Mixing politics and religion

It is vital that religious organizations educate their congregants

about how their faith tradition relates to the critical issues of the

day. But it should be up to each individual to decide which

combination of candidates, parties and legislation would best

represent those values.

At the Zen Center, formal talks and discussions are given

periodically about war, poverty, human rights, consumerism, the

environment and personal growth in ethical decision-making. We

emphasize a daily life and engaged practice where meditative

awareness guides all activities, including involvement in the

political arena, whether by voting, debating, protesting or running

for office. I would consider it highly unethical for me to imply that

a good Zen practitioner would vote for whatever candidate was my

preference.

With the avalanche of spam and junk mail, as well as concerns

about privacy and identity theft, it is important for an organization

to have clear guidelines about the proper use of its mailing list. In

our case, those who have visited the Center, made inquiries or

practiced here are assured that their addresses will not be given to

any other organization for any purpose. It would be unethical for a

practitioner trusted with our mailing list to use it for campaign

purposes.

During social time at the Zen Center or outside the Center,

practitioners are free to talk about whatever they wish. In the past

year, a quilting club has emerged, as well as a group involved in the

raw-food, vegan lifestyle. I don’t quilt, and I do eat cooked food,

but I am glad to see how the flow of community life has naturally led

to people discovering new friends and sharing varied interests. It is

not the role of the Center to endorse or interfere with the social

activities of the members. In this context, people could discuss

their campaign activities or invite people to potlucks at their

homes, as long as it was very clear that this was a personal

interest, not a Zen Center-sponsored activity.

Lastly, religious organizations that receive tax-exempt status are

specifically prohibited from participating in a political campaign,

endorsing candidates or encouraging people to vote for or against a

particular candidate, even on the basis of nonpartisan criteria. Last

month, the IRS sent a letter to national political parties on the

subject of political activities, stating: “ ... We want to ensure

that the political committees and the candidates they support

understand the rules.”

I believe that respect for the freedom of people who practice at

our Center and trust in their day-to-day decisions -- including

political choices -- is the best rule.

REV. DR. DEBORAH BARRETT

Zen Center of Orange County

Costa Mesa

“Vote your hopes, not your fears. Vote!” is the only direction I

give other members of this parish church before each and every

election.

“Religious leaders” should base our political opinions on our

spiritual heritage(s); and hopefully, we regularly and faithfully

vote ... our hopes, not our fears. Our challenge is to separate

mandates to justice, peace, equality and life from partisan politics.

Clearly, “religious leaders” are called to be advocates of peace with

justice and equality in life, and more. But when it comes to ballot

issues, we are like every other human being, basing our votes on our

faith commitments. I have voted in every election for which I’ve been

eligible. I suspect that members of this congregation think they know

how I vote, but I hope my votes would sometimes surprise.

As a voter, I have personally supported political issues and

candidates publicly. I have never done so in my “religious leader”

role, that is, as “rector/senior pastor of Saint Michael & All Angels

Episcopal Parish Church, Corona del Mar.” In 31 years, I have not

been asked to allow a candidate for public office or a

proponent/opponent of a ballot issue to speak in a forum to which I

control access, but I can imagine circumstances (peace with justice

and equality in life, for examples) which would motivate me to take

such a possibility to the staff and vestry (board of directors) for

advice and counsel. I understand how unwise it would be for me to

make such a decision unilaterally, and education would have to be

more our goal than advocacy. I would not allow our directory to be

used by any groups outside the church. Like many ministries of the

Episcopal Church, we have a policy expressly prohibiting doing so.

Politikos, the root of our word “political,” means “the total

complex of relations between human beings in society.” So, I

understand that almost everything I do as a “religious leader” is

“political.” Any position I or, I think, any other person of faith

advocates should be based on the mandates of our religious

heritage(s). For me, these include: gratitude and hospitality,

responsible choice, equality in life, peace with justice, and

lovingly voting “our hopes, not our fears.”

THE VERY REV. CANON

PETER D. HAYNES

Saint Michael & All Angels

Episcopal Church

Corona del Mar

This morning, I am writing from Uganda. In Africa, politics and

religion mixing is accepted as the norm. I believe it is right and

proper for a church to get involved in encouraging its membership to

vote and providing its membership with the information needed to make

a proper decision. On the other hand, I am uncomfortable with having

politicians stumping in the pulpit. If they are not teaching God’s

Word, they shouldn’t be in the pulpit.

SENIOR ASSOCIATE PASTOR

RIC OLSEN

Harbor Trinity

Costa Mesa

What commonly sets the clergy apart from lay people is their

immersion in religious thought and expertise in the spiritual domain.

They are recognized as qualified interpreters of a Faith, as windows

through which believers can perceive a tradition and heritage.

Ordination as clergy is not accompanied by a grant of superior

political insight. No special prescience into matters of statecraft,

strategic planning and diplomatic intricacies is bestowed on stewards

of the religious life. It is arrogant to declaim from the pulpit on

the virtues of one candidate over another, stamping that office

seeker with the imprimatur of God.

Of course, the ancient Prophets of Israel inveighed against the

rulers of their day, highlighting their venality, railing at this or

that corrupt reign. But there are no Prophets today, religious

figures who can claim their mantle of infallibility, who receive

incontrovertible messages from the Almighty, directing their

denunciations. There are no Samuels among us, taking the crown from

Saul and fitting it onto the head of David.

Clergy must address the fateful issues of the times: justice and

injustice, war and peace, tyranny and freedom, wealth and poverty,

plenty and hunger, sickness and health. They must man the battlements

against moral free-fall and must disturb the comfortable. It is then

best left to the integrity and conscience of each member of the flock

to determine which candidate will better fulfill the vision of a

better life, a more cohesive society and peaceful world.

I do not believe God subscribes to either the Democratic or

Republican party platforms, nor that he has a position on reducing

the deficit, lowering taxes or how best to stimulate the economy, nor

that he approves of the editorial stance of the L.A. Times over that

of the Wall St. Journal. I do not think he necessarily wanted to

“keep cool with Coolidge,” “liked Ike,” wanted to go “all the way

with LBJ” or thought “Nixon’s the one.”

Clergy should be circumspect in recognizing the peril of

associating God with policies and programs and of “putting their

trust in princes.” Haven’t we clergy enough with which to deal in

confining ourselves to teaching about religion?

RABBI MARK MILLER

Temple Bat Yam

Newport Beach