Admin: August 2008 Archives

An article in the Washington Post On Faith section in response to their question: At the Saddleback Church Forum, pastor Rick Warren began his interviews with John McCain and Barack Obama by saying: "We believe in separation of church and state, but not faith and politics." What's your response to that and to the forum?

For me, the God quiz that Barack Obama endured with barely concealed sweaty palms and that John McCain breezed through with seasoned casualness has no place in American politics. Rick Warren is a feel-good preacher who softened the interrogation and administered no canings, but that's irrelevant. To claim that "faith and politics" is different -- and more acceptable -- than "church and state" is semantic sleight of hand. The reason that any contemporary presidential candidate is forced to suffer the indignity of confessing his religious beliefs in public goes back to the Reagan revolution. Pandora's box was opened by the right wing in 1980, admitting not just inappropriate matters of religion into political life but also making acceptable a range of prejudice, bigotry, and divisiveness that had been banished by an era of liberal social legislation. Reagan, after all, was the president who, if left to his own devices, would have let thousands more AIDS victims die through neglect and lack of funding for basic medical research. The implicit reason, well understood by the right and endorsed by fundamentalists, was that gays deserve what they get if they pursue a lifestyle that doesn't match right-wing Christian ideology. Minorities, women, immigrants, and progressivism in general were given the same back hand.

The Obama-McCain evening, being a stepchild of conservative beliefs, was stacked against Obama, or any secularist, Democrat or not. Indeed, it was stacked against anyone who understands the basic reason for separating church and state, which is to keep closed the box of religious divisiveness that Reagan sprang open. As a performance, neither candidate displayed either the unvarnished truth or unblemished integrity. The real message that was meant to come across from Obama was "I really am American," and from McCain was "I'm really right as Reagan." Viewer's notes: Dull pandering to the audience from both sides. Lots of mention of Jesus, sin, faith, prayer. McCain came off as more prepared and polished in his responses. He went for Reagan's easy folksy confidence, catering to the audience's craving for moral simplicity. His answer to the question "Is there evil and how to deal with it?" was typical: "Yes, there is evil and we will defeat it." Obama said, roughly, "Yes there is evil, and we can't hope to defeat it on our own, but we can be soldiers for the Lord to do what we can."
For McCain, it's all as simple as what Reaganism carved out almost thirty years ago: Gay marriage is bad, abortion is bad, activist judges are bad. Winning in Iraq is good, getting Osama bin Laden is good, offshore oil drilling is good, and freedom is great. Obama talked about the hard work and sacrifices we need to make in order to overcome energy dependence and academic mediocrity, also the respect we need to accord others on the abortion issue--not quite as stirring as reactionary platitudes.
In short, McCain appealed to our escapist magical morality, Obama appealed to reason and practicalities. That has been the story throughout the campaign. Everyone concedes that Obama's way is more mature, realistic, and ultimately right. But I doubt that's enough to cure a case of sweaty palms.
Get a sneak peak of our new venture at http://intent.com

www.intentblog.com

www.deepakchopra.com

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/deepak_chopra/

An article in the Washington Post On Faith section in response to their question:

Another politician (John Edwards) has admitted to having an extramarital affair, and another spouse (Elizabeth Edwards) has been forgiving. At what point does a person of faith cease to forgive? At what point does forgiveness become destructive?

A cynic might say, in the wake of so many adulterous politicians, that in future they should issue a preemptive confession before running for President to save The National Enquirer excess ink. Why wait until you are caught? John Edwards' gotcha moment hasn't stirred much glee, perhaps because a rich personal-injury lawyer was an unlikely figure to mold into presidential stature to begin with. On the more humane side, his wife's illness and Edwards' own political failures create a sense of sadness. They both deserve sympathy and the right to retreat into the shelter of home, family, and hopefully a marriage whose wounds will heal. The confession itself smacked of hypocrisy -- as with other cheating politicians, one suspects that Edwards is mostly sorry that he got caught. that he would cheat on a devoted spouse with cancer is best passed over with a cringing silence.

But the question posed is whether forgiveness can be so difficult that it stretches religious faith too far. Yes, of course. The most devout Jews are not expected, required, rewarded, or pressured to forgive the Holocaust. Such forgiveness would be the same as saintliness. Human nature is vulnerable. Violence and persecution create wounds in any faith that not only last but are exacerbated, because for true believers attacking their faith is the same as attacking God -- an unforgivable affront. The notion that God is bothered by being attacked seems irrational to someone outside organized religion, but it is a persistent article of belief and has been for centuries.

A more probing question, then, would be whether forgiveness and faith are compatible. Yes again. The devout, like the rest of us, are capable of holding two contradictory ideas at the same time. As unforgivable as Christians in the past found it that the Jews crucified Christ (their perspective, not ours), forgiveness is a primary tenet in Jesusʼ teachings. He asks for the most difficult form of forgiveness when it is offered to one's enemies. How does a Christian bridge the gap between that ideal and the natural reaction of revenge and resentment? I feel that traditional Christianity doesn't bridge the gap. Without a shift in consciousness, it's impossible to clear the psychological slate and forgive deep hurts just because you aspire to be moral. The imprints made on the psyche by violence and humiliation, guilt and shame, prejudice and lack of love, are as real as wounds to the body. The psyche possesses some healing mechanisms that work -- the passage of time, forgetfulness, the will to forgive, a strong sense of self, and love. These healing methods, however, have their limits.

Eventually, forgiveness cannot be accessed simply because you want to forgive. The essence of forgiveness is transcendent -- it lies in a domain of consciousness where the wound doesn't exist and the wrong never occurred. Whenever we forgive our children and other loved ones, we do so by transcending the normal responses of blame and judgment. To find a larger sense of forgiveness, you have to undertake a journey that leads to this transcendent place inside yourself. Sadly, few people begin the journey with enough knowledge and guidance to arrive at the goal. As Edwards will discover, it's an unforgiving world. But one must be deeply grateful that transcendent forgiveness is real. After all, the day may come when we need it ourselves for our own transgressions.

Get a sneak peak of our new venture at http://intent.com

www.intentblog.com

www.deepakchopra.com

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/deepak_chopra/