I heard on the news last night that 150 evangelical leaders (James Dobson, Tony Perkins, etc.) are gathering for a private retreat in Texas this weekend to decide collectively which GOP presidential candidate they should endorse. They decided to do this because the current frontrunner in the campaign, Mitt Romney, is apparently not Christian enough (i.e., their particular brand of Christian) to successfully run the country.
The Christian right is possibly the most infuriating group of people (from a political standpoint) I can think of. They will endorse a candidate solely based on who they perceive to be most closely in line with their religious beliefs. News flash: America is not a theocracy. We are not electing the senior pastor of your church – we’re electing the chief executive of our country. What a person believes religiously should have no bearing on his or her ability to be a civil leader.
Furthermore, I disagree with endorsing a candidate based solely on his social agenda. Funny how “social conservative” has come to mean, basically, being anti-gay rights and anti-choice. The religious right calls these “family values.” I would counter that these are not family values at all. There is nothing pro-family about not allowing legal marriage between two people who love each other. There is nothing pro-family about forcing a woman to carry a fetus to term when her own health is at risk. Now, if these are the issues upon which an individual voter casts his or her ballot, fine - that is a personal choice. But when widely known faith leaders endorse a candidate based on these issues and then ask their congregants to follow suit… that is, frankly, a misuse of power and influence.
During Jesus’ life, he purposely stayed OUT of politics. My message to these 150 evangelical church leaders is that, publicly, you should too. Give your congregants some credit. They’re smart enough to identify the issues that THEY deem to be most important, and vote accordingly.
I'm with you to the extend that I agree that individuals should be free to vote based on these issues but it definitely borders on an abuse of power to direct voters in such a broad statement. Especially when you are talking about that size of a group. I appreciate those churches that give their members guidance on things they may want to consider when voting, but stop short of actually endorsing candidates. The Catholic Church has a written policy to that affect, as I believe the ELCA Lutherans do as well (and we're talking about two very different groups there).
ReplyDeleteThat being said, I live in the state of Utah were there are virtually no boundaries between the LDS religion and state law. The LDS church does decide how laws should be and then the legislature gets together for something like 30 days and passes those laws without even really any discussion. They do almost nothing productive and some things that are darn right scary. While I realize that Mitt Romney would not have that kind of authority as president, the kinds of laws that pass here scare me to the extend that his LDS faith is absolutely an issue and I believe people should be considering that (as they are). His church would put an unbelievable amount of pressure on him to make the country more inline with LDS beliefs and as a tool to spread the LDS faith. Which is honestly scary at the end of the day.
I have learned so much living here that makes my skin crawl. All of those "I am Mormon" ads? Half of those people- the highly achieving women, the motorcyclist covered in tattoos.... would be completely shunned by their churches because they are not living the "wisdom of the body" I think they call it. Which means no hot liquids & alcohol, among other things. If we were to consume them, his bishops could remove his "status" among his fellow Mormons, losing his ability to go to the temple, etc. I can see this being a serious impediment to relationships with foreign leaders. Either he will practice his faith fully even if it interferes with his job (not that it's the president's job to drink alcohol, coffee, or tea but I think it would probably come up....) or he will choose his religion is not that important to him and I can't respect that either. Thats just one example, there are others.
Generally I would agree and a candidates actual religious affiliation would not matter to me come voting day, but in this case it totally does and it probably should, or at least people should be aware that to elect Mitt Romney is in effect to elect the LDS church.