While I appreciate the sensitivity of religion and politics, your editorial “Religious left” failed to capture the complexities of their relationship.
As an American who was born in the 1980s and came of age in the 1990s, I am sympathetic to the editorial board’s perspective that religious politics have been “traditionally” right-wing.
However, this phenomenon is a product of recent history and not at all reflective of the longer history of religious life in the United States.
The history of this country and of worldwide Christianity cannot be understood without accounting for the dynamics of the social-gospel movement, which, while not monolithic, championed what we might call “progressive” causes.
Moreover, the neat and tidy separation of church and state that you advocate hardly accounts for the dynamic relationship that exists between state structures and personal and community expressions of faith. The “wall of separation” advocated by Jefferson and seemingly espoused in your editorial fails to grapple with the challenges entailed by our constitutionally-mandated separation.
It relies on a misguided concept (popular among believers and non-believers alike) that religion is a simple matter of “belief” and can be cordoned off into the recesses of private conscience.
But our religious traditions are meant to traverse boundaries and affect the nature of our interactions. For many Christians, myself included, the story of Christ’s passion is inherently and powerfully political, and shapes our understanding of the nature of political engagement.
Finally, just because Rev. Jim Wallis speaks to Christians about the political implications of their faith does not mean that others cannot or do not do the same in other faith traditions.
“Religion” is not as simple or monolithic as your editorial makes it out to be. I hope that in the future the State Press holds its editorial staff to a higher scholarly standard.
Ruth Lindsay
Graduate Student
