So, I wasn’t even sure that I was going to share the following little convo and my thoughts, but then as I was perusing the news articles on Yahoo’s homepage yesterday this one prompted me to go ahead and write about it. Upon finishing, I think it’s only fair to hop back up here and offer a little fair warning of wandering and turning a tad tangential…nothing out of the ordinary there ;)
As I’m sitting with someone she says to me, “You know what I’m sick of?”
I presume this is rhetorical, but the pause is actually a tad too long so I say, “Stupid people?” This is usually what I am ‘sick of’ so I assume it’s a decent guess. It’s not that I think I’m a genius per se, quite to the contrary really; however I am confident that a fair number of the people I come into contact with on any given day are intellectually lacking, and that I actually fair well-enough. I recently read somewhere that with regard to national average IQ the U.S. ranks 18th. I suppose that isn’t too terrible, but really given our purported measures toward educational success and higher learning it seems a less-than-impressive ranking.
Anyway, I digress…it turns out that was exactly what she was sick of; however, she was using a rather biased means to identify said “stupid people”. She said (and maybe I shouldn’t be using quotes because this may not be verbatim – close though), “YuhhYES! I am sooo sick of stupid people. These idiots that live near me have a ton of election signs in their yard, but the only reason they have them is because they are the most “Christian” candidates. Ask them about their platforms, and they know nothing. I don’t understand why it is that religious people vote for someone just because they share the same religion? It’s stupid.”
Me, “Ouch, wow! You realize that’s a rather judgmental remark that not only implies that people with a belief system are stupid, but it also implies that it is somehow wrong or stupid for their beliefs to impact the way that they vote?” Her response was something like, “Well, you know I don’t get the belief thing, and honestly it is a bit stupid to let it decide your vote…separation of church and state...”
Me? Well, I just rolled my eyes. “Church and state” – I’ll get back to that. For now let me offer the following reminder: I think that everyone that knows me also knows that I’m not really sure what I believe with regard to an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, eternal creator. I can tell you that what I do believe in is the practice of respect for other people’s faith and practices, and that is what I said to her. To discredit someone based on their faith is just as bad as discounting them because of their race or gender. Now people that present as pseudo-religious? The ones that are lacking compassion, good works…the ones that purport a commitment to their faith but really never live it? Those are the people that I find difficulty in acknowledging or respecting their belief system, but I wouldn’t really expect them to vote for anything or anyone simply out of religious allegiance; however the people in possession of a full-on commitment to their faith? Well, that I can respect, and those are the people that I presume will allot for their religious beliefs to have some influence when making their political decisions. To do so isn’t “stupid”.
Faith is about the spiritual, the way we live our lives, treat each other, etc. Politics are about the temporal, taxes, legalities, etc. It is altogether asinine to think that, for a devout religious practitioner, there is no intersection between faith and politics. If religious faith functions as a means to delineate what is right or wrong, to clarify what goodness is how could someone in possession of a truly meaningful communion with God completely divorce Him from his/her voting decisions? The person could not.
Where is that line though? The one she mentioned as separating church and state? Well, don’t you think that when developing our government, the U.S. looked at the troubled history of Europe and her religious wars as a warning? I think that while it was expected that politicians would be religious and religious philosophy would inform their decisions, the Founders’ view was also such that we would be a nation that had faith but one that kept doctrinal disputes out of the political sphere. I don’t know…My knowledge is limited, but it seems people that are almost anti-religion fall back on that “Church and State” thing without really knowing anything about the Founders’ intent for our nation.
So (“so” the fall-back segue of a tired and lazy writer – forgiveness asked), ultimately I think it's far from “stupid” for a person to consider their faith when deciding what policies to favor, provided that when considering policies that are going to apply to everyone, to figure out how to justify those policies to people with different faiths or none. My partner in conversation was fairly adamant that there was not a way to interweave the two and still be within appropriate political “rights” or limits. She was insistent that in allowing one’s faith to impact one’s politics that the person of faith was forcing a personal religious agenda onto others. I had to disagree, and I think that it disappointed her. You see, people both atheists as well as those that have a strong belief system, are often quick to make assumptions about a person such as myself. They assume that because I do not attend a church or profess my commitment to a specific religion that I am simply an atheist; the soul, the heart, the mind, the spiritual, et. Al. is not so simple, and you should never assume unless you are prepared to listen to me drone on and on. I certainly don’t think she was prepared, but I addressed the following anyway (what can I say I get a little indignant when anyone is being attacked?):
If we’re talking about Christianity, the truest message there is one of love, forgiveness, compassion, intended to be spread through witnessing, not force. I like to think of witnessing as different than proselytizing, even more so since reading a book my friend recently loaned me. The authors, in addition, to presenting a thorough, fact-based and quite convincing argument for the resurrection of Christ also address the appropriate means to share His message. Again I can respect the person of faith that attempts to share his/her beliefs in a way that is also respectful of others, one that is free of coercion, force, trickery or disrespect. When shared and acted upon correctly the person of faith is also then still recognizing our free will. And isn’t free will, a preservation of our liberty what we’re really making our political decisions for? Even the believer of an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, eternal God should vote contrary to anything that would demolish the freedom of individuals to live under the umbrella of liberty so if they are in keeping with this mindset I don’t see how a little intersection of faith and politics is “stupid” or a problem.
Enjoy the weekend peeps! I intend to :-)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

5 comments:
This is why I bug you ;)
- Better than gold, better than water
Thanks for giving me a needed break from the never ending insurance edits I am doing all day! This was particularly well written, and not only did it give me a lot of insight and perspective, but it gave me some answers about some long standing questions. As a bonus, I now have some good tangible ammo for argument as to why I feel like church and state don't always have to be seperate.
I don't know princess. Do you you really think people can let their religious beliefs affect their voting without imposing things specific to their religion on the rest of us? For instance, don't you think that when people vote against gay marriage that they are making that decision b/c of a religious belief? That is something that impacts non-believers. In the words of you: just sayin'...
Also where is the girl who had a good balance in discussion of religion? Everything from your mainstream Christianity to Buddhism to Janism? The girl who taught me that Santeria wasn't just a Sublime song? Everything is so heavily-laden with a Christian them lately. It's okay if that's who you are becoming. I know you were her once. I just don't want you to lose your fervor for the many faiths of the world, the ones still alive or the ones long-gone but fun to talk about.
I <3 you little bit.
- C
I wish I had the same boldness that you possess. You always were the smart one though. Even when you got to our school in 3rd grade, I remember they were going to put you in the 4th. If they had we probably would have never become friends.
I know the kind of people you're talking about there. The ones that say they're Christians, but they're racists, homophobes, classists, all that. As someone that makes an effort to present the principles I was taught in Sunday school those people make me sick. And I think that some of "those" people, the ones that call themselves "good Christians" are the people that end up on ballots. I should hope that letting your faith guide you means identifying those people for who they truly are and not just voting because of who they say are.
That part about communicating in the right way hit home for me because just this week we had a Jehovah's Witness at the door. So not personable and soooo not respectful. Not really the way to win followers.
That article you linked to is a statisticians nightmare. All of the stats were 45 one way 50 another and finally a whopping 70% against... falling back to around 40 or 50 ...
What this says to me is that the questions they posed in the survey was to broad of a question - it created a sense of ambiguity in people - so people have to make assumptions about what the question means - etc. When the stats on survey (that is a questionnaire going to people) show a straight up split near 50/50 they shouldn't count for crap. When a moralistic question is asked like something straight forward "Should the US legalize premeditated murder" - the results would never be 50:50 - I'm sure the response would be more like 95:5 - (hey there are some wierdo's out there)
That random 70% seems almost thrown into the article for sensationalism, I want references, and references to people who don't care about the subject matter at hand... please
I agree whole heartedly in the separation of church and state, in that the state should not enforce any religious belief structure or dogma upon any individual. I'm strict about this, I'm the person who is against the "under god" in the pledge of allegiance - but I don't care if a politician places a bible on his shelf for reference for moral beliefs (hell more should do this) - the difference is - the pledge is something that should make all walks of life feel great about the country they live in. .. and the bible on a politicians shelf makes him feel great enough to protect the country he lives in.
Post a Comment