By Jacob Melder
Guest Writer
Preachers often say who to vote for or how to vote on an issue, something which generates one of two common reactions. The first reaction is, “My pastor is knowledgeable and, therefore, I should listen to him.” The second reaction is, “How dare he try to tell me how to express my right to vote?”
The people who listen to their pastors are not entirely wrong to trust them. Pastors are probably more knowledgeable on matters of the Bible than the average church member. Most pastors likely associate their political views with tenets of the faith. For instance, the Bible says that humans are created in God’s image, so many pastors will take a strong pro-life stance in their politics.
But it also is reasonable to believe that the church should not be a place for politics. After all, the Earth is not our home, and Christians’ main concerns should be with spiritual things.
Many people believe that pastors, as shepherds of congregations, should be concerned only with helping believers in their Christian walk.
Both positions seem to make a good argument as to how politics and religion should play out, but I think both views of the subject are too narrow.
I do not have so much pride to think I have the answer to the question of how religion and politics ought to interact, but I would like to at least throw out an option.
In the Oct. 16 issue of the Cardinal & Cream, Managing Editor Katherine Burgess wrote about a chapel speaker who strongly hinted that voting Republican was what proper Christians should do. I was not at the chapel service mentioned, so I cannot attest the truth of this claim.
However, anyone who tells people to vote for a certain party is probably uninformed about key issues – most important, how parties actually work.
Just because two candidates have the same letter after their names does not mean they will stand for the same issues. Northeast Republicans sometimes have very different views than Republicans from the South.
Mitt Romney ran as a pro-choice candidate when he was in Massachusetts, according to a 2011 article on PolitiFact.com, run by the Tampa Bay Times. He did so because his base was more supportive of that side in the issue. He has since changed his stance to be pro-life, also according to PolitiFact, because the national base of Republicans contains voters who would not dream of voting for a candidate who believed otherwise.
A party platform is a tricky thing. It varies between states, which means a person cannot be sure whether a candidate will always vote according to his party affiliation.
Candidates do not always adhere to a party’s standards. A good example is Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky. An Oct.19 Washington Post article by Rosalind Helderman said Paul is opposed to much foreign aid; an Oct. 10 article at USAToday.com by Catalina Camia states Paul is opposed to many interventionist foreign policies.
Those issues have to do with two significant Republican platforms, but Paul does not abide by them.
Do not vote for someone just because they are affiliated with a party. Don’t hold to a party, either. Unfortunately in some states, a citizen has to be registered to a party in order to vote in primaries. In these cases, a voter still does not have to be a party ideologue.
The most important thing a person should consider is himself.
He should ask himself: “What are my beliefs?” “What should the role of the government be?” “What is the answer to unwanted pregnancies?” “What is the best education system?” “How should the debt crisis be solved?” “Should these questions be considered at the state, local or federal level?”
Next, he should decide how important these issues are to him. Is focusing on the economy more important than focusing on U.S. foreign policy? Are women’s rights, including the rights of unborn women, more pressing than the freedom of religion?
Once a voter makes these choices, deciding which candidate to choose will be clearer. For instance, a person may disagree with a particular candidate’s stance on one issue. But if that issue is lower than another issue a person and a candidate agree on, a person may be able to vote for him.
Do not settle for just any candidate. Many voters are dissatisfied with this year’s choices. Americans have decided to vote for the lesser of two evils. In doing so, they have lost the ability to get candidates of any worth.
While it is rare to get a candidate with whom everyone agrees 100 percent, Americans should not sacrifice their most precious ideals by voting for a lesser evil.
Voters need to think long-term. If the two major parties do not offer a good candidate, consider voting for a third-party candidate. That candidate won’t win, but voters will have sent a message to the major parties, and those parties may adjust their platforms accordingly. If they do not adjust, a third party will win out. After all, the first parties in America were not Republican and Democrat.
Overall, everyone’s vote matters. Everyone’s input does affect the political system. Americans should not waste their rights by being uninformed or following untested advice. They should figure out what they think is good, research the candidates and make an informed vote. If they do these things, they can accomplish some real change.
