LETTER TO SENATOR FRIST
April 17, 2005
Honorable William Frist
Senate Majority Leader
The US Capitol
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Senator Frist
As President of The Interfaith Alliance, a national,grassroots organization with 150,000 members coming from over 75 different faith traditions, I write to you again about your interest in introducing to the United States Senate your so-called "nuclear option."However, the focus of this open letter to you is the association being made between a person's political position on the nuclear option and the legitimacy of that person's religion. Though my personal language to you does not reflect the precise manner in which each of our 150,000 members would speak to you, the crucial concern in my message to you represents a primal interest and resonates with the mindset of these diverse individuals in this inter-religious movement.
Senator Frist, I suppose it was bound to happen. Leaders of the religious right and politicians pushing a partisan agenda in the name of religion have so intermingled politics and religion that, now, even you,the leader of the United States Senate, appear unable to discern the difference between authentic faith and partisan politics. I can think of no other reason that you would address a group of people and even offer encouragement to people who have announced that opposition to the elimination of the filibuster signals antipathy toward religious faith, thus fostering a redefinition of religion that is blasphemy and a redefinition ofdemocracy that is scary.
Politically-based judgments about faith are inappropriate at best, but, at worst, they raise suspicions about the motivations of those> who make them. Do such politically-motivated judgments about religioncome from people-political leaders or spiritual leaders-attempting tomanipulate religion to advance their personal brand of politics? Regardless of the reason for the out-of-bounds judgment, the judgment does not work. Oh,to be sure, it may gain a person or a group an edge in political advantage,but it fails as a valid criterion for evaluating religion. A particular political posture never will be the standard by which to measure the authenticity of a religious conviction! Even the suggestion that a person's support or opposition to religious faith can be determined by that person's support or opposition to a political initiative called "the nuclear option" is derogatory of religion and an insult to democracy. I would thinkthat you would want to disassociate yourself from such thought.
Though I personally disagree with your enthusiasm for eradicating the historic practice of the filibuster, viewing your efforts as a broadside to a democracy that values the rights of the minority whether in the Senate or in society as a whole, I never would pass judgment on the integrity of your religious faith because of your commitment to that political strategy.
Senator Frist, I grew up in the state that you represent. In a fundamentalist Baptist church in West Tennessee, I was taught the valueof religious liberty-its value for Christianity and its value for government. The people in that congregation knew the sad history of a denial of rights to religious minorities prior to the passage of the First Amendment to the Constitution. With gratitude to God for that invaluable education, my conviction about the dangers of entangling religion and government (not faith and politics) has intensified across the years. Please understand that many of us are scared to death that we see a precious constitutional principle being dismantled in order for a few religious people who claim to speak for all religious people to have their religious views imposed on the entire population of the nation through the power of the United States government.
With a religious conscience as enflamed as the conscience of anybody in the religious right, I oppose the election of judges who will, in the name of religion, make decisions that politicize religion and blunt the vitality as well as compromise the integrity of the rich religious community in this nation. Must my religious conviction be attacked as"anti-faith" simply because I do not agree with you when you attempt to destroy a democratic process that has been tried and true? If I feel that way as a person who is a member of your faith tradition, you only can imagine what people from other religious traditions and people within no religious tradition are feeling about such tactics and the implicit, if notexplicit, endorsement of those tactics by you and other political leaders.
For you to use your prestigious Senate position to encourage ferocious attacks on the judiciary launched by the people to whom you plan to speak next Sunday and for you to condone their framing of partisan political posturing as an act of faith so that all who are opposed to their theocratic aggression are dubbed anti-religion are insults to the Senate, a blow to democracy, and a cause for great anxiety in the broader community committed to the historic values of democracy.
All of us should be clear in understanding that the most anti-faith initiatives in our nation right now are those that seek to transform religion by baptizing it as a disciple of partisan politics.A call for respect for balancing the three branches of government and for respecting minority voices in Congress even as in society is not a religious act, but it is a pervasively patriotic act on the part of people who feel like a few are trying to steal the nation from the many in the same way that they have tried to hijack religion and claim that only their voices represent people of faith.
Members of The Interfaith Alliance like me personally love this nation too much and appreciate the role of religion in the nation too much to allow a destructive entanglement of religion and politics to go without challenge. I urge you to reconsider your commitment to speak to a group on Sunday evening that seems to love the nation only when the leaders of the nation favor their particular religion and their preferences in politics. If you proceed with the speech, however, I urge you to make clear that neither your politics nor their politics, whether those two are the same or different, represent a religious position. Even though you will be speaking to people gathered in a church, we all know that you are doing politics and claiming a divine blessing depicted as exclusive to your position. Such an act has no place in a house of worship or, for that matter, in the repertoire or rhetoric of a statesman in this great, diverse nation.
Sincerely,
Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy
President, The Interfaith Alliance
Pastor of Preaching and Worship,
Northminster Baptist Church, Monroe, Louisian
Member of the Council of 100 Leaders, World Economic Forum
1331 H Street, NW
Washington, DC 20005
(11th Floor)
Phone:202.639.6370
Fax: 202.639.6375
Search Contact Us Jobs Internships Privacy Statement
All Content © The Interfaith Alliance.
Report site problems to web@interfaithalliance.org <mailto:web@interfaithalliance.org>
Honorable William Frist
Senate Majority Leader
The US Capitol
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Senator Frist
As President of The Interfaith Alliance, a national,grassroots organization with 150,000 members coming from over 75 different faith traditions, I write to you again about your interest in introducing to the United States Senate your so-called "nuclear option."However, the focus of this open letter to you is the association being made between a person's political position on the nuclear option and the legitimacy of that person's religion. Though my personal language to you does not reflect the precise manner in which each of our 150,000 members would speak to you, the crucial concern in my message to you represents a primal interest and resonates with the mindset of these diverse individuals in this inter-religious movement.
Senator Frist, I suppose it was bound to happen. Leaders of the religious right and politicians pushing a partisan agenda in the name of religion have so intermingled politics and religion that, now, even you,the leader of the United States Senate, appear unable to discern the difference between authentic faith and partisan politics. I can think of no other reason that you would address a group of people and even offer encouragement to people who have announced that opposition to the elimination of the filibuster signals antipathy toward religious faith, thus fostering a redefinition of religion that is blasphemy and a redefinition ofdemocracy that is scary.
Politically-based judgments about faith are inappropriate at best, but, at worst, they raise suspicions about the motivations of those> who make them. Do such politically-motivated judgments about religioncome from people-political leaders or spiritual leaders-attempting tomanipulate religion to advance their personal brand of politics? Regardless of the reason for the out-of-bounds judgment, the judgment does not work. Oh,to be sure, it may gain a person or a group an edge in political advantage,but it fails as a valid criterion for evaluating religion. A particular political posture never will be the standard by which to measure the authenticity of a religious conviction! Even the suggestion that a person's support or opposition to religious faith can be determined by that person's support or opposition to a political initiative called "the nuclear option" is derogatory of religion and an insult to democracy. I would thinkthat you would want to disassociate yourself from such thought.
Though I personally disagree with your enthusiasm for eradicating the historic practice of the filibuster, viewing your efforts as a broadside to a democracy that values the rights of the minority whether in the Senate or in society as a whole, I never would pass judgment on the integrity of your religious faith because of your commitment to that political strategy.
Senator Frist, I grew up in the state that you represent. In a fundamentalist Baptist church in West Tennessee, I was taught the valueof religious liberty-its value for Christianity and its value for government. The people in that congregation knew the sad history of a denial of rights to religious minorities prior to the passage of the First Amendment to the Constitution. With gratitude to God for that invaluable education, my conviction about the dangers of entangling religion and government (not faith and politics) has intensified across the years. Please understand that many of us are scared to death that we see a precious constitutional principle being dismantled in order for a few religious people who claim to speak for all religious people to have their religious views imposed on the entire population of the nation through the power of the United States government.
With a religious conscience as enflamed as the conscience of anybody in the religious right, I oppose the election of judges who will, in the name of religion, make decisions that politicize religion and blunt the vitality as well as compromise the integrity of the rich religious community in this nation. Must my religious conviction be attacked as"anti-faith" simply because I do not agree with you when you attempt to destroy a democratic process that has been tried and true? If I feel that way as a person who is a member of your faith tradition, you only can imagine what people from other religious traditions and people within no religious tradition are feeling about such tactics and the implicit, if notexplicit, endorsement of those tactics by you and other political leaders.
For you to use your prestigious Senate position to encourage ferocious attacks on the judiciary launched by the people to whom you plan to speak next Sunday and for you to condone their framing of partisan political posturing as an act of faith so that all who are opposed to their theocratic aggression are dubbed anti-religion are insults to the Senate, a blow to democracy, and a cause for great anxiety in the broader community committed to the historic values of democracy.
All of us should be clear in understanding that the most anti-faith initiatives in our nation right now are those that seek to transform religion by baptizing it as a disciple of partisan politics.A call for respect for balancing the three branches of government and for respecting minority voices in Congress even as in society is not a religious act, but it is a pervasively patriotic act on the part of people who feel like a few are trying to steal the nation from the many in the same way that they have tried to hijack religion and claim that only their voices represent people of faith.
Members of The Interfaith Alliance like me personally love this nation too much and appreciate the role of religion in the nation too much to allow a destructive entanglement of religion and politics to go without challenge. I urge you to reconsider your commitment to speak to a group on Sunday evening that seems to love the nation only when the leaders of the nation favor their particular religion and their preferences in politics. If you proceed with the speech, however, I urge you to make clear that neither your politics nor their politics, whether those two are the same or different, represent a religious position. Even though you will be speaking to people gathered in a church, we all know that you are doing politics and claiming a divine blessing depicted as exclusive to your position. Such an act has no place in a house of worship or, for that matter, in the repertoire or rhetoric of a statesman in this great, diverse nation.
Sincerely,
Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy
President, The Interfaith Alliance
Pastor of Preaching and Worship,
Northminster Baptist Church, Monroe, Louisian
Member of the Council of 100 Leaders, World Economic Forum
1331 H Street, NW
Washington, DC 20005
(11th Floor)
Phone:202.639.6370
Fax: 202.639.6375
Search Contact Us Jobs Internships Privacy Statement
All Content © The Interfaith Alliance.
Report site problems to web@interfaithalliance.org <mailto:web@interfaithalliance.org>
posted by T. Scott Brineman at 8:52 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home