Sunday, July 12, 2009
Sunday Reflection: Sentencing and faith
A lot of my work has been at the intersection of faith and sentencing, which may seem to be a strange place-- many people feel that they should not intersect at all. Law in America is wholly secular, certainly, and I both understand and agree with that. I also know that the American government is not founded on the Ten Commandments or any other religious document (I wrote about that here). However, we can't ignore that individuals, as voters and a legislators, make decisions that are grounded in their faith.
Should it matter at that level? It seems that to insist on secular motives even when we act as voters is to require that we compartmentalize our faith from our actions in an unacceptable way. Is it really faith if it does not affect the most important decisions we make? If our faith teaches compassion, should we set that aside and not consider compassion of the candidates when we vote?
What about legislators? And, most difficult of all, what about judges? How much should their own faith affect the choices they make? If we insist that they set aside their faith entirely when they act as judges, won't that mean we will end up only with judges for whom faith is secondary in their lives?
Should it matter at that level? It seems that to insist on secular motives even when we act as voters is to require that we compartmentalize our faith from our actions in an unacceptable way. Is it really faith if it does not affect the most important decisions we make? If our faith teaches compassion, should we set that aside and not consider compassion of the candidates when we vote?
What about legislators? And, most difficult of all, what about judges? How much should their own faith affect the choices they make? If we insist that they set aside their faith entirely when they act as judges, won't that mean we will end up only with judges for whom faith is secondary in their lives?
Comments:
<< Home
I think religion is a pretty good proxy for making difficult questions. You have not only an established cannon of values to look to, but you also have a group of similar minded folks guide you. As a general rule, I dont think the proxy will lead you astray in making decisions, whether you're a legislator or just a regular guy.
The danger I think is when people blindly rely on others to tell them what those decisions are under the guise of religion. Religion should be a struggle. And a difficult one at that. Grappling with your beliefs and challenging yourself assures that you are not blindly following.
And it's most important for folks like legislators, who make decisions that impact more then themselves, to be sure they are not blind followers.
The danger I think is when people blindly rely on others to tell them what those decisions are under the guise of religion. Religion should be a struggle. And a difficult one at that. Grappling with your beliefs and challenging yourself assures that you are not blindly following.
And it's most important for folks like legislators, who make decisions that impact more then themselves, to be sure they are not blind followers.
I find it interesting that some who study human behavior would argue that to claim that we can somehow "compartmentalize" our psyche/intellect, i.e., "rational intellect to one side, religious experience/belief/emotional upbringing to the other", is a Cartesian fallacy. We aren't robots; we are wholistic creatures, products of all the experiences in our lives.
It would be similar to arguing that we could somehow "lop off" the formative experiences and influences we had growing up, what our families, friends, and schoolteachers taught us and exposed us to...in order to make decisions in our lives. I think many therapists would say this is highly unlikely; we are a product of all of our experiences during our upbringing, our intellectual, emotional, as well as our spriritual/religious experiences and training.
Can we "reject" our training/upbringing? Disagree with it? Of course...but to argue that is somehow does not shape our decision-making as adults is to deny who we are.
I would much rather that politicians acknowledge their backgrounds, be they spiritual, religious, etc., as a part of their entire intellectual package, and address how they attempt to struggle to integrate this into their duty as elected officials in a secular state to encompass a wide range of opinions, beliefs, etc., than to deny that their religious upbringing (or the lack thereof) has no bearing on how they vote, administrate, etc.
Post a Comment
It would be similar to arguing that we could somehow "lop off" the formative experiences and influences we had growing up, what our families, friends, and schoolteachers taught us and exposed us to...in order to make decisions in our lives. I think many therapists would say this is highly unlikely; we are a product of all of our experiences during our upbringing, our intellectual, emotional, as well as our spriritual/religious experiences and training.
Can we "reject" our training/upbringing? Disagree with it? Of course...but to argue that is somehow does not shape our decision-making as adults is to deny who we are.
I would much rather that politicians acknowledge their backgrounds, be they spiritual, religious, etc., as a part of their entire intellectual package, and address how they attempt to struggle to integrate this into their duty as elected officials in a secular state to encompass a wide range of opinions, beliefs, etc., than to deny that their religious upbringing (or the lack thereof) has no bearing on how they vote, administrate, etc.
# posted by 
: 8:35 PM
: 8:35 PM << Home
