Oh, what's this?
August Wahnsinger has sent me an e-mail. Fascinating...
Will you take Dr. Dobson's "Values Voter Pledge"?
Hm. Dr. Dobson's pledge, eh? Isn't he the guy who helped build up the fledgling Christian Right, and was noted by one of the movement's other co-founders, Frank Schaffer, to be "the most power-hungry and ambitious person [he had] ever met?"
Well, let's have a look-see...
In light of efforts in the media and political circles to diminish the role that pro-life and pro-family voters will play in this year's elections, Dr. James Dobson and Focus on the Family Action are initiating a nationwide "Values Voter Pledge."
Hm. Is he implying people who don't vote exclusively for pro-life, pro-family causes don't have values? All right, go on...
The Values Voter Pledge is a statement by citizens across the nation who are committing to vote only for candidates who uphold the highest pro-life, pro-faith and pro-family principles...
He goes on to explain what it means to be "pro-life, pro-faith and pro-family" a little further...
Life: I will only vote for candidates who have committed to defend the sanctity of life from conception to natural death.
Okay, I'm on board. I certainly don't defend abortion, and I find it a repugnant institution in our society. I certainly think much more could be done in the meantime about abortion if instead of waiting for the Supreme Court to get the cojones to review Roe v. Wade, we started doing things to educate people and make their lives better so they wouldn't seek abortion in the first place. Something about this servant attitude and a grassroots movement strikes me as a bit more Christlike than the whole "Let's ban it!" kick everyone's on, but granted, if abortion were outlawed, I don't think I'd be upset.
I might be fleeing for my life from the rioting in city streets as the country tears itself to shreds, but I wouldn't be upset.
Anyway, if we are voting for someone who reveres the sanctity of life "from conception to natural death", doesn't that imply that I'd have to vote for candidates opposing the war in Iraq? Wouldn't that also mean I need to vote for candidates opposing the death penalty? I mean, if that's the case, this really stinks – because all the candidates who oppose the death penalty and the Iraq war are pro-abortion, and all the candidates who are pro-life support the death penalty and the war! And what about gun control? Thousands of decidedly unnatural deaths are caused every year by guns – shouldn't we look into that? Most of the pro-lifers are also pro-gunners. How does that work out?
Jimmy, you've already got me crying out for a Third Party Candidate who simply doesn't exist!
Family: I will only vote for candidates who stand for one-man, one-woman marriage and oppose efforts to undermine the nuclear family.
Hm. I don't know any candidates introducing radical legislation to repeal our licentious and depraved "divorce" system. Under current law, parents can divorce and re-marry an infinite number of times. Kids can grow up in a household with multiple step-mothers and fathers! This is a clear undermining of the nuclear family – and worse, more Christians involve themselves in this terrible institution than atheists! Clearly something must be done, both for our sake and theirs (but mostly ours...)
The candidate field narrows more when you consider that two of the main front-runners who have not been divorced also support gay marriage...
The nuclear family is a part of the backbone of this nation's freedom. I don't think any of our Founding Fathers would ever tolerate philandering, divorce, homosexuality or sexual licence of any sort! That's why it's so clearly condemned in the Constitution!
Faith: I will only vote for candidates who support the public acknowledgement of God and affirm the religious liberties of all Americans.
Well, great! This does nothing to help me pick a candidate! Every bloody national politician in this country – save that guy from California – believes in a deity figure of some sort. Shoot, even Barack Obama believes in God, militant Islamic that he is. Unitarians and Scientologists typically recognise some sort of "God" or "gods".
The problem in this is that everyone wants to defend religious liberties in their own way. One set of candidates wants to defend religious liberty by making sure the government can't possibly be mistaken for affirming one religion over another, in essence, they want an utterly secularised state. No crosses on lapels, no preachers in schools, no prayer rallies on civic land... but at the same time, that Scientologist can't come into your kid's class and teach them about how evil Lord Xenu unleashed Thetans upon us all. It protects religion by assuring that no one group can ape on another's freedom. It's a tricky game to play, granted, because there's a certain religious air to secularism nowadays, but considering that the notion of not having an official, state-recognised religion is actually an amazingly Christian concept, I certainly see how supporting secularist measures defends our religious freedom.
On the other hand, there are those who want to protect religious liberty by not stopping any form of religious expression. This would mean that if a full-blown Satanist or Wiccan wanted to share their faith with a bunch of elementary school students, then they have that kind of privelige on the same level as any baptist minister or Catholic priest. Yes, postal employees would be allowed to say "Merry Christmas" at their pleasure, but the naturist would also be allowed complete "freedom of expression", and could duly accuse the state of persecuting their religion when any municipality enacts public nudity statutes.
I get this strange feeling though – don't know from where – that what Lord Dobson is hoping to accomplish by rallying all of us isn't so much the defence of anything, as pushing through force of law a specific doctrine of beliefs over and against others. Well, again, I'm sure the Founding Fathers would have totally been in line with.
Sure! Let's go for it! Let's heft the Sword of Constantine, and show those heretics som Gospel!
................
After mulling this over, I have signed the pledge, but I still remain in a quandary – there isn't a single candidate whom I can support with a good conscience after I've made this vow! What do I do? Do I support Obama or Hillary, who want troop withdrawals and oppose the death penalty; or do I vote for Huck or McCain who would support lingering military intervention but are both opposed to abortion? None of these have made outlawing divorce a priority, though two of them would allow for more marriages to happen (gay ones nonetheless.) And what about religion? Shoot! They would all protect my freedom of religion. Well, in the way they see fit, at least...
Maybe Lord Dobson is trying to show me something else though. Maybe he's trying to show me that issues are more complex than "Left vs. Right", "Republican vs. Democrat" or "Black vs. White". Maybe he's trying to show that there are a lot of ways a concerned believer might vote in this campaign, and probably none of them will be the way God "wants us to." Maybe he's illustrating oh-so-subtly that uniting the kingdom of man with the kingdom of God is a difficult and dangerous thing to do, and that it would be better for us Christians to take our own informed views as individuals and not just go voting one way or the other because So-and-So from the pulpit told us to.
Maybe he just doesn't want Christians voting?
Well, either way, it seems to me I'll again be voting Jesus of Nazareth for president, with Gandalf the White as a running mate. In my mind, this is still the only viable option left to me, as a concerned citizen and a devout believer. If this was the Good Doctor's inention, well, he convinced me!
If he wanted me voting for another Republican stooge like that last guy he helped in, well, he knows exactly where he can stick his opinions in light of that.
