Religion & Democracy Part II

We believe in democracy as a matter of unexamined faith and often assume that every important issue can be settled democratically. However, upon some reflection, even the most pro-democracy amongst us knows that voting cannot settle everything. There are issues of politics, morals, ethics and belief that neither you nor I would be willing to turn over to voters--however well informed or benign. (See Religion & Democracy Part I)

Democracy is not limited just by the fairness of the process or our social contract. It has other limits. As one wag remarked, "A vote cannot make a short person tall." We also know that in areas of love and faith other opinions, no matter how high we pile them, cannot change our own realities. Few of us, not sunk so low as to be on a "Reality Show," would turn over our hearts so that others might vote on whom we should marry. Love is not subject to votes.

Nor is faith. Most religious organizations know that they cannot be true democracies. You might vote on a creedal statement, but even that is dangerous and divisive. A 49% to 51% vote on an important religious issue (like the color of the new carpet in the sanctuary) could split the community. Now try voting on theological doctrine. Not a good idea. Democracy cannot command my faith. Even rituals are problematic. Change the melody of an old hymn or blessing, reword the 23rd Psalm, or, as the Catholics are trying, change the catechism. Know that in all these cases all holy hell will surely break out.

When we look at the religious conflicts around the world and the inter-religious conflicts, they aren't really the fault of religion or any particular religion. We cannot agree on what our own religions teach us. We could in theory (but never practice) agree to be governed by Biblical law. The Hebrew version or Christian wouldn't make any difference. It wouldn't make any difference if we all would stipulate to following Sharia Law. They all have the same problem. Who gets to interpret what they command? What does any particular holy book say? Depends on who is reading it.

Our Constitution is written in English, and while you and I, Mr. Justice Scalia and Madame Justice Ginsberg, all read the same black marks on white paper, we read very different constitutions. Now put the Law in Arabic, Latin, Greek, Aramaic or Hebrew. Make the languages reflect cultures one thousand or two thousand or three thousand years in the past. Now translate with 21st Century eyes, hearts and brains and tell me what it commands. When we get our different interpretations on the table, will we be willing to abide by a majority vote? I don't think so.

All of this is difficult enough in a secular world with our own Constitution. When we put disputes in religious terms settlements based on either voting or reason are far more difficult. Religion will not allow voting on articles of faith--even when faith becomes political. We can easily imagine individual Israelis and Palestinians saying, "You know if this were mine to give you I would for the sake of peace. But it isn't mine. God has the deed and I can't alienate this sacred legacy." You can imagine the same conversation between Indians and Pakistanis over Kashmir, Catholics and Eastern Orthodox in the former Yugoslavia. Religion can easily block the validity of just about any plebiscite.

The problem is that often the question in dispute is part of the definition of a group. Thus no Mosque could vote to allow pork or alcohol. No synagogue could allow pork into the building--not even Chinese. However liberal or well disposed towards Islam, no Christian congregation will recognize the prophethood of Mohammad. These are all definitional and not subject to votes.

So, when we look at our world and don't understand why reasonable people can't settle our disputes with clear and clean up or down votes, we are often missing the broader context that limits the legitimacy of even honest campaigns and counts.

©2011 Jonathan Dobrer
www.Dobrer.com