How to be a politically
correct Presbyterian voter
Reprinted from The Presbyterian Layman, Sep-Oct, 2000
|
What is the politically correct way for
Presbyterians to vote in this fall’s election?
The Washington Office of the Presbyterian Church has produced the
“Christian and Citizen 2000 Election Packet” to guide
Presbyterian voters. While the packet does not mention any
candidates or political parties by name, it aligns closely with
the left flank of the Democratic Party.
The packet is purportedly designed to help individuals,
congregations and presbyteries as they “wrestle with the
issues of this year’s political campaign,” according to
a letter from Elenora Giddings Ivory, director of the Washington
Office.
The italicized sentences are paraphrases of recommendations in
the election packet.
Presbyterians
should support affirmative action.
“The 1995 Assembly explicitly underscored support for the
concept of affirmative action.”
Presbyterians
should support civil unions for homosexual couples and condemn
sexual orientation discrimination.
“The 1996 General Assembly ‘affirms the Presbyterian
Church’s historic definition of marriage as a civil contract
between a man and a woman, yet recognizing that committed
same-sex partners seek equal civil liberties in a contractual
relationship with all the civil rights of married couples.’
“… the 1993 General Assembly condemned state
legislative efforts to discriminate against gays and lesbians.”
Presbyterians
should support gun control efforts.
“… The 1998 Assembly ‘calls upon all Presbyterians
to intentionally work toward removing handguns and assault
weapons from our homes and our communities …”
Presbyterians
should oppose the use of capital punishment.
“... the 1995 Assembly calls upon the church ‘to
reaffirm and act on the specific recommendations of previous
Assemblies regarding domestic and racial violence, creating
justice for all in the criminal justice and correctional systems
of society, establishing
gun control and abolishing
capital punishment.’”
Presbyterians
should support hate crimes legislation.
The 1989 and 1999 General Assemblies “supports federal
legislation that provides enhanced penalties for violent crimes
motivated by the actual or perceived race, color, national
origin, religion, sexual orientation, gender, or disability of
the victim.”
Presbyterians
should oppose school vouchers.
“The 1992 Assembly reaffirmed opposition to federal tax
support for private or parochial elementary and secondary schools
through vouchers or any other means.”
Presbyterians
should support a woman’s choice to have an abortion, but
should not support the use of abortion as a method of birth
control. Partial birth abortion should be of “grave moral
concern.”
“The Report of the Special Committee on Problem Pregnancies
and Abortion adopted by the 1992 General Assembly affirms
‘… No law or administrative decision should provide for
a complete ban on abortion.’
“The 1992 Assembly went on to acknowledge the widely
divergent and deeply felt convictions about abortion that are
held by conscientious members of the church.” It also stated
that “We affirm that abortion should not be used as a method
of birth control.”
The 1997 Assembly called the procedure known as intact dilation
and extraction (partial birth abortion) of a baby who could live
outside the womb a “grave moral concern and should be
considered only if the mother’s physical life is endangered
by the pregnancy.”
Presbyterians
should support reducing the federal deficit by cutting military
spending and raising taxes.
The 1990 Assembly urged both the president and Congress to
develop a legislative program to meet social and economic needs,
and to reduce the federal deficit. “To the extent this
cannot be done by reducing military or other spending, (the
Assembly requests) them to approve legislation (a) to increase
taxes and (b) to make the tax structure more equitable and
progressive.”
Presbyterians
should support a tax structure where those with more not only pay
more, but are taxed at a higher rate.
A 1977 statement by the United Presbyterian Church (USA) General
Assembly said that the practical implication of an appropriate
tax structure “is that those who receive more should not
only pay more taxes in an absolute dollar amount but also pay at
a higher rate than those who receive less income.”
“... various General Assemblies have called for a shift away
from military expenditures and a greater investment in ‘imaginative
initiatives for peace, health and welfare.’”
This plan for social-engineering was orginally known as the "Communist Manifesto" by Karl Marx and Frederich Engels. The irony there is that Marx & Engels did not pretend to equate their works with Christianity.