VOTING CHRISTIAN VALUES
By Mike Hobbs
American
Christians have applied their religious values in the voting booth in different
ways throughout our nation's history. Different views on slavery and civil
rights are examples of that phenomenon. The framers of our Constitution held
different views on the issue of slavery. They debated, compromised, and forged
a document that gave birth to our nation. As cotton became a very profitable
crop planted and picked by millions of slaves brought from Africa to the South
in the early nineteenth century, the debate over slavery intensified among
white southern and northern Christians. In 1861 the American Presbyterian
Church split over the issue of slavery. In the 1860 presidential election most
Galesburg Presbyterians had voted for Abraham Lincoln. Most southern
Presbyterians had voted for John C. Breckinridge who championed slavery in the
South and in the territories. One faith and one nation split asunder over an
issue with religious, political, economic, and social overtones.
For a
century after the 13th Amendment in 1865 abolished slavery in the United States
many white southern Christians voted Jim Crow. During that time some white
southern Christians participated in frequent lynchings of blacks while others
stood by. Many white northern Christians were appalled by the practice. As a
boy traveling with my parents in the South in the early 1960's I was confused
that white southern Christians could be so nice and hospitable to me yet permit
signs with the warning "Negroes Only" to hang over public bathrooms
and water fountains. President Kennedy, a northern Christian, pushed amendments
that gave the residents (mostly black) of the District of Columbia the right to
vote for president and vice-president and outlawed state poll taxes in federal
elections. He also pushed for the Civil Rights Act, passed in 1964 after his
assassination, which "outlawed discrimination in all places of public
accommodation, such as hotels, restaurants, and theaters[,] . . .empowered the
attorney general to bring suits on behalf of individuals to speed school
desegration and strengthened his hand still further in the campaign to register
Negro voters." (The American Nation, John A. Garraty, 1966). All of
these measures were strongly opposed by many white southern Christian
office-holders and voters.
At the
present time some Christian denominations are experiencing internal disputes
over such issues as the ordination of women and homosexuals. A story in the
October 14 issue of The Register-Mail discussed two Christian groups,
Evangelicals and Catholics Together which opposes abortion, euthenasia,
assisted suicide, and stem-cell research and the Religious Coalition for
Reproductive Rights, composed of mainline Protestant members of the Episcopal
Church, Presbyterian Church (USA), United Church of Christ, and United
Methodist Church which says that women have the right to choose abortion. The
American Christian voter contends with some soul-searching questions when there
are such stark differences within American Christendom, within denominations,
and even within local churches.
Which
beliefs should a Christian apply when he or she votes? A belief in a God who
loves all people regardless of their race, creed, or gender, or a God who hates
evil-doers and will not grant salvation to those who not born again? A God that
considers homosexuality an abomination, or a God of tolerance and love who
challenged those without sin to be the first to to cast a stone? A wrathful God
who would smite the enemies of Israel (or the United States) and condone taking
"an eye for an eye" or a loving God who said "Blessed are the
peacemakers"? A God who condemns idle hands and rewards thrift and hard
work, or a God who ministered to the poor during his life on earth who said
that a camel has a better chance of passing through the eye of a needle than
the rich man has of entering heaven?
The
polarizing contention over religious beliefs is not restricted just to American
Christians. Shia and Sunni Muslims apply their faiths differently and kill each
other in Iraq. Christians and Muslims kill each other in Nigeria. Muslims and
Hindus kill each other in India. In the past Christians and Muslims killed each
other during the Crusades. Within Christendom Catholics and Protestants in
Northern Ireland and Protestants and Catholics during the Reformation killed
each other. For a long time some religious people have viewed other religious
people as heathens, infidels, inherently evil, and sub-human who deserve to be
killed.
Which
beliefs should the American Christian voter apply when he or she votes in
November? In our democracy each voter, Christian, Muslim, Jew, Hindu, citizens
of any religion or no religion, has the right to make that choice individually.
In my opinion
Christian voters should consider Christ's command that we love one another. How
do you interpret that command? I interpret it to mean that our government
should seek the greatest good for the greatest number of our citizens. How do
you define greatest good? You could define it as reaffirming what is said in
our Declaration of Independence about the inalienable rights to life, liberty,
and the pursuit of happiness. The many serious, serious problems in our country
and in the world can only be overcome by people coming together to solve them,
yet I see so many Americans diverging in different directions in the pursuit of
their own goals, and I see our country often going it alone on the
international scene. Either you're with us or against us? To a great extent we
Americans could be called the "me and mine" generation. We would be
better served if we were more like the Greatest Generation of World War II
America when citizens shared the sacrifices of war by holding scrap drives,
paying higher taxes, tolerating rationing, buying war bonds, and going off by
the millions, poor, middle-class, and rich, to fight. Overcoming fascism then
was a do-able thing when Americans and freedom-loving people around the world
came together. Overcoming today's problems is do-able too if we would come
together.
The
inalienable right to life? Many anti-abortion Americans say that abortion is
not only an important issue, it is the single over-riding issue in how we
should vote. I agree that it is an important issue. I believe that the right to
life should be guaranteed to all Americans, to all people in the world for that
matter, from the moment of conception. I believe that abortion should only be
permitted to save the life of the mother. Overturning Roe v. Wade? There would
be a high cost. Are we willing as a nation to bear it? Are we willing to assume
the cost of caring for the babies of mothers who cannot or will not take care
of them? Are we willing to adopt and be foster parents? Are we willing to care for
babies of all races, babies with physical and mental defects, babies with AIDS
or cocaine in their systems, babies who were conceived through rape or incest?
But is
abortion the single, over-riding issue that determines how we should vote? Should
we vote for a political party, which ostensibly opposes abortion, that took us
to a pre-emptive war in Iraq that has cost the lives of nearly three thousand
American servicemen and women and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis? Were we
peacemakers? Did we exhaust all attempts to find a peaceful solution, including
allowing U.N. inspectors to finish their job of looking for WMD's, before we
went to war? It's amazing that a President and Vice-President, who did their
darnedest to stay out of combat in Viet Nam, were so anxious for combat in
Iraq. I think back to the 1972 presidential election when anti-Viet Nam war
candidate George McGovern lost to Richard Nixon in a landslide. Back then few
voters gave credence to McGovern, a man who was a U.S. Army Air Corp bomber
pilot in Europe during World War II, a man awarded the Silver Star and
Distinguished Flying Cross, and a man who said that we should choose our wars
carefully. At the beginning of the Civil War American Christians in the North
and South enlisted in droves to get a chance to punish the other. As the war
and the slaughter progressed, and the casualty lists were posted in towns and
cities in each section, citizens had second thoughts about the rush to war. That
war could have been prevented if cooler heads had prevailed, and the 600,000
men who died from wounds and disease could have lived out their natural lives.
It's regrettably clear that it's easier
for people to make war than it is to make peace. A serious shortcoming in human
nature. We were so anxious to give vent to our feelings of anger, revenge, and
fear after the 9-11 attack on our soil that we allowed this administraation to
take us to war in Afghanistan and Iraq. An eye for an eye? You hit us; we hit
you. Look at the Israeli-Palestinian conflict where the "you hit us; we
hit you" cycle of violence has continued since the formation of Israel in
1948. Israelis have never known the sense of security that Americans felt prior
to 9/11. Can the United States do something that would ease tension and
hositility in that region? We can be peacemakers. We could push for the
formation of a Palestinian state while guaranteeing with other nations the
security of Israel's borders. By doing so maybe we could help bring peace and
stability to that volatile region, cripple the appeal of Islamic terrorists on
the Muslim street, and restore our image as the beacon of hope in the world. Forgiving?
Peacemaking? Those are incredibly hard things for individuals and nations to
do. Are these things humanly possible? The Amish in Pennsylvania forgave the
man who killed their children. They extended their hand in peace to the
killer's family. It is possible.
Liberty? Our
nation was rocked during the tumultous 60's and 70's when many traditional Christian
and American values were questioned. It was a very difficult time for those of
us who lived through it. Many embraced new cultural freedoms; many rejected
them. Americans became polarized and remain so to this day. No compromise! Stick
by your guns in this ideological war. Those Americans on the other side of the
fence. Americans? Hiss their names. Liberals! Conservatives! Heathens! Infidels!
Evil! Subhuman? One side controls our government and is convinced that it must
oppose the terrorists and "unpatriotic" American war critics by
altering an international code of treatment of enemy combatants and
warrantlesslly eavesdroping on Americans. In 1775 Patrick Henry asked the
Virginia House of Burgesses, "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be
purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" His answer, "[G]ive me
liberty or give me death!" Do you want to give this administration the
"war" power to reinterpret our Constituion and compromise your rights
as American citizens?
Pursuit of
happiness? I interpret that as the right to pursue the American Dream--having
equal opportunity for education and training, having a living wage job, owning
a home, providing for a family, and having a secure retirement. Would anyone's
God object to those things? Yet we have an administration that believes
"Blessed is Wall Street." Let corporations seek their profit
unfettered by government, and part of that profit will trickle down to the rest
of America. Relax safety and labor regulations to maximize profit. Relax
environmental regulations. Are we the stewards of the earth that God has given
us? Close your eyes as American production is moved to other countries with
cheap labor, and the railroads bring those cheap foreign-made products to you
from the West Coast. Cheap goods are good for America. Buy Wal-Mart. Friends,
it isn't working despite what Paul Harvey, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and
this administration tell us about a booming economy. Look around you. The
unemployment rate in Galesburg and Knox County is low, but many people who used
to be in our labor pool have moved out of the area to seek living wage jobs
elsewhere. Many who are counted as employed make half what they used to make. Local
governments and school districts are having to tighten their pursestrings. The
FISH food pantry is low on food. In our country both the number of billionaires
andn the number of those who have slipped below the poverty level has
increased. Would anyone's God smile on such a gap?
What can be
done to make the American Dream more attainable for more of our citizens? We
can give incentives to American corporations to keep their production here in
exchange for their observing reasonable safety and environmental standards and
paying their employees a living wage. More Americans with more money in their
pockets could buy more American-made goods and services. We could consistently
urge our trading partners to improve working conditions and wages in their
countries, so that wealth is shared more equitably throughout the world.
Do these
suggestions place too much emphasis on the material and not enough on the
spiritual? Does losing one's job and security make one more likely to turn to
God? In many cases it has, and that's not a bad thing, but I maintain that
people with more money in their pockets can also be good, God-fearing people
who maintain strong family relationships, are good citizens, and help the less
fortunate. God gave each of us--rich, poor, middle-class--a free will. We have
the opportunity to do the right thing.
On November
7 I hope we send people to Congress who will seek the greatest good for the
greatest number of their fellow Americans. I hope they will reassert the
Constitutional prerogatives of the legislative branch and restore checks and
balances in our government. In the near future I hope that we as a people can
become more tolerant of each other's religious, political, and cultural
beliefs, find common ground, and move on to achieve the great things that our
nation is capable of achieving.
Mike Hobbs