The Moral Vote
This is the first in a series of entries exploring the connection that should exist between moral reasoning and politics. In order to eliminate any outcry over mixing politics and religion, I am going to discuss the flaws in the contemporary interpretation of the First Amendment.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
The amendment clearly states that the government shall make no law establishing a NATIONAL religion. It furthermore endorses religious thinking by expressly protecting the rights of all people to freely exercise their religious beliefs. This is a significant statement that has been twisted and spun considerably in this secular age. The First Amendment is protecting religion from the government. The common interpretation is ’separation of church and state’. The text does not say that. It does not imply that. It clearly states that there will be no national church. As a resident of Connecticut, I understand the meaning very clearly. Until 1818. Congregationalism was the state endorsed religion. People were expected to pay taxes to support the local congregation. Other religions existed in a quasi-legal limbo. The authors of the Bill of Rights knew this was happening, and determined that freedom demanded that state religions be abolished. And in a Constitutional revision, Connecticut ended its sponsorship of the Congregational church.
I am protected from government interference in practicing my faith. The government is not safe from my practice of faith-based values in the exercise of political sovreignty however. Free exercise is – well, free exercise. It doesn’t say free exercise unless someone disagrees or is offended. It doesn’t say free exercise except in political matters. It is a sweeping and powerful protection given to people of faith. We are free to participate in public life without having to suppress our religious convictions. And it is protected in the Constitution of the United States.
So what does this mean? This means that it is eminently acceptable to use my religion as a sounding board for policy. As a Roman Catholic, I have been taught that life is sacred. This means that I have every right to seek to limit the application of capital punishment. I have every reason to use all the powers at my command to end the state sponsorship of abortion clinics. I have every reason to condemn the General Assembly’s insistence that Catholic hospitals provide abortions and issue the ‘morning after pill’.
When running for office, John Kennedy told a legion of pastors and reporters that would leave his religious views at the gates if elected. His religion would play no role in his decision-making. What a crime. What a lost opportunity. What a tragedy. And still, you see his portrait in so many homes celebrating the only ‘Catholic’ president. I do not consider him to be a Catholic president at all. Peter renounced Christ only to beg for forgiveness when the cock crowed. Kennedy spent his administration proving that religion and moral reasoning played no part in his presidency.
Conversely, when Joseph Lieberman was confronted with the question of religion interfering in his political life, he proudly proclaimed that as he was shaped by his faith, his political decisions would certainly be influenced by moral reasoning and the tenets of his religion.
The application of moral reasoning and using religious values to determine political choices are valid. They are protected under the Constitution. And they should be.
There is a lot to cover here – please let me know what you are interested in tackling. I am working on the first topic essay this week….
