If you are one of my dear Mormon friends who is planning on voting for Obama, I have a couple of questions. Please respond here or by e-mail, because I am very curious about the dichotomy of our actual religious beliefs and the candidates actual behavior and moral integrity. While neither candidate is perfect, I confess, that I can't wrap my head around a Mormon voting for a candidate who supports the following:
Freedom of Choice Act
Repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act
Voter Fraud By Obama Staff
Feel free to explain here. I consider myself fairly moderate on social programs, welfare and other government assistance, but as the gap widens between God and the social agendas of fringe organizations, I worry that too many of us are uninformed, or just Bush-haters, and we don't really understand the true impact of the social agenda that the Democratic candidate is pushing. I just don't see that the two party system will apply much longer in the church, based on social agendas only. You want to argue assistance programs, taxes, etc. Fine. But based on social agendas alone, I really question why some of my people would want to vote for gay rights above all, abortion any time any place, and for the kind of virulent fraud based on faulty racist deservedness. Really, vote against Bush, vote against the war in Iraq, there are few disagreements there, but I just don't understand how you can justify the social and moral disasters waiting to happen.
4 comments:
This is a really interesting question.
About four years ago, when the last election was going on, a dear friend (Utah Democrat) kept sending me e-mails to try to sway my vote. It was at that time that I decided to dump my previous political ideas based on what I thought my parents thought or based on what my wise husband said and think it all through for myself.
The thing I have learned most of all is that there is SO very much that I don't understand at all and can really have no opinion about. That surprised me more than anything. I have so much to learn to even be able to express opinions on most political topics. I have some ideas in my head and lots of questions.
As this race came around, I was very open and very INDEPENDENT. As time went on though, I found myself in a very similar place that I did in the last election. Though I understand very little, there are a couple of things that I do understand due to my religious background, the sanctity of life and the importance of the marriage union (one man and one woman).
I know people who lean toward gay rights etc. who are Mormon, but I tend to think that they are in the safe haven (relatively speaking) of Utah where the threat to these important topics is perhaps not so large?? Even with that I do not know as I am not there and observing politics in that state; it is just a guess.
At any rate, my vote is based almost entirely upon these two previously mentioned topics and slightly on a few others where I have been able to develop an opinion of my own.
I am grateful to my friend who challenged my ideas which allowed me to venture out on my own and THINK on my own. However, I will not vote for her candidate, Obama.
That said, there is not a candidate who really stands for what I would like to see. I don't like to see that they both want to just give the power to the states. Where is a Lincoln when we need one. I fear for the social pressure my children will be facing as we weave our way to the undoing of marriage as we know it!
Personally, I am a small government, more individual freedom type of guy. I have an initial bias toward any candidate or idea that will shrink the size and scope of government and not impinge on my God given freedoms. Personally, I believe this is the only route by which I will be able to practice my religion as the world heads further and further towards oblivion.
Other friends of mine believe the primary goal of government is to promote the general welfare by placing a chicken in every pot. Since individuals are apparently incapable of relieving all of the suffering in the world, the government needs to step in and provide. Their natural bias is to support any candidate or idea that they believe will lead to less suffering in the nation. Any program that helps the poor is a good thing – in fact, it’s what Jesus would want us to do, right?
No candidate in this or any election meets all of my ideals. (Reagan would have come close, but alas, I was too young to vote for him.) But some come closer than others. McCain is far from a small government guy, but he is the lesser of two evils in that regard. Obama would make Bush look like Reagan. So since there is no perfect candidate, I hold my nose and vote for the guy that comes closest to my ideals. I don’t see this situation getting any better.
Everyone has to do that to one extent or the other. Perhaps they don’t personally support abortion, but they are willing to swallow that pill to advance what they perceive as the greater good. One acquaintance of ours was likening Obama’s economic plans to the Law of Consecration. He supports Obama because he literally believes his policies will make the U.S. a more Christ-like nation. (Of course the Law of Consecration was based on personal choice and an individual’s needs and wants – while U.S. tax policy is based on coercion. You can’t opt out of paying your taxes.) The point I -- he feels the benefits far out weigh the negatives.
Now I am a conservative because I believe government is the answer to a very limited set of problems. I believe the Church providing in the Lord’s way can make better use of my voluntary contribution than the Federal government can spend my confiscated tax dollars. I believe government backing of homosexual marriage will continue to lead to society’s social ills. (See the work of Stanley Kurtz and his research on gay marriage in the Netherlands). I have arrived at my beliefs through my understanding of Church doctrine, a ton of reading, and my own experience. I have to believe my friends on the left have as well.
That’s my story and I’m sticking to it.
P.S. I feel the need for a trip to Vegas. I will need some consolation after Tuesday. . .
Almost without fail, whenever any of my friends at Church find out that I am an Obama supporter (and a Democrat), the first question I am asked is, "What about abortion?"
My first thought is typically that I really don't like the way that we discuss the issue. The verbiage we use makes everyone sound so extreme - like you have to be completely for on-demand abortions, or against abortion despite any other circumstances. I imagine that many of us, especially as members of the church, do not fall into either category. I certainly am not that extreme.
My lack of ‘extreme’ doesn’t mean that I don’t care. I care. A lot. It’s just that neither pro-choice nor pro-life (and the policial baggage they carry) describe my feelings on the subject.
Most people who call themselves pro-life are not strictly anti-abortion. Most believe in exceptions. Even our Church believes in exceptions. Rape, incest, health of the mother. Most people who identify as prolife, while disagreeing with the choice, still feel great sympathy for women in tragic situations who choose abortion.
On the other side . . .
Most people who call themselves pro-choice, are not truely pro-abortion. Most find abortion very sad, unfortunate, and often very morally problematic. Most want abortions to be rare. Most believe that abortion is a crappy means of contraception. Most (including myself, and Senator Obama), believe in some degree of legal limitation.
Pro-Choice/Pro-Life just seem to be loaded terms. What if I want to be both. I value the sanctity of life; I acknowledge the necessity of choice and agency; I am deeply saddened when they meet in this unfortunate end.
I just don't think that the issue is completely black and white. It is complicated and difficult and grey, and I think that we must comprimise.
I am troubled by the extremes on both sides. All I seem to hear are slippery slope theories that end in doom and gloom for either side of the debate. I hope that such important issues are note decided only by people determined only to see black and white.
For example, people who insist that terminating a fetus is no more significant than removing an tumor are incredibly stupid (in my opinion). But, by the same token, I think that those who view a dozen cells in a petri dish to be the moral equivalent to a newborn baby are almost as bad. Yet, it seems to me that people are automatically thrown into one of these two campls, whether that is what they believe or not.
It is my opinion that moderate pro-life types and moderate pro-choice types (if we can overcome the stigma of the labeling), as well as the church itself, have a lot more in common with each other than we do with the extreme edges of this debate.
Hopefully those two sides can meet and come up with something that keeps abortions very rare, but safe and available when needed.
I won't discuss my views on the lack of appropriate education for young women preventing pregnancy, and for explaining the other options should an unwanted pregnancy arise (corerectly or incorreclty, I think that many believe that there really is no other option given their circumstances). Maybe another time we can discuss the solutions that are needed to take down the perceived barriers (welfare, child care, child support, etc...) As you may guess, I think that Democrats in general have better ideas on thes issues.
Finally, lest anyone be unsure where I morally stand on the issue. I think that abortion is wrong (i.e. - God thinks it is wrong - in most cases). I also think that He thinks that a lot of things are wrong that happen to be legal. One of the most troubling things I have to deal with in regards to other member of the church is the constant belief that I am somehow denying the faith ignoring Church doctrine because of my stance. Maybe some of you agree, but I think it is a mischaracterization. If there was a proposed law to criminalize adultery, I think I could, in good conscience, agree with the doctrine of my Church that adultery is wrong and sinful, but that such a law would not be beneficial. My views on the issue at hand are similar. I think that it is morally wrong, but should still be available.
Probably not exaclty what you were looking for. But maybe it will give you some insight.
Maybe I will post my gay marriage thought another time.
Taking all the moral issues into consideration - abortion, traditional marriage etc - my biggest concern for the individuals running our nation is the extreme and alarming trend of "let's give everyone everything". One of the social platforms being promoted is to make sure that everyone has healthcare. I asked a democratic friend of mine about her support of this and she said that as a school teacher, she saw the suffering of young children who had no say in healthcare, who needed it desperately and suffered without it. I worked in several orphanages and know first hand about the needs of "helpless" children and I still believe there is a better solution than a free handout. What happened to the day when people felt shame and guilt for receiving government assistance? Now it is sought after and hoops are jumped through just to make sure you are eligible. There is an innate drive in human beings that challenge us to be self sufficient, to earn what we have, to be honest with our time, efforts, work etc. I believe that people should be taught to fish, not stand in a line being handed a bowl of chowder just to come back the next day and the day after that. People's drive to put in a hard day's work, get a good education, be honest with our fellow men--it is deteriorating at an alarming rate and that is a social concern that doesn't need government adding fuel to the fire. Don't get me started on income redistribution :) Another "give everyone everything" issue. *and thanks melissa for being willing to ask a question and open a forum door for a concern that it more common among all of us than many give time to.
Post a Comment