Prejudicial voting

The e-mail below came to me the other day. I gave the reply following.

--Wag--

Original e-mail:

Christians Voting for Cultists?

By Richard Engle, President NFRA

Can a Christian vote for someone who is a member of a cult? As the elections of 2006 are upon us many Christians face a dilemma. Do they vote for a member of a church that they consider a cult or do they vote for someone who is a member of a denomination that is widely accepted?


In Oklahoma the incumbent Governor, Brad Henry, is officially Baptist but is pro-abortion, pro-gambling, and pro-corrupt contracts with tribal bosses. The Republican challenger, Congressman Ernest Istook, is pro-life, against expansion of gambling, and opposes the corrupt contracts. He is also a Mormon.

Go to any Christian bookstore and look for books about cults and you will find that Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are the most commonly referenced cults with others adding Seventh Day Adventists, and the Worldwide Church of God or the United Pentecostals.

The first thing that must be done is to define a cult. Many dictionaries define cult as nothing more than a sect. By such definition each and every denomination would be counted as a cult. As such the negative connotation would be greatly diminished. What is ordinarily intended is a religious group that significantly deviates from the authentic/original. By such definition the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox might consider all Protestants to be cultists.

The contemporary American understanding of what is and isn't a cult stems from the Fundamentalist movement. Fundamentalism, far from being a 'lock step' religious orthodoxy, was actually a movement towards ecumenicism. The premise being that any 'true' Christian may well fellowship with any other despite the denomination if they held to the 'fundamentals of the faith'. Any group that denied these fundamentals was something less than, or other than Christian.

Fundamentalists hold to 'five fundamentals of the faith' but oddly they identify six. They are the Bible as inspired and inerrant, the deity of Christ, the Virgin Birth, Christ's substitutionary death, Christ's resurrection, and the Second Coming. In some references the deity of Christ and the Virgin Birth are combined as one and in others the substitutionary death and resurrection of Christ are combined. Any church that upholds these without compromise could well consider itself a fundamentalist church.

The liberal media has portrayed fundamentalism as a theology that allows for no variation whatsoever and one that condemns all who hold to any such variation to hell. Reality is that fundamentalists disagree among themselves on any number of theological issues other than the five (six) and even on issues that approach them such as details regarding the Second Coming.

What Constitutes a Cult?

Well, a cult of Christianity must under any definition be a variation from Christianity. Buddhism, for example, is a completely separate religion. Buddhists hold to a very distinct understanding of religious ideals including morality. A Christian voter may well wish to have persons in public office who agree with their beliefs and values. Preferring Christians in elective positions is completely understandable. What happens if one candidate claims Christianity but has public policy positions that are anathema to Christians? America faced this question when Jimmy Carter faced reelection. Carter broadly proclaimed his 'born again' beliefs but supported abortion on demand. Governor Brad Henry can be compared to Carter's
inconsistencies on several fronts.

Should we vote for a Mormon?

All of us attend or are members of churches that we each believe to be the best available. If the church across the street were better we would be there! Yet when we vote we are faced with choosing among candidates that seldom hold to our own exact theological positions. Perhaps we could set aside the question of a candidate's eternal status and seek to understand his political positions and his moral standards. Without a biblically based moral ethic it is difficult to trust that the candidate will govern in accordance with his promises.

For the purposes of public policy and how religion impacts such, I would suggest that any who accept the moral standards of the Bible (Old Testament, New Testament, or both) have a common cause. Observant Jews, Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants, Mormons, and all others who so revere the scriptures are in the same boat and need to work together on matters of public policy. We may disagree on matters eternal but can and should agree on things temporal.

Anyone who holds to a Biblical ethical standard is helpful in our conservative cause. I can, will, and have voted for persons who are Mormons. I will be voting for one for Governor of Oklahoma. I know the man well and trust he would be one of the best Governors in our history. I would not knowingly vote for an atheist and don't know of a Hindu or Buddhist that I could support. Why? Because I don't trust that they hold to the same basic moral standards. If I can't trust that they understand good and evil as I do then I cannot trust them with the public purse.

Let us draw a line of distinction that works in public policy. Realize that a Biblical ethic is what we need and we (or more likely, God) can sort out the rest later.

My response:

Very interesting, G.

Among other things, a cult is a group which struggles to eliminates a person's ability or willingness to think for himself. That includes Amway, The Boy Scouts, American patriotism (I am willingly guilty here) and various churches, companies and other types of organizations. My opinion, of course, but its toehold is planted firmly in the writings of Steven Hassan. VERY good reading, especially his second book, "Releasing the Bonds." But I digress.

That a person could be prejudicial in voting is just as good a study as any other activity wherein prejudice is practiced. The fact is, only ONE criteria need be present to cast a valid vote: Can the person do the job with integrity and compentence?

Having said that, it is a fact that Mormons typically have a religious agenda that supercedes everything else in their lives, including their own families. I will suggest that it would not be easy to find an avowed Mormon who is not guided by their dogmas so it would be difficult to research and figure this one out case by case. The easy thing would be to vote against a Mormon, even though there is always the possibility that you would be voting for a lesser qualified candidate or even a reprobate. How would you feel to know that a Mormon political official claims that his god is guiding his hand?

I'm not defending Mormons here. In fact, plug any religious cult name in its place and the discussion is identical in every way. It is merely a defense of the fact that voting is a serious issue which should not be relegated to the realm of thoughtless dogma and prejudice.

Atheists might prove to be a special case but again, it's no slam dunk to make the decision not to vote for an atheist. Can the guy handle the business of his office or not? Will he do so with integrity? I know plenty of atheists I would trust far more than some errant Christians we have seen over the years but as we all know, there are exceptions present in every group of people, either way, good or bad. Again, I'm not defending atheists, per se, although the repetition here might make it seem so. The stark comparison appeared to give the discussion greater clarity.

It boils down to several very important conceptual questions, one of which is, "How lazy are you willing to be in your voting?"