Election 2008: The Candidates' Religions
In 1960, presidential candidate John Kennedy assured America that he would not allow the Vatican to dictate U.S. policy. Today there is heated discussion within many Christian denominations about how much a president's or legislator's religious beliefs should influence his or her judgment on issues. Some church leaders demand that politicians of their faith must support policies according to their faith.
For example, recently Senator Joe Biden said he would not support criminalizing abortion in spite of his belief that life begins at conception. This is a perfectly reasonable position for a Buddhist. However, Senator Biden is Catholic, and he was criticized by Catholics and other conservative Christians for not standing up for his faith.
In Europe, religious factions fought centuries of bloody wars to enthrone monarchs of their faith. Kings and queens allowed their churches to gain political power and enforce their beliefs and practices. Partly to prevent religious strife from destabilizing America, the authors of the U.S. Bill of Rights stripped the federal government of the power to dictate religious beliefs and enforce religious practices. It was thought religious factions would not fight over control of government if there was no advantage to be gained by controlling it.
Certainly, in U.S. history, church and state have not always been kept as separate as they might have been. Through most of American history, voters weren't that interested in candidates' religions as long as they were some kind of old-line Protestant. But now that the U.S. is becoming more religiously diverse, there seems to be increasing pressure on politicians to allow their own priests and pastors to dictate public policy. We need to think rationally about this.
Many religious people don't seem to grasp that if they can use government to enforce their beliefs, someday another religious faction might seize control and enforce a different set of beliefs. And if it becomes expected that elected officials will let their religious beliefs dictate policy, every election will be a referendum on the candidates' religions.
Of course, neither can a candidates' religious beliefs be separated from his political opinions entirely. Our religions tend to shape our overview of the world and provide a context for understanding events and issues. For this reason, I doubt I will ever vote for a candidate who held strong religious beliefs that were antagonistic to science. I would think twice also about a candidate who could not respect atheists and people of other faiths.
Other than that, I agree with Thomas Jefferson -- "The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." Of course, Buddhist candidates are a tad scarce.
In future blog posts I want to look at our presidential and vice-presidential candidates and consider the role religion might play in their administrations, and whether their positions are of particular concern for Buddhists. For now, however, I just want to advise America's religious factions to back off. Our little experiment in democracy could fail if it becomes an exercise in religious partisanship.
Comments
Great post. My sentiments exactly.
When I was a fundamentalist Christian, my church pushed their politics on me coloring it as “the Bible says…” As you can imagine, they were hard-core about the U.S. being a Christian Nation and that for far too long the “Liberal Left” has been taking “God” out of public and the nation has been in moral decline since.
However, one day after a rousing sermon from the senior minister on the subject I got into a good discussion with a friend that pretty much changed my mind. He asked me to think about what if the shoe was on the other foot, say, the Muslims were the religious majority in America. Would I appreciate my child being forced to pray to Allah five times a day in the public school? If not, how could I advocate the same thing be forced on Muslims, Hindus, Jews, etc.?
That sounds like a reasonable argument, one I approached a friend with recently. But, his counter-argument was, “It doesn’t matter, the shoe isn’t on the other foot, this IS a Christian nation, and if you don’t like it, you can always move to Canada.” What a friend!
If your Faith is not important enough to be acted upon, you really don’t have that much faith do you?
If a politician doesn’t act on their beliefs, they should not be in office. We should not be electing blank pages that don’t know where they stand on issues. It is precisely because we know where they stand on issues that allows majoritarian democracy to be possible. And if your position on issues is colored by your faith, so be it; whether that faith is christian, marxist, muslim, buddhist, or jewish is irrelevant. That’s why it is called a democracy, we are allowed to vote on who will represent us.
Frankly I find this “secular” form of white western Buddhism to be troubling. Should a Buddhist who gets elected to office refuse to take his faith into consideration when dealing with issues such as life? Maybe when an aggressive war is being proposed? I think most Buddhists would want them to act upon their Buddhist faith. But then again, not everyone who claims to be a buddhist really is. Especially all those new white Buddhists from the west whose secular political correctness (new Fascism) seems to be more important than core Buddhist beliefs.
If your Faith is not important enough to be acted upon, you really don’t have that much faith do you?
Acting on your faith in your own life is one thing; forcing it down other peoples’ throats is something else entirely. I think people who try to force their beliefs and practices on others are showing a lack of faith.
It is precisely because we know where they stand on issues that allows majoritarian democracy to be possible.
Ah, but the U.S. does not have a purely majoritarian democracy. That’s where the Bill of Rights comes in. It enumerates things the government may NOT do even if a huge majority of the people want to do it. Those limitations on the scope of government have been extended to the states through the 14th Amendment. Study up, dude.
Should a Buddhist who gets elected to office refuse to take his faith into consideration when dealing with issues such as life?
Certainly we should consider our understanding of dharma (in this context, I don’t like the word “faith”). However, it is un-Buddhist to impose rigid moral absolutes on people. Being “eastern” or “western” doesn’t change that.
Especially all those new white Buddhists from the west whose secular political correctness (new Fascism) seems to be more important than core Buddhist beliefs.
This is not about “political correctness,” but compassion and living the dharma. Buddhism isn’t a religion of rigid external rules. If that’s the religion you are looking for, however, several denominations of Christianity could accommodate you.
Metta.
“It is precisely because we know where they stand on issues that allows majoritarian democracy to be possible.
“Ah, but the U.S. does not have a purely majoritarian democracy. That’s where the Bill of Rights comes in. It enumerates things the government may NOT do even if a huge majority of the people want to do it. Those limitations on the scope of government have been extended to the states through the 14th Amendment. Study up, dude.”
We might also remember that in the presidential election it is the electors that count not the majority vote. The electors allotted partly on the basis of population and partly evenly by state: two electors for each state plus the number of Representatives in the House, who are proportioned by population. Thus, even the president is not elected by a full majoritarian democracy.
“Ah, but the U.S. does not have a purely majoritarian democracy…. Study up, dude.”
Who said anything about being a PURELY majoritarian democracy? I said majoritarian democracy. We are not a purely anything. But we are a majoritarian democracy.
Majoritarian democracy is a system of rule in which policy decisions are made by a system requiring assent of a majority of the population or their representatives (Congress) and in which representatives are chosen by a majority of their constituents. True majoritarian democracy requires political equality, so that one group cannot exclude other groups from the decision making process. Other constraints on majority rule built into a majoritarian democracy include super-majority requirements (Constitutional Amendment process) or other constitutional constraints that protect minorities against the majority (Bill of Rights).” From my political science professor in my Ph.D. program in political science. But then again, I can play your game too… learn some literacy, dude!
Oh wait a minute, that raises an issue. How is insulting people by implying they have a lack of education (study up, dude), a Buddhist virtue? Just out of curiosity, which Sutra did you learn to go around insulting people from?
Putting the word pure in my phrase in order to set up your counter-argument is also known as a straw-man argument. It is considered a fallacy and is designed to manipulate people. Manipulation… how is that part of the dharma?
“it is un-Buddhist to impose rigid moral absolutes on people.”
Probably explains why so many Buddhists have been willing to temporize with one Asian dictatorship after another. Shuld we assume that you wouldn’t be willing to impose moral rigid absoltes on people in government, say like the idea that government can’t go around killing people because of their ethnicity, say the Jews? After all, that is a rigid moral absolute! Or maybe the idea that it is always wrong to torture people, even if they have been accused of being “terrorists?” After all, opposing terrorism 100% of the time is a rigid moral absolute!
“For now, however, I just want to advise America’s religious factions to back off.”
Wow, sounds like a rigid moral absolute. Care to explain why it is wrong for one religious faction to dominate and dictate policies to others? After all if it is always wrong, maybe it is a rigid absolute!
That should read “After all, opposing torture 100% of the time is a rigid moral absolute!”
But then again, opposing terrorism because it kills people would be a rigid moral absolute as well… Sort of reminds me of someone’s blog where I recently read the following:
“For example, the first verse of the 10th chapter of the Dhammapada is ‘All tremble at violence; all fear death. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill.’ (Acharya Buddharakkhita translation)”
One should not kill nor cause another to kill… sounds like killing or ordering other people to kill is wrong. Maybe a rigid moral absolute..
Steve — you are very angry. I hope you won’t be insulted if I tell you to chill.
Your comments betray a misunderstanding of the nature of the Precepts — they are not commandments — and you have not addressed the issues raised in the “Buddhism and morality” essay, not to mention the problems that arise from criminalizing abortion discussed in this blog post and this essay. I’m not going to repeat these arguments here; please follow the links.
In Buddhism, free will is more important than correct behavior. As explained in “Buddhism and Morality” (please read before arguing with me further) “free will” does not mean “do whatever you want.” It means the Buddhist approach to morality is situationist and not based on mindlessly following external rules.
In Buddhism, it is understood that no rule can be followed absolutely. The strictest vegetarian still depends on the deaths of mice and insects for the food he eats, for example. All you can do is strive to be compassionate and do the least harm you can do.
In the case of abortion, however, in the real world we see that outlawing abortion does not stop it, but only drives it underground where it causes more harm (please read abortion essays linked above for documentation). The compassionate way to reduce abortion is to encourage use of birth control and offer material and other support to pregnant women in difficult life situations. However, all criminalization does is cause the deaths of women from back-alley abortions. That is, as Buddhists say, akusala — unskillful, causing harmful karma.
I encourage you to become familiar with the Fourteen Precepts of Engaged Buddhism, composed by the Vietnamese Zen Master Thich Nhat Hanh. The first three:
1
Do not be idolatrous about or bound to any doctrine, theory, or ideology, even Buddhist ones. Buddhist systems of thought are guiding means; they are not absolute truth.
2
Do not think the knowledge you presently possess is changeless, absolute truth. Avoid being narrow minded and bound to present views. Learn and practice nonattachment from views in order to be open to receive others’ viewpoints. Truth is found in life and not merely in conceptual knowledge. Be ready to learn throughout your entire life and to observe reality in yourself and in the world at all times.
3
Do not force others, including children, by any means whatsoever, to adopt your views, whether by authority, threat, money, propaganda, or even education. However, through compassionate dialogue, help others renounce fanaticism and narrow-mindedness.
Finally, the way you use the word “faith” in the context of Buddhism is problematic. Our faith is not in doctrine; the doctrines are imperfect and provisional. The Buddha taught us to doubt and question even his teachings. There is faith, but what we place faith in cannot be contained in words. You use the word “faith” in a dogmatic way that betrays a misunderstanding of dharma.
Update: I forgot to add — my point about majoritariansm, pure or otherwise, is that it is irrelevant to this conversation. The First (and Fourteenth) Amendment prohibits the government from enacting religious doctrines into law. Of course, it often happens that civil and religious authorities have similar interests, and matters legislated for civic purposes are also supported by religious doctrines. However, when a state or federal legislature is considering whether something ought to be criminalized only civic reasons matter. If there is no secular-civic argument to be made for the legislation, and the legislation is being pushed only for religious reasons, enacting it is an obvious violation of the First Amendment.