Election 2008: The Candidates' Religions
In 1960, presidential candidate John Kennedy assured America that he would not allow the Vatican to dictate U.S. policy. Today there is heated discussion within many Christian denominations about how much a president's or legislator's religious beliefs should influence his or her judgment on issues. Some church leaders demand that politicians of their faith must support policies according to their faith.
For example, recently Senator Joe Biden said he would not support criminalizing abortion in spite of his belief that life begins at conception. This is a perfectly reasonable position for a Buddhist. However, Senator Biden is Catholic, and he was criticized by Catholics and other conservative Christians for not standing up for his faith.
In Europe, religious factions fought centuries of bloody wars to enthrone monarchs of their faith. Kings and queens allowed their churches to gain political power and enforce their beliefs and practices. Partly to prevent religious strife from destabilizing America, the authors of the U.S. Bill of Rights stripped the federal government of the power to dictate religious beliefs and enforce religious practices. It was thought religious factions would not fight over control of government if there was no advantage to be gained by controlling it.
Certainly, in U.S. history, church and state have not always been kept as separate as they might have been. Through most of American history, voters weren't that interested in candidates' religions as long as they were some kind of old-line Protestant. But now that the U.S. is becoming more religiously diverse, there seems to be increasing pressure on politicians to allow their own priests and pastors to dictate public policy. We need to think rationally about this.
Many religious people don't seem to grasp that if they can use government to enforce their beliefs, someday another religious faction might seize control and enforce a different set of beliefs. And if it becomes expected that elected officials will let their religious beliefs dictate policy, every election will be a referendum on the candidates' religions.
Of course, neither can a candidates' religious beliefs be separated from his political opinions entirely. Our religions tend to shape our overview of the world and provide a context for understanding events and issues. For this reason, I doubt I will ever vote for a candidate who held strong religious beliefs that were antagonistic to science. I would think twice also about a candidate who could not respect atheists and people of other faiths.
Other than that, I agree with Thomas Jefferson -- "The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." Of course, Buddhist candidates are a tad scarce.
In future blog posts I want to look at our presidential and vice-presidential candidates and consider the role religion might play in their administrations, and whether their positions are of particular concern for Buddhists. For now, however, I just want to advise America's religious factions to back off. Our little experiment in democracy could fail if it becomes an exercise in religious partisanship.
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
__,_._,___
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar