Can you be a follower of God and be a Democrat?
I was asked by a close friend today whether or not I could be a follower of God and be a Democrat? The question went further to ask, "If you voted for Kerry/Edwards does that mean that you are pro homosexual marriage and pro-abortion?" My answer was something like this, although I admit it was an unfair situation since I'd been thinking about this at length and she was asking a simple question after seeing a bumper sticker on my rear window!
Yes, I feel like there are plenty of sincere followers of God who could feel themselves compelled to vote for Kerry/Edwards. Globally speaking, those in the monotheistic faiths are overwhelminly opposed to the current US leadership, particularly their foreign policy(ies). Speaking to the second part of my friend's question, think that same-sex marriage and abortion are not the only issues facing us on an election involving leaders who will form public policy. Issues such as poverty, abuse of power, environmental impact, and others are also issues that can be seen through the lenses of "theology", "morality" or "justice". For me, same sex marriage and abortion rights are ALMOST non-issues in a PRAGMATIC sense. Candidate are seldom consistent (big surprise?). Republicans think abortion is ok in cases of incest and rape. This makes the whole issue debatable on their part. If person-hood/humanity occurs at conception, then why the caveat of rape and incest? For me this screams that the circumstances of the conception have bearing on whether or not an abortion should take place. Who are we (collective) then to say that abortion and incest are the only circumstances that would warrant an abortion? This certainly is not specifically spelled out in monotheistic scriptures. Also, while used as a lightning rod issue, seldom has abortion evoked practical action on the part of legislators in the time following their successful elections. Jim Wallis' call to work together to reduce the incidence of abortion seems to be a unifying, constructive way to address this.
Next we have same sex marriage. I sometimes get the feeling that there are certain elements of the population that thing that if we make homosexuality inconvenient or illegal then they will stop being gay. My view of the constitution and it's amendments is that it has for the most part been a vehicle to GRANT rights to those in our society who otherwise might not receive adequate protection from the benevolent masses. A constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage or define marriage as between a man and woman would do the opposite, i.e. it would restrict rights of individuals. The beauty of a great democracy, in my view, is that it allows the majority to establish policy, but protects the rights of the minority even when they are in stark contrast to the majority. Nondemocratic situations such as fascist and communist states have historically stamped out the right of expression of the opposition and been extremely harsh on those outside of societal norms.
On a pragmatic level, and here's where I think we arrive at the "rub", you can be anti-same sex marriage and anti abortion without it affecting your life much on a daily basis. If these are the litmus tests of righteousness, then most Americans can be pure indeed and never adjust their lifestyles at all. If same sex marriage were legal in every state, what would the impact be on the average person? I believe little or none in reality. California and Vermont, reporting the highest percentage of homosexual/lesbian/gay couples by state, report 1% of their populations. If these, the most in the country, are at 1% AND you figure in the number that will be for whatever reason "low key", I think the impact on the individual in the US would be minimal. In addition to the minimal impact, we are not talking about the legalization of same sex marriage resulting in more gay people. These people are already gay and no amount of legislation will make them less so. The straight guy in the next cubicle will not suddenly become gay just because it's legal for him to marry his partner of how ever many years.
It's interesting to me that the New Testament or Injil speaks very directly to the issue of divorce, yet we do not see an amendment banning divorce or remarriage after divorce. The literalists or fundamentalists seem to be fairly quiet on this issue. Of course, this would affect at least half of the population. While I'm not advocating for this approach, it's interesting to me that there is little said from the "religious right" on this issue as it relates to public policy. It may be that divorce and infidelity are bad, but at least they are heterosexual.
So, lets say that theoretically people are gay by orientation and not by choice and that most people won't even notice anyway. Why all the fuss? Oh, I guess that means we're talking PRINCIPLE here. Something is wrong and I need to be against it. Well, now back to my friend's initial question. Can you be pro- or ambivalent about same sex marriage and abortion and still be a follower of God? In the JudeoChristian tradition, there is overwhelmingly more admonition surrounding how people treat the poor and disenfranchised, those over whom we have power, than anything at all about homosexuality and abortion. In fact, the holy books are silent on abortion specifically, and scant on homosexuality. The passages on homosexuality are at best open to debate. If, however, we are to really examine in a good fundamentalist fashion the literal instruction to take care of the poor and disenfranchised, to be peace makers (note active verbiage), to avoid the accumulation of wealth, to avoid the use of power unfairly over the powerless, then we are probably faced with evaluations and adjustments in our personal lives. The "American Way of Life" itself becomes subject to theological and moral evaluation. We may find our assumptions assaulted. This cannot be tolerated in our society.
Here we have a group of people, homosexuals, that are a small minority of the population and transcend race and socioeconomic groupings. Truly, they are potentially looked down on by every type of other group that they might belong. Surely this is a group of people whom Isa, the Christ, would see as demanding protection and embrace from his followers!
So, I guess I would say, "Who can truly say they are a follower of God?" "Who truly follows His/Her teachings?" The issues involved transcend the Democrat/Republican questions and go further into who we are, the structures we have erected in our society, and who benefits from oppressing someone else? These questions, however, do not fit neatly into our public debate. They are, however, the questions that I feel determine our salvation or damnation- individually and as a society.
posted by Abdul-Salaam @ 7:46 PM
4 comments
