[Dialogue] Faith in politics

[KroegerD at aol.com]

We were recently asked how we would respond to the following letter to the  
editor, which was published in The New York  Times: 
"Paul Krugman says Democrats need to make it clear  they value faith. Is 
everyone caving into this religious nonsense? What is faith  but believing in 
something without any evidence? Why should Democrats value  that? Formidable as 
the task may seem at present, the long-term need is to  persuade Americans that 
having evidence for your beliefs is a good  idea."

— Peter Singer, Princeton professor of ethics, letter to the  editor, The New 
York Times, Nov. 8,  2004 
I have never been attracted to organized religion and do not define myself as 
 a person of faith. But I am intensely interested in this question of the  
intersection of faith and politics. What follows reflects my personal view on  
this sensitive issue, one that is generally shared at Rockridge, but which may 
not square with the views of some  of our readers. I will answer the question 
not from the point of view of the  Democratic Party but with reference to 
progressive attitudes. I hope that it  will inspire a spirited and respectful 
conversation, to which I will continue to  weigh in. 
Faith is a _contested concept_ 
(http://www.rockridgenation.org/blog/archive/2007/05/07/thinking-points-discussion-of-chapter-6-part-1-our-american-values#co
ntested_concept) . Peter Singer's 2004 letter presents one  understanding. He 
believes that religious faith is superstitious "nonsense,"  weak-mindedness. 
He posits that we should only value beliefs supported by  evidence. This 
objectivist, rationalist approach seems to assume that people do  or even can form 
their beliefs in a purely conscious, rational and fact-based  way. 
As we have written, our minds don't work the way Singer's position suggests.  
Cognitive scientists estimate that 98% of our "thinking" occurs below the 
level  of consciousness. Our opinions and beliefs derive from a wide range of 
factors  that have little to do with "evidence." They come largely from our 
embodied  experiences and the messages we hear often enough to be instantiated in 
our  brains. It doesn't matter whether they are "true" or supported by 
evidence. They  comprise our world view. 
How many of our progressive values and ideas are supported by evidence? On  
what evidence do we base our adherence to the values of empathy, fairness,  
justice, and equality? What evidence supports our faith in our ability to make a  
better world? 
There are other views. One is that faith is an affirmation of the positive  
possibilities of life -- without evidence. Another is that faith is holding  
certain things -- like the natural world -- sacred. Still another view of faith  
is the moral conviction that some things are greater than the individual,  
whether it's a higher being or a sense of awe and connection with the world and  
the beings in it. 
Granted, faith can lead to intolerance and much worse. Religious faith has  
been used to justify war, torture, political oppression, and genocide, to 
oppose  reproductive rights and the freedom to marry, to deny evolution, and to 
promote  authoritarianism. Religion can lead to a form of tribalism, separating 
rather  than connecting people. But should we blame faith, or the triumph of 
the baser  instincts within individuals? 
Faith has been the primary inspiration for some of our greatest leaders.  
Mahatma Gandhi's religious faith was central to his political and social  
philosophy. In fact, Gandhi credited his faith for his political courage: "Only  he 
can take great resolves who has indomitable faith in God and has fear in  God." 
His faith extended beyond God: "Non-violence requires a double faith,  faith 
in God and also faith in man." One might ask which of these faiths  required a 
greater suspension of evidence-based thinking. 
The Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. drew inspiration from Gandhi. Like Gandhi,  
he understood his mission in religious terms. The values that propelled him to 
 the leadership of the Civil Rights Movement were inseparable from his faith. 
In  his famous 1963 "Letter from the Birmingham Jail," in which he responded 
to  critics of his campaign of non-violent resistance, he said: 
"I am in Birmingham because injustice is here. Just  as the prophets of the 
eighth century B.C. left their villages and carried their  'thus saith the 
Lord' far beyond the boundaries of their home towns, and just as  the Apostle Paul 
left his village of Tarsus and carried the gospel of Jesus  Christ to the far 
corners of the Greco-Roman world, so am I compelled to carry  the gospel of 
freedom beyond my own home town. Like Paul, I must constantly  respond to the 
Macedonian call for aid." 
Five years later, on the very eve of his assassination, he said in an eerily  
prescient speech: 
"Well, I don't know what will happen now. We've got  some difficult days 
ahead. But it doesn't matter with me now. Because I've been  to the mountaintop. 
And I don't mind. Like anybody, I would like to live a long  life. Longevity 
has its place. But I'm not concerned about that now. I just want  to do God's 
will. And He's allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I've looked  over. And 
I've seen the promised land. I may not get there with you. But I want  you to 
know tonight, that we, as a people will get to the promised land. And I'm  
happy, tonight. I'm not worried about anything. I'm not fearing any man. Mine  
eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord." 
Progressives are bound together by values. We believe in acting  
empathetically and with responsibility. We value cooperation and community. We  model 
nurturance. We promote inclusion over exclusivity. We exalt the attitude  of "we 
are in this together" over "look out for number one." Like Gandhi and  King, we 
keep the faith that we can make the world a better place. If some of  those 
who share our values and beliefs happen to tie them to their religious  faith, 
why should other progressives look askance? Why shouldn't secular  
progressives embrace the countless thousands of religious progressives in this  country? 
Who are we to say that secular teachings represent the only legitimate  path 
to progressive attitudes? And ultimately, doesn't turning our backs to  people 
of faith amount to the very intolerance that we decry? 
If I were to convene a progressive caucus, and if King and Gandhi were still  
alive, they would be at the top of my invitation list, along with the Dalai 
Lama  and the likes of the Rev. Jim Wallis and Rabbi Michael Lerner. And I 
would ask  none of them to check their faith at the door. 
Bruce Budner
The Rockridge  Institute




**************The year's hottest artists on the red carpet at the Grammy 
Awards. Go to AOL Music.      
(http://music.aol.com/grammys?NCID=aolcmp00300000002565)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://wedgeblade.net/pipermail/dialogue_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20080211/4fb6b3ed/attachment-0001.html