Voting our conscience

[Guest]

I'm splintering this off from MOE and I's discussion on another thread.

Opening question:

Are we really so scared of getting attacked as a religious zealot if we vote what we believe is good for society because we learned it from religion?

I'm trying to understand why someone would vote against what they believe is good for society because they feel others don't believe the same way.... well, isn't that why we vote? To see if we can get a majority to improve society?

Thou Shalt Not Kill... when that became the law of the democratic land, did the people vote that in because they learned that outside of their religion?

My thought on the matter... people today have become wimps. They can't vote their conscience because they might offend somebody.

[Backroads]

I've been specifically told before I should not vote for anything if there is any chance my religion influenced my opinion. 'Course, I was talking to a teenager, who seemed flustered when I asked how I was to separate religion from all the other influences to my moral code.

[jerome1232]

Let's just discard all influences of morality and call it even.

[Anddenex]

I'm splintering this off from MOE and I's discussion on another thread.

Opening question:

Are we really so scared of getting attacked as a religious zealot if we vote what we believe is good for society because we learned it from religion?

I'm trying to understand why someone would vote against what they believe is good for society because they feel others don't believe the same way.... well, isn't that why we vote? To see if we can get a majority to improve society?

Thou Shalt Not Kill... when that became the law of the democratic land, did the people vote that in because they learned that outside of their religion?

My thought on the matter... people today have become wimps. They can't vote their conscience because they might offend somebody.

Was this in reference to Harry Reid???? Please flame responsibly.

[Guest]

Was this in reference to Harry Reid???? Please flame responsibly.

Wait... what?

[Wingnut]

The thing I've had a really really hard time with during this election season, and it's implied in the OP also, is that there is only one right way. There can only be one way to follow your conscience. Only one way to follow the prophet. Only one right answer to prayer. That simply isn't true. What's right for you isn't necessarily right for me; and I don't expect that what I feel is the best choice for me to make is also the best choice for you or anyone else.

[prisonchaplain]

Most people vote their morality, whether it is informed by religious influences or just the sense of right and wrong. When someone is told not to impose their religious values on society what they really mean is that you should not vote in a way they disagree with. Seldom will someone who agrees with you say, "Yeah, but since your religion got you to where I am you really should not vote."

[Guest]

The thing I've had a really really hard time with during this election season, and it's implied in the OP also, is that there is only one right way. There can only be one way to follow your conscience. Only one way to follow the prophet. Only one right answer to prayer. That simply isn't true. What's right for you isn't necessarily right for me; and I don't expect that what I feel is the best choice for me to make is also the best choice for you or anyone else.

Be that as it may... that's not what the OP is about.

The OP is about... Your conscience says X is what is good for society. You vote Y because you don't want to impose that conscience on somebody else... X, of course, can be good or bad in reality, Y, of course, is the opposite of X. We're not discussing what's good or bad. We're discussing what ONE BELIEVES is good or bad.

Edited November 14, 2012 by anatess

[Vort]

The thing I've had a really really hard time with during this election season, and it's implied in the OP also, is that there is only one right way. There can only be one way to follow your conscience. Only one way to follow the prophet. Only one right answer to prayer. That simply isn't true. What's right for you isn't necessarily right for me; and I don't expect that what I feel is the best choice for me to make is also the best choice for you or anyone else.

If Jesus Christ were an American, he would vote for some specific people. I want to vote for whomever Jesus would vote for, if he were an American.

[Backroads]

I recall Beliefnet trying to figure out where various historical figures would lie politically.

Never did Jesus (that I saw) but Buddha was a libertarian.

[bythelake]

Well, what we vote for might be influenced by religion, but we don't vote based on only religion.

For example, we believe in paying tithing, but we don't vote to make tithing paying mandatory. The word of wisdom prohibits drinking coffee, but we wouldn't try to make coffee illegal, even if a majority of the citizenry were LDS. That is because we don't have a theocracy, we believe in freedom of religion, and we believe in free agency. (Without free agency, we couldn't even grow.)

So what justifies the force of law? The Declaration of Independence says we have an inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. So someone can have their life, liberty or property taken if they infringe on the life, liberty, or property of another. This is where a lot of crimes come into play. They might have been learned from religion, but not only religious people believe in the concept.

So, outside of that, where does our religion influence our vote? The Church doesn't speak up politically on many issues, but when they do, it is normally a moral issue. It is based on the idea that some things don't just influence the individual, but the society. For example, they support a constitutional amendment to say that marriage is between one man and one woman. If this basic concept is changed, the long term effect will be the destruction of our society. If you look at societies in the past in which homosexuality has become rampant, that was the result.

So we may vote based on our beliefs (religion), but so does everyone vote based on their beliefs, whether they gained them from religion or elsewhere. Even atheists may vote, based on their belief in no god, to deny others their freedom of religion by prohibiting public prayer.

I guess what I'm saying is that we should vote, not just based on our religion, but our form of government. It's not bad to vote based on religion, as long as our vote is compatible with the principles on which our constitutional government was founded. It's wrong to vote based on beliefs if it conflicts with our form of government. Like the atheist who wanted to abridge religious freedoms.

Edited November 14, 2012 by bythelake

[bytor2112]

I am opposed to dead people voting, people that depend on government assistance with exceptions for disability voting, people under the age of 21 voting with exceptions for military serve and the very elderly voting. Yep.........flame away.

[Wingnut]

If Jesus Christ were an American, he would vote for some specific people. I want to vote for whomever Jesus would vote for, if he were an American.

I don't presume to know who Jesus would vote for.

For example, they support a constitutional amendment to say that marriage is between one man and one woman.

Interestingly, the Church was quiet this time around, with a similar referendum on the ballots in Maryland, Maine, and Washington, all of which legalized same-sex marriage by the voters, not the legislature.

[bythelake]

Interestingly, the Church was quiet this time around, with a similar referendum on the ballots in Maryland, Maine, and Washington, all of which legalized same-sex marriage by the voters, not the legislature.

Why do you suppose it was that they were quiet?

[Wingnut]

Why do you suppose it was that they were quiet?

Because they learned their lesson in California.

[Guest]

Well, what we vote for might be influenced by religion, but we don't vote based on only religion.

For example, we believe in paying tithing, but we don't vote to make tithing paying mandatory. The word of wisdom prohibits drinking coffee, but we wouldn't try to make coffee illegal, even if a majority of the citizenry were LDS. That is because we don't have a theocracy, we believe in freedom of religion, and we believe in free agency. (Without free agency, we couldn't even grow.)

Paying tithing is not mandatory - not even in the Church.

Coffee drinking - is a personal covenant, not a "is this good for society"? I don't see any impact on society if people would drink coffee.

Now, meth is in the WOW as well under drugs. I see, glaringly the impact of meth on society (hello, Jackson County Missouri). If given the chance, I'll vote YES to ban meth everyday of the week and twice on Tuesday.

So what justifies the force of law? The Declaration of Independence says we have an inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. So someone can have their life, liberty or property taken if they infringe on the life, liberty, or property of another. This is where a lot of crimes come into play. They might have been learned from religion, but not only religious people believe in the concept.

So, outside of that, where does our religion influence our vote? The Church doesn't speak up politically on many issues, but when they do, it is normally a moral issue. It is based on the idea that some things don't just influence the individual, but the society. For example, they support a constitutional amendment to say that marriage is between one man and one woman. If this basic concept is changed, the long term effect will be the destruction of our society. If you look at societies in the past in which homosexuality has become rampant, that was the result.

So we may vote based on our beliefs (religion), but so does everyone vote based on their beliefs, whether they gained them from religion or elsewhere. Even atheists may vote, based on their belief in no god, to deny others their freedom of religion by prohibiting public prayer.

I guess what I'm saying is that we should vote, not just based on our religion, but our form of government. It's not bad to vote based on religion, as long as our vote is compatible with the principles on which our constitutional government was founded. It's wrong to vote based on beliefs if it conflicts with our form of government. Like the atheist who wanted to abridge religious freedoms.

I agree with most of what you're saying... and that's really what I pointed out in the OP - the things we learned from religion is detrimental to society.

Except I have a slight difference in stance on the atheists. If an atheist want to abridge religious freedoms, he can do so. If he gets a mandate, he can push to change the Constitution. Of course, he has to do it in a manner consistent with the how changes are made to the Constitution - in this particular case, a change in the first amendment. If he can get enough votes, it becomes law.

P.S. There are people who believe that gay marriage does not have any impact on society. There are those who believe it and still vote to make it legal due to "I don't want to impose my beliefs on somebody". I'm talking about the people in the latter.

Edited November 14, 2012 by anatess

[Anddenex]

Wait... what?

I was having humor with your last statement

My thought on the matter... people today have become wimps.

Harry Reid is a wimp.

[Anddenex]

They can't vote their conscience because they might offend somebody.

I agree with the sentiment here Anatess. However, do people only vote because they might offend, or do they vote because they fear the retribution of others?

Sometimes, people clearly avoid specific issues because they don't want the retribution of those who claim "tolerance".

[bythelake]

Except I have a slight difference in stance on the atheists. If an atheist want to abridge religious freedoms, he can do so. If he gets a mandate, he can push to change the Constitution. Of course, he has to do it in a manner consistent with the how changes are made to the Constitution - in this particular case, a change in the first amendment. If he can get enough votes, it becomes law.

Well, technically, if an atheist were to do it in that manner, he would be acting in accord with our constitutional form of government. The constitution makes provision for amendments.

They usually don't try to do it that way, though, since it is (intentionally) difficult to amend the Constitution. ;-)

[Wingnut]

I'm LDS and a Democrat. I don't feel that my vote goes against my conscience or my religious beliefs. That said, I see how others do think so. When I vote Democrat, I don't do it out of fear of retribution or of offending someone; I do it because I don't feel that it is appropriate for me (or anyone) to try to impose my religious beliefs on the majority.

Edited November 14, 2012 by Wingnut

[john doe]

I've been specifically told before I should not vote for anything if there is any chance my religion influenced my opinion. 'Course, I was talking to a teenager, who seemed flustered when I asked how I was to separate religion from all the other influences to my moral code.

That's got to be close to the dumbest piece of advice I've seen concerning politics.

[bythelake]

I'm LDS and a Democrat. I don't feel that my vote goes against my conscience or my religious beliefs. That said, I see how others do think so. When I vote Democrat, I don't do it out of fear of retribution or of offending someone; I do it because I don't feel that it is appropriate for me (or anyone) to try to impose my religious beliefs on the majority.

Well, I think your point of view is valid.

But I wonder, where do you draw the line?

In other words, let's say you aren't for abortion, but you are pro-choice.

But it seems that liberals are often for choice in some things but not in others. In other words, it's ok to choose to kill a fetus. But I shouldn't be able to choose whether or not to wear my seatbelt. How do you know what it's ok to impose, and what is not ok to impose?

(And, by the way, I always wear my seatbelt. I'm just not in favor of having that forced on me by law.)

[Wingnut]

Well, I think your point of view is valid.

But I wonder, where do you draw the line?

In other words, let's say you aren't for abortion, but you are pro-choice.

But it seems that liberals are often for choice in some things but not in others. In other words, it's ok to choose to kill a fetus. But I shouldn't be able to choose whether or not to wear my seatbelt. How do you know what it's ok to impose, and what is not ok to impose?

(And, by the way, I always wear my seatbelt. I'm just not in favor of having that forced on me by law.)

Perfect examples. I am against abortion, but I deliberately vote pro-choice. I also think that seat belts are very important and that everyone should wear them, but I think it's stupid to have laws to that effect. (My mother-in-law HATES seat belt laws.) My not wearing a seat belt doesn't endanger anyone but me -- if I choose not to wear it, I'm probably too stupid to live if I get in an accident.

I think the important thing to remember in a conversation such as this, is that all Democrats were not created equal, just the same as all Republicans (or Mormons, or Muslims, or black people, etc.) weren't.

[Backroads]

I'm LDS and a Democrat. I don't feel that my vote goes against my conscience or my religious beliefs. That said, I see how others do think so. When I vote Democrat, I don't do it out of fear of retribution or of offending someone; I do it because I don't feel that it is appropriate for me (or anyone) to try to impose my religious beliefs on the majority.

I also know plenty of LDS Democrats and I'm an LDS Constitutionalist. Our mutual religion gives much information regarding the morals we should seek in our lives and government... but it seems we all have different views on how those morals transfer to law. And that's okay.

[Windseeker]

Regarding Abortion, it's murder if anyone other than the mother kills the child. If she chooses to kill the child it's legal. It's a law based on feelings, I don't really get it. A hamster has more rights than an unborn human child. I also don't know what free speech has to do with it, It's just bad law.