Why? Secularism, despite what the Religious Right would have you believe, is not a corrosive force. It is not an anti-religious force. Secularism mandates neutrality, not hostility, toward faith. A secular government is one that recognizes that it has no religious functions.
Governments that bulldoze churches, ban private worship and arrest clergy are not promoting secularism. They are promoting hostility toward religion. A secular state allows many religions to flourish. It extends preference toward none but welcomes all. It neither aids nor hinders religion.
America's great religious diversity came about thanks to the secular state. The division of religion and government, as envisioned by leaders like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison as well as religious figures like John Leland and Isaac Backus, led to an explosion of religiosity and helped bring about the Great Awakening. Free from the fear of government punishment, Americans reveled in their liberty. People who were not happy in their churches found or formed others. Self-proclaimed prophets came and went. Some of their churches collapsed, others thrived. Advocates of nonChristian religions didn't fear to come to our shores. Freethinkers challenged all faiths. The secular state sparked a robust exchange of ideas. We are a better nation for this.
Yet even as we've argued, debated and fought over religion, our government, at least in modern times, has been careful not to take sides. And it here that progressives must be cautious. If the pendulum is swinging our way, we must not seek to enlist the government on "our" side of religion.
An example: I believe Jesus expressed a profound and moving concern for the plight of the poor and the sick. The passages in the New Testament where Jesus expresses this view are too numerous to list here. Suffice to say, helping the least among us was a guiding force of Jesus's ministry. So should individual Christians help the poor and sick because Jesus said so? Of course. But a progressive government's rationales must be different. A shared humanity demands that it take into account the plight of those in need.
Imagine a Bible in which Jesus talked about salvation but said nothing about the poor. Would that mean we could ignore them as well? No progressive Christian I know would endorse that view. Many of us are compelled by our faith to help those in need, but we reach out to our brothers and sisters in secular communities and find them equally willing to help. The Bible does not motivate them, yet their vision is no less pristine.
Martin Luther King spoke forcefully of the need to end segregation. He frequently invoked the Bible. As a young man, I was inspired by King's view. It has informed my interpretation of the scriptures in profound ways. Yet there are those who have used the Bible to buttress segregation. They preached from pulpits in the South during the Civil War. To me, they were profoundly and tragically misguided. Still, they pointed to a scripture source.
Rather than have the government say, "This version of scripture is correct, and this one is wrong," I'd prefer the state to say, "Scriptures are irrelevant to the debate. We oppose racial segregation because racial segregation is evil and offensive to the shared values we hold as members of the same species. It will not be tolerated."
It was King himself who consistently called upon people to look to their faith, but the government to look to the Constitution, to do justice. "All we say to America is, Be true to what you said on paper,"' King said during a speech at the Mason Temple in Memphis, the night before he was assassinated.
Many progressive Christians are appalled by our failure to adequately protect the environment. I am one of them. I applaud the growing religious movement that seeks to take the threat of global warming seriously. Yet I recognize the limits of an argument that states, "The Bible says God gave us this planet, and thus we have an obligation to care for it." It is too easily countered by someone waving the very same Bible who says, "It doesn't really matter what we do to the planet because Jesus is coming back soon."
Most progressive positions dovetail nicely with secular ratio nales, thus they can be supported by people of faith and no faith. Contrast this with the policy positions of the Religious Right. What is the secular reason for teaching the Book of Genesis in public school science classes? What is the secular reason for compelling young children to say prayers every day in a public school classroom? What is the secular reason for denying an entire class of Americans-gays and lesbians-basic civil rights? What is the secular reason for erecting a Christian religious symbol in front of city hall?
The leaders of Religious Right organizations have for years argued that all they want is a place at the table, the right to have their voice heard.They've had that for a long time. In fact, their goal is quite different: to own the table and decide who sits there. Too often I've heard those who lead Religious Right groups and those who follow them demand "biblical" government. Conversely, they do not hesitate to label public policy initiatives with which they disagree "unbiblical." Leaders of these groups brag about having a "biblical worldview" and pressure candidates for public office to adopt one as well.
A system of laws based on one faction's interpretation of the Bible is incompatible with democracy. The proper name for governments like that is theocracy. We cannot have a state based on the Bible-either a liberal or a conservative interpretation-simply because our Constitution does not allow it.
Progressives would never use labels such as "unbiblical," recognizing it for what it is: the code language of the theocrats. Yet I cannot help but shudder a bit when I see a progressive politician in a church pulpit on Sunday promise to end homelessness and poverty because Jesus has commanded it. Likewise, I am bothered when I see that same politician accept a political endorsement from a preacher or hold what amounts to a campaign rally in a church.
A question that is rarely posed by the press is simply, "If elected, what role, if any, will your religious beliefs have in determining your domestic or foreign policy?" In my view, the answer should be, "Even when I have been informed by the ethical teachings of my faith, any implementation of those beliefs must be consistent with the strictures of the Constitution and must be based on more than my ability to cite a text from scripture to justify that position."
More liberal religious voices are needed in these times. They have for too many years been drowned out by the loud, and often coarse, voice of the Religious Right. Yet that progressive voice must be one of inclusion, not exclusion. The Religious Right has made many errors over the years. One of the worst was alienating huge numbers of Americans by telling them that they are little more than second-class citizens who have embraced the "wrong" faith.
Progressives must learn from that mistake. We should welcome a religious voice to the public square, but let us not stop there. Anyone who supports the type of society we want to see-free, open and affirming of all-should be welcomed into our coalition.
I envision not a new progressive religious movement but a new progressive American movement. It will celebrate what is best about our nation, including the genius of our founding document, which guarantees religious and philosophical freedom to all. Religious people will have an important role to play in this movement. Their faith will serve as a source of inspiration, generating the energy and enthusiasm that any true activist movement must have. During church services, they will build alliances and win new support. Their ministers will speak prophetically on behalf of this movement. Yet we will not march under the banner of the cross. Participants will pull their inspiration from many holy books and secular writings, but we'll all be moving forward under the American flag.
This model will avoid the pitfalls of the Religious Right, a movement marked by intolerance, division and often a theology based on hate. As we push forward propelled by a very different vision, one that emphasizes our shared humanity and the civic values that bring us together, we will lift up our voices, some in hymn, others in song, but all in the same key.
TOWARD A THEOLOGY
OF SEXUAL JUSTICE
REV. DEBRA W. HAFFNER
AND
TIMOTHY PALMER
Many progressive leaders today sense a shift toward moderation among some religious conservatives, as both sides of this seemingly promising trend seek common ground, and a set of shared interests on which a political coalition might be built. But there is a troubling underside: Some well-meaning progressives are privately cautioning advocates for sexual justice to recede quietly into the background.
Their thinking seems to be that abortion and marriage for same-sex couples have polarized the electorate, overshadowing other moral issues. As a result, they argue for a shift in the debate, away from what they dismiss as "pelvic politics" and toward broader concerns, such as poverty and hunger, the war in Iraq and global warming. Their concern is that differences over sexuality will hinder them from forming coalitions with moderate evangelicals and Catholics, thus forestalling the election of progressive candidates. They instead prefer to seek common ground with the right on shared issues.
This approach is narrow-minded and dangerous for millions of people and their families, as abortion and marriage equality cannot be considered peripheral issues by any reasonable standard. Con sider that more than a third of American women have had abortions, and that four in 10 Americans have a family member or close friend who is lesbian or gay. Indeed, the full scope of sexual justice embraces anyone who is concerned with gender equality, reproductive rights and health care, and the right to privacy, not to mention education, equality of opportunity and the dignity of all persons. These issues are too important to the well-being of the nation to be buried under "common ground."
SEXUAL JUSTICE IS SOCIAL JUSTICE
The call to sacrifice sexual justice issues is not only wrong, it is counterproductive. Pushing aside women's reproductive rights and equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) persons would harm the very constituencies that faith communities agree they are most called to serve-people in poverty and children.
Poor women suffer the most when contraception, emergency contraception, and abortion services are not readily available. In the United States, the rate of unintended births is five times greater among poor women than among higher-income women. Between 1994 and 2001, unintended births among poor women actually grew 44 percent. As a result, more than half of the unwanted children in this country are born into poverty. The trends are particularly stark among teenagers. Although teen pregnancy and birth rates have declined by one-third since the early 1990s, one in three American girls still get pregnant by the age of twenty. While rates of sexual activity among lower- and higher-income adolescents are virtually identical, the outcomes are not, as poor and low-income adolescents account for nearly three-quarters of women aged 15-19 who become pregnant.'
Consider as well the cost of discrimination for LGBT persons, particularly youth. The 2000 U.S. Census counted nearly 600,000 same-sex households, although the actual number is surely much higher. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) estimates that there are anywhere from 1 to 10 million children living in these homes. Denied the 1,318 marriage benefits currently conferred by federal law, same-sex couples must negotiate an obstacle course to ensure joint-parenting rights, secure family health benefits, and provide the level of stability that married heterosexual couples take for granted. As the AAP concluded, "children of same-gender parents often experience economic, legal and familial insecurity as a result of the absence of legal recognition of their bonds of their non-biological parents." Of course, the burden of legalized discrimination falls heaviest on lower-income families, who cannot afford lawyers to assist them. Similarly, as many as 3 million Americans identify as transgender, many of them still in their teens. Access to affordable health care services specific to their needs is a chronic problem. Therefore, transgender persons who are poor often turn to illegal medications and harmful street procedures because they cannot afford appropriate medical care.2
We must not marginalize these issues. We must instead feature them in a broad agenda that supports:
• Comprehensive, age-appropriate sexuality education throughout the life span that includes abstinence, contraception and prevention of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs)
• A responsible approach to adolescent sexuality that recognizes the formation of sexual identity as a key developmental task;
• Full access to affordable, high-quality sexual and reproductive health services, including voluntary contraception, abortion, HIV/STD prevention and treatment, and quality medical services for LGBT persons;
• Full inclusion of women and LGBT persons in religious and public life, including ordination, marriage equality and anti-discrimination laws;
• An understanding and embrace of sexual and gender diversity;
• Support for those who challenge sexual and social oppression and work for justice within their congregations and denominations, and in politics and government;
Progressive religious leaders must adopt a theology of sexual justice. Only then can they enable America's political leaders-not to mention their own congregants-to advance the full social justice agenda that their faith traditions proclaim.
A THEOLOGY OF SEXUAL JUSTICE
Sexual justice is not simply a matter of personal piety. Nor it is about what people do in their bedrooms. Rather, the issues go to the heart of what many people of faith believe: that all are created in God's image, and all are called to celebrate the blessings of their sexuality with holiness and integrity.
The Religious Institute on Sexual Morality, Justice, and Healing was founded in 2001 to realize the vision of the Religious Declaration on Sexual Morality, Justice, and Healing, a declaration now endorsed by close to 3,000 clergy, theologians and religious educators from more than 45 faith traditions. Since 2001, we have convened colloquia of prominent scholars and clergy from various traditions in order to create a series of open letters that provide a framework for religious leaders to address sexual and reproductive justice in their congregations, and to become advocates in the public square.
The emerging theology of sexual justice focuses on personal relationships, integrity and justice, rather than on particular sexual acts. All persons have the right and responsibility to lead sexual lives that express love, mutuality, commitment, consent and pleasure. Grounded in respect for the body and for the vulnerability that intimacy brings, this ethic fosters physical, emotional and spiritual health. It accepts no double standards and applies to all persons, without regard to sex, gender, color, age, bodily condition, marital status or sexual orientation.
Children and adolescents. It is in childhood and adolescence that individuals begin to develop the sexual wisdom, values and morality that determine whether they will become sexually healthy adults. Responsible religious leaders want young people to learn about their sexuality not primarily from the media or their peers, but from their parents, faith communities and school-based programs that address the biological, psychological, cultural, ethical and spiritual dimensions of sexuality. These programs must be age-appropriate, accurate and truthful, and have both immediate relevance and applicability for later life.
Young people need help developing their capacity for moral discernment and a freely informed conscience. Education that respects and empowers young people has more integrity than education based on incomplete information, fear and shame. Programs that teach abstinence exclusively and withhold information about pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease prevention fail young people. Children need to know "there is a time to embrace and a time to refrain from embracing," but they also need the skills to make moral and healthy decisions about relationships for themselves, now, and in their adult lives.
Women. A theology of sexual justice compels progressive religious leaders to support a woman's moral agency in all aspects of her life, including her sexual and reproductive health. A woman has the capacity, right and responsibility to make the moral decision as to whether an abortion is justified in her specific circumstances. That decision is best made when it includes a well-informed conscience, ser
ious reflection, insights from her faith and values, and consultation with a caring partner, family members and spiritual counselor.
Virtually all religious traditions affirm that life is sacred. It is precisely because life and parenthood are precious that no woman should be coerced to carry a pregnancy to term. A theology of sexual justice supports responsible procreation, the widespread availability of contraception, prenatal care and intentional parenting.' he sanctity of human life is best upheld when it is not created carelessly.
Religious traditions have different beliefs on the value of fetal life, often according greater value as fetal development progresses. Many traditions affirm that the health and life of the woman must take precedence over the life of the fetus. Scripture neither condemns nor prohibits abortion. It does, however, call people to act compassionately and justly when facing difficult moral decisions. Scriptural commitment to the most marginalized means that pregnancy, childbearing and abortion should be safe for all women. Scriptural commitment to truth-telling means that women must have accurate information as they make their decisions.
A theology of sexual justice respects the right of all people and faiths to set different moral standards. No single religious voice can speak for all faith traditions on abortion, or any other moral issue, nor should government take sides on religious differences. Women must have the right to apply or reject the principles of their faith without legal restriction. Separately, and just as importantly, our constitutional democracy respects the right of individuals to develop their own conscience, religious or otherwise, with government as the guarantor of that right.
Diverse sexualities and genders. Although it is customary to categorize people as male or female, heterosexual or homosexual, this kind of binary thinking fails to reflect the full diversity of human experience. A growing body of social and scientific research about the origins of sexual orientation and gender identity, together with the courageous witness of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, inspires a theology that affirms sexual and gender diversity as a blessed part of life.
Dispatches from the religious left Page 8
