From the past to the present, there are unfortunately many examples of religions having run afoul of moral perspectives either in practice or in interpretations of doctrine from sacred writings. A graphic illustration of this I still remember from my younger days when looking through a World War II book, where I observed photos of leaders and peoples of all the major warring nations proclaiming allegiance to God and confidence that God was on their side. Really?
For this and other reasons as discussed in my book on moral education, morality must not be equated with religion. And so, moral education in schools (or elsewhere) can thus be effective without referencing religion in general, or any religion in particular.
On the other hand, religion can reinforce and enhance moral education. As Karen Armstrong, a leading scholar of world religions, argues, compassion is the essential message of religion, embracing the good of empathy and the acting towards others as we would want them to act toward us (see, e.g., her Charter for Compassion). The golden rule, mutual respect, and compassion are embraced by religion; they are goods that make it possible for human beings to flourish as social beings.
These messages are a major component of moral education at its best. I find very powerful from the moral point of view the core idea of some religions that we are all children of God or there is that of God within each of us. Very powerful too are religious texts like “whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me,” or the prayers of Jews which exhort them to learn from their history of suffering enslavement, displacement, lack of a homeland, deprivations, and ostracisms and thus they should never act towards others in that way. This language of religion, if used appropriately, provides a framework that can solidify the idea that we must treat our fellow human beings with respect and dignity, with love, compassion, and forgiveness.
The language of religion, if used appropriately, provides a framework that can solidify the moral ideal of treating our fellow human beings with respect and dignity, with love, compassion, and forgiveness.
But currently in our country there is a real crisis in the understanding of what religion stands for. [Note: this piece was written shortly after the assault on the Capitol. While the events and quotes are now four years old, their import and relevance have never been clearer.] To take one example, in interviews with members of a Southern Baptist church in Mississippi, one congregant said the biblical injunction to love thy neighbor means “love thy American neighbor” and welcome the stranger means the “legal immigrant stranger.” Led on by some leaders of Evangelical Christians and others, many of our fellow citizens are embracing similar attitudes, justifying on the basis of religion the exclusion of one group or another from full recognition as human beings.
This is not a new problem, but it has been alarmingly on the increase. Perhaps nothing epitomizes it more than the January assault on the US Capitol. On view among the participants were bibles and banners reading “Jesus 2020 “and “Jesus Saves,” implying that God was somehow connected to what they were doing.
I found the lengthy video of the assault released by the New Yorker to be quite revelatory. First, there were political implications. Upon entering the building and preparing to climb the inside staircase to the Senate Chamber, the participants in the assault encountered resisting guards. The spokesperson for one group in the video said they were just doing what Trump wanted, and he then reminded the guards that Trump was their boss. When confronted by a different guard in the Senate Chamber, this message was repeated: There are a million people coming in here, one participant said, and they are listening to Trump. They rifled through desks, one of which belonged to Ted Cruz. When they read some of the documents in the desk, they realized he was going to object to the Arizona election results, which emboldened one of the “protesters” to say, “I think Cruz would want us to do this, so I think we’re good.” Clearly they were motivated to follow certain political leaders.
But they thought they were following more than political leaders; and for me, this is the clincher that ties the assault to the subject of this blog: 6 or 7 of them were gathered at the Senate dais, and everyone in the chamber grew quiet as one of them started to pray out loud, noting that they were doing God’s work and thanking God for giving them this opportunity to take back the country and defeat globalism and other evils. Hard to imagine a more dramatic split between religion and morality. Our founders believed religion was an important civilizing force that could help us be successful in our experiment in self-government. Their idea of religion did not countenance what is happening now.
This current, perverse interpretation of Christianity and religion must stop. Recently two men of faith expressed their outrage. First, Michael Gerson, a moderate conservative, former chief speech writer for George W. Bush, and an Evangelical. In a recent opinion piece in the Washington Post, he called on Evangelicals to abandon their political pact with the devil and embrace a more truthful version of Christianity. I liked what he had to say in pointing to a path forward in which Christianity can make a positive contribution to our body politic. Here are some excerpts from his article:
Jesus had something to say about political deals with the devil: ‘Get behind me, Satan!
The collapse of one disastrous form of Christian social engagement should be an opportunity for the emergence of a more faithful one. And here there are plenty of potent, hopeful Christian principles lying around unused by most evangelicals: A consistent and comprehensive concern for the weak and vulnerable in our society, including the poor, immigrants and refugees. A passion for racial reconciliation and criminal justice reform, rooted in the nonnegotiable demands of human dignity. A deep commitment to public and global health, reflecting the priorities of Christ’s healing ministry. An embrace of political civility as a civilizing norm. A commitment to the liberty of other people’s religions, not just our own. An insistence on public honesty and a belief in the transforming power of unarmed truth.
What would America be like if these had been the priorities of Evangelical Christians over the past four years—or over the past four decades?
Provocative question at the end, indeed.
Outrage was also expressed by Gregory E. Sterling, dean of Yale Divinity School. Here is his reaction to President Trump’s call for the marchers to take back their country:
I have never understood how Christians could support him in the name of Christianity. How do you align lying, bragging about immorality, the egging on of violence and cruelty, and the violation of a sacred oath (to ‘protect and defend the Constitution’) with Christianity? It is as far from the principles of Christianity—or any faith that I know—as a person can get.
What the world witnessed at the Capitol was…a warped and dishonest portrayal of Christianity, a mob hijacking an entire faith in the same way the 9/11 terrorists hijacked Islam.
Elsewhere in the article he makes note of what he sees as the hallmark of his religion:
Christians believe that we demonstrate our faith by our actions and how we treat others. In words from a final message of Jesus in the Gospel of John, “By this all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.” What the world witnessed at the Capitol was instead a warped and dishonest portrayal of Christianity, a mob hijacking an entire faith in the same way the 9/11 terrorists hijacked Islam….Where was the value of non-violence celebrated in the Sermon on the Mount? Where was the value of putting away falsehood and speaking the truth? Where was the spirit of doing justice, loving mercy and walking humbly with God? They made a mockery of Christianity.
This perversion of religion will not end with Biden’s inauguration [Note: As we have seen in retrospect.] Conspiracy groups like Anon have many followers. Here’s what an Anon Influencer on Twitter wrote in dismay in the wake of the new president taking office: Our plan was that on January 20, prominent Democrats and other satanic pedophiles of the elite would be arrested and executed by order of President Trump. He summed it up with the thought that Biden’s inauguration made no sense to Christian patriots. Christian patriots apparently countenance executions! Religion must be held accountable to morality.
We can only hope that more people like Gerson and Stanley, including Evangelical ministers, will speak out in defense of religion at its best, and that others will listen. One such promising sign was the recent open letter signed by 100 prominent Evangelical pastors and church leaders indicating that Christianity is incompatible with “calls to violence, support of white Christian nationalism, conspiracy theories, and all religious and racial prejudice.”
We [Note: still) need such a movement to be part of a “return to decency” campaign. But we are not talking here of Republicans vs Democrats. Loyal opposition is important in a democracy and legitimate disagreements will exist, even from the moral perspective. Government plans and programs sadly often bring unintended negative consequences. But the current misguided division on religion is an entirely different matter, and has no up sides. In my book, I tried to argue for a moral education that we can agree on as a path to decency. Perhaps it can make a contribution, however small, to brighter days ahead.