God be with you. . . if you agree with me
Since we are already talking about God's political preferences, this is what I think about it. I think that maybe we would all be better off if politicians were not allowed to invoke the almighty at all. I am all for good god fearing people holding office, and I think that it is okay for someone's religious beliefs to influence their political ideas (and even their actions once they are in office), but it is dangerous to say that God endorses any political agenda. Here are a few reasons why:
1. when someone thinks that they are doing God's work there is a tendancy to be unwilling to compromise, which is a great quality when standing by your beliefs in your personal life (aka thou shall not steal, etc.) but in politics you have so many competing interests that compromise is almost always necessary, and usually not a bad thing. I've heard a lot of people that think one of the reasons that the Nush administration feel so comfortable doing whatever they feel like is the president's strong belief that he is doing what God wants (whether or not you like Bush, I think most people would agree that at least a little more compromise/discussion would be a good thing).
2. The last time I checked, there was only one guy who was authorized to recieve revelation for the whole world. Maybe you could argue that political leaders have some kind of stewardship, but given the important-but-secular nature of their position I think this might be a tough case to make.
3. Political leaders have to solve lots of problems that seem to me to be mostly organizational, taxing/spending plans, voting districts, etc. a lot of these areas seem to fall under the choosing between two good things umbrella that God may or may not feel strongly either way. If we raise tax on beef to get more funds for highways, it helps the drivers and hurts the BBQers, who does God want to bear the spending burden. Stuff like that.
4. Political leaders are elected to serve all of the people who live within their jurisdiction, not just the christians, or the moslums, or the atheists. Lots of those people don't care if the God that the mayor believes in wants him to do something, they want him to try to do what is best for everyone and listen to his constitutients. It seems kind of insensitive to assume that just because you think that God is one way everyone else does too.
I guess it might even lead to a discussion of how far the establishment clause should go, God has always had a role in American politics, but when does that help us and when does that hurt us? A while ago a friend said to me that while, as Latter Day Saints we are all for prayer and worship, shouldn't we also be the ones that really want a seperation of church and state after a lot of the things that have gone on historically between the LDS church and the government? Just a starting point, your thoughts?
posted by Chris M. G @ 5/15/2006 06:58:00 AM
4 comments
4 Comments:
I have a lot to say about the first part of Chris' post but I wanted to respond to Siyadow's comments about the Establishment Clause. I remember reading somewhere that the whole idea of "wall of separation" came from the anti-catholic/anti-jew white supremacists wanting to keep protestants on top. Here's a quote from the Volokh Conspiracy on the history of the idea:
"As University of Chicago legal historian, Philip Hamburger, has shown in his history of the Separation of Church and State, none of the major framers favored Separation until about the election of 1800, when the Jeffersonians urged Separation to silence Northern clergy. Indeed, in the 1780s some religious leaders who were accused of wanting Separation denied such a misreading of their position. In the 1780s and early 1790s, a few religious dissenters favored Separation, but none of the insiders--certainly not Madison.
What Madison wanted in the 1780s was disestablishment of religion and equal liberty for different religions, not a "wall of separation."
In second half of the 19th century, the liberal wing of the Republican Party made a failed attempt to add Separation of Church and State as a constitutional amendment to the US Constitution (since it was not there already).
In the early 20th century, Separation became part of the jurisprudence of the KKK and other nativist groups (as well as some mainstream groups), and Hugo Black (ca. 1920) made new members of the Klan pledge to the eternal separation of church and state. Then in 1947, a labor organization with ties to the Klan brought a suit, Everson v. Board of Education, where then-Justice Hugo Black of the US Supreme Court wrote Separation into the US Constitution.
The US Supreme Court has been quietly moving away from Separation as the metaphor in recent cases, with most majority opinions (whether upholding or striking down aid to churches) making no mention of Separation, except in the titles to articles cited in the footnotes.
CMG: I am all for good god fearing people holding office, and I think that it is okay for someone's religious beliefs to influence their political ideas (and even their actions once they are in office), but it is dangerous to say that God endorses any political agenda.
Chris, I tend to agree with you on this. However, this is easier said than done. If your belief in God shapes your belief in a certain policy, it's hard to imagine that you would not think that God likes your policy (or endorses it), since that's why you chose it in the first place.
Siyadow: What if, however, the democratic majority WANTS (and indeed elects based on this premise) someone that makes choices based off what they believe is God's work? ... Would it then be undemocratic to compromise?
If so, then any attempt to preserve the rights of minority groups should be labeled "undemocratic." The will of the majority of TAP is not always the trump card. (However, the will of the majority of legislators is.
I don't think that it is bad for a politician to try to do what God wants him to. For example, should there be a president Romney I think that it would be totally approproate for him to fast and pray about the decisions he has to make and to seek Heavenly Father's help in his job. What makes me uncomfortable is if he anounces to everyone that his policies are unequivocally sponsored by God, meaning that his opponents (who are also seeking what they believe are the best policies) are totally wrong, cutting off the possibility of discourse and compromise.
Siyadow - You're correct that the literal definition of democracy would not necessarily allow for minority rights. However, the democracy in which we live does account for these rights.
Chris M.G. - I, too, am uncomfortable when the President announces that God has called him to do something, or enact a certain policy. But if the President chooses a certain path because he feels the Lord endorses it, does it matter if he publicly announces it? (aside from being annoying). Whether he admits it on Meet the Press or not, he is likely to "cut off the possibility of discourse and compromise" anyway, since he truly believes that God sponsored it.
Making a public announcement is likely to galvanize his supporters, although it's extremely pretentious (like Kanye West announcing his record is so much better than everbody else's).
What specifically bothers you?
For me, it's less the public announcement, and more the attitude.