Words of “Spiritual Guidance”
Needham Town Meeting

November 8, 2004

Last week, a national election was held in which a sizable number of people claimed that “moral values” were the most important issue to them—even more important than terrorism, the conduct of the war in Iraq, or the state of the economy.

This has been alarming to some of us. It has raised concerns about the separation of church and state. I asked people within my own congregation how they felt about the identification of “moral values” as an issue in public policy discourse. Many were concerned. Many were concerned that “moral values” means “religious values,” and that that ultimately means the imposition of one group’s beliefs on everyone else. When they heard “moral values,” they wondered, “Whose values?” and “What if they’re not ours?”

These are serious concerns. Will the “public square” begin to lose its character as a place where freedom of conscience and belief reigns, and instead become a place where religious indoctrination—or even religious coercion—takes place?

I care deeply about the principle of the separation of church and state. So much so that, had I been invited to recite a prayer at a gathering such as this, I would have refused. No one, I believe, should be expected, much less required, to share my reverence for God, my passion for my faith, even tacitly. Public meetings must be places where every religious perspective or lack thereof is respected.

But as concerned as I am about the separation of church and state, I am not as concerned about this recent finding as many others are. To me, it is a good sign that people care about moral values—and are willing to admit that they care. Now, some of those who do may very well be under the impression that calling something a moral question means that there’s only one moral answer. They may very well believe that analyzing public policy issues on the basis of moral values provides one and only one outcome that decent citizens should support.

That’s precisely why I think it is a good thing to bring our moral concerns and our religious perspectives to the fore in the political arena. Whatever the issue—whether it be stem cell research, abortion rights, gay marriage … or affordable housing, universal health care, environmental protection—our positions, I would hope, arise not out of any self interest but out of moral and religious concerns, and they should be identified as such. How else can people learn that different faith traditions bring different perspectives, different views to the critical questions of our time? How else can people come to understand that underlying our disagreements are real points of principle?

Too often the moral or the religious high ground has been conceded to the more intolerant among us. Too often it seems as though only one side in the debate on one or another issue of importance is principled—and the other side is immoral. That’s wrong.

Religions do have values. They do have what to offer in the political marketplace of ideas. They should be listened to.

The great American Jewish philosopher Mordecai Kaplan, in arguing for a reconstruction of American Jewish life in the twentieth century, once said, “Tradition should have a vote, but not a veto.”

I would like to paraphrase those words and apply them to the situation we face today. In matters of public policy, religious traditions and religious faiths shouldn’t even have a vote. But they should have a voice. Those of us who are faithful to our religious traditions and backgrounds may very well hear a voice within us, guiding us to pursue a more just and equitable society, a safer, more humane community, a cleaner environment. And we should be free to share that voice, on one condition: that we listen to the voices of those around us as well. If we share our voices and listen to the voices of others, perhaps all of us will have the opportunity to hear a still, small voice within.