Creating a litmus test for the election

Every individual has his or her own set of standards on what they

consider to be priority or secondary issues. For instance, a person

who is battling a disabling disease may opt to support a candidate

who favors medical research, such as stem-cell research. Others, who

consider abortion as a grave sin would not support a candidate who

recognizes the right of a woman to choose. Nonetheless, to set a

criterion without any compromise undermines the principle foundation

of liberty. People have a right to make their own decision without

corrosion.

IMAM SAYED

MOUSTAFA AL-QAZWINI

Islamic Educational Center

of Orange County

Costa Mesa

I recall when candidate John F. Kennedy refused to support U.S.

Catholic bishops in their effort to obtain government aid for

parochial schools. He recognized the bishops’ right to press their

agenda and upheld his right to preserve, protect and defend the

secular constitution of a democratic nation.

Today, church leaders enjoy every right to suggest to the faithful

that the question of abortion and other issues should be litmus tests

for Christian voters. My view is that each member of a faith

community equally enjoys the right to draw up his own list of

critical issues that will govern how he exercises his franchise as a

free citizen.

Catholic doctrine, for instance, espouses a set of guidelines

governing what constitutes a “just war.” Many Christian scholars have

determined that the war in Iraq does not rise to that standard. Shall

a Catholic American minimize this Christian doctrine with respect to

the prosecution of war and push to the forefront the issue of

abortion?

The death penalty affords another illustration. Most Christian

denominations clearly oppose capital punishment. Does the Church give

its imprimatur to a candidate who contravenes Church teaching by

supporting the death penalty because that candidate aligns with

Church teaching opposing a woman’s right to choose? If a Christian

believes that Jesus’ greatest concern and ministry was care for the

least in our midst, and believes that a candidate’s social programs

do not address the needs of the disadvantaged, downtrodden and

dispossessed, should he vote for that candidate anyway because he is

for a constitutional amendment affirming the definition of marriage

solely in terms of a man and a woman? Shall this voter override his

sense that the issues of war, capital punishment, and lifting up the

poor are more compelling than the issue of stem cell research? Shall

he surrender his right to prioritize his concerns as both a believer

and a citizen? Shall he next have to be concerned over the Church’s

position on tax cuts for the wealthy? Is this believer a sinner if he

believes that poverty and racism, violence and terrorism are more

critical issues than the Church’s stand on cloning?

In the eyes of some bishops, John Kerry is jeopardizing his

salvation in the next life. The proper concern of citizens who

support or oppose him is the next four years.

RABBI MARK S. MILLER

Temple Bat Yam

Newport Beach

Archbishop Burke is entitled to his opinions. There is substantial

Christian theological and ethical support for positions on all sides

of his five “nonnegotiables.” I trust he has detailed such support in

his “voting guide for serious (people of faith).”

My own opinion is that for followers of the “Prince of Peace” and

“Hope of the Hopeless” and “Lord of Heaven and Earth,” our Savior

Jesus Christ, the three most important issues we should have in our

minds and hearts before voting our hopes not our fears on Nov. 2 (or

earlier) are peace with justice and economic and environmental

justice.

Jesus had lots to say about peace -- see Luke 19:42 and John 14:27

for my favorite examples. For him, peace seems to have meant not the

absence of struggle but the presence of love. While the use of

violent force may sometimes be a necessity of last resort, war is

contrary to the will of God. Christ clearly pronounces God’s blessing

on peacemakers (Matthew 5:9). I think that Christians should look for

political leaders who will make peace with justice a top priority and

who will actively seek nonviolent solutions to conflict.

God creates us to live in communities shaped by peace and

cooperation and calls us to be advocates for those who are most

vulnerable in our society.

To support this, I ask that you please prayerfully read Matthew

25:31-46, the wonderful InAsMuch passage. I think that Christians

should look for political leaders who yearn for economic justice, who

will seek to reduce the growing disparity between rich and poor, and

who will actively promote equal opportunities (in education, health

care, children’s services, etc.) for everyone.

“This fragile earth, our island home” (Book of Common Prayer, p.

370) was created by God, belongs to God and is intrinsically good

(Genesis 1:25d).

I think that Christians should look for political leaders who

recognize earth’s goodness and its limitations, champion

environmental justice, and uphold our responsibility to be good

stewards of God’s creation.

Of course, as an Episcopalian, I am open to negotiation.

I want to add that our religious tradition admonishes us not to

bear false witness against our neighbor and to love our enemies. I

think that wherever the campaigns of political candidates and its

coverage by the media have not been conducted according to principles

of fairness, honesty and integrity, we must call for accountability.

THE VERY REV’D CANON

PETER D. HAYNES

Saint Michael & All Angels

Episcopal Church

Corona del Mar

“Catholics Can Vote for Kerry,” was the headline of a column by

Fr. Andrew Greeley in the New York Daily News. He clarified the

position held by the overwhelming majority of Roman Catholic bishops:

Catholics cannot be single-issue voters, but must weigh all of the

issues.

The Archbishop from Missouri was unduly influenced by a voter’s

guide published by an independent, conservative group headquartered

in El Cajon, whose political strategy was to deem its selection of

five issues to be “nonnegotiable” for all Catholic voters. In

contrast, the official 2004 Election Guide for Catholics published by

the bishops calls it “a moral imperative” for the United States to

work to curb the spread of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons

and to reduce its own reliance on weapons of mass destruction, and

offers a more complete discussion of issues.

Global poverty and tens of millions of children who are

undernourished -- this is the priority identified by Archbishop

Giovanni Lajolo, the Vatican’s top foreign affairs official, in his

speech to the United Nations.

About the war, he pointed out, “Everyone can see that it did not

lead to a safer world inside or outside Iraq.”

On terrorism, he added, “It seems obvious that terrorism can only

be effectively challenged through a concerted multilateral approach

... and not through the politics of unilateralism.”

Fourteen communities of Roman Catholic sisters in the Upper

Mississippi Valley in Iowa produced billboards to counter

anti-immigration sentiments: “Welcome the immigrant you once were!”

The California Catholic Conference of Bishops issued a statement

supporting the modification of the “three strikes law” to keep minor

third-strike felons from being sentenced to state prison for 25 years

to life. The U.S. bishops’ recently issued a document, “When I Call

for Help: A Pastoral Response to Domestic Violence Against Women,” to

promote awareness of domestic violence.

These are all examples of collective religious leadership on the

issues, rather than individuals using communion and excommunication

to intimidate Catholic voters and to discredit Catholic politicians.

It also shows the diversity found within the Catholic Church. The

majority of the U.S. Catholic Bishops respect the role of the laity

to implement and adapt moral teaching to the larger society and

especially the political arena. I do not think Catholic or

non-Catholic voters will be swayed by simplistic one-issue (or

“five-issue”) agendas or tactics.

Although I consider abortion, gay rights, cloning, stem-cell

research and euthanasia important issues, I do not think the

presidential election will turn on them. A more determinative issue

is whether the war in Iraq was justified and what our next steps

should be. Another critical issue is what role the United States will

play in the world and its repercussions for not only our national

security but also a safe world -- whether our emphasis will be on

alliance or domination. And the threat of nuclear disaster ever

looms.

I do not agree that both presidential candidates stand for the

same things and will lead us in the same directions. We have a

genuine choice.

REV. DR. DEBORAH BARRETT

Zen Center of Orange County

Costa Mesa

It is unfortunate that we are being put in a place where we must

choose between a child’s life (abortion) and his or her education.

Who wins?

It highlights the fault in our society that we have been polarized

into factions that, on one hand, love freedom so much that it doesn’t

matter how their freedom affects another and, on the other hand, love

the concept of life so much that they are willing to kill for it.

Why isn’t it possible to teach people that freedom means

responsibility and consequences. Yes, people make mistakes, but don’t

take a shortcut to happiness. It may be a shortcut to cure cancer by

using the cells of unborn babies, but that seems a bit too much like

Nazi Germany to me. It may be a shortcut from suffering to allow

someone to take his or her life, but what quality person have you

ever met whose life wasn’t shaped by adversity? It may be helpful to

and easier to clone a duplicate of myself in order to harvest organs,

rather than risk not finding another suitable donor, but what about

the rights of that clone?

We need to respond to these issues as a community and support

unwed and single mothers, orphans, the poor next door and the sick

down the street. If we would respond to these issues voluntarily as

people of faith, it would not be necessary to legislate morality.

The position of candidates on these issues is symptomatic of their

moral standing. So it is not necessarily the issue I vote for, but

what the candidates’ stand represents of their individual character.

Though I do not necessarily agree with the Archbishop’s hierarchy

of issues, I agree that a person who strays from the doctrinal

standing of the church should not fake participation in his or her

community. It would be hypocrisy for a pro-abortion candidate to take

communion in a church that views abortion as abhorrent.

SENIOR ASSOCIATE PASTOR

RIC OLSEN

Harbor Trinity

Costa Mesa