Religion and Politics Don’t Mix Well
Recent events again raise an interesting and important question. What happens when an elected official's religious beliefs conflict with their legal obligations?
If a person runs for office as a Buddhist, indicating the Buddha’s teachings will inform all their future official decisions, and then wins the election, some believe the electorate has indicated the official can make decisions based upon her religious beliefs, even if they violate established legal duties. In a community made up solely of Buddhists, this would probably not present much of a problem.
Once a community becomes more diverse through the addition of Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Druids, Pagans, Pastafrians, Agnostics and Atheists, the problem becomes stickier. Many countries with governments based upon a single religious ideology have run into trouble with mixtures of religious minorities, especially when minority belief systems conflict with the state sanctioned one. Religious repression gets ugly quickly. A quick look at the histories of China, England, India, Pakistan, Israel, and many Islamic Republics confirms the observation.
The major concern is that the will of the Buddhist majority will prevent divergent religious views from being expressed and honored. The more draconian view allows the Buddhist majority to define its view as the only acceptable one, relegating all others to illegality.
In this country, we do not allow religious views to be a legitimate basis for governmental decisions. Every person who is elected to public office takes an oath to support the Constitutions and laws of the United States and their state. At that moment, the official's religious beliefs become irrelevant when there is a legal duty to do or not do something contrary to the command of the official’s beliefs. Religious beliefs are not a majority wins trump card. They do not allow officials to just obey those laws with which they agree or meet with the approval of their deity’s interpreter.
Throughout our history, many with strongly held religious beliefs have been elected to office with a view towards imposing those beliefs upon those they were elected to serve and happen to hold different beliefs. When those beliefs have come into conflict with legal obligations, mostly of constitutional magnitude, our secular courts have stepped in to return the elected official to the path the law requires. We have seen it most clearly in the context of the First Amendment protections for freedom of speech and religion and the prohibitions against discrimination based on race, national origin, gender, sexual orientation and others.
Sometimes, officials with strongly held convictions understand the role of religion as a value system when it comes to governing. It is perfectly acceptable to ask yourself what would Buddha do before making a decision. It is not acceptable to allow Buddha to make the decision.
Sometimes officials have to be taught by a higher power that they cannot impose their religious belief system that may be shared by a community majority upon those who do not share those beliefs. It is a hard lesson to learn, because it requires acceptance of differing belief systems as equal to your own. Sometimes it requires acceptance of differing belief systems that your belief system condemns as morally reprehensible. Sometimes it requires acceptance of belief systems you do not fully understand. This is the price citizens must be willing to pay if they accept a governing role over their fellow citizens.
Elected officials should take training from those skilled and versed in the art and business of governing before starting to govern. Our universities have the expertise. The training would help define the boundaries of personal, moral and religious beliefs and the legal obligations that might conflict with them. Civics foundations taught in public and private high schools could better provide these foundational concepts. This training, when understood and taken to heart, would help reduce much of our current political turmoil.
We can debate the merits and impacts of fiscal conservatism, let the majority rule and pay the consequences. We cannot allow religious beliefs to trump constitutional or legal guarantees in the process. Even Buddhists are required to follow the law.
No comments:
Post a Comment