Country first
In a representative democracy, we elect officials to serve America’s best interest. Politicians must wrestle with difficult questions: Is it best for America to allow abortion? What would the costs and benefits be if we allowed gays and lesbians to marry? Does America want to pledge unconditional support to Israel?
But instead of acting in America’s interests, many politicians – I don’t care which party they belong to – shirk their responsibilities and decide to do what they think God wants. In a 2004 interview with PBS’s Religion and Ethics Newsweekly, Rep. Mark Souder (R-IN) said:
The way I would work this through in my mind is, the closer to the clearness of the Bible, the less ability I should have to compromise. So I view, on abortion, there’s really not much room to compromise. On certain very difficult issues, because I have friends who are homosexual — gay — but there just isn’t much room to compromise…
Rep. Souder is perhaps more famous for his statements on separation of church and state, saying:
To ask me to check my Christian beliefs at the public door is to ask me to expel the Holy Spirit from my life when I serve as a congressman, and that I will not do. Either I am a Christian or I am not. Either I reflect His glory or I do not.
This is a common argument against secularism. It is also an unconvincing one.
His wife is part of his life. I have no doubt that he loves her deeply and cares what she thinks. But when he acts as a Congressman in the House of Representatives, we demand that he consider what is best for his constituents and for his nation. If his justification for voting against a law was, “My wife didn’t like it” we would ask for his resignation. Instead, he would have to explain why his action was best for the U.S. – regardless of how it affects his wife.
We are not asking Rep. Souder to check his faith at the door any more than we expect him to check his wedding ring. But if he cannot ignore her wishes – or God’s – when he makes political decisions, he is unable to perform the duties of his office. If anything, he should pay more attention to his wife’s opinion than God’s. She lives in his district.
Just to continue the congressman’s rehabilitation, J, should a Humanist always place country first before his/her Humanist beliefs?
You seem to suggest that country should come before god, and I am asking, should Humanism come before country?
I believe Humanism has to be inclusive, that there can be christian Humanists, if they do have a genuine interest in our species and can grasp what species means. But a Humanist must always act toward the larger good.
At the same time I think Humanism in the USA is locked into an infantry battle with the theists, ergo most US Humanists may simply be social-climbing atheists whose view of the world ends at the US borders.
Correct me if I’m mistaken, but I think American Humanists have to start recognizing that institutions like the Pentagon and the UN are not compatible, and warm up to the idea that world federalism must become a central tenet toward a collective Humanism?
Otherwise US “Humanism” is more like a counter-religion and there are so many other areas, like responsible species governance, where Humanism must make its mark on this planet and soon.
I have one slight complaint with this post. We do not elect “officials”. We elect representatives.
These representatives are elected to represent us and OUR views, not their own views and not their own interpretations of what they think god wants. Further, these representatives represent everyone in their district, regardless of whether those voters voted for them or not. That means Republicans DO represent Democrats and Democrats DO represent Republicans. That means Christians DO represent Humanists and Humanists DO represent Christians.
This representation means more than just, “what is best for his constituents”. That leaves open the possibility of ignoring the constituency in favor of opposing them “in their best interest”. That is plain wrong for a representative tasked with the responsibility of representing the people.
This Congressman should do what his constituency wants and nothing else.
Chris V – Short version of my response: that would be great if his constituents were informed and had a good handle on the issues. Long version is in a new post.
I like your point about how the wife of the representative should not influence his duty and job to serve his constituents.
My question is this: does the person have a non-dogma oriented, non-religious basis for what he votes for? For example, what would be the secular basis for voting against the legal right to a specific medical procedure such as abortion?
Most of these folks use the dogma from their faith as a basis for their voting. We all seem to forget that we need to move beyond our own personal, specifically religious dogma to base our laws on. After all, Europe had a long history of wars and civil wars about whose dogma would be the basis for the rule of law!