OPINION: Why base voting on religious preferences?
With Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman in the primaries, the role that religion plays in the lives of our candidates has once again become the central issue of the campaign. It is easy to say that a candidate’s religion is of no importance and that we should elect leaders based on political merit alone. The Constitution calls for a separation of church and state, and we’re choosing secular, not spiritual leaders.
I disagree with this assessment, however. A separation of church and state does not mean that religion shouldn’t be brought into the public forum. In fact we should actively engage and explore the religion of our public figures. It is foolish to pretend that we can leave morality out of politics when there is no neutral stance on so many sensitive issues. If we are to address morality, then there is no reason why we should not address its source, whether it is religion or a lack thereof.
A significant political figure has stated:
“The discomfort of some progressives with any hint of religion has often prevented us from effectively addressing issues in moral terms.”
I would imagine many of the right-wing readers out there will be somewhat surprised to know that this statement doesn’t come from Glenn Beck, Pat Robertson or even Mitt Romney. These are President Obama’s words. In fact, the incumbent has been one of religion’s strongest advocates in the political realm. This is a powerful statement on religion’s power to unite, rather than divide parties when properly engaged.
“Secularists are wrong,” he continues, “when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square … to say that men and women should not inject their personal morality into public policy debates is a practical absurdity. Our law is by definition a codification of morality, much of it grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition.”
A candidate’s religion and what role it plays in his life does, in fact, matter a great deal. This is not to say that religion should be the sole factor for whom you decide to put your political faith in, though. I would argue that the Romney bandwagon among LDS people is as politically destructive as those who seek to take away his votes because they see him as a cult member. Both parties cast their votes based on a single face of a multifaceted die.
Why do we do this? I believe it is because we are publicly engaging religion in the wrong ways. Debating political or religious nomenclature, such as whether or not Mormonism is a cult, is asinine and a tactic employed by headline seekers. We should learn to ignore such debates, as those who exacerbate them ultimately add nothing to the political forum anyway.
Rather than asking whether or not someone is a Mormon, a Muslim or cultish, we need to ask more penetrating questions. How religion has affected their morals, how it will be reflected in their policy, and why they believe the way they do are far more constructive questions.
Morality is part of an individual’s intrinsic being, and he is inseparable from it. If religion is the heart of a candidate’s moral code, then constituents have the right to understand and reflect upon the role of religion in the politician’s life before voting. Unfortunately, because so many have reduced the role of religion in politics to petty mud slinging, we tend to think of it as nothing more than mud.
— Mike Burnham is a junior majoring in international relations and economics. Comments can be sent to him at mike.burnham@gmail.com.