Submitted by: Jon Searles(1,293) Jon Searles Log in to become a member of Jon Searles's Fan Club!
Never vote for a religious candidate when a moral candidate is available. Pat Robertson, Oral Roberts, Jimmy Swaggart, Al Sharpton, Jessie Jackson, and Martin Luther King Jr. are all religious men who I would not vote for in any election. I am sure there are a list of Muslim, Mormon, and other religious leaders that could make this list. It does not diminish the good or great things each may have accomplished, but they all have views and beliefs that do not necessary reflect the views of most Americans. They all bring with them baggage of sin that is contrary to what they believe, but the belief in God allows them to ask for and receive forgiveness of their transgressions.
I am a Christian but I will not vote for someone just because they too are a Christian. Being a Christian does not guarantee moral leadership it only ensures that they have an example to follow and whether they choose to follow the example of Christ is their own decision. If they truly followed Christ's complete example they would not be running for office in the first place.
Moral views and actions, however, must be handled politically. While some moral directions are constantly debated: such as abortion, same sex marriage, capital punishment, and stem cell research, others are accepted by the majority, excluding a small minority of radicals outside the common sense of reality. Murder, theft, and hate are not acceptable attributes of a political leader. Voters would hope that a candidate's decisions would and should be guided by the moral and ethical foundation that is presented during a campaign. We would hope that the standards that are portrayed during an election are truthful, however many a candidate has won by falsely subscribing to the morals of their constituency to get elected. While you may not agree 100% with every principled decision a candidate makes, unless of course you are the candidate, it is important that you pick a candidate that will use a "moral compass" that points in a direction similar to your own. You and your candidate's basis for your compass may be based on your religion, but there are a lot of atheists and agnostics that have strong moral foundations.
Candidates should be professionally qualified in some way for the office for which they are running, but that is not the only defining set of attributes that are needed to be a leader. Mistakes in the past can be forgiven, but certain beliefs will and should disqualify them in the eyes of voters. If, for example, a candidate has 99% of the same moral beliefs that you may have and governs his office accordingly, but has an affinity for sex with underage boys, he has crossed the moral and ethical boundaries that Americans set for candidates. We rate moral decisions on a scale of importance and severity. We have the ability to completely forgive some sins and allow others to go unnoticed. Richard Nixon faced imminent impeachment for his role in Watergate, while calls for Bill Clinton's removal from office eventually hit a wall. Apparently his indiscretion did not tip the scales of American morality.
Religion should not be handled politically, however in the current election season it will be the media and all its pundits that make that decision to highlight religious beliefs, not the American people. Barrack Obama has been accused of being Muslim as well as looking to leadership from a somewhat outspoken and inflammatory Christian pastor and John McCain is a Christian with some ideas that run contrary to the Christian religious establishment. Although I will not tell you my choice for President of the United States, I will tell you that neither candidate's current religious preference will be the basis for my decision.
Moral views as a basis for decisions must be handled or what do we have to base our decisions on? A couple simple examples of taking morals out of politics are:
It is very expensive to help out other countries such as Africa. From a financial decision basis, we should not get involved in the business of starving people. Without a moral base it makes sense for political leaders to allow people to starve and die. This is much more practical because it will not add to the spiraling deficit, it will weakened other countries allowing the US to grow stronger, and it will decrease the world's population by eliminating those that can't take care of themselves and leaving more food for the rest of us. It is equally as useful to allow governments to use genocide to cull those within the country that may be different and putting an unnecessary strain on the world economy.
Allowing abortions, especially late term abortions, is a much more financially sound decision for this country. In the book Freakonomics, the author's theorize that the reason crime in large cities has decreased was do to the fact that allowing low income women access to safe abortions decreased the amount of children born to households that have a high risk of having children who turn to drugs and crime. Medical costs decreased, welfare costs decreased, gang activity declined, and less money is needed for law enforcement.
Where would our country be without a moral heart? Stay tuned, we may get to see exactly what that is like in the years to come as our country's moral heart is slowly but surely put to the test.
This author of this Article has choosen to make this article available with free reprint rights. Click here to copy this article.
» left by Danny Davids(13,567) Danny Davids (61 days 6 hours ago.)
Jon, I think you need to add to that "Never work for a religious employer..." etc. I've worked for companies where the people running the show claimed to be Christians, and I've decided I'd rather work for the godless (they treat you better). When people start flaunting their "religion" and their "beliefs", to me it's a red flag indicating that there may be a disconnect between the preaching and the practicing. I'll let people's actions speak for them and ignore the words. Good article!
» left by Jon Searles(1,293) Jon Searles (58 days 15 hours ago.)
Danny, I have worked for religious employer's also and they can be an interesting group of individuals. I have also worked for men whose love for people made them a pleasure to work for and you definitely knew they had a belief in God that was translated properly to others. Thanks for reading.
» left by Teresa Ortiz(4,648) Teresa Ortiz (59 days 5 hours ago.)
Hi Jon, very well done!! I love the last paragraph, it will surely come to pass, the bible tells us so. Sad but true, the worst part, is that people will not make the connection.
» left by Jon Searles(1,293) Jon Searles (58 days 15 hours ago.)
Teresa, the parallels between great civilizations are scary. Rome fell on the sins of man. Thank you for reading.
» left by susan thom from nj (58 days 17 hours ago.)
hi jon, this was a well written, interesting article. it's a shame we are in the position we are in, it's like a lose/lose situation. Here we broke all boundaries by having a woman and a black man run for president, which was a good thing, i believe, and yet neither hold the principles so many of us seek.
thanks for sharing,
best regards,
sue thom
» left by Jon Searles(1,293) Jon Searles (58 days 15 hours ago.)
Thank you. Is that your birthday we are celebrating on the website today? If so Happy Birthday!
» left by Robert Melaccio, Sr.(4,616) Robert Melaccio, Sr. (58 days 8 hours ago.)
Excellent article. We should not forget our forefathers did not separate our moral, ethical or private principals from the decision making of those in government office.In fact they evoked God in many of their decisions, which subsequently became our law and Constitution. They did however not condone evangelizing or favoring any religion over another. That said everyone uses their personal beliefs in the decision process. Simply put, if I profess to be of any faith that does not favor abortion then when you vote for me know my values, period. If you are of the same beliefs yet allow someone holding office to make the laws and institute government policy contrary to your views, personal or otherwise, you share in the results and are regardless of what you say an accomplice. You condone that which is against what you openly profess. Yet one does not have to saccrifice their beliefs just stand in principal for them and let peole know what type of beliefs you have.That is being a person of principal, honesty, integrity and character and by voting for those of similar values. Good job. Best wishes RTM
» left by Rev Michael from Bresciani (56 days 16 hours ago.)
Good writing and a walk on eggs that I've not seen done so well in a long time. Good points. We all know that sometimes morals and religion don't always go hand in hand but I still respect men and women who strive for morality and live by principles. I would hope people would believe the gospel and love as Christ did but politico or religious there are not a lot left like that. Enough rambling from me Jon, excellent piece! Rev Michael Bresciani
This is not because heists are better people than theists but rather the fact that theists still hold the majority view. What it does mean however is that religion does not prevent crime,murder,maiming,rape,torture........etc. Morality comes from the heart not from a book. Respond to this comment
Disclaimer: All information on this site is
provided for informational purposes only! By no means is any
information presented herein intended to substitute for the advice
provided to you by any health care or other professional or
organization.
