Religious leaders' political involvement is nothing new

Stan Nelson, News Editor, the Pueblo Chieftain, Pueblo, Colorado October 28, 2006

Why should it be considered troubling if religious leaders or groups join the political discussion?

It can't be that political involvement of churches, clergy evangelists or even nuns is a new thing. It has been going on as long as civilization. Neither is activism by clergy, let alone the rank-and-file faithful, a strange phenomenon.

What seems strange or threatening to some, as near as can be figured, is when a church or religious group - say, Focus on the Family, or three state Catholic bishops - offers any guidance on how to vote come Election Day.

But, given the history, why? That is where it gets tricky. The reason often put forth is that such involvement endangers the principle of separation of church and state, as misconstrued as it often is. Rather than its simpler and more useful application of keeping government free of obligation to any religion, some wish to extend it to the prohibition of religion or religious discourse from public life.

That is impossible in the United States, because we have a Constitution that guarantees freedom of religion. Religion - faith, if you will - is one of the ways people interact and thereby form outlooks on matters that often affect their political attitudes.

So religion has a place in the public square, cemented by freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution, not the least of which is the one that protects expression of thought.

And that expression has had a robust, sometimes dramatic, history among clergy and evangelicals, especially when it comes to political controversies.

Catholic priests Philip and Daniel Berrigan engaged in several protests against the Vietnam War in the '60s. The Berrigans were not self-seekers; both are described as mild of spirit. (Philip died in 2002; Daniel continues his activism.) But no one can deny their actions were calculated to express and, if possible, influence opinion.

Philip and three other protesters poured blood on draft records in 1969 in Baltimore, calmly waited for police, then handed out Bibles as they admitted their actions and submitted to arrest. News cameras and reporters were gathered around.

That same year, Daniel went a step further. He and eight others carried records out of a Selective Service office in Catonsville, Md., and burned them with a concoction that mimicked napalm. The Catonsville Nine, as they would be called, delivered a statement:

"We confront the Catholic Church, other Christian bodies, and the synagogues of America with their silence and cowardice in the face of our country's crimes. We are convinced that the religious bureaucracy in this country is racist, is an accomplice in this war, and is hostile to the poor."

That kind of activism has echoed to this day. Catholic nuns Ardeth Platte, Carol Gilbert and Jackie Hudson were arrested Oct. 6, 2002, after they broke into a Minuteman missile site in Weld County. There they sprayed small amounts of their own blood in the shapes of crosses on a missile silo, were arrested for the break-in and later convicted. All have since been released from federal prison, but have been ordered to pay restitution.

Daniel Berrigan, the Christian Peacemaker Teams and the three nuns are parts of a loose, unofficial fellowship of groups that frankly seeks to persuade Americans away from war and toward causes often identified as liberal or, as may be preferred, progressive. They share information and resources and cross-promote their causes and common agenda, and all within the traditions not only of constitutional freedoms, but of faith taking its place in the public square. And they are not above associations with like-minded politicians and officeholders, when the occasions call for them. Why should they be?

In fact, the only difference between them and, say, the Catholic bishops who produced the voter guide is their activism doesn't seem to raise the same questions or suspicion, principally among media, as political activities of groups often identified as conservative.

That is why articles about the backlash against conservative political involvement among the ranks of evangelicals takes on the character of coverage of a cleansing process, as if American religion may finally get religion and forsake politics.

But if that is so, and the points raised by such as the Rev. Gregory Boyd must be taken at face value, then the three nuns should also forsake their activism, and the Christian Peacemaker Teams should focus on conversion of souls and keep silent on foreign policy.

None should be asked to do so. Politics is part of the national conversation, and faith has its place in it. Daniel and Philip Berrigan did not have to earn their place in the conversation, and neither did Archbishop Charles Chaput, Bishop Michael Sheridan and Bishop Arthur Tafoya. As it is for the rest of us, it was guaranteed.

Stan Nelson is a news editor at The Pueblo Chieftain . He may be reached by e-mail at snelson@chieftain.com .