Let's get specific now. I've discussed some general issues of politics and religion, but let's talk about a particular candidate. Mitt Romney appears to be leading the Republican race for the presidential nomination. From what I know of him, he appears to have the makings of a good president. However his religion has already become an issue in some circles, so let's discuss that.
Full disclosure: I am of the same religion as Romney. I am inclined to support him for president, though my mind is not fully made up on that score. I like his demonstrated ability, both in business and as governor of Massachusetts. I believe he would bring some much needed improvement to the way our federal government manages its power and finances. I also believe he would appoint judges who are more in tune with the constitution than many now on the bench. He has even, both at the Salt Lake City Olympics and as governor, shown the ability to get big egos with disparate agendas to work together. However I have doubts about his commitment to limited government. There are other candidates worth a look, notably Herman Cain who is another successful businessman of great ability and commitment to the country.
Be that as it may, let's look at Romney's (and my) religion and how it might affect, or not affect, his performance as president.
First, is he committed to that religion? That is a difficult question since it is impossible to see inside the mind of anyone. However his actions would indicate that he is. Mitt Romney has spent uncounted hours doing unpaid work for his church, first as a missionary in France, then in various positions up to and including stake president. That last is equivalent of running a diocese in other churches – except he had to do it while holding down a full-time job elsewhere. Also, there is not even a hint of scandal in his background, no indication at all that he does not live the teachings of his church.
That said, is there anything in his church's teaching that should concern us? For example, would he try to impose his religion on the country? The answer is “no,” loud and clear. In fact one of the central beliefs of “Mormonism” is that it is against God's will to force anyone into any religion. “We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.” (LDS Article of Faith 11) Se also the LDS Doctrine and Covenants, 134:7, “We believe that rulers, states, and governments have a right, and are bound to enact laws for the protection of all citizens in the free exercise of their religious belief; but we do not believe that they have a right in justice to deprive citizens of this privilege, or proscribe them in their opinions, so long as a regard and reverence are shown to the laws and such religious opinions do not justify sedition nor conspiracy.”
There is clearly no indication that Romney (or any other committed member of his church) would use government to force religion on anyone.
There is, however, one LDS (Mormon) teaching that bears strongly on how I hope Romney would govern. The church teaches that the Constitution is inspired.* (See Doctrine and Covenants 101:77-80, and 109:54). We have every reason to hope that Romney, if elected, will follow that constitution.
Finally, there is a charge by some that the LDS are not Christian. That accusation lacks foundation in fact. While it has some differences with mainstream Christianity, the Church is centered on Jesus Christ as the savior of mankind and the only way we can reach any form of salvation. Even a modest perusal of LDS scripture shows the centrality of Jesus' atoning sacrifice. Even if Christian belief were a requirement for office, Romney meets that requirement.
In short, Romney's religion is no reason vote against him, and provides some reason to vote for him. It is of course not the only factor to consider, but it should not be an impediment.
*Note however that “inspired” does not mean perfect. For example the Constitution initially allowed slavery, something repugnant to not only all right-thinking persons but to LDS scripture and belief. In fact the most severe persecution the Church faced was in Missouri, largely because most of its members did not like slavery.
Showing posts with label first amendment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label first amendment. Show all posts
Thursday, August 11, 2011
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
Politics and Religion, Part 2
“no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”
Here we have another misunderstood part of the constitution. Some would have this apply to voters. They seem to believe it should prohibit voters from considering religion when deciding for whom to vote. They claim that, for example, a Muslim's religion should not be considered in deciding for whom to vote. A little thought puts the lie to that contention. If we look at that statement in context we see that the whole paragraph says,
“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
That statement is in the context of restriction on government, not on the people. It requires support of the constitution manifested by oath or affirmation. It places demands on government officials but none on citizens. If a citizen wants to support or oppose a candidate because of his religion, he has that right. Indeed it would only make sense that we refuse to vote for someone if we suspect that his religion would prohibit full support of the constitution.
I say this knowing that two members of my own church are running for president, and that some religious groups oppose them on that basis. That opposition is misguided on many levels, but does it violate the constitution? No it does not. Those opponents have a right to vote based on whatever criteria they deem important. If they think baldness disqualifies a candidate they have that right. If they think presidents should hold certain beliefs, they have that right also. Likewise they have a right to vote for or against someone based on religious belief.
We all tend to trust people similar to us more than those who are different. That leads to erroneous belief, but again we have that right.
I would hope that people would cast their votes based on appropriate criteria and after carefully considering which candidates meet those criteria. I do not believe that, in most cases, religious belief would be part of those appropriate criteria. (A religion that teaches contrary to our constitution would be the exception.) However voters have a right to decide which criteria they want to use, so we cannot prohibit consideration of any aspect they deem important.
Here we have another misunderstood part of the constitution. Some would have this apply to voters. They seem to believe it should prohibit voters from considering religion when deciding for whom to vote. They claim that, for example, a Muslim's religion should not be considered in deciding for whom to vote. A little thought puts the lie to that contention. If we look at that statement in context we see that the whole paragraph says,
“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
That statement is in the context of restriction on government, not on the people. It requires support of the constitution manifested by oath or affirmation. It places demands on government officials but none on citizens. If a citizen wants to support or oppose a candidate because of his religion, he has that right. Indeed it would only make sense that we refuse to vote for someone if we suspect that his religion would prohibit full support of the constitution.
I say this knowing that two members of my own church are running for president, and that some religious groups oppose them on that basis. That opposition is misguided on many levels, but does it violate the constitution? No it does not. Those opponents have a right to vote based on whatever criteria they deem important. If they think baldness disqualifies a candidate they have that right. If they think presidents should hold certain beliefs, they have that right also. Likewise they have a right to vote for or against someone based on religious belief.
We all tend to trust people similar to us more than those who are different. That leads to erroneous belief, but again we have that right.
I would hope that people would cast their votes based on appropriate criteria and after carefully considering which candidates meet those criteria. I do not believe that, in most cases, religious belief would be part of those appropriate criteria. (A religion that teaches contrary to our constitution would be the exception.) However voters have a right to decide which criteria they want to use, so we cannot prohibit consideration of any aspect they deem important.
Monday, August 8, 2011
Politics and Religion, Part 1
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ...”
With those often misunderstood words, our constitution places restrictions on government and how it deals with religion. Contrary to what many seem to think, they impose no restrictions on religion or on voters. In fact the first amendment goes on to prohibit any restrictions on freedom of speech or the press – with no exception for religious speech or press. Everyone can speak freely and print freely, regardless of motivation. The constitutional restrictions are one-way. Government is restricted; churches and religion are not.
If any organization wants to take a political stand, it has a constitutional right to do so – and that is true whether that organization is a PTA, a business organization, or a church. They all have the same rights. Of course we can question the wisdom of any organization taking such a stand, but that is a different matter from the right to do so. If wisdom were required as a condition for speaking, our world would be a much quieter place.
Anyone has a right to speak, and the constitution does not question the motivation for that speech. That motivation may be altruistic or selfish, religious or secular but the right is still there. That right has been exercises repeatedly throughout our history.
Historically religion has been at the forefront of many changes in this country, from the abolition of slavery to the civil rights movement. Churches inspired many to consider the inequity of holding other humans as chattel. Likewise many churches motivated people to fight against segregation and other forms of race-based discrimination. They had, and still have, that right. And in keeping with the idea of free speech they have the right to speak for other viewpoints as well.
Many today decry the “religious right,” implying that religious organizations have no right to speak about politics. Ironically, many of those same people are all for it when churches speak out in favor of tax-funded welfare, sanctuary for illegal aliens, or the discrimination known as affirmative action. If churches have a right to speak in favor of tax-funded welfare, they also have a right to speak against it. If they have a right to speak in favor of affirmative action, they also have a right to speak in favor of limited government.
There is no constitutional basis for restricting speech or the press. Church representatives have the same free speech rights as anyone else.
Nor does the first amendment prohibit citizens from considering religious values when casting their votes or in other political decisions. If a citizen opposes gambling, abortion, or anything else he has a right to do so. That right remains regardless of the reason for his politics. I'll discuss that further in my next blog.
With those often misunderstood words, our constitution places restrictions on government and how it deals with religion. Contrary to what many seem to think, they impose no restrictions on religion or on voters. In fact the first amendment goes on to prohibit any restrictions on freedom of speech or the press – with no exception for religious speech or press. Everyone can speak freely and print freely, regardless of motivation. The constitutional restrictions are one-way. Government is restricted; churches and religion are not.
If any organization wants to take a political stand, it has a constitutional right to do so – and that is true whether that organization is a PTA, a business organization, or a church. They all have the same rights. Of course we can question the wisdom of any organization taking such a stand, but that is a different matter from the right to do so. If wisdom were required as a condition for speaking, our world would be a much quieter place.
Anyone has a right to speak, and the constitution does not question the motivation for that speech. That motivation may be altruistic or selfish, religious or secular but the right is still there. That right has been exercises repeatedly throughout our history.
Historically religion has been at the forefront of many changes in this country, from the abolition of slavery to the civil rights movement. Churches inspired many to consider the inequity of holding other humans as chattel. Likewise many churches motivated people to fight against segregation and other forms of race-based discrimination. They had, and still have, that right. And in keeping with the idea of free speech they have the right to speak for other viewpoints as well.
Many today decry the “religious right,” implying that religious organizations have no right to speak about politics. Ironically, many of those same people are all for it when churches speak out in favor of tax-funded welfare, sanctuary for illegal aliens, or the discrimination known as affirmative action. If churches have a right to speak in favor of tax-funded welfare, they also have a right to speak against it. If they have a right to speak in favor of affirmative action, they also have a right to speak in favor of limited government.
There is no constitutional basis for restricting speech or the press. Church representatives have the same free speech rights as anyone else.
Nor does the first amendment prohibit citizens from considering religious values when casting their votes or in other political decisions. If a citizen opposes gambling, abortion, or anything else he has a right to do so. That right remains regardless of the reason for his politics. I'll discuss that further in my next blog.
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Olberman the Biased
By now you know if you care. MSNBC suspended Keith Olberman because he donated to some congressional candidates. The reasoning was that those donations demonstrated bias on Olberman's part. Well yes they did and we would like our news people to be unbiased. That is pretty obvious and it will be no surprise that I disagree strongly with Olberman's views. However I also disagree with his suspension. In fact I believe all news people, judges etc. should demonstrate their bias so we can know what their real beliefs are.
The fact is that news people do have political beliefs, that is inevitable. The better ones try, often quite successfully, to keep those biases out of their work but they still have political beliefs. Wouldn't it be better if they were all up front about it so we could know where they are coming from?
A similar problem affects judicial candidates in many states. In Oregon, for example, judicial candidates are prohibited from expressing their views during their campaigns. A candidate may believe that criminals should not be incarcerated, or he may oppose the death penalty, or he may think that freedom of speech should be restricted. Voters should be made aware of those beliefs but under the current system he is not allowed to tell them what he believes. He may only list qualifications, endorsements etc. Aside from its first amendment implications, that restriction puts voters at a disadvantage.
Now there may be some reason for judicial candidates to be discrete in their campaigns. They should not express views on particular cases since the evidence will not yet be in. However they should tell us what they believe in general terms, things like if they support the constitution or specific laws etc.
I would support MSNBC if they suspended Olberman for expressing flagrantly biased views on the air. If they want to present unbiased information they should insist that their employees do just that (though it is questionable if that is MSNBC's objective). I would also support disciplining judges for allowing their bias to influence courtroom decisions. Judges are entitled to their beliefs but their job is to deal with the law as written, not to make or modify law (except when the law violates the constitution). However I cannot support institutional hiding of the beliefs of either judges or news people. That sort of policy withholds important information from the citizens.
If a news person is so biased that he will refuse to publish stories that go contrary to his belief, we have a right to know that.
If a judicial candidate is so set against the death penalty, for example, that he will never apply it, voters have a right to know that.
We need news people who can say openly, “I have these political beliefs. This story seems to contradict my beliefs but I also believe it is important to get the information to the public so I am publishing it.”
We need judges and judicial candidates who can say openly, “I believe this law is wrong and should be changed. However it is the law and until it is changed I must follow it.”
The problem is not when such people admit to their biases; it is when they allow those biases to affect their work. That problem is exacerbated when they are required to hide their biases.
If you like my blog, please tell others.
If you don't like it, please tell me.
The fact is that news people do have political beliefs, that is inevitable. The better ones try, often quite successfully, to keep those biases out of their work but they still have political beliefs. Wouldn't it be better if they were all up front about it so we could know where they are coming from?
A similar problem affects judicial candidates in many states. In Oregon, for example, judicial candidates are prohibited from expressing their views during their campaigns. A candidate may believe that criminals should not be incarcerated, or he may oppose the death penalty, or he may think that freedom of speech should be restricted. Voters should be made aware of those beliefs but under the current system he is not allowed to tell them what he believes. He may only list qualifications, endorsements etc. Aside from its first amendment implications, that restriction puts voters at a disadvantage.
Now there may be some reason for judicial candidates to be discrete in their campaigns. They should not express views on particular cases since the evidence will not yet be in. However they should tell us what they believe in general terms, things like if they support the constitution or specific laws etc.
I would support MSNBC if they suspended Olberman for expressing flagrantly biased views on the air. If they want to present unbiased information they should insist that their employees do just that (though it is questionable if that is MSNBC's objective). I would also support disciplining judges for allowing their bias to influence courtroom decisions. Judges are entitled to their beliefs but their job is to deal with the law as written, not to make or modify law (except when the law violates the constitution). However I cannot support institutional hiding of the beliefs of either judges or news people. That sort of policy withholds important information from the citizens.
If a news person is so biased that he will refuse to publish stories that go contrary to his belief, we have a right to know that.
If a judicial candidate is so set against the death penalty, for example, that he will never apply it, voters have a right to know that.
We need news people who can say openly, “I have these political beliefs. This story seems to contradict my beliefs but I also believe it is important to get the information to the public so I am publishing it.”
We need judges and judicial candidates who can say openly, “I believe this law is wrong and should be changed. However it is the law and until it is changed I must follow it.”
The problem is not when such people admit to their biases; it is when they allow those biases to affect their work. That problem is exacerbated when they are required to hide their biases.
If you like my blog, please tell others.
If you don't like it, please tell me.
Friday, January 29, 2010
Freedom of Conscience
The senate special election in Massachusetts brought yet another example of the conflict between freedom of religion and the perceived rights of some. One of the accusations Martha Coakley made against eventual winner Scott Brown was, “1,736 WOMEN WERE RAPED IN MASSACHUSETTS IN 2008. SCOTT BROWN WANTS HOSPITALS TO TURN THEM ALL AWAY.” That was sent in a mailing to voters with that statement in big letters on the cover. It is completely untrue. Brown never said any such thing. It was based on a gross exaggeration of his record.
What Brown did was sponsor legislation to allow some emergency room personnel to follow their conscience and avoid involvement in “Plan B” contraception for rape victims. It would not have turned rape victims away from the hospital. It would not even have prevented hospitals from providing that treatment. It simply would have allowed people with religious objections to follow their conscience and leave that decision to others. I believe that should be permitted.
So you know where I’m coming from, I oppose abortion but have no objection to “Plan B” for rape victims. In fact I believe it is permissible for rape victims to have an abortion (though they should think carefully about it, preferably with the help of a competent counselor). However I am not willing to force someone else to go against his conscience except in extreme circumstances. If someone’s religion forbids Plan B, there are others in the hospital not so constrained. The laws forcing people with such beliefs to violate their consciences have the effect of denying them the freedom to practice their religions.
There are other examples of disdain for religious freedom. In Minneapolis, Muslim taxi drivers are required to take passengers with dogs or alcohol, contrary to their religion. Elsewhere, pharmacists are required to dispense contraceptives, even Plan B, against their religious beliefs. A New Mexico photographer was ordered to take pictures at a homosexual wedding though it violated his conscience and other photographers were available.
Anyone who refuses to take an action that is legal but against his conscience is likely to be accused of forcing his beliefs on others. That is backwards; those trying to force their beliefs on others are the people who want to force others to violate their consciences. The people ordering the photographer to take the homosexual wedding pictures forced their beliefs on that photographer. Those ordering Muslims to transport dogs or alcohol are forcing their beliefs on those taxi drivers.
In fact this sort of thing is a case of misplaced objectives. The supposed objective in the case of Plan B for rape victims is so the victim won’t have to carry the child of the rapist. That objective is easily achieved by just letting someone else provide the information and pill. Instead, many such as Coakley want to force particular people to provide it. Their objective appears to be forcing their ideas on everyone. You are free to disagree with them as long as you do what they say.
The Muslim taxi driver situation is similar. It would be easy for those drivers to post something in their windows indicating that they will not take dogs or alcohol. That would be a boon to other drivers who would get more business, and it would achieve the ostensible objective of providing taxi rides for those who want them. However it would not force the Muslims to bend to the wishes of those who don’t like their religion. I have to believe that the real objective was to restrict Muslim freedom of religion, not to provide transportation for dogs or alcohol.
Those who want to force others to go against their conscience are demonstrating an intolerant bigotry. They ignore the constitutional protection for freedom of religion. They claim others can believe as they wish as long as it doesn’t affect how they act. In that they ignore the fact that the first amendment protects the free exercise of religion, not just religious belief. How can a Catholic have freedom to exercise his religion if he is forced to violate its teachings to keep his job? How can a Muslim have freedom to exercise his religion if he must violate its teachings to keep his job?
Ironically most of those trying to force their views on others today call themselves liberals. Their liberalism does not extend to allowing others to live according to their consciences. They believe that has the freedom to agree with them. However they are not willing to tolerate disagreement. That is a corruption of what the word “liberal” once meant. It is also a corruption of human tolerance and of the constitution.
If you like my blog, please tell others.
If you don’t like it, please tell me.
What Brown did was sponsor legislation to allow some emergency room personnel to follow their conscience and avoid involvement in “Plan B” contraception for rape victims. It would not have turned rape victims away from the hospital. It would not even have prevented hospitals from providing that treatment. It simply would have allowed people with religious objections to follow their conscience and leave that decision to others. I believe that should be permitted.
So you know where I’m coming from, I oppose abortion but have no objection to “Plan B” for rape victims. In fact I believe it is permissible for rape victims to have an abortion (though they should think carefully about it, preferably with the help of a competent counselor). However I am not willing to force someone else to go against his conscience except in extreme circumstances. If someone’s religion forbids Plan B, there are others in the hospital not so constrained. The laws forcing people with such beliefs to violate their consciences have the effect of denying them the freedom to practice their religions.
There are other examples of disdain for religious freedom. In Minneapolis, Muslim taxi drivers are required to take passengers with dogs or alcohol, contrary to their religion. Elsewhere, pharmacists are required to dispense contraceptives, even Plan B, against their religious beliefs. A New Mexico photographer was ordered to take pictures at a homosexual wedding though it violated his conscience and other photographers were available.
Anyone who refuses to take an action that is legal but against his conscience is likely to be accused of forcing his beliefs on others. That is backwards; those trying to force their beliefs on others are the people who want to force others to violate their consciences. The people ordering the photographer to take the homosexual wedding pictures forced their beliefs on that photographer. Those ordering Muslims to transport dogs or alcohol are forcing their beliefs on those taxi drivers.
In fact this sort of thing is a case of misplaced objectives. The supposed objective in the case of Plan B for rape victims is so the victim won’t have to carry the child of the rapist. That objective is easily achieved by just letting someone else provide the information and pill. Instead, many such as Coakley want to force particular people to provide it. Their objective appears to be forcing their ideas on everyone. You are free to disagree with them as long as you do what they say.
The Muslim taxi driver situation is similar. It would be easy for those drivers to post something in their windows indicating that they will not take dogs or alcohol. That would be a boon to other drivers who would get more business, and it would achieve the ostensible objective of providing taxi rides for those who want them. However it would not force the Muslims to bend to the wishes of those who don’t like their religion. I have to believe that the real objective was to restrict Muslim freedom of religion, not to provide transportation for dogs or alcohol.
Those who want to force others to go against their conscience are demonstrating an intolerant bigotry. They ignore the constitutional protection for freedom of religion. They claim others can believe as they wish as long as it doesn’t affect how they act. In that they ignore the fact that the first amendment protects the free exercise of religion, not just religious belief. How can a Catholic have freedom to exercise his religion if he is forced to violate its teachings to keep his job? How can a Muslim have freedom to exercise his religion if he must violate its teachings to keep his job?
Ironically most of those trying to force their views on others today call themselves liberals. Their liberalism does not extend to allowing others to live according to their consciences. They believe that has the freedom to agree with them. However they are not willing to tolerate disagreement. That is a corruption of what the word “liberal” once meant. It is also a corruption of human tolerance and of the constitution.
If you like my blog, please tell others.
If you don’t like it, please tell me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
