Because I Said So
So apparently, James Dobson won’t be voting if Giuliani is the Republican Presidential candidate. While I can at least appreciate his beliefs and his reasons for having them which would ostensibly keep him from voting, this raises an interesting question about the role of religion in politics…
The former NYC mayor is apparently on record (according to CNN) as personally despising the practice of abortion (around which half of Dobson’s issue apparently revolves), but is committed to a woman’s right to have one. While his personal views on homosexuality aren’t spelled out in the CNN article, it seems to indicate that he is also an advocate of equal rights for said individuals. I think that there’s an important point to be made here, and it’s this:
In the realm of politics, your personal religious beliefs do not necessarily reflect the best direction for public policy. There are plenty more people in this country than Christians, and the law needs to encompass all of those people, providing a legal framework for support and behavioral regulations that favor no one group over another. This is obviously a hard thing to do, and when you get into the supposedly moral gray areas of things like homosexuality and abortion, it becomes even harder. Obviously, groups opposed to such practices (and I use that word knowing that it applies better to abortion than to homosexuality, but I’m going with it because I don’t feel like using a thesaurus) wish to see them outlawed in their country of origin (if not everywhere…). Yet other groups find nothing wrong with these practices, and believe that it is morally wrong to legislate against them on the basis of religious belief alone.
I don’t want to get too deep into the whys and wherefores of these issues, because they’re whole papers unto themselves (I know, I wrote one on the subject of gay marriage in school), and there are obviously exceptions to the notion I’m about to put forward, both in these issues and in others, but on the whole, I think it’s a good rule of thumb, and I’m likely to support any candidate on either “side” of the aisle that adopts it as general course. The government should not be required to legislate morality to its citizens (nor do I think it’s appropriate for it to do so). That’s the role of religion, and if religion is doing the job it’s supposed to, then citizens will make “right” choices based upon it. The government’s job is to ensure the safety and security of its citizens, as ordained in the Constitution (oh noes, I’ve invoked the C word!):
[...] in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity [...]
To that end, it must encompass all of its citizens in the approach it takes to legislation, regardless of the personal beliefs of a segment of those citizens or the lawmakers themselves.
Now, if Giuliani is just intentionally waffling in an effort to garner support on both sides of an issue, first off, he’s not as smart as I would have liked to give him credit for… in this era of 24-hour news, anything you say gets re-processed about a billion times and played right next to other comments you’ve made… and if the press doesn’t like you very much, those comparisons may not be very favorable. Any discrepancies in your comments will get torn to shreds, so if he’s waffling and not expecting that to happen, he’s lost some serious points in my book. On the other hand, if he’s really serious about his personal beliefs versus his public stance on these issues, I’m willing to grant him more than a few bonus points for being honest about it, plus a few more for putting the country ahead of himself. Realistically, I think he falls somewhere in the middle of these two possibilities; I don’t think even the most starry-eyed politician is idealistic enough to think that the sort of idealistic notion of the role of government I proposed is going to get them elected. Everyone panders and doublespeaks… it’s just a measure of degree these days.