semitism.net

So, here I am at the Progressive Faith Blog Convention. I did not think I would be here, since I am frantically busy, with my new practice opening in about three weeks. But reviewing my email, I found I was heading a panel; and I do not really want to leave the world of blogging completely behind; so, well, here I am…

It’s actually quite wonderful. There are maybe fifty bloggers here, all people who publish blogs about religion from a progressive perspective, or politics from a religious standpoint. We’re talking right now about the role of religion in public life - especially the embrace of religion by the right, and its rejection by the left. The perception here is that leftist bloggers tend to be secularly oriented and very wary of calls to incorporate religion into the public debate. Negative reaction to Barak Obama’s speech at the Call to Renewal Conference is much cited.

A bit of the speech:

For some time now, there has been plenty of talk among pundits and pollsters that the political divide in this country has fallen sharply along religious lines. Indeed, the single biggest “gap” in party affiliation among white Americans today is not between men and women, or those who reside in so-called Red States and those who reside in Blue, but between those who attend church regularly and those who don’t.

Conservative leaders have been all too happy to exploit this gap, consistently reminding evangelical Christians that Democrats disrespect their values and dislike their Church, while suggesting to the rest of the country that religious Americans care only about issues like abortion and gay marriage; school prayer and intelligent design.

Democrats, for the most part, have taken the bait. At best, we may try to avoid the conversation about religious values altogether, fearful of offending anyone and claiming that - regardless of our personal beliefs - constitutional principles tie our hands. At worst, there are some liberals who dismiss religion in the public square as inherently irrational or intolerant, insisting on a caricature of religious Americans that paints them as fanatical, or thinking that the very word “Christian” describes one’s political opponents, not people of faith.

Now, such strategies of avoidance may work for progressives when our opponent is Alan Keyes. But over the long haul, I think we make a mistake when we fail to acknowledge the power of faith in people’s lives — in the lives of the American people — and I think it’s time that we join a serious debate about how to reconcile faith with our modern, pluralistic democracy.

I agree with Obama - to engage religion in the public debate is a good thing, and not at all the same as using public funds or institutions to promote a particular religious dogma. For me, and for everyone here, I think, religion is the driving force behind our activism.

Religion is, and always has been, a powerful political force. Thurman and David and I were talking about how many conflicts around the world are driven by political differences. The Mideast conflict won’t be solved until the sides can give up their respective religious claims to the land, Thurman says.

These religious claims are not as old and deeply rooted as their prosecutors would have us believe, though. When Israel was founded, many Orthodox Jews refused to accept its legitimacy. Yes, we pray toward Jerusalem, and long for the day of our return. But our tradition holds that the the Messiah will lead us back. An “Israel” founded by secular Jews cannot be the Jerusalem spoken of in our prayers.

It was Rabbi Koch, the founder of Religious Zionism, who proposed that the non-religious who founded the state were nonetheless doing God’s will, even if unwittingly. It was the duty of the Orthodox to emigrate to and support Israel, with the aim of transforming it eventually from a secular to a religious state, which would herald the Messiah’s advent.

It’s a perfect example of how a timely piece of Biblical interpretation can play a pivotal role in history. Religious Zionism provided a religious rationale for a political and social project that was already underway, the formation of the Jewish state. It catalyzed nascent Zionist sentiment in Jewish communities worldwide. It became a central part of the liturgies of all the major branches of Judaism. The idea that we have a religious attachment to the modern state of Israel is rarely questioned any more.

I know much less about it, but I suspect that the interpretation that undergirds radical Islam was similarly catalytic in the context of frustrated Arab nationalism and Israeli encroachment.

Religious ideas can change history. Can, have and do. The seemingly arcane act of studying scriptural passages and deriving from their ancient authority a motive for current action is one of tremendous power if the interpretation that arises give voice to a widespread, perviously inchoate sentiment.

And just as such religious interpretations are taken up and enacted as mass movements, they are things of time and place. They can be replaced by other ideals.

This is why it is absolutely critical for religious progressives to be part of the public dialogue. We must bring the work of Biblical interpretation - work that, for us, derives from compassion, openness, a love of Creation - into the political sphere.

I’ve said before that the Religious Zionism is an idea whose time has passed. We need to forge a new Judaism that is based not on separatism, but on engagement in an imperfect world - a Judaism that allows us to embrace pluralism, that defines for us a constructive role in multiethnic, democratic societies and on a diverse planet; one that allows us to make peace and not war.

My sense is that the other religions face a similar task. To me, religion is not static. It is to be reinterpreted and remade by every individual in every generation.

It’s nice to be here with fifty or so other people who believe the same thing.