M
mm356
Guest
Got in a discussion with a co-worker today and it turned to the issue of religious folks “forcing their faith on others” in the voting booth. This issue gets a lot of attention in today’s political world, but being a voter that values morality and principles, I don’t see a problem voting on issues based on morality. After all, what is the difference in voting on an issue by morality lines as opposed to voting on an issue by straight Republican/Democrat lines?
Anyway, this got me thinking a little deeper as well. How do you defend the accusations of “forcing your faith on others”? My co-worker, a Protestant and of a self-described independent party affiliation, says the line should be drawn based on the good of society. Abortion is bad b/c murder is bad for society. However, even if you believe drinking alcohol is bad, as a lot of Protestants here in GA do, you should not force your beliefs on others by voting to ban alcohol sales on Sunday (a hot topic here in GA - currently Sunday sales are banned state wide), i.e. it is not important enough. I then came across this article by a Protestant group that also divided issues along “high” and “low” moral grounds, in which “high” moral issues should be protected by law, i.e. abortion, and “low” moral issues should not be forced by law but instead enforced by social acceptance.
str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5453
This is an interesting take, but I’m wondering what the Catholic position is. I understand that our conscience and the moral law is not defined by “the good of society”, as eloquently pointed out by CS Lewis in “Mere Christianity”, but it does beg the question: can a voting Catholic in good conscience divide voting issues based on “high” or “low” moral values as defined by the good of society, as this Protestant author concludes? As an example, we Catholics do not believe in abortion, and do all we can in the political arena to prevent it. However, we also do not believe in fornication, but we do not fight to have it outlawed by law. Why not? Where is the difference drawn? This also applies to the issue of homosexual marriage, to where Catholics fight to prevent it, but we do not fight to outlaw pornography or masturbation (granted, it would be hard to enforce!). Have we created a double standard by fighting for some issues and not others, or is it simply a matter of fighting the fights that are presented before us?
These are just some of the issues I’m tossing about right now, trying to come to a good understanding of where religion and politics should intertwine and how to defend the issue of “forcing your faith” and if in fact it is “forcing your faith” at all. As I said before, I personally have no problem with people “forcing their faith” in the voting booth because I believe it is all of our moral obligations to voice our opinions and form the society we feel is in morally proper. However, this answer usually doesn’t receive a good response with folks who are adamant about “separation of church and state”.
Any insight on the matter is greatly appreciated, and I hope I’ve described my quandary in sufficient terms. Thanks!
Anyway, this got me thinking a little deeper as well. How do you defend the accusations of “forcing your faith on others”? My co-worker, a Protestant and of a self-described independent party affiliation, says the line should be drawn based on the good of society. Abortion is bad b/c murder is bad for society. However, even if you believe drinking alcohol is bad, as a lot of Protestants here in GA do, you should not force your beliefs on others by voting to ban alcohol sales on Sunday (a hot topic here in GA - currently Sunday sales are banned state wide), i.e. it is not important enough. I then came across this article by a Protestant group that also divided issues along “high” and “low” moral grounds, in which “high” moral issues should be protected by law, i.e. abortion, and “low” moral issues should not be forced by law but instead enforced by social acceptance.
str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5453
This is an interesting take, but I’m wondering what the Catholic position is. I understand that our conscience and the moral law is not defined by “the good of society”, as eloquently pointed out by CS Lewis in “Mere Christianity”, but it does beg the question: can a voting Catholic in good conscience divide voting issues based on “high” or “low” moral values as defined by the good of society, as this Protestant author concludes? As an example, we Catholics do not believe in abortion, and do all we can in the political arena to prevent it. However, we also do not believe in fornication, but we do not fight to have it outlawed by law. Why not? Where is the difference drawn? This also applies to the issue of homosexual marriage, to where Catholics fight to prevent it, but we do not fight to outlaw pornography or masturbation (granted, it would be hard to enforce!). Have we created a double standard by fighting for some issues and not others, or is it simply a matter of fighting the fights that are presented before us?
These are just some of the issues I’m tossing about right now, trying to come to a good understanding of where religion and politics should intertwine and how to defend the issue of “forcing your faith” and if in fact it is “forcing your faith” at all. As I said before, I personally have no problem with people “forcing their faith” in the voting booth because I believe it is all of our moral obligations to voice our opinions and form the society we feel is in morally proper. However, this answer usually doesn’t receive a good response with folks who are adamant about “separation of church and state”.
Any insight on the matter is greatly appreciated, and I hope I’ve described my quandary in sufficient terms. Thanks!
