Politicians should be open to input

Q: U.S. Catholic bishops are defending their direct involvement in congressional deliberations over health-care reform, saying that church leaders have a duty to raise moral concerns on any issue, including abortion rights and health care for the poor. Do you agree? What role should religious leaders have -- or not have -- in government policymaking?

All citizens should have a right to provide input on governmental policy matters that effect us all. Moreover, lawmakers should encourage input, especially from those who have expertise in the subject matter involved. Religious leaders are not less than other citizens simply because of their particular profession. Their views on matters of morality should be a part of the information lawmakers use when deliberating and enacting legislation in this regards, just as lawmakers should listen to economists and environmentalists when addressing issues within their respective fields.

This does not mean that partisan religious leaders should be able to craft legislation, but only that a variety of leaders and thinkers should be listened to so that a diversity of relevant views can be heard and considered. Unfortunately, as the situation currently exists, far too many of our politicians base their approaches to the laws they attempt to pass on partisan politics and personal gain, not on what is ethical or moral. As a result, many of our laws ignore what is ethically sound for what is politically beneficial and expedient.

The reason that some people have objections to religious leaders providing input on government policy is due to the notion of separation of church and state. While this concept has had several valuable benefits, it has also led to several problems. Most people associate morality with sectarian religious beliefs. As a consequence, there has been an increasing reticence within the government toward allowing anything associated with religion to influence public policy. This, in turn, has led to moral and ethical considerations being marginalized or even ignored in the process. Today, secular, partisan political considerations predominate, while that which is ethical or in the best interests of the populace is often ignored.

It is significant to note that when religious leaders come out in support of something that politicians want, their views tend to be given more credibility. However, when the same leaders speak out against something that politicians support, then their views become suspect because of their being associated with religious beliefs. Maybe it is time to reconsider the concept of separation of church and state. One way to do this would be to broaden the concept of "church" to include any strongly held belief system, religious or secular, and keep all of them separate from the realm of government, since all such beliefs can have the same limiting effects on government as a religious belief. However, if we did this, then the way the government addresses issues would likely be even worse than it is today.

Another option would be to acknowledge that all beliefs, be they religious or secular, have potential benefits as well as potential problems. They should all be considered with the ultimate goal doing what is right to benefit the greatest number while harming the fewest. When a secular belief and approach works in a particular situation, then great. At the same time, when a religious approach works best, then it should be a part of that which is considered.

An example can be seen during the Civil Rights movement and also the Vietnam war. Many people, including Martin Luther King, drew upon the concept of ahimsa, or non-violence, which comes from the Dharma religious traditions of India. Fortunately, the concept was not thrown out simply because it had religious roots. To many people, both within the government and outside it, ahimsa was seen as a valuable and worthwhile approach to the situations of the day and was thus adopted by many. It did not turn the country into a land of Hindus or Buddhists, but it did help many people to find an ethical way to navigate through a very difficult time in our country's recent history.

My personal belief is that most Americans are decent human beings, irrespective of the diversity of their individual religious or secular views. As a general observation, it seems that most attempt to understand life and society through a blend of rational thinking, personal beliefs, and ethical judgment, on one level or another. We do not all think alike, nor should we on most matters. Our country needs to have that diversity in order to provide a broader base of understanding on how best to navigate the changing world and maintain a society that is beneficial to everyone. In order to accomplish this, we also need to stop demeaning or seeking to silence those who think differently, believe differently, or act differently, provided those thoughts, beliefs, and actions are not directly harming others or preventing others from having these same freedoms. We need to learn to be tolerant of other peoples' views, with the exception of those that promote intolerance, for the latter has the potential to destroy the freedoms and justice that, as a society, we strive to bring about.

In summation, no persons or their views should be listened to or rejected simply because of their religious affiliation or lack thereof. They should be listened to or rejected based on whether or not their views are sound and beneficial in a particular situation. We need all the help we can get to make our society one of justice and peace, and any input that moves us in that direction is definitely worth consideration.

By Ramdas Lamb  |  November 19, 2009; 1:59 PM ET Save & Share:                 
Previous: Finding wisdom in the questions | Next: Bishops have a right to defend the defenseless

The comments to this entry are closed.