In this race for the office of President of the United States, both candidates have been having some issues connecting with voters in regards to their respective faiths. President Obama faces a majority of voters who incorrectly believe he is not, in fact Christian. Rumors of him as being Muslim or non-religious are shared not just between everyday Americans, but propagated by news organizations either overtly or implicitly. Former Governor and Obama-opponent Mitt Romney is well known to be a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, commonly referred to as the Mormon Church. A significant minority of Americans are reported to believe that this organization is not a Christian church, and indeed there are some fundamental aspects to the faith that differentiate it from the metaphysical outlook that the denominations of Christianity share. Where both candidates seem to be experiencing trouble is their ability to connect with conservative Christians regarding their faith.
Faith has played a large part of voter perception for a candidate’s viability and perceived qualifications for generations. Whether or not this should be the case is a debate the Universal Life Church would like to entertain, not from the position of claiming to know the answer, but from a humble desire to discover the thoughts of others. Since we live in a democracy, the opinion of the people does, and should continue to carry power and weight, even though we would all readily admit to our human imperfection and the notion that we make mistakes morally and procedurally.
We begin with an examination of the argument that a candidate’s faith ought not be a significant object of people’s opinion on whether or not to vote for him. Indeed, both Obama and Romney have stated that this is their opinion, and as a church that allows anyone to be a pastor within any system of belief that respects individual rights, the Universal Life Church is persuaded by this position. One’s ability to lead a nation is not intrinsically linked to abiding by a given faith; we can think of individuals of all religions who are credits to the perception of their respective churches, and others that are poor examples of human potential.
Where this becomes troublesome for those who feel akin to ministers of the Universal Life Church is when we consider specifics. Some, for example Bryan Fischer, believe that the freedom of religion provided for in the Constitution only applies to Christian churches. The reasoning behind such a claim is that the founding fathers were Christian when they wrote the first amendment. We can imagine the subversion of the law and the destruction of equality among citizens if such a person used their beliefs to favor their own religion. We can see much smaller versions of this in a large constituency of Americans who vote to restrict the rights on others, even when the exercise of that right does not harm or infringe upon others, simply because their own church or doctrine decries it. While a candidate’s faith here is the subject of whether or not it should influence a vote, it is not intrinsic to it. It wouldn’t be the fact that a candidate is Christian that deserves consideration, it would be whether or not his faith would function to oppress members of other faiths.
Another fact to consider is that in our democracy, it is common for citizens to vote for people they share things with in common. In the case of faith, many argue that even on non-faith issues, leaders will rule in accordance with the moral outlook provided by their religion, and this is indeed a common practice. The tacit concern of people who vote in this way is that someone with different beliefs will disenfranchise others due to the difference of belief. An example would be if you believed same-sex marriage is wrong, and our President disagreed, you might fear that same-sex couples would be able to marry under such leadership. The crux of that argument is to consider rights and infringement of rights. You have the right to believe gays shouldn’t marry and to be able to express that. But given that gays marrying does not infringe upon your rights or harm anyone, your opinion ought not be institutionalized by the government to infringe and harm others. The irony is that people who posit that the government should govern in accordance with their own religion will not be infringed upon if no President leads in such a way. They will only have their rights infringed upon if someone of a different faith leads and agrees with them that leaders should govern in accordance with faith.
The Universal Life Church is an online church firmly champions freedom, respect, and non-interference. This can only be done if those who choose to be a pastor or other faith leader make clear that only by everyone pledging to not interfere with others, can they be free of a worry of being interfered with. To join the conversation and be a champion of freedom, you can be ordained today.