Both parties create a "platform" which in essence is the mission and goals of the party, even in a generic sense. Anyone claiming affiliation with a particular political party in some sense, accepts this "lowest common denominator" of beliefs being attributed to them. Unless a candidate expressly states their disagreement with a particular portion of the party platform, the platform should be considered to be apart of their mission and goals as an elective representative of that political party. To disagree with this statement would demonstrate that platforms are useless exercises, since we can't attribute a platform to a particular party representative. If this were true then what exactly is the purpose of the platform to the voter? If it means nothing to the voter, why would the organization interested only in the voter care to take the time to draft it?
Back to the original question, can a Christian vote for Democrats in good conscience? The question, more simply put is this, can it be a sin to vote for certain candidates? In order for a vote to be an immoral choice and thereby a violation of God's will, aka, a sin, we must define a few key terms.
Principle - Something which is entrenched into a particular persons belief system which in most cases should appeal to the natural law and promote the common good of all people. For example a principle of Catholic social teaching is that all persons have a right to food, shelter, basic health care, and work, among other things. Principles should be agreed upon by all candidates. I believe this is true in every case in the current presidential election with one grave exception, which I will get into later in a moment. For now, it can be said that all candidates should work towards the goals of meeting sound principles.
Policy - Policy is the way in which individual people believe it is best to attain or secure a particular principle. For the principle that all individuals have a right to basic health care, one candidate may believe that the best way to ensure this principle is satisified is to socialize medicine. Yet another candidate may believe that the best way to ensure this principle is satisfied is to make health insurance illegal and force doctors to compete with one another in a capitalistic manner which provides the highest quality product at the lowest price to all consumers.
Now that these definitions are established we can say that we can disagree on policies quite readily and often. A Christian in good conscience may believe that universal health care proposed by Dems are the only way to ensure that all people have some access to basic health care. Another Christian voter in good conscience can completely disagree with that policy and vote for another candidate. But even though there is disagreement in policy, the basic principle which is attempted to be attained and ensured by both candidates, does not change, which in this case, is the principle that all people have a right to basic health care. In sum, we can disagree on policy, not on principle.
Which leads us to the one central disagreement between Democrats and Christians who decide to use moral issues to guide their voting decisions. The policy of abortion is simple, either you support the policy of the premature termination of a fetus from the womb or you do not. But the principle which applies to the policy of abortion for the Christian is that all life is sacred and therefore should not be intentionally terminated. Here the policy, that abortion is acceptable, in and of itself violates the principle that all life is sacred. This is why abortion must play a more critical role in our voting disernment than say, the economy or education. Why? Because the disagreement is not one of policy, but of principle.
The question in essence comes down to this, what is the level, if any, of our cooperation with evil when we vote for certain pro-abortion candidates. (Of course this presupposes that abortion is evil which is not the purpose of this post) There are several levels of cooperation in evil, but suffice it to say that any support, be it money or votes or any other form of support or acceptance of pro-abortion candidates, at a minimum, runs the risk of causing scandal, and therefore should be avoided even on the most basic of levels.
This is not to say that we cannot use our vote to minimize the evil done. Say one candidate offers free government paid abortions on demand and another supports restricted and privately funded abortions. In this example voting for the lesser of two evils can be accepted provided that a determined effort is made to make available a candidate who would not violate the principle that every life is sacred for the following election. Note that this says nothing about having to be successful in electing that candidate. God is not so concerned with our successes and failures as he is with our attempts.
Now apply this to the current political climate. Any democrat candidate at any level of government which has not made their position on abortion clear and in opposition to the defined party platform as it pertains to abortion, cannot be voted for in good, well-formed conscience by any Christian.
And finally to the concept that it is acceptable to vote for individuals who are personally against abortion, but find no problem supporting its continued practice is akin to me saying I'm personally against stealing, but if my wife and kids steal your stuff, I'm not going to return it. Again, the issue is not a disagreement over policy, but one of principle. I can best demonstrate my personal opposition to stealing by ensuring that those who steal are required to make restitution for their actions, not by keeping that which is not mine regardless of whether or not I personally am the thief.
Nearly all people believe that the Halocaust was immoral. Which is why when it comes to defending the idea that every life is sacred, I like to quote Martin Luther King Jr who one said, "Never forget that nothing Hitler did in Nazi Germany was illegal."
No comments:
Post a Comment