www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Is it a sin to vote for Democrats?

Glory to Jesus Christ!

From the April 2003 issue of Touchstone:

Voting as Christians

If a person is married, believes in God, goes to church, reads the Bible, and prays, chances are he will vote Republican�and he is a core member of the dreaded Religious Right. If a person is unmarried, never goes to church, never reads the Bible, and never prays, he will likely vote Democratic�and he belongs to the not-so-dreaded Secular Left. Certainly there are religious Democrats and irreligious Republicans, but according to the research of social scientists Louis Bolce and Gerald De Maio ("Our Secularist Democratic Party," Public Interest, Fall 2002), the Democratic Party has become the political home of unbelievers. (See Rod Dreher�s article in this issue.)

Moreover, anti-Christian policies are far more entrenched in the Democratic Party than Christian policies are in the Republican. Republicans sometimes want to ignore abortion; Democrats want to promote it, and make it a litmus test. Despite their deep differences on other issues, all of the current Democratic presidential hopefuls made a pilgrimage to NARAL Pro-Choice America�s "celebration" of the thirtieth anniversary of Roe v. Wade to testify to their commitment to abortion. The Democrats have reinstituted the constitutionally banned religious test for federal positions. If a judge is a faithful Catholic or Evangelical, the Democrats will likely try to block his appointment as a federal judge, for fear that it would reduce the accessibility of abortion.

Pro-abortion forces have a strong, probably unshakeable grip on the Democratic Party; pro-life forces have a weaker grip on the Republican Party. Voting Republican might or might not advance the protection of the unborn; voting Democratic will inevitably lead to the further entrenchment of abortion in American society, even if the Democrat is a pro-lifer who survived the abortionists� inquisitions.

Although the Democrats sometimes use libertarian language and claim they want to make abortion simply a matter between a women and her doctor, this is a lie. They want the government to fund abortion, to force insurers to cover abortion, to force Catholic hospitals to perform abortions, to prevent pro-life people from protesting abortion. The libertarian language cloaks a determination to use the government to forcibly "liberate" people from "oppressive and discriminatory" traditions, such as protecting the life of the unborn.

Marriage and religion are closely connected; procreation and a belief and trust in a Creator are closely allied. Those who reject the meaning that marriage, family, and traditional religion give to life suffer a void, which they try to fill by seeking meaning in politics. This was the curse of Europe in the twentieth century, as the false religions of Nazism and Communism captured state after state. The new religion of liberation has its totalitarian aspect: It seeks to free man from his inherited prejudices (marriage, family, Christianity) through an activist state. This state, having created the void, then makes everyone dependent upon itself for meaning, at least for the only meaning it sees that life can hold: a perpetual liberation, a society that transgresses all boundaries.

Abortion has now destroyed more human life than Hitler and Stalin did�45 million in the United States, and tens of millions more in countries that have legalized abortion, some under pressure from the United States.

In a democratic society, legitimacy depends upon the voters. Voters have ultimate control of the system and can change the government if they really want to. Voting fraud and stolen elections can slow down but not stop a determined public; the judiciary and the bureaucracy in the end have to follow a determined and long-term public mood. A Christian voter performs a moral act when he votes. The morality of a government and the morality of an individual Christian are not the same thing�because God has instituted governments to enforce earthly justice, and a Christian has a destiny and a goal beyond this earth�but both governments and individual men are subject to moral laws.

Governments are ordained to protect the innocent from evildoers, from enemies foreign and domestic, and those who would destroy a child in the womb are evildoers. The US Supreme Court has declared a class of human beings outside the protection of the law, and the American government therefore does not carry out one of the purposes for which God has ordained it.

In a recent statement, the Vatican reiterated what has been the constant teaching of Christianity:

Those who are directly involved in lawmaking bodies have a "grave and clear obligation to oppose" any law that attacks human life. For them and for every Catholic, it is impossible to promote such laws or to vote for them. . . . In this context, it must be noted also that a well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals.

This is common moral sense, which applies to anyone, Christian or non-Christian, believer or non-believer. We should not abandon our moral principles in the voting booth.

A vote for a Democrat today is almost always a vote for abortion and a vote to violate the consciences of those of us who oppose abortion. The effect of various fiscal polices on the poor are uncertain; the effect of abortion on human life is certain. Whatever can be said for or against Democratic economic policies from a Christian point of view, nothing can be said in favor of their abortion policy. They have favored abortion at every stage and at every opportunity; they see no problem with forcing Christians to pay for abortion through taxes and compulsory insurance coverage; they will force Christian institutions to accept abortion; they will silence those who protest abortion. When Democrats do not do these things, it is only because they are weak. When they are strong, what will restrain them?

Is it a sin to vote Democratic? Usually yes, because a vote for a Democrat is a vote for a supporter of abortion or a vote that strengthens a party whose only sacred tenet is the right to unrestricted abortion. A vote for a pro-abortion Republican is usually also wrong, because a vote for any pro-abortion candidate is counted by politicians as support for abortion.

We have been solemnly warned that we will be judged on how we use what has been entrusted to us on this earth, and a vote in our society has value�it is a "talent" that we have been given. If we will be judged severely for failing to use the talents God has entrusted to us, how much more severely will we be judged for misusing them? If we have not merely failed to do good, but have by our vote for a pro-abortion candidate contributed to evil, and enabled the million-fold and easily avoidable slaughter of the unborn to continue, what words will we hear from the Judge?

�Leon J. Podles, for the editors

Any thoughts?

In Christ,
Theophilos

Dear Theophilos,

As a Canadian, I thought all you Yanks were democrats!

Alex

In Germany, we used to have a political party (the Zentrum, later the Christian Democrats) to which Catholics were instructed to vote for. After the war, the Catholic Church abandoned this programme, with the encouragement of the Vatican.

It would be odd that what was rejected in Europe is now promoted in America.

Alex:

No, you are terribly mistaken!

Down here, some are Republic-rats! The majority, I included, are just rat-racers!


AmdG

Dear Amado,

And then there are the majority who just don't give a rat's petootie when it comes to politics . . .

Alex

Dear Kurt,

Perhaps not so odd . . .

What about Christianity in general?

Alex

I think any vote for a pro-abortion candidate is a sin. Of course, that would usually be a Democrat.

Democrats are adamant about keeping the abortion holocaust going. I liken it to voting for a Nazi who swore to keep the gas chambers working.

Columcille

OK, we've established that voting for a pro-abortion rights candidate is a sin according to the teachings of the Church. On the other hand, conventional wisdom says that Democrats are the ones who tend to favor aid to the "little guy" whereas the Rebublicans tend to favor the rich. Christian charity and mercy, therefore, would guide us toward voting for the Democrat.

So, what's a good Catholic/Orthodox Christian to do? Abstain?

Yours,

kl

I have often heard that if all the RC's in this country "voted their faith" as far as pro-life went, abortion would be abolished in this country very quickly. I am not sure how true that is, but I am sure it is possible.

I wonder if enough Catholics and Orthodox were serious about voting in accordance with the dictates of their faith, what would stop the formation of another political party here that, while not being overtly religious, would still stand for the moral values Catholics and Orthodox stood for? Then there'd be no conflict on whom to vote for...you could name your own candidates.

Dear Friends,

People from other political cultures have sometimes raised the issue of why the US has only two political parties that, economically and politically, aren't all that different from one another - the choice people have before them in these terms is really six of one and half a dozen of the other.

What do you Yanks have to say about that?

And also about the fact that any party needs millions of dollars to have an impact on the U.S. political culture . . .

What counts for more here - people votes or dollar votes?

Before we even get to the issue of abortion, how moral/democratic is any of that?

Alex

Someone once remarked that Democrats didn't care about you until you were born, and Republicans didn't care about you after you were born.

For the most part I hold my nose and vote - often for that famous female ecclesiastic of the skies - "Nun of the Above."


At least in Ohio, state election laws are pretty well rigged to ensure that there will be no more than two parties with any real chance at election.


Sharon

Dear All:

Alex's post about money in politics and the fact that the two parties are much more in line with each other that they would like to admit is very well taken. In the 'States, most potitical scientists will tell you that the reason that we only have two strong parties can be reduced in three words: "single member districts." In other words, because the country is divided into 435 representative districts and only one person can be elected from each of these distrcits, the natural thing to happen is that two powerful parties emerge who will "swallow up" any third-party platform that comes along. If we had a more European legislative system, one would see more parties. (I'm not saying one is better or worse, just pointing out the differences).

Getting back to voting patterns vis a vis the teachings of the Church, I'm afraid Sharon's post says it all: those of us who still vote on occassion are left with either a "lesser of two evils" approach or not picking eiether candidate for a particular office.

With regard to Mor Ephrem's post, it is equally well taken. To this end, I humbly submit that it is well documented that even regular churchgoers in the US are now making up their own minds on socio-political issues and not looking to the Church for direction. A recent NPR story on the waning influence of churches done in connection with the war in Iraq (discussed briefly on another thread) included a quote from a Notre Dame professor who flatly said that, since Humanae Vitae, Catholics in the US take Rome's positions on socio-political issues with a HUGE grain of salt (and that's putting it kindly).

Yours,

kl

Dear Kliros,

My aim for this Lenten season is to try and take posts that are critical of me in the same light as those that are not.

Happily, I don't have to struggle with that spiritual objective with respect to your post . . .

God bless,

Alex

Sharon Mech and Krylos Leader make a good points. Another maxim I've heard is "the Republicans are for the rich man and the Democrats are for the lazy man"!

Now clearly, these issues cannot be distilled into clever cliche's and be totally accurate but there is usually a kernal of truth in them or they wouldn't be repeated so much.

I am not sure that this is the place to talk American politics but we are already into it so here goes:

The Democrats are usually composed of a number of types that may not agree with each other in every way but the one thing they have in common is they're not Republicans. The Republican's are who they are because they are connected to money and they represent their supporters very well.

People often assume that religious conservatives and fiscal conservatives are cut from the same cloth and they are not. Fiscal conservatives generally want smaller government, lower taxes, fewer obligations on the business community and more freedom to make and keep money. These policies are sometimes hard on the general public: workers rights and protection may take a back seat for instance. And social programs are reduced. These conservative positions are more popular in the American Republican party.

Liberals are usually interested in attempting to solve or mitigate social problems in the wider community. Social programs (like drug rehab and welfare) are supported as are minimum wages and workplace safety, to name a few. Marginalized groups get more of a voice. These liberal positions are more popular in the American Democratic party.

I think that the protection of the unborn is a position that can readily be accomodated in liberal circles. The problem is that many (most?) American adults do not see the unborn as fully human. An outlook I think they share with Russians and other Western peoples.

This is not a liberal vs conservative or Republican Vs Democrat problem. Liberal minded people need to see and understand that that protecting our unborn brothers and sisters is defending another voiceless and vulnerable segment of our society. Many liberals already do but the process of educating the public after so many years of propaganda from planned parenthood and some feminist circles is a gargantuan one. We need to get back to evangelizing our culture and work from within the political parties to change minds and hearts.

In Christ,
Michael, sinner

I would love to see the raw data from which the conclusions in the Touchstone article are drawn. From my readings, I think they are missing the a key factor: they neglect mention that their remarks, at best, apply to whites, and mainly to white males. Maybe they think that this restriction goes without saying.