Political Apologetics

"We are not telling them how to vote. We are telling them how to take Communion in good conscience." -- Rev. Andrew Kemberling

WWJVF? Who Would Jesus Vote For? Democrats, Republicans, Bush, Kerry. I've heard this kind of question asked a lot lately, often jokingly, but more and more often with a kind of liturgical gravitas that is really beginning to worry me.

Despite the specifics of your belief in a/many G[g]od(s), or your lack thereof, calling the local holy man a mortal and not a divine mouthpiece should not be an article of faith. Regardless of the divinity that might have inspired your holy book, it's safe to say that not everyone reading from it is the mouthpiece of your G[g]od(s). Maybe there are a few, maybe most of them are doing G[g]od(s)' good works. But really, who the hell knows? How do you know what you believe and have been taught to think are the actions, intentions and teachings of your G[g]od(s) are actually that?

The question has a Kierkegaardian quality that is ultimately rooted in personal faith. With these latest elections though, the implications of that question are beginning to resonate outwardly and in the very worldly realm of national politics.

Is it right for a preacher, priest, shaman, yogi, Krishna or druid to say "G[g]od(s) wants you to vote thusly?"

It's not an easy question. Certainly that person is entitled to their own opinion and has the authority and right under our constitution to voice it. But should he or she deliver that opinion as one given by G[g]od(s) him[her]self?

I don't think so. The conclusions, however dogmatic, are ultimately groundless and the power they will have in the minds of his/her congregation will be disproportionately large, especially among the highly devout and the under-educated.

Why is this a bad thing?

Religious scholarship is the work of interpretation. Always. You cannot read a millennia-old text written in Europe and/or Asia in some dead language and apply it to contemporary America without interpretation. Even someone who believes their text endorses just exactly and literally what it says has to make sense of it within a given paradigm. A literalist, in other words, decides that, despite G[g]od(s)' lack of intervention for 2000 years, the thrust of civilization and the curious lack of revealed Cherubim and pillars of fire, the rules should and do remain the same.

So interpretation. There's a problem with it. Your holy book isn't specific enough for even a literalist to endorse a position without making evaluative judgments about the text. This is an especially tricky maneuver when dealing with politics. The Bible, for example, has no Thou shalt vote socialist libertariancommandments. There was no Democracy even in Jesus' time. At best the Bible has monarchs, at worst, tyrants. Can a book address questions of human rights if it was originally written for a group of slaves who had no rights, and later amended for the citizenry of a pagan despotism? Not without interpretation.

How does one interpret? On one hand you have Thou shalt not kill. On the other you have An eye for an eye. That then leads you to He who is without sin cast the first stone. Is it more just to oppose stem cell research to show support for the intrinsic value of the human fetus, or to allow the research in the hopes that it might save the lives of millions of G[g]od(s)' creatures?

Then, even if you feel certain that your G[g]od(s) would stand fast to the broad Thou shalt not kill platform, how do you whittle down the particulars and cast G[g]od(s)' vote for a particular candidate? Candidate A is against abortion, but, as governor of his state, presided over more executions than any governor in your country's history. Candidate B is an advocate of abortion, but is opposed to executions. Neither being perfect, which would G[g]od(s) choose? More interpretation.

Interpretation, no matter how rational, scientific or analytical, can never be objective. The criteria you choose to weigh the pros and cons of this candidate or that is totally arbitrary. How can you be sure that G[g]od(s) would choose Candidate A if he/she held fast to more commandments than B? Perhaps some of those commandments are more important than others. If one is more important than others, would it be important enough to endorse the candidate that is firmly pro-the-important-one even if he/she violates the others? How do you know? Did G[g]od(s) provide a sliding scale? The choices made are ultimately yours, not G[g]od(s)',

At best I think it's naive for a man or woman of G[g]od(s) to use that position to campaign for a given candidate. At worst it's a willful and deliberate corruption of the divinity that person participates in for the cheap trappings of worldly power. When you begin to do things like deny believers who vote a particular party line access to their G[g]od(s), you have crossed a dubious and, ahem, sinful line.

Religion is an incredibly powerful force in many people's lives. Those entrusted with that power have a responsibility that transcends partisan politics.