Religious tolerance in America, 2010

The prayer issue finally came up in one of the Aiona-Abercrombie debates, and the candidates for governor handled it, I am happy to tell you, in precisely the right way.

Duke Aiona, who held prayer gatherings in his office as lieutenant governor, said he would do the same as governor, but added, "I understand... the principles of separation of church and state." It was the right thing to say and the right thing to believe and the right position to hold.

Neil Abercrombie, who had an opportunity for rebuttal, instead said, "I think everyone's religious beliefs and spiritual journey needs to be respected... I take the lieutenant governor at his word and I have respect for it." This, too, was the right thing to say and the right thing to believe.

And the two opponents shook hands.

It was, for me, the single best moment of this year's local election campaign.

Religious tolerance is an important part of what it means to be American. You may hold strong beliefs, and you may want to convert others to those beliefs, and you may cherish your right to do this without interference from the government, and it's all good, but in America we draw the line at harnessing government to impose theology. If I may be blunt, we agree not to harness government to impose our own values so that it does not ever impose someone else's values on us.

It was, therefore, a profoundly un-American thing when, earlier in the year, one religious group urged voters to choose Mufi Hannemann over Neil Abercrombie for religious reasons, while another has urged voters to choose Duke Aiona for the same reason. Even some backlash ads against Aiona, while superficially taking the same view I am taking, struck me as urging a vote on theological grounds. A pox on all their houses, I say, because religion is too important to be bandied about in the battlefield of political ads.

Religious discrimination is at least as bad as other kinds. And it was ever thus. I'm old enough to remember when people said they wouldn't vote for Kennedy for president because he was Roman Catholic. A lot of people who flunked history speak of the founding fathers' faith as if it were unified and wholly accepted, a mighty fortress that gave us our core values, but the real reason for the appeal of church-state separation from the beginning was that they were not in accord on religion and their differences were contended with as much passion as Sunnis and Shi'ites muster up today - maybe not as much outright killing, but let's not forget the Salem witch trials and some of the stuff that was done to the first LDS crowd.

"Paid for by the Committee to Bring Back the Inquisition, Thomas Torquemada, treasurer."

Keeping religion out of politics is harder than it looks. I think when one candidate shares your own faith it may be harder not to see the other guy as godless or at least suspicious, even though history has provided innumerable examples where a devout politician turns out to be the one who will do bad things because he feels more strongly than others do that his cause is just. An extra reason to welcome a heartfelt statement of religious tolerance is that it suggests someone who is not particularly likely to confuse his own platform with something that arrived from a mountain in convenient tablet form. In any case, it's hard enough to sort through campaign platforms and records without peering at the candidates to measure the lumens of their respective halos.

It can get tricky, especially when there is a religion that insists upon some practice that society has decided should be illegal, and more obviously when there is a sect that does not believe in church-state separation itself. Then we get into the political version of Godel's theorem that in any closed system there are questions that cannot be answered within the context of that system. My  better angels told me to leave that be before returning to their busy day of dancing on the head of a pin.

While we're asking our candidates to be civilized about religion, we can ask it of ourselves, too. So much of the heartbreak in today's world is caused by religious extremism, which is not confined to the acts of the extremists themselves but extends to our own tendencies to discriminate against perfectly good American citizens who derive their civilized faith from the same book that speaks so differently to people who are filled with hate. Not everyone in a pointy hat is a witch and not every witch wears headgear.

I hope you approve this message.

 

Comments

[Hdougm]

Mahalo for this call for religious tolerance. I certainly do approve your message. However, I do think that a major part of the concern over Duke Aiona's religion isn't theological but decidedly secular, specifically over his opposition to HB444 and the rights of gays and lesbians.

Let me back up a bit. I voted for Mufi Hanneman in his 2004 bid for Mayor mostly because he declared that he would not hesitate to sign the repeal of the lease to fee conversion law. I'm not a supporter of huge landlords -- in fact I'm more a socialist than anything else -- but my vote was aimed specifically at keeping Bishop Estate lands intact for the sake of the future generations of Kanaka Maoli. I knew that Mufi was a Mormon, but his theology didn't enter into any of the issues of the election. When he and Duke Aiona announced their political opposition to civil union of gays and lesbians on religious grounds, I had to scratch both names off the list -- for political reasons, not religious ones.

In the current gubernatorial race, it is Aiona's religious beliefs that direct his political policy on civil rights, so his religion is something subject to scrutiny and criticism. What else does his religion direct him to do? That is a valid political question.

Peace to you,
H. Doug Matsuoka

[This is another good example of the tricky area where law can touch religion. I well remember a quarter century ago when a significant chunk of the electorate cast ballots mostly on the basis of candidates' abortion views, even in races where there was zero chance of a candidate ever having an opportunity to affect the law on that matter. It worked both ways, too: while most of the single-issue people in those days were lifers, some choicers did the same. It was a sensitive, too, with heartfelt arguments by both sides even over what we would call them in news stories, since to their views the names they were called could frame the debate. HMD]

[Localkinegrindz]

Nice to see 1st amendment right still practiced by our leaders. It would be great to see prayer and the pledge in Public schools.

Great article Howard Thank you

sam

[Marcus Oshiro]

Thank you. Captures the essence of the good, the bad, and the ugly of tearing down the proverbial wall of seperation between the state and religion.

[Chris]

Well said, Howard. That being said, the notion of prayer gatherings being led by elected public officials in offices inside public buildings still makes me uneasy...

[Adam Prall]

I agree regarding most of your points r.e. religious/spiritual tolerance. However, there’s one thing I take a big issue with: and that is Aiona’s claim that he’s “tolerant” (according to a recent TV interview, and the debate that I attended here on Kauai). His stances, especially (of course, for this election) on Civil Unions reveal the opposite. At the debate itself, there were hundreds of Aiona supporters there, just a few more than us, and 90% of them were from the New Hope church here on Kauai, whose pastor brought them in to support Aiona and suppress the evils of homosexuality and proclaim that (according to my brother-in-law, who had a very vocal confrontation with them) “God is on their side”—according to whom? I have seen this come up several times during this election.

[Roblow]

When it comes to it, everyone has "BELIEFS", whether you believe in God or you don't. Once a person speaks about their view they are sharing their opinion/belief whether its religious or not. I would rather have a guy whos looking to God for guidance than someone whos not. I don't say the candidate who does not believe in God is shifty or questionable, but if a candidate whos going to use values & morals from the bible to help lead Hawaii, I don't see how thats wrong. Its true i've seen bad decision making on both fronts whether they are religious or not. Some candidates cloak themselves with religion so they can get the votes. I personally like Duke, I believe he will make a great Governor. Im glad a candidate can stand on their values, and its okay that they fight for their views as long as it helps the people of hawaii. Wish that politicians all showed what they all really believed I think it would amaze the people of Hawaii then we'd really have something to talk about. The meaning of the separation of church & state is really about not allowing the government to force religion onto people to control people. This is not about a politician whos open about his belief in God and uses his values from that belief to lead government to the best of his abilities. Separation of church and state doesn't belong in this topic, because there isn't anyone being forced into any religion.

[russell]

"...religion is too important to be bandied about in the battlefield of political ads."

Well said, Howard. Thank you for an insightful article.