Character assassination, and political theology

On Friday, the Republican leadership in the House of Representatives attempted to shore up the crumbling facade of "support" for the continuing U.S. invasion of Iraq with a phony resolution calling for immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq.  The day before Rep. John Murtha, a hawkish Democrat and Vietnam veteran had denounced the U.S. occupation as not winnable and introduced a resolution calling for a repositioning of U.S. troops outside Iraq's borders.  A furious debate ensued over the Republican resolution, during which Representative Schmidt (R) of Ohio announced "a telephone call" from a Marine denouncing Murtha which she reported said "Stay the course.  He also asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message, that cowards cut and run.  Marines never do."  This transparent cheap shot was met immediate boos, and denunciation of Schmidt.  But who was this Marine that the Congresswoman quoted?  Read and weep.

Schmidt is not alone in the use of this tactic.  But it raises some interesting questions for Unitarian Universalists.  Some would argue that commenting on this political hack's conduct is political, and Unitarian Universalists should be about religious questions and some how ignore these contentious questions.  Yet,  there is a whole history of criticism of the transgressions of political leaders going back to the ancient Hebrew prophets, Chinese sages, and indigenous shamans.  But Unitarian Universalism in recent years has been infected with the notion that religion is a personal, subjective thing, and our congregations are organized to supply spiritual services to seekers.

That this "religion is about me" orientation is a departure from the liberal religious tradition should go without saying, we should simply ask our consumers to look at the history of religious liberalism.  But I think it points to a bigger problem,  the Commission on Appraisal beat around the bush trying to define what holds us together,  commenting on our lack of a common theology.  I have expressed my opinion on our common framework in earlier posts: we are not an religion light; we have a framework that arises from religious humanism and Protestantism; and we share a consensus on what is and what are not sources of authority for our religious positions.  I am not sure we need a common theology, so much as a common understanding of what we are committed to do this world.  This common understanding of our commitments must be theologically grounded, but why can't liberal Christians, liberationists of marginalized peoples, pagan revivalists, and humanists of various kinds all contribute their own theological understandings to that common commitment?

My political theology argues that human communities thrive under conditions of authentic relationship, relationships grounded in recognition of the creative and transformative nature of being in process.  The story systems of Judaism, Christianity, the liberal humanist tradition and the Cherokee people inform my thinking and ethical perspectives.  Therefore Schmidt has violated right relation, and is a contagion on the body politic.

But I can imagine a Unitarian Universalist coming to the conclusion that character assassination is violation from other political theologies..  Given my commitment that religious liberalism must be defined by a common public commitment to this world,  I would be disappointed in a Unitarian Universalist who has no political theology,  and seeks only personal religious meanings, or a Unitarian Universalist who has reduced their religious understanding to justify this kind of conduct from either Republicans or Democrats.