by Brian Pears

Created on: September 18, 2009   Last Updated: September 23, 2009

Discussions of faith can spark heated discussions under the best of circumstances. But combine religious choice - an individual decision - with something that affects all of us, like the right to vote, and tempers can quickly come to a raging boil.

That is the essence of this topic. The question implies that since one's individual religion may apply pressure to believers to vote in accordance with their religious dogma, society might benefit if people were somehow not able to merge the pulpit with the polls. Behind this debate is an unspoken fear of masses of indoctrinated "faithful" voting not with the publics best interest in mind, but instead voting only to advance their religion.

(In considering this, one is almost forced to envision some sort of Wizard of Oz-like religious leader perched high upon a massive altar, with a lever for each of his followers, dashing madly about to make sure that everyone occupies their proper place in his grand scheme.)

Clearly, society has no way to prevent people from voting according to their faith, so this debate is purely theoretical. But we can instead consider the question whether it is right for people to do so. In other words, is it moral?

The answer is unequivocal: yes. This can be illustrated through at least two different arguments:

- Participation in a faith is no different than participation in any other group; those who vote along the lines of their faith are doing what any other voting bloc does: acting in the group's best interest.

A great many people identify themselves as motivated to vote the way they do either by a single issue or by a very small number of issues. Those both pro-abortion and pro-life qualify. Gun control advocates fit the bill, as does the pro-gun lobby. Our society abounds with lobbies, and while many people disagree with them on principle, no one speaks about taking away their right to vote based on the disproportionate influence their passions may have over their votes.

Faith is not looked at in the same light, and it is due to an inherent prejudice that those who are less (or not at all) faithful hold. The unspoken implication among those who would seek to limit the influence of faith is that the faithful will mindlessly follow their religion's teachings. One can assume that some of those holding this prejudice either don't vote or don't take the process terribly seriously, but they still feel qualified to judge the faithful.

The prejudice against faith is especially ugly. It implies

• 1
• 2
• Next Page >>