Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Politics informed by faith, religion and spirituality

The intersection of church and state
KingWu/Getty Images

Molineaux is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and president/CEO of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.

This week, we are asking you, our readers, to reflect on this question, and share your responses with us:

During our turbulent and challenging times, how does your faith, religion or spirituality inform your politics?

I don’t normally weigh in on these questions, preferring to ask thoughtful questions and then maintaining a respectful silence to hear your views. However, this question feels particularly poignant for me, since I’m in a Buddhist exploration of the Sacred Warrior practice. But I didn’t start here. And my path has been anything but straight.


My early life was spent in the Southern Baptist church. On Sundays I would spend time with my grandmother, who did not approve of or like my stepfather. It was our special time together. I would attend Sunday school as she worked in the church office, then we would attend the service together. It was the hellfire and brimstone style of preaching. I spent most services reading my Bible, the children’s living Bible version. The stories were more compelling than the angry man on the dais. And, of course, we stopped at McDonald’s after church, buying extra french fries to eat on the way home.

My grandmother provided the first implement in my spiritual tool box: a connection to others who loved me as I was.

As a teenager, I attended a different Southern Baptist church with my high school sweetheart. We were both baptized in the church and I was … disappointed. The baptism had not erased my doubts or led to feelings of inclusion, which was my (immature) expectation. After drama with my family, I left home, left the church and struck out on my own. I entered my angry years, becoming an atheist for a time.

The second tool in my spiritual tool box was boundary setting.

As my mom and I worked on improving our relationship, she invited me to a church she found helpful. It was a new thought faith — now called the Centers for Spiritual Living — where I quenched my longing for spiritual community. But as a friend quipped, “It’s like an Amway meeting for God.” I burned out with the continual improvement required to be “growing on the edge.” I decided I was “good enough for now” and left the church.

The third tool in my spiritual tool box was self-acceptance.

Over the next 10-15 years, I was “unchurched.” At the same time, I felt deeply connected to my many communities and my work, and faithful in my self-growth. I attended many workshops aimed at personal growth or self-actualization, all of which presented new spiritual tools for me to use. During this period, I acquired:

Eventually, I found myself longing for a faith community, where we could practice and discuss the ethical and moral dilemmas. I started Judaism conversion classes. Nearing completion, I saw a widening schism in the congregation between the conservative, pro-Israel and progressive, pro-humanity members. I did not convert, as I (mistakenly) believed it wasn’t my conflict.

My spiritual tool box was still missing tools when I entered my political life. After running for office (the first and only time), I felt shunned by my friends who were disinterested in politics or making the world a better place. I no longer fit with a material-driven mindset. This is when I began to be a bridger between different partisans, faith communities, social groups and more.

After several more years in the spiritual wilderness, dabbling in eastern philosophy, women’s groups, meditation, yoga, shamanic journeys and other practices where I found connection, I attended my first meditation retreat. The retreat used the Tibetan traditions ( Mahāyāna) of Buddhism, but was informed by Western psychology, indigineous rituals and shamanism.

I added a tool of non-attachment, while remaining grounded in strong, life-centered values.

All of my spiritual tools are aspects I use daily for the inevitable transformation of our political culture. The template of a healthy political culture is already inside us. It is a culture where we:

  • Connect instead of conquer.
  • Are sovereign and interdependent.
  • Love others as we love ourselves.
  • Focus on what we want.
  • Act with curiosity towards new and different people, ideas, cultures.
  • Trust in each other that “we’ve got your back” as we evolve our social contract that in turn, informs our politics.

I am in a Sacred Warrior class to explore — and co-design — a curriculum for 21st century life, based on the ancient, time-proven values and practices that were developed centuries ago for a different culture and lifestyle. The tools I’ve accumulated provide the means. Regardless of our faith, religion or spiritual practice, we all must provide the will to use our faith in healthy and uplifting ways.

Thank you for your attention and for reading this column. Your take on how your faith, religion or spirituality has informed your politics is greatly appreciated and I look forward to reading every answer.

Tell us how your faith, religion or spirituality inform your politics by Thursday at 9 a.m. ET. We will publish a selection of reader submissions on Feb. 11.

Read More

Poll: 82% of Americans Want Redistricting Done by Independent Commission, Not Politicians

Capitol building, Washington, DC

Unsplash/Getty Images

Poll: 82% of Americans Want Redistricting Done by Independent Commission, Not Politicians

There may be no greater indication that voters are not being listened to in the escalating redistricting war between the Republican and Democratic Parties than a new poll from NBC News that shows 8-in-10 Americans want the parties to stop.

It’s what they call an "80-20 issue," and yet neither party is standing up for the 80% as they prioritize control of Congress.

Keep ReadingShow less
Nationalization by Stealth: Trump’s New Industrial Playbook

The White House and money

AI generated image

Nationalization by Stealth: Trump’s New Industrial Playbook

In the United States, where the free market has long been exalted as the supreme engine of prosperity, a peculiar irony is taking shape. On August 22, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick announced that the federal government had acquired a stake of just under 10% in Intel, instantly making itself the company’s largest shareholder. The stake - roughly 433 million shares, valued at about $8.9 billion, purchased at $20.47 each - was carved out of the Biden-era CHIPS Act subsidies and repackaged as equity. Formally, it is a passive, non-voting stake, with no board seat or governance rights. Yet symbolism matters: Washington now sits, however discreetly, in Intel’s shareholder register. Soon afterward, reports emerged that Samsung, South Korea’s industrial giant, had also been considered for similar treatment. What once would have been denounced as creeping socialism in Washington is now unfolding under Donald Trump, a president who boasts of his devotion to private enterprise but increasingly embraces tactics that blur the line between capitalism and state control.

The word “nationalization,” for decades associated with postwar Britain, Latin American populists, or Arab strongmen, is suddenly back in circulation - but this time applied to the citadel of capitalism itself. Trump justifies the intervention as a matter of national security and economic patriotism. Subsidies, he argues, are wasteful. Tariffs, in his view, are a stronger tool for forcing corporations to relocate factories to U.S. soil. Yet the CHIPS Act, that bipartisan legacy of the Biden years, remains in force and politically untouchable, funneling billions of dollars into domestic semiconductor projects. Rather than scrap it, Trump has chosen to alter the terms: companies that benefit from taxpayer largesse must now cede equity to the state. Intel, heavily reliant on those funds, has become the test case for this new model of American industrial policy.

Keep ReadingShow less