During college and beyond I have felt like I had a pretty well developed understanding of how I believe the church and state should interact, which is particularly important in an election year. I came to believe that one should not base one's politics solely on issues of faith. Faith should inform politics, indeed for a committed Christian it cannot do otherwise, but it should not dictate politics. I related this directly to voting based on moral issues for which one's opinion was based on religion alone. I'd say that if I didn't have a purely political or philosophical reason for voting one way or another that would be suitable in multi-faith or a-religious dialogue, then I had no business voting for or against an issue for purely religious reasons. As you might guess, and know very well if you know me, this means that I have little to no tolerance for the "Christian Right" or the candidates they endorse.
Recently I've been thinking about my political opinions, as one ought to do this year, and I've recognized some hypocrisy in my own strongly-held view of the role of religion in politics. While rejecting certain hot-button issues as the basis for my political leanings I have embraced others, my views about which I now realize are almost entirely formed by my faith. I have come to base my vote mostly on domestic social and immigration policy and on foreign policy, founded on the belief that people are of infinite worth. I'm nearly, but perhaps not entirely (yet), a pacifist; I think people deserve at least basic healthcare; I think it's selfish of America to keep out immigrants, since nearly all of us arrived here as immigrants within the last few generations. So great, I know what political camp that puts me in, and so do you now. But those opinions are based on my faith, on the biblical injunctions for justice and peace and welcoming the stranger.
I'm not a fan of inconsistency. I am a logical and linear person living in an increasingly secular and pluralist world in which I need to be able to have meaningful, persuasive, and diplomatic conversation with neighbors of myriad faiths and cultures, while simultaneously being deeply formed and transformed by Christ.
I have no intention of radically rethinking how faith ought to inform politics. My opinion on that has been formed through study of ethics, politics, and especially European history. There's room for growth and nuance, but a complete turnaround is highly improbable. That means I need to think more carefully about my political stances. I need to be able to articulate my positions without reference to faith, while still allowing faith to shape what I believe to be right. I seriously doubt it will change how I vote, but I'll be voting for reasons that would hold water in a debate with myself.
On a different but related note, CNN already has some fascinating stat breakdowns on the primaries. It's really interesting to see how different demographics are voting.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
What's the difference between a "dictate" and a "foundation"? You say that faith needs to shape what you believe (which can hardly be otherwise), but I have a hard time following your logic as to why you need to be able to explain your political positions without referring to faith (and vote as such?!). I'm confused.
Take your belief that people are of infinite worth. Are you saying that, because of the source of that belief, you will refuse to vote on social and foreign policy issues that are related? The way I read your essay comes close to abdicating government to the non-religious, if taken to its logical extreme.
Could you explain your background here a little more? I too have little tolerance for many statements and political planks driven by some Christians. However, I don't see any reason to take my faith out of the equation when determining my own - only to make sure my votes are leavened with reason and tolerance. If you're trying to remove the faith-based part of your vote, what is the ideal mindset that you're shooting for?
Good question. I didn't go into depth because of length. Basically, the faith piece is a big part of the equaion for myself, but if I am voting for something ONLY because of faith then it amounts to imposing a Christian ethic or worldview on someone who has no obligation to uphold it. I'm envisioning an America in which we could conceivably some day have a President or legislature that is not dominantly Christian. If a Muslim or Mormon or Atheist were to make decisions for the country based solely on their religious beliefs we would be in a bad way. So if I can't explain my opinion in a way that is persuasive in the public sphere then I need to think about whether that opinion is acceptable as the basis for my vote, or if I'm just trying to impose a long-gone Christendom. I will vote on issues that are borne out of faith, but I need to know that the opinion holds water even without reference to faith. Could I persuade a non-Christian to vote the same way I am? That helps me determine whether a position works in a secular nation.
Post a Comment