Election Season
This post is from the blog site The Faith Divide and it seems rather timely given the subject matter (elections). Thought I'd just post it directly rather than reiterate the points. As a general note, some of the ideas he mentions may sound a bit idealistic and impossible to apply, but having witnessed in April the election of the Universal House of Justice, and seeing how absolutely sanctified it was from gossip, electioneering, campaigning, mud-slinging, slander, over-glorification, and other qualities typically characteristic of elections, I know it's possible. Change is definitely possible.
Now the post:
Today's guest blogger is Jeremy Lambshead, a Chicago resident who majored in religious studies at Carleton College. He has been an active participant with the Interfaith Youth Core since 2005 and is a boisterous fan of the organization and its staff. He is a writer, musician and member of the Bahai Faith.
Four years ago, fresh out of college, I was convinced that the best thing I could do for the world was grassroots political organizing during the '04 election season. Everyone doing this work was convinced that attacks and distortions were all intrinsic rules of the game -- a belief I adopted, not knowing of any real alternatives. But now, as a member of the Bahai Faith, I participate in the Bahai electoral process, which is not only free of smears and mudslinging, but also happens without electioneering, nominations or campaigns. (To learn about Bahai elections, check out this excellent story recently aired on Chicago Public Radio.)
Having witnessed the Bahai democratic process in action, I now have a different notion of what might be possible in our democracy. In this general election season, with campaigns at every level of government, I have often found myself thinking of how we might bring spiritual principles to bear on the way in which electoral contests are conducted. Rather than being resigned to the mudslinging, as I was in 2004, I now find myself saddened and disappointed by it.
I wonder if the historical longevity of this practice (which dates back to our nation's earliest days as a democracy) has led us to believe that it is somehow intrinsic to our political system -- even though it is clearly not required for one to participate in elections, and there are many other contests in life that happen without it, such as sports for example. To run with this analogy (no pun intended), imagine if judges (read voters) took to heart the negative remarks exchanged between competitors, rather than judging solely based on performance. To the contrary, violations are often imposed for unsportsmanlike conduct. In similar fashion, voters could discourage negative attacks between the candidates, through opinion polls and on Election Day.
And they would have plenty of moral ground on which to stand, given that the United States is the most religious country in the West, and the most religiously diverse country in the world. For indeed, no better example of moral character can be found than in the sterling conduct of the great Educators Who founded the world's religions, and exemplified through Their deeds and guidance what it means to overlook the faults of others and have a "sin-covering eye." One example of this from my faith tradition is the following selection from the sacred writings of Baha'u'llah, the Founder of the Bahai Faith:
If such an understanding of the true purpose of speech were to be widely adopted, it would not only transform political campaigns, but would revolutionize the media and communications as well. Historically speaking, successful social movements have relied on a strong, positive vision for a new reality in America (the civil rights movement and the struggle for women's suffrage, for example), rather than simply defining themselves in contrast to the faults of their opponents. They "mentioned what is good" by speaking to the great potential of our society, not to its glaring weaknesses.
Another example that comes to mind is the interfaith movement, which produces the best results when it focuses on creating a new platform for engagement among people of faith, rather than contending with those who are unfriendly to its aims. Organizations like the Interfaith Youth Core have created a new social reality involving service projects and dialogues based on innovative methodologies, all of which are far more compelling to the world than debates with religious fanatics who offer no credibility to other belief systems. In like manner, we would much rather see an elegant synchronized dive, or a glorious slam-dunk, than any two opponents discrediting each other. If this devout and diverse nation can examine elections through the microscope of its shared values -- such as kindness, overlooking the faults of our enemies, and treating others the way we want to be treated -- a more dignified and courteous political landscape may not be as far off as we think.
The content of this blog reflects the views of its author and does not necessarily reflect the views of either Eboo Patel or the Interfaith Youth Core.
Now the post:
Today's guest blogger is Jeremy Lambshead, a Chicago resident who majored in religious studies at Carleton College. He has been an active participant with the Interfaith Youth Core since 2005 and is a boisterous fan of the organization and its staff. He is a writer, musician and member of the Bahai Faith.
Four years ago, fresh out of college, I was convinced that the best thing I could do for the world was grassroots political organizing during the '04 election season. Everyone doing this work was convinced that attacks and distortions were all intrinsic rules of the game -- a belief I adopted, not knowing of any real alternatives. But now, as a member of the Bahai Faith, I participate in the Bahai electoral process, which is not only free of smears and mudslinging, but also happens without electioneering, nominations or campaigns. (To learn about Bahai elections, check out this excellent story recently aired on Chicago Public Radio.)
Having witnessed the Bahai democratic process in action, I now have a different notion of what might be possible in our democracy. In this general election season, with campaigns at every level of government, I have often found myself thinking of how we might bring spiritual principles to bear on the way in which electoral contests are conducted. Rather than being resigned to the mudslinging, as I was in 2004, I now find myself saddened and disappointed by it.
I wonder if the historical longevity of this practice (which dates back to our nation's earliest days as a democracy) has led us to believe that it is somehow intrinsic to our political system -- even though it is clearly not required for one to participate in elections, and there are many other contests in life that happen without it, such as sports for example. To run with this analogy (no pun intended), imagine if judges (read voters) took to heart the negative remarks exchanged between competitors, rather than judging solely based on performance. To the contrary, violations are often imposed for unsportsmanlike conduct. In similar fashion, voters could discourage negative attacks between the candidates, through opinion polls and on Election Day.
And they would have plenty of moral ground on which to stand, given that the United States is the most religious country in the West, and the most religiously diverse country in the world. For indeed, no better example of moral character can be found than in the sterling conduct of the great Educators Who founded the world's religions, and exemplified through Their deeds and guidance what it means to overlook the faults of others and have a "sin-covering eye." One example of this from my faith tradition is the following selection from the sacred writings of Baha'u'llah, the Founder of the Bahai Faith:
Verily I say, the tongue is for mentioning what is good, defile it not with
unseemly talk. God hath forgiven what is past. Henceforward everyone should
utter that which is meet and seemly, and should refrain from slander, abuse and
whatever causeth sadness in men.
If such an understanding of the true purpose of speech were to be widely adopted, it would not only transform political campaigns, but would revolutionize the media and communications as well. Historically speaking, successful social movements have relied on a strong, positive vision for a new reality in America (the civil rights movement and the struggle for women's suffrage, for example), rather than simply defining themselves in contrast to the faults of their opponents. They "mentioned what is good" by speaking to the great potential of our society, not to its glaring weaknesses.
Another example that comes to mind is the interfaith movement, which produces the best results when it focuses on creating a new platform for engagement among people of faith, rather than contending with those who are unfriendly to its aims. Organizations like the Interfaith Youth Core have created a new social reality involving service projects and dialogues based on innovative methodologies, all of which are far more compelling to the world than debates with religious fanatics who offer no credibility to other belief systems. In like manner, we would much rather see an elegant synchronized dive, or a glorious slam-dunk, than any two opponents discrediting each other. If this devout and diverse nation can examine elections through the microscope of its shared values -- such as kindness, overlooking the faults of our enemies, and treating others the way we want to be treated -- a more dignified and courteous political landscape may not be as far off as we think.
The content of this blog reflects the views of its author and does not necessarily reflect the views of either Eboo Patel or the Interfaith Youth Core.
Comments