Not Goode Enough
By Amb. Robert Seiple on 09 February 2007
My home state of Virginia has a rich history when it comes to religious liberty. National Religious Freedom Day is celebrated every year on the 16th of January because it was on this day in 1786 that the Virginia General Assembly adopted Thomas Jefferson’s landmark statute guaranteeing religious freedom, one of the most important legislative documents undergirding the rule of law in American history. Another Virginian, James Madison, would later ensure this freedom in our U.S. Constitution by making religious liberty the first freedom of our Bill of Rights. The free exercise of faith thus became the cornerstone of all of our civil liberties.
This proud legacy was betrayed in December when Congressman Virgil Goode (R-VA) sent a letter to some of his constituents warning that the November election of Keith Ellison (D-MN), the first-ever Muslim member of Congress, represents an inherent threat to American values. What Rep. Goode found particularly alarming was that Rep. Ellison planned to use a Qur’an in a swearing-in ceremony. After pledging to use only the Bible in his own ceremony, Rep. Goode threw in some anti-immigrant sentiment as well: “I fear that in the next century we will have many more Muslims in the United States if we do not adopt the strict immigration policies that I believe are necessary to preserve the values and beliefs traditional to the United States of America and to prevent our resources from being swamped.”
Never mind that religious documents actually have no role in any Congressperson’s official swearing-in ceremony (private swearing-in ceremonies have traditionally used Bibles, but the official ceremony only requires swearing fidelity to the U.S. Constitution). And never mind that Rep. Ellison is not an immigrant (his ancestors arrived in America circa 1742). Rep. Goode may be motivated by sincerely held beliefs, but in this instance his words are contrary to the spirit of 221 years of American legal tradition.
This unfortunate episode should be taken as a reminder of the importance of finding ways to live with our deepest differences. And one place we can look for guidance is between the covers of the very Bible that Rep. Goode wishes all members of Congress would swear on. Consider the words of the Apostle Paul. Commenting on the reality of religious diversity in the worship experience, Paul offers this: “If it offends my brother that I eat meat, I will not eat meat” (1 Cor 7:8). For Paul, the spirit of the law would always take precedence over the letter of the law. Paul would rather give up something he might personally desire for the larger goal of unity with an extended fellowship. Likewise, American Christians should not hold petty attachments to symbolic privileges that undermine unity in our religiously diverse nation.
A note of caution is necessary, however, in implementing this principle. Paul was not advocating universalism, a slide towards easy ecumenism or relativism, or stripping matters of faith out of all public discourse just so as to avoid the possibility of giving offense. The whole of Paul’s writing suggests that blurring the theological distinctions of faith would be an anathema to him. Paul certainly knew where he stood, but he was also mindful and respectful of the position of others, which brings me to my second point.
We need to spend less time trying to root out what we find different or offensive and spend more energy building on what we have in common. Removing the “offense” among our co-religionists is a destructive and interminable exercise. There will always be the metaphorical equivalent to the Hijab, the turban, the scull cap, the cross, and the nativity scene that has to be removed. The cross must come out of the chapel on weekdays, evergreens out of the airport at Christmastime, prayers out of public places, and so on, ad infinitum. What is left when all possible “offenses” are meticulously scrubbed from our common life? We will have a secular absolutist state closer to modern France than to our own best traditions.
I believe the Apostle Paul’s principal contribution for embracing diversity and honoring differences is best captured in the word, “brother.” The concept of sibling solidarity implies a relationship, a common humanity, a shared experience and, most importantly, a mutual respect. This concept should resonate particularly strongly among the monotheistic faiths—Judaism, Christianity, and Islam—which historically are in the same family tree (the Abrahamic tradition). Respect should come naturally knowing that each of us has been created in the image of God.
This is the more productive exercise, finding ways to deepen our respect for one another, as opposed to merely agitating against the “offense” that divides us. Ultimately, out of respect for the sacred dignity of the other, the impact of the “offense” gives way to a much more appropriate relationship, a celebration of our common heritage.
Some have labeled Rep. Goode a bigot on the basis of one short letter to a few hundred voters. This is grossly unfair and contradictory to those who have known him for decades. Still, his words were confusing and uninformed, and the damage was compounded by the illogical linkage with immigration policies. Let us all recommit ourselves to understanding the full rights and responsibilities of religious liberty for both the majority and minority faiths.
An earlier version of this article was first published as “Tolerating ‘Offenses’: Religious Free Will in America Must Continue to Be Protected,” in the Richmond Times-Dispatch, January 7, 2007.
Last updated 12 January 2009