January, 2006 Calendar In This Issue: Origin of “The Twelve Days of Christmas” The End of Anglicanism A Jewish Response to Christian Arrogance… At the Turning of the Year… Twelfth Night and the Feast of the Epiphany

(Editor’s Note: Recently, an ecumenical group of conservative Christians, calling themselves the “Association for Church Renewal Leaders,” issued a vitriolic broadside condemning “liberal Christians” for seeking a more inclusive welcome for gay and lesbian persons. Rabbi Eric Yoffic, president of the Union for Reform Judaism, the largest Jewish organization in America, wrote this response to the “Houston Statement” of the conservative (reactionary) church “leaders”)

We live at a time when religious matters are at the center of our country’s political agenda. And Houston is the site of a history-making development in church-state relations.

In 1960, John F. Kennedy was attempting to become the first Catholic to be elected president of the United States. Under pressure to confront “the religious issue,” Senator Kennedy appeared before the Greater Houston Ministerial Association on September 12 to clarify his position on the relationship between religion and state. Listen well to his words:

“It is apparently necessary for me to state once again—not what kind of church I believe in, for that should be important only to me, but what kind of America I believe in. I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute – where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote – where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference … I believe in an America … where there is not Catholic vote, no anti-Catholic vote, no bloc voting of any kind – and where Catholics, Protestants, and Jews, at both the lay and pastoral levels, will refrain from those attitudes of disdain and division which have so often marred their works in the past, and promote instead the American ideal of brotherhood.”

This statement was greeted by acclaim by the Protestant leadership of this city and by the religious leadership of America. And Senator Kennedy’s words remain a superb statement of how government and religion should interact in this great country. That being so, what do we have to say to our fellow Americans on the Religious Right, here and elsewhere, who challenge these principles?

First, let’s be clear on what we are not saying. We are not saying that religion should be hidden from view. We have only respect for those elected officials who profess a deep religious belief, and we are appalled when media voices pour scorn on religious people.

But we are saying that no matter how profoundly religion influences you, when you make a public argument, you must ground your statements in reason and in a language of morality that is accessible to everyone – to people of different religions or no religion at all. In our diverse democracy, Americans need a common political discourse not dominated by exclusivist theology. They do not want to hear that unless you attend my church, accept my God and study my sacred text, you cannot be a moral person.

We are particularly offended by the suggestion that the opposite of the Religious Right is the voice of atheism. We are appalled when “people of faith” is used in such a way that it excludes us, as well as most Jews, Catholics, and Muslims. What could be more bigoted than to claim that you have a monopoly on God and that anyone who disagrees with you is not a person of faith?

So we ask our neighbors on the Religious Right to take note: We are religious Jews, gathered in Houston to study, pray, and commit ourselves to God. And yes, we are generally liberal in our politics. But our liberalism flows directly from our religious commitments.

And we worry that you don’t understand what this means, or what it means for anyone to be a liberal religious believer. What it means is this: that we bring a measure of humility to our religious belief. We study religious texts day and night, but we have no direct lines to heaven and we aren’t always sure that we know God’s will. It means believing that religion involves concern for the poor and the needy, and giving a fair shake to all. When people talk about God and yet ignore justice, it just feels downright wrong to us. When they cloak themselves in religion and forget mercy, it strikes us as blasphemy. It means that “family values” require providing health care to every child and that God cares about the 12 million children without health insurance. It means valuing a child with diabetes over a frozen embryo in a fertility clinic, and seeing the teaching of science as a primary social good. And it means reserving the right for each person to prayerfully make decisions for herself when she dies.

It also means believing in legal protection for gay couples. We understand those who believe that the Bible opposes gay marriage, event though we read that text in a very different way. But we cannot understand why any two people who make a lifelong commitment to each other should be denied legal guarantees that protect them and their children and benefit the broader society. We cannot forget that when Hitler came to power in 1933, one of the first things that he did was ban gay organizations. And today, we cannot feel anything but rage when we hear about gay men and women, some on the front lines, being hounded out of our armed services. Yes, we can disagree about gay marriage. But there is no excuse for hateful rhetoric that fuels the hellfires of anti-gay bigotry.

All of these views are deeply rooted in our religious beliefs and texts. We are surprised that when it comes to the Hebrew Bible, a text we hold in common, your reading of its message is so different from ours. As for the New Testament, we claim no expertise, but our liberal Christian friends point out that there is much there that supports our approach. Jesus healed the sick, so he might have some concern for those 45 million Americans without insurance who are unable to see a doctor; he was not a hater, so would surely not join in demonizing gays; and he spoke constantly of the poor and the marginalized. In general, the Bible, both Hebrew and Christian, has far more to say about caring for the poor than about eradicating sexual sin.

In short, there are alternative ways for deeply religious people to understand the important issues of the day; we need to talk to one another about these matters; and we suggest, humbly, that there may be things that you can learn from religious liberals in these discussions.

At the same time, there are things that we can learn from you. You have talked about the coarsening of popular culture that makes it difficult to raise honorable, decent children. Reasonable people don’t want television constantly pushing junk food on their children, and they don’t want wardrobe malfunctions when they are watching the Super Bowl with their ten-year-olds. While we oppose censorship in these matters, it should be possible to arrive at voluntary standards to which networks and sponsors would adhere.

We can also agree on other things, such as battling religious persecution and fighting sex trafficking abroad. So let’s focus on working together in these areas, and on discussing everything else with civility.

And while we bring no preconditions to the table, our starting point will be Senator Kennedy’s starting point forty-five years ago; that tolerance is an American value and a religious necessity; that religion is far too important to be entangled with government; that we need beware the zealots who want to make their religion the religion of everyone else; and that we all need to put our trust in America, the most religiously diverse country in the world.

Let the dialogue begin.

Copyright © 2006 St. Augustine by-the-Sea