RELIGION & POLITICS
Election 2004 and “Moral Values”
Commentary & Analysis by Dr. Robert M.
Bowman
President, Institute for Space and Security
Studies
Whether we like it or not, religion has
become a major factor in American politics. Having
failed to neutralize it, the left must work to see that it is a factor for good, not evil. So far, its influence has been almost entirely
negative. The article on page 2 is an attempt
to change that. It is an attempt to reach out
to Christians who voted for G. W. Bush in 2004. They
need to hear that there is another Christian perspective.
Truth is, progressive moral values are far superior to others, and the moral values
of Jews, Unitarians, and humanists are closer to the heart of Jesus than those of most
Christians.
Then why did we get trounced on moral
values in 2004? First, the election results
are suspect. Chances are, the Democrats really
won the election, but lost the vote count. We
must eliminate voting machines which do not leave a paper trail. Second, other factors, like fear, played a big role
— perhaps bigger than “moral values.” Third,
progressive moral values did not lose the 2004 election.
John Kerry did. I worked hard for Kerry
and spoke forcefully at his rallies. (Maggie
led 32 precincts for his campaign.) Yet he was
far from our top choice as the nominee. The
big money folks in the Dem Party convinced
primary voters that he was the most electable. Truth
is, by selecting a pro-choice Roman Catholic who was also a
pro-war New England liberal (and a fraternity brother of Bush’s to boot), the
Democrats probably nominated the one man who could possibly lose to Bush! Progressive moral values were never even mentioned,
much less defended. When Kerry promoted
progressive ideas (like health care, the environment, and education), he failed to make
them the moral issues which they are. And when
addressing the biggest moral issue of the election — the war against Iraq —,
Kerry abandoned the progressive position completely and in essence supported Bush’s
immoral war, merely claiming he could do it better than Bush.
Having left morality out of his policy
proposals completely, Kerry by default left gay rights and abortion as the only two moral
issues in the campaign. And he failed
miserably to defend his position on even these issues.
In spite of having morally superior positions on almost all the issues, neither he
nor the Democrats in general expounded a moral and spiritual basis for their policies.
The problem is, leftists of faith (and
there are a lot of us) tend to be marginalized and ignored.
This must not continue. The progressive
movement cannot succeed without our participation and indeed our leadership.
What with the deficit, the jobs lost, the
failing war, and the scandals, Bush should have been defeated 75% to 25%. (It would have been tough to cover that up by
election day fraud.) But it didn’t
happen. The Dems conceded the Bible belt and
the heartland. It’s time to regain the
moral high ground that is rightly ours. An
illegal war of aggression, homeless veterans, countless millions without health care,
growing poverty in a land of plenty — these are moral issues, and must be seen as
such! We can’t ignore the Christian vote;
we must court it. Jesus never would vote for
the enormous evil put forth by Bush and his neo-con handlers. Yet I’m not sure He could have voted for the
alternatives either. To win, we must put forth
policies Jesus could support and candidates who are comfortable saying so. That’s what my article on page 2 is all about. My dear non-Christian readers, please don’t
let the title turn you off. It turns out a
“Jesus Society” is one in which the government serves the people, not the
corporations. So read it, and use it to
convert your Christian friends away from Godless Republicanism. Thanks! Bob
Toward a “Jesus Society”
by Most. Rev.
Dr. Robert M. Bowman, Lt. Col., USAF, ret.
Presiding Archbishop, United Catholic Church
The
Place of Christians in a Democracy
Christians make up a clear majority in these United States. Our nation was founded on Christian principles. We were once a “Christian nation,” and in
many respects, we still are. Yet we are also a
pluralistic society made up of adherents of many religions … and none.
Our Constitution provides for freedom of religion.
Nowhere does it proclaim freedom “from” religion. The United Kingdom has recently designated atheism
as a belief system, putting it on a par with and in competition with all other belief
systems. We in the United States ought to
consider doing the same. Since our
Constitution prohibits a “state religion,” that would mean that atheism could no
longer be the de facto religion of public schools, courthouses, and public squares.
The Constitution protects churches from interference by government. But does it also protect the government from
interference by churches? I think the clear
implication is that it does. No
“church” should dictate government policy. But
the Constitution clearly does NOT prohibit individual Americans from bringing their
religious beliefs to bear in the voting booth. The
question thus arises, “Since we Christians make up the majority, can we shape the
government to our liking, and if so, should we?”
On the one hand, our republic was envisioned as much more than just a democracy. Majority rule is not the highest law of the land. After all, the tyranny of the majority is still
tyranny. That’s what we’re trying to
prevent the Shi’ites from doing in Iraq. Our
country’s vision includes the protection of the minority. Just as we are devoted to the protection of the
human rights of Christians in China and Saudi Arabia, we must be equally devoted to the
human rights of atheists and Muslims in the United States.
Having said that, there is no reason why we should not pursue a government based on
Christian principles and carrying out policies in line with the teachings and example of
Jesus of Nazareth. After all, Jesus showed
time and again his respect for minorities in Israel – even hated minorities like
Samaritans, tax collectors, lepers, and Roman soldiers.
In addition, the purpose of Christian moral values is for the wellbeing and
happiness of the people. God doesn’t make
capricious laws. They are all for our good. As Jesus said, “The Sabbath was made for
people.” The same is true of all the
other laws as well – at least the ones that truly came from God and weren’t
invented by men. The only time Christian
values would be to the detriment of non-Christians in our society would be if they were
applied legalistically and uncaringly. Of
course, Jesus never applied them that way. Why
should we? Jesus’ biggest problem was not
sinners, but the cold legalism of the Pharisees. The
minute we start acting like Pharisees, we cease following Jesus.
For the most part, the moral values of Jesus are positive ones. Love one another.
Care for widows and orphans. Sell all
you have and give to the poor. Heal the sick. Visit the imprisoned.
Clothe the naked. Feed the hungry. Embrace the leper.
Forgive. Turn the other cheek. Go the second mile.
Give drink to the thirsty. Return good
for evil. Shelter the homeless. Who could complain about a society like that? Jesus taught that God loved the people – all
the people – and wanted the institutions of society to serve the needs of the people. If we can attain a government which does that, who
among our citizenry will object?
Actually, we can be quite sure that some will object.
These are the elements of society now getting a free ride at the expense of the
vast majority. They would include the
billionaire owners of multinational corporations exploiting the poor and perhaps
televangelists and leaders of big, wealthy churches. Remember,
Jesus didn’t please the secular and religious leaders of his day. So we shouldn’t be surprised if we don’t
either. Nor should we let that deter us. Of course, they crucified him, and they may do the
same to us. Personally, I’m willing to
chance it. Dorothy Day once said that we
measure our discipleship to Jesus by how much trouble we’re in. The famous Jesuit Father John Dear echoed that
thought, “If we‘re going to follow Jesus, we are going to get into trouble. This is our calling.” So we should not mind if we incur the wrath of the
rich and powerful with so much to lose. The
vast majority of people will greatly benefit from living in a society which follows the
teachings of Jesus (and therefore the will of God).
Provided we always remember to honor the dignity and rights of others, there is no
reason we Christians should not proceed to build a “Jesus Society,” and make our
government a part of it.
Conservative Christians have made some progress lately in raising their issues. But these efforts have sometimes been misguided. Lower taxes and a strong military may or may not be
desirable objectives. But they have nothing to
do with Jesus, and are not Christian moral values. It
often seems like Christians are being used by Country-Club Republicans to further their
corporate objectives and personal agendas.
Liberal Christians have fared even worse. They
tend to be overwhelmed and marginalized by secular liberals who have a profound disdain
for religion in general. The left tends not to
acknowledge the legitimate complaints of the right about the shallowness, selfishness, and
immorality of much of American culture (particularly that of TV and Hollywood). One of God’s greatest gifts, sex, is used to
titillate us into watching “Desperate Housewives” or buying automobiles,
mouthwash, and just about everything else in our consumption-driven society. We are continually bombarded with an “If it
feels good, do it” philosophy. This is
not liberal. It is libertine.
In building our “Jesus Society,” Christians must reject both extremes, as
both are driven by non-Christian, immoral motives. We
must, instead, base our objectives and priorities solidly on the teachings and example of
Jesus himself.
Elements of a “Jesus
Society”
We can describe a “Jesus Society” quite simply. Jesus did it for us.
“Love God, and love your neighbor as yourself.” This sums up all the law and the prophets. All the rest is commentary.
Of course, some amplification and commentary is good.
Jesus had to tell everybody what he meant by “neighbor.” Turns out it’s everybody, including those you
don’t like. His example, of course, was
the hated Samaritans, considered by the Jews to be heretics, half-breeds, and traitors. Another time, he was even more specific. “What good is it if you only love those who
love you? No, you are to love your enemies. Do good to those who persecute you. Overcome evil with good.” He also spelled out what he meant by
“love.” That’s the Ten
Commandments, the Golden Rule, and the Sermon on the Mount.
Jesus made it quite clear that we were to apply these to ourselves, not to
others. “Judge not, lest you be
judged,” “Let the one without sin
cast the first stone,” and “Forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin
against us.” His final bit of
amplification was his “Amen, I say to
you, ‘As often as you have done this for the least of our brothers and sisters, you
have done it for me.’” This
didn’t really add to “Love your neighbor.”
It just emphasized its importance. That’s
it. That’s the whole of it. Now all we have to do is apply “Love God and
your neighbor” to government policy.
Love God
Freedom of Religion
First, let’s deal with the “Love God” part. The task of government is to provide an environment
in which each person is free to love God in their own way, without interference or
intimidation. That’s what the First
Amendment means when it says, “The government shall make no law regarding an
establishment of religion or restricting the free exercise thereof.” In other words, there shall be no state
religion, be it Christianity, Judaism, Mohammedanism, Secular Humanism, or anything else. Government shall show no partiality toward any one
religion, nor disparage or ridicule any religion.
It is crucial that every American is free to love God in his or her own way. At the same time, there is no reason why our
government cannot openly proclaim its dependence on God.
To have “Under God” in our pledge of allegiance and “In God We
Trust” on our coins does no more than reflect the faith underlying the origin of our
nation and its form of government. It favors
no vision of God over another, and does not violate the First Amendment. To atheists who don’t like it, I say
“I’m sorry you feel that way, but this is who we are and what we believe.”
Love Your Neighbor as Yourself
Respect for Life (Do Not Kill)
Abortion
The most contentious moral issue of the last few decades has been abortion. It has divided our people as no other. It is time to recall the spirit of Jesus and come
together to resolve this tragedy in a way that respects life – both the life of the
unborn and the life of the already living.
In crafting a Christian moral position on abortion, there is absolutely no guidance
for us in either the words of Jesus or the Bible as a whole.
Instead, we must rely on common sense, what science there is, and broad guidelines
like the Golden Rule and our natural instincts. When
you think about it, isn’t it strange that Christians (who believe in an after-life
and believe that aborted fetuses go to Heaven to be with God) oppose abortion so
vehemently (and in some cases, violently)? Atheists,
who believe that this life is all there is, should be the ones most upset about babies
being denied a chance to be born. Go figure!
When I was running for president, I was often asked if I was pro-life or
pro-choice. My answer was, “Yes.” I’m sure you can imagine that as the father of
seven children and the grandfather of 21, I am very much pro-life. As soon as I find out that one of the women in the
family is pregnant, I include their “new baby” in my daily prayers. I believe abortion is a tragedy. But I also believe it would be even more of a
tragedy to criminalize a woman who has one. I
think Bill Clinton had it about right when he said that abortion should be legal, safe,
and rare. As a matter of fact, abortion rates
did go down under President Clinton. But then
they apparently went back up under George W. Bush, because the social conditions that made
women desperate enough to seek abortions had worsened.
Government can play a role in minimizing abortions by eliminating those social
conditions that drive women toward abortions in the first place -- lack of financial
security, lack of health care, and irresponsible men who get women pregnant and then
disappear. Government can also give women real
choices, and make sure they are aware of their options.
But then, having given women choices, government must respect the choices women
make. There can be no return to the back alley.
Where I differ with many liberal politicians is in the extremeness of their
positions. Clinton vetoed a ban on partial
birth abortions. I would have signed it. Kerry voted against such a ban several times. I would have voted for it. I know of no case where this horrendous procedure
is medically necessary. In those rare
instances when it is necessary to terminate a pregnancy in the third trimester in order to
save the mother, there are ways to do it which give the baby a chance to live as well. Some liberals have even voted against bills
requiring doctors to provide medical care to infants born alive after attempted abortions. I would have voted for such a bill. Regardless of your view on abortion, to let a live
infant die after being removed from the womb is murder.
If we are to stop such excesses of the anti-life liberals, we must join with others
all across the political spectrum to minimize abortions and to take such practical
compromise measures as parental notification and waiting periods. Above all, women should know exactly what they are
doing and what their options are. Before
obtaining a surgical abortion, a woman should be counseled by a doctor who does not
provide abortions and can be impartial. Of
course, a “Jesus Society” would be so caring of the expectant mother that she
would have no reason to seek an abortion in the first place.
As a matter of practical politics in a pluralistic society, I think Roe v. Wade had
it pretty close to right. Originally, it
essentially barred states from restricting abortions in the first trimester (when
enforcement of a ban would be impossible in any event), allowed states to require a good
reason for second trimester abortions, and permitted states to ban abortions altogether in
the third trimester. There was sound reasoning
behind such differentiation. There’s a
huge difference between a fertilized egg (most of which never attach to the uterine wall
and result in a pregnancy) and an 8-month fetus capable of living on its own. To equate the morning-after pill with a late-term
abortion is counterproductive. It’s time
the American people ignored the extremists on both sides of this issue and worked out a
way to make Roe v. Wade work as originally intended. Then
as the social reforms of the “Jesus Society” come into being, the number of
abortions will plummet. More repression and
legalism isn’t the answer. As always,
love is.
Capital Punishment
The Jesus we Christians follow both preached and practiced nonviolence. “Love your enemies. Turn the other cheek.
Overcome evil with good.” We know
them all by heart. But do we take them
seriously? Do we remember that Jesus himself
was a victim of capital punishment? “Father,
forgive them. They know not what they
do.”
We Christians respect the life of others. But
we have even greater concern for their souls. So
why on earth would we want a guilty criminal, a sinner, put to death before God has a
chance to change his heart and bring him to repentance?
Those who support the death penalty say that “Thou shalt not kill” really
meant “Thou shalt not murder.” So
while killing an innocent person is wrong, killing a guilty one is OK. To a secularist or an atheist, that might sound
right, but to a Christian it’s absolutely wrong!
We should be much more loath to kill a guilty person than an innocent one. If we kill an innocent person (and I’m not
recommending it), we are killing the body. But
if we kill a guilty person, we kill the soul as well.
We play God. We take vengeance out of
God’s hands. We thwart God’s mercy,
forgiveness, and saving Grace. How dare we!!
The United States is one of the few nations still practicing the barbaric,
antiquated, uncivilized practice of capital punishment.
A government does not promote respect for life by engaging in state-sponsored
killing. A moral political agenda would
include a ban on this anachronistic, unnecessary, expensive, and ineffective practice.
War
The Christians of the first three centuries understood and practiced (as best they
could) the nonviolence of Jesus. It was
unthinkable for Christians to take up arms against another human being. Christians were not even allowed to testify against
murderers or perpetrators of other capital offenses, for they could indirectly be causing
the death of the accused. The Church
flourished, nurtured by the blood of
Then in the fourth century, the Church sold out to Constantine. It came out of the catacombs and into the halls of
power. The Church turned its back on the
nonviolent Jesus and traded its heritage for legality, respectability, affluence, and
worldly power. The post-Constantinian “Just War Theory” was
a tortured attempt to rationalize sending young Christians to fight the Emperor’s
wars. It is still going on.
But let’s assume for a moment that Christians can in good conscience believe
in the “Just War Theory.” Would that
justify the wars of our recent presidents (both Republican and Democrat)? Absolutely not!
None of this country’s recent military ventures have come even close to
satisfying the eight criteria of the “Just War Theory.” (For a detailed exposition of these criteria and
their application, see “A Christian View
of War” on the web site www.rmbowman.com/catholic .) If anyone who claims to be a Christian supports
this country’s war against Iraq, I challenge them to apply the eight criteria of St.
Augustine and Thomas Aquinas. No matter what
denomination you belong to, you will be forced to agree with Pope John Paul II that this
is an unnecessary and immoral war.
For many of us who follow Jesus, however, all the legalistic wrangling over the
eight criteria is immaterial. For us, there
can never be such a thing as a “Just War,” much less a “Jesus War.”
If the United States really wants to be a Christian nation, then we should follow
the example of Costa Rica, bring our troops home from around the world, and disband the
Armed Forces entirely. However, this is not
just a Christian nation. Our government is
responsible also to a hundred million or so non-Christian Americans. They may not want to take the step in faith that we
Christians are called to do. It is true that
both our Jewish and Muslim citizens believe in Psalm 33, “A king is not saved by his
mighty Army. A warrior is not saved by his
strength. A war horse is a vain hope for
victory, and by its might it cannot save.” And
in Psalm 37, “Trust in the Lord and do good, that you may dwell in the land and have
security.” But lacking the example of
Jesus, they may not be willing to entrust their families and their fortunes to “doing
good.”
Therefore, a moral political position on defense in this multicultural nation might
have to include retention of a “Self-defense Force” similar to Japan’s
under MacArthur. At the same time, it should
offend none of our citizens if our government scrupulously applied the eight criteria of
the “Just War Theory” to any potential military action. Since one of those criteria bans the indiscriminate
killing of civilians, this would mean scrapping all our nuclear, biological, and chemical
weapons, as well as Depleted Uranium munitions, anti-personnel land mines, and cluster
bombs. And, of course, it would do away with
this “pre-emptive war” nonsense. A
moral foreign and military policy would allow volunteers to serve as United Nations
peacekeepers in places like Rwanda to prevent genocide.
But it would absolutely outlaw the kind of aggression on behalf of multinational
corporations typified by our oil wars against Iraq, Kosovo, and Afghanistan (to say
nothing of our many interventions in Central America on behalf of the United Fruit
Company).
A moral defense policy would also recognize and honor those who proclaim
“selective conscientious objector” status. This
would allow Christians and others who believe in the “Just War Criteria” the
right to apply them to any conflict and refuse to fight in a war they believe is in
violation. Currently, “Conscientious
Objector” status is only allowed to Quakers and others of us who declare themselves
pacifists against all wars. This is improper
discrimination against those Christians who follow Augustine and Thomas Aquinas.
Hopefully, after a few years of our carrying out a moral foreign policy and doing
good around the world, no foreign groups will continue to harbor resentment and hatred for
us. Acts of terrorism against us will cease. Eventually, it will become clear, even to our
non-Christian citizens that we have no need for armed forces, because no one is going to
attack us. At that time our transitional moral
policy can be transformed into a truly Christian policy and our armed forces disbanded
completely. A “Jesus Society” will
beat its swords into plowshares and teach war no more.
The Environment
Our Christian duty to preserve life extends to caring for the environment,
God’s creation, upon which all life depends. Some
Christians have been taken in by the “Rapture Cult” which teaches that we
don’t need to care for the environment, because God is about to destroy the world
anyway. As Reagan’s Secretary of the
Interior
Recently, many prominent Evangelical Christians have begun to see that this is
wrong. We really don’t know when God is
going to end the world. (The early Christians
were firmly convinced that it would happen in their lifetimes.) And if the end is not imminent, then we owe it to
our children’s children to care for God’s creation. If our lives do not depend on the decisions
we make now about global warming, depleted uranium, toxic waste, deforestation, the health
of the seas and the coral reefs and the rain forest, the lives of our grandchildren
certainly do. “Love one another”
applies to them, too.
Respect for Human Dignity; Justice for All
Health Care, Welfare,
Jobs, Education, & Other Rights
I don’t know anyone
who disagrees that Christian morality requires that we care for the less fortunate. The disagreement comes over how to do it. The Christian right says let individuals and
churches do it. Charity should be voluntary,
not coerced. The Christian left says let us
pay for it through our taxes. Here I must
strongly agree with the left. Individuals
seldom reach out beyond their own family. Churches
in the suburbs seldom reach into the inner cities to do their charity. And churches in the inner city try, but don’t
have the resources. As a practical matter, if
government doesn’t take care of the needy in the ghetto, it isn’t going to get
done. Besides, in a land as affluent as ours,
it isn’t a matter of charity. It’s a
matter of justice.
The only just and moral way to handle these issues is by government providing a
basic standard of existence as a right, and paying for it with a graduated tax on
individuals and on corporations. Historically,
this has been the income tax. More and more,
these essential services are paid for (if at all) with a highly regressive tax (Social
Security’s FICA for bare subsistence retirement income, Medicare’s Part B flat
fee for medical care for the elderly, and property taxes for education). In such taxes, the burden falls heaviest on those
least able to pay, the working poor paying a much higher percentage of their income than
the very wealthy. The last remaining
progressive tax, the income tax, has been slashed to such an extent that essential
services are more and more falling on the states, counties, and cities, who have to raise
money through less progressive taxes. The net
result has been an overall tax increase for the working class and middle class, and a huge
bonanza for the super-rich. Naturally, the gap
between rich and poor in this country has become a yawning chasm, greater than that in any
other developed country. This is truly
immoral.
The right wing is fond of saying that redistribution of wealth is wrong and
wouldn’t do any good, anyway, because there aren’t enough rich people to really
make a difference. That is untrue. Redistribution of wealth has been going on for
decades, but it has all been from the bottom to the top.
It’s time for some to go the other way. If
just the world’s billionaires gave up only half their wealth, they could provide
food, clothing, shelter, clean water, and basic medical care to every person on earth, and
could double the income of half the people on the planet.
I’d say that would make a difference. But
it’s not going to happen as long as the billionaires own both major political
parties, and also own the media outlets.
What is truly immoral is that the super-rich have such control over the political
process and the media that neither major political party even raises the prospect of
fundamental changes for the benefit of all. A
true single-payer national health system? Forget
it! Jobs for all at a living wage? Not a chance! Strengthening
Social Security by removing the earnings cap on taxable wages? No way! Such
ways of fulfilling our moral responsibility to our neighbor are ridiculed by the media and
ignored by both national parties. Thank
goodness we occasionally have a lonely voice raising such issues. What a pity the media largely ignores such voices.
These issues should be debated. Let’s
talk about their practicality and argue over their cost.
But that dealing with them is a moral imperative in any just society (and even more
so in a “Jesus Society”) should be obvious to all, and we should say so. To ask a follower of Jesus to vote against a
national health system, full employment, and a livable wage should be like asking an
alligator to vote for draining the swamp.
Homosexual
Rights
I support human rights; and the last time I checked, homosexuals were human beings.
So by definition I support homosexual rights. They should have the same rights to life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as anyone else, and that includes the right to be
free from discrimination and harassment. From a moral and societal point of view, we
should all oppose promiscuity, whether gay or straight. We tell our straight teenagers to
"Save it for marriage." But what do we tell our gay teenagers to save it for?
Now, many people are uptight about the word "marriage." They want it used
exclusively for the union of a man and a woman. OK. So let's call a monogamous commitment
between gays or lesbians "pairage." But for goodness sakes, we must encourage
it, whatever it is called. We can no longer doom homosexuals to a lifetime of celibacy,
closeted deceit, or promiscuity. We must hold out the hope of being able to live in a
lifelong relationship, and to have that relationship recognized by society and given all
the legal rights, responsibilities, and privileges that accrue to married heterosexual
couples.
Inerrantists will no doubt struggle to square these views with the Bible. We must remember that thousands of years ago, the
writers of the Biblical texts did not know what we do now.
They did not know that homosexuals are born that way and therefore made by God. (And God don’t make junk!) My view of Christian sexual morality is clear. Sex is good. It
is one of God’s greatest gifts. What’s
more, God gave human beings the unique ability to have sex at any time of the month. So its purpose is more than procreation. There is nothing intrinsically evil about any
sexual act. The key is love. Sex is sinful if it is promiscuous, exploitive,
forced, bought, or devoid of love and commitment. One’s
gender or gender preference has little to do with it.
I firmly believe that my view of sexual morality is in tune with Jesus and
therefore with the mind of God.
Others may believe differently. I will
not try to force my views on them. If they
believe that homosexual acts are sinful, they are free not to engage in them. They are even free not to bless them in their
particular churches. But they shouldn’t
try to force their narrow views on everyone else through governmental edict or
Constitutional amendment. To do so is to
follow the Pharisees, not Jesus. Those who
wish to protect the sanctity of marriage should take on promiscuity and divorce. Those are the real threats to marriage, not gays.
As a society, we must no longer hide behind the fiction that homosexuality is a
“choice.” What teenager would choose
the shame, discrimination, persecution, ridicule, rejection, loneliness, and sky-high
suicide rates of the homosexual? No, these
people are children of God who deserve the chance to go through life with a partner of
their choosing. It should be left up to
individual churches whether they choose to bless the union of a homosexual couple with a
sacramental wedding. Churches have the right
to establish requirements for their services, without governmental interference. But for government at any level to deny a
gay couple the legal contract made available to heterosexuals is illegal discrimination.
A Christian Political Agenda
Christians of the left and of the right
must recognize that we have a common interest in building a “Jesus Society.” In doing so, we must respect our democracy,
including its protections for the rights of minorities with which we disagree. Let’s work to promote candidates that speak
the truth and support a truly Christian political agenda.
Let’s debate the morality of various policies.
And let’s make sure that the “moral values” that win the day are
ones that Jesus could relate to. Let’s
replace the moral values of Leviticus with those of the Sermon on the Mount. Then instead of continually mouthing “God
bless America,” let us seek to be worthy of the many blessings already bestowed upon
us. God, in His infinite patience and mercy,
has been on our side for a long, long time – a time in which we have become
increasingly unworthy. It is time for our
government to stop serving the billionaires and the giant corporations and to become the
servant of the people. That will put our
country on God’s side … and that’s true Christian morality.
A “Jesus Society” will serve the needs of the people – all the
people, for all are made in the image and likeness of God, and all (regardless of their
religious faith or lack thereof) represent Jesus in our midst. Let us serve Him by serving them.
============================================
The above are
Archbishop Bowman’s personal views. They
are not official positions of the United Catholic Church and do not necessarily represent
the views of all in his church.