I think that religions, themselves, are inherently adopted and professed (and profess themselves as) social/moral stances. So, as far as any moral stances inform a community's politics, you're going to get faith (or other non-faith-informed moral stances) tied up in politics in ways that are unavoidable. And since places of worship are communities of people of faith that as a matter of course have to decide what moral stances they are going to present to the world, I think that communities of faith also get tied up in politics in ways that are unavoidable. I think that communities of faith can also band together to transcend politics in ways that laws can't, and can enact social justice from time to time for the very reasons that laws can't, which I think is one of the redeeming factors of organized religion.
I think that moral stances have probably been informing politics and related law since the Code of Hammurabi, and probably further back than that.
I was thinking about how much it would suck to have to switch religions or churches because your application of "Christianity" didn't fit the pastor's (or the congregation's) instantiation of exactly what Christians all should do with respect to a specific issue. Shouldn't you be able to disagree about specific political issues and still be considered the same flavor of Christian? But then, maybe, what's the point of religion if you don't apply it in practice in any real way, by taking a stand as a community?
This is a problem which has vexed organized religion and the Christian church as a whole since its beginning. It's a very hard problem, and manifests itself in individual decisions and small group interactions as well as being mirrored in the larger American culture as a whole. These are political views, yes, but they are also religious issues and moral stances. Example: I visited a Bible study in highschool which instantly became unwelcoming to me when I asked a question about abortion at the beginning of the session that was not in lockstep with the rest of the group's views. It was very uncomfortable because I was both condescended to and silenced; though I was welcomed back, I never went again, because I understood through their actions that they weren't interested in the views I held, and could never be a part of that community unless I changed my views or consented to their silencing, which I would not and could not do.
People vary where they put their foot down, as well as how much give and take they are willing to have, and on what issues. I deal with these issues as best I can by trying to live by the Moravian motto ("In essentials, unity; in nonessentials, liberty; and in all things, love.") It fails sometimes, possibly most of the time. It's very hard when people, especially people who claim to profess the same faith as you, differ so widely on what is essential, as well as how best to acheive unity on those essentials.
This problem of being unable to entirely separate the political and religious and moral--which I believe is one of religion's great strengths, as well as one of its great weaknesses--is what I feel also blocks much dialog between Christians on issues such as ordaining or marrying gays (as well as dialog between Christians and those with non-Christian faith, and Christians and those with a non-religiously-informed moral stance).
...of course, being pretty areligious myself, maybe that's the sort of debate I should simply recuse myself from having with people who are religious. :-)
If you would like to recuse yourself, you are certainly welcome to do so for your own comfort, but I hope you won't, unless you want to--for one thing, I hope you feel comfortable here. If you don't, please tell me what I can do to make you more comfortable.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
16/10/09 13:50 (UTC)I think that moral stances have probably been informing politics and related law since the Code of Hammurabi, and probably further back than that.
I was thinking about how much it would suck to have to switch religions or churches because your application of "Christianity" didn't fit the pastor's (or the congregation's) instantiation of exactly what Christians all should do with respect to a specific issue. Shouldn't you be able to disagree about specific political issues and still be considered the same flavor of Christian? But then, maybe, what's the point of religion if you don't apply it in practice in any real way, by taking a stand as a community?
This is a problem which has vexed organized religion and the Christian church as a whole since its beginning. It's a very hard problem, and manifests itself in individual decisions and small group interactions as well as being mirrored in the larger American culture as a whole. These are political views, yes, but they are also religious issues and moral stances. Example: I visited a Bible study in highschool which instantly became unwelcoming to me when I asked a question about abortion at the beginning of the session that was not in lockstep with the rest of the group's views. It was very uncomfortable because I was both condescended to and silenced; though I was welcomed back, I never went again, because I understood through their actions that they weren't interested in the views I held, and could never be a part of that community unless I changed my views or consented to their silencing, which I would not and could not do.
People vary where they put their foot down, as well as how much give and take they are willing to have, and on what issues. I deal with these issues as best I can by trying to live by the Moravian motto ("In essentials, unity; in nonessentials, liberty; and in all things, love.") It fails sometimes, possibly most of the time. It's very hard when people, especially people who claim to profess the same faith as you, differ so widely on what is essential, as well as how best to acheive unity on those essentials.
This problem of being unable to entirely separate the political and religious and moral--which I believe is one of religion's great strengths, as well as one of its great weaknesses--is what I feel also blocks much dialog between Christians on issues such as ordaining or marrying gays (as well as dialog between Christians and those with non-Christian faith, and Christians and those with a non-religiously-informed moral stance).
...of course, being pretty areligious myself, maybe that's the sort of debate I should simply recuse myself from having with people who are religious. :-)
If you would like to recuse yourself, you are certainly welcome to do so for your own comfort, but I hope you won't, unless you want to--for one thing, I hope you feel comfortable here. If you don't, please tell me what I can do to make you more comfortable.