Monday, March 28, 2011
What role does religion play and what role should religion play in family policy?
When I was reading articles on the immigration bill for my family issue paper, I was interested to find multiple references to the LDS church, one of which I have provided. According to the articles, various people supposedly representing the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (I say supposedly because certain experiences have led me to question journalists as reliable witnesses) were involved in an entity called the Utah Compact, which was involved in getting the recent immigration bills passed. It has been stated that the main interest of the LDS church in this issue was the preservation of family units, something that new bills do address. The articles state that the LDS church is responsible, at least in part, for this aspect of the legislation. As religion has been implicitly or explicitly related to multiple entries on this blog, I would like to pose the admittedly delicate question that makes up the title of this entry: what role do you all think religion does play and what role should it play in family policy?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Oh, and that's supposed to be "play," not "paly." I don't know how to fix it. I re-read the body of my post several times to prevent such typos, but didn't think to double-check the title.
ReplyDeleteNever mind. I figured it out. Ignore my comment.
ReplyDeleteAny kind of religion may influence thinking. The role that religion has in the policy world is that it provides a lense from which to view an issue. Still, the lense may be unique among individuals of a same religion. One person might look at an issue with one religious principle in mind, while another person from the same religion may use a different principle to form an opinion. Some individuals may choose to disregard a religious principle in taking their stance on a policy issue. So religion may influence how policy is viewed in a general way, but there may be individual exceptions.
ReplyDeleteI think that it should be expected and accepted that religion will influence policymakers, advocates, and educators at an individual level. Their own thoughts and opinions will in part be influenced by their religion or lack thereof. At the same time religious views and principles should not be the basis of policy, at least purposefully. What I mean is that religion should not be imposed on others through policy.
I think that often the terms religious principles and values are interchanged. In some areas of life this is okay, but in the policy world, these should be deciphered. Certainly there will be a value (e.g., honesty) that falls under both terms, but when one is seeking to create policy outside of a religious organization, using the term value would be best.
I think religion will play a role in most policy in one form or another. Religion is where many people decide their values. These values then play a role in deciding how to approach policy and what is acceptable when passing policy.
ReplyDeleteI actually like that the LDS church is taking a stand and supporting things that agree with their values. They are supporting people that are trying to support values similar to their own. They aren't coming out and saying that the legislators should do this and what policies they should make. They are just saying they support the values being proposed in the Utah Compact.
I was a little surprised that the LDS church was taking such an active stand until I actually read the Utah compact. It's not making policy or telling people what they should do, it's saying that their are some values or principles that should be followed when making policy. These policies are some that most people regardless or their religion could agree to. They want them to act as a guide.
For those that haven't read it, the five principles are 1)immigration is a federal issue, 2) law enforcement should be respected and that local law enforcement should focus on criminal activities, 3) strong families are the foundation and should be supported, 4) immigrants do play a role in the economy as workers and taxpayers and Utah should be a welcoming and business-friendly state, 5) people should be treated in a humane manner, immigrants are part of our communities and Utah should welcome people of goodwill.
None of these are making the decisions for legislators in what exactly they should do when it comes with handling illegal immigration. They are all promoting values. Why should some organizations be allowed to support and promote values, but others not just because they are religious in nature? I think there is a line of promoting values and forcing others to do what you want. This to me is a situation of promoting values and I'm glad the LDS church is taking a stand.
Great question and thoughtful responses from Zuri and Lauralee. Thanks, too, for summarizing the Utah Compact. I'd like to have the reference.
ReplyDeleteI have yet to live in a state in which religion did NOT play a role in policy-making and politics. In Missouri, the rural Southern Baptists held great power in the state legislature. In Louisiana, it was the Catholic church. In South Carolina, Christian Fundamentalists were quite active on everything from local school boards to congressional elections. And here in Utah, the LDS church influences state and local policy-making.
Because the U.S. was founded on principles of religious freedom, it is unlikely that people of faith and their organizations will stay out of law and policy-making. I would argue in the case of our recent UT legislative session, it was the Church's and business communities support of the UT compact that prevented an "Arizona-style" bill from being passed in the session. Such a bill had a good head of steam before the LDS church lent its support to the compact. Then the bill was amended and watered down to what passed, which did not please its sponsor, Stephen Sandstrom [a member of the LDS church].
So, it's complicated, but in general, people of faith are likely to have a hand in policy-making. When they cross the line between separation of church and state, they generally are sued or the laws they pass are challenged in court. That is likely what will happen with S. Dakota's new abortion law that sends women seeking abortions to Christian counselors who will attempt to talk them out of the abortion.
I think it is unavoidable to separate religion from policy. It is something that happens. I think the separation between church and state is too far. Most policies affect families in same way, in the same manner most policy decisions are influenced by morals.
ReplyDeleteBut I do have some strong opinions about the Utah legislators interaction of church and state. I think the LDS church has every prerogative in supporting the utah compact, and legislation that followed it. However what really irritates me is how responsive the legislature is to the LDS church. The article quotes a senator saying,"There is no question that the Utah Compact, with the church’s endorsement, made a significant difference to me and others in the Legislature who helped craft immigration legislation,” Legislators should not look to the official church opinion to form their own opinions. Or toward what the churches lobbyist's may say. I don't think the churches involvement should have had such a large impact.
The link to the Utah Compact is http://www.theutahcompact.com/. Aaron I would agree with you that legislators shouldn't look to a single church for guidance. However in Utah where almost 72% of the population is LDS, I'm guessing part of it is they wouldn't want to risk losing so many votes by going against the leaders of the church.
ReplyDeleteI would guess that legislation happens very different here than in other states because of that fact and that there is such a large majority. I'm guessing that's part of why the LDS church tries to stay as neutral as possible. When they do step off the sidelines and endorse something, people tend to notice - including legislators.
One of the questions that was brough up during the film 8: The Mormon Proposition, which covers the role of the LDS church in the Prop. 8 vote in California, was the idea that religous orginzations are tax protected and in turn "technically" not supposed to make contributions in the political realm. I agree with Kathy that this is not just an issue here in Utah but that everywhere in the US religion plays a pretty strong role in politics despite the intentions of keeping it seperated. And I don't necessarliy think this is a bad thing. Religious leaders are supposed to be guides for the congregations. However, they should take that responsibility seriously and really educate themselves on the implications of any policy they endorse or discredit. In addition, we as a nation should consider how we go about keeping church and state seperate and if the relationship between the two entities needs to be renegotiated.
ReplyDeleteThe responses to this post have been very interesting and thought-provoking, which is rather gratifying to me. If I may go on a bit of a tangent, I found this article particularly interesting because many people I know, such as the man mentioned in the article, feel that all immigrants are inherently evil, especially illegal immigrants. Any measures that grant any such people any help are seen as evil by them, and any that support such measures are also seen as evil and infidels to their faith. As most of these people are of the LDS faith, I thought that having the church (the official word on good and evil) even indirectly support a bill that goes against the consensus of these people was a fun little switch. At a personal, petty level, it annoys me when people assume without justification that their religion and their political party are one and the same. It makes it hard to discuss anything with them because they act like any view that differs from their own was forged in hellfire, and to even bring up an opposing viewpoint is to be demonic scum of the first order. This applies to both some liberals and some conservatives I have met. Of course, almost everything about politics has always been annoying to me, so that this annoys me is no surprise.
ReplyDeleteAs to the orignal question, I agree that religion is inescapable in politics. Heck, I wouldn't want to escape it. Religon to a large degree determines values, and values to a large degree determine politics. We should expect it to be an influence. But I do not wish to force my beliefs on anyone (for one thing, I believe that my beliefs are no good to the individual unless accepted willingly by that individual), and I sure as heck do not wish anyone to force their beliefs on me. As I mentioned in the first paragraph, there is also the danger that someone will get the idea that their political opinion is an absolute moral truth, whether there is any justification for it or not (by my definition of justification, anyway). Adding religious fervor to the original opinion often removes all room for discussion and contemplation. In this way, opinion can become established as fact without any room for doubt, no matter what evidence is presented to the contrary. Such a state of affairs can even be detrimental to the religion that purportedly supported the opinion in question. I would like to quote Thomas Payne, famous author of "Common Sense," "The Crisis Papers" and the work which I quote here, "The Rights of Man." A pivotal figure in the revolution of 1776 and the subsequent establishment of this country, he said, "By engendering the church with the state, a sort of mule-animal, capable only of destroying, and not of breeding up, is produced, called the Church established by Law. It is a stranger, even from its birth, to any parent mother, on whom it is begotten, and whom in time it kicks out and destroys."
My orginal comment was too to post in one part, sor here is the rest. I note, with some dismay, I did not succed in seperating the comment into paragraphs. I will endeavor to rectify this in the conclusion to the incredibly exciting comment I have already begun. I know you can hardly wait, so here it is!
ReplyDeleteI do not think we are anywhere near the state described here Payne. I do not think that we ever will be. I believe it is worth bearing in mind, though. I do not think that anyone here would want the federal government to mess with their religion, or would feel quite comfortable with the religion of anyone else to take control of the government. Most of the religions I know could not significantly be joined to the government without significant changes being made to both. Also, being to a degree rather suspicious of all politicians, I would not want any of them dictating to me my morals.
Again, I do not think it is possible or even desirable to seek to entirely keep relgion and politics completely seperate and sterile. My religion has large influence on what few political opinions I have. As I have stated above, there are many I know whose religious convictions are influenced by their political views, and I doubt anything anyone can do or say will change that. As many of you have pointed out, however, there does come a time when religious influence can exceed the bounds set by the Constitution. I suppose there is a balance that must be maintained between the persuasion of religious influence and religious tyranny, which is also annoying to me. I hate maintaining balances. Extremes are so much simpler. I hope I have not been offensive or too rambling in my comment.
Oh, by the way, I mispelled Thomas Paine's name. I wrote "Payne" instead of "Paine."
ReplyDelete"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." -John Adams
ReplyDeleteIF our country and our Constitution are to survive the times that are coming, they will be saved only through the religious influence and morality of our people--they will only survive according to the extent that policy is dictated by religious and moral influence. Does religion play a role in public policy? Wo unto us if it does not!
"In our increasingly unrighteous world, it is essential that values based on religious belief be part of the public discourse. Moral positions informed by a religious conscience must be accorded equal access to the public square." -Quentin L. Cook