A discussion of voting
30 June 2008 - 28 סיון 5768 by Huw
Is taking place in parts of the Catholic blogosphere:
But I am not, nor have I ever been, an absolutist when it comes to voting. I find both positions problematic: to insist one has a duty to vote or to insist that Christians may never vote is to elevate voting to a level of importance that it does not deserve. Indeed, voting is mostly just a game. Rhetoric of “change” is simply that: rhetoric. As the saying (sometimes attributed to Phillip Berrigan) goes, if voting could really change anything, they would make it illegal.
And they point us to an interesting book on the political theory of Not-Voting
Nor am I an absolutist on this: you can vote but don’t have to. I’m not enthusiastic about the Libertarian candidate (a retread 1990s conservative) even as a token protest vote so I’ll probably stay home.
Funny, I am planning on preaching this Sunday on a story from the Book of Judges 9, particularly from verses 7-15. In honor of July 4, I am arguing that the parable points out what happens if good people do not get involved in politics, in fact, if they adopt the attitude that one’s “vote” does not count and become totally cynical. As the parable says, they will end up with the bramble governing over them.
And I still hold that “good people in politics” is not the point. I’m to live my life in Justice Peace and Mercy with you… even if the law says otherwise. But having said that, I’m with the Serge the YF: I’m not absolutist on it. I’m certain that some of my political views are not shared by all my brothers and sisters.
Mind you, this makes for a fun conversation at my Current Parish where Liberation Theology is all the norm in preaching.