- Local every day in
Voting: Can Faith Be a Guide?
With two days until the election, Rev. Laura Rose considers the role of faith in politics.
One by one the red, white, blue, green and yellow signs have popped up all over town in an effort to get us out to vote for local and state candidates this Tuesday. And, if your kitchen counter is anything like mine, it is piled high with candidate brochures and voter guides demanding your careful attention.
As citizens and community members, we have lots of choices to make. First and foremost we have the choice, as Gandhi wrote, to exercise our power to engage and be the change we wish to see in the world. The alternative is to stand on the sidelines, throw up our hands in despair, and yield to the kind of apathetic groupthink that leads to the idea that nothing can change so why try.
If we do make the decision to engage we are then faced with the question of what set of values will guide our decisions about candidates, propositions and political issues. This is where religious faith can come into play.
We hear a lot of talk today about our Judeo-Christian heritage, and yet when one reads the Hebrew and New Testament scriptures in their social, political and cultural context, the first thing we need to recognize is that the various texts of the bible were not written in a context where there was a separation of church and state. Thus using the bible as a defense for posting the Ten Commandments in government buildings or as a defense for elevating one particular moral or religious viewpoint over all others is to deny this fundamental difference between the biblical context and our contemporary context.
We live in a democracy that affirms religious diversity and the kind of universal moral principles that seek to foster the common good. We do not live in a theocracy that advocates for a specific state-sanctioned religious worldview or protects the right to use religious texts to defend the rights of one group of people over another group.
One way that people of faith can respect the separation of church and state and still allow our sacred texts to guide our values and inform our decisions in the political sphere is to ask one question: What are the most universal and time-transcendent principles running through the sacred texts that guide our faith? In the case of the Hebrew and New Testament scriptures, the answer is undeniable: 1. Treat your neighbor as you wish to be treated. 2. Pay special attention to the weak, the vulnerable, the marginalized and those denied equality.
As I prepare to vote this Tuesday, in addition to reading all the materials piled up on my kitchen counter, I will also be asking these questions based on the principles noted above: Is the candidate or the proponents of a given proposition seeking to serve and advocate for the interests of the weakest and the most marginalized members of society or the strongest and most privileged? Has the candidate or the group proposing or opposing a proposition engaged in public discourse in a civil, respectful and truthful manner?
These are the kind of faith-based questions that do not jeopardize the separation of church and state. They are also the kind of questions that have inspired civil rights movements throughout history and can rouse us from despair and challenge to be the change we wish to see in the world.
Jon Spangler
7:27 am on Sunday, October 31, 2010
I have always appreciated the wisdom of Micah 6:8 as it applies to politics and many other things:
"...Do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with your God." Voting for justice and mercy - very close to if not identical to the two principles you detailed - can be hard to discern at the level of the ballot.
What is justice in regards to a ballot measure with costs and benefits to many different people?
Who are the most important "neighbors" in a City Council race?
Which mayoral candidate will exercise the best stewardship of our community and its resources?
Praying for wisdom and meditating on justice and truth when voting and making political decisions is always a good idea.
david mahoney
10:44 am on Sunday, October 31, 2010
This makes me take pause and wonder what set of values guides your decision to continue to support a connected crook like Lena Tam?
Bill Garvine
12:26 pm on Sunday, October 31, 2010
Thank you Rev. Laura for this inspiring perspective in confusing times. As I hope the Giants do later today, you hit the ball out of the park with this essay. I also hope we can all take your core messages to heart and to the ballot box. Now, if we can just get those "politicos" who think negativity and cutting down their opponent, rather than emphasizing their own intentions and qualifications, is the best way to "win," then we'll really make some progress. Thanks again, I really enjoyed your essay.
Kate Quick
9:40 pm on Wednesday, November 3, 2010
David's comment leads me to think maybe he missed the point. The information sent to the DA to "prove" that Lena had misused her City e-mail account was found by the DA to be in no way prosecutable. Yet, she was subjected to humiliation, continued assertions that she was, as he said "a crook". If one, just one of the Council members had joined Marie Gilmore in insisting the persecution stop, it would have stopped. I was there at Council the night, after the DA had exculpated her, the City put on an attorney to restate all the charges for the Council cameras. Then, the tape was widely distributed via e-mail link to smear her. She maintained her composure and soldiered on, how, I know not. But this is the kind of unethical, immoral campaigning that is never life-affirming. Thank you, Rev. Laura for your comments.
Jon Spangler
12:56 am on Thursday, November 4, 2010
David,
One of the reasons the District Attorney cleared Lena Tam was that most -if not all - of the allegations against Lena Tam were essentially manufactured, were unsubstantiated by the facts, and/or just plain untrue. (Many of the documents that the Interim City manager claimed were "confidential" originated, in fact, in the public domain and were not rendered "confidential" merely by having been stamped with that label.)
In other words, just because someone falsely accused Lena Lam of being a crook did not make her into a criminal. Knowing the history of the documents in question - a history which has been made widely available - makes it easy to understand that the allegations against Lena Tam were false and misleading.
This situation is one more good example of why we have the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" in American jurisprudence. When there is no proof (versus mere allegations or claims of
wrongdoing) one cannot be convicted - at least in theory....
Rev. Laura Rose
10:47 am on Saturday, November 6, 2010
Thank you all for your comments. As we take time to reflect on the results of our local elections, it seems to me that Alameda voters are by and large quite discerning and astute. It is my prayer that our newly elected leaders may know that they have our support as they work to heal divides and model civility in our public discourse here in Alameda. Many thanks to all who did not give into despair or apathy and got out to vote. And many thanks for those who run for office with the sincere desire to be public servants.