Quantcast
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

World religions
BUDDHISM
CHRISTIANITY
   Who is a Christian?
   Shared beliefs
   Handling change
   Bible topics
   Bible inerrancy
   Bible harmony
   Interpret Bible
   Persons
   Beliefs, creeds
   Da Vinci code
   Revelation, 666
HINDUISM
ISLAM
JUDAISM
WICCA / WITCHCRAFT
 
Other religions
Cults and NRMs
Comparing religions

Non-theistic...
Atheism
Agnosticism
Humanism
Other

About all religions
Important topics
Basic information
Gods & Goddesses
Handling change
Doubt/security
Quotes
Movies
Confusing terms
Glossary
End of the world
One true religion?
Seasonal topics
Science v. Religion
More info.

Spirituality and ethics
Spirituality
Morality and ethics
Absolute truth

Peace and conflict
Attaining peace
Religious tolerance
Religious hatred
Religious conflict
Religious violence

"Hot" topics
Very hot topics
Ten commandments
Abortion access
Assisted suicide
Cloning
Death penalty
Environment
Equal rights -gays/bi's
Same-sex marriage
Nudism
Origins of the species
Sex & gender
Sin
Spanking kids
Stem cells
Women-rights
Other topics

Laws and news
Religious laws
Religious news

 

!!!!!!!! Search error!  If the URL ends something like .htm/  or .htm# delete the character(s) after .htm and hit return.

Legislation related to religion and morality

How legislators decide to vote on bills
with a moral or religious component

horizontal rule

Sponsored link.


horizontal rule

There appears to be no consensus on this topic. Lawmakers may follow any of the following criteria (and probably others as well) before deciding how to vote on a bill. Most probably follow a mixture of these principles:

bulletSome 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.
bulletSome 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. 
bulletOther 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.
bulletSome 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.
bulletSome 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. 
bulletSome 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:
bulletVermont: The state Supreme Court instructed the legislature to either widen the definition of marriage to include gays and lesbians, or create a parallel system for homosexuals that would grant gay and lesbian couples equal benefits, obligations and rights to married couples. After holding extensive hearings on the topic, a house committee drafted a bill to create civil unions for gays and lesbians in Vermont. The Roman Catholic archdiocese took a very active part in the committee hearings.  Most Reverend Kenneth A. Angell, Bishop of the Diocese of Burlington, opposed the creation of domestic partnership legislation because he believed it to be "only a political stepping stone toward the legalization of Same-Sex Marriage." He called for a state constitutional amendment to define marriage as only between one man and one woman. The bishop later organized a rally of Roman Catholic and conservative Protestant clergy against the bill. Finally, the archdiocese organized a petition for a constitutional amendment that would "state that marriage in Vermont is exclusively reserved for unions between one (1) man and one (1) woman, only."

The House voted in favor of the civil union bill on 2000-MAR-17. The archdiocese issued a statement critical of the Roman Catholic members of the house who voted for the bill. They asserted that, being Roman Catholics, the legislators should have dutifully voted to support the church's position on the bill.
bulletEurope: According to the Conservative News Service (CNSNews):
bulletThe European Parliament approved a resolution "to make rapid progress in the area of mutual recognition of the various forms of living together legally, but not of a conjugal character, and of legal marriages between persons of the same sex."
bulletIn response, the Vatican's Pontifical Council for the Family issued a statement saying lawmakers "and especially Catholic parliamentarians, should not vote to support this type of legislation as it goes against the common good and the truth of man and, as a result, is in reality iniquitous.
bulletRoman Catholic Cardinal Thomas Winning, leader of Scotland's 700,000 Catholics, said that that country's Catholic politicians should vote with their conscience, but added that "conscience is something that must take into account the teachings of the church." Ronnie Convery, spokesman for Cardinal Thomas Winning said on MAR-22 that "Sometimes you find yourself having to choose between the church's teaching and a particular policy of a particular political party.
bulletKate MacLean, Labor member and head of the parliament's Equal Opportunities Committee, said lawmakers were "elected to represent everybody in their constituencies and I do not think any other organization, whether a church or other body, has any right to interfere with that."

horizontal rule

References

  1. "Dilemma for Scottish Lawmakers: Obey church or party?" Conservative News Service, 2000-MAR-23. Online at: http://www.mcjonline.com/news/00/20000323c.htm 

horizontal rule

Copyright 2000 to 2008 by Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance
Originally written: 2000-MAR-28
Latest update: 2008-JAN-08
Author: B.A. Robinson

line.gif (538 bytes)


horizontal rule

Go to the previous page, or go to the "Laws related to religion & morality" menu, or choose:

Google
Web ReligiousTolerance.org

Go to home page  We would really appreciate your help

E-mail us about errors, etc.  Purchase a CD of this web site

FreeFind search, lists of new essays...  Having problems printing our essays?


Twitter link

Facebook icon

Google Page Translator:

This page translator works on Firefox,
Opera, Chrome, and Safari browsers only

After translating, click on the "show
original" button at the top of this
page to restore page to English.