Thank you Hodding and Kathy for those very generous introductions, and thank you Independent Sector for this great honor. I am proud to be among those distinguished Americans to have received the John W. Gardner Leadership Award. Tonight's recognition is especially precious to me because it is named after a great leader in our sector. I, like so many others, have been inspired, taught, and led by John Gardner. He was my friend, my mentor, my leader, my teacher, and my role model.

After hearing the news about my receiving the Gardner Award, I began to wrestle with the challenge of sharing some pithy thoughts that would be worthy of the legacy of John Gardner. My first instinct was to opine grandly on the virtues of our sector and the legacy of John Gardner, how he helped us make sense of this wonderfully diverse set of entities, many of which were purposely created to counter other members of our sector.

But a funny thing happened to me on my way to the forum or, more precisely, on my way to the voting booth. If we are to believe the pollsters, something called "values" became the main issue in this very consequential election that we just had. "Values": not the humongous budget deficit, not the ballooning trade deficit, not the shameful increase in poverty or the growing income inequality, not the anemic economy, not the environment or global warming, not the million and a half jobs that we have lost, not the war in Iraq or the terrorism that has infected our lives with fear, not the nearly forty million Americans who do not have health coverage, not our dependency on foreign oil, not the unequal education of our children, not immigration, and not the menace of nuclear weapons in the hands of American-hating despots in Iran and North Korea.

None of these issues mattered as much as "moral values."

And it occurred to me that John Gardner would not have remained silent at this moment. This man who wrote prodigiously on our national character, on renewal, on morale, and on morals would certainly have been eager to join in the dialogue on this divisive issue.

He would have insisted that moral values were at the core of our sector. He would have argued that our sector is the natural and appropriate place for these conversations to take place. He said so in 1987, and I quote:

"The great conservative ideas, the great liberal ideas—and the public policy alternatives based on those ideas—are almost invariably nursed to maturity in the nongovernment sector. Both the Reagan administration and the Kennedy administration came in with seminal ideas drawn mainly from nongovernmental seedbeds."

So let us be true to the spirit of John Gardner by embracing this great debate over moral values and the role that they and religion should play in guiding what we have traditionally defined as a secular government.

How do we reconcile a government that proclaims on its official currency "In God We Trust" and which begins each legislative session with a prayer from a government-paid chaplain; a nation that requires children in public schools to pledge allegiance to a nation "under God"? How do we square these realities with our Constitution, which prohibits the establishment or support of religion in any form?

In case we have forgotten our civics lesson on the Bill of Rights, let us recall those resounding words in our Constitution:

"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

History tells that the earlier version of the establishment clause was written by two of our founding fathers, Madison and Jefferson, who passed a similar law in Virginia. Jefferson wrote that the clause was meant to set "a wall of separation between Church and State."

Well, folks, that wall is showing some disrepair lately; some holes have been poked in the wall, and the holes are likely to get bigger.

The irony is that the separation of Church and State was articulated by Jesus himself. Recall your Bible readings about the time when the enemies of Jesus were trying to trap him into speaking against Rome. Jesus was clear and unequivocal. Allow me to quote the New Testament in Luke, Chapter 20: verse 25:

"And Jesus said unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s and unto God the things which belong to God."

Yet, in Jesus' name, there are those who believe that God has told them, through a network of ministers and priests, who to vote for.

I would venture to say that most Americans understand the establishment clause as a way of protecting religion from the State. But I assert that the greater concern is in the protection of the State from religion, for theocracies are the proven enemies of liberty and freedom. We know this to be true from our history, be it that of Cromwell’s England, the Spanish Inquisition, or today’s Iran governed by nonelected ayatollahs who are guided by their own interpretation of their holy book—the Koran.

Indeed, more blood has been shed, more slavery has been imposed, and more knowledge has been suppressed in the name of a Divine Being than by all the "Attila the Huns" of history.

As a man who deeply and unequivocally believes in God, I say to you that my freedom is not threatened by fanatical raving agnostics or nonbelievers. But my freedom, and particularly the freedom of those who have different lifestyles, is in dire peril from religious zealots who, if given free reign, could easily morph into an American Taliban.

The religious right—with its network of TV, radio talk shows, and private universities that prohibit interracial dating, among other freedoms—is a powerful force in American politics. And in my judgment it represents a potential
modern-day know-nothing brand of intolerance.

But it need not be so. Religion can be a force for decency, positive social change, and morality in politics. We appeal to the religious values of decent Americans to reject the injustices of discrimination. It was religious faith that fueled the fervor of the abolitionists to fight slavery. Churches took on the cause of the oppressed workers and their unions at various times in our history.

So we face some real dilemmas: Is everybody free to invoke the same deity for their own political cause, just like opposing football teams pray to the same God to give them victory?

My faith maintains that both divorce and birth control are sinful. Does that mean that I have a moral duty to oppose any politician who does not share the beliefs of my faith? My faith is prolife in several ways. It has spoken out against the preemptive war in Iraq, against a woman's legal right to terminate an early pregnancy, against the death penalty, and against the deprivations of food and health care which cause death. No matter which presidential candidate I voted for, I could not be loyal to my faith.

I believe that John Gardner pointed us in the right direction out of this dilemma when he said:

"Those of us who care about the role of religion on our personal lives and in our national life must face a hard reality. Throughout the history of various religions there have occurred episodes of fanaticism, hatred, zealotry, and violence. In order to give the help they can give in healing our society, religions must exorcise their own demons. Each religious person must exorcise the demons within. If we can heal ourselves, we can take on the great task of helping to heal society."

So how do we heal ourselves, how do we—all of us—rid ourselves of our demons? And how do we keep faith with our beliefs, yet find common ground with those who do not share our personal values?

Maybe, just maybe, we can look to the Christian faith tradition for guidance. The Bible tells us that not only did Jesus advocate the separation of Church and State,
He also quite directly articulated some persistent themes in His ministry on earth.

I understand the parables of the Good Samaritan to mean that others who do not share our faith can act more Godly than the so-called true believers. I read of tolerance for the "other" in the Bible, tolerance for people who are not of our faith or of any faith.

In the Biblical admonition that "a tree should be judged by its fruit" and in the missives of St. Paul regarding good works, I understand the message to be that my faith expects me to fight for social justice.

In my youth I heard words from the pulpit which have been indelibly etched in my very soul. To be sure, I have not always lived up to them, but these words remain my spiritual anchor.

From Matthew, Chapter 22: verses 35 to 40:

"Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked Him a question, tempting Him and saying, Master, which is the greatest commandment in the law?
Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind."

This is the first and greatest commandment.

And the second is, "Like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."

These then are the four pillars of my faith, my moral values.

• Separation of Church and State.

• Tolerance for the "other." Tolerance for those who do not share my ethnicity, my faith, my nationality, my sexual orientation, or my political beliefs.
• Social justice and good works. The obligation to make the world better than the way we found it.
• Love of God and love of others. The greatest commandment and the hardest one to live up to, for these days it feels more righteous to hate than to love.

I rarely talk about these values because I, like many, was taught to pray in private. I was taught not to wear my religiosity on my sleeve. I was taught this by Christ Himself. In Matthew, Chapter 6: verses 5 and 6, He said:

"And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily, I say unto you, they have their reward.

But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly."

How did we get to this place and time where Christian fundamentalists reward those politicians who behave like the hypocrites that Jesus condemned? Why do we demean those candidates who opt to be reticent about discussing in public their deeply held and very personal views on religion? Are we electing a pope or a politician?

We must exorcise our own demons and confront our contradictions.

Let me begin.

I have a confession to make. I—and perhaps others—have not been very tolerant of those among us who are intolerant. Indeed, in moments of weakness and with feelings of moral superiority, I have stereotyped the "gun-toting," "gay-bashing," "Dixie flag-wearing" folks—those folks that I view as intolerant, ignorant rednecks or worse.

And, undoubtedly, they view some of us as the amoral liberal elite who espouse libertine and un-American values.

Although others may articulate their values differently, I believe that my values are shared values—in other words, "moral values" are not the sole domain of Christians. For me these values emanate from my religious upbringing, but I dare say that something akin to these values resides in the hearts of decent Americans everywhere who are nonbelievers.

The religious right has labeled itself the "moral majority." I guess that makes the rest of us the "immoral minority."

But what is immoral about that segment of America who cares about poor people, who worries about the environment, who is deeply troubled about passing on a crushing national debt to our children and our grandchildren, who feels the pain of the loss of life in a war which is based, at best, on questionable legality and discredited intelligence?

Are these not moral values?

Today we are a divided country, and today all of us have a duty to promote unity if we can. Sadly, I doubt that those who fueled the division for their own political benefit can now lead us toward reconciliation.

So let us—those within the "nongovernmental seedbeds"—lead in the reconciliation. Let us reengage in that great debate and help to define the American values that we can all unite around.

But let our side enter the rhetorical battle fully armed with the right symbols, the right message, and the right concepts. Let us not yield the moral high ground, the American flag, religion, or the Bible to the other side.

Let us enter the fray of this great debate strengthened by intellectual and moral principles that are unassailable, and let us be humble and respectful enough to listen to the other side. Let us assume that we do not have all the answers, and maybe others will come to believe that they do not have a monopoly on truth and righteousness.

That is the American way. This is the righteous path.

Thank you, and may God bless the United States of America and all of its inhabitants.
 

-Top of Page-