Faith & Politics

[CamTheCat]

Faith & Politics

politicians have values too

As a politician, my political values in keeping with my party are the first priority. As a man with a concept of a Higher Power, I live by the values of my spiritual faith. Now, how does one represent their riding, their party, and their own personal values if they aren't all exactly the same?

I'll always stand by my beliefs and opinions, and I'll always bring my ridings' beliefs and opinions to the table. What I don't want to do is appear as though I have a hidden agenda. I am open about my beliefs, and only wish that more politicians were as clear and unwavering with their values.

I found this bit on the wikipedia site...

Ulysses S. Grant's statement might be interpreted as arguing not only against institutional entanglements, but separation of religion from public life. "Leave the matter of religion to the family altar, the church, and the private school, supported entirely by private contributions. Keep the church and state forever separate."

Thomas Jefferson reflected this same religious basis for belief in the separation of church and state: "Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments, or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy author of our religion who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either . . . ."

Many Christians interpret Biblical passages such as Christ's admonition to "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and to God what is God's" as a warning that the State has a strong tendency toward corruption, and therefore religious involvement in government is more likely to corrupt the religion than to benefit the state.

The above writings bring to my mind the thought that the concept of 'separation of church & state' has been misinterpreted over the years. I think it's a good thing for a politician to express their religion and carry out their duties as both a representative of their voters and as a person of faith (whatever that faith may be). I also agree that the government is just fine without an official religion. That's the opposite of separation of church & state, and that's not what I want to see in Canada.

Are there any other politicians here who have some thoughts on this subject?

[Renegade]

I' m no polititian but I do have an opinion. I think it is perfectly acceptable for a politition to openly express and live his faith, however when it comes to his political duties, he must put his faith behind the wishes of his consitituents.

If the wishes of his constituents contravene his faith, he must legislate and advocate for, according to the wishes of his constituents. If he cannot do this, he should not take on the role of a polititian.

[tml12]

I' m no polititian but I do have an opinion. I think it is perfectly acceptable for a politition to openly express and live his faith, however when it comes to his political duties, he must put his faith behind the wishes of his consitituents.

If the wishes of his constituents contravene his faith, he must legislate and advocate for,  according to the wishes of his constituents. If he cannot do this, he should not take on the role of a polititian.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That is a very good assessment Renegade.

[CamTheCat]

I agree.

At the same time, one cannot simply set their values aside when representing their riding, so this is where a problem occurs. Ideally, the two would be the same - and it's usually so - but when it's not, I think a politician has to speak on behalf of their voters.

That said, if the issue was impassable, I personally would not waver on my stand, even if this meant stepping down from office.

[Freshinit]

I believe politicians are too smart to actually believe in a faith. They do it to gain support and votes from ordinary citizens. Christianity is merely an attempt to justify right wing economic thinking. Neo-conservatism is the basis for materialistic culture and the electorate's dependency on it. If people are so close to god as they claim to be, why the monopoly on the earth's ressources, technology and education? Why did I watch a full story on Paris Hilton and her boyfriend driving home drunk, today on primetime FOX news, rather than learn about the civil unrest in several African countries? Why was O'reilly not formulating a plan on how to bring basic infrastructure to undevelopped nations today on the factor? Instead I had to watch him do an entire segment on a bill concerning teenage girls and their will to keep their abortion private from their parents? We have a huge media crisis in the 21st century and I personally believe it's been brought on by right wing ideology. A free market is only moral if it is available to everybody.

[sharkman]

First, the politician with faith question. Let's say that Svend Robinson becomes the MP of a riding that changes it's mind about the gay issue and believes that gays should not be allowed to marry. Is Svend then duty bound to vote as his riding wishes? Kind of puts the shoe on the other foot. So if he decides to "vote his conscience" on this issue, is he unfit for office? The fact is Svend would never let voters dictate to him on issues of homosexuality and. And he's respected (by some) for it. Even to the point when he walked up to a priest holding a sign on which were bible teachings on homosexuality. He ripped the sign out of the priest's hands and destroyed it.

Perhaps, then, there is room for a politician to vote based on what he feels is right even if it disagrees with his voters.

Second, to address freshinit's comments, we had a crisis in the media, but it was years ago. What you see now are conservatives, who did not have a voice in TV or print media, start organizations like Foxnews. By the mid 80's the conservative viewpoint was in such decline in media that when Rush Limbaugh started his radio show it took off like a rocket even though he's a bit nutty at times. And remember, this was on AM radio, which was also in decline and probably would have been gone by now. But Rush's and now many others have completely revived AM radio and it's all because conservatives did not have any where else to turn. And remember, Fox is the only conservative news network out there. That is why they regularly have higher ratings than other networks, and are at times #1 in viewers.

[Renegade]

First, the politician with faith question.  Let's say that Svend Robinson becomes the MP of a riding that changes it's mind about the gay issue and believes that gays should not be allowed to marry.  Is Svend then duty bound to vote as his riding wishes?  Kind of puts the shoe on the other foot.

Yes, in my view he is duty bound to vote as his riding wishes or resign if he cannot.

So if he decides to "vote his conscience" on this issue, is he unfit for office?  The fact is Svend would never let voters dictate to him on issues of homosexuality and.  And he's respected (by some) for it. 

Yes he is unfit for office if he put his own wishes ahead of his consitutients. When he takes on the role of public office he is accepting a job to be "representative of the people". If the people clearly represent their wishes to him, I think he is duty bound to find a different job.

As an example, the Catholic church is against legal recognition for gay marriages. The church as directed to Catholic polititians that they should not support legislation which allows gay marriage. Paul Martin is a Catholic. Let's assume for a moment, Paul Martin, being a good Catholic, agrees whith the Church's position. Should he abandon his duties as Prime Minister representing the people of Canada and be directed by his own personal beliefs? In my view, absolutely not.

Even to the point when he walked up to a priest holding a sign on which were bible teachings on homosexuality.  He ripped the sign out of the priest's hands and destroyed it. 

I'm not familiar with this incident, however it would be ironic that Svend, while advocating for rights for homosexuals was at the same time visibly demonstrating a lack of respect of freedom of speech rights by another individual.

Perhaps, then, there is room for a politician to vote based on what he feels is right even if it disagrees with his voters.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In my view, no there is no such room. Would we let a judge rule based upon personal beliefs, or do we obligate him to rule according to the law? If a judge can't accept that, he shouldn't accept the position of a judge.

I think the situation is similar for politician. If he can't accept that he should not be a representative of the people.

[sharkman]

Politicians go against their ridings wishes all the time. Only on moral issues is this seen to be improper. Svend has been pro gay long before his Burnaby riding started agreeing with his position since he's been in politics since the late 70s. And that was a true incident I cited about the sign, it shows him to be intolerant in the name of tolerance, among other things. You can find many examples when Svend has had brushes with the law if you google around.

A jaw dropping example of an MP going against their ridings wishes was when Belinda Stronach was elected as a Conservative but when the Liberals offered her a ministry portfolio, changed her loyalties last summer because the price was right. And many examples exist of Prime Ministers doing what they think is in the best interests of Canada even though the majority of Canadians may not agree. Trudeau brought in the metric system, Mulroney brought in the GST and NAFTA, Chretien cut payments to the provinces, gutted the military, and did the Adscam thing in Quebec. Oh yah, he didn't bother to mention the Quebec thing (are you surprised?).

And our supreme court has been involved in social activism regarding the gay marriage thing. I can't remember if we yet have any laws directing the judges on theses matters but they've still managed to invent protection for gay marriage. Whether gay marriage is right or wrong is not the issue here. That the supreme court has been holding the torch for gay rights before there were any laws permitting them to do so is the problem.

So, I don't have any problem if a politician finds once in a while that his conscience dictates he vote differently than his riding. You don't just elect a vote, but a thinking person who may have facts at their disposal that we do not.

[Riverwind]

Yes, in my view he is duty bound to vote as his riding wishes or resign if he cannot.

How is an MP supposed to know what the wishes of his riding are? Scientific polls are expensive and it is pretty dumb to base your decisions solely on the number of calls/emails you get at your constituency office - all that shows is a few people care a lot about a certain issue. Practically speaking, MPs can never live up to that standard and will need to take positions based on their own convictions rather than the will of their constituents.

I'm not familiar with this incident, however it would be ironic that Svend, while advocating for rights for homosexuals was at the same time visibly demonstrating a lack of respect of freedom of speech rights by another individual.

Would you feel the same about a black MP who ripped up a sign quoting the 'Curse of Ham' (Gen. 9:22, 25)?

[Renegade]

Politicians go against their ridings wishes all the time.  Only on moral issues is this seen to be improper.  Svend has been pro gay long before his Burnaby riding started agreeing with his position since he's been in politics since the late 70s. 

I have no issue with a polititian having a public position and sticking to it. In the example you cite, Svend would have had a public pro-gay stance and his riding chose him in spite of (or maybe because of) it. Even if we assume his consitutients were against his position on that issue, the message they were sending was that it was not important enough an issue to them to preclude them choosing him as a representative.

What I have trouble with is undisclosed positions where the polititician putting personal priorities ahead of their constituents. It is certainly not possible to know a polititician's position in advance on every issue which comes up, so we make our selection based upon what we know and upon trust that when other issues comes up they will act in our best judgement. If we feel that their personal priorities come first than in my view, they ought not to be polititicians.

And that was a true incident I cited about the sign, it shows him to be intolerant in the name of tolerance, among other things.  You can find many examples when Svend has had brushes with the law if you google around.

So, do you condone Svend's actions?

A jaw dropping example of an MP going against their ridings wishes was when Belinda Stronach was elected as a Conservative but when the Liberals offered her a ministry portfolio, changed her loyalties last summer because the price was right.  And many examples exist of Prime Ministers doing what they think is in the best interests of Canada even though the majority of Canadians may not agree.  Trudeau brought in the metric system, Mulroney brought in the GST and NAFTA, Chretien cut payments to the provinces, gutted the military, and did the Adscam thing in Quebec.  Oh yah, he didn't bother to mention the Quebec thing (are you surprised?).

Let me elaborate my position. My view is that the politicians should put the interests of the people he represents ahead of personal views and priorities. I thnk with Belinda Stonach, she did not. At the very least if she felt she ought to change parties, she should have resigned and triggered a by-election under which she could have run as a liberal. I have no issue with Trudeau bringing in the metric system or Mulroney's actions. They did it for what they felt was the best interest of the people, and they were public about their position before they were elected.

And our supreme court has been involved in social activism regarding the gay marriage thing.  I can't remember if we yet have any laws directing the judges on theses matters but they've still managed to invent protection for gay marriage.  Whether gay marriage is right or wrong is not the issue here.  That the supreme court has been holding the torch for gay rights before there were any laws permitting them to do so is the problem. 

The supreme court is obligated to rule on intepretation of law. What they have ruled is that gay marriage contravened the charter of rights. It should be irrelavent what their personal beliefs were. This is the way it shoudl be and hopefully is.

So, I don't have any problem if a politician finds once in a while that his conscience dictates he vote differently than his riding.  You don't just elect a vote, but a thinking person who may have facts at their disposal that we do not.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

To at least a certain extent I'm with you. There will be issues where the politician is either unaware of the wishes of the constituants, or they are split, or perhaps he feels he is in a better position to make an informed judgement than his constituents. In these cases I can see where a politicians actions may not align with his constituents.

To some extent what we are discussing is a separation of church and state. Or to be more specific, separation of personal morals and governmental regulations.

There are a large number of "moral" issues which I wouldn't want my legislator imposing personal moral beliefs on the people he represents.

For example,if a politician didn't believe in "living-in-sin" should he work to outlaw it? This goes beyond making personal choice not to do so himself and now extends to forcing that choice on others.

If I believe that a politician would put personal beliefs first, then should I be discrimminating for or against that politician based upon their beliefs? If I did not agree with the Catholic Churches position on an issue, should I discrimminate against a Catholic politician because I would assume his position was in agreement with his religion?

[Renegade]

How is an MP supposed to know what the wishes of his riding are? Scientific polls are expensive and it is pretty dumb to base your decisions solely on the number of calls/emails you get at your constituency office - all that shows is a few people care a lot about a certain issue. Practically speaking, MPs can never live up to that standard and will need to take positions based on their own convictions rather than the will of their constituents.

Spar, you are quite right that it is not possible to always know the best interest of his riding. My ask and expectation of politicians is that they put the best interests of their riding first. Yes there will be many times where it will be up to their judgment, but the factors which influence that judgement should have the interest of their riding outweigh their personal convictions especially if the two conflict. Of course if no information is known about their riding or the information is unreliable, I can see that the politician would rely on other means, such as personal convictions, of deciding their position.

I'm not familiar with this incident, however it would be ironic that Svend, while advocating for rights for homosexuals was at the same time visibly demonstrating a lack of respect of freedom of speech rights by another individual.

Would you feel the same about a black MP who ripped up a sign quoting the 'Curse of Ham' (Gen. 9:22, 25)?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

One of the most important rights we have is the right of freedom of expression. In Canada that right is only limited by the restriction on outlawing the advocacy of hate or violence against particular groups. I have read the 'Curse of Ham' and in my view, it doesn't advocate hate or violence against a group. I understand that some people have used it as justification for some despicable acts, but taken by itself, I don't see it as hate-literature. (Should we ban the bible because it contains such a passage?)

So , yes I would feel the same about a black MP who ripped up such a sign. An MP, more than others is obligated and expected to demonstrate respect for individual rights and tolerance, even when those views disagree with his own. If the MP had an issue he should have resorted to lawful recourse. Otherwise, what message are we sending, that it is ok to ignore the law if you personal belief system conflicts with it. What is the moral distinction between such an act and a pro-lifer bombing an abortion clinic?

[CamTheCat]

It's hoped that the voters know where a politician stands on key issues before they vote. Typically, a politician will represent their party, but there will always be some who differ in opinion on some issues.

I stand by my original statement, that I will stand by my beliefs, and always bring the voter's thoughts and concerns to the table. That doesn't mean that I'm closed-minded - in fact, I would want to discusss differences in order for everyone to understant the 'why' of eachother's thoughts.

Cameron W

[Laelius]

I think that a politician should join that party that reprsents his/her beliefs as closely as possible, and that he should vote with that company on all matters with only one exception if there is a EXTREME moral obligation by the politician to vote against his party. not like well I think that the speed limit should be higher, it would have to be something very significant. Plus it should be the responsibility of the people to know that the politician does have his own beliefs and moral systems to follow to do any less is ludricous, because politicians are not god's they are not angels they are humans and as such they do make mistakes and they have their own opinion's to stand up for. Any Politician who does not do as much makes me sad but we have forced them to it.

[tml12]

I think that a politician should join that party that reprsents his/her beliefs as closely as possible, and that he should vote with that company on all matters with only one exception if there is a EXTREME moral obligation by the politician to vote against his party. not like well I think that the speed limit should be higher, it would have to be something very significant. Plus it should be the responsibility of the people to know that the politician does have his own beliefs and moral systems to follow to do any less is ludricous, because politicians are not god's they are not angels they are humans and as such they do make mistakes and they have their own opinion's to stand up for. Any Politician who does not do as much makes me sad but we have forced them to it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think that is a very accurate and telling post.

[Renegade]

I think that a politician should join that party that reprsents his/her beliefs as closely as possible, and that he should vote with that company on all matters with only one exception if there is a EXTREME moral obligation by the politician to vote against his party. not like well I think that the speed limit should be higher, it would have to be something very significant. Plus it should be the responsibility of the people to know that the politician does have his own beliefs and moral systems to follow to do any less is ludricous, because politicians are not god's they are not angels they are humans and as such they do make mistakes and they have their own opinion's to stand up for. Any Politician who does not do as much makes me sad but we have forced them to it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

We expect judges to rule according to the law even if it contridicts their belief system. This is even true when they feel EXTREME moral compuction to rule according to their beliefs. For example, judges have let killers walk free when the rules of evidence were violated.

If we expect judges to act according to the requirements of their job over their belief system, why should we settle for any less with polititians.

As I have said before, there is no issue if the politician actions are consistant with his constituancy's wishes, however in cases of conflict he should side with his constituency. As an example, lets say a polititian was morally comitted against Same-sex marriage, but it was beyond dispute that his constituancy felt strongly for SSM. That polititian's obligation is to support SSM or to resign and not betray the people who have elected him in order to satisify his own concience .