Election 2008: Christian Values or the Constitution?

From the "Some Things Never Change Department," as usual, the arrival of each presidential election cycle is accompanied by questions relating to the personal lives, behavior or religious beliefs of the candidates for the office. In 2000, for instance, it was the sexual behavior of President Clinton even though he was not running again. Poor Vice President Gore had to bear the brunt of all that.

At an earlier time, 1828, it was the reputation of Rachel Jackson, wife of Andrew Jackson, and in 1928 it was the Catholicism of Al Smith, Governor of New York at the time, and presidential candidate of the Democrat Party. Those same questions of religion were raised again in 1960 when John Kennedy, a Catholic, ran against Richard Nixon. It's not that such questions are not relevant, they are to many people. And they are fair questions. It's just that it happens every time.

In this upcoming election it will surely be the personal behavior of Rudolph Giuliani, rather than his Catholicism, or perhaps the Mormonism of Mitt Romney, if either of them gets the Republican nomination. On the Democrat ticket it will be the specter of Bill Clinton returning to the White House and his hunting ground, the Oval Office, courtesy of his wife.

Not since the 1960 Nixon/Kennedy election has religion caught the attention of so many voters and this time it's not because there are Catholics running in both parties. All the candidates have been asked about their religious beliefs, and the right answer, the answer many voters are waiting to hear, is, "I'm a Christian."

In the case of Mr. Romney, when he offers that answer, or a variation of it, he is unconvincing to a large segment of the Republican base - the Evangelicals. He says he is a Christian, but then usually follows it with, "Jesus Christ is my personal savior." The question Evangelicals have is - why the qualifier? They simply don't understand what that means.

What is worrisome in all this is that now so many Americans expect the candidate to be a Christian and to govern as a Christian. I recently read an essay in which the writer identified herself as a pro-life Christian, yet she is supporting Hillary Clinton, because, she writes, she thinks the Democrats are better able to put a stop to abortions than the Republicans. This, even though the Democrats are solidly pro-choice.

She went on, then, to tell us that she is also strong supporter of the Constitutional restrictions in Amendment I regarding the separation of church and state. Then, remarkably, she wrote that she believes the Democrats would do a better job of governing in accordance with the teachings of Jesus Christ.

It's a contradiction often heard from many of my fellow Christians in recent years. On the one hand they, along with most Americans, demand and expect separation and for churches to stay out of politics, while on the other they want a government based on the teachings of Jesus, hoping, I think, that such will bring an end to abortions, and to what they consider the elevation of homosexual behavior to a natural lifestyle, among other things.

A Christian must, we know, care for those less fortunate and in need, at least to the extent that he can, but as for me, I don't expect, or want, my government to do it for me in my name. These are the things that are a mark of a civil society, of course, but society and government are not the same things. Society is all of us, while government is a political instrument and a dangerous one to boot. History is filled with examples of societies that were destroyed when governments made the rules for personal behavior based on religious convictions and then applied its powers of enforcement. A modern illustration, admittedly an extreme one, is the Taliban/Al Quada drive to impose their view of Islam, first in the Muslim world, and then the rest of us later.

President Bush makes no secret of his strong Christian beliefs, which I share, but it appears ever more clear as his government staggers to its conclusion that his beliefs play a prominent role in his decision making. His position on illegal immigration seems to be a reflection of this, along with his well known proclivity to race into every disaster that occurs and promise that we, meaning the government, will spend whatever it takes to make it all well again. The government is now the guarantor of all that goes wrong, no matter if it is due to natural causes, terrorist acts, in our personal lives, our health, our businesses, it doesn't matter, government is there to make it better.

What we Christians believe to be our role with respect to caring for others is best done in what is the traditional American way; by individuals, through our churches, private charities, volunteer activities, and so forth. Jesus doesn't expect me to simply turn the job over to a government; no, it's my job.

The point is the United States is a country of Christians, but it does not simply follow that it is thus a Christian country. The United States is a representative Republic which functions under a written constitution. It would be better for the country if the next president governs in accordance with the Constitution, and leave the Bible to us.