Is a politician violating his oath of office when he votes his "faith"?

Question

We've heard the pope threatening to withhold the sacrament from those politicians that don't vote in accordance with Catholic beliefs. Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell have both called on Evangelical Christians to "take back America" by electing leaders who promise to vote on social issues based on Evangelical beliefs.

Is this not a direct violation of their oath of office, in which they swear to uphold the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and represent all members of their constituency- not just those that share their religious beliefs? Is a person that is incapable of serving the public by voting on an issue based on the law as interpreted by our court system, rather than popular opinion and personal beliefs, not morally obligated to bypass public service?

Congressional Oath of Office: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God." First Amendment to the Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Any law that either grants preferential treatment to one religion, or uses as its principle argument a non-universal religious belief with no compelling public interest to back it up would appear to violate this.

Clearly, a politician can vote his faith when it does not violate the First Amendment. When it comes to laws, such as those that involve gay marriage, where the arguments are based entirely upon a religious belief (or personal prejudism) that is not univerally held, to vote one's faith is to grant favored status to specific churches that oppose it. There do exist churches and ministers that would like to be able to marry gay couples, but are prevented from doing so for reasons that have nothing to do with protecting the public interest.

Answer 1

You're allowed to base a law on religion. You just can't outlaw any ones religion because you disagree. Unless something in that religion harms or effects other people... Such as sacrifice.

Answer 2

I don't see how. I also don't see how you can vote on any law without exercising moral judgement. Name any law and I can show you the moral basis for supporting or opposing it.

Moral judgement is about sorting out good from bad. For example minimum wage. Those in favor make the judgement that each working person should make "x" amount per hour and it is good for the government to force employers to pay that. The make the moral value judgement that it is more important to make sure a person makes a certain wage than it is to support freedom and allow employers and employees to come to their own agreement without the involvement of government.

Answer 3

Besides the separation of church and state, someone holding elected office may wish to vote using his or her own moralistic beliefs, and those moralistic beliefs may or may not even fit into their particular religions designation of what is moral or not anyways.

So, all being considered as to the answering of your question, it may be much easier to to comprehend the better understanding towards the reality of how democracy works, by grasping the fact already mentioned, that politicians democratically voted into such offices, and the how their votes may be cast, are mutually inclusive, and reflected as such,or not, by the voting process itself.

Answer 4

In that case anyone who is in the military who doesn't want to go to Iraq would be violating that same code of ethics.
So you be in favor of putting them away for the beliefs.

You can still up hold your faith but you have to understand their is a consquences for you actions.

They have to decide what is more important defending the right of one woman to grips up her baby without restriction no matter the age or reason or how far along she is than purposing reasonable restrictions.

So could someone loss their PETA membership is they come in with a ham sandwitch.

Answer 5

Voting in congress never violates your oath of office, we elect politicians to decide how they vote using their best judgement and all factors that inform it. But it does not show good judgement to vote for bills that clearly violate the constitution.

Answer 6

In their minds they are acting in the best interests of everyone they represent. Even if reality conflicts with their religious beliefs they are not violating their oaths because they are acting "in good faith"

Answer 7

No. That is why the 1st Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights.

Besides, politicians that vote on religious lines most likely RAN on religious issues, so in turn, they ARE representing their constituancy.

Answer 8

No, he isn't. Right to religion is protected, and if you are religious, it's understandable that you would vote in favor of what you believe, and that includes your faith. The only way to stop this would be to know what someone's faith is in detail and prevent them from voting in favor of that, which violates their constitutional right to religion...

Answer 9

Do you watch the information? If George Bush or the different important/renowned individual blinks the incorrect way its everywhere in the information you do no longer think of you will possibly have heard this on each and each Channel ALL day long if he did this?

Answer 10

No. A liberal would not understand, but you cannot parcel or compartmentalize your faith. It is not just something you do on Sunday, its something with you all the time.