How Should We Vote According To Our Faith?

[SpeakKindly]

I’ve read some comments on the internet (including from some Christians), that morality does not have a place in politics.

They usually say that we should not force our faith on people by voting with morality, and they usually say that we should vote in a secular way.

So, for example, abortion wouldn’t be voted against because it’s immoral, but because it does not benefit society.

However, I believe that we’re obligated to vote against immoral things that bring down the common good, that people can (and should) avoid. That would be things like abortion, but not things like voting against divorce, since it’s required (morally) that I not get divorced, but other people may not be able to avoid it.

Is this a correct way on voting ?

How can I talk to fellow Christians about how to vote according to our faith ?

 

[stephe1987]

Yes. You will be held accountable for all your votes by God. Be careful and use your vote wisely. Do not vote in favor of sin.

 

[Rete]

Yep. At the very least, in the American context, voting for a pro-abortion candidate who will definitely protect and expand abortion rights would represent a willful act on your part. It’s a difficult thing because here both of these parties are packed with plenty of evil.

A self-governing democracy has a danger in that the people become responsible for the state. So when you vote for a politician knowing full well that it means he will pursue policies which are intrinsically evil, then I have to believe you have sinned at some level and degree. Forcing us to choose between two scoundrels makes the issue hard.

 

[manualman]

Silly argument and you should call them on it. Ask them to define morality. It’s the discernment between right and wrong, right? What is “wrong?” Things that are harmful to an individual or to society!

ALL laws are inherently an imposition of a moral code.

Taxes: It’s right and just that people must pay for government services in proportion to their ability.
Speeding: It’s wrong to allow people to place others at risk due to excessive speed.
Stealing: People have a right to their own property and no one may deprive them of it unjustly.

These are ALL moral propositions. Not only are morals the proper thing to undergird law, they are the ONLY rational thing to use to undergird law. And it’s absurd to argue that the existence of people with contrary moral opinions makes a topic unsuitable for legislation. Thieves and murderers hardly constitute a reason to legalize these things, do they?

 

[SpeakKindly]

Silly argument and you should call them on it. Ask them to define morality. It’s the discernment between right and wrong, right? What is “wrong?” Things that are harmful to an individual or to society!

ALL laws are inherently an imposition of a moral code.

Taxes: It’s right and just that people must pay for government services in proportion to their ability.
Speeding: It’s wrong to allow people to place others at risk due to excessive speed.
Stealing: People have a right to their own property and no one may deprive them of it unjustly.

These are ALL moral propositions. Not only are morals the proper thing to undergird law, they are the ONLY rational thing to use to undergird law. And it’s absurd to argue that the existence of people with contrary moral opinions makes a topic unsuitable for legislation. Thieves and murderers hardly constitute a reason to legalize these things, do they?

I agree with you, morality is always supporting our votes.

I get frustrated with talking to people who tend to say that morality isn’t involved because they try to explain that they vote for things that benefit society and freedom of people, regardless if they agree with them or not.

Then they’ll say “Well, what if a Muslim, Jewish person, or someone else wanted to vote for beheadings as a capital punishment, or pork tax (in the case of the Jewish person) ?”

I usually try to explain that with the extreme example of beheading ,we can tell that does not benefit the common good, and with the Jewish person’s decision, I’d say that I could care less if they think pork should be taxed, because there might be someone else who agrees with them for non-religious reasons, so everyone has the freedom to vote for whatever reason they want. I personally would vote based on my morality, I can’t separate myself from my morals, just as the Jewish person couldn’t. The idea is that we’re all guided towards moral perfection, and the Church is the guide towards that.

I hope that made sense, I feel like I’m rambling. lol

 

[manualman]

…with the Jewish person’s decision, I’d say that I could care less if they think pork should be taxed, because there might be someone else who agrees with them for non-religious reasons, so everyone has the freedom to vote for whatever reason they want. I personally would vote based on my morality, I can’t separate myself from my morals, just as the Jewish person couldn’t. The idea is that we’re all guided towards moral perfection, and the Church is the guide towards that.

I’ve never been to Israel, but I doubt anybody here would be shocked or appalled if pork were discouraged by tax or regulation in Israeli law. It is only in America where people develop a peculiar aversion to asking the larger culture to accomodate the moral values of the majority.

A nation in which Jehovah Witnesses are the majority might indeed ban blood transfusions. That’s their right. Just emigrate somewhere more sensible (I would). But don’t pretend that law itself isn’t an imposition of a particular morality on the whole of a society. That’s just semantic evasion.

 

[mek42]

Does there come a point when so much morality is legislated that we start, as men, interfering with the gift of free will?

 

[SpeakKindly]

Does there come a point when so much morality is legislated that we start, as men, interfering with the gift of free will?

I remember reading (somewhere?) that we should vote for things that are immoral and that most people can avoid (like abortion).

However, that implies that there are things we should not vote against, even if they’re immoral. I’d assume this would be something like making it a law that everyone should go to Mass every Sunday, never get a divorce, or fast during Lent.