E Pluribus Unum, Religion and a Politics of Reconciliation

  By Rudy Barnes, Jr.

            E pluribus unum: That’s Latin for Out of many, one.  It was the U.S. national motto until 1956, when it was replaced by In God we trust.  In the wake of the November election, we need to ask ourselves, are we still a nation committed to being out of many, one, or are we just a nation of many?  And in a pluralistic democracy, what does it mean to trust in God?  

            The U.S. is a religious nation.  Most Americans claim to be Christians, and Christianity, like Islam, has resisted reconciliation with other religions.  Each claims to be the one true faith to attract members, and the worldly power of each religion is based on the number of its members.

            In an increasingly pluralistic world, such religious exclusivism causes hate and violence; and in democracies where fundamental human rights are necessary to protect minorities from the tyranny of a religious majority, religion can be an obstacle to human rights and justice.

            For religions to be compatible with democracy, human rights and justice in pluralistic nations, they must promote a politics of reconciliation.  This has not happened where Christians and Muslims have been a majority, and the jury is out on Jews in Israel.

           

            Second generation evangelical Christian leaders like Jerry Falwell, Jr. and Franklin Graham mobilized their followers to elect Donald Trump to be their President, and Trump’s national security advisor has referred to Muslims as “evil people.”  In Islamic nations Muslims continue to deny the fundamental freedoms of religion and speech with apostasy and blasphemy laws.  And in Israel, democracy is jeopardized by continuing violence with Palestinians, who may soon become a majority.

            The will of God is to reconcile and redeem all humanity as one in spirit, while the will of Satan is to divide and conquer.  But in the great cosmic battle between good and evil, Satan does a convincing imitation of God, and does his best work in the church, mosque and in politics.

           

            Radical right movements are casting a dark shadow over the world.  They are supported by religious zealots who have mistaken Satan’s hate and divisive powers for the powers of God.  They represent a dire challenge for both our religion and politics.

            Religions function as moral buffers to popular demagogues who seek to undermine civil liberties in democracies.  Fareed Zakaria cited Alexis de Tocqueville in noting that religious groups can be a buffer against authoritarianism by “weakening the moral empire of the majority” and protecting minorities against a tyranny of the majority.  But it should be noted that de Tocqueville saw religion as both a polarizing and reconciling force in Democracy in America. 

            There is hope that Judaism, Christianity and Islam can mitigate against religious polarization and promote a politics of reconciliation in America and around the world.   The greatest commandment to love God and our neighbors as we love ourselves—including those of other races and religions—is a common word of faith for Jews, Christians and Muslims alike.  That love command provides a theological foundation for a politics of reconciliation.

            Kathleen Parker got it right when she said it’s hard to think about a Happy New Year after Trump has released a malevolent spirit upon the land; and its especially hard for Christians since evangelical Christians made Trump’s election possible.  Even so, let’s make e pluribus unum a New Year’s resolution in both our faith and our politics.  We need to resist the divisive power of hate and violence with a politics of reconciliation, but never concede to the evil forces that seek to divide and conquer us.

Notes:

           

Fareed Zakaria has noted that democracy in America and around the world is being corrupted by forces that oppose liberty in law.  See https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/america-is-becoming-a-land-of-less-liberty/2016/12/29/2a91744c-ce09-11e6-a747-d03044780a02_story.html?wpisrc=nl_headlines&wpmm=1.

  

In his tour of America in 1834, Alexis de Tocqueville observed that religion is a two-edged sword in democracy:  While Christians “readily espouse the cause of human liberty as the source of all moral greatness,” and “will not refuse to acknowledge that all citizens are equal in the eye of the law, …religion is entangled in those institutions that democracy assails, and is not infrequently brought to reject the equality it loves and to curse that cause of liberty as a foe.”  De Tocqueville noted that secular citizens are skeptical of religion in politics but know “that liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith.”  See De Tocqueville, Democracy in America, The Cooperative Publication Society and the Colonial Press, 1900, p 12.      

On Kathleen Parker’s commentary on Trump has released a malevolent spirit upon the land, Happy New Year!, see https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-has-released-a-malevolent-spirit-upon-the-land-happy-new-year/2016/12/27/f6aa37b2-cc6a-11e6-b8a2-8c2a61b0436f_story.html?wpisrc=nl_headlines&wpmm=1.

On the rise of the malevolent spirit of populist demagoguery in Hungary and around the world, see  https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/i-watched-a-populist-leader-rise-in-my-country-and-that-is-why-i-am-genuinely-worried-for-america/2016/12/27/6b4cf632-cc65-11e6-b8a2-8c2a61b0436f_story.html?wpisrc=nl_headlines&wpmm=1.

On Trump’s coming war with Islam, see https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/trumps-coming-war-against-islam/2016/12/11/edf3241c-bd60-11e6-91ee-1adddfe36cbe_story.html?wpisrc=nl_opinions&wpmm=1.

On irreconcilable differences on matters of faith and politics, see Franklin Graham’s assertion that God assured the election of Donald Trump at http://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/article121729539.html.

On the greatest commandment as a common word of faith for Jews, Christians and Muslims, see http://www.jesusmeetsmuhammad.com/2015/01/jesus-meets-muhammad-is-there-common.html.

On religion and human rights, see http://www.jesusmeetsmuhammad.com/2015/02/religion-and-human-rights.html.

On a fundamental problem with religion, see http://www.jesusmeetsmuhammad.com/2015/05/a-fundamental-problem-with-religion.html.

On the need for a politics of reconciliation in a polarized democracy, see http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2016/10/the-need-for-politics-of-reconciliation.html.

           

On religion and a politics of reconciliation based on shared values, see http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2016/11/religion-and-politics-of-reconciliation.html.

On irreconcilable differences and the demise of democracy, see http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2016/11/irreconcilable-differences-and-demise.html.

On religion and reconciliation following an apocalyptic election, see http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2016/11/religion-and-reconciliation-after.html.

Advent: The Coming of a Light that Shines in the Darkness

  By Rudy Barnes, Jr.

            In John’s Gospel Advent is about the coming of Jesus as the mystical Logos, or Word of God.  Jesus was a light that shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it. (John 1:1-5; 3:19-21)  Jesus symbolized God’s light, and at the heart of John’s Gospel is the new command to love one another. (John 13:34)  It is John’s version of the greatest commandment that is found in the other three gospel accounts.

            Advent is about the light of God’s love coming into a dark world.  It represents the power of God’s love to reconcile and redeem humanity in contrast to Satan’s dark power to divide and conquer humanity.  But Satan does a convincing imitation of God, and does some of his best work in the church, mosque and in politics—as we have witnessed over the past year.

           

            Judging from the recent election, half of all Americans—most of them claiming to be Christians—have little love for those who do not share their race or religion.  Last month they made Donald Trump their President, and through his designated national security advisor he has proclaimed Muslims to be “evil people.”  In so doing he has furthered the evil cause of radical Islamists by polarizing our religions and setting the stage for more religious hate and violence. 

            The election of Donald Trump should be an embarrassment to Christians.  He is the antithesis of Christian morality.  But then Christianity comes in all flavors these days, from the prosperity gospel that promises health and wealth to believers to Catholic monks and nuns who take a vow of poverty.  Ironically, progressive Christians and Muslims have more shared values than do progressives and fundamentalists within the same religion.     

            The election of Donald Trump was not the first time that Christianity took a dark turn.  From crusades, inquisitions and in religious wars up to the Enlightenment in the 17^th century, the toxic combination of religion, power and politics corrupted the world.  In the 19^th century the U.S. defied the moral imperatives of its faith with a terrible Civil War, and in the 20^th century Germany and Italy, both Christian nations, took the dark road to fascism and World War II.

           

            Globalization has made religions in America and around the world more pluralistic and contentious.  The next four years will be a test for libertarian democracy.  A politics of reconciliation is necessary, but it cannot be based on hate and anger for those unlike us.  It must be based on shared altruistic values that are absent in our current polarized politics.

            The greatest commandment to love God and our neighbors as ourselves is a common word of faith for Jews, Christians and Muslims alike, and it provides the shared altruistic values needed for a politics of reconciliation.  A commitment to love our neighbors as ourselves—including our neighbors of other races and religions—can bring the light of God’s love into our dark world of polarized politics. 

            May the light of God’s love shine on you—and all of us—this Christmas and throughout the New Year, and may God’s light dispel the darkness that threatens to overcome us.

Notes:

On concepts of Advent that promote a politics of reconciliation, see Michael Gerson at https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/where-is-god/2016/12/23/495ebfca-c881-11e6-85b5-76616a33048d_story.html?wpisrc=nl_headlines&wpmm=1 and Kathleen Parker at https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/its-all-a-joke-so-we-may-as-well-laugh/2016/12/23/3ce16b72-c952-11e6-bf4b-2c064d32a4bf_story.html?wpisrc=nl_opinionsA&wpmm=1.

On Donald Trump as the antithesis of Christian morality, whose values must be rejected rather than reconciled, see https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/not-time-reconciliation.  See also,

http://religionnews.com/2016/12/20/russell-moore-responds-to-southern-baptist-detractors/.

In the context of religion and a politics of reconciliation, Anthony T. Kronman has suggested that Walt Whitman’s 19^th century American religion be referred to as …born-again paganism: a reaffirmation of the unity of God and the world, enriched by the central teaching of the three creationist religions that insist so vehemently on their separation. 

Born-again paganism gives spiritual depth to America’s culture of individualism. It explains our reverence for diversity in a way that avoids the worst excesses of identity politics. And it gives us a God that is magnified, not threatened, by the restless drive to explain all things that is such a striking feature of our national character. 

In these respects, born-again paganism suits us well. It is the right religion for America.

No one can be compelled to embrace it, of course, but those who do may find it easier to see that, despite our proud commitment to the separation of church and state, we are one nation under God after all. See http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-kronman-american-religion-20161222-story.html.

Growing up “in the middle” as a colored person (neither white nor black) in South Africa, Trevor Noah has put the concept of a politics of reconciliation in more contemporary terms:

Sadly, given what we’ve seen in this election, Mr. Trump’s victory has only amplified the voices of extremism. It has made their arguments more simplistic and more emotional at a time when they ought to be growing more subtle and more complex. We should give no quarter to intolerance and injustice in this world, but we can be steadfast on the subject of Mr. Trump’s unfitness for office while still reaching out to reason with his supporters. We can be unwavering in our commitment to racial equality while still breaking bread with the same racist people who’ve oppressed us. I know it can be done because I had no choice but to do it, and it is the reason I am where I am today.

When you grow up in the middle, you see that life is more in the middle than it is on the sides. The majority of people are in the middle, the margin of victory is almost always in the middle, and very often the truth is there as well, waiting for us.  See http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/05/opinion/trevor-noah-lets-not-be-divided-divided-people-are-easier-to-rule.html?_r=0.

On the greatest commandment as a common word of faith for Jews, Christians and Muslims, see http://www.jesusmeetsmuhammad.com/2015/01/jesus-meets-muhammad-is-there-common.html.

On irreconcilable differences and the demise of democracy, see http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2016/11/irreconcilable-differences-and-demise.html.

On religion and a politics of reconciliation based on shared values, see http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2016/11/religion-and-politics-of-reconciliation.html. 

Discipleship in a Democracy: A Test of Faith, Legitimacy and Politics

   By Rudy Barnes, Jr.     

            The many variations of Christianity share one thing in common.  It is discipleship, and it requires following the teachings of Jesus as the word of God.  Those teachings are summarized in the greatest commandment to love God and our neighbors as we love ourselves.  And in a democracy, discipleship requires that we relate our love for others—all others—to our politics.

            Most Americans claim to be Christians, and they elected Donald Trump their President.  In so doing they and their religion failed a test of faith, legitimacy and politics.  Our faith is the primary source of our standards of legitimacy, and our moral and legal standards of legitimacy shape our politics—for good or bad.      

           

            The stewardship of democracy is a test of faith.  When Christians fail to relate the moral imperatives of their faith to politics, they compromise their discipleship and the legitimacy of the church.  Churches are complicit in this failure.  They fail to emphasize the stewardship of democracy as an act of discipleship, citing a wall of separation between the church and state.

            There is no legal requirement to separate religion and politics.  The First Amendment to the Constitution prohibits government from establishing or promoting any religion, but it does not prohibit religions from relating their faith to politics.  In fact, any church that does not relate the duties of discipleship to democracy is as dead as a body without the spirit. (See James 1:26).      

            John Wesley’s first priority for discipleship was to do no harm, then to do good.  Dietrich Bonhoeffer gave meaning to The Cost of Discipleship when he left the safety of a seminary in the U.S. to confront Hitler, and made the ultimate sacrifice.  Donald Trump may not be another Hitler, but all indications are that his regime will threaten the legitimacy of our democracy.

            It won’t take long to determine whether Donald Trump will be the dangerous demagogue that many expect him to be.  If so, Christians and church leaders will have failed their test of faith, legitimacy and politics.  To appeal that failing grade they must justify their support of a man who represents the antithesis of Christian morality.  Perhaps the rest of us were wrong.

            There is a remedial assignment for those who failed their test of faith.  It is to read the four gospels—or even just one of them.  They are the only place to find the teachings of Jesus on discipleship, and they should be read carefully, critically and prayerfully.  They don’t address all modern political issues, but they provide the timeless altruistic principles needed for that task.

            A study of the gospels and self-reflection should be accompanied by interfaith discussions on how our faith shapes our standards of legitimacy and politics.  Judaism, Christianity and Islam must all promote a politics of reconciliation to preserve the fabric of democracy in our increasingly pluralistic and polarized world.

            Let’s put our failures behind us and focus on following the moral teachings of Jesus as the heart of legitimacy and the means to promote a politics of reconciliation.  Discipleship in our democracy is not just for Christians, but for all those who wish to prevent the fabric of our polarized democracy from unraveling—whatever their faith.

Notes:

On the ambiguous cause and effect relationship between religion and politics, see http://religionnews.com/2016/12/07/its-time-we-think-of-politics-more-like-religion/.

In religious terms those Christians who voted for Donald Trump must repent of that failure of discipleship and make a commitment to follow the teachings of Jesus as the word of God.  See https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2016/12/08/how-trumps-evangelical-supporters-can-atone/?wpisrc=nl_popns&wpmm=1.

On Trump’s coming war with Islam, see https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/trumps-coming-war-against-islam/2016/12/11/edf3241c-bd60-11e6-91ee-1adddfe36cbe_story.html?wpisrc=nl_opinions&wpmm=1.

For an interfaith study guide on The Teachings of Jesus and Muhammad on Morality and Law: The Heart of Legitimacy, see https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3gvZV8mXUp-aTJubVlISnpQc1U/view.  This is a Resource posted at http://www.jesusmeetsmuhammad.com/ and http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/.  The Introduction explains its purpose, which is to compare the teachings of Jesus selected by Thomas Jefferson as “the most sublime moral code ever designed by man” with the teachings or revelations of Muhammad.  The first 18 topics are a summary of moral teachings of Jesus taken from the Gospel of Mark.  It should be noted that while Jefferson admired Jesus, he was harshly critical of institutional Christianity.

On church leaders who understand how discipleship requires opposing unprincipled demagogues like Donald Trump, see http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2016/12/righteous-anger-in-religion-and-politics.html and Notes cited.

  

On irreconcilable differences and the demise of democracy, see http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2016/11/irreconcilable-differences-and-demise.html.

On the need for a politics of reconciliation in a polarized democracy, see http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2016/10/the-need-for-politics-of-reconciliation.html.

           

On religion and a politics of reconciliation based on shared values, see http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2016/11/religion-and-politics-of-reconciliation.html.

On religion and reconciliation following an apocalyptic election, see http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2016/11/religion-and-reconciliation-after.html.

Partisan Alternatives for a Politics of Reconciliation

  By Rudy Barnes, Jr.

            America is divided by partisan political polarization that threatens the very fabric of our democracy.  A politics of reconciliation is needed that allows the rejection of conflicting values.  The greatest commandment to love God and our neighbors as ourselves is a common word of faith for Jews, Christians and Muslims alike.  It was reasonable to assume that it provided shared values for most Americans, but the recent election debunked that assumption. 

            Most of Donald Trump’s supporters claimed to be Christians, but they rejected the moral imperatives of their faith when they voted for a man who exemplified the antithesis of Christian morality.  Since most Christians don’t seem to apply the altruistic values of their faith to their politics, more secular partisan alternatives must be considered to prevent the unraveling of the fabric of our democracy.

            The electoral college and a two-party duopoly have defined U.S political history.  The two parties have usually produced enough diversity to prevent political polarization, but when the Republican Party arose from the wreckage of the Whig Party in 1854, the Democrat and Republican parties led the U.S. to its most divisive polarization in history: The Civil War.

            Competition between the two parties is healthy, so long as it is civil and there is the capability to compromise on major issues.  But when differences between the two parties are defined by hostile constituencies holding irreconcilable values, as leading up to the Civil War and as they are today, bipolar partisan hostility can be dysfunctional and dangerous.

            Without shared religious values, there are only two structural alternatives to counter dangerous partisan polarization.  First, reorganize one or both of the two parties; or second, create additional parties.  The objective of both is to allow political diversity without hostility through a politics of reconciliation that defuses the risk of bipolar political polarization.

            Partisan polarization has become the norm, and identity politics based on special interest groups now take precedence over providing for the common good.  A leftist Democrat Party now challenges traditions with an intellectual elite and a coalition of minority groups, while a radical-right, predominately white and blue collar GOP now seeks to preserve traditions and return to the idyllic days of the past.

            There has been considerable commentary on changes needed in both the Republican and Democrat Parties.  Before the election, when it was widely expected that Hillary Clinton would defeat Donald Trump, the focus was on restructuring a Republican Party hijacked by the radical right.  Now public attention has turned to reshaping a Democrat Party whose leftist identity politics were rejected by electoral votes, even as they were approved by a majority of voters.

            With its electoral victories, it seems unlikely that the GOP will abandon its new radical right posture, and with the popularity of Bernie Sanders, it seems unlikely that Democrats will reject socialism to reclaim the political middle ground.  That leaves no place for those political moderates who have previously decided elections, and it opens the door to a third party.  

            Will there be a third party competitive with Republicans and Democrats in 2018?  David Houle has three forecasts: That Donald Trump will be a one-term president; that division in the country in a time of unprecedented change will create massive movements, demonstrations and civil disobedience; and that 2016 will be the last year of a two-party system.

            Parliamentary democracies have multiple parties, but they are structured differently than the American two-party system.  To enable a third party to succeed at the national level in the U.S. the electoral college would have to be eliminated or modified and structural changes made in Congress.  Also, American voters would have to change their view of third party candidates. 

            The American Party of South Carolina is a third party that ran congressional candidates in the recent election.  They ran believing that most voters were disgusted with the two parties and would support third party candidates, but election results indicated that most voters were loyal to the two major parties.  Third party candidates received less than 5% of the vote.        

            Few third party candidates have ever received enough votes to seriously challenge GOP and Democrat candidates at the national level.  Most voters apparently believe that a vote for a third party candidate is a wasted vote.  That must change for third party candidates to gain the credibility needed to compete with Republican and Democrat candidates.

            A healthy democracy requires partisan opposition to hold the party in power accountable.  A radical right GOP and leftist Democrat Party have abandoned moderate voters and the shared altruistic values that once mitigated against partisan polarization.  A third party is needed.  Perhaps in 2018 voters will support a third party as the means to a politics of reconciliation.

             

Notes:

On the need for shared values for a politics of reconciliation, see  http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2016/11/religion-and-politics-of-reconciliation.html.  On the irreconcilable differences in values reflected in the recent election, see http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2016/11/irreconcilable-differences-and-demise.html.

On related commentary posted on October 15, 2016 that reflected the expectation that Hillary Clinton would win the Presidency and the partisan alternatives that would follow, see http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2016/10/partisan-politics-after-election-back.html.

On Donald Trump as the antithesis of Christian morality that requires political rejection rather than reconciliation, see https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/not-time-reconciliation.

On the electoral college as a means of protecting the sanctity of the two party duopoly against the incursion of third parties, see  https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dump-the-electoral-college-bad-idea-says-al-gores-former-campaign-chairman/2016/12/04/d8c88eb2-b8d6-11e6-b994-f45a208f7a73_story.html?wpisrc=nl_opinions&wpmm=1.

On David Houle’s election thoughts and forecasts, see http://davidhoule.com/evolutionshift-blog/global-business-trends/2016-forecasts/2016/11/22/now-post-election-thoughts-forecasts.

Mark Lilla has described the problem of identity politics in the Democrat Party at http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/20/opinion/sunday/the-end-of-identity-liberalism.html.

For another perspective of the Democrat dilemma of identity politics, see E. J. Dionne at  https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/democrats-skip-the-civil-war/2016/11/30/79613468-b72a-11e6-a677-b608fbb3aaf6_story.html?wpisrc=nl_headlines&wpmm=1.

On why Democrats should emphasize emotional “gut issues” rather than thoughtful political policies, see Fareed Zakaria at https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/democrats-need-to-focus-on-the-gut-not-the-head/2016/12/01/dfbe7782-b803-11e6-a677-b608fbb3aaf6_story.html?wpisrc=nl_opinions&wpmm=1.

On the anomaly that America will be ruled by a minority under the GOP, see https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/america-will-soon-be-ruled-by-a-minority/2016/12/07/fb1491ac-bcb7-11e6-ac85-094a21c44abc_story.html?wpisrc=nl_opinions&wpmm=1.

 

On changing demographics in American that portend a short-lived white majority and GOP rule, see  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/12/09/americas-destiny-has-never-been-so-obvious/.

On the birth of the Republican Party in 1854 and its history, see Wikipedia at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States).

On the American Party of South Carolina as a third party, see  http://www.americanpartysc.com/.

Righteous Anger in Religion and Politics

   By Rudy Barnes, Jr.

            There is a place for righteous anger in American religion and politics.  That’s because the church has failed to provide the shared values needed for a politics of reconciliation.  By failing to promote the moral teachings of Jesus in the stewardship of our democracy, the church has allowed partisan politics to become so polarized that they have ignored the common good.

            In the recent election the black church promoted Democrat candidates, while the so-called evangelical church and most white Catholics promoted Republican candidates.  The mainline Protestant church abstained, avoiding the toxic mix of religion and politics.  And few Christians questioned those inconsistent positions of the church on the role of faith and politics.

            The election revealed a dangerous political divide that threatens to unravel the fabric of American democracy.  Americans have not been so deeply divided since they fought a Civil War to preserve their union.  Today social, economic and cultural differences have once again polarized our politics and undermined the shared values so essential for a healthy democracy.

            The American two-party duopoly is partly to blame for our political polarization and gridlock.  Unlike parliamentary democracies with multiple parties that share power and mitigate against bipolar stalemate, the American two-party duopoly depends upon moderates within each party to avoid political polarization, making it vulnerable to partisan polarization and gridlock.

            Political moderates have become a rarity in American politics.  Partisan polarization has become the norm with a leftist Democrat Party that challenges traditions with an intellectual elite and a coalition of minority groups, and a radical-right GOP that is predominately white and blue collar, and that seeks to preserve traditions and return to the idyllic days of the past. 

            In the recent election, Donald Trump was more effective in motivating his radical-right supporters than was Hillary Clinton in motivating her leftist supporters—at least for electoral votes.  But tribalism and contentious identity politics left a post-election landscape of polarized partisan politics, with little prospect for balancing group (or tribal) special interests with providing for the overall common good, which is essential for any healthy democracy. 

            The lack of political moderation in America is hard to understand.  It is a nation where most identify as Jews, Christians or Muslims, and all share belief in the greatest commandment to love God and their neighbors as themselves as a common word of faith.  But most voters defied that altruistic principle of faith and voted to make a nativist narcissist their President.

            The civic obligation to provide for the common good is a matter of morality, not law; and religion is the primary source of moral standards.  If voters don’t honor the altruistic moral standards of their faith, there are no shared values to hold the fabric of American democracy together.  The 14^th Amendment and civil rights laws guarantee equal protection of the law to all citizens, but the law cannot mandate a political commitment to care for others and provide for the common good.  That is a moral obligation.

            That distinction between the role of law and morality in democracy underscores the important role of religion in politics.  The 1^st amendment to the Constitution doesn’t require the separation of religion and politics; it only prohibits government from establishing or promoting any religion.  In fact, any religion that doesn’t relate the moral imperatives of its faith to politics is impotent.  It is as dead in a democracy as a body without the spirit. (See James 2:26)

            There is a related principle of morality and law that relates to religion and politics.  The enforcement of religious law distorts libertarian concepts of justice based on human rights and the secular rule of law, as when apostasy and blasphemy laws deny the fundamental freedoms of religion and speech, and women and religious minorities are denied equal justice under law.  

            That happened in colonial America under the Puritans, and continues today in Islamic nations—even in democracies—where the primacy of Islamic law, or shari’a, creates a tyranny of the majority.  Whenever religion uses coercive political power to impose its laws on others, it produces injustice.  Without a commitment to provide for the common good of all, regardless of their race, religion or sexual preference, libertarian democracy is doomed to fail.

 

            The election of Donald Trump was made possible by self-proclaimed Christians, like those of the prosperity gospel, whose religious beliefs subordinate the altruistic teachings of Jesus to selfish materialistic desires.  That makes those who believe that the moral teachings of Jesus should be at the heart of Christianity angry—and it’s a righteous anger.       

Notes:

Professor Kathy Cramer has reported on the social, economic, cultural and political divide between rural residents of Wisconsin who supported Donald Trump and the urban elite who opposed him. See https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/11/08/a-new-theory-for-why-trump-voters-are-so-angry-that-actually-makes-sense/?tid=hybrid_experimentrandom_2_na.

Professor Stephen J. Pope has described Donald Trump as the antithesis of Christian morality and advocated deferring any political reconciliation until justice can be assured under his administration.  See https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/not-time-reconciliation.

During the campaign Protestant leaders also condemned Donald Trump as the antithesis of Christian morality, but it seemed to have little effect on the way their followers voted.  See http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2016/10/a-revelation-in-american-politics-and.html and  http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2016/10/partisan-politics-after-election-back.html and notes to that commentary. 

On the prosperity gospel as a distorted version Christianity that motivated Trump supporters, see

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2016/11/30/why-electing-a-billionaire-was-especially-a-triumph-for-the-prosperity-gospel/. 

On a progressive form of Christianity that considers the teachings of Jesus to be moral imperatives of the faith, see http://progressivechristianity.org/resources/progressive-christian-unapologetics/.

On the failure of mainline Protestant churches to relate matters of faith to politics, see http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/22/most-say-their-churches-remained-above-the-electoral-fray-this-year/?utm_source=Pew+Research+Center&utm_campaign=5b04203837-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2016_12_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_3e953b9b70-5b04203837-399971105.

On the greatest commandment as a common word of faith for Jews, Christians and Muslims, see http://www.jesusmeetsmuhammad.com/2015/01/jesus-meets-muhammad-is-there-common.html.

On balancing individual rights with providing for the common good, see http://www.jesusmeetsmuhammad.com/2015/08/balancing-individual-rights-with.html.

On the need for a politics of reconciliation in a polarized democracy, see http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2016/10/the-need-for-politics-of-reconciliation.html.

           

On religion and a politics of reconciliation based on shared values, see http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2016/11/religion-and-politics-of-reconciliation.html.

Irreconcilable Differences and the Demise of Democracy

  By Rudy Barnes, Jr.

            The election earlier this month revealed irreconcilable differences between America’s two political parties that threaten the demise of democracy.  It is analogous to a divorce where irreconcilable differences justify the dissolution of a marriage.

            America experienced a violent political divorce 156 years ago in its Civil War, and it’s debatable whether the split was ever reconciled, except when America went to war with other nations.  Recalling Lincoln saying a house divided against itself cannot stand, Garrison Keillor suggested that America’s polarized parties get a divorce and move to a duplex.  That’s better than Lincoln’s approach to save the union/house by destroying the party seeking to secede.

            Assuming that secession is not a viable option, where do we go from here?  A politics of reconciliation is essential for our democracy to survive, but most are not willing to reconcile with their political adversaries.  For reconciliation to work, there must be common values shared by both sides.  They seem elusive in the contentious tribal divide between a party of identity politics that seeks to change traditions while the other seeks to return to the halcyon traditions of the past.

            The multi-party model of parliamentary democracy seems better suited than the American two-party duopoly to avert political polarization.  Third parties can mitigate against the polarization of two dominant parties.  But in America there is no place for third parties at the national level.  To be legitimate a political party must be able to elect candidates to office, and that requires political infrastructure that only the two dominant parties can provide.

            The partisan divide is ironic.  Trump is a radical-right Ayn Rand objectivist whose crude and rude showmanship garnered him the support of evangelical Christians; and Hillary Clinton represented a corrupt dynasty of politics as usual who led a center-left party of disparate minorities and the intellectual elite.  Election results indicated that the GOP tribe of working class whites were more motivated to vote than the disparate tribes of the Democrat Party.

            America’s irreconcilable differences are rooted in conflicting priorities of individual rights and providing for the common good.  In a healthy democracy the two must be balanced, but radical-right objectivists emphasize the former at the expense of the latter.  They believe “the proper moral purpose of one’s life is the pursuit of happiness” and that the only political system consistent with that morality is one that emphasizes individual rights in laissez-faire capitalism.

  

            By way of contrast, political moderates seek to balance individual rights with providing for the common good.  The latter is a moral imperative of the Abrahamic religions, and one that requires the regulation of the mega-banks and corporations of Wall Street.  Individual rights did not become an integral part of politics in libertarian democracies until the Enlightenment of the 18^th century, and have not yet taken hold in Islamic nations where the fundamental freedoms of religion and speech are still denied by apostasy and blasphemy laws.

            The objectivism that drives the unrestrained greed of Wall Street and its wonder child, Donald Trump, denies the collective responsibility to provide for the common good.  While individual rights that foster free enterprise are essential components of libertarian democracy, so is providing for the common good.  Both foster a strong middle class that represents economic opportunity for all, and also provide protection against the ravages of poverty.

            The shared political values that made America the Beautiful are derived from the greatest commandment to love God and to love our neighbors as we love ourselves.  America is a religious nation, and the greatest commandment is a common word of faith for Jews, Christians and Muslims alike.  That love command once crowned our good with brotherhood from sea to shining sea, and confirmed our soul in self-control, and our liberty in law.

            How can Americans promote a politics of reconciliation based on altruistic moral principles in a democracy now controlled by self-centered objectivists?  It requires reconciliation with those who share political values that balance individual rights with providing for the common good, while rejecting the irreconcilable differences of those who promote objectivist values.  It applies the moral imperative of the greatest commandment to politics, and that must be affirmed as an act of faith as well as politics in America’s synagogues, churches and mosques. 

             

            In this time of globalization and increased racial and religious pluralism, Americans must recognize that diversity can be our strength rather than our weakness.  To make America the Beautiful again we must relate our faith to our politics and collectively love our neighbors—even those of other races and religions—as we love ourselves.  That means embracing a politics of inclusion and rejecting a politics of exclusion.

            The greatest threat to the U.S. is an “us versus them” mentality toward those who are not like us.  Edmund Burke once warned Americans that in a democracy we would forge our own shackles.  To avoid that fate and to preserve our union against irreconcilable differences, we must reject politicians who exploit our insecurity and fears.  We must seek leaders who promote a politics of reconciliation based on the shared value of loving others as we love ourselves.

Notes:

On Garrison Keillor’s commentary on how to keep a house divided against itself standing, see https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-voters--its-not-me-its-you/2016/11/21/92d7c884-b005-11e6-be1c-8cec35b1ad25_story.html?wpisrc=nl_opinions&wpmm=1.

On the greatest commandment as a common word of faith for Jews, Christians and Muslims, see http://www.jesusmeetsmuhammad.com/2015/01/jesus-meets-muhammad-is-there-common.html.

On objectivism, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand).  On wealth, politics, religion and economic justice, with reference to Ayn Rand’s objectivism, see  http://www.jesusmeetsmuhammad.com/2015/03/wealth-politics-religion-and-economic.html.  See also Christianity and capitalism: strange bedfellows in politics at http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2016/06/christianity-and-capitalism-strange.html.

On balancing individual rights with providing for the common good, see http://www.jesusmeetsmuhammad.com/2015/08/balancing-individual-rights-with.html.

     

On the need for a politics of reconciliation in a polarized democracy, see http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2016/10/the-need-for-politics-of-reconciliation.html.

           

On religion and a politics of reconciliation based on shared values, see http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2016/11/religion-and-politics-of-reconciliation.html.