Soldiers and priests…
There are two classes of people who shouldn’t participate in the political process—soldiers and priests. The reasons for the first are so obvious that DoD Instruction 1334.01 forbids it, but only when the soldier is in uniform. Other DoD policies actually encourage participation in political life, a practice also encouraged by the GOP and discouraged by the Dems (because all our armed services are now volunteer, soldiers tend to lean toward the right—the Pentagon and its supporters are not known for their progressive policies).
The caveat about being out of uniform is important. Now consider a priest—a huge example (in more ways than one), New York’s most recent import from St. Louis golden arches, Timmy Dolan (or, is that McDonald’s). If you note a certain lack of respect for Catholic hierarchy, we’re dancing the same Irish jig here. I have much more respect for a lowly priest that works hard to help his community than a fat cat placed high in the hierarchy and out in the community only for photo-ops (for example, our Timmy). Same goes for Protestants—how did a black man ever become head of the SBC? I’m religion- and sect-blind, by the way. Religious hierarchies are just another way to pass money from the poor and middle class to the rich oligarchies of the world—I have no use for them. Whether you’re making the Vatican rich or Pat Robertson rich, it’s all the same scam to me.
Nevertheless, from the point-of-view of electoral politics, the problem with religious hierarchies is that they are NOT apolitical—they’re ultra-conservative and often fascist. We all know about the complicity of the Catholic Church and the Nazis during WWII and how its leaders sat on their thumbs when the stories about pedophile priests molesting choir boys made the news in the U.S. and Ireland. Or, worse—the big cover-up, where these same pedophile priests were moved around to unsuspecting parishes in an attempt to hide their illegal dalliances (one such cover-up, in Philadelphia, was successfully tried…the Boston cover-ups were never tried and rewarded by the Vatican).
It’s interesting that these activities of pedophilia mostly occurred in the U.S. and Ireland where conservative Catholics abound. In countries where prostitution is either legal or given a wink and a nod by authorities—the “romance language countries” of Europe and most of Latin America—these cases either don’t occur or they are kept out of the media (the Catholic Church is often a strong political force in these countries). You also have more nuns in these countries. I’m just pointing out coincidental facts, mind you. Explain them some other way if you want—I’ll listen to you and smile.
The adage that “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely” certainly applies to religious hierarchies. And they take advantage of the blind support of the faithful. Recently a Jewish sect in Brooklyn protested in support of a pedophile rabbi, for example. Men of the cloth (and it’s generally men who wield the power among Christians, Jews, and Muslims) are often quite vocal about their political views. Old Timmy boy is about as vocal as they come, for example—I’m tired of seeing his jowly face in the tri-state news reports. The Catholic Church’s official doctrine is “suffer in this life in order to find your reward in heaven.” The Graham family has often defended their ultra-conservative line and intoned their mantra passed down from the rich: “Things will be better in heaven” (presumably the Protestant part of that celestial real estate–do the Catholics charge them property tax?). Pat Robertson has put his foot in his mouth so many times that his toes are wrinkled. His promises are all over the board as long as you send him money. You begin to see the trend here just with these famous religious figures—progressives need not apply.
To rise in a religious hierarchy seems to go hand-in-hand with being ultra-conservative. This is understandable. Today’s ultra-conservative wants to return to the Middle Ages, those times before the Enlightenment, when church leaders and kings and queens were often drawn from the same aristocratic families. These people are the opposite of progressive—they have retrograde fundamentalist mentalities and want to march humanity back to the Dark Ages. They differ from the Taliban only in name in that sense. Of course, they want all the comforts and advantages that modern science and technology can bring to their lives—after all, the internet is the most powerful brainwashing tool known for manipulating the faithful. They simply want a de facto Dark Ages where they’re the boss. It’s called theocracy.
Giving a soldier a political voice, whether he’s in a uniform or not, can’t be nearly as destructive to our rights and freedoms as allowing a famous priest or preacher, high in his church’s hierarchy, to transform his flock into a mindless, fundamentalist mob. Or, let’s put it this way, if he does so, that church should lose its tax-exempt status. I see no reason to allow my tax dollars to be used to support any kind of political blathering, no matter how holy the mouth is that spews the hate and vitriol. We complain about unions telling their members how to vote, yet, when a priest or preacher does it from his bully pulpit, we let it slide. I don’t want anyone to tell me how to vote—either union or church!
I saw a snippet of the new SBC’s President’s speech (or whatever his title is—they can’t call him Grand Dragon anymore, obviously). I was reminded of another black preacher that the GOP screamed about in the 2008 election—Mr. Obama’s old minister. Yes, I know, although Mr. Luter is still called “fire-breathing” (an indirect reference to that traditional Grand Dragon role?), he preaches kindness and love…but, for SBC officialdom, which obviously and incongruously includes Mr. Luter, gay marriage is still not a civil right and women’s role in life is to obey their husbands. Mr. Obama’s old minister (like Harry Potter’s rival, I shall avoid his name) preached racism and hatred. Pick your venom: Are they political? You bet! Both of them.
Freedom of religion does NOT trump separation of church and state. You have to have the latter before you can have the former. The Founding Fathers knew this, they practiced it (at least in the Bill of Rights, which wasn’t in the Articles of Confederation), and they considered both concepts key for our democracy. Let me end with this warning from the great Irish writer and cynic George Bernard Shaw: “No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says: He is always convinced that it says what he means.” And that, dear friends, is truly why religion and politics shouldn’t mix! Or, why priests and preachers with little white collars, their uniform of choice, should not be allowed to use that collar as a tool to promote their political agendas.
And so it goes….
