Religion and a Politics of Reconciliation Based on Shared Values

   By Rudy Barnes, Jr.

            America’s politics are polarized, and conflicting values are at the heart of the political divide.  The only way to begin a meaningful process of reconciliation is to find shared values, and since the vast majority of Americans are religious, those values should be a matter of faith.       

            At the heart of the political divide is a conflict between traditionalists who revere past values and progressives who favor change.  It’s the same conflict that separates religious fundamentalists from progressive believers.  Fundamentalists seek to preserve past religious traditions against the threat of change, while progressives are open to change based on reason.

            The conflict is about more than educational and economic differences.  In South Carolina, most Trump supporters were educated white Republicans with economic security.  Those with the least economic security and education were blacks who voted Democrat.  The election reflected a long-standing partisan divide based on conflicting values—and race.

            There is no political quick fix.  Voters ignored third parties as an alternative to a polarized duopoly and gave Democrats and Republicans 95% of their vote, leaving less than 5% of the vote to be split among four third parties.  America’s political polarization will require a politics of reconciliation based on shared values, not more political parties. 

           

            Values originate with religion.  Most Americans consider themselves Christians, and most white Christians voted for Trump.  They are part of a church that is declining in popularity.  The church must be born again and put the teachings of Jesus ahead of exclusivist church doctrines that promise salvation based on worshiping Jesus as God rather than following him as the word of God.

            The church can restore its credibility and legitimacy by promoting a politics of reconciliation based on the greatest commandment to love God and to love our neighbors as we love ourselves.  It is a common word of faith for Jews, Christians and Muslims alike that supports racial and religious reconciliation and that can provide a balance between individual rights and providing for the common good, a balance essential for any healthy democracy.

            The election revealed an electorate polarized with a politics of “us against them,” based along partisan and racial lines, with most Republicans being white and most blacks being Democrats; but there is one thing they all have in common: They are predominately Christian.  For America’s racial and religious diversity to be its strength rather than its weakness, the church must promote a politics of reconciliation based on those shared values in a common word of faith.  It is simply loving our neighbors—all of them—as we love ourselves.    

            There is no shortcut to reconciliation.  It must avoid a politics of fear, anger and hate. Reconciliation must be based on the shared values of altruism and respect for others rather than on the self-serving and exploitative values that have polarized our politics.  The problem is not new.  Both religion and politics have long been gravitating toward the current polarization. 

            Jesus was a radical change agent, but the church has promoted traditional values and resisted change to gain popularity and institutional power.  Church fathers subordinated the moral teachings of Jesus to exclusivist doctrines of belief that were a form of cheap grace.  They guaranteed salvation without the discomfort of loving the least, the last and the lost.

            The Enlightenment of the 18^th century transformed both politics and religion in the West with libertarian concepts of democracy, human rights and the secular rule of law.  Those concepts of natural law and justice transformed progressive religions in libertarian democracies, but religious fundamentalists continue to reject change as a threat to their religious traditions. 

            Change is inevitable with advances in knowledge and reason, and it requires balancing individual rights with providing for the common good.  There are different approaches to that balancing act.  A libertarian approach emphasizes individual freedom with the least amount of government, while a socialist approach subordinates individual rights to government programs providing for the common good.  The contentious issues that arise from the two approaches can be resolved through compromise if both sides are motivated by the altruistic love for others.

            That is why it is essential that there should be consensus on the shared value of altruistic love before addressing contentious issues.  From the use of lethal force by law enforcement and the military to health care, all issues that involve human rights and justice should be considered within the parameters of loving others—all others—to avoid stifling polarization.

            The term “family values” has been a rallying cry for the religious right since the 1970s.  It distorted the fundamental value of loving all others into the political objective of preserving traditional family norms and a white ruling class.  Such family values did more to polarize our religion and politics than to reconcile the increasingly pluralistic elements within our nation.

                       

            There is a moral malaise in American religion today.  Is there a church that will sponsor a process to reconcile our polarized politics and religions based on the greatest commandment to love God and our neighbors as we love ourselves—even those neighbors of other races and religions?  Hopefully so, but if not, it may well be the end of white Christian America.

Notes and related commentary:

Colbert King captured the moral malaise in the American church today when he cited Martin Luther King Jr.’s famous 1963 Letter From Birmingham Jail:

“King wrote…that when he was “catapulted into the leadership of the bus protest in Montgomery, Ala.,” he felt the white church would support him. Instead, he discovered some white ministers were outright opponents; others were “more cautious than courageous and . . . [they] remained silent behind the anesthetizing security of stained glass windows.”

King expressed disappointment at seeing white church leaders, in the midst of blatant racial and economic injustices, “stand on the sideline and mouth pious irrelevancies and sanctimonious trivialities.”

He spoke of traveling on “sweltering summer days and crisp autumn mornings” and looking “at the South’s beautiful churches with their lofty spires pointing heavenward.”

“Over and over I have found myself asking: ‘What kind of people worship here? Who is their God?’ ”

“Where were their voices,” King asked, when the lips of their governors dripped with words of bigotry and hatred? “Where were their voices of support?”

They were silent.  See https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/in-the-age-of-trump-what-is-a-christian/2016/11/18/11fab326-adb6-11e6-8b45-f8e493f06fcd_story.html?wpisrc=nl_opinions&wpmm=1.

On the recent election as evidence of the end of white Christian America, see  

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2016/11/17/end-of-white-christian-america-author-evangelicals-are-in-a-fix/?wpisrc=nl_popns&wpmm=1

Eric C. Miller has likened Donald Trump to an avatar for a morally bankrupt American religion.  See http://religiondispatches.org/rising-to-heaven-in-a-secular-rapture-trumps-golden-promises/.

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 religious fundamentalism and a politics of reconciliation, see http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2016/05/religious-fundamentalism-and-politics.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 reconciliation after a political apocalypse, see http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2016/11/religion-and-reconciliation-after.html.

Religion and Reconciliation after a Political Apocalypse

  By Rudy Barnes, Jr.

            President-elect Trump.  What hath democracy wrought for America? 

            An apocalypse is a dramatic revelation.  In Christian theology it is associated with the end times when Jesus Christ returns to defeat the anti-Christ in the cosmic battle of good against evil.  Muslims also believe that Christ will return in the end times when good triumphs over evil, and Jews have an analogous apocalyptic tradition for a long-awaited messiah.

            Donald Trump may be the antithesis of Jesus, but he’s probably not the anti-Christ of the Biblical prophesies.  Even so, he has fulfilled the 18^th century prophesy of Edmund Burke who said that America would “forge its own shackles” with democracy.  And it won’t be the first time—that was the American Civil War.  America the Beautiful hasn’t always looked so good. 

            America needs a politics of reconciliation to make its diversity in race and religion a strength rather than a weakness.  There is no virtue in reconciling with a politics of fear, hate and anger.  Reconciliation is a virtue only when based on loving God and our neighbors as we love ourselves.  That is the greatest commandment, which is a common word of faith for Jews, Christians and Muslims alike—even if it is recognized more in its breach than compliance.

            Pious Christians who often speculate on the meaning of Revelation and the anti-Christ have brought this political apocalypse upon themselves.  Most of them voted for Donald Trump.  The church has utterly failed in its stewardship of democracy.  It has either failed to make faith relevant to politics, or failed to make love for others the focus of its faith.     

            The church offers four paradigms for relating Christianity to politics.  The Catholic Church has traditionally related its faith to politics, and while Catholics do not always follow the Pope’s dictates, most have made love for others a priority in their politics.  The same cannot be said for Protestant churches.  The evangelical Christians, heir to Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority, have promoted the radical right politics of the GOP and elected Trump their President.  Black Christian churches have promoted liberal politics that favor minorities and support Democrats.  White mainline denominations do neither; they have avoided mixing their religion with politics.       

            The United Methodist Church (UMC) is a hybrid.  It is racially united in its overall structure, but most of its churches have segregated congregations.  Black UM churches address political issues from the pulpit, while white UM churches avoid mixing religion and politics.  While the Christian church in America is in decline overall, white UM churches, like other white mainline denominations, are losing members at a faster rate than evangelical and black churches. 

            The moral quality of a democracy depends upon the shared values of its voters.  For the church to be a good steward of American democracy it must give the moral teachings of Jesus priority over mystical and exclusivist church doctrines, and relate those moral imperatives of its faith to politics.  That is the only way the church can be relevant in a democracy.  Otherwise, to paraphrase James, the church is as dead as a body without the spirit (James 2:26).    

            The relevance of any religion to politics is measured by concepts of liberty and justice.  Ancient religions said little about liberty and defined justice in terms of religious law, while contemporary justice is defined in terms of liberty in law as set forth in libertarian human rights.  Fundamentalist religions continue to subvert liberty to the primacy of religious law.  In many Islamic nations shari’a denies the freedoms of religion and speech, and in the U.S. Christian fundamentalists claim the right to discriminate against homosexuals based on religious freedom.

            A defect of democracy is that it values the quantity of votes over the quality of ideas and values.  That was obvious in the “Christian” Jim Crow South, where a racist white majority imposed discriminatory laws and vigilante action against blacks, and in “Christian” Germany of the 1930s where distraught and angry Germans gave Hitler the reigns of power.  In democracies the popular will has often been seen as a virtue, and later regretted.

            The popularity of Trump’s appeal to “Make America Great Again” is reminiscent of the expectations of ancient Jews for a messiah who would restore the power and glory of ancient Israel.  The chants of Trump supporters to Lock her up! and Jail her! were echoes of the crowds who had shouted Crucify him! Crucify him! to Roman authorities over 2,000 years earlier.

            The current demise of democracy is not unique to America.  Radical right movements in Europe are challenging concepts of liberty and justice, while Muslim majorities in Erdogan’s Turkey and al Sissi’s Egypt support oppressive regimes that violate human rights.  And in the Philippines President Duterte has used vigilante tactics to kill those suspected of drug offenses.  Christianity and Islam are complicit in these forfeitures of freedom for authoritarianism.

      

            American democracy is at risk.  More than ever a politics of reconciliation is needed to moderate the fear, anger and hate that has pervaded American politics.  That will require the church to recognize the relevance of the Christian faith to politics and promote policies of liberty and justice that can reconcile us, rather than exclusivist religious doctrines that divide us. 

            America’s diversity should be its strength, but contentious issues of race and religion have made it our weakness.  We need to remember Lincoln’s admonition that a house divided against itself cannot stand.  Perhaps then we can be reconciled and redeemed as America the Beautiful, and crown our good with brotherhood, from sea to shining sea; and also confirm our soul in self-control, our liberty in law.  I hope that’s not just wishful thinking.

           

Notes:

The Washington Post noted that “Americans are not and never have been united by blood or creed, but by allegiance to a democratic system of government that shares power, cherishes the rule of law and respects the dignity of individuals.” It went on to say that Americans must support Trump if he supports such a system, and support the system whether Trump does or not. See https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/president-trump/2016/11/09/037114be-a530-11e6-8fc0-7be8f848c492_story.html?wpisrc=nl_opinions&wpmm=1.

On Erdogan’s Turkey as a free society that is rapidly destroying itself, see  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/global-opinions/wp/2016/11/04/turkey-was-once-a-free-society-now-the-country-is-rapidly-destroying-itself/?wpisrc=nl_headlines&wpmm=1.

Michael Gerson cited Judge Learned Hand on the spirit of liberty as an inspiration for a politics of reconciliation:    

Where to look for inspiration? In 1944, speaking to a group of newly minted citizens in New York’s Central Park, Judge Learned Hand explained his vision of America’s most basic commitment. “What then is the spirit of liberty?” he asked. “I cannot define it. I can only tell you my own faith. The spirit of liberty is the spirit that is not too sure that it is right; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which seeks to understand the minds of other men and women; the spirit of liberty is the spirit that weighs their interests alongside its own without bias . . . the spirit of liberty is the spirit of Him who, near two thousand years ago, taught mankind that lesson it has never learned, but has never quite forgotten, that there may be a kingdom where the least shall be heard and considered side by side with the greatest.”

Hardly the spirit of our times, but seldom more needed.

See https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-the-next-president-can-heal-a-broken-america/2016/11/07/1c04fb6e-a50b-11e6-8fc0-7be8f848c492_story.html?wpisrc=nl_popns&wpmm=1.

Fareed Zakaria identified two sins that defined this election: Elitism and racism.  He could have added a third sin: Voting for change without considering the character of the change agent.  See https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-two-sins-that-defined-this-election/2016/11/10/97fdfcf2-a78b-11e6-ba59-a7d93165c6d4_story.html?wpisrc=nl_headlines&wpmm=1.

 

On the greatest commandment as a common word of faith for Jews, Christians and Muslims today, see http://www.jesusmeetsmuhammad.com/2015/01/jesus-meets-muhammad-is-there-common.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 Donald Trump’s campaign as a dark revelation of American politics and religion and the challenge it poses for America, see http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2016/10/a-revelation-in-american-politics-and.html.

On religion, liberty and justice at home and abroad, see http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2016/11/religion-liberty-and-justice-at-home.html

Religion, Liberty and Justice at Home and Abroad

  By Rudy Barnes, Jr.

            Equal Justice under law is engraved on the U.S. Supreme Court building, and it captures the spirit of our standards of legitimacy (what is right) and justice.  Religions are a primary source of the legal and moral standards of legitimacy that define justice.  Ancient Judaism and Islam defined their standards of legitimacy and justice by divine law, while Jesus summarized them in the moral imperative to love God and neighbor in the greatest commandment.

            In the 18^th century the Enlightenment transformed religion and politics in the West with libertarian concepts of justice that included democracy, human rights and the secular rule of law.  In the Islamic East, however, Islamic Law (shari’a) continued to prevail with apostasy and blasphemy laws that prohibit the freedoms of religion and speech, and with other discriminatory laws that deny women and non-Muslims equal protection of the law.    

            Since the early 20^th century, human rights that begin with the freedoms of religion and speech have been stated priorities of U.S. foreign policy.  But in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Pakistan and Turkey shari’a has prevented enforcement of those fundamental human rights, and their violation has been ignored to avoid political conflict with those allied nations.

            Where shari’a asserts its supremacy over human rights and secular law, it denies justice to minorities and produces a tyranny of the majority.  Promoting the freedoms of religion and speech along with equal justice under law for women and non-Muslims not only promotes justice in Islamic nations, but it also undermines the legitimacy of authoritarian leaders and radical Islamist terrorists who depend upon oppressive forms of shari’a to stifle their opposition.    

       

            That pragmatic point seems lost on President Obama.  He has rewarded El Sissi’s oppressive military regime in Egypt with U.S. aid and assistance, failed to criticize Erdogan’s repressive policies in Turkey, failed to criticize Saudi Arabia for propagating an extremist form of Islamic fundamentalism (Wahhabism) worldwide, and failed to criticize Islamic nations that use apostasy and blasphemy laws to deny the freedoms of religion and speech.

            This hypocrisy reflects shortsighted political expediency that has taken precedence over U.S. strategic interests in the Middle East and Africa.  When the U.S. does not condemn the violation of human rights and discrimination against women and non-Muslims in Islamic nations, it promotes authoritarian regimes and radical Islamist terrorism whose legitimacy depends on denying political freedom to those who would oppose them.

            Shari’a functions much like a constitution in Islamic nations and defines standards of legitimacy and justice differently than do constitutions in libertarian democracies.  There can be no real justice when shari’a denies fundamental human rights, and U.S. security assistance should not be provided to any nation that denies libertarian human rights.  That standard would mean no U.S. aid for those nations that enforce apostasy or blasphemy laws. 

            The conflict between ancient religious laws and libertarian concepts of justice is not unique to Islam.  Before the Enlightenment, Judaism and Christianity enforced heresy and blasphemy laws.  Since then fundamental human rights have been protected by the constitutions of libertarian democracies and international law under the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).  The 1990 Cairo Declaration, however, takes exception to the ICCPR, providing that shari’a is the last word on human rights and justice in Islamic cultures.

            But that’s not the end of the story.  Standards of legitimacy, liberty and justice are dynamic, evidenced by the wide diversity of opinion among Islamic scholars on those standards.  Progressive Muslims promote interpretations of shari’a that are consistent with libertarian concepts of human rights and justice, while fundamentalist Muslims, like their Jewish and Christian counterparts, resist any change to their ancient religious doctrines and laws.       

            The greatest commandment to love God and our neighbors as we love ourselves is a common word of faith for Jews, Christians and Muslims alike.  The Apostle Paul cited that commandment as a precedent for justice in all religions when he asserted that Jewish Law was fulfilled by the moral imperative to love our neighbors as ourselves (see Romans 13:8-10).  While human rights were unknown in Paul’s ancient times, his precedent for justice requires that today we share the liberty we love for ourselves with our neighbors at home and abroad.

Notes and Related Commentary:

On how political expediency has been a rationale for ignoring the violation of human rights in Egypt, see https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/egypt-and-iran-have-the-same-problem--and-the-same-answer/2016/09/22/1b970644-8103-11e6-8327-f141a7beb626_story.html?utm_term=.80891d90de94&wpisrc=nl_opinions&wpmm=1; and the same in Bahrain, see https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/the-obama-administration-rewards-repression-in-bahrain/2016/10/26/b21c4e58-9ae9-11e6-9980-50913d68eacb_story.html?utm_term=.2fe25024d195&wpisrc=nl_opinions&wpmm=1.

   

On Erdogan’s repression of fundamental freedoms in Turkey, see https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-cult-of-personality-dashes-turkeys-democratic-dreams/2016/10/31/5451c1f6-9f9c-11e6-8d63-3e0a660f1f04_story.html?utm_term=.88689f2b6613&wpisrc=nl_opinions&wpmm=1.

On the danger of Wahhabism, see http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/14/opinion/mohammad-javad-zarif-let-us-rid-the-world-of-wahhabism.html?smprod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share&_r=0.

On the need for Islam to accept fundamental human rights and equal protection of the law for all, see http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/726912/Muslim-Charlie-Hebdo-journalist-Zineb-El-Rhazoui-Islam-no-religion-peace.

On President Obama’s hypocrisy in ignoring human rights in foreign policy, see https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obama-criticizes-past-presidents-foreign-policies-but-how-different-is-his/2016/09/14/5f0afcfa-7a96-11e6-bd86-b7bbd53d2b5d_story.html?utm_term=.5d3a9ac0267d&wpisrc=nl_headlines&wpmm=1.

On President Obama’s acknowledgement that ISIS is a “twisted ideology” that cannot be defeated on the battleground, see https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-islamic-state-will-inevitably-be-defeated-but-networks-will-persist/2016/08/04/18198978-5a5d-11e6-8b48-0cb344221131_story.html?wpisrc=nl_headlines&wpmm=1.

On the greatest commandment as a common word of faith, see http://www.jesusmeetsmuhammad.com/2015/01/the-greatest-commandment-common-word-of.html.

On religion, human rights and national security, see http://www.jesusmeetsmuhammad.com/2015/05/religion-human-rights-and-national.html.

On oppresso de liber: Where religion and military power intersect, see  http://www.jesusmeetsmuhammad.com/2015/05/de-oppresso-liber-where-religion-and.html.

 

On the relevance of religion to politics, see http://www.jesusmeetsmuhammad.com/2016/04/the-relevance-of-religion-to-politics.html.

On the causes of religious violence and how to combat them, see  http://www.jesusmeetsmuhammad.com/2016/04/the-causes-of-religious-violence-and.html.

On religious violence and the dilemma of freedom and democracy, see http://www.jesusmeetsmuhammad.com/2016/04/religious-violence-and-dilemma-of.html.

On the freedoms of religion and speech as essentials of liberty and law, see http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2016/08/the-freedoms-of-religion-and-speech.html.

On liberty in law: a matter of man’s law, not God’s law, see http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2016/09/liberty-in-law-matter-of-mans-law-not.html.

On the evolution of religion and politics from oppression to freedom, see http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2016/09/the-evolution-of-religion-and-politics.html.

On the differing perspectives of Islamic scholars on concepts of justice, see Religion, Legitimacy and the Law: Shari’a, Democracy and Human Rights, see https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4qPfb4MvEswV2ZHS3hyWTcwbmc/view at pp 10-17.

A Revelation in American Politics and Religion

  By Rudy Barnes, Jr.

            Revelation is defined as revealing, or something disclosed—especially a striking disclosure (Webster).  In theology, Revelation is the last book of the Christian Bible.  It presents an apocalyptic account of man’s encounter with God, and the final battle between good and evil.

            Donald Trump’s campaign for President over the last 16 months—and the public support he has received—has been a dark revelation of American politics and religion.  Trump may not be the anti-Christ, but he has either transformed politics and religion in America for the worse, or revealed their sorry state.

            In politics, the popularity of Trump’s neo-fascist campaign has revealed the devolution of democracy in America and the corruption of institutional Christianity, thanks to those right-wing evangelical Christians who are heirs to Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority, and who made Trump the Republican nominee for President.  Black Christians have supported Hillary Clinton, while White mainline Christian denominations by and large have not sullied themselves with politics.

            The election results will reveal the extent of the Trump revelation.  If Trump makes a strong showing (over 40% of the popular vote), then his Trumpkins will remain in control of a radical-right Republican Party that will not be able to attract enough voters to win a national election.  That is the test of both major parties; it is needed to hold the other party accountable.

            If Trump does not receive at least 40% of the vote, then the Republican Party will be in complete disarray and beyond redemption as one of the two major parties, and those loyal to Trump will have lost their credibility.  The political vacuum will be filled either by a reborn moderate GOP that could rise Phoenix-like from the ashes of the old GOP, or by a new party (or parties) that could be a viable alternative to Democrats in a national election.

            Either way, for a healthy democracy to function, there must always be an alternative to the party in power, whether it is one party, as with the traditional two-party duopoly, or multiple parties that form a coalition to win a national election.  The traditional duopoly cannot continue unless both parties have the potential to elect a majority of Congress and win a national election.

            The election will also have profound consequences for institutional Christianity.  Trump’s campaign was made possible by radical-right evangelical Christians who energetically supported him in the GOP primaries, and also by those moderate but silent Christians who never challenged his distorted values.  Trump’s campaign and the election results should be a clarion call for those Christians who wish to save the church from the dung-heap of irrelevant religions.

            There has been a popular misconception among traditional Christians that we should not mix religion with politics.  Our Constitution doesn’t separate religion and politics; the First amendment only prohibits government from promoting or establishing a religion.  Black Christians have long mixed the two, as have evangelical Christians since the 1980s, when Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority gave Republicans a sanctimonious (born again) voice.  

            If the church is to retain any credibility, it must challenge the legitimacy of radical-right “Christians” who have subordinated the teachings of Jesus to religious doctrines congenial to secular demagogues like Donald Trump.  But they do have one thing right—the obligation to relate their faith to their politics.  Political activism in a democracy should be a moral imperative of faith.  A faith without deeds is as dead as a body without the spirit (James 2:26).

            Donald Trump is not the only dark revelation in American politics and religion.  Over their lengthy political careers Bill and Hillary Clinton have represented the corrupt combination of big money and politics, and Hillary’s disingenuous attempts to disavow that charge have fallen flat.  Voters with any sense of morality do not have a good choice for President.   

            Democracy and freedom cannot survive without responsible political stewardship, and Christianity cannot survive without the faithful stewardship of God’s love in our politics.  The greatest commandment to love God and our neighbors as we love ourselves is a common word of faith for Jews, Christians and Muslims alike, and in a globalized world of increasing diversity the love command should be a reconciling force in both our faith and our politics.

            Jesus never addressed the issue of political stewardship in a democracy since it was irrelevant in his ancient time, but today loving others as we love ourselves in a democracy threatened by internal dissension, anger and hatred today is a challenge for our faith and politics.  It’s not always warm and fuzzy.  Sometimes sharing God’s love requires using lethal force to protect others from those who would do them harm, both in our country and overseas.

            An increasing number of “nones” have left the church in recent years, many because they see the church as irrelevant; but over 70% of Americans still consider themselves Christians.  They can still make a difference, and perhaps even save their church and democracy from demise and irrelevance, if they can relate the transforming power of God’s love to their politics.  The question is, how will Christians respond to the new Revelation in American politics and religion?      

Notes:

On whether the Trump campaign has transformed America or simply revealed it, see https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/what-is-the-long-term-effect-of-donald-trump/2016/10/22/a4cd0f94-8a6d-11e6-875e-2c1bfe943b66_story.html?wpisrc=nl_headlines&wpmm=1.

For a comparison of Donald Trump’s campaign to fascism, see https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/10/21/how-fascist-is-donald-trump-theres-actually-a-formula-for-that/?utm_term=.073a8e2fdb04&wpisrc=nl_headlines&wpmm=1.

On the interrelated role of religion, morality and politics, see http://www.inforum.com/variety/4144579-salonen-religion-politics-can-and-should-go-together.

On the greatest commandment as a common word of faith, see http://www.jesusmeetsmuhammad.com/2015/01/the-greatest-commandment-common-word-of.html.

On a politics of reconciliation with liberty and justice for all, see http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2016/06/a-politics-of-reconciliation-with.html.            

The Need for a Politics of Reconciliation in a Polarized Democracy

  Rudy Barnes, Jr.

            Americans are losing faith in democracy and in each other.  That dark reality is either the cause or effect of the sordid politics we have witnessed this election year.  Before the Revolution Edmund Burke warned Americans that in a democracy we would forge our own shackles.  Will the pervasive hate and anger that has polarized our politics validate that ominous prediction?

            Pogo the Possum echoed Burke when he observed, We have met the enemy and it is us.  If we recognize that ugly reality, then we can examine our souls and counter the enemy within; but I’m not sure the American people can do that.  Many have come to believe that they are the victims of some external enemy, and Donald Trump has stoked the coals of their insecurity and fear into a political inferno of hate and anger that threatens our democracy.

            A democracy is no more or less than the people in it.  Without a collective will to work together and compromise on critical issues, no democracy can survive.  There is a desperate need for a politics of reconciliation to salvage our polarized democracy from its demise, and that reconciliation must be based on finding common ground in matters of faith as well as politics.

            The pervasive hate and anger that have polarized our partisan politics must be countered by a willingness to compromise in Congress.  None of the critical issues it faces—immigration, health care, the budget, taxes and monetary policy, as well as the terrorist threat and foreign affairs—can be addressed and resolved in a polarized Congress.

            A politics of reconciliation doesn’t require agreement on issues, only a commitment to civil debate and compromise.  Politics has been described as the art of compromise.  That doesn’t require compromising ideals, only sharing common ground and respecting differing viewpoints on important issues.  Americans must relearn the art of compromise in an increasingly pluralistic world to ensure that the diversity that should be our strength does not become a fatal weakness.

            The problem of polarization is as much one of faith as it is of politics, and exclusivism is its root cause.  It is the belief that one religion or political ideal is right and all others are wrong.  That idea—whether it relates to God’s kingdom or to worldly politics—polarizes people and prevents the reconciliation needed for peaceful coexistence in a pluralistic culture.

            History offers numerous precedents for the negative consequences of such exclusivism.  In religion the Church orchestrated the Crusades and Inquisitions, and radical Islamism has spawned the contemporary violence of al Qaeda and ISIS.  In politics there was the slavery and white supremacy in the antebellum South, Aryanism in Hitler’s Third Reich, and South Africa’s Apartheid.  One thing is obvious: religious and political exclusivism are interwoven.

            In the 100 years following the U.S. Civil War, the South was an example of racist, one-party politics that were supported by the church.  Whites in the states of the old Confederacy were Democrats.  In 1870 Blacks were given the right to vote by the Fifteenth Amendment, but the Democrat Party denied them that right by various means until the 1960s, when U.S. civil rights laws finally opened the door of the Democrat Party to Black voters.   

            The Jim Crow South was a single party “democracy” that maintained a segregated separate but equal culture until the 1954 Brown vs Board of Education Supreme Court decision, which was followed by the civil rights laws of the 1960s.  Then Whites began leaving the Democrat Party and joining the Republican Party, tainting the party of Lincoln with racism. 

            Today in the South most Whites are Republican and Blacks are Democrats.  Donald Trump has exploited that racial and partisan divide to motivate his constituency, and evangelical Christians have enthusiastically supported Trump, whose lifestyle and political rhetoric represent the antithesis of the teachings of Jesus.  Jerry Falwell, Jr., President of Liberty University, went so far as to say that Trump “lives a life of loving and helping others, as Jesus taught.”

            The polarization of politics by race and religion is not limited to the South.  It is pervasive throughout the nation, and if not countered with a politics of reconciliation it will undermine the stability of our democracy.  Religious and political reconciliation must begin with the moral imperative found in the greatest commandment to love God and our neighbors as ourselves.  That love command is a common word of faith for Jews, Christians and Muslims.

            God’s will is to reconcile and redeem humanity.  Satan’s will is to divide and conquer.  But Satan does a convincing imitation of God, and does some of his best work in the church, mosque and in politics.  Americans must be able to discern the difference between those two competing forces if they expect to rescue our polarized politics and failing democracy with a politics of reconciliation.                       

Notes:

On polls that indicate that Americans are losing faith in democracy and in each other, see  https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/americans-are-losing-faith-in-democracy--and-in-each-other/2016/10/14/b35234ea-90c6-11e6-9c52-0b10449e33c4_story.html?utm_term=.a8e68b9df4df&wpisrc=nl_headlines&wpmm=1.

On how Donald Trump has destabilized democracy by exploiting insecurity and fear into hate and anger, see  https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/donald-trumps-dangerous-ploy-to-destabilize-democracy/2016/10/14/105ca4f4-9225-11e6-9c52-0b10449e33c4_story.html?utm_term=.5323c7efcf5e&wpisrc=nl_headlines&wpmm=1.

On the religious right making a deal with the devil (Donald Trump), see https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-religious-right-makes-a-deal-with-the-devil/2016/10/11/d0783e44-8fd5-11e6-9c85-ac42097b8cc0_story.html?utm_term=.0cf4c7f7cee3&wpisrc=nl_popns&wpmm=1.

On the greatest commandment as a common word of faith, see http://www.jesusmeetsmuhammad.com/2015/01/the-greatest-commandment-common-word-of.html.

On a politics of reconciliation with liberty and justice for all, see http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2016/06/a-politics-of-reconciliation-with.html.

 

Partisan Politics after the Election: Back to the Future

 Rudy Barnes, Jr., October 15, 2016

            The leaders of the Republican Party forfeited its future when they allowed Donald Trump and his radical-right followers to hijack their party, and America won’t know the future of its partisan politics until after the election.  Political pundits predict that Hillary Clinton will be elected President despite her unpopularity, and that the Republican Party will be left in disarray. 

            Trump is no longer big news.  He is just one of many demagogues who have corrupted American politics.  The real news—and the danger to our democracy—are those elected officials and voters who continue to support Trump. Media attention should now be shifted from Trump to those Republicans who continue to support him despite his deplorable behavior.  Trump’s supporters have spelled the doom of a once-majoritarian Republican Party.   

            If moderate conservatives can regain control of the Republican Party after the election it may recover as the Grand Old Party (GOP); but if the party remains controlled by the right-wing radicals who made Donald Trump their standard-bearer—and polls indicate that they now represent 2/3 of the Party—then the GOP will slip into oblivion and leave a political vacuum, much like the disarray of the Whig Party in 1854 that gave rise to the Republican Party.

            It will be back to the future for partisan politics after the election and the melt-down of the GOP.  America has an affinity for a two-party duopoly, in contrast to the multiparty parliaments of European libertarian democracies.  Third parties have never gained traction in America unless one of the two major parties falters, as did the Whigs in 1854.  Then a third party—or parties—can fill the political vacuum as the loyal opposition to the dominant party.

            The Democrat Party is likely to emerge as the dominant party with its coalition of minorities and liberals; but it cannot attract the center-right conservatives recently displaced by Trump’s radical right in their takeover of the GOP.  The GOP will either have to be reborn or it will be replaced by a new party (or parties) that can hold the dominant party accountable.

            Either way, American partisan politics will undergo a major transformation.  Traditional concepts of liberal and conservative must be redefined, and right-wing radicals distinguished from conservatives who value traditions yet support progressive change—and the latter must control the new opposition party.  Also, the role of religion in politics must be better understood.

            Unless a deficient GOP can restore its halcyon days of Reaganite popularity, it will become a minority radical-right party in competition with other minority parties.  Trump supporters represent 2/3 of the GOP, but only 1/3 of American voters.  A radical-right GOP is not acceptable to the remaining 2/3 of voters, and has no prospect of being a majoritarian party.  That is a requirement of any party that seeks to be an alternative to the Democrat Party.

            There must be strong partisan opposition to hold the Democrat Party accountable, or American democracy will fail.  If a reborn GOP—a Grand New Party—can rise Phoenix-like from the ashes of Trump’s GOP, it must attract mainstream political moderates to prevent a partisan meltdown.  Otherwise, a new party—or parties—will fill the political vacuum.

            How could that happen?  The American Party of South Carolina was created to give voters a third choice in a polarized 2-party duopoly.  It could be the catalyst to replace the GOP as a majoritarian party that could challenge the dominance of the Democrats, but it would need to attract moderate refugees from a discredited GOP.  For any third party to become the major opposition party to the Democrat Party it must be led by moderate (center-right) elected officials.

            Strom Thurmond provided a precedent when he left the Democrats to lead the Dixiecrat Party in 1948, and later became a prominent Republican.  The 2016 election is another political watershed that will shape the future of partisan politics.  Neither the liberal Democrat Party nor Trump’s radical-right GOP can attract mainstream conservatives who value their traditions and also support progressive change—but the rise of a new majoritarian party could change that.

            The origins of the Republican Party provide a useful precedent.  It was born in the North in 1854 in a time of political crisis, when anti-slavery activists and modernists had no place in either the Democrat or Whig Party.  Refugees from a failing Whig Party gave life to a fledgling Republican Party that Abraham Lincoln then made into a dominant political party.

            Edmund Burke warned Americans before the U.S. Revolution that they would forge their own shackles.  The American Party of South Carolina can be a catalyst to save America from its self-imposed bondage to a failed 2-party duopoly.  After 162 years the Republican Party has forfeited its role as a major political party.  Now it’s back to the future for partisan politics.        

Notes:    

Jennifer Rubin of The Washington Post has predicted the demise of the Republican Party and several scenarios for the future, including a new party to replace a disgraced GOP.  See https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2016/10/13/trump-is-melting-down-what-happens-now/?utm_term=.62ca7af5e86a&wpisrc=nl_popns&wpmm=1; also    https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2016/10/10/breaking-the-spell-and-the-gops-grip/?utm_term=.831a561d143a&wpisrc=nl_popns&wpmm=1; and  https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2016/10/10/the-bottom-falls-out-as-we-knew-it-would/?utm_term=.2de4a23781a0&wpisrc=nl_popns&wpmm=1.

For Robert Kagan’s commentary on why we shouldn’t forgive the Republicans who sold their souls, see https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-cowardly-gop-has-engineered-its-own-suicide/2016/10/11/ec585af8-8f22-11e6-a6a3-d50061aa9fae_story.html?utm_term=.33d3b07adbbe&wpisrc=nl_opinions&wpmm=1.

Michael Gerson has commented on why Donald Trump is right: The GOP is utterly pathetic at https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/donald-trump-is-right-the-gop-is-utterly-pathetic/2016/10/13/6f85a8b2-9172-11e6-9c85-ac42097b8cc0_story.html?utm_term=.35b6cf9fa427&wpisrc=nl_headlines&wpmm=1; and on why Republicans deserve their sad fate at https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/republicans-deserve-their-sad-fate/2016/10/10/f6761bc0-8ef9-11e6-9c52-0b10449e33c4_story.html?utm_term=.73c70cbc62e3&wpisrc=nl_popns&wpmm=1.

On why women plan to vote for Trump, despite his lewd comments, see https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/on-a-women-for-trump-tour-across-nc-more-disdain-for-clinton-than-respect-for-trump/2016/10/13/16651978-9160-11e6-9c85-ac42097b8cc0_story.html?wpisrc=nl_headlines&wpmm=1.

On why Americans are losing faith in democracy and in each other, see https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/americans-are-losing-faith-in-democracy--and-in-each-other/2016/10/14/b35234ea-90c6-11e6-9c52-0b10449e33c4_story.html?utm_term=.a8e68b9df4df&wpisrc=nl_headlines&wpmm=1.

On the pervasive role of evangelical Christianity in the Trump movement—how the religious right has made a deal with the devil—see https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-religious-right-makes-a-deal-with-the-devil/2016/10/11/d0783e44-8fd5-11e6-9c85-ac42097b8cc0_story.html?utm_term=.0cf4c7f7cee3&wpisrc=nl_popns&wpmm=1.

On how The Christian religious right must renounce Trump or renounce its self-respect, see https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2016/10/07/the-christian-right-must-renounce-trump-or-renounce-its-self-respect/?utm_term=.9c3c05797884&wpisrc=nl_opinions&wpmm=1.

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

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