Should One's Faith Influence a Citizen's Vote?

If Billy Graham or Pope was to run for the presidency, would you be influenced by your faith to vote for one? How about if you were in a middle-east nation voting for a devout Muslim or in a far away Buddhist land?

Chinese Premier-TENG Sio-Ping once said, "It does not at all matter whether the cat is black or white as long as it catches mice." Why should we bother about the non essential when the essential is well done? If the guy up top can prosper the economy with his talented policy, is it really matter what his faith is. Is there any logic in his philosophy?

I remember some 25 years ago in a Bangkok Governor's election, Jam-long Simuang was being elected with land-slide victory sweeping about 90 % of the votes. Jam-long, wearing a Thai Mor-Hom (an all season Thai style garment worn by poor Thai-farmers) most of the time during his campaigning days is a down to earth retired lieutenant general. He is also a devout Buddhist, vegetarian, leading a strict religious life, and kind hearted person. People voted him for his faith and integrity.

But despite his popularity with the voters, he had more of the downs than the ups during his 5 years administration. Naturally, he performed poorly in his race for the second term Governorship. Bangkokians perceived him as a "Mr. Good with bad management". When his term ended, he left over with a huge sum of surplus budget Bangkok had never seen before. Apparently he kept collecting taxes only to put in the bank without doing much in returning those taxes back to tax payers. Bangkok people were not happy with his miserly Mor-Hom style administration.

This reminds me of Jimmy Carter, a faithful man who failed to make good the economy to the nation. His run for the second Presidential term turned up poorly despite his good religious faith. I still love him dearly though.

Ironically, person with genuine religious faith can hardly make a good politician. It is indeed a difficult decision whether to kill a few thousands in order to save the rest or save the thousands to the risk of endangering more lives. Leaders must sometimes exert ruthlessness and cruelty for a higher goal. This will in the end be more merciful than those who, from excess of tenderness, allow disorders to arise and spring bloodshed and rapine.

The kindness of a faithful man does not usually go hand in hand or side by side to brutality which is required sometimes while working in the office. An able person usually is not sensitive to ethical issue. His goal is more to power, achievement and success than caring and loving. And often, man with good religious faith does not equate to good leadership and a man with poor faith does not mean God can not use him to the good to his people.

We read in the Old Testament that God wanted his people to be governed through Theocracy but gave in to Israel to have their own elected government out of his love. God can install or dismiss any authority at his will. God appointed Saul and discharged him to replace with David. God could use even a non believer like Cyrus to bless Israel in Isa. 45:1. He also called Nebuchadnezzar, a tyrant, "my servant" in Jer. 25:9, 27:6, 43:10. In the New Testament, Paul reaffirmed God's intention for the non believer to rule and command -Rm 13:1-5. He has never stipulated that we should only vote for the faithful.

Should one's faith influence a citizen's vote? "No"