Christians must vote their religion

The left does not understand religion. It cries for the separation of Church and State on the one hand yet demands that religion do its job on the other. Well, you can't have it both ways.

When it comes to feeding the hungry, housing the homeless, and providing medical care, liberals very easily remind Christians of their Christian duty. It's almost droll: when these issues are raised, you know you're supposed to be doing this and that, aren't you, Christians? Yet mention the right to life or the sanctity of marriage, and Christians are scaling that false wall of separation.

It simply cannot be both ways. If you're going to assert that the Church and Her members live up to the call when you happen to like it then you cannot insist also that the entire call, where it is not exclusively religious, must not be translated into public practice. If feeding the hungry is a moral good despite, perhaps, being a duty which religious practice demands, then so too is defending the unborn. If housing the homeless is a moral good based to a great degree on religious sentiment, then so to is the recognition of marriage as between one man and one woman.

Thus, you cannot demand that Christians leave their duty to their creed at the voting booth curtain. If you expect them to vote for government solutions when the question of worldly poverty arises, then you must expect them to vote their religious duty towards ending abortion. We simply aren't talking about wholly religious issues on things such as poverty and life. We're talking about basic moral questions the answers to which define ourselves as a society. And as moral persons.

Yes, and define ourselves as Christians. If we are expected to be whole Christians then we must live up to that. And society must allow it if it is to be just, civil, moral and, indeed, free.

What those do when they demand we not vote our creed in practical application is nothing short of effrontery. It is insulting and immoral in itself. The left, the libertarians, they don't get that. That's why it's so critical too that, come any election, we vote our creed.

Faith Heals

Metro Detroit doctor Earlexia Norwood prays. She prays for guidance while diagnosing illnesses, and sometimes prays with her patients. It's because she believes that faith helps the healing process, and that medicine can't do everything.

There has been much research on the connection between faith and healing. Dr. Harold G. Koenig, director of Duke University's Center for Spirituality, Theology and Health, says that there have been many studies into the issue of religious belief and curing the sick, and that around two-thirds of them find a healthy correlation between the two.

It is fascinating to hear Detroit physicians and surgeons so accepting of the role faith plays when treating their patients. True doctors, those open to the fact that they can't do it all medically, are more than willing to give the higher powers of religion their due. After all, they became doctors to help people. The desire to help is naturally unselfish and welcomes any aid which it may get. It makes you wonder how much healing we might receive in any and all walks of life if we were self effacing enough to put faith at the center of curing all societal ills and not only the physical.

Secularizing religion

Today is Valentine's Day. It was once St. Valentine's Day. But as with all secularized religious holidays, we have to drop the saint in order to be politically correct. And, of course, to use it for commercial purposes.

What we have here is another instance of the broader society wanting to ignore religion while still wishing to use it for its will. It is a rather galling practice, yet one we simply cannot around that these days and, to be fair, isn't necessarily wrong. Still, we find it aggravating and just a bit insulting that Christians are expected to leave their religious attitudes at the door while allowing them to be used for economic gain when secularists want it. Further, and this surely applies even outside of religious considerations, we wonder why anyone ought to let society dictate when they should show generosity and kindness to their loved ones. Shouldn't we be doing that all the time?

Of course, and, again, to be fair, no one is discouraging that. We simply don't like the dual attitude towards religious belief which Christmas, Easter, and now lesser days such as Valetine's now display. It is as though society feels that it can use religion when and as it wants to, but wants to stifle religious sentiment when it runs counter to what the people want.

We don't like it. It is disrespectful and that's that.

The Left and Religious Sentiment

The left does not understand religion. It cries for the separation of Church and State on the one hand yet demands that religion do its job on the other. Well, you can't have it both ways.

When it comes to feeding the hungry, housing the homeless, and providing medical care, liberals very easily remind Christians of their Christian duty. It's almost droll: when these issues are raised, you know you're supposed to be doing this and that, aren't you, Christians? Yet mention the right to life or the sanctity of marriage, and Christians are scaling that false wall of separation.

It simply cannot be both ways. If you're going to insist that the Church live up to Its call then you cannot also tell Her that She cannot preach the entire call. If feeding the hungry is a moral good despite, perhaps, being a duty in which religious practice is steeped, then so too is defending the unborn. If housing the homeless is a moral good based to a great degree on religious sentiment, then so to is the recognition of marriage as between one man and one woman.

Likewise, you cannot demand that Christians leave their duty to their creed at the voting booth curtain. If you expect them to vote for government solutions when the question of worldly poverty arises, then you must expect them to vote their religious duty towards ending abortion. We simply aren't talking about wholly religious issues on things such as poverty and life. We're talking about basic moral questions the answers to which define ourselves as a society. And as moral persons.

Yes, and define ourselves as Christians. If we are expected to be whole Christians then we must live up to that. And society must allow it if it is to be just, civil, and moral.

What those do when they demand we not vote our creed in practical application is nothing short of effrontery. It is insulting and immoral in itself. The left doesn't get that. That's why it's so critical that, come any election, we vote our creed.

Polls and Morality and a New Pope

A recent poll by the people at Quinnipiac University tells a tale of American Catholics who seem to believe, by a paper thin margin, that the Vatican in general and next Pope in particular has to moderate. The Church is moving in the right direction, they say, but needs to alter its stance on contraception, gay marriage, women priests in order to become more in step with the modern world. All of that would be okay: if the Church cared about what the modern world thought.

Fortunately, She does not. Nor should She. If religion is to be of any real significance then it must do what it can to lead its flocks toward becoming better people. This cannot mean telling them to do whatever they want. In a sense, a seriously religious institute is analogous to being a parent: we cannot allow our kids to do anything they want or they will become vain and selfish adults. Neither should the Church follow poll results when considering doctrine, because it just doesn't matter what individual Catholics believe about eternal and unchanging morals any more than what a eight year old might believe about doing his chores or homework. Morality doesn't change simply because Catholics as a group may want it too. It doesn't change for non-Catholics either, of course, but that is a bit of a separate question right this minute.

In areas where the poll may have real meaning, it might well be good for Church leaders to step up and take notice; the priestly sex abuse scandal comes to mind. But there are three things which matter with such issues. First and foremost, sexual abuse is minors is an affront to morality and ought to be eradicated; Church doctrine teaches as much. This leads to point two: where such sins have occurred, up to and including any possible cover ups, we are not dealing with propagating dogma so much as with individuals within the Church doing heinous things. When Church leaders violate dogma, and this is point three by the way, then the laity have the right to call them out. The non-clerical members of the Church have an obligation to remind Church leaders to set things right when they err. Such is working within rather than against the Church.

All the bother about what type of leader the next Pope ought to be, then, is only so much blather. It doesn't matter what the people think, Catholic or not. It would very interesting to see how many of the poll respondents are in the pew week in and week out serious Catholics or simply folks who say they're Catholic. Would that not skew the poll numbers against the Vatican? Yet even that doesn't matter with regard to eternal truth. But it would interesting to hear, as an academic exercise.

Be all that as it may, what we should want in a Pope is a solid traditionalist from wherever in the globe the Spirit drives the Cardinals in conclave to find him. Polls will not affect that decision. Nor should they.