Private Faith and Public Politics

March 17, 2004

Private Faith and Public Politics

Earlier this year, a poll revealed that most Americans have a favorable view of religion in the political arena. An O'Leary Report/Zogby International Values poll showed that nearly 60 percent of Americans “say it's important for a president to believe in God and be deeply religious.” More evidence that, at least as far as the poll data shows, Americans take their religion seriously.

This year's presidential race has been narrowed down to two candidates who claim a religious tradition: George W. Bush is a Methodist and John Kerry is a Catholic. We can be sure to hear plenty about the candidates' personal religious convictions and how these beliefs shape their view of the presidency. This is nothing new. John F. Kennedy, campaigning in 1960 to become the nation's first Catholic president, famously promised the Greater Houston Ministerial Alliance that he would follow his own conscience, not the Vatican's. “I do not speak for my church on public matters--and the church does not speak for me,” Kennedy said.

But must faith remain a private matter for elected officials? If not, how then should political leaders of faith inform their decision-making while doing justice to the plurality of religious beliefs among their constituencies? In a representative democracy like the United States, some feel that their religious convictions should not inform or determine their policy decisions, out of deference for differing views among the electorate. But the claim that conscience can or should be ignored in specific policy areas is disingenuous, however. Moral considerations of some sort come into play in every policy decision. Political leaders tend to distance their moral convictions from the debate in favor of public opinion only when it is politically expedient.

True statesmen are not merely mouthpieces for opinion polls. British historian Lord Acton recognized that the will of the majority could be and often is just as tyrannical as the will of a monarch, and in some cases more dangerous because the error has the support of the masses. Thus he observes, “It is bad to be oppressed by a minority, but it is worse to be oppressed by a majority,” and, “The will of the people cannot make just that which is unjust.” These statements speak to the biblical reality confessed by the apostles, “We must obey God rather than human beings!” (Acts 5:29 TNIV).

In the United States we have compelling historical and contemporary examples of the majority siding with what were, in retrospect, clear-cut cases of injustice. The legalization and promotion of slavery by governments are a prime example, and stand as a sharp rebuke to elected officials who think they ought simply to represent the people without regard to their own conscience. Today, there are a number of hotly contentious issues--such as abortion, stem cell research and, now, marriage--whose partisans often make appeals based on poll data. Our elected officials follow the shifting temper of the electorate with rapt attention. But is this how we ask our elected officials to lead?

Pope John Paul II recently reiterated the necessary link between faith and public policy. Politicians have a duty to bring their faith to bear in their public life. “I consider it opportune to recall that the legislator, and the Catholic legislator in particular, cannot contribute to the formulation or approval of laws contrary to 'the primary and essential norms that regulate moral life,' the expressions of the highest values of the human person and proceeding in the last analysis from God, the Supreme Legislator,” the Pope said.

Politicians do themselves and those they represent no justice by rigidly separating out their religious convictions from their policy decisions. Neither is the electorate advantaged by the omission of authentic religious discussion and engagement of political issues.

Of course simply invoking faith superficially for any issue does not constitute a valid way of meeting these obligations. A heartfelt desire to help the poor, for example, is not enough. Policymaking also requires sound economic thinking and a discernment of the moral underpinnings of competing economic systems. The Bible can and has been claimed for any number of hateful and destructive programs, both political and social. It is in the particular engagement of faith and public duty that prayer and discernment play key roles.

Political leaders of all faiths must bring their respective traditions to bear on their decisions. This is an honest exercise of conscience, and one best managed in a spirit of tolerance and respect. To do otherwise is to commit an act of moral cowardice. In an age when so many are echoing Pontius Pilate's confused question, “What is truth?” (John 18:38), too many political leaders have settled on an inadequate answer: the will of the people (and the pollsters).

Comments

http://www.siamamulet.net/phpboard/qb.php?Qid=4050: http://www.siamamulet.net/phpboard/qb.php?Qid=4050

Chinese people always use mafia style to kill people and nature without any responsibility as for only their benefits. I pray for miracle things which can help that people to realize for their sins.
http://www.siamamulet.net/phpboard/qb.php?Qid=4050

Thailand: fight4thai@hotmail.com

IAm interested in Thailand Politics. I've heard that Thaksin Shinawatra has violated the Thai constitution and many other laws, Furthermore , his corruption and abusing his power to facilitate his family's multi-billion baht businesses which are highly sensitive and will affect the security of Thailand, such as mobile phone service, a satellite, an airline and a TV channel. Thai people are now boycotting the April 2 election to stop a government that betrays and steals human rights from its people.

So I'm looking for people to pray for Thaksin ShinawatraAs removal from being caretaker Prime Minister of Thailand. As since he came to power in 2001 , his clique , use mafia and autocratic style violated the press freedom. Furthermore , the violence in Southern part of Thailand , many provinces have suffered a lot of bombings , many people have been injured or killed , and then someone was abducted and had disappeared at the hands of the authorities. After ThaksinAs dissolution of parliament , he expected to buy votes in April 2 election for his party be back to power again.

Thailand
Email : fight4thai@hotmail.com
Website : http://www.nationmultimedia.com/
http://www.manager.co.th/Home/ViewBrowse.aspx?BrowseNewsID=6200

Guy Fain: guy.fain@gmail.com

I noticed you have been quoting from the TNIV as a new Bible translation on your website, but am concerned that it might obfuscate the truth of God's word. It happens to be part of a politically correct translation philosophy which seeks to subordinate God's word to current projected standards of engendered language (to neuter God's Word). As someone who finds it worthwhile to use engendered language, because it conveys more human experience, I would like to encourage you to use another translation such as the ESV, RSV, or even the NIV. The TNIV should not be called a translation if it goes so far in paraphrase to constitute something different than was said in the Greek, when the same thing could have been said had they, too, been politically correct. That is to say, it is not acceptable to translate any other historical document into English to fit modern, yet-to-be-established Orwellian Speech Codes. The TNIV constantly obfuscates the text by interchanging singulars and plurals, changing the third person into the second person, and making less of Jesus Christ's masculinity and forshadowing in Psalm 8, Hebrews 2, and Psalm 34. If you would like more information on the unfaithfulness and unreliability of this "translation," I would be happy to pass it on. It is too blatently obscure that as a reputable organization, I am shocked to see it in your articles. Please reconsider this decision. Regards,
Guy Fain

Rep. David A. Pendleton: RepPendleton@capitol.hawaii.gov

Ballor's article is ironic in the way it begins and ends with reference to polls. It begins with a poll result indicating what we have always known: that Americans are essentially a religious people, and should this be a surprise given our religious heritage? I think not. The ending point is at the heart of the matter. We want leaders who lead, not follow. We want them to act based on principle, not expediency. Separation of church and state means allowing churches to operate freely and not to be pawns of the government; it also means allowing government to serve all citizens, not to be beholden to any church. The Constitution never contemplated the government to be a tool of the church. What makes Ballor's article so helpful is the reminder that we all have religion -- we all have core beliefs which flow from and are connected to one's ultimate loyalty. In many ways even secular individuals exhibit worldviews which are held with religious tenacity. The point is that we do not want these leaders to hide these beliefs. They will inform how they live and act and vote. At the very least we ask them to be upfront and open about such beliefs, religious though they may be. This is honest and open government. This is conscientious government. If voters don't like it, they can vote for the other candidate. At least they will have had a leader who has been upfront about what motivates him or her.

Blaine K. Newton: lover_of_liberty1@yahoo.com

A couple of thoughts on Sam's post. Sam, even if I were to grant you the accuracy of the polls you referenced, what relevance is there in citing them? Although you don't state it explicitly, your working assumption seems to be that the foundation of political ethics should be based on the unaided or autonomous thinking (that is, thinking divorced from the guidance of supernatural revelation) of those in a society. But this is certainly not a neutral position and would need to be argued for, not simply assumed as true without question. Indeed, Jordan's article cites a couple of examples of such a practice within the history of our own country that would seem to undermine that position. Now, with regard to Americans supposedly wanting religious politicians, yet wanting a strong barrier between church and state, my view as a Christian is that such a practice is simply unfaithful to the teaching of the bible. As a result of his accomplishment of redemption, Christ claims ALL authority in heaven AND ON EARTH (Matt. 28:18), and this, therefore, must necessarily include issues of political ethics and practice and jurisprudence. Finally, your statement that separation of religion from politics makes a government stronger only shows your anti-religious prejudice. One need only consider a few contrary examples of those who refused to submit to biblical guidance in their political practice. Consider, for example, the killing that took place during the reign of terror of the French Revolution, the ruthlessness of tyrannical dictators such as Stalin, Hitler, and Pol Pot, to name but a few. All of these men were heavily influenced by secular systems of political ethics. Also, I grant that there have been times when so-called Christian political leaders didn't live up to the standards that the bible requires. But please notice that this doesn't disprove the biblical standard itself, but only that those who took on the label of Christian didn't submit or live up to that standard.

Jim Schaeffer: jfstnlaw@bellsouth.net

I wonder how many of the 60%% who believe that "politicians should believe in God and be deeply religious" really mean "their" God and "their" religion. If it were really that clear cut we would have a whole lot more ministers, priests, and rabbis in public office than we do.

Sam Drzymala: sammyd495@yahoo.com

Americans have always preferred politicians who care deeply about their religion. This poll suggests no change in public opinion. Though Americans favor religious politicians, however, polling also suggests that they support a strong barrier between church and state. Historical evidence shows that keeping religion separate from government actually makes it stronger. Look at Western Europe: France, England, Spain, Germany, and Italy all have state sponsored religions and most people living in those countries are athiests. Religious men such as yourself would do well to recognize this.

Acton Commentary