Why I Don't Mix Religion with Politics

I work in politics. Sometimes it's a cesspool, sometimes I am very reassured by the things individual office holders and collective bodies are able to accomplish. I know many Republicans and many Democrats closely. When I go talk to them on behalf of a client or regarding public policy, I speak honestly. But, I know how to tailor a message when that is what it called for at times to make a candidate feel good about a choice I am offering up. Because of my own moral compass, I am careful never to mislead or to mispeak. I feel I owe a decision maker the facts, my opinion about their impact, and if asked, an honest assessment of the issue's bottom line. At the end of the day, when removed from this environment I have to live with myself and reconcile the choices I make in life with my religious sensibilities and also with my sense of fair play and decency in the democratic society within which I live.

I am a Catholic, a christian. I participate in prayer services weekly with other Catholics involved in politics and I also infrequently attend Bible study sessions with Christians of numerous denominations in the same setting. Sometimes on a weekday morning. In my private life I regulary attend mass, pray and adhere to the tenets of my faith.

I have a strong distaste for mixing politics with religion. Politics is about power on earth, and for me, religion is about the kingdom of heaven. I live under a Republic form of a representative democracy, in a pluralistic society with people of all faiths, and people who do not believe in God, and such has always been the case in America. I think this is a precious gift. I love that I live in a country where people like the Amish are free to live according to their religion and their values, eschewing technology, etc., right in our midst. Of course, should a person living in Amish country in the United States break the law, breach our consitution, he or she would be held up to the same standard of justice as everyone else here.

On the converse side, people who do not believe in God are free in this country not to be bombarded with Religion. We have both freedom of religion, the marvelous privilege to worship freely; and freedom from religion, the ability of some to choose not to worship and not to have worship imposed upon them.
Nothing changed morally in this country in the 1950s under the Eisenhower administration when in hte midst of the red scare we inserted the term "Under God" into the pledge of allegiance. Nothing morally untoward was going on at the time of any real note in this country then either. There's a scene in one of my favorite old movies "The Bells of St. Mary's" where the new priest, Bing Crosby comes into the parochial school classroom run by Sister Ingrid Bergman just as the children are saying the Pledge of Allegiance. Because the movie was made in the 1940s, the children, even in a Catholic School, do not say "One nation under God" They simply say "One nation, indivisible". And yet we do allow little semantic changes like that to divide us. We lose sight of "indivisible" in our zeal to insert God into matters of secular governance. And on the flip side, even that Hollywood representation of a Catholic school classroom captures the forest for the trees that I believe the athiest movement in this country misses - whether or not we recite a rote pledge calling this a nation under God (not borne of God, or sanctioned by God, just under Him - as in the earth is below the heavens) or not, we do indeed have freedom of religion here. What divides us is not religion, or God - but the need to compel others to do our will, to do as we see fit.

And sensing that disturbance, that overall sense that something is not quite right; opportunists in the campaign field seized upon religious sensibilities as a way to elect candidates. Sure the Democrats took the 'party of the people' road and went with the we have to uphold freedom of all route, and the Republicans took the 'party of God' road and went with the we have to uphold morality and Christianity before it perishes from the earth route. Two roads, each diverging fromt he Truth of democracy, let alone the Truth of religion mightily.

In my prayer group there are Republican and Democrats. When they talk as Catholics, people, they talk of peace, responsibility to our fellow man, obedience to God and a willingness to do His will. When you sully such a discussion with political situations, they diverge. Why? Because politics is removed from religion. Politics is about geting elected and sloganeering and feeling the pulse ofthe electorate. Sometimes, rarely in America given our campaign finance situation, it is about making hard choices that we know are the right ones to make - not because we are Republican or Democrat, but because a public trust is vested with us. The campaign guys don't like to hear that. The dynasty builders don't like that. Because you can't built a fortress on earth if you leave bottom line decision making to the conscience. And you can't enter the kingdom of heaven forsaking conscience.

In my heart of hearts I know this nation is under God, like all other nations on earth. Every day of life on earth is a lesson in humility to me as I have a deep and abiding faith in my Creator. He has bestowed me with His love of mankind, all mankind and that love comes with a duty. So, when I think about emission reduction requirements and new taxes and consumer protection issues I do make my duty to my fellow man my bottom line, but I view that through the lens of the Consitution of the United States - the law of the land. The most important principles of the 'self evident' truths appear early on and can be summed up in that all man are created equal and are 'entitled' to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. To the extent one's liberty and pursuit of happiness don't diverge from the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of the many - the one is free to live as he or she sees fit. And we all have to be treated equally under the law.

So, do I look at how a candidate votes on pro life issues when voting? Sort of. Of course, no candidate is going to change the constitution on his or her own and right now our constitution says we have equal rights, including a right to access health care. And what an individual chooses to do with that right is between the individual and his or her doctor, even if I also think it is between that person and God as well. What I look for is a candidate who helps build up society and support for the family in a manner consistent with supporting life from conception until death. A vote to make abortion illegal, even if it presented itself, wouldn't change the reality that people can still get abortions, or that so many children are born unwanted, unloved and neglected. And even as abortion is legal and available throughout this country and much of the world, there is much that can be done to open the door of hope and responsibility to people to not only bring a conceived child into the world, but ensure that child is loved and cared for well. I am similarly not persuaded by someone who says he or she will fight for my right to choose. Thanks. Thanks for supporting a right I already have. Thanks for thinking that as long as I am free to make my own reproductive choices we have nothing else too big to worry about. It is never as simple as endowing or removing a basic right from someone else. Imposition of will. It comes back to that. Compelling others to think as I do, believe as I do, feel as I do.

Secular governance such as our is about property rights and civil order at its core. I think we should keep it that way. Because when we let someone of our faith or another faith, or who lacks faith completely tell us this is how we must vote or think or act based on our religious affiliation of lack thereof - we are allowing that person to take away from each of the the very freedoms upon which this country is based. Sure, it's great when the right we are upholding or withholding is consistent with our own beliefs, but what happens on that dark day when it is in opposition to those beliefs, when we realize we are now part of the 'less equal" the 'unequal'? What happens when those freedoms we started eroding in the name of godliness are the ones we need most? What happens when the tyranny from which we fled to form this country becomes the tyranny upon which we take it down? When we elevate ourselves to speaking for God on Earth in matters of civil governance we commit the ultimate conceit. Civil governance is a matter of man. Ultimate justice, salvation are matters of God - and He will be the decider there, not me, not us.