Julia Neuberger
Rabbi, Chair, Member of Britian's House of Lords

Julia Neuberger

Neuberger is a trustee of the British Council, Jewish Care, and the Booker Prize Foundation, as well as founding trustee of the Walter and Liesel Schwab Charitable Trust.

 ALL POSTS

From Europe, Curiosity and Admiration

As the Irish Times recently reported (Aug, 25), Cardinal Sean Brady's suggestion that growing unease among Christians about the direction in which the EU was headed might account for the Irish rejection of the Lisbon treaty. There is clearly serious interest here in Europe in the role religion plays in politics in the U.S.

Brady suggested that the EU was increasingly governed by the secular tradition "rather than by the Christian memory and heritage of the vast majority of member states", and was intrigued by the openness on questions of religion within the U.S., where church and state are separated constitutionally, and where diversity is a matter of pride, rather than, as in much of Europe, concern.

So in the light of all that, what should Obama and McCain see as the role religion should play? Well, they should certainly be honest about their own faith. They should be clear that whatever they do-- e.g. prayer breakfasts-- should not exclude others of other faiths. And they should argue the case for the prevalence of concern about faith in America, given the constitutional situation. I would also suggest, more hesitantly, that they might wish to draw together a group of religious leaders from a variety of faiths and communities to discuss the role that faith should play in provision of services in the United States, given the passionate arguments that rage about that, and that they should be prepared to speak on 'religious' platforms, provided they remain honest, and do not only try to please!!!

By Julia Neuberger  |  September 1, 2008; 8:38 AM ET Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati  
Previous: At the Republican National Convention--New Moon Ritual | Next: Palin's Profound Experience

Comments

Please report offensive comments below.



Kwaayesnama, nations cannot kill, they are not people.

Romans 13 makes it clear that Christians are to obey the civil authorities (as long as that does not interfere with Christian principles). This includes being a soldier, if necessary. Luke 3 has John the Baptist telling soldiers not to extort people, to be content with their wages - not to quit.

Posted by: nedbrek | September 3, 2008 7:29 PM
Report Offensive Comment

In my bible the fifth commandment reads simply and clearly: “THOU SHALT NOT KILL”. What is your view of a nation invading a country under false pretenses and killing and maiming thousands if not millions of people? Is that MURDER?

Posted by: Kwaayesnama | September 3, 2008 3:12 PM
Report Offensive Comment

It fascinates me to compare the role of religion in politics in the US versus the UK.

In the US, the unamended Constitution forbids a religious test to hold office; and the 1st amendment prohibits "government" from promoting religion (nor forbidding it). So the United States has no established religion. But it is inconceivable that someone running for higher office would be able to avoid making public their official religious views.

In the United Kingdom, where there is an established religion; it is unseemly for someone running for higher office to make public their official religious views. Mr. Blair's press secretary said "We don't do religion." Mr. Blair is perhaps the most authentically religious politician in recent British history, in his personal life.

Posted by: puzzled | September 3, 2008 10:34 AM
Report Offensive Comment

I find very frustrating to meet once and again with people like 'shafiuddin'. There is very little respecte and tolerance in his/her discourse. Of course that everyone of as holds a different idea of God. His/hers is just one more and nothing else. I just can think that if his god did not confuse him/her, he/she alone did... if not, i simply cannot accept this sort of 'religious person' within our democration system.

Posted by: Noel | September 3, 2008 9:42 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Shafiuddin, that's a lot of caps :)

But I think there is a good point in there:
"SO ONE RELIGION IS REAL/CORRECT ALL OTHERS ARE WRONG"

I've noticed people today are uncomfortable about saying this. Why is that? Can't we agree to disagree? Why should it be the public religion that everyone is right?

Can't we say, "Everyone is free to believe as they will, but some are right and some are wrong?"

Posted by: nedbrek | September 3, 2008 7:51 AM
Report Offensive Comment

GOD IS ONE, HOW CAN BE THERE MANY RELIGION. ONE RELIGION IS REAL OUT OF ALL RELIGION PEVAILED PRESENTLY. GOD CANNOT CONFUSED HIS CREATION. CREATURES THEMSELVE GET CONFUSED, SO ONE RELIGION IS REAL/CORRECT ALL OTHERS ARE WRONG. IN ORDER TO KNOW REAL RELIGION WE SHOULD EXAMINED THIS:

1) GOD IS ONE.
2) HE IS NOT REQUIRED TO SLEEP.
3) HE DOES NOT REQUIRED TO EAT,SLEEP,SEX,TIRED.
4) HE IS ALL KNOWING, PRESENT/PAST/FUTURE AND PERFECT.
5) HIS REVELATION CANNOT CONTRADICTS.
6) HIS REVELATION SHOULD BE COMPLETE WITHOUT ANY DEFICIANCY.
7) APPLICABLE TO THE ALL TIME AND CANNOT SUCCUMBED TO THE CHANGE OF THE SOCEITY.
8) NEITHER HE BIGETS,NOR BEGOTTON TO ANY.
9) HE IS UNIQUE WITHOUT ANY SECOND.
10)HE IS NURISHER.

IF ANY GOD FIT INTO THE ABOVE, IT IS LOGICAL TO ACCEPT HIM AS GOD.

IN ORDER TO KNOW MORE ABOUT GOD PLEASE VISIT WEBSITE: WWW.IRF.NET, THERE YOU CAN FOUND DEBATES, LOGICAL/CRITICAL SPEACHES FOLLOWED BY QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS, ALSO YOU CAN DOWN THOSE SPEACHES FREE OF COST.

Posted by: shafiuddin | September 3, 2008 3:20 AM
Report Offensive Comment

As to Scientologists feeling cheated because they don't get called a religion:

Ron Hubbard was at least honest in his own way. He admitted inventing a religion was the best way to make money and he left it to his accountants and lawyers to make a religion out of his master theories and brainwashing techniques that could be bought at exhorbitant rates.

The "Bible" of Scientology costs no less than three hundred thousand dollars, and it can be accessed only after one is sufficiently brainwashed to believe in it.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 3, 2008 12:42 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Here in the colonies all laws are "cleared by the clergy" before becoming law. We had a little slip up about 40 year ago when the "high on something" supreme court, (our usual place of law making) legalized abortion. Since then we have had one abortion after the other for a government.

We now look forward to our 11th consecutive abortion. To ease the pain and the shame of it all we now have a thing called, "faith based initiatives" which are as one might guess faith that all public offices including the highest office are for sale by the clergy. Not all clergy get "in on it" with Scientologists getting told they're not a religion. In simple terms, the treasury of the USA, that giant money tit now has hundreds of thousands sucking on it in the name of God.

Faith based initiatives serve the grand purpose of showing us just how insignificant our constitution truly is. That's in spite of all elected public officials swearing on the Bible to uphold and defend it. Note that none of our elected or appointed public officials ever swears on the constitution.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 2, 2008 10:28 AM
Report Offensive Comment

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company