January 5, 2009
Over-representation of Roman Catholics shows that members of that faith have, contrary to Protestant nativist expectations in the 19th century, embraced American political ideals, and are not in politics as representatives of their church. If they were, fewer would be elected. The ones who are actually serving, and were actually elected, apparently draw support from Protestants, Jews, Muslims, and even non-believers. Over-representation of Mormons, particularly in the Senate, reflects the fact that a small number of states, especially Utah, have a very high percentage of Mormon voters and candidates, perhaps Idaho also, and Nevada. (Harry Reid is Mormon -- they are not all Republicans.) The same may in part be true of Jewish representatives -- concentrations in portions of New York, California, Illinois and other states explains part of the statistic, but, even there, they must have substantial support from non-Jewish voters. Its not a bad picture -- representatives and senators roughly conform to the general population, but with enough variation to show we are not voting by religious blocs!
I find it difficult to believe that our elected representatives take scripture seriously, let alone our sovereign Lord, or we wouldn't be in this financial mess as a nation. It was originally considered the Churches and individuals responsibility to take care of the welfare of the less fortunate in this country and not the government with someone elses money, as is the current policy. We were established as a nation that governed from the bottom up and not the top down, which resulted in a higher degree of accountability.
Yes, it also resulted in slavery being legal, but not exactly from "the bottom up," since state governments were dominated by slave holders, and in South Carolina, only those who owned at least 20 slaves were allowed to serve in the legislature. Further, the churches and individuals did not take care of the welfare of the less fortunate, not enough of them. One member of congress took scripture seriously enough to be sworn in on Thomas Jefferson's copy of the Qu'ran! Each of our elected representatives should take their own personal faith seriously, but it is not our business what it is, only what secular principles it leads them to on matters that are the government's legitimate business. Check out the article on what church the Obamas should attend in DC -- most contributors posted that it was not the public's business, it should be whatever church fits their personal beliefs.
To many demographics for me. I just want to know if they practice their religion and do they make an effort to bring others to Christ Jesus. Now ask them that and see what you get. In God's Grace John
I guarantee that the Jewish members of congress do NOT make an effort to bring others to Jesus Christ, not if they practice their religion! The Muslim member of congress actually has more respect for Jesus, as a prophet, but not as the Son, than do the Jewish members. Now, do you want to kick them all out and require that only professing Christians can serve in congress? Or are you ready to deal with the fact that in America, ANY citizen can run for office? YOU can still proclaim the Gospel, no matter who is in congress, because they are not allowed to pass laws to stop you! (That's in the First Amendment too).
If all the Catholics, all the Mormons, and half the Protestants voted pro-life, then the radical pro-abortion agenda wouldn't have a chance. Obviously, too many have compromised on this issue.<br><br>And I have to apologize for my low expectations of my fellow Protestants; it is borne of experience.
More than half of American Roman Catholics use birth control. If they don't follow church teaching on this subject, just out of obedience to Rome, why should they regarding abortion? If every voter voted according to instructions from their church leadership, this wouldn't be America, it would be Europe in the decades of religious warfare. I have always understood that the "radical pro-abortion" agenda is the tiny but loud so-called "feminists" who responded to Roe v. Wade by essentially saying "Abortion is legal, have one any time! Kids are a drag!!!" I am one of Kevin's fellow Protestants who follow a conservative pro-choice agenda: it is not a decision for The State to be involved in, until there is a baby which could survive, if removed from the mother, without extensive use of artificial equipment. Not a perfect way to draw the line, but the best one I can find in human capacity.
Add your comment to join the discussion!