 |
Read Kim Lawton's September 14, 2006 interview in Washington, D.C. with Senator John Danforth about faith and politics:
Q: The main thesis of your book [FAITH AND POLITICS, Viking 2006] is that religion today has become a divisive force in American politics. Explain what you mean by that, what your concerns are.
A: I think the purpose of religion is reconciliation. It's the meaning of the word "religion", as a matter of fact, and I think it's the clear requirement on Christians. When Jesus prayed that we all might be one, I think that that prayer speaks for itself. And yet religion, and the world around us often, is very divisive. People kill each other in the name of God. We see that in Iraq right now. And in the United States, religion, when it gets entangled with politics, becomes a very divisive force in our world, and it certainly has today. Now there is a blatant appeal, particularly in the Republican Party, to members of the Christian right. It's considered the base of the Republican Party. I don't think this is good for my party. I don't think it's good for the country, and I think that we should go back to our moorings as a party and that church people should speak out on behalf of reconciliation as opposed to emphasizing all of these wedge issues that in the name of religion tend to split us apart.
Q: Why is it a bad thing? Don't conservative Christians have a right to advocate for their beliefs in the political sphere?
A: Certainly they have a right. In our country everybody has a right to participate in politics. But from the standpoint of a Christian, it's important to do so with a degree of humility. I mean, God has not given any single political group the right to be the spokesman for God. We all have to have a share of humility. We all have to recognize that our ways are not God's ways, and from the standpoint of our country, the point of America is to try to hold us all together. I mean, that was the point of the Constitution, to hold together a diverse country. We fought a civil war over that principle, and to be intentionally divisive because it's politically advantageous to be so is something that I think is a negative for America.
Q: And how is it damaging? What are the negative repercussions you see for the Republican Party and for America?
Q: Obviously, there are very important issues that we have as a country, and we're not addressing those issues. For example, since 9/11, in the last five years we are faced with an entirely different kind of a problem than we ever had before. The problem of terrorism, the problem of rogue states -- we never felt threatened by that chaotic type of problem before, and it's become totally politicized. Instead of our best minds working to find some kind of reasonable approach to the issue of terrorism, it's become the political campaign issue, with one side accusing another of cowardice, the other side accusing the administration of being a liar, that kind of thing. So I think, you know, that's the nature of American politics today. Issues that have to be resolved for our future -- for example, the budget. The deficit is out of control. Social Security, Medicare are programs that are going to be a tremendous drain on our country unless we can find some common ground to deal with them. The whole issue of energy dependence on the Middle East. All of these are problems that cry out for some center in American politics, some reasonable approach, and we have not found that center. Instead of religion trying to at least draw us together, religion has become a wedge in American politics to further split us apart.
Q: You talk a lot about wedge issues. What makes something a wedge issue? Why is abortion a wedge issue and poverty or Social Security is not?
A: A wedge issue is one that is designed for the express purpose of energizing a political base. It used to be that the idea of politics in America was to try to appeal to people who were undecided or people in the middle. That's not done anymore. Now, it's can we turn out our base, can we energize our base voters? And the base voters are the ones who have the most emotionally held, deeply held beliefs. For the Republican Party, the base of the Republican Party has become the Christian right, and they have a series of issues that are important to them that are not necessarily important for the future of the country -- at least I don't think they are. For example, the question of gay marriage and the proposed constitutional amendment on gay marriage. I think most of us, if we thought about it, would say that is not the sort of issue that belongs in the Constitution of the United States. But as a political motivator, it's right up there. So this past summer, leading up to the congressional political campaign, what do we have in the Congress of the United States but votes on the subject of whether the Constitution should be amended on gay marriage. A lot of issues can't be avoided. But these wedge issues tend to get emphasized beyond the intrinsic importance of the issues.
Q: What about people for whom these issues are moral convictions, people who say they are fighting for this because they really believe it's the right thing?
A: Of course, anybody should participate in the political process and do so energetically and do so forcefully. But it's also important, I think, for Christians to have a sense of humility and an understanding that they don't monopolize God's truth, and from the standpoint of American politics it's important that a political party not become the extension of a particular religious point of view, because if we ask government to put in place our religious viewpoints, that is asking government to establish religion, which is prohibited in the U.S. Constitution. So I think it's important for people who are motivated by religion to do something other than to ask government to simply implement my religious ideas. I think it's important to have reasons other than purely religious reasons for putting forth a point of view.
Q: Some point to the civil rights movement and say those were people motivated by faith and a view of humanity based on their religious outlook that they did then want the government to enact for the entire country.
A: Sure. They absolutely did, and religious people -- Martin Luther King, a clergyman -- they were right at the heart of the civil rights movement, and that is true of a lot of movements. People on the right, people on the left are engaged in politics and feel very, very deeply about their issues. But when you think the most divisive and awful issue that we've ever had as a country, the whole question of slavery -- in Lincoln's Second Inaugural address, he made the very important point that although he was -- you know, the Emancipation Proclamation, both sides pray to the same God, and that's what's important for us to recognize. So when we have the idea that God has given me this mission, that I speak for God and that you don't, I'm on God's side, you are against God -- that creates, I think, extreme divineness in our political system, and that's why our Founding Fathers wanted to separate church and state. They did not want religion and politics to be confused.
Q: Some religious conservatives say that they feel maybe you are caricaturing them and, in fact, that the disagreements you have with them are political and not necessarily philosophical. How do you respond to those who say your criticism is sour grapes and really due to the fact that you have a different political point of view?
A: I recognize that there are all different kinds of political points of view, and the question is how do we accommodate different points of view without tearing each other apart? How is it possible to restore civility to our political discussion? I'm not asking that any particular point of view that I have wins. I'm just saying that somehow we've got to come together sufficiently so that we keep the country glued together and we're able to deal with energy and terrorism and the budget and Social Security and Medicare and all these difficult issues. I think if we dwell on questions like whether the Ten Commandments should be in a courthouse in Tennessee or whether the Constitution should be amended to define marriage, we tend to get off on issues that have a lot of emotional heat, but they don't shed that much light on the problems that face America.
Q: Most of the book is focused on religious conservatives, yet religious moderates and progressives are also trying to mobilize right now. Democrats are reaching out to energize that side of the religious spectrum. Is there a message in your book for religious liberals as well?
A: Well, the message for all of us is humility. The message for all of us is that, you know, we worship a God who invites all kinds of different people into his tent, and that's the nature of religion. But what I am trying to do is not shut people up; I'm trying to encourage people to participate. I would encourage conservative Christians to participate in politics, also liberals Christians, also moderate Christians, because I think once you create kind of an island of religious people and say, okay, this is religion and here is the religious platform, that is what tends to be a negative factor in American politics. So I am hopeful that there is a response to this book. I'm hopeful that all kinds of people will speak out and all kinds of people will act, and all kinds of religious people will speak out and say look, here is our point of view, because if it's seen that there is just one Christian point of view, then there becomes an us-against-them mentality, and I think that's not healthy.
Q: In practical terms, how do you see a ministry of reconciliation actually working in the real, political world, in debates and efforts over legislation?
A: Politicians listen to whoever is talking to them, and if all they hear is one point of view, then they will -- the customer's always right. I mean, it's true in business, true in politics. So it's important for all different kinds of people to speak out to politicians and to communicate with politicians and to make their voices heard, and there are a number of ways of doing that. One is in person. One is finding the politician and speaking to the politician or sending a e-mail or attending a town hall meeting or wherever the politician is, but generally to be more outspoken, because I mean when -- I saw this recently -- when the public opinion polls show that there are only about six per cent of the voters who are undecided, politicians are going to ignore six per cent and try simply to get out the base.
 |
|
|
|
So I think it's important to reconstitute the center of American politics, to recognize that the political strength of our country isn't on the fringes. It is in the center. It's historically been in the center. That's where progress is possible. Otherwise we're just stalemated by people on the fringes. I want to reconstitute that center, and the only way to do that is for those who feel that they are in the center and that their voices are not being heard to be more vocal.
Q: Some say the center doesn't really stand for anything. What does the center stand for?
A: The center stands for reconciliation. The center stands for unity in our country. The center stands for the most deeply held principle that I think we have as a country, and that is that we are one country and that we're not fragmented, and certainly not fragmented on a religious basis. The center stands for the same principle that James Madison recognized when he drafted the Constitution of the United States, that we have to have a system that's big enough to hold together all kinds of different people. The center stands for the same principle that Lincoln recognized and that soldiers died for in the Civil War, that we are one country and not a balkanized or fragmented country. The center stands for getting on with trying to come to some reasonable resolution to issues like the budget deficit, and dependence on foreign sources of energy, and dealing with terrorism on other than a purely partisan basis. The center, I think, stands for the heart of America.
Q: I want you also to talk a little bit about your work in Sudan and what that taught you about the positive role religion can play in reconciliation?
A: Religion in Sudan is one of the divisive factors in that country. It's not the only divisive factor. There are racial and ethnic differences, but religion is clearly part of it, and a substantial part of what I was working on, the so-called North-South war in Sudan, was fighting between the southerners who were in part Christian, all black Africans, and Arab-Africans in the government, and they were all Muslim. Some of the most hostile people I met in Sudan were the Christians. I understand that, because they had been persecuted for a long period of time. But it seemed to me that there should be some method of at least attempting to reconcile the religious components of that conflict -- whether or not, for example, sharia law, Islamic law, would apply in the capital of the united country, that kind of specific issue. I attempted to explore the possibility of such a mediation service, and it didn't work out. I just couldn't get sufficient interest, particularly on the part of the Christian clergy in Sudan. But it's clear that when you look at conflicts around the world -- in Sudan, in Iraq, in Kashmir, wherever -- religion is often a significant part of that conflict. The people kill each other because they think God wants them to kill each other. People kill each other because they think that they represent God's side and the other side [is] the heathen. And that cannot be God's will. At least I don't think it is. So what do we do about it? I think it's important for religious groups to engage in a specific way. I'm not just saying, you know, sitting around and holding hands and singing hymns. I'm not against that, but there should be some mechanism, I believe, for attempting to resolve the religious part of political conflicts.
Q: How should politicians who hold strong beliefs or have strong moral convictions about certain issues balance their advocacy of those deeply held beliefs with representing their constituents, especially when the two may be in conflict, when you believe one thing strongly but the majority of your constituents believe something else? How do you resolve that as a person of faith and moral conviction?
A: It's important for a politician to be open with constituents and to communicate with constituents and to tell constituents where you are. And it's especially important before the election, so that the constituents know when they go to the poll they may not agree with you on every issue -- they won't -- but they at least know who you are and where you're coming from and what kind of, in my case, what kind of United States senator you're going to be. I'm an Episcopalian. I'm a member of the clergy. That was not hidden from my constituents. They knew that, and they knew that whatever I am I bring to my job. On the other hand, they also knew that I did not go to the Senate in order to try to represent one particular religious point of view or to be, you know, sort of the agent of the Episcopal Church. That would have been ridiculous. Episcopalians in Missouri are less than one half of one percent [of the population], and it would have been wrong. I think it's important for people who have deep religious views and are in politics to wear their tolerance on their sleeve and to make it clear that in our eyes we're all God's people, and that we have to live together, and that once politics becomes sectarian politics, religious politics, it has the opposite effect. Instead of pulling us together, it drives us apart, and it creates the "in" group and the "out" groups, and that's not what America should be.
Q: Can compromise be morally justified, or is it by nature immoral?
A: I think it's very moral because, I mean, first of all, it's based on the understanding that religion isn't politics and that I am not God, and that my political philosophy, no matter now strongly I believe in it, that's not God. God is bigger than I am. God is bigger than any idea in my mind or in any political platform of any party or any group, and God's truth is big enough to encompass all kinds of people, even people with whom I strongly disagree. So it's an act of religious pride to try to identify what I think with God's will. I try to do God's will, I pray that I will know and do God's will, but I know I'm always going to fall short. The one absolute for a Christian is the love commandment. It's not a political platform. It's not a position on an issue or series of issues. It's that we are supposed to love our neighbors as ourselves, and it's up to us to work that out. It's up to us as faithful people to try our best to work that out. But we certainly are not going to be able to work that out if our neighbor is seen as some sort of lesser type of person, somebody beyond the pale, and that we are God's agents. That is the opposite of how a faithful person should approach politics.
Q: Tell us about your advocacy on behalf of stem cell research and the personal motivations behind that.
A: I have a personal stake in stem cell research in that I lost my brother, my dear, close friend, brother Don, to ALS, Lou Gehrig's disease, and medical researchers feel that is one of the diseases where stem cell research might hold the key. And so you could say well, okay, so you have a personal stake in this, but a lot of people do. I mean, a lot of people have family members who have Parkinson's or juvenile diabetes or spinal cord injury or ALS or cancer or whatever, and they want science to find those cures. And I think that, you know, if science has the capacity and reasonable hope of finding cures, we should let it do that. Now nobody believes in cloning human beings like Dolly, and so I'm for criminalizing that. I would, you know, put people in prison and throw the key away if they tried to clone a human being. I think that's wrong. But healing disease is something that's just important to all of us, and it's something that has a clear religious component. I mean, the ministry of Jesus was to heal people who were suffering. The commission given to his disciples to go into the world was to heal every kind of disease. So I think that we -- my view is that we have an obligation to try to do that.
Q: In your book you discuss conflicts surrounding public displays of religion. What is appropriate public display of religion, both for individuals and for government?
A: I think that we're supposed to live our faith, and we're supposed to express it and not be ashamed of it. I mean, I wish that I were less reticent about public display of my own religion. When I go to church on Ash Wednesday and get the ashes on my forehead, I immediately take them off. And is that a great thing to do? I don't think so. But that's what I do. And the point is, I think, that public display of religion can be something that is just unsettling to a lot of people, and I think we have to be sensitive to that. It's not just my own sort of shyness, I guess, but it's the fact that people can be meant to feel as though they're outsiders. They can be meant to feel that they don't belong. I've done this myself in public places. If I use a specifically Christian prayer, and there are people who aren't Christian who are around, they feel that they're not quite totally part of what's going on. I think in our country we're all in this together, and that's a very important message. I think some of these public religion issues about, you know, teaching religion in school or intelligent design and so on can have the feel, it can have the effect of being divisive, breaking us apart without much of a substantive upside. I mean, I even think that most people feel that a lot of public religion is kind of innocuous and doesn't mean much -- the sort of prayer that you might hear before a sports event or something like that.
Q: Why was the Terry Schiavo case so pivotal for you?
A: The Terry Schiavo case was the great eye opener for me. It was so contrary to basic Republican principles, because the federal government got into a particular case involving a particular person. It preempted what was happening at the state level. It empowered the federal courts to take over where the state courts had been acting. All of these were contrary to the basic principles of the Republican Party, and it did it at the behest of the Christian right, and at that time there were prayer meetings being held publicly, calls from the Christian right to save Terry Schiavo despite the fact that she was in a persistent vegetative state, and I thought that it was really terrible. I mean, I thought that it was unprincipled and that it was not what the Republican Party was all about. So that was to me the two by four that hit me over the head. I had been not that aware of the implications of religion and politics until the Terry Schiavo case, and then everything else fell into place after that.
|
|
