Jon Meacham
Managing Editor, Newsweek
Tuesday, July 5, 2005
12:00 PM
Always important, the religious factor in American politics has become pervasive, converting public life into a battle of uncompromising extremes, says Newsweek managing editor Jon Meacham in an article in Sunday's Outlook section. Whether the subject is terrorism, Iraq, abortion, gay marriage, the judiciary or stem-cell research, virtually every issue is being viewed through the prism of faith. Our public background music has moved from "Stars and Stripes Forever" to "Onward, Christian Soldiers." Perhaps on this anniversary of our independence, Meacham says, we can rediscover that America is at its best when religion is one, but only one, thread in the tapestry of public discourse and life.
Jon Meacham , who is also the author of "Franklin and Winston: An Intimate Portrait of an Epic Friendship," was online Tuesday, July 5, at Noon ET to discuss his Sunday Outlook article, Believers, Save the Republic! .
A transcript follows.
____________________
Jon Meacham: Hello, I'm Jon Meacham of Newsweek and I'm looking forward to answering your questions.
_______________________
Richmond, Va.: Thank you for your insight and taking our questions!
Interesting idea. "Religion ought to be one aspect of our public discourse and life." (paraphrase) Please flesh this out a bit more please. If someone is very religious and practicing their faith (Christian, Jew, Muslim, conservative, liberal, orthodox, reformed, etc.) how does one shift to a one dimension view of religion and public life? Should Martin Luther King have just seen it as one aspect? Billy Graham? Ghandi?
Thanks!
Jon Meacham: Thanks for your kind words, and for the good question. The examples you cite are just what I had in mind when I wrote about religion being one thread in the tapestry of our public life. For King or Ghandi or Graham, faith was (and, in Dr. Graham's case, is) the central element, the driving force, and the animating principle by which they lived. But they were not in government; their voices, lifted to make the case for justice and for righting wrongs, were lifted in and shaped the public square. Their role was to bear witness, and the role of the public and of the politicians was to hear them out, realize where they were right, and change society's course accordingly. Their testimony and their courage was vital, and I would hope---and pray---that we will always be blessed with figures like King, Ghandi, and Graham, people who can point us forward to what Winston Churchill once called "the broad, sun-lit uplands."
_______________________
Kansas City, Mo.: The phrase "separation of church and state" is found nowhere in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, and most specifically, certainly not in the First Amendment. Most historians agree that the original intent of the First Amendment regarding the sentence which contains the words "establishment of religion" had to do with preventing a state sponsored church to the exclusion of any other such as the early English immigrants had faced in Great Britain. Your comments?
Jon Meacham: You are right: the chief force behind the establishment clause was to avoid the Old World problem of state religion, which nearly always led to coerced professions and limitations on individual freedom and individual conscience. There is another factor here, too, though. An old line of religious thought holds that the church is too important to be mixed up in what Saint Paul called "the principalities and powers" of this world---essentially, that believers should be more focused on the kingdom of God than on the kingdoms of the earth. The genius of the American solution to the church-state question, I think, was to avoid an established faith and to allow for the "free exercise" of religion. The much-vaunted "wall" between church and state has always had cracks in it (whenever I hear the phrase, I can't help but think of that wonderful scene in "A Midsummer's Night Dream"), but the important thing, I believe, is that we should make room for both the religious and the secular.
_______________________
Greenbelt, Md.: Inserting religion into politics is poisonous to democracy. One cannot hold a rational discussion with individuals who base their positions on faith, and public policy has suffered greatly for it in the U.S. It is impossible to discuss facts with someone who argues from faith. Faith is a deliberate suspension of rational thought, faith flies in the face of facts, and our country is in decline because of it.
Can we actually subpoena god to testify about his position on gender equality, for example? Or do we rely on a self-interested individual to "interpret" this position in an unchallengable reading of "god's will"? How can the reasoned debate that is necessary for democracy take place in this poisonous atmosphere?
People who value democracy need to fight against the hijacking of politics by religion as the founders of this nation did. Oddly enough, at the same time we are trying to bring democracy to the middle east we are becoming more and more like the Taliban-style regimes we deposed...
Jon Meacham: With respect, I disagree with your central point. The idea that one cannot have a rational conversation with a person of faith is a historical, for Judaism and Christianity have always prized reason. Judaism is rich with ongoing arguments about the nature of God, the nature of man, and the work of this world; Christian theologians from Augustine to Aquinas have argued that faith without reason is no faith at all. In the historically accurate Christian world view, for example, science is a wonderful undertaking for it reveals the mysteries of God's created universe. That's why Christians who argue against the teaching of the theory of evolution are wrong, I think, for they are foreclosing the life of the mind in favor of literalism. Faith and reason should not be at war, but should be allies. I recommend John Paul II's "Fides et Ratio" on just this point.
_______________________
Philadelphia, Pa.: Jesus said we would be judged by questions such as: when I was hungry, did you feed me, when I was naked, did you clothe me, when I was in prison, did you care about me? How does the Religious Right reconcile this with their stands on cutting back social programs and increasing prison sentences?
Jon Meacham: You make an important point. Intellectual and theological consistency is tragically rare, and many Christians are unwilling to follow the Gospel to its logical conclusion, which is very much as you characterize it. Christians, drawing on an image in Leviticus, are called to love their neighbors as themselves. Another example of a troubling inconsistency among some believers is that many American Protestants do not follow the Roman Catholic teachings on the "culture of life," which holds that one should be anti-abortion, anti-capital punishment and fight for economic justice. These three positions do not seem to be often held by the same American believer in our current climate.
_______________________
Salem, Ore.: Jon, I love seeing you on TV (Charlie Rose and other shows) but there is a biographical question I have always wanted to ask.
There is something about your manner, your knowledge of religion, and the way you speak which makes me wonder if you were ever a clergyman. Former Sen. Danforth is among those members of clergy who have served on Capitol Hill. Has anyone ever told you that you sound like a clergyman?
Jon Meacham: You are very generous, and because you ask a question about my biography while we are talking about very personal issues, I feel I should answer quickly. I am not and have never been a clergyman, though I am a churchgoing Episcopalian and was educated at The University of the South in Sewanee, Tennessee, which is an institution of the Episcopal Church. But what you see is what you get: a journalist who cares very much about these issues trying to write and speak about them as honestly and as clearly as I can. I may not always succeed---I'm sure I don't---but I try, which is all any of us can do.
_______________________
Philadelphia, Pa.: Was Winston Churchill very religious? Did he invoke religion much in his political speeches and discussions?
Jon Meacham: Churchill was religious but not a churchman. He did indeed use religious imagery in his speeches, using the phrase "Christian civilization" to describe what Britain was fighting for in 1940. He spoke of how America would come to England's aid "in God's good time," and on the night Pearl Harbor was attacked he bade farewell to Franklin Roosevelt during a telephone call with the words "God be with you." And as an old man he would often say: "Whether you believe or disbelieve, it is a wicked thing to take away Man's hope."
_______________________
Boston, Mass.: Jon, I love your work. It's fair, it's balanced, it's not ideological. But it's rapidly becoming an endangered species. We seem headed for a country where all three branches are run by extremist right-wing Christian ideologues. I can't believe that's what the founding fathers wanted. In your view, how did we get to this point? I thought most Americans see themselves as moderates, yet increasingly the ultra-religious are making the rules for the rest of us. Where's the outrage-- or are Americans really not as moderate as they claim to be?
Jon Meacham: Thank you. I think we got here---"here" being a political and cultural moment in which believers think themselves under siege and more secular Americans thinking the believers have taken over---for two reasons.
First, the conservatives: I think the 1962 Supreme Court decision ending mandatory school prayer is the Pearl Harbor of the culture wars. I remember covering a pro-life rally about 15 years ago in north Georgia and meeting an activist who carried a chart detailing how bad things had gotten in America since 1962---the crime rates, that sort of thing. Then came the sexual revolution, the abortion-rights decision, the apparent coarsening of the entertainment culture, and so, for more than 40 years, the right has felt that the country was slipping out of control. I'm not saying I agree with this view, I am only describing it in what I think are generally accurate terms.
Then you have the secular part of the country, which is more or less liberal. To my mind, the left has gone about 40 years without a clear White House champion. Lyndon Johnson's landmark domestic achievements came in the mid-60's, but then came Vietnam, and neither President Carter nor President Clinton were really beloved of liberals. Add that long historical exile to the Bush v. Gore election and to the frustration the left feels over the Iraq War, and you have a ripe climate for liberal anger about religious conservatism.
_______________________
Fairfax, Va.: I hear about one Christian Church that allows Muslims to use some of their facilities on Friday for Muslim worship. Do you know of any other enlightened Christians trying to reach out to the Muslim brothers and sisters in that way? We need more of that type of outreach.
Jon Meacham: I completely agree. The great work of our time, I believe, is to make America (and, insofar as we can without exacerbating the situation abroad, the world) a place where pluralism is celebrated and people of all faiths and no faith at all feel at home. Strict believers in different faiths will disagree with this, but as a believer, I think my tradition encourages humility ("For our knowledge is imperfect ..." as Paul said) and charity toward all. To paraphrase Shakespeare, there are more things in heaven and on earth and are dreamt of in any philosophy, or any single religion.
_______________________
Harrisonburg, Va.: I've been a regular church-goer for 72 yrs (Lutheran). I watch all the news programs and talk shows. When I see or hear any of the "religious right" for the first time I am afraid they will take over all the churches and our government. this is a real concern, are they that strong? Can we hold our own?
Jon Meacham: May I restate your question slightly, and then answer it? You and I, it seems, are both churchgoers and news junkies, and I get uncomfortable when I see any one, either on the "religious right" or the left, claiming to have a monopoly on truth or taking an extreme position. I think many Americans feel shut out of the broader culture of debate and discussion because they are essentially moderate---perhaps liberal on Issue X and conservative on Issue Y, and confused about Issue Z---and the extremes seems to have the microphones.
I must say, though, whenever I get gloomy, I take comfort in some words of Churchill's, who once wrote: "The future is unknowable, but the past should give us hope." He was right: for all our sins and shortcomings, injustices and mistakes, the story of America has largely been one of progress and expanding liberties, and while we have a long way to go, the country's heart always seems to end up in the right place.
_______________________
Jon Meacham: Thank you all for your thoughtful questions. Many thanks for joining in. Best, Jon Meacham
_______________________
Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.