Is voting your conscience imposing your will?

Great Debates
1

This issue has been raised in several threads (and may very well have been a thread of its own in the past), but I’d like to address it seperately.

A rather well-known Mormon on this board has said that, if given the opportunity, he would vote against legislation allowing for same-sex marriages and/or civil unions. To his religion, homosexuality is sinful, a homosexual can be “saved” from his sexual compulsion, and homosexual relationships undermine the traditional Christian family values. (There are links to support all of this, but this is what I’ve been getting from our several discussions.) He has also said that he, personally, doesn’t understand why it’s such a big deal, and, under different circumstances, would be in favor of such unions, but it is enough for him that the Prophets say so, so he will heed their advice and vote against same-sex marriage, as they are inspired by God.

(Please note this is not intended to bash the above-mentioned poster, but rather it is his example that is causing me to ponder the question that is the title of this thread. Let’s not turn it into a trashfest, shall we?)

The response to this has been, “Look, you can believe whatever you want to believe, but if your only reason for voting against SSM’s is because your religion says so, that is, in effect, imposing your religious beliefs on others, and is therefore wrong; and, it is an end-run around the idea of the seperation of church and state.”

“Ah,” goes the counterargument, “but isn’t voting your* conscious also imposing your moral values on others? Aren’t you trying to change society so it will think more like you?”

So, which is it? Certainly everyone has the right to vote in any way they see fit (and I certainly do encourage everyone to vote no matter what their point of view). But is voting based on religious beliefs bad? Is voting based on religious beliefs that would impinge the rights of others bad? Should voting be a completely religion-less enterprise, on either an individual or larger level? Would voting lose its “moral compass” without religious influence, again on either an individual or societal scale? Should we take our faith to the voting booths, or should we set it aside for what we know to be “right,” even if what is “right” contradicts what we “believe?”

Discuss.

Esprix

2

Damn preview! I should use it sometime… :slight_smile:

Of course, that should read, “Isn’t voting your conscious also imposing your moral values on others?”

Of course.

Esprix

3

If we are talking about the United States, then voting, whether guided by conscience or prophets, is not imposing anything.

Voting with the majority in a given race is imposing your view (or the prophets’) of who should represent your community in a given millieu (legislature, electoral college, etc.) The collection of those individuals impose their views (guided by whatever prophet or profit motivates them) upon the community.

In a true democracy, then those in the majority on a particular issue would use the vote to impose their views upon others.

4

Actually, I believe it should read “Isn’t voting your conscience also imposing your moral values on others?” :wink:

5

Damn it, stop correcting The Grammar Guy, lest ye incur his wrath! I meant, of course, that voting while conscious is, um, er… oh, forget it! :stuck_out_tongue:

Esprix

6

Not necessarily. Voting ‘pro-choice’, for example, does not necessarily impart any morality into having an abortion; it just means not restricting the options to those who wish to have them. And the election of a pro-choice Governor, or enactment of pro-choice laws, does not mean that those who oppose abortions will be forced to support them or go out and get them.*

Now, it certainly is possible to vote so as to impose your moral values upon others. Voting Green Party, for example, can be seen as imposing your moral values regarding consumerism and environmentalism upon businesses.** But voting does not necessarily involve imposing one’s moral values. One can hold something as morally abhorrent, but still not feel that government action or regulation is the way to solve such a problem.

[sub]*Despite that which strident pro-lifers would have you believe, or what the really extremist pro-choicers would like.[/sub]

7

The logical extension of this silly argument is that the poster in question should also vote in favour of banning all other religions, since that’s also sinful. Logically, he should also vote to ban divorce, make adultery a capital offense, and legally prohibit housework on Sundays. Those are all God-inspired, right?

But 99% of people who say they have to vote against gay rights because they’re sinful would never once think of voting to make Islam illegal because it’s sinful - even though, technically, it should be.

The answer of course, it that it depends. The real issue is what we feel the government’s role is. I believe it is the government’s role to punish people who murder, because I honestly want the government imposing my morals against murder. I do not want the government imposing my morals against sexual activity, because I don’t think that’s government’s role.

I think cheating on your spouse is a horrible, evil thing. I don’t think the government should stop it.

But don’t take my word for it. Take Jesus Christ’s.

[QUOTE]
*
Matthew 22:15-22

Then the Pharisees went and took counsel how they might entrap him in his talk. And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man: for thou regardest not the person of men. Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?

But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, “Why tempt me, ye hypocrites? Show me the tribute money.” And they brought unto him a denarius.

And he saith unto them, “Whose is this image and inscription?”

They say unto him, “Caesar’s.” Then saith he unto them, “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.”

When they had heard these words, they marvelled, and left him, and went their way.*

[QUOTE]

8

Voting one’s conscience is expressing one’s will. Others are free to vote as they wish. Enacting a law also expresses the will of the enactor. Now, enforcing a law is a case of imposing the will of the person(s) who enacted the law.

As an illustration, there are lots of crazy and/or obsolete laws on the books which are never enforced anymore. So no-one is imposing anything on anyone in that case.

I guess you could make a case that it is reasonable to assume the enacting of a law presupposes its enforcement and might qualify as imposition.

But with voting it’s a lot fuzzier since almost no elected official (none that I can think of, anyway) is in a position to single-handedly pass (or, more importantly, enforce) any legislation…

9

What a good question! – and the timing is singularly appropriate, in view of elections coming up shortly.

As Esprix and a few others know, I’m caught in the middle on this one, having been involved in the discussion.

Unfortunately, my answer to the question may seem to many to be a copout. It is, however, not.

My conscience will tell me that no measure which controls the behavior of others on the basis of my beliefs is acceptable. So for me the question will not arise.

What advice would I give others? Examine your value system. Determine whether your belief structure calls for telling others what to do. Then vote your conscience. And, incidentally, review your belief structure’s bases – the teachings of scantily few religious leaders call for regulating the lives of others, though many are the “religion politicians” who manipulate such teachings to do so. (I can visualize Paul and Mohammed sitting around together bitching about Falwell and Khomeini.) It is very easy to get led astray by those with personal agendas they can clothe in sacred garments.

Do note that I have no desire to indict anybody in particular by that last paragraph. But I suspect honesty will lead several people to notice how well the shoe fits those to whom they have given allegiance.

10

What he said.

11

My pastor thinks homosexuality is a sin, howwever, I would vote my conscience in the matter, and my pastor wouldn’t condemn me.

so…

12

Esprix (OP): But is voting based on religious beliefs bad? Is voting based on religious beliefs that would impinge the rights of others bad?

See, I think that the core issue here is whether we are talking about “the rights of others.” It makes a huge difference whether or not you’re voting about something that is legally considered to be an issue of individual rights.

Voting to outlaw, say, Islam, as RickJay pointed out, is not considered a viable option even among people who are very concerned to vote their religious consciences. This is, I think, because we’ve established a right of religious freedom that prohibits the government from meddling in the exercise of religion that way. (And if such a law did get passed, it would be struck down by the courts before you could say “Abu Bakr”, so there’d be no point in voting for it anyway.) So “voting your conscience” here would indeed involve infringing, or at least vainly trying to infringe, the clearly recognized rights of others.

When it comes to homosexual unions, though, the role of individual rights isn’t so clear. (I clarify: for me personally it is, but not for our society overall.) Nowadays it’s a rather murky question whether we have any right that implies the right to choose a partner of the same sex and have that partnership legally recognized. Fifty years ago, the social consensus would have been that we don’t; fifty years from now, I predict, the social consensus will be that we do.

In the meantime, people who oppose such unions are arguing that they aren’t a civil rights issue, and people who support them are arguing that they are. (With exceptions, of course: as John Corrado and RickJay noted, it is possible to be against something but still feel that other people have a right to follow their own opinions.) Whether or not it’s legitimate to “vote your conscience” on this one depends on whether or not you think other people’s rights are really involved.

13

Interesting question. In fact, it is dealt with in great detail in Stephen L. Carter’s new book, God’s Name in Vain. He says some interesting things there, though I definitely don’t agree with all of them.

One thing he says is that there is no way to keep religion out of politics. He uses examples like yours as a reason.

If you truly believe that abortion is murder, could you just say, “Well, I won’t vote my conscience – I’ll let other people make the choice.”? Of course not. You believe it’s murder. You have to try to stop it.

Similarly, if you believe that homosexuals are the spawn of Satan, you won’t be voting to allow them equal rights.

I can criticize your beliefs, but that’s what they are: your beliefs. And I can’t reasonably think that you will keep them out of your mind when voting.

14

If you agree wtih your religion’s particular political belief, then you will vote that way. Thats part of the reason you are in that church; youre in agreement.

If you disagree with their stance,then vote against it. Who will know? Will the church police come and get you?

If you disagree, yet vote what they say, well, then what else will you do if they tell you to?

15

But sanctions against murder happen to be one place where most moral systems and the legal system agree. Murder isn’t illegal because it’s morally wrong, but because it deprives the victim of his/her fundamental rights. What about when these systems diverge? War, abortion, extreme economic disparities, the death penalty, etc., are all considered immoral by some believers but legally OK. Those who consider “true” marriage a sacrament between man and woman may not object to civil unions because they are in a different “realm”; they may be deemed legal but that doesn’t impact the moral system.

I have the same concern as the OP; how do we live in a country where we can see the logic behind, and constitutionality of, legal decisions, and yet they conflict with moral beliefs? Do we vote for the least of the evils, knowing that none will, or even necessarily should, come close to our belief system?

16

From my perspective, it’s still an enforcement of my morals. I believe it’s immoral to kill, so I’m pleased the government stops it, but only because I feel it’s the government’s job to do so. If you want to extend it to protecting rights, I think it’s immoral to unjustly deny a human being their rights, and it’s the government’s job to prevent such things from happening. Ultimately we can deconstruct it to a moral opinion one way or another. As John Corrado points out, the issue, in the end, is what you feel the government’s role in society is.

I admit that I see no problem at all, at least with respect to resolving the difference between the moral and the legal, but that’s just me. To my mind, the person Esprix was referring to in the OP is entirely illogical in his thinking, but hey, it’s his vote.

17

There is no question that one must vote one’s conscience as he or she sees fit, regardless of the source of conviction. I don’t believe in God, so if I tell someone to keep their religion out of politics what I am in effect saying is that I refuse to recognize any authority behind the person’s moral stance. (Also, I have a complete lack of respect bordering on contempt for blind obedience to any human authority figure’s pronouncements, whether it be the Pope, the prophets, or anyone else. Especially when a person’s own inner moral compass is telling them otherwise.) Still, in the end a person must try to do what they feel is right, whether it’s inspired by religion or not. Those who feel, for instance, that abortion is wrong on religious grounds but still support a woman’s right to choose are merely making a value judgement that their own moral conviction is not strong enough to override another’s right to self-determination, or perhaps that government lacks a mandate to restrict this sort of activity, or perhaps for still other reasons. In any case, even failing to impose one’s moral or ethical views is the result of a moral choice.

I may be annoyed when someone takes a stance on an issue because of a religious viewpoint, and I would try and argue to them that their religious convictions should not impinge on the rights of others to do as they see fit. But in the end, that would be my moral stance, and while I might hope that more folks would consider it and put it into practice, I cannot think that there is much difference between my arguing for what I see as “right,” and them arguing for what they see as “right.”

18

Ptahlis said:

Count me in group #3. I find abortion to be morally repugnant. However, being male and over 50, I doubt strongly if the decision will ever come up for me. :rolleyes: However, I am precisely one of “those who feel” in your example. And my grounds would be that it is not my position to make that decision for anyone else, either individually or as a part of a corporate political entity. On the Pizza Parlor board, I used the analogy of a woman with a total-invalid elderly father and no recourse to caregivers. She must either let him die or subject herself to 24/7 care of him for the foreseeable future. I know what I think she ought to do, morally. But it is, and has to be, her decision. And for me to demand that she provide him that care is wrong – even though he will die if she does not. (In this hypothetical situation, only she can provide the care, I must stress.) I oppose abortion (with the obvious caveats that everyone always raises – I do not feel that a twelve-year-old rape victim is obliged to surrender her future ability to have children in a long-odds attempt to carry the fetus resulting from the rape to term, for example.) But equally I oppose compulsion – I support the right to choice. (It’s amazing how many “right to life” advocates think that last word is synonymous with abortion, not what it clearly means.)

19

I don’t consider the source of a person’s views to be really relevant. If someone wants to outlaw sodomy because they think that God is against it, I think that’s wrong. If they want to outlaw sodomy because they think it’s “icky”, I think that’s wrong. If they want to outlaw murder because they think God is against it, that’s fine with me. If they want to vote outlaw murder because they don’t want people deprived of thier lives, that’s fine with me. The important thing is one’s acts, not one’s motivation. I don’t see how blaming God for one’s intolerance is better than taking responsibility for it; if anything I consider it worse. If you think that homosexuality is wrong, at least have the courage to say so instead of claiming that it’s God’s decision.

20

In my opinion, it is always wrong to support the initiation of force or fraud. If your conscience demands that you advocate the initiation of force or fraud (which would include prohibiting people from marrying members of the same sex), then I believe that you are wrong. Moreover, I don’t see how one’s religion should be opposed to what the law recognizes as a marriage. The legal status of a union of two people should not concern a deity that does not recognize it as a marriage.

Put more simply, where in any religion does it prohibit homosexuals from filing jointly and sharing their health benefits? Why is one marriage that your god doesn’t recognize (a same sex marriage) any different than another (a Buddhist marriage, for example)? [note: the words “you” and “your” are meant only in the general sense, not in reply to any poster here.