| About this site |
| About us |
| Our beliefs |
| Is this your first visit? |
| Contact us |
| External links |
| Good books |
| Visitor essays |
| Our forum |
| New essays |
| Other site features |
| Buy a CD of this site |
| Vital notes |
| Non-theistic... |
| Atheism |
| Agnosticism |
| Humanism |
| Other |
| Spirituality and ethics |
| Spirituality |
| Morality and ethics |
| Absolute truth |
| Peace and conflict |
| Attaining peace |
| Religious tolerance |
| Religious hatred |
| Religious conflict |
| Religious violence |
| Laws and news |
| Religious laws |
| Religious news |
|
|
 | Some legislators believe that they should strictly mirror the beliefs and wishes of their constituents. So, for example, if a vote is to be cast on a bill with a moral/ethical component, they would determine the will of the majority of their constituents, and vote accordingly -- irrespective of their personal beliefs. | ||||||||||||
| Some feel that their prime mandate is to be re-elected at the next election. They might weigh the will of the citizens that they represent, against the likely future repercussions of a yea or nay vote. For example, a vote to extend hate crimes legislation or discrimination in workplace hiring to include protection on the basis of sexual orientation would probably be favored by most voters. They would be motivated by a sense of fairness, and by an awareness of the widespread discrimination against gays and lesbians. But groups that oppose bills granting equality to gays and elsbians be very highly organized; they might persuade a solid minority of the electorate to vote against the lawmaker, on the basis of a single issue. | ||||||||||||
| Other lawmaker believe that their responsibility is not to follow but to lead. Their personal task is to become totally familiar with each bill, to determine carefully what is in the best interests of the constituents, and vote accordingly. They believe that their responsibility is not necessarily to follow their constituents' beliefs, but to follow what those beliefs would be if their constituents were fully aware of all aspects to the bill. One example of this happened in the Canadian parliament decades ago. About 65% of the public -- and probably of the legislators -- favored the death penalty. However, many of those parliamentary representatives who studied the matter thoroughly changed their mind and voted to abandon executions. Canada has been without a death penalty ever since. | ||||||||||||
| Some heavily weigh the human rights implications of a bill. For example, a legislator might represent a constituency which is 90% Christian, of whom a strong majority might support state-initiated prayer in the public school system. But they believe that school prayer would discriminate against, and generate increased intolerance of, religious minorities. A legislator might buck a majority feeling among his constituents in order to protect the religious freedom of a minority. | ||||||||||||
| Some legislators weigh the constitutional implications of a bill. If the proposed law would obviously be unable to survive a court challenge, they will vote against the bill on a matter of principle. This follows logically from their oath of office which includes a commitment to support the constitution. A growing number of lawmakers seem to take the opposite position. They ignore the constitution, violate their oath of office, and vote in favor of a clearly indefensible law because of its popularity. State laws opposing access to abortion, mandating religious prayer in public schools, and requiring the posting of the Ten Commandments in state offices and schools are typical examples in which lawmakers passed obviously unconstitutional bills. | ||||||||||||
| Some follow the instructions of their personal faith group. Most
recently, the Roman Catholic church appears to be most publicly vocal
in pressuring Catholic law makers to follow church teachings:
|
References
- "Dilemma for Scottish Lawmakers: Obey church or party?" Conservative News Service, 2000-MAR-23. Online at: http://www.mcjonline.com/news/00/20000323c.htm
Copyright © 2000 to 2008 by Ontario Consultants on Religious
Tolerance
Originally written: 2000-MAR-28
Latest update: 2008-JAN-08
Author: B.A. Robinson
|
|
|
Page Translator: