Ever since the founding of the first English colonies in North America, a debate has raged over the competing roles of the church and the state in society. Some have argued that the church has an important role to play in the governance of society, while others have argued that there should be an inviolable wall between church and state. Stephen Mack traces this debate in his article “Wicked Paradox: The Cleric as Public Intellectual”. Mack writes about the distinct tension between the religious sphere and the political sphere in America today. He notes that the foundations of our democratic society are rooted in the religious convictions of America’s founders. While he argues that religion and politics can’t merge completely with out damaging both, Mack maintains that it is not possible or desirable to bar the fundamental beliefs that form the foundation of religion from our public life. He explains that many leaders, such as the leaders of the great reform movements from the Abolition Movement, to the War on Poverty, were inspired by their religious beliefs. Sargent Shriver is an example of just such a leader. While serving publically in the administrations of John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, he drew personal inspiration from his faith. His deeply-held Catholic values helped guide his public service.
Shriver served his country during a time of tremendous upheaval. In the 1960’s, the Civil Rights struggle was creating great tensions at home while the Cold War was being waged throughout the world. It was a time that tested America’s values. As a public servant, Shriver struggled to carry out policies that were effective in a practical, secular sense. However, in everything he did, he was guided by his religious convictions. Shriver attended mass every morning without fail. He was renowned for asking where the local church was wherever he traveled. Shriver was a big believer that in order to properly express our love for God and others we must be servants. Shriver thought that the choices that we made religiously and our level of faith were a necessary part of our existence as humans. He believed that our involvement in religion should be thought of as a way to recognize our shared values and to spark conversation especially in the political realm. Ultimately, Shriver thought that faith was the perfect way to form “pathways to peace” and should never be used to create barriers between us. One of the values that Shriver drew from his faith and that guided him throughout his public service was the principle of non-violence. As Shriver stated in his address to the A.M.E Bishops Council in 1966,
Non-violence is only a prohibition. It is negative. What we need is an affirmation—a way of acting that makes sense that can capture the spirit and allegiances of men. I believe that in the Civil Rights movement, in the War on Poverty, in the Peace Corps we have found that affirmative faith.
In this statement, Shriver shows that he drew no boundary between his personal faith and his public service; rather, his faith served as the cornerstone in his work to further the public good. Shriver felt humbled by his duty to serve his fellow man, and it was this religious duty that inspired him to pursue his various campaigns.
As the career of Sargent Shriver exemplified, the work of many public figures is ultimately founded in their personal faith. Their religious convictions represent their core values that guide how they treat their fellow man and define what it means to struggle for a better world. To remove these core values from their public service would be to destroy the very foundation upon which their sense of community rests.
No comments:
Post a Comment