linnposts.com

(Note: One reader wrote that the terms “spiritual” and “religious” are not interchangeable. Not sure what she meant since that is not what I am doing. But to clarify, when I use the term “religious” I mean people who affirm being a member of a faith tradition and who take its precepts and practices seriously.)

If religion shapes a person’s values, as it should, and those values influence how a person votes, as they should, then how a religious person votes should reveal his/her values and beliefs.

In light of this reality one would think that religious voters would think long and hard about what their faith tradition says as they determine who they will and will not vote for.

A theme held in common by all major religions can serve as a guide. Do to others as you would have them do to you.

Known as the Golden Rule, this principle is so universal that it is the first line of the Charter for Compassion, a document being promoted by a diverse group of religious leaders and scholars around the world: The principle of compassion lies at the heart of all religious, ethical and spiritual traditions, calling us always to treat all others as we wish to be treated ourselves.

It seems to me that at minimum the Golden Rule and the call to compassion it embodies should serve as a foundational principle for religious people as they decide where they stand on issues and who to vote for as a result.

Take, for example, Obamacare. Is it a compassionate effort to help everyone have access to healthcare? Is there a better alternative that would promote compassion even more, or is repealing it simply a political position no matter the effect such an action would have?

How about support for Food Stamps and other public assistance programs. Do they express compassion by a prosperous society for the least of these among us? Is cutting back on assistance justified on the basis of its effect on compassion for others or is it once again a political position whose impact doesn’t matter?

Or fighting wars. Does war ever promote compassion in the world, or express the Golden Rule? Have the wars our nation has fought over the last forty years promoted peace? Did our nation starting the war in Iraq on false pretenses promote the Golden Rule?

We face many critical issues today that have multiple angles from which to view them. But at minimum people who claim to be religious cannot ignore the Golden Rule and the call to compassion it embodies when they consider what position to take on them.

If you are not a religious person, your position on issues and the candidates you vote for may or may not be influenced by the Golden Rule or a commitment to compassion.

But if you say you are religious and do the same thing, and never think about the Golden Rule or how your views serve the cause of compassion or undermine it, then you are a hypocrite of the first order.

That is not making a personal judgment. It is describing what it means to take religious beliefs and practices seriously.

I grew up in a state where people who went to church every Sunday used the “N” word regularly, supported segregation, and even belonged to the Ku Klux Klan, and their churches never called them on it.

That period did permanent damage to the respect for churches and even Christianity itself, especially among the young.

That lesson of history should serve as a reminder to religious voters today that the credibility of their religious tradition and their own integrity of commitment are enhanced or diminished by the views they hold and the politicians they support.

So what is the take away of the mid-term elections for religious voters? That our faith should inform our politics, and our politics should reflect the kind of person of faith we claim to be.