On Friday, September 19th, a Christian Group from Ohio will start airing radio ads endorsing Obama. Former congressman, Tony Hall has come out with these ads that support Obama on the grounds that he is the candidate that will work towards Christian values of “family, eradication of poverty and world peace.” As a pro-life Democrat, Hall believes Obama will carry out the gospel teaching from Matthew 25:40, “I tell you the truth, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me." While referencing the Bible is more commonly done by Republican candidates and their supporters, this Christian Group represented by former congressman Hall is taking a route not often seen by Democrats.
Here’s where I see the issue lies for me: where should the line be drawn with religious groups supporting a candidate? Let’s be honest, neither candidate fully supports all Christian values. Obama on one hand has a shocking history of voting pro-choice. McCain on the other hand does not support welfare programs that really address the needs of “the least of these.” By supporting one candidate or the other, these organizations are backing one person, even though one or more of their positions on issues do not completely align with Christian values.
In November 2007, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) published Forming Consciousness for Faithful Citizenship, a writing to guide Catholics in their deciding of which candidate to vote this election. The USCCB does not endorse a candidate in this writing; the focus in on developing one’s conscious to allow them to vote for the candidate that will follow with Catholic values and teachings. I believe the following statement best sums ups the USCCB’s guidance on voting this election:
“When all candidates hold a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, the conscientious voter faces a dilemma. The voter may decide to take the extraordinary step of not voting for any candidate or, after careful deliberation, may decide to vote for the candidate deemed less likely to advance such a morally flawed position and more likely to pursue other authentic human goods” (36).
This guidance clearly does not support one candidate or the other; it leaves the choice to the voter in hope that the decision is made with great care. Unlike other religious organization, the USCCB has stepped back and let the followers decide, hoping that they have been successful in helping to form their moral conscience.
Ultimately, my question is the following: Which is the better way for religious organizations to be involved in elections – endorsing a candidate or guiding the decision making process? Many secular organizations, such as unions, put their support behind one candidate and encourage their members/followers/etc to do the same. Should religious organizations do the same? For me, it seems that religious organizations supporting one member (especially with the current situation) can contradict Christian values. As a Catholic, I would be upset if the USCCB supported McCain/Palin because of their position on the war and welfare system. However, if they were endorse the Obama/Biden ticket, I would feel deeply troubled by their support of a pro-choice candidate. Clearly, there is no black and white answer, but I do believe religious organizations must tread lightly when guiding voters to elect a president this November. What about the rest of you?
Posts
3 comments:
Here is a link to the article:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/18/christian_group_airing_pro-oba.html
Megan-
I think the USCCB has taken the right approach with regards to this election. As the title of their document indicates they are interested in forming consciences, not grinding political axes. Where as unions logically throw their weight behind certain candidates who will best represent their interests, the bishops understand this is not the way for the Church to handle elections. The bishops are not wedded to any particular political party. Their concerns transcend partisanship. Rather than worrying how much funding the NEA will receive this year they are more concerned with how to guide their flock to salvation. The only real way they can do this is to provide the members of the Church with the best tools possible to ensure they vote their conscience. As you said there are no black and white answers in this or any election process. Thankfully the bishops have provided us with a reasonable document that will hopefully aid us in making the best decision possible.
Thank you, Meagan m, for a thought-provoking post and gdlgloia for a well-written response. What I found most interesting about the chosen article is how “Matthew 25’s main concerns include family, eradication of poverty and world peace.” The Christian organization Matthew 25 is focusing its support on what I would consider “secular causes.” Most people, regardless of religious (or non-religious) affiliation have concerns for their family, hope for peace, and – in a perfect world – would like to see an end to poverty and suffering.
What is disappointing is that Matthew 25 is labeled as a “progressive Christian” organization, simply because it emphasizes secular issues in the political realm whereas “conservative Christians” emphasize independent social issues and personal morals (gay marriage, abortion) over any other Christian value. Why is it that Christians should be divided into political labels? I am a Christian and I do not appreciate my faith being classified in political terms.
Post a Comment