“How can a
religious person support a candidate who has no morals?”
In the light
of uncertainty over the role of religions in the presidential campaign now
underway, approaching the subject via morals can be productive and challenging.
Value judgments are necessary along the way. The plot soon thickens.
In the midst
of all the noise I look for some metaphor that may be a bridge between public
images and a manageable way of talking about the situation. I start with being
out in the woods in a tent at night. There comes a sound that could be a bear
or even a large frog. Hesitant to open the tent door for fear of being invaded
a person listens to make sense of the experience itself. Some will hunker down
and try to sleep; some will prayer to whatever higher power they can imagine; others
will pick up a hatchet and flashlight and burst out of the tent.
Just what is
a religious person? It all depends on the definition of “religion”. This
includes persons in awe of the universe and life itself. Others can be
fundamentalist true believers who “know” they are right and gather with others
who agree with this “rightness.” They are ready for combat against all enemies
of “the faith”. Yet others attempt to take the best from the rational world and
combine this with “common sense spirituality.” There are the negotiators and
the warriors. Most religious persons are in a middle ground depending on the
situation.
A candidate
is a person who sees opportunity for influence and even power if he/she can
gather enough support from persons to create one kind or another of crowd
mentality. With the multitudes of elections that go on every year in the US the
citizenry is fairly well schooled in winnowing out the good grain from the mere
husks. Pardon such verbiage but this precisely describes the more controversial
election contests. One person’s husks is
of necessity the other person’s good grain.
In this 21st
century the power of digitized information and instantaneous sharing on a
global basis makes for a welter of presentations based on analysis the minds of
the audience. Making decisions about candidates seems to revert to a tribal mentality.
One tribe shares certain information while another tribe makes up a radically
different approach. The appeal is mostly to the emotional realm and is created
to touch elemental fears and desires – the stuff of dreams. The increasing
ability to use big data to tap into the primitive person hidden deep in the
human person is a warning to civil societies.
Morals are
agreed upon values and standards. Trigger
words can ignite deeply cherished feelings. Suddenly intellectual safe guards
are overwhelmed by emotional feelings. Tribal life looms.
Delton
Delton
