Faith and Politics: State Representative Woody Burton

How much impact should an individual’s faith have over public policy?
A substantial amount.  I believe that elected officials have the right to make faith-based decisions, particularly if they were elected based on their faith and character. 

Is an individual’s faith relevant as an issue in Elections?
Yes.  In 1988 during my first election, a voter asked me directly whether or not I was a man of faith.  She was basing her decision on my answer, and I do understand that many voters are interested in this aspect of a candidate because it speaks to their character and integrity.

Comments

[Chris Douglas]

"She was basing her decision on my answer, and I do understand that many voters are interested in this aspect of a candidate because it speaks to their character and integrity."

But a claim of faith doesn't speak to character and integrity and never has. A claim of faith has since time immemorial been the most easy of disguises to assume. Christ was only one of several to strip the systematic disguise from politicians and, indeed, clergy.

In fact, are we not all of us by now so accustomed to scoundrels the world over assuming (and then thoroughly discrediting) a mantle of faith; engaging in utter unthinking folly in misbegotten faith; or pursuing utterly inhuman acts in the name of faith, as to tire of anyone who considers a claim of faith to be of any relevance to good government?

I would have greater comfort in a person running for office and answering a question on faith with sincere doubt, which doubt the saintliest human beings have suffered, for such an answer would in this political world require an uncommon honesty that would, more than the easy profession of faith, suggest a person more likely to exhibit truth in all things, and which doubt would suggest a person likely to rethink, second guess, and examine the costs and benefits of all policy thoughtfully, rather than blunder forward in misbegotten faith.

[Kenn Gividen]

I once constructed a business deal with Christian friend based on perceived faith and character.

Oops.

I've learned that "Hi! I'm a Christian business man" means "Grab your wallet!"

I suppose political activists are no different. Labels are deceiving.

[Kenn Gividen]

I once constructed a business deal with Christian friend based on perceived faith and character.

Oops.

I've learned that "Hi! I'm a Christian business man" means "Grab your wallet!"

I suppose political activists are no different. Labels are deceiving.

[Kenn Gividen]

I once constructed a business deal with Christian friend based on perceived faith and character.

Oops.

I've learned that "Hi! I'm a Christian business man" means "Grab your wallet!"

I suppose political activists are no different. Labels are deceiving.

[Don Sherfick]

Kenn: You really must have been swindled by that "Christian business man" to have repeated it two more times. Fool you once, shame on the fooler; fool you twice, shame on you. Fool you three times.....must be something wrong with the blogging software!

[Kurt Luidhardt]

Chris: I understand, to some extent, your feelings regarding politicians who proclaim faith. Many have been proven to by hypocrites. I find the exclusive focus, however, on proclamations of faith to be without reason.

For instance, I could make the same case that because immigration is a hot issue that we get politicians who pander to voters. But that (in and of itself) does not lead me to conclude that we should no longer pressure candidates regarding their immigration positions. Certainly, if politicians believe that professing faith will get them elected many will falsely profess it. Many will also falsely profess political positions on immigration in order to get elected. It is our job to examine their rhetoric and compare it to their record- no matter what the issue.

Chris, politicians are politicians. They will pander and they will be hypocrites. It's not just with matters of faith.

Furthermore, although many travesties have been propagated in the name of religion, many more (particularly in the last century) were propagated in the name of atheism. The mass killings of the 20th Century weren't the fault of the Catholic church, they were the fault of the communist governments in China, the USSR, and Cambodia- not to mention the atheist government of Nazi Germany.

So, let's be honest. Particularly with the emergence of radical Islam I am hearing a lot from our atheist opponents that religion is death. That if we just got rid of religion we would have peace, ruled by scientists not swayed by irrational black and white thinking. But this is entirely inaccurate. Religion contributes far more good than bad and restrains us from the far worse excesses that would result from lack thereof.

Frankly, I am beginning to wonder if the term "religion" is misleading anyway. It allows those who aren't "religious" to claim some sort of dispassionate disconnection from metaphysical issues. But that's not an accurate characterization. An individual's answers to the basic questions of life (the nature of truth, time, beginnings, etc.) formulate a world view with impact on all sorts of their actions (and how they would govern). This world view is formed regardless of whether their answers include reference to a deity. They don't get a "get out of jail free" card simply because they aren't religious.

[Chris Douglas]

(In the next month or two, all will be either pleased or disappointed to know that I will be immersed in business travel. I'm going to have to avoid even looking at the blogs for awhile because I find it almost impossible to resist commenting on those things with which I find disagreement. That said....)

In my opinion, the Nazi's and Maoists did not so much suppress religious faith as replace it. Goebbel's, Hitler's propaganda minister, was very explicit about the development of a new religion around Nazism, with ceremony and community of purpose. Perhaps the danger rears wherever disagreement is suppressed and orthodoxy imposed... whether religious or secular.

In any case, by their fruits shall ye know them... or some such. I think it best in politics not to proclaim faith, instead to discuss policy, what its goals should be, and what best achieves those goals. The most irreligious and most religious can unite on many topics, while I believe when religion is introduced as the force or the goal it is a source ultimately of social division almost by necessity.

I do believe there are civic matters and religious matters and that our peace as a society is most secure when civic logic is employed in civic matters to achieve civic goals, and religious logic is employed in religious matters to achieve religious goals. Religious logic and religious goals in civic matters is a recipe for division and, historically, violence, as are civic logic and goals in religious matters.

[Chris Douglas]

Kenn, I've had a similar observation.. namely, that WWJD in its hay day often adorned the wrists of people who needed to think about the question because their own innate sense of right and wrong wasn't supplying an answer.

And I so well recall an acquaintance of mine who on first meeting years ago was relaying to me a business proposal made to him that could only be described as fraud. I failed to dissuade that client by observing that some poor fool in the equation could suffer financial ruin, but succeeded when finally I introduced the thought that the ruined fool might turn out to be him! I lost some respect for that individual when it seemed to me that he wasn't as concerned about others as he was about himself.

In any case, a later meeting was over lunch, and candidly, I was not surprised when he began it with a prayer, even as I reflected on the fact that his sense of ethics was very, very poor indeed. I have long since become inured to being impressed with anybody's proclamation of faith or piety. There is no better demonstration of piety, godliness, and innate goodness than the quiet accomplishment of good.

For that reason, for example, where you see piety in a bunch of legislators clamoring over each other to pray in the name of Christ in a public setting, many of whom show little other evidence of Christianity in their personal lives, I see a brazen and unseemly display. The truly Godly, in my opinion, would show some respect for the feelings of others, including the Jewish.

Of Hamilton and Bosma, the Judge and Legislator, I consider Hamilton (like his father, Reverend Dick Hamilton), to have the greater godliness.

[Kenn Gividen]

Dear Mr. Don Sherfick,

It was one of those scenarios where I clicked POST and was forwarded to an error page. Repeat. Repeat. Give up. And there it is: Thrice!

[Kenn Gividen]

Chris,

My concern with the religious litmus test posed to Rep. Burton: It causes politicians to proclaim their religiosity as a political necessity. As a result, almost ALL politicians claim to be devout Christians. Result? We still don't know who is and who is not sincere in their beliefs.

I've been ripped off by church folks and slandered by gays. (Actually, Bil is the only gay guy that I know of. There's another guy named "Anonymous" who doesn't seem to care for me.) Some of the finest people I've known are church people and I know gays who are gracious. In other words, I can't tell a whole lot of difference.

It fits the biblical description: All have sinned.

Dr. Falwell used to say that if you need a good brain surgeon you don't search out the best Sunday School teacher. While I would prefer my brain to be operated on a pro-life advocate, that, alone, would not be the sole criteria.

Now back to my glass house...

[Chris Douglas]

(Kenn, you have referenced before I believe a failure of gays to criticize actions of other gays. I won't ask you to repeat a slander here, but I am unaware of the slanders you refer to from Bil. A separate e-mail with links (if there are such) would inform me: chd@chdouglas.com.)

[J.D.]

I would just like to say that I could call myself a homosexual just as easy as anyone could call themself a Christian. The proof is in the pudding. :)