Give Me Some of that Old Time Religion

This past week-end was our annual Family Reunion in Lancaster. On Saturday, before the family dinner, there is a liturgy of the mass. As usual, I gave a pass on the mass. One of my nephew's asked about my non-attendance -- if it meant that I was a non-believer. I tried to explain that my problems with the Catholic Church (and most other religions) were more a rejection of the institution of religion rather than of faith itself. As I said to him by way of example, I have a problem with any institution that deals with pedophile priests by covering up the problem, rather than trying to help the victims of that abuse.

I also believe that many politicians who profess their faith are merely pronouncing an expedient expression of an agenda item on a political platform rather than vocalizing a deeply held personal belief. Sister Joan Chittister has expressed my views in her thoughtful piece, We Need Candidates Who Are Really Religious, at Common Dreams:

The closer the United States gets to choosing a president, the more the event begins to look like a papal election: it’s all about religion and little about what religion teaches.

The United States, we love to say — and Europeans repeat in a kind of incredulous wonder — is the most “religious” country in the world. Meaning, of course, the most church-going country in the world. Whether or not going to church correlates well with religious values is clearly a debatable subject. To wit, the corporal works of mercy — as in, feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, clothe the naked, house the homeless, visit the imprisoned, visit the sick, and bury the dead. It is on these criteria in Matthew 25: 31-46, however, that Jesus rests his definition of salvation. No small thing for those who considers themselves “religious.” No small thing, then, one would think, if a nation — if a candidate for political office — were really serious about being “religious.”

* * * *

In the nation in which, they tell us, the last two elections were decided by Catholic and Evangelical Christians, the need to define what we mean when we say we’re looking for a candidate with “religious” values is not an idle exercise. Given all our commitment to bible-quoting candidates, how do we stack up as a religious people against the religious principles we’re told are essential to Christianity? The answers may make us all think again about what religion really means where politics are concerned.

* * * *

It’s time, it seems, if we’re Christian, to judge people the way Jesus told us to judge them: “By their fruits.” But if that’s the case, then the question is not: What do each of these candidates tell us about how religious they are? The question is: What do each of these candidates plan to do to make the corporal works of mercy a living sign of the Christian tradition in this so-called Christian culture?

In fact, how conscious are we of the silent erosion of each of these works of mercy in the society around us while we define “religion” as single-issue politics? After all, food and education and decent housing and support services are exactly the things that take the strain off families and make abortion unnecessary.

From where I stand, it may well be our own unawareness of the loss of these services that’s making it so difficult for us to make a distinction between what is really “religious” about our candidates and what is only religion being used as another kind of slippery election strategy. God save us all from that kind of religion again.

Amen to that, as they say. I much prefer the good old days when you didn't discuss sex, religion or politics in polite company. Now, not only do Republicans want to hold court on these topics, they want to impose their views on everyone else.

(Via The Quaker Agitator -- who I'm glad to say is back)

Tags: Religion, Politics