Thoughts on the "Religious Right"

Since the election there has been much hysteria from commentators on the left about the "religious right" and how it wants to make America a theocracy and cram its values down everyone's throat through legislation. Many were referring to the ballot initiatives in eleven states asking whether gay marriage should be legal. Others may have been referring simply to our choosing a decidedly pro-life president. The role of religious faith in political life is an issue on which I've struggled to define my position. But recent events and commentary have caused me to evaluate it more vigorously.

The common gripe from the left is that the so-called "Christian Right" legislates its values, thereby imposing its religion on others. I have friends who are conservative and non-religious. Their response is typically that there are principles wholly apart from religion that shape their conservative position on tough issues. But I will confess that on particular issues my position is wholly shaped by my religious beliefs. My inner debate has revolved around an apparent contradiction in my personal policy. To illustrate the contradiction, consider my own religious creed which guides me to abstain entirely from the consumption of alcohol. And yet, if there were a ballot initiative in California to reinstate prohibition, I would vote against it. Contrast that with the clear position of my own sect opposing abortion. If I were a legislator, I would vote for a constitutional amendment outlawing abortion. So why the difference? Why, in one situation am I willing to allow my knowledge of right and wrong to shape my vote, and in the other I am not?

I turned to the LDS canon for some guidance. What follows are my thoughts on Doctrine & Covenants Section 134, "[a] declaration of belief regarding governments and laws in general, adopted by unanimous vote at a general assembly of the Church held at Kirtland, Ohio, August 17, 1835.":

1 WE believe that governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he holds men accountable for their acts in relation to them, both in making laws and administering them, for the good and safety of society.

Okay, so right off the bat, government is a good thing. But this accountability is what you have to keep in mind for the rest of the section. Lefty secularists and atheists (LSA) have got to understand that if we happen to believe in a Supreme Being who will one day hold us accountable for all of our actions, including those in relation to government, then those principles that we believe to be handed down by the Supreme Being, are going to guide our actions (votes).

2 We believe that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life.
3 We believe that all governments necessarily require civil officers and magistrates to enforce the laws of the same; and that such as will administer the law in equity and justice should be sought for and upheld by the voice of the people if a republic, or the will of the sovereign.
4 We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others; but we do not believe that human law has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of worship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion; that the civil magistrate should restrain crime, but never control conscience; should punish guilt, but never suppress the freedom of the soul.

So the LSA might see verse 4 and argue that I should not allow my religious opinions to prompt me to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others. But the response is that our rights and liberties are defined by the law through the democratic process; a process controlled by a majority that is Christian. The Christian feels the duty of verse 1 and allows that duty to prompt him in making and administering laws. Those laws define the rights and liberties of others. Use abortion as an example: The law of our land currently grants a right to women to have an abortion. If a Christian, especially one in a position of power and influence, guided by religious opinion, were to prevent a woman from getting an abortion she wants, that would be wrong. But Christians voting in ways designed to eradicate the right to an abortion is not a violation of verse 4, and is in line with the duty of verse 1. Now, skipping to verse 9:

9 We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied.

This might be another verse that the LSA would grab a hold of, reading everything up to the first comma as his own argument that we are unjustly mixing religion and government. But the clause cannot be read without the modifying material that follows it. I think the word "influence" is key. We're clearly talking about a situation where one religion allows its influence to proscribe the spiritual privileges of another religious society. How do you proscribe the spiritual privileges of atheists? "Bah, you're squelching my nihilism!" Don't think so. Notice also the mention of rights (see last comment). We must also consider this in the larger context of the verse 1 duty.

Those were the high points of the section that I wanted to hit. The section and my analysis of it do not answer my internal contradiction. I think the answer lies more in policy distinctions from issue to issue and questions of degree. There's just a line I don't want to see society cross. The LSA's of America just have to understand that most Americans believe in God, believe that He is a heckuva lot smarter than we, and that He will hold us accountable for our actions on earth. The left would prefer that we just roll over and say, "yeah, forget all that god stuff. In the voting booth I'll just pretend he doesn't exist, just to keep you happy." They ridicule the "Christian Right"; lumping us in with those who have been abducted by aliens; claiming that our faith and testimony are nothing more than feelings. I would ask: what is liberalism? It's based on feeling and it's their religion. They would rather that we allow them to impose their religion on us. So what are they complaining about? Simply that we're in the majority.