Navigating the Political Minefield Using a Holy Compass

(WRITING A POLITICAL BLOG FOR THE DES MOINES REGISTER IS ENJOYABLE, BUT NOW AND AGAIN I COME UP BLANK IN THE TOPIC DEPARTMENT.  LAST WEEK I TURNED TO MY FACEBOOK FRIENDS AND ASKED FOR THEIR ADVICE.  I PROMISED THOSE WHO CAME UP WITH CHALLENGING IDEAS YET TO BE REHASHED IN CYBERLAND TOO MUCH A POCKET COPY OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE AND U.S. CONSTITUTION AS A THANK YOU GIFT.  MY FRIENDS DID NOT DISAPPOINT.  I AM STARTING WITH ONE THAT IS A TAD SELF-ABSORBED, BUT I AM TOLD BLOGS ARE NOTHING IF NOT VEHICLES FOR THE EGOTIST.)

An old high school friend asked me a series of religious questions that were hardly new.  Religion’s role in government has been debated since the founding of our nation.  But, as many Iowans debate same sex marriage from a religious viewpoint and many in the Republican Party link religious values with fiscal conservatism, the topic seemed relevant.

His questions:  Is it acceptable for government to sanction that which the Bible says is wrong?  As a nation under God, do we place ourselves under His authority or is He simply in the sky above us?  If we choose to sanction that which He specifically condemns, then just who is the final authority?

Benjamin Franklin

I may be unqualified to answer these questions and it might be best to leave them to somebody “above my pay grade.”  However, avoiding the subject entirely is kind of a cop out.  The Bible speaks to my friend. Like some Iowa legislators, he appears confident about what is right and what is wrong.  I have never been so sure I could rely on my own reading of that holy text.  So, I thought I would pose these questions to someone who is spending a lifetime in such work.

I called Matt Mardis-LeCroy, Minister for Spiritual Growth at Plymouth Church in Des Moines.  He is articulate and well-learned in the field of Christianity having attended Messiah College, Chicago Theological Seminary and Princeton Theological Seminary.  On hearing the questions, he warned me against selective literalism.  I chuckled.  The term reminded me of my grandfather.  In later years, Grandpa adopted what the rest of us defined as selective hearing.  He would choose what he heard by removing his hearing aid when topics became troublesome.  Reverend Mardis-LeCroy said some do the same with the Bible and that one has to consider the entire message, not a few chosen verses.

OK, I see that, but it makes me again feel ill-equipped to ponder my friend’s questions.  I imagine few amongst us are experts on God’s word, but I know for sure I am not.  In talking about marriage, Reverend Mardis-LeCroy himself has said that “religious people in Iowa are not of one mind on the subject of marriage.”  Great, men and women who spend all of their time spreading the word of God cannot agree.  I was back to square one – faith is a guide, but where do the answers lie?

I picked up that pocket Constitution sitting on my desk and thumbed through it to distract myself for a minute.  My Facebook friend had agreed the Founders dictated a separation of Church and State, but he was asking about that which guides us, me in particular.  This made me think of my friend Amir Busnov.

Amir grew up Muslim in communist Yugoslavia.  While President Josip Broz Tito ruled, Amir played with Christians as a child and was baffled as a teenager when family members disapproved of a Christian girlfriend.  Years later, Amir watched neighbor turn against neighbor – Christian against Muslim – in the bloodbath of war.  Yet, Amir speaks self-assuredly about his religion and how it guides him as an American.  His conviction is as unwavering as my high school friend’s or those who attended the Family Leader event yesterday with former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty.  Except, there is a difference in Amir’s approach and I think it comes from what he witnessed in Bosnia before he and his family fled, when he returned to Bosnia with the U.S. Army in the years that followed and in his service to the U.S. government in Iraq today.  Amir tells me Islam provides him a moral path.  Goodness lies in how we treat our fellow man, not in how we judge them based on our interpretation of religion.

Amir makes me think of Benjamin Franklin who signed those documents in my pocket guide.  I do a quick Google search and find what Franklin wrote to his father in 1738, “I think vital religion has always suffered when orthodoxy is more regarded than virtue. The scriptures assure me that at the last day we shall not be examined on what we thought but what we did.”  That makes sense to me and leads me to this:

The Bible tells us divorce is wrong, but Americans crafted laws to allow people to make their own choice there, because we respect liberty.  In a fair society, if marriage is to be a legal partnership between two adults, it has to be allowed between any two adults without bias, religious or other.  However, in a just society, if one’s actions harm another or infringe on another’s rights, we must not let those actions stand.  A religious conviction may guide us, but we cannot let one’s selective literalism trump another’s.  We must seek a kind of legal compromise as mortals.

I will answer my friend’s questions this way.  The strength of our country lies in the American accord.  While faith is an individual journey, we share a commitment to fairness and equality.  My faith guides and comforts me as Amir’s faith does for him and my high school friend’s faith does for him.  But, as a nation established and inhabited by people who recognize religious freedom, we leave it to each to seek that final authority.  As an American, I accept my neighbor as my equal.  My moral compass is set by my faith and I acknowledge that faith likely determines my neighbor’s “true North” as well.  Our faiths may lead us to different conclusions from time to time, so we must rely on the most American of principles, to treat all people with equality, kindness and respect.

Faith sets our compass, but that does not mean we should insist all Americans must follow our spiritual path.  Our country is based on fairness, liberty and freedom.  No person or group gets to select what part of a holy text is more important than the next.  Let’s leave that to the “final authority.”

###

Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com

This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.

Vander Plaats’ Quiet Period to End

Perennial gubernatorial candidate Bob Vander Plaats is holding a press conference at 10:30 a.m. tomorrow at the State Capitol. Vander Plaats has been mulling an independent run since losing to Terry Branstad in the primary. Branstad and Vander Plaats have tried to come to some agreement, but tomorrow’s affair gives this observer the impression the bridge to reconciliation could not be built.

Vander Plaats could surprise me, but the fact he made the announcement independent of the Branstad camp makes me think he is about to stick it to the former governor one more time. Vander Plaats may or may not announce his candidacy tomorrow, but I am guessing he is about to vent some conservative frustration about the Republican nominee while he still has the semblance of a podium at which to stand. If Vander Plaats runs, he will be a thorn in Branstad’s side and one can argue Vander Plaats will mostly help Chet Culver by entering the fray. However, I still see the race as Branstad’s to lose even with a third party candidate on the ballot.

Conservatives like Vander Plaats are turning up the heat on two issues these days, immigration and marriage. Recent federal court rulings have angered them, making it likely these issues will drive much of the forthcoming election cycle. Last week a federal judge temporarily blocked key parts of Arizona’s new immigration law and yesterday a federal judge struck down California’s voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage. It is hard to imagine Vander Plaats walking away with these issues boiling on the front burner of the right wing stove top. He’ll want to stay in that kitchen, trust me. Tomorrow we will find out how he plans to do so.

This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.

Branstad and Vander Plaats as Bedfellows may Mean Neither Sleep Well

I was drafting a blog post yesterday about how perennial Iowa gubernatorial candidate and conservative darling Bob Vander Plaats had gone oddly silent. I had been hearing some rumors he was close to making a deal to endorse Terry Branstad, his rival for the Republican nomination. I stopped writing and was going to chase the gossip. Jason Hancock at the Iowa Independent beat me to it.

It smells like there is a deal in the works.

The Background

I predicted shortly after the polls opened on primary election day that should Vander Plaats get 40% or more of the vote, he would seriously consider continuing his campaign as an independent. He met that threshold and has been publicly and not-so-publicly considering a run since. After challenging nominee Terry Branstad’s choice for a running mate, Kim Reynolds, at convention and losing with numbers eerily similar to what he received in the primary, Vander Plaats has been quiet. Too quiet, for a guy who is about to re-re-re-re-launch a campaign.

The Score

Should they reach a deal, Branstad gets many of the conservatives off his back and Vander Plaats gets to say he stared at the big, bad nominee and made him blink first. In the post I was drafting yesterday, I speculated about how odd it was that Branstad was still campaigning to the right. He has talked about social issues such as immigration and same-sex marriage, when I would think he would be looking to issues that attract the broader general election voters. I mused it was like Branstad couldn’t stop thinking about Vander Plaats. After talking to Hancock and reading his Iowa Independent story, I now see Branstad couldn’t. A deal was in the works. He is trying to appease Vander Plaats and team by saying things they want to hear.

My Take

This is still Branstad’s race to lose. Chet Culver is facing incredibly stiff odds. Branstad does not need the far right, but he is the consummate politician, unwilling to leave much to chance. If he can get a few more on the right to support him, he has to entice fewer of those in the middle come November. The good news for Branstad is that in any other year he might alienate crucial middle of the road voters with this move, but with such a weak opponent there is less to worry about. The downside is Branstad will continue to pay the Vander Plaats’ bill after the election when he is trying to govern. Getting in bed with some social conservatives may make for a few tough nights’ sleep over the next four years.

As for Vander Plaats, he better make sure whatever job, concession or promises he is made by the Branstad folks are well-spelled out and made public. Promises made behind the closed doors of a campaign office often die quick and silent deaths.

This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.