© Paul K. Davis 2008. All Rights Reserved.
Mission Peak Unitarian Universalist Congregation
October 26, 2008



Our religious beliefs should guide us to our political conclusions, but we should consider candidates of all religions, and not assume we would necessarily prefer a candidate just because they publicly subscribe to our religion. We should maintain regard for the separation of church and state, refraining from any use of government to support our religion, and also opposing efforts of other religions to obtain governmental support. Remember to vote, but do much more - continually engage your families, friends and associates in discussions of values, since this is what will ultimately be of most effect.


I believe firmly that our religion - our values - should underly how we participate in politics, including how we vote.

But I am not going to tell you who to vote for - though, if you don't already know my voting intentions, you may get a clue. I am not going to tell you how to vote on propositions - with one exception. I am also not going to outline the legal restrictions and their exceptions on what churches can do politically. For that you can turn either to The Real Rules provided by our Unitarian Universalist Association, the Pew Forum's Guide to IRS Code Restrictions on the political activity of religous organizations.

I believe in logic and truth and love. Logic and truth can tell us such things as: that burning excessive fossil fuels will cause global warming and drive up the price of our dwindling natural resources, but it does not tell us whether this is good or bad. For that we need our values, whether expressed in a single word, such as "love" or in a single maxim such as the golden rule, Unitarian Universalism's seven principles, or a lengthy treatise.

We are often encouraged to evaluate candidates on various bases: their experience, their patriotism, their honesty, their race and gender, their military service, their family, their sex lives, their associates, etc. Some of these, such as their experience, are important though not overriding. No candidate can possibly have all the necessary experience - that's why we have advisors, cabinet officials, etc.

It sure would be nice to have a Black and/or a women elected to one of our highest offices, but pay them proper respect. What are their policies and qualifications? It's not their skin or their figure that's going to run the country, much less whether or not they wear lipstick; it's their brains and their values.

Now when I say our choices should be guided by our values - our religion - I do not mean that we should vote for Unitarians and Universalists but against others. In 1960 when I was first learning about politics, many U.S. Protestants were concerned about the possibility of a Catholic President: John F. Kennedy. Hopefully we've learned that there is variety within all religions and that a denominational affiliation is merely the slightest clue concerning a candidate's values and governmental abilities.

As Colin Powell recently said of Barack Obama, "He has always been a Christian. But the really right answer is, 'What if he is?' Is there something wrong with being Muslim in this country? The answer is no. That is not America."

One of our values is the right of conscience, which I believe implies the separation of church and state, which is also affirmed in the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This may at first seem to contradict using one's values as a basis for one's vote. I believe this paradox has confused some, and I will try to clarify it.

I wish to bring up two specific points of separation of church and state.

Two years ago, one of the current four major candidates for President and Vice President ran for governor on a platform which included requiring science classes in public schools to teach "creationism" along with evolution. In public debate she defended this by asking why children shouldn't hear both sides. But that's not the issue. If religious teachings are required in public schools they should not be inserted into science classes, and the requirement must not be for just one religion's teaching, but for all that are relevant to the local area. The platform proposal was a flagrant violation of the first amendment to our Constitution.

The requirement by government of certain specific theories in a science class is also a breach of our free and responsible search for truth and meaning.

I would urge people to take this consideration into account in deciding for whom to vote, or on the other hand, if you choose for other reasons to vote for a candidate who has made such pronouncements, send them a message that you are supporting them despite this, and you encourage them to change their position.

Also, in the current state election on Proposition 8, the proponents of the measure strongly imply that allowing same-sex marriage violates their religious rights. They have this backward. Our state allows divorce, but no Catholic priest has been required to re-marry a divorced person. There is not the slightest reason to believe that any religious official would be required to perform a same-sex marriage against their beliefs. However, if Measure 8 passes, our ministers will be prohibited from performing all the marriages we accept. The principle of religious freedom demands a "no" vote on this proposition, and we should include this explanation in our discussions.

This is not the only proposition which has brought forth misleading ads. I often come away from California ballot proposition campaigns with the impression that all of the campaign statements - on both sides of every proposition - are false, not to mention obnoxious. To cope with this I generally rely on organizational endorsements, such as by the League of Conservation Voters, the AFL-CIO California Federation of Labor, and others. One other, that I've especially come to rely on is the League of Women Voters. They actually have teams study the propositions in detail and make their endorsements on the basis of the study results. They were formed at the time the United States first gave voting rights to women, which was a time when most women had not been afforded an education in civic affairs. The notion was that those women with more educational advantages should assist those with less in becoming good citizens. Their endorsements are available to men as well as women, and they are a good example of the principle that when action is taken to enhance the rights of a marginalized group, we all benefit.

In defence of efforts to provide for the participation of marginalized groups in our elections, I would like to take the opportunity to sets some facts straight. There has been much furror claiming the group ACORN has been submitting fraudulent voter registrations. I'm sure some of the registrations submitted are fraudulent, but you should know that most states have laws requiring that an organization submit all the registrations it collects. It's not their job to throw out the frauds, but the job of election officials. According to ACORN spokesman Brian Kettenring, "In every state investigating bad registrations, ACORN tipped off local officials to bogus or incomplete cards". If organizations were allowed to collect registrations and then not submit them all, this would open up the possibility of massive disenfranchisement far beyond any potential problem from ACORN's inadequacies. The system is working. The critics are the ones out of line here.

I believe that participating in democracy is much more than registering, voting, and helping others to register - it also includes other forms of community participation. But most importantly, it includes constantly explaining and promoting one's values to others.

The day after an election can be very frustrating and disappointing. I've experienced this quite a few times. Why do candidates I favor often lose? We may talk a lot about barriers to voting, which do still exist to some extent. We may talk about the advantages of incumbency and of big money. There is also tons and tons of deceptive advertising each election. These are real. But there's another reason why elections often go another direction, one which each of us can do much more about. And that's because many people simply have different values. I believe most elections are decided not in the months before the election, but long before the election. That's when people make up their various minds about the general issues which face our country, and indeed the whole human race. What we can do is continually engage our friends, and family, and associates, in discussions of basic values, as opportunity occurs. Only this will change election results in the long term. We are a democracy, though an imperfect one, but as a democracy our government can never be better than we the people are.

An excellent statement on values and involvement has been made by an evangelical minister, the Rev. Joel Hunter of Northland Church in central Florida. He says, "I am completely pro-life, which means I am about protecting the vulnerable - inside the womb, and outside the womb. For example, poverty worldwide results in the death of 30,000 children every single day. This, too, is a pro-life issue." He also says, "When our elected officials call upon us to serve, then it is our duty and honor to do so. As Evangelicals, we need to make ourselves available, because the church has untold resources that can help solve the problems of the world." We too, as Unitarian Universalists, have untold resources that can help solve the problems of the world.

The only one of our seven principles with limited application to politics is the third one, because it primarily relates to our congregational life, namely encouragement to spiritual growth. I've already made reference to the fourth and fifth principles. Certainly we can immediately see the relevance of the first two and the last two. These principles resonated with me recently when I read a statement by a French conservative. French president Nicolas Sarkozy recently said, "Together we need to rebuild a capitalism that is more respectful to man, more respectful to the planet, more respectful to future generations and be finished with a capitalism obsessed by the frantic search for short-term profit." If only American liberals were as liberal as French conservatives. I believe they can be, if we keep up the political work to which I believe we are called to implement our principles.

Finally, our fifth principal includes "the use of the democratic process ... in society at large". So get out and vote.

Benediction This benediction draws from the words of Benjamin Franklin, at the close of the U.S. constitutional convention: "There is no form of government but what may be a blessing to the people, if well administered... and can only end in despotism...when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government."

Go in peace, VOTE, return in love.

Back to Top