COMMENTARY
Don't let faith dictate your vote
BY Richard S. Miller
A few days ago I ran into a Kailua neighbor, a very friendly and likable senior citizen, who expressed the view that the coming election is the most important in his lifetime.
I agreed with him, and told him I thought we must vote President Bush out of office, but he politely disagreed. He said he had been a lifelong Democrat until four years ago, when he became a Republican.
And the reason he gave was that he could not stand the thought of two guys marrying and kissing each other!
This friendly senior is wrong, and I told him so. Insofar as his anti-gay-marriage view is based on his religious philosophy that abhors such marriages, he is not only wrong in making this the key to his vote but dangerously wrong for the future of our country.
Though I personally disagree with him, it is not his personal or religious views of same-sex marriage that I am questioning. It is the question of whether and to what extent we should allow issues involving our religious beliefs to govern how we vote in an election.
Today, there are many "wedge" issues which divide us on religious grounds. These include same-sex marriage, abortion rights, stem-cell research and even the pledge of allegiance.
Because one's religious views are, by definition, articles of faith, an election in which such views become the paramount issues for many voters makes the election a religious conflict.
Religious conflicts, as the horrible experiences in Northern Ireland, the Middle East, Bosnia and Albania demonstrate, are virtually insoluble. They have the capacity to escalate into serious violence and to disrupt and undermine peace and domestic tranquility.
In their wisdom, however, our founding fathers adopted the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It says, in pertinent part: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
By virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment, that command now applies to the states as well as to the U.S. Congress. Whatever it might require in specific cases, it is clear that the intention of the founders was to keep the government neutral and to allow citizens the right to practice their religions without governmental interference.
They were no doubt motivated by their experience that many settlers in the colonies left England to secure their religious freedom.
But religious freedom does not exist if a majority can impose its religious views on the minority. It is, of course, understandable why people with a strong commitment to their religion and a resulting abhorrence of certain kinds of conduct, such as homosexuality or abortion, might want to impose their religion-based views on their fellow citizens, but that does not make it wise.
Indeed, the effect of pushing such issues is often to exclude other vital concerns, such as economic stability, healthcare, poverty and security, which may be better handled by parties or elected officials who do not necessarily agree with the religion-based concerns.
In the real world, where people's lives and well-being are affected, these issues are the ones that should determine how we vote.
One part of the First Amendment gives us the right to exercise our own religious beliefs in our personal decisions. Another part allows us peacefully to promote our religious views to others and even to proselytize.
We are entitled to raise our children based upon our own views on these issues, and to ask our religions to exclude those who disagree with what we believe to be important or central religious beliefs.
But seeking to legislate our religious beliefs in areas where there is widespread and heartfelt disagreement is a recipe for disaster. Such conduct invites vociferous and even violent dissent and ultimately threatens us with civil strife and division among the people.
Indeed, risks of such severe consequences increase incrementally as more Americans associate with more diverse religions.
Those with strong religious views on these controversial issues might take their satisfaction from the ability of the Almighty to punish sinners with dire consequences in the hereafter, if not the present.
They should not try to jam their views down the throats of those who not only do not share them, but may feel just as strongly in favor of opposing views. The strength and health of the United States may well depend on this kind of self-denial.
Recall that John F. Kennedy said, when he was running for the presidency, "I believe in a president whose religious views are his own private affair, neither imposed by him upon the nation or imposed by the nation upon him as a condition to holding that office."
Another Roman Catholic statesman, the late Gov. John A. Burns, allowing Hawai'i's abortion bill to become law without his signature, said: "While I do have strong personal views as to the morality of abortions, I cannot permit these views to influence my official actions as chief executive of this state."
For the welfare of our state, each one of us should use the same kind of restraint when considering whether to impose our religious views on our fellow citizens.
But further, we should react strongly against those politicians who would use religious wedge issues to distract voters from concerns which most seriously affect our well-being.
That is a major reason why I agreed with my neighbor that this is the most important election of our lifetimes.
Richard Miller is emeritus professor and former dean of the William S. Richardson School of Law, University of Hawai'i-Manoa.
