I recently took part in a Facebook political poll asking “what role should a president’s faith play in the decisions he or she makes in office.” 64% of those polled said that it should not play any role whatsoever. While my first instinct as a zealous defender of our secular republic was to agree with the majority, I ultimately did not vote that way.
The question is based on a deceptive word; ‘faith’ does not appropriately refer to the religion a particular person ascribes themselves to. Dan Brown defined faith as “The acceptance of that which you imagine to be true.” Put a little less dramatically, faith is the psycho/spiritual construct with which we face the world. It is our belief, based on a distilling of all our experience in search of Truth.
With that definition it seems obvious that a president would have nothing but his faith by which to make decisions. If the solution to a problem is scientifically obvious, i.e. there is no other option, it will not fall to the president to make such a decision. When the matter requires subtlety, however, we turn it over to the duly elected representative of executive will of the people.
So if we can agree that a president’s faith will be the determining variable in how he or she will act on behalf of the people; it seems only logical that it be the determining factor in why we vote for the president. For example: the President of the
How then should a candidate that calls themselves ‘Christian’ be judged? The defining characteristic of many Christian churches holds that the Creator of the universe, contrary to all conventions of moral justice, condemned all sons and daughters of man, for the sins of one man. As if this were not a perverse enough portrayal of the Almighty, a Christian candidate would also believe that a moral transgression could be paid for by another as if murder was a debt that could be paid by a rich friend. This type of logic, if brought to its extreme would allow a parent to compel its child to serve a criminal sentence imposed on the parent. After all the time tested law: ‘an eye for an eye’, doesn’t specify whose eye.