In my first presidential election as a franchised voter, I paid a lot of attention to all candidates and what they offered me, a young Adventist theology major. I was looking for reform and responsibility in my potential choice. George Bush, with a nod from the religious right and apparent endorsement from moderate Texan democrats, began his run for office as the man to satisfy all voters? needs. The Republicans? campaign mantra, "compassionate conservatism," was a clever answer to liberals? assertion of right-wing indifference on social issues. However, the addition of Dick Cheney to the ticket quickly sobered my enthusiasm for his campaign. You see, Mr. Cheney voted against every social program (even head start) that would offer our society's dispossessed an even chance. It was then I realized that Bush's idea of compassion was not a statement of policy, but a state of mind. In the recent presidential election, conservatives were more concerned with the rhetoric of the candidate than the morality of his policies.
 

Principles Betrayed

On the 700 Club the icons of evangelical America call for greater morality, but I see these same leaders (i.e. Billy Graham) endorse the Bush-Cheney ticket and I feel betrayed. As these religious leaders bond their fight against abortion with the political right they, through silent approval, put on the robes of the priest and Levite in the parable of the Good Samaritan. Should government play a role in legislating morality? The advocates of the religious/political right hark back to the Constitution and with "implied intent" and a strict constructionalism, they pretend to be the voice of America's ideals. With this self-empowering ideology they set forth to restore morality to our nation. They skirt the substantive issue of teen pregnancy, deeming sex to be solely within the marital domain. So they fight sex education that seeks to teach contraception in public schools. And conservatives, with Bush at the helm, fought against guaranteed health care for children in Texas; and when it passed, the governor remarked: "You crammed it down our throats." [1] I have concluded that the religious right supports government-led morality only to the extent of legislating behavior. Why are moral issues such as adequate health care not advocated by the right with the same vigor used in the fight against abortion? They would have government mute on conception, abruptly step in and deny abortion, then immediately withdraw this responsibility (to protect the infant) upon birth. The question must be asked, "Who is my neighbor?" How does a country with a Christian heritage respond to its moral obligations? It's ironic how morality is seen as a public issue, but only to the extent of legislating behavior. This logic reveals a peculiar kink in the moral conscience of the religious right. They are only bothered by an active breach of a limited moral code. Harking back to my parable comparison, it is clear that neither the priest nor the Levite contributed directly to the (potential) death of the robbed traveler by passing him by, but by their inaction they were passively or indirectly responsible. Their lack of action resulted in diminished chances of survival for the broken traveler.
 

Appeal for action

If our faith is going to be our guide for a moral government it is clear how we should play our part. A lateral glance at the welfare of our neighbor is not sufficient. Like the Samaritan we must provide a real opportunity for all our disadvantaged neighbors to receive a fair chance at life. The U.S. government must be moral, but not on narrowly religious grounds. This is a historic Adventist idea, as we have a long tradition of embracing civil liberties. Adventist interest in this area has waned in recent years, as witness our reluctance to enter the civil rights struggle. I appeal to our traditional role as the mavericks of American Christianity and propose that we face current social issues with the courage of William Miller and Joseph Bates.

[1] washingtonpost.com