Yes

By John Bertosa
First, should we only look at candidates’ intentions and policies when voting?

Well, the military saying goes “A battle plan is great until the first shot is fired.” What that alludes to is that in an emotionally intense, ever-changing situation, what looks good on paper is quickly irrelevant. That’s why the military focuses on the foundations of good soldiering and leadership. So, when that first shot is fired the soldier will immediately take appropriate action as will the officer even if it’s not what’s dictated by the plan.

Running a major country is no different. President Bush came into office talking very little about international plans, until Al Qaeda fired that shot. Senators McCain’s and Obama’s intentions and policies for the economy are already obsolete.

So, what also matters is the foundations of these leaders. What inner workings will guide them and what philosophies will they rely on? That is what voters need to know — how candidates will react once their plans become irrelevant.

So, then, should a candidate’s personal faith be considered?

For some voters, education is the most important factor. But unless the President majored in Human Psychology, textbooks aren’t enough. Temperament is a key indicator as well as the ability to determine which advisors to rely on and which not to (can you say “Michael Corleone”?).

Another indicator is a leader’s religous faith and strength of it. Because faith (belief in a higher power and the guidance that higher power has given) is infused in believers to a great degree or lesser; it colors our personal philosophy and outlook and affects our decisions, minutely or decisively. A prime example is Sarah Palin’s decision to carry out her latest pregnancy despite the hardships it will cause because she believed life is sacred.

Faith moves us to take action beyond our own basest self-interest, like taking in foster children or standing in the freezing cold ringing a bell for The Salvation Army. Faith also serves as an excellent coping mechanism, knowing that there’s a higher power backing you up is a great comfort. And faith serves as a brake on emotionally selfish tendencies (Consider the 10 Commandments).

And if a candidate does not have a strong or encompassing faith, then I’ll leave that up to the voter to decide on the level of importance to attach to it. But the voter should be able to gather enough information on the candidates to make that decision.

But should candidates infuse their personal beliefs in the way they govern or legislate?

The people who ask that question think of faith as just a credit card that you stick in your wallet and take out like you’re paying for dinner — something that can be compartmentalized, a tangible object to be isolated.

But it’s not. It is ingrained throughout our being, serving as a building block for new experiences and coloring everything we’ve done and thought. And even if we could completely set aside our beliefs, no one would want to.

Taking care of the poor is very much a Christian (and Islamic and Judiac) teaching. Should a government official really set aside these religious teachings when it comes to policies that direct funding (including tax dollars from non-believers) to the most needy?

After all, from a scientific viewpoint, it is better the weakest should die so they do not use limited resources that are better served going to the strongest. What good does the severely mentally handicapped in orphanages do for society except to serve as test subjects?

Those who fear religioun point to its worst examples — The Crusades, the Inquisition, Islamic extremism — and make no mistake those were horrible. But the absence of God has led to even more horrendous societies — the officially aethiestic USSR sent hundreds of thousands of people to their deaths in Siberia; and consider Nazi Germany where Hitler and his party were set up as religous figures. Remember, it was the deeply religious Abolitionists in the early 180s who led the fight to ban slavery even though the Supreme Court had ruled blacks were not living, breathing human beings (hmmm, sound familiar?).

So, yes we should be a Christian nation, or at least a nation that emphasizes that we are accountable to something greater than ourselves (don't even think about saying the United Nations).

But, John, personal faith may be fine in a leader but does organized religioun have to play a role in their duties?

It should and will play as much of a role as the candidate’s faith allows. Just as political parties cannot force every member to believe every part of a platform, it is closeminded to think that every Catholic, Evangelical or Muslim must believe every tenant. After all, Joe Biden is a Catholic but he supports much pro-choice legislation. Sarah Palin’s church preaches that homosexuality is wrong but as governor she vetoed legislation that would haved banned health benefits for same-sex state workers.

Organizations, religious or other, serve as an amplifier. It is still the words (i.e. faith or political views) that comes through that megaphone that truly matters.

So, to summarize, religious faith is not something we can lock up in a small corner of our minds. It molds and influences our views and actions (and inactions). And in picking our leaders the depth and breadth of their views should be considered.

But, are voters who do that relying on a simplistic litmus test for their candidates?

Now, our society’s language has devolved, to where we use as few words and even letters as possible. Remember when we said Kentucky Fried Chicken and Burger King but now its KFC and BK? Politics and social situations have also been condensed to where the word Democrat connotes certain things as does Christian and Muslim.

This leads some to think that people are seeking to use shorthand litmus tests. But make no mistake, the people using these simple words know they are not simple labels. Evangalicals call both Palin and McCain Christians but react to each differently. And liberals consider Obama and Palin Christians but they also act like there are differences in their views. Heck, Biden is a Catholic but polls show McCain has more support from that group.

Voters are looking at not just the candidates’ stated beliefs but how strongly they express them and how they’ve lived their lives. They are intellectually and logically comparing a candidate’s words with their philosophies and then seeing if that’s the type of leader they want to follow.

Well, sorry the post ran over (just under 1000 words) but I felt it was needed to properly explain things. For next week, in light of the current economic situation, I'll kick off a discussion about the role of government (i.e. regulations) in capitalism.