Can politicians reconcile faith and compromise?

Elder Dallin H. Oaks (right) and Most Rev. Joseph E. Kurtz, archbishop of Louisville (left)

On September 4, 2012, Elder Dallin H. Oaks, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon), participated in the 2012-13 Notre Dame Forum, “Conviction and Compromise: Being a Person of Faith in a Liberal Democracy.”  He answered some important  questions about faith and democracy.  Some of the questions raised were:

  • How can people of faith reconcile religious conviction with politics, which is often described as the “art of compromise”?
  • Should voters take a candidate’s religion into account when casting their ballot?
  • How should elected officials apply their faith when making policy?
  • How does religious diversity affect our national understanding of religion’s role in both politics and government?

“Elder Dallin H. Oaks’s comments reinforced the Church’s stance on political neutrality: “Our church tries to stay away from political activity in the more than 150 countries where we have members. … We therefore offer no political guidance to members of our faith and rarely take a position on public policies.” He continued that while “our members are encouraged to participate in governmental affairs” and in parties of their choice, the Church is “neutral on political parties, platforms and candidates” and does “not endorse any party or candidate … [or] advise our members how to vote.”

Elder Oaks explained that the Church does encourage members to “draw upon their religious beliefs, including personal inspiration, in all their important choices — political and otherwise.” Furthermore, he stated that all religious persons should be allowed to participate in the political process on the same basis as other citizens, though refraining from unnecessarily forcing their personal religious beliefs on others. While civility is always necessary, and political neutrality encourages members to exercise their own discretion in political matters, Elder Oaks stated that in “very exceptional situations, reserved for the decision of Presidency of the Church, … [the Church] would take a position on a public issue that we consider to have very important moral implications.”

Elder Oaks advocated uniting with “persons of all faith to teach and exercise the principle of religious freedom so that we are assuring our ability to unite on the things we have in common and assuring our ability to act out and exercise those things that we do not have in common.” “

It would seem that politicians run into the same ethical dilemmas that defense attorneys do.  I love Elder Oaks’ advice that we need to draw on personal inspiration in all that we do.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s