The LA Times reports that Mike Huckabee is asking questions about the connections between conservative republicans’ politics and faith:
At the Values Voter Summit in Washington in October, Southern Baptist ex-preacher Mike Huckabee made headlines by imploring evangelical voters to stay true to their Bible-believing faith rather than sell their souls for the good of the Republican Party. What he meant, of course, was that they should back true-believer Huckabee, despite his long odds in the race for the White House, over impure candidates such as Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson.
“Let me say that it’s important that people sing from their hearts and don’t merely lip-sync the lyrics to our songs,” Huckabee told the crowd, referring to the presidential contenders. “I think it’s important that the language of Zion is a mother tongue and not a recently acquired second language.” The speech was a hit, but in the weeks since, most A-list Christian right leaders and organizations have shrugged off his advice.
(h/t to Faith in Public Life)
Can a voter, party, or candidate say to be a person of faith and neglect poverty and justice issues? Thoughts? Any comments from democrats, republicans, or Ron Paul advocates? The compassionate principles in the Beatitudes and the story of Lazarus seem to point in the other direction. What do you think?
7 responses so far ↓
LibertyMark // November 28, 2007 at 6:21 pm |
Hello. I am a Christian, and Jesus has commanded me to help the poor. This I try to do.
But helping the poor through the force of government is immoral in my opinion. Using force to do good removes any virtue that may exist on the part of the giver and receiver of help. Do we really believe that it’s right to force someone to do good? If left alone, I think many people will help and the poor would get better help.
The concept of free will is important to my version of Christian theology. That is why I can’t support any kind of forced “help” through government. And it is also one of the reasons I support Ron Paul.
Sean Braisted // November 28, 2007 at 6:25 pm |
I think they can be “people of faith” its just a matter of whether or not that faith mimics your own. I think most, if not all, Christians at some point cherry-pick the parts of the Bible they want to see reflected in government policy; after all, haven’t seen too many gays or adulterers be executed lately.
Personally, my thoughts on the matter are that if someone is going to try and use their Christian beliefs to influence their political choices, it makes sense to start with the words of Jesus, and then work your way back to Leviticus…and if they do that, than I would assume economic and social justice issues would be higher on the list than stopping the big bad gays from getting hitched…but thats just me.
Doug Indeap // November 28, 2007 at 7:44 pm |
I choke on the “values voters” label. “Dogma voters” is the more fitting label. “Values voters” is an invented label for people who like to think of themselves as championing good human values. What they’re actually pushing is dogma.
“Values” are “the principles that help you to decide what is right and wrong, and how to act in various situations.” Cambridge Dictionary of American English. “Dogma” is “a fixed, esp. religious, belief or set of beliefs that people are expected to accept without any doubts.” Id. The two, we can only hope, overlap to some extent, but they are hardly the same. Some of what religionists hold up as values others find plainly wrongheaded and even immoral.
Labels count. Those pushing the “values voters” label hope it will help them pass off their dogma as values. To the extent this label has been allowed to pass unexamined into “common usage,” it is time to haul it up short–or, failing that, at least paste an asterisk on it as a reminder of its real meaning.
compassioninpolitics // November 28, 2007 at 8:24 pm |
I would like to address these issues in more depth later perhaps…but here are my initial thoughts…
However, the issue of absolute freedom seems a bit extreme to me. First, it endorses a survival of the fittest mentality in work, government, and culture, which is contra the principles I find in the bible. Second, ultimately we give up absolute liberty for protection of our rights–the libertarian view endorsed by Mark seems to at the end of the day be ideological anarchism. Third, western notions of individual rights aren’t mentioned in the text and came after the text by a full 1500 years. Trying to impose them on the text seems a bit arbitrary. The text has a heavy emphasis on what we share in common–the common good and our human dignity. Finally, just like we need the police and fire department to make society work and to enable rights to exist–health insurance, especially for kids who can’t bear responsibility for their parents lot in life is an imperative.
Great point Sean. I hadn’t really thought about how prioritizing that way to interpret the text helps resolve lots of issues. Also, even the text about Gomorah (sp?) speaks more to the issue of greed.
compassioninpolitics // November 28, 2007 at 8:29 pm |
Doug, I’m curious. Folks in developing countries think that modernity, liberalism, and capitalism are dogma. I might have to agree with them on some level.
Alternatively, I don’t think that level of out of hand name calling and antagonism toward people of faith is particularly healthy in a diverse society. And let me pre-empt with the notion that respect and protecting human dignity is pretty universal across religious traditions. This notion is in fact encoded in the UN Declaration of the Rights of Man. I’m only advocating those values–thats hardly arbitrary or dogma as your suggestion implies.
Thoughts?
Volunteer Voters » The Politics Of Faith // November 28, 2007 at 10:55 pm |
[...] Nathan Ketsdever asks some interesting questions: Can a voter, party, or candidate say to be a person of faith and neglect poverty and justice issues? Thoughts? Any comments from democrats, republicans, or Ron Paul advocates? The compassionate principles in the Beatitudes and the story of Lazarus seem to point in the other direction. What do you think? [...]
compassioninpolitics // November 29, 2007 at 12:50 am |
A consistent ethic seems to indicate that Christian ethics don’t end in the voting booth to the extent that it doesn’t result in the imposition of Christian values on others.
And as long as public square arguments can also justify your policy choices–its justified and no excessive coercion. The ethos of progressivism and protecting the middle class against corporate abuses. Think Enron. Think toys with lead. Think corporate toxic fumes and dumping. The values of compassion and the fundamental value of dignity play a key underlying role in the protection of rights.
The unbridled free market doesn’t protect democracy, but enables people to buy votes and create permanent underclasses (based on race, ethnicity, and class). Unbridled lawyers and lobbyists and unscrupulous investment bankers and doctors alone could wreak vicious havoc on society and individual rights. And protecting the poor doesn’t necessarily mean welfare.
Finally, if you want to make ends/means distinctions, those aren’t particularly meaningful in the context of traffic and seatbelt laws for public safety (and rights).
Thoughts?