1. George, I think you are spot on in recognizing the relationship between love and freedom as
you speak of choice and not using force. Also, you suggest that we should not be “too
rough” on our “imperfect system” precisely because it does well nurture freedom. And this
is why there is certainly some truth in saying that God and politics do not mix because, even
when our political and religious goals coincide, political and religious means otherwise differ
insofar as the former is inherently coercive and the latter is manifestly not.
So, we could say that religion and politics do not mix “methodologically” vis a vis the means
or methods they employ. On the other hand, because we also recognize that their goals can
very much coincide, they very much do mix “axiologically” (values-related) vis a vis the goals
or values to which they aspire. So, I like to say that they are “methodologically
autonomous” but “axiologically integral.”
The nonestablishment and free exercise clauses of our 1st Amendment were intended to
and actually do strengthen the influence of religion in the Public Square. In a pluralistic
society, religions will inescapably face the challenge of translating their moral and practical
arguments into a language that is transparent to all human reason by employing a logic that
can be understood even by nonbelievers and without appeals to explicitly religious
apologetics or authorities. This secularization process was one of the fruits of the
Enlightenment, which, to some extent, went awry on the Continent and turned into an
insidious secularISM that marginalized religion in the Public Square.
All that said, to me, it is sad that so many seem to view this particular aspect of religion —
its moral and practical role — as its most important contribution, when this problemsolving, dualistic aspect, while not unimportant, is not at all what differentiates
Christianity’s brand in the marketplace of human ideas. Rather, it is Christianity’s nondual
approach that sets it apart vis a vis the value-added Good News that God is longing for an
intimate relationship with each of us — as Abba, Daddy, Mother, Spouse, Lover, Emmanuel
and so on! And, as you say so well, George, there is no hint of force in this type of love!
Finally, let me offer one more nuance. I place this particular blog post in the overall context
of decades of teaching by Fr. Richard. Often, like other legitimate authorities in the church,
he has offered trans-partisan, meta-political critiques. This is to say that he offers us the
language, categories and norms for use in doing politics and not, rather, political strategies
and positions, themselves. This is a church discipline imposed on our clergy but it does not
mean that the rest of us are to dualistically compartmentalize our religious and political
lives. Our catholic, both-and, nondual approach sees the opportunity for us to cooperate
with the Spirit in every realm of our existence, helping eternal values to break-out always
1
