilmette, Illinois, will return to Washington to conduct a combined choir of nearly 200 voices. Individual performances will be offered by the aforementioned Baha'i Chorale, the St. Camillus Catholic Church Multicultural Choir, the Jewish group Zemer Chai, the Cambodian Buddhist Temple Dancers, the LDS Colonial II Ward Choir, the Lasya Academy of Kathak Dance, a Metropolitan Protestant Consortium Choir, the Islamic group Seven 8 Six and Sikh Kirtani Jatha.

Tickets are available for purchase by calling the InterFaith Conference at 202-234-6300. MasterCard and Visa are accepted. You can also mail us a check or money order. Ticket prices are $15 for general admission ($12.50 each for groups of ten or more) and $30 for reserved section seating ($25 each for groups of ten or more.) A dessert reception will follow the concert. Washington Hebrew Congregation is located at 3935 Macomb Street NW at Massachusetts Avenue. Street parking is available in the neighborhood, or you can take the Metro Red Line to Dupont Circle and take the N2-4-6 buses northbound or to Tenleytown/AU and take the 30s series buses in the direction of downtown. Volunteers get to see the concert for free! If you are interested in volunteering at the concert, please contact IFC Assistant Director Mike Goggin at 202- 234-6300 x 202 or mikeg@ifcmw.org.

• InterFaith Legislative Review Committee for Religious Liberty: This IFC committee, comprised of representatives from our eleven different faith traditions, reviews and responds to legislation affecting religious freedom and the separation between church and state in the Maryland and Virginia state legislatures and the District of Columbia's Council. It also monitors events arising in the city and county councils included in metropolitan Washington. On September 28, we welcomed over twenty representatives from nine faith traditions to the inaugural meeting. Participants traveled from as far away as Annapolis and Richmond to discuss religious freedom challenges around the area. The Committee is already hard at work on a number of issues and initiatives. If you are interested in participating, please contact Courtney Erwin at courtneye@ifcm w.org.
• Religious Tensions in Washington DC: The IFC recently learned of tensions between several religious congregations and some residents in a neighborhood of the District. We will be working to facilitate a resolution of the issues. If there are tensions between the religious community and residents or your local city or county government, please contact Courtney Erwin at courtneye@ifcm w.org
• Religious Freedom Dialogue and Workshop: The IFC is creating a dynamic and dialogic workshop for communities of faith. This interactive and interfaith project focuses on educating our religious communities about religious freedom in America and its commitment to church- state separation. We hope to bring this educational dialogue to your house of worship. We are already committed to hosting a number of workshops in the area. If you are interested in participating, please contact Courtney Erwin at courtneye@ifcm w.org.
• Hate Crimes: The IFC is working with the Department of Justice to explore how the broad religious community can work effectively with police departments in responding to hate incidents and hate crimes that occur in the metropolitan area. If you know of a hate crime committed against any individual or community in the name of religion, please report it to Courtney Erwin at courtneye@ifcm w.org. The IFC will respond.

For more information about all religious freedom issues, please contact IFC Coordinator for Religious Freedom Courtney Erwin at 202.234.6300.

By Courtney Erwin, Coordinator for Religious Freedom

Guru Nanak, the founder of Sikhism, taught by example. In fact, the three central tenants of Sikhism emerged from the way he lived his life: 1) Nam Japa—To get up each day before sunrise, to clean the body, meditate on God’s Name and recite the Guru’s hymns in order to clean the mind. Throughout the day, continuously remember God’s Name with every breath; 2) Dharam di Kirat Karni—To work and earn by the sweat of the brow, to live a family way of life, and to practice truthfulness and honesty in all dealings; 3) Vand Ke Chakna—To share the fruits of one’s labor with others before considering oneself and to live as an inspiration and a support to the entire community.

This last tenet is the motivation for the National Gurdwara's Open House and Blood Drive on November 4th from 10am–3:30pm (3801 Massachusettes Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20016, a block West of Wisconsin Ave.). On this day, the National Gurdwara will share its hospitality and spirituality with friends, neighbors, and community members. In addition, it hopes that those who visit the gurdwara (Sikh house of worship) will share their blood with those who desperately need it. As Satwant Kaur Bell, the president of the National Gurdwara, says, "Guru Nanak's teachings ask us to share and support the entire community. He did not say only one community."

Fittingly, the weekend of the open house is the birth anniversary of Guru Nanak. In celebration, members of the National Gurdwara's congregation will begin reading, at 7am on Friday, the entire Guru Granth Sahib, which is the written compilation of the teachings of all of the ten Sikh gurus. In fact, this book is considered the eleventh guru—the living guru. The reading of the Guru Granth Sahib will continue, uninterrupted and unaccompanied by music, for forty eight hours. Children, adults, priests, and lay people all participate in the recitation, usually reading for an hour or two before the next person steps in to continue, without pause in the reading. By Sunday morning, a symphony of voices will have read 1,430 pages of Punjabi script. That morning, the gurdwara will be full with those rejoicing, and music will again accompany the singing of the hymns, which will focus on those contributed by Guru Nanak.

Those who visit the gurdwara during the Open House will experience a continuous flow of people pouring into the gurdwara to listen to the recitation. As Kaur Bell remarks, "The reading of the word is so important. It takes discipline and learning to do it. Listening is also important and enriches the environment around you, providing strength and empowerment. The experience is very participatory and draws the community together. It is very inspiring." Those who visit the gurdwara will also enjoy traditional Indian food with the Sikhs. In fact, during this weekend celebration, the gurdwara serves the langar (food) around the clock.

For more information, please visit www.natio nalgurdwara.org/ or call 202-364-0363 or 703-671-2556.

If your faith community has an interesting project that you would like us to spotlight, please contact Courtney Erwin at 202.234.6300 x. 204.