What happens when voters bring God into the voting booth? Aside from the obvious jokes about how crowded it can get when God joins us in there, it's a very serious question. Many religious people bring their faith with them when they cast their ballots. In fact, how could it be otherwise? Voting shapes the culture and society in which we live. For people whose religious beliefs are not simply about personal salvation or getting into heaven but actually have aspirations for how life in the here and now is shaped, turning toward their chosen tradition is a given. As it should be.
Religion is not something we check at the voting booth door, and it would be oddly oppressive to ask people of faith to do so. What is not oppressive is insisting that those same religious people not demand that all people follow their chosen faith.
Religious people need an ethic of voting that honors their tradition, including its views on specific policies, while also honoring that we live in a country built upon the notion that all people are entitled to the same respect, regardless of the tradition they follow. They also need to think carefully about what it means to honor their chosen tradition.
For example, if more children would die from lack of healthcare than from abortions, assuming one believes that a child dies when an abortion is performed, which is really the sanctity-of-life issue? In that case, one could argue that supporting a candidate who favors radical healthcare reform and a woman's right to choose is actually the more "Catholic decision."
I know that various religious groups have tried to own specific issues as defining the acceptability of a candidate, but buying into those definitions reduces rich traditions to single issues. How sad for the followers of those traditions.
There are Jewish teachings on pretty much everything. Narrowing the definition of what makes a candidate more Jewishly acceptable to those issues that primarily affect Jews or that Jews have tried to own, turns a thousands-year-old tradition into a short list of talking points. Talk about tragic.
But it's not only religious folks who turn to their most deeply held beliefs when voting. Don't many secular people bring their commitment to secularism with them when they vote? Despite what many will claim, the two are not so different from each other.
As in the case of religious folk who turn to the teachings they hold most dear when they vote, secular people do the same thing. They may call it their conscience or "doing what they think is best," but it's no different simply because they don't appeal to God.
In all cases, the issue is not who or what we bring with us into the voting booth. The real issue is how much respect for others we bring with us when we vote, and how much appreciation of the fact that commitment to any world view is always more complex than one's position on a single issue.
Responsible voters, religious or secular, should not bracket pieces of who they are when they vote. In fact, they need to expand their understanding of who they are and what their chosen tradition teaches. When they do that, they will not have to choose between respect for their faith and respect for the rest of us who do not share that faith -- at least not nearly as often as we are lead to believe we must.
Follow Brad Hirschfield on Twitter: www.twitter.com/bradhirschfield
Election Day 2010: News From The Pews - Belief Beat
Campaign Dogma 2010: Religion and Politics = God and Country
Jon O'Brien: Five Myths About the Catholic Vote in Election 2010
Five Myths about the Catholic Vote in Election 2010
My take: Which religious voters will show up on Tuesday? – CNN ...
Daily Targum - Religious politicians appeal to religious voters
Yup. Too bad so many religious people vote for candidates who use religions as a faith of opprtunity to garner voted and after elected and in the public eye, are found too be the worst offenders of the faith they were elected under.
=======================================
There is an ethical problem with this.
Secular people automatically appeal to reason rather than revealed dogma. Religious people sometimes do not. Candidate Obama described the natural tension between faith-based values and public policy this way in his “Call to Renewal” speech of 2006:
"…secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square. …Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values.
It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God’s will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all."
What the religious consider God's will the secular consider tyranny unless it is validated by reason.
As of this election, I will keep my faith out of the voting booth. I have come to the point that I cannot in good conscience vote for any politician and expect them make decisions in line with any faith. It is not possible for any politician to do this in any nation, it is not their role. And as many times as I have read the Bible, I have yet to find where Jesus told us to vote for anyone in particular, Roman, Pharisee, Saducee, or Essene. And I beleive this particularly goes for Republicans and Democrats, as well.
I will, instead, live out my faith to the best of my ability without the help of any politcal organization or nation. I will not request that the government make laws to make others live according my faith, either. I will pay my taxes, work to feed the poor, clothe the homeless and bring peace wherever I can. I will encourage as many other people as possible to do the same.
As a secular person, what I try to take with me into the voting booth are reason, intelligence, common sense, and empathy...and I would argue that relying on these qualities that nearly every human has access to (although they don't necessarily use them) is very different than relying on an inscrutable, intangible entity that only those who are extremely skilled at suspending disbelief can fathom. I don't try to interpret ancient texts written in a different language by people who had no concept of the society in which we're currently living to tell me how I should vote. I consider all of the information I have access to and the specific societal conditions currently at play and try to reach a decision that aligns closest with my own set of values. Sure, I suppose you could probably argue that values are values, regardless of where they come from, but I think there's a distinct difference between values forged individually based on your unique experience in the world and values that are thrust upon you by a religion that is designed to serve millions of people.
When you vote, you are a government official enacting a government duty. You are enacting policies and hiring others to enact policies that will not only effect you and your church but people with a wide range of religious views. As such, you have to follow the Constitution. If you want to vote for something that does not pass the Lemon test (in summary has a nonreligious justification and purpose), don't vote for it.
It doesn't matter how difficult it is for you to keep your religion out of the voting booth, you still have to follow the Constitution. If religious people truly find this expectation "oddly oppressive", then you may as we just be honest and do away with religious freedom and officially establish a Judeo-Christian nation.
Our government gains its power and authority from both the people and the Constitution. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land and trumps the will of the people.
When you vote, you are acting as part of the legislature and thus are acting as part of the government. Just like when you do jury duty you are acting as part of the judiciary. In particular, your actions are no longer private, they are very, very public. This is something you need to take very seriously and your legislating needs to be in accordance with the Constitution. Otherwise policies you voted for should and hopefully will be taken to court.
"Many of my friends voted for President Obama because they wanted to support the first african-american president."
Well, that's a major abuse of one's vote and they should be ashamed of themselves.
Huh? All people are entitled to vote in a manner that reflects their views on social policy, regardless of whether those views are formed by study of the Bible, J.S. Mill, or the Three Stooges. There is nothing un-Constitutional about that.
And yes, I am fully cognizant of the fact that many religious people do not take things to such an extreme. But tolerance does not appear to be a Christian value. Looking at the Middle East, it does not appear to be a Jewish or Muslim value either. The reality may not match the appearance, but for those of us who are not religious, the appearance is awfully alarming.
I was raised to be tolerant of other people's beliefs. I reserve the right to not respect people based on whether or not they believe in fairy stories. But everyone in this great nation of ours, HAS THE RIGHT to believe in whatever religion they want to; and I respect their right to that choice. If only people would respect my right to not believe in their nonsense, then we might be able to get along.
Don't we all.
But the pragmatists will tell us that only a few people will try to expand their understanding, and fewer still will succeed.
In the meantime, it seems that it would be best for most people to compartmentalize, and to check their faith at the voting booth door.
You make the point that secular people also bring ideological baggage to the voting booth. It would be great if they could also check this baggage at the door.
The fact is that nobody will check anything at the door, and our elections will largely be a result of money and media manipulation.