politics, ethics, and religion

for those of you who know me, you are probably familiar with my love/hate relationship with politics.  i tend to have very strong political views (which actually are just extensions of my worldview, but since they are intertwined, i will for now refer to them in the realm of politics), but at the same time i despise politics, and more specifically politicians.  there is an old saying that the way to tell a politician is lying is their lips move.  that being said, i do believe that most politicians have the best of intentions when it comes to the office that they are trying to obtain, with a few having political aspirations for their own gain.  however, the nature of politics does lend itself to distortions of facts and figures, misrepresentations of quotes, and sometimes blatant lying, so for that reason, i trust very little of what i hear a politician saying while on the campaign trail.

that being said, there is a very big election coming up later in the year.  the gop has not even settled on a candidate yet, and the mudslinging political ads have already started, along with the rebuttals by the other side.  so, with so much mistruth out there, what is a person to do when it comes to deciding on whom to elect?  before i continue, let me say that this post is not to persuade you to vote for one side or another, but rather to be a frank discussion on what should be considered when deciding upon a candidate to back.  this will be geared towards those who refer to themselves as followers of CHRIST, but it's practical aspects can be embraced by all people of all faiths.

there has been a lot of discussion recently about the personal lives of politicians when it comes to their ability to lead.  many have postulated that a person's personal life does not affect their ability to lead, while others counter that it directly affects their leadership abilities.  the truth is, a person's personal life only affects their ability to lead when they are unable to separate their personal stress from their job.  as with any job, a large part of succeeding involves being able to keep your personal problems out of the workplace.  this is also reciprocated when discussing the home life.  one of the keys to a successful marriage is being able to leave work and the stress of work at work.  my bride and i have an unwritten agreement that the first thing i do when i get home is go upstairs and remove my uniform and change into civilian clothes.  the reason for this is two-fold:  first, it gets me out of "military" or "officer" mode.  when i come home, after dealing with marines and sailors all day, it can be very tempting to interact with my family in that short, gruff manner, which makes for a tense evening.  second, it helps me to leave at work the stress of dealing with everyone else's problems all day.  granted, there are times i have to pick that back up if i get called, but otherwise i choose to focus on my family and not the marine or sailor that is having marital difficulties.  this principle is especially important at work.  many of the marines and sailors i deal with are sent to me because they are unable to leave their home problems at home, and as a result their job performance suffers.  politics is a particularly stressful profession, and a person inept at managing their own personal life could potentially make poor choices, which could have disastrous consequences because their decisions affect not just them, but those that they are leading.  however, there are those who are able to manage both their personal and professional lives and are able to keep them separate very effectively.  in this case, a person's personal life does not affect their ability to lead.  however, what their personal life does affect, is how they lead.

a person's personal life is made up of two key elements:  circumstances and responses.  throughout a person's life, a variety of circumstances, both positive and negative, happen every second of every day.  it is not the circumstances that are the key defining character of a person's life, but rather the response that is initiated by the circumstances that determines the substance of the person.  what guides how a person responds to their circumstances?  that person's morals, which are a direct reflection of their ethical framework.  now, morals and ethics are subjects that one can spend years studying and still not exhaust all of the information throughout history pertaining to the two.  so to give you a short definition of the two, morals are a person's sense of right and wrong.  your morals will determine whether or not you will steal that candy bar when no one is looking, or whether you will point a rifle at someone who has wronged you and pull the trigger, or whether you will invite that young lady you met in a bar on a business trip back to your hotel room.  your morals are determined by your ethics.  ethics is how a person determines right from wrong.  ethics is applied to all sorts of fields, such as military ethics, medical ethics, business ethics, etc.  these fields lay out specific guidelines as to what makes a decision right or wrong within that given field.  but they all fall under what is called normative ethics.  normative ethics is our philosophy of what makes things right or wrong.  our normative ethics are based on things such as our religious background, family background, cultural backgroud, etc.  for instance, a CHRISTian's normative ethics should come from the Bible.  notice i said should, because not all CHRISTians follow this practice.  moreover, a person from a culture of racism may not see the evil of racism, and may even use the same Scriptures that condemn it, to support it (always out of context, i might add!).  while this is not meant to be a class on ethics and morals, i wanted to clarify what the two were, and to differentiate between the two, so that you have a better working knowledge of the subject for the next portion.

back to the topic at hand.  as stated before, a person's personal life (made up of their circumstances and responses, which are a direct reflection of their morals and ethical framework) does not affect their ability to lead.  adolph hitler was a phenomenal leader, in the strictest sense of the word.  he led people to follow him whole-heartedly and to condone the slaughter of millions of innocent people.  cult leaders have been very effective leaders, even leading people to their death.  but there is a difference between being an effective leader (sometimes called a good leader, which really is an improper use of the word), and being a righteous, just, and fair leader (which more appropriately could be called a good leader).  so while a person's personal life does not affect their ability to lead, it will affect the direction in which they lead. 

a person's leadership is not independent of their moral and ethical framework, instead, it is dependent on it.  a person's sense of right and wrong will determine the decisions they make in their personal life, and consequently, their political life.  if a person has shown the lack of commitment in being married to the person they are supposed to be the closest to, that lack of commitment will carry over to other areas.  we live in a society today where the idea of commitment and dedication are foreign, outdated at best.  if we have a leader that models that same lack of commitment, you can rest assured it will be reflected in other commitments.  if a person has shown lack of regard for the sanctity of human life, it will be reflected in their decisions on abortion, euthanasia, etc.  if a person demonstrates an attitude of using truth when it's convenient, it follows that one will find it hard to believe them whenever they are questioned about a stance, policy, etc.  many politicians today live more in the area of situational ethics and moral relativism.  situational ethics states that the ends justify the means.  for example, it is ok if you cheat this group just so long as you are using it to benefit another less fortunate group (the robin hood principle).  this is particularly dangerous when a person uses situational ethics in areas such as warfare and medicine.  a scenario that might play out to where a government finds it okay to drop a bomb leveling an entire village, killing innocents, just so long as the intended target is killed.  a medical example could play out to where prisoners are used as test subjects for disease cures, because after all, they are bad people so they don't deserve the same ethical treatment as the general population.  moral relativism is similar in theory to situational ethics, but it is on a more personal level.  a moral relativist says, "what's right for me may not be right for you", and vice versa.  the problem with this is it is devoid of any sort of absolute authority.  this is dangerous when applied to areas such as finance and family.

why is this important?  history has shown that in every great and mighty civilization, regardless of the religion of the civilization, their downfall was always immediately preceded by an ethical and moral degradation within that society.  this is true for the greeks, the romans, the turks, and various other groups.  the united states has been one of the great civilizations of the last 200 years, but is on the verge of a downfall.  europe is a perfect example of what happens when a society gravitates towards moral bankruptcy.  at one time, europe was the center of CHRISTianity, but now is anything but, and is facing economic and societal collapse.  lawlessness is starting to manifest itself in some of the bigger cities, and will increasingly grow worse as time goes on.  we are seeing tremors of this in the united states today.  the occupy movements are just foreshadows of the times to come, unless a change is made.  politicians would like for you to believe that the change needed is a fiscal one, but the real change needed is a paradigm shift in the ethics and morals that have taken root in the past 40-50 years.  we must elect leaders who have a strong sense of ethics and morals.  this business of shifting your position based on your numbers in the polls or who is funding your office will only produce leaders who will lead our country into ruin.  george washington said, "america is great, because she is good.  when america ceases to be good, she will cease to be great."

this year, as election season approaches, pay no attention to frightening images being portrayed in front of us on the television, and instead, do pay attention to the man behind the curtain.  look not only at a politician's stances, but look at their voting records in the past.  do your research.  don't choose a candidate because they are of a certain party, or because they are of a certain race, religion, economic group, etc.  choose a candidate that has a proven record of consistent and ethical decision making.  but most importantly, for CHRISTians, choose a candidate based on how they line up with Scripture and only after much prayer and fasting.  and remember the example of the israelites:  they wanted a king.  they did not seek God's face on whether or not they needed a king.  they wanted a king.  so God gave them what they wanted, and Scripture tells us that Saul was a ruthless and evil king that led them into ruin.  ask God who HE would have you vote for, then follow.  He is one leader that will never lead you wrong!