« April 2005 | Main | January 2006 »
June 30, 2005
The Religious Right and Christian Fundamentalists
The Religious Right and Christian Fundamentalists
Andrew Fink
June 26, 2005
Hear is a bit of trivia.Within the last few years a leader of a national religion made this pronouncement on stem cell research: “…no human embryos should be created specifically for stem cell experimentation, thus turning human life and human reproduction into a commodity”
We will get back to this at the end of my talk. But I want you to ponder this and consider whether this is a proper position for a religious leader to take; whether the policy makers ought to consider this leader’s view when making policy; and whether following this religious leader’s pronouncement would be a step towards a theocracy.
This week two nephews, both 11 stayed with us. One of them my youngest brother’s son, the other my oldest brother’s grandson. I spent hours at the beach, and more hours sitting at Michigan’s Adventure while they enjoyed the rides and the water park, and a then few more hours just fishing, so one would think I should be rested. I am, but only because I was able to take a long nap yesterday afternoon, after they left.
On Friday my brother Jim and his wife came to pick up the kids and stayed over night. Their six-year-old was with them. Friday night, about 9, their older daughter, living in Grand Rapids, came to see her parents and siblings.
They left at noon. Then about 4 yesterday, my sister Mary called from the highway, saying they were coming home from a camping trip and wanted a restaurant recommendation in Whitehall. So, while Helen slept I went to dinner with sister, brother-in-law, and four of their seven children. Mary’s oldest child has a rock band in Pittsburgh.
There is nothing that beats the love of a family. And I love my family.
Mary and her family, and Jim and his family live in Ypsilanti on the same street just two doors apart. They live in a neighborhood that has a large African American population and is on the edge of what we called colored town when I was a boy. My sister and her husband have helped a neighboring African-American boy get into and stay in a private college in Wisconsin. When this boy is home, he will walk into Mary’s house and Jim’s house, without knocking like any family member.
My nieces and nephews seem to be completely free of any racial prejudice or stereotyping. They live also on the edge of a nearly dead downtown. The theater down the street, that I went to for movies is now a porn theater. Drugs and prostitution are apparent. The thing that has kept their little neighborhood from slipping into complete disrepair is the houses. Many of the homes are magnificent -- what most of us would consider dream homes. The neighborhood struggles to survive because of the schools --middle class people with children choose a different school district. As one friend says, the only people moving into the neighborhood are gays and home-schoolers.
My older brother, Karl, is a retired judge. He lives in the country and commutes to a law practice in Ann Arbor, in a firm whose managing partner is a Jew. Karl’s first daughter practices law with Mary’s husband. His second daughter is married to an American Indian and is trained as a forester. His fourth daughter worried that her tattoo was not covered by her wedding dress.
My mother died when I was 19 and my father married a woman with two children just a little younger than me. Stepsister Peggy has a British Jew for a husband. Peggy teaches school in Ann Arbor. Her only daughter is an assistant producer of television shows. Stepbrother Lester, has a Japanese American daughter in law. His daughters are both on second marriages.
At least three of my nieces were pregnant when they married. I suspect that one of them got pregnant so she could marry.
When my father’s second wife died he married a woman 12 years younger than me. This woman had an African-American daughter, whom my father adopted. Olivia is technically my half-sister. She is 16. Her oldest niece is nearly 40. Olivia is a child who was to be aborted. When her mother changed her mind, my stepbrother’s family made the success of Olivia their personal mission.
With the exception of my Jewish stepbrother in law, all of these families are fundamental born again Christians. They believe the bible is true. They seek guidance from God in making their personal decisions. Then they act on their beliefs.
How many times have you heard it said of pro-lifers “They want to save the fetus but don’t care about the baby after it is born.” Well, that is not the case. My stepbrother’s wife confronted Olivia’s mother at the abortion clinic and persuaded her to keep the child. From that point on the success of the child was a project for the family. It was through this connection that my father met Olivia’s mother.
These people are legitimate participants in our society. They have the same rights as the rest of us. Their religious views do not invalidate their political positions. It pains me when I hear a UU dismiss a conservative political position with a comment about the religious right, as if that were a rational response. If we believe in the democratic process we must recognize it extends to all, even Christians. If we believe in reason, then we must address the arguments and political positions, not merely dismiss the religion of the proponent. In our own church, “religious right” and “fundamentalism” have become swear words, or words of denigration thrown out just to emphasize how bad something is.
Christians address political issues as we do; some trying to decide what is the best policy for society; some trying to decide what policy is best for them personally. You can argue with many of them; but some won’t listen. You can occasionally persuade some of them to change their mind. Some base their opinions on informed views of the world; some have a knee jerk reaction to the issues. As a group they are as imperfect as any group. As a group, they care as much for their fellow man as any of us.
But, some believe that the difference between the religious right and, say, the UUs of the world are that the religious right wants to impose its religious values on the rest of us leading to a theocracy. Well, if imposing ones religious values on the rest of us creates a theocracy, then the danger comes not from the right but from the left. This is what Bill Sinkford, President of the Unitarian Universalist Association, has to say about it. I quote:
“.. let me express some of the moral values held dear by the Unitarian Universalist community, which I lead, and by many other progressive people of faith:“We believe that feeding the hungry and clothing the naked are moral duties, and we will continue to work on behalf of economic justice. [I am pretty sure Sinkford is talking about government action here]“We believe that ensuring equal civil rights for gay and lesbian families is our moral duty, [civil rights in this context means government enforcing our sense of morality] and we will continue to work for Marriage Equality nationwide.
“We believe that serving as stewards of the earth is a moral duty, and we will continue to do everything in our power to protect the environment. [Again government action to enforce UUA’s moral values.]
“We believe that safeguarding a woman's right to choose is a moral duty, and we will vigorously oppose any efforts to eliminate or significantly compromise reproductive freedom.
“We believe that providing affordable health care for all Americans is a moral duty, and we will continue to advocate for medical rights for the young, the old, the frail, and all of those in need.“(Because the UUA believes it is the moral thing to do we should all pay taxes to provide medical care.)
Now, I do not think that Sinkford wants a theocracy. I think he wants the implementation of laws he thinks are good for society.
I do not think that Mr. Sinkford is disqualified from expressing his political views by virtue or his being the head of a religion. I wish UUs in general would recognize that those on the religious right have the same privilege to speak out, and should be given respect and dignity when they do.
Okay now back to that first quote. Was the author attempting to impose his religious views on us? Would it be wrong for our government policy makers to consider those views? Would that be a step towards theocracy?
The author of that quote about stem cells was our own Bill Sinkford/
Amen, Shalom {and here I added “that third one” because I had forgotten to type in the closing)
Okay, back to the quote regarding stem cell research. Did you think it was a Christian fundamentalist attempting to impose his values? Was it appropriate for a religious leader to speak on this issue? Would following this standard be a step toward theocracy?
Consider this: This was a statement by our UUA president Bill Sinkford.
Posted by harboruu at 10:03 AM | Comments (0)