Susan Jacoby
Author and reporter

Susan Jacoby

Susan Jacoby is the author of nine books, most recently "The Age of American Unreason" and "Alger Hiss And The Battle for History."

 ALL POSTS

Voting a civic duty, not a religious act

Pope Benedict XVI and Catholic Cardinal-designate Raymond Burke both recently characterized voting as a moral act with spiritual consequences.

The pope said that "decriminalizing abortion is a betrayal to democracy," since he believes the procedure denies rights to the unborn. Burke called voting a "serious moral obligation" and added that Catholics "can never vote for someone who favors absolutely what's called the 'right to choice.'"

If Catholics largely disregard the church's teaching (the 2008 Catholic vote for president went to pro-choice Obama), does what the pope says matter? Is voting a religious act or purely political?

I suppose that the pope feels obliged, before every election, to perform his King Canute imitation and pretend that his church can command the conscience of its members so that they will base their votes on Catholic doctrine. American Catholic voters and officeholders--many of whom are pro-choice, favor embryonic stem cell research (which the church considers a form of abortion), and support gay rights--don't follow instructions from Rome or their parish priests. I notice that the church did not deny a Catholic burial to Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, who was a strong supporter of abortion rights and gay rights. Not even this pope would be that politically stupid, although denying a Kennedy a Catholic funeral would certainly have demonstrated consistency.

This latest statement from Pope Benedict is just another demonstration of why the church is losing ground in educated, developed nations across the world.

Of course, many American voters are strongly influenced by their religious convictions, and Protestant fundamentalist leaders have been even more active than the Catholic Church--and with considerably more success--in injecting those convictions into political campaigns.

What is truly saddening, and alarming for our nation, is that no one seems able to convince Americans that it is a civic obligation to vote--in good economic times and in bad, whether you like the candidates or not, whether you have some disagreements with the candidate you voted for the last time or not, whether you're feeling optimistic about the future or not, whether you have a bad cold when you get up on Election Day or not.

If I were pope, the only statement I'd issue before elections is that it's a positive moral act to vote, because every citizen who is too lazy to go to the polls--who needs to feel "enthusiasm" in order to do his or her civic duty--drains democracy of its meaning and vitality. But I forgot. I'm not eligible to be pope (even if I were to abandon atheism and return to the Catholic Church). And popes have never been very keen on democracy.

By Susan Jacoby  |  November 1, 2010; 11:23 AM ET Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati  
Previous: Voting booth is not 'moral free zone' | Next: Voters, look into your hearts

Comments

Please report offensive comments below.



DanielintheLionsDen,

"I have never cast a vote for the lesser of two evils. I always see a person that I like better than the other one, or the the others. When I vote, I am already well-aware of the candidates' human foibles; I do not expect that there will be a perfect person on the ballot for me choose."

That may be fine for you, but bear in mind that other people may be more discerning than you portray yourself to be.

"This whole concept of "the lesser of two evils" is something that I do not get."

It is, however, something that I, and others, do get.

"There is ALWAYS a candidate who stands for your own interests more than the others,..."

On what do you base that absolute pronouncement?

"...and if a person doesn't know their own interests, that does not make all the candidates evil."

Ah, yes, blame the non-voters for inferior candidates.

"They are no more good nor evil than all the rest of us."

Have you listened to some of the candidates?

"It is true, that a single person's vote does not have much heft. But think of it, if everyone failed to vote because of this, then we should give up on Constitutional democracy and try the Kim-il-Jong brand of government, or the Pinochet kind of government."

Yes, and if all of my friends jumped off of a bridge... Is that you mother?

Posted by: PSolus | November 5, 2010 12:51 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Psolus

I have never cast a vote for the lesser of two evils. I always see a person that I like better than the other one, or the the others. When I vote, I am already well-aware of the candidates' human foibles; I do not expect that there will be a perfect person on the ballot for me choose.

This whole concept of "the lesser of two evils" is something that I do not get. There is ALWAYS a candidate who stands for your own interests more than the others, and if a person doesn't know their own interests, that does not make all the candidates evil. They are no more good nor evil than all the rest of us.

It is true, that a single person's vote does not have much heft. But think of it, if everyone failed to vote because of this, then we should give up on Constitutional democracy and try the Kim-il-Jong brand of government, or the Pinochet kind of government.

Posted by: DanielintheLionsDen | November 4, 2010 4:51 PM
Report Offensive Comment

From Meditation XVII

No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were: any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bells tolls; it tolls for thee. Neither can we call this a begging of misery, or a borrowing of misery, as though we were not miserable enough of ourselves, but must fetch in more from the next house, in taking upon us the misery of our neighbours. Truly it were an excusable covetousness if we did, for affliction is a treasure, and scarce any man hath enough of it. No man hath affliction enough that is not matured and ripened by and made fit for God by that affliction. If a man carry treasure in bullion, or in a wedge of gold, and have none coined into current money, his treasure will not defray him as he travels. Tribulation is treasure in the nature of it, but it is not current money in the use of it, except we get nearer and nearer our home, heaven, by it. Another man may be sick too, and sick to death, and this affliction may lie in his bowels, as gold in a mine, and be of no use to him; but this bell, that tells me of his affliction, digs out and applies that gold to me: if by this consideration of another's danger I take mine own into contemplation, and so secure myself, by making my recourse to my God, who is our only security.

--John Donne

Posted by: FarnazMansouri2 | November 4, 2010 2:33 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Onofrio,

You are blessed to have such a father and such a brother. My own cared naught for poets, in any tongue.
-----------------------------
Yes, it is good if one's brother is fond of verse, though mine doesn't speak of it betimes. 'tis enough he is a wise, smart, good man, who writes masterful prose.

As for my father, he scribbles a bit of verse occasionally and reads it aloud proudly to all of us. The thing is we are all devoted to him, and, therefore, avoid one another's eyes as best we can during and immediately after his readings.

You have a brother, no?

Posted by: FarnazMansouri2 | November 4, 2010 1:30 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Indeed, a rough beast with a gaze blank and pitiless as the sun.

Posted by: onofrio | November 4, 2010 12:56 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Onofrio,

They think that if they blow hard enough the ship of state will ever lean to starboard, where there can be no monsters.
-------------------
There's the rub, is it not? If one blows hard enough, s/he becomes the monster.

Posted by: FarnazMansouri2 | November 4, 2010 12:46 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Farnaz,

"When I was a young'un, stumbling through thickets of English, I fell into a dark, dank den."

That you have "stumbled" so far in that country (and starting out so very young!) quite shames this monolingual plod, who has barely blinked beyond his backyard. If you have stumbled, I am less than lame. Comatose, perhaps.

You are blessed to have such a father and such a brother. My own cared naught for poets, in any tongue.

There is a reason to live.

Posted by: onofrio | November 4, 2010 12:34 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Onofrio,

When I was a young'un, stumbling through thickets of English, I fell into a dark, dank den.

My beloved brother and father tried to cheer me, but to no avail. After all else had failed, my brother read to me "Sailing to Byzantium," prefacing his presentation thus: "There is a reason to live."

When he finished, I agreed. But, then, I was very young, as was he.

Posted by: FarnazMansouri2 | November 4, 2010 12:09 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Farnaz,

As for those "Foxes",

I know them by repute, by respected derisions, and in snatches viewed wincingly. I have an in-law - Austral expat resident in the US for two decades - who faithfully, monoptically, doles me chapter and verse from the Religious Right, every chance he gets. He won't hear a word against those "Foxes", nor even an indifferent "Meh!"

We have similar, homegrown types here in the Fundament, "full of passionate intensity". They think that if they blow hard enough the ship of state will ever lean to starboard, where there can be no monsters.

Posted by: onofrio | November 4, 2010 12:07 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Farnaz,

Thee:
"Can a person be in love with a poem?"

*a* poem? Sure.

Yet wordlove is promiscuous. No onlyist. Can a poem tolerate that?

Posted by: onofrio | November 3, 2010 11:43 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Meant to write:

THAT girl

Posted by: FarnazMansouri2 | November 3, 2010 11:30 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Onofrio,

Dunno if you've ever heard or seen the Foxes in action--Hannity, Limbaugh, Beck, Levin (educated, dangerous), Beck (moron, dangerous), but I've been listening to them on the radio the last few days, whilst working. Have discovered their simple-minded formula.

Dangerous times. "How can I girl standing there [not]my attention fix...."

Time to unfix on politics. This is a Persiflage moment. In moments of hate, meditate. (Apologies to all poets living, dead, and yet to come.)

Posted by: FarnazMansouri2 | November 3, 2010 11:29 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Onofrio,

Thee:
"Locusts on their loquacity! :{ "

Even my hide is harrowed. Ouch!
--------------------------------------
Not you, sir. Never! Some politicos, perhaps....But, never you.

Posted by: FarnazMansouri2 | November 3, 2010 11:20 PM
Report Offensive Comment

After Long Silence

Speech after long silence; it is right,
All other lovers being estranged or dead,
Unfriendly lamplight hid under its shade,
The curtains drawn upon unfriendly night,
That we descant and yet again descant
Upon the supreme theme of Art and Song:
Bodily decrepitude is wisdom; young
We loved each other and were ignorant.

--WBY

Can a person be in love with a poem?

Posted by: FarnazMansouri2 | November 3, 2010 11:19 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Farnaz,

Thee:
"Locusts on their loquacity! :{ "

Even my hide is harrowed. Ouch!

Posted by: onofrio | November 3, 2010 11:07 PM
Report Offensive Comment

In Memory of W.B. Yeats

I

He disappeared in the dead of winter:
The brooks were frozen, the airports almost deserted,
The snow disfigured the public statues;
The mercury sank in the mouth of the dying day.
What instruments we have agree
The day of his death was a dark cold day.

Far from his illness
The wolves ran on through the evergreen forests,
The peasant river was untempted by the fashionable quays;
By mourning tongues
The death of the poet was kept from his poems.

But for him it was his last afternoon as himself,
An afternoon of nurses and rumours;
The provinces of his body revolted,
The squares of his mind were empty,
Silence invaded the suburbs,
The current of his feeling failed; he became his admirers.

Now he is scattered among a hundred cities
And wholly given over to unfamiliar affections,
To find his happiness in another kind of wood
And be punished under a foreign code of conscience.
The words of a dead man
Are modified in the guts of the living.

But in the importance and noise of to-morrow
When the brokers are roaring like beasts on the floor of the Bourse,
And the poor have the sufferings to which they are fairly accustomed,
And each in the cell of himself is almost convinced of his freedom,
A few thousand will think of this day
As one thinks of a day when one did something slightly unusual.
What instruments we have agree
The day of his death was a dark cold day.


II

You were silly like us; your gift survived it all:
The parish of rich women, physical decay,
Yourself. Mad Ireland hurt you into poetry.
Now Ireland has her madness and her weather still,
For poetry makes nothing happen: it survives
In the valley of its making where executives
Would never want to tamper, flows on south
From ranches of isolation and the busy griefs,
Raw towns that we believe and die in; it survives,
A way of happening, a mouth.


III

Earth, receive an honoured guest:
William Yeats is laid to rest.
Let the Irish vessel lie
Emptied of its poetry.

[Auden later deleted the next three stanzas.]*

Time that is intolerant
Of the brave and the innocent,
And indifferent in a week
To a beautiful physique,

Worships language and forgives
Everyone by whom it lives;
Pardons cowardice, conceit,
Lays its honours at their feet.

Time that with this strange excuse
Pardoned Kipling and his views,
And will pardon Paul Claudel,
Pardons him for writing well.

In the nightmare of the dark
All the dogs of Europe bark,
And the living nations wait,
Each sequestered in its hate;

Intellectual disgrace
Stares from every human face,
And the seas of pity lie
Locked and frozen in each eye.

Follow, poet, follow right
To the bottom of the night,
With your unconstraining voice
Still persuade us to rejoice.

With the farming of a verse
Make a vineyard of the curse,
Sing of human unsuccess
In a rapture of distress.

In the deserts of the heart
Let the healing fountains start,
In the prison of his days
Teach the free man how to praise.

*Deleted after unending pressure

Posted by: FarnazMansouri2 | November 3, 2010 11:07 PM
Report Offensive Comment

And speaking of bishops, Jane still has much to say.

Crazy Jane Talks with the Bishop

I met the Bishop on the road
And much said he and I.
'Those breasts are flat and fallen now,
Those veins must soon be dry;
Live in a heavenly mansion,
Not in some foul sty.'

'Fair and foul are near of kin,
And fair needs foul,' I cried.
'My friends are gone, but that's a truth
Nor grave nor bed denied,
Learned in bodily lowliness
And in the heart's pride.

'A woman can be proud and stiff
When on love intent;
But Love has pitched his mansion in
The place of excrement;
For nothing can be sole or whole
That has not been rent.'

--WBY

Posted by: FarnazMansouri2 | November 3, 2010 10:55 PM
Report Offensive Comment

A Meditation in Time of War

FOR one throb of the artery,
While on that old grey stone I Sat
Under the old wind-broken tree,
I knew that One is animate,
Mankind inanimate fantasy'

--WBY

Posted by: FarnazMansouri2 | November 3, 2010 10:52 PM
Report Offensive Comment

This is a good time for meditation.

Posted by: FarnazMansouri2 | November 3, 2010 9:57 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Germs in their garrulity,
A virus in their vices.
Pus in their pudding.
Weeds in their whistles.
Larva in laps.
Helots in headgear.
Slime in socks.

Fin

Posted by: FarnazMansouri2 | November 3, 2010 9:56 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Also,

Locusts on their loquacity! :{

Posted by: FarnazMansouri2 | November 3, 2010 9:49 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Who gives a phlaming ph!k what a clique of seething failed eunuchs thinks?

A pox on their poncy frocks and putti porn...

A plague on their meddling pomp and flailing faux-state cant ...

An ague on their tatty racket and bloody baroquery...

Posted by: onofrio | November 3, 2010 9:40 PM
Report Offensive Comment

I didn't vote because

  • There were no politicians who earned my vote. Voting against everybody by voting for somebody is not voting against people - I'm sick of politicians
  • I live overseas now, and though I could request an absentee ballot I prefer if the IRS doesn't know where I live

Posted by: eezmamata | November 3, 2010 8:31 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Psolus writes:

- Other people don't vote because they understand politics.

I think they do understand politics; they also understand that recent elections have nothing to do with things "political" in the grand sense. Rather, they are career builders for corrupt cynics, opportunities for populists to appeal to the alienated, the disenfranchised, and a chance for some to expand their corrupt enterprises. Not much to vote for or against.

As for the RCC, it needs to be removed from the Congress. It should no longer remain a sovereign nation, enjoying all the rights and privileges attaching therein and a nonprofit religious institution enjoying same.

The billions of dollars this nation/religion has invested in real estate world wide, its oil stock, its secret deposits in secret Vatican bank, are, in part, going to further corrupt a corrupt election process.

It must be stopped. A no brainer.

As for the rest, it's a brainer. How to get the waste out of Congress, bring reasoned discussion back to WaPo, the Times, etc.

How to do it.

Posted by: FarnazMansouri2 | November 3, 2010 7:51 PM
Report Offensive Comment

DanielintheLionsDen,

"Most people don't vote.

Why do you think that is?"

There are many reasons:

- Some people don't vote for one or more of the reasons that you've already mentioned.

- Other people don't vote because they understand mathematics.

- Other people don't vote because they understand economics.

- Other people don't vote because they understand politics.

- Other people don't vote because they don't think that being the lesser of two evils (or the least of three evils, or four evils, etc.) is a valid qualification for public office.

- Other people don't vote in the hopes of avoiding being summoned for jury duty.

- Other people don't vote for the same reason that they didn't clap their hands to save the life of Tinkerbell.

There are many, many, other reasons.

Posted by: PSolus | November 2, 2010 5:12 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Psolus

I don't think I am the election police.

I have always voted. Before I was old enough to vote, I waited to vote, and anticipated my right to vote. It is hard for me to understand why people don't vote.

I notice that many, many, many people do not feel the same way. I do not know why.

When I was younger, I tried to lobby people into voting, thinking that if they tried it they might like it. But no, once they try it, they still don't care.

Most people don't vote.

Why do you think that is?

Posted by: DanielintheLionsDen | November 2, 2010 4:30 PM
Report Offensive Comment

"I guess that is the American way."

Actually, it's the human way.

Posted by: PSolus | November 2, 2010 4:00 PM
Report Offensive Comment

DanielintheLionsDen,

"In America, voting is a family thing. Some families vote; others do not. If your mother and father voted, then it will be something that the children will be inerested in and want to do when they grow up."

Actually, it's much more complicated than that.

"I remember, when I was little and wanted to go to school, to learn to read and write. And then, when I grew up, I wanted to vote, to participate in the elections, like my mother and father did. I realize that my one tiny vote is not much, but it is the principle of voting in general, that I picked-up from my parents, that I believe and like to participate in."

That's touching, but that is your experience; it is not necessarily everyone's experience.

"People who come from non-voting traditions just plain don't get it, and I don' think there is any way to make them get it."

Kind of like with religious belief, isn't it?

"I have had friends in the past, from non-voting traditions, whom I have persuaded tod vote, but then, comes the next election, they don't vote."

Kind of like getting people to go to church, isn't it?

"And then, I know many who claim they don't vote, because they don't like anyone who is running. Or they do not understand the issues and cannot make up their minds. How can anyone be that out of touch, and dense? I wonder. They know all about football, and basketball, and baseball, but they don't know anything about who is running for mayor, or governor, or senator."

Maybe you need different friends.

"I have never had a problem once, not even ONE SINGLE TIME, knowing exactly how I would be voting. I know my mind, and I know the political system that operates. And I keep track of current people in the news, and current political trends."

There are a lot of people like you; remember 2000? 2204?

"A lot of people don't know, don't understand, don't care, and can't be bothered."

Are you the election police?

"I guess that is the American way."

Posted by: PSolus | November 2, 2010 3:59 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Jihadist

In America, voting is a family thing. Some families vote; others do not. If your mother and father voted, then it will be something that the children will be inerested in and want to do when they grow up.

I remember, when I was little and wanted to go to school, to learn to read and write. And then, when I grew up, I wanted to vote, to participate in the elections, like my mother and father did. I realize that my one tiny vote is not much, but it is the principle of voting in general, that I picked-up from my parents, that I believe and like to participate in.

People who come from non-voting traditions just plain don't get it, and I don' think there is any way to make them get it. I have had friends in the past, from non-voting traditions, whom I have persuaded tod vote, but then, comes the next election, they don't vote.

And then, I know many who claim they don't vote, because they don't like anyone who is running. Or they do not understand the issues and cannot make up their minds. How can anyone be that out of touch, and dense? I wonder. They know all about football, and basketball, and baseball, but they don't know anything about who is running for mayor, or governor, or senator.

I have never had a problem once, not even ONE SINGLE TIME, knowing exactly how I would be voting. I know my mind, and I know the political system that operates. And I keep track of current people in the news, and current political trends.

A lot of people don't know, don't understand, don't care, and can't be bothered.

I guess that is the American way.

Posted by: DanielintheLionsDen | November 2, 2010 2:56 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hello Daniel in the Lion's Den,

Elections on a Tuesday always?

Always a weekend and during school holidays here, for schools are a place for voting too.

But, great idea ta have on a working day like Tuedays - one can say one is going off to vote and then stay out a bit longer due to long lines etc when if fact one is having coffee and watching the proceeds on TV in the coffee shop. :).

The turn out for voting in the States is surprisingly low. It would seem as if 52% out of the 100% whom voted out of the 45% of eligible and registered voters who actually went out to vote comprise the "winning" votes - a minority who voted in public officials, be it a president, state governors, federal senators and congressmen as well as state legislators.

Voting is an exercise many won't do, and then gripe their body politics is flabby and unhealthy due to being infused by undesireable and harmful elements they let in due to lack of care and concern.

Come Wednesday, it will be a belated and unwanted wake up for the non-constitutional conservatives due to ebullient celebrations and plans of the Teabaggers and their supported candidates.

Perhaps the smart, sophisticated and rich sorts think voting is uncool and for the deluded masses who think they can make a difference, and nothing ever changes and such.

Goodnight.

Posted by: Jihadist | November 2, 2010 1:39 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Jihadist

In America, the powers that be encourage everyone to vote.

But they make it difficult. Election day is always held on a Tuesday, which is just an ordinary day, like any day, no holiday, nothing special at all. Many businesses give their employees time off to vote, like a voting voucher, but not all do. So people must either vote before work, after work, or take their personal leave to vote.

However, I have never found voting very difficult; the last time, in 2008, was the only time in my entire life when I had to wait in a line to vote, for about 45 minutes; usually, there are lots of empty voting booths.

Posted by: DanielintheLionsDen | November 2, 2010 1:13 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Daniel in the Lion's Den,

Not voting today? Unless there are no rep, senator or Governorship seats up for grabs where you live :)

I did say I'll come by to see which Americans are in "On Faith" on 2 November's midterm elections. I can't say for the States, but elections in developing countries are "fun" - free transport, free food, "tips" for voting (their candidates) by the dirtier campaign workers, and their getting caught in such shady acts by eagle-eyed election workers and monitors.

Posted by: Jihadist | November 2, 2010 11:46 AM
Report Offensive Comment

The Pope doesn't get a vote
While the Pope is not an American, he seems to believe that he gets a vote in our elections.

-Dangeroustalk

*******************************************

The Pope, as Head of State, is also "interfering" in the internal affairs of another state in asking whom (indirectly) to vote for according to the "principles" and "values" of his "state".

But then, the Pope is different and unique as Head of State and Head of a Faith Group. Even he was "voted" as that based on the Catholics' particular traditions with its own specific internal rules and conditions.

Where is my favourite spritely and informative Catholic, Mary Cunningham? I don't think any Popes have commented whom they should vote in the United Kingdom, much less say voting is "sacred" or "moral" obligations. But I could be wrong.


Posted by: Jihadist | November 2, 2010 11:38 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Eezmamata

I don't think America is perverted.

I don't download porn, and I am sure there are a lot of other people that do not, either.

A lot of people who are fascinated with porn are religious, who may be sexually repressed.

Posted by: DanielintheLionsDen | November 2, 2010 10:33 AM
Report Offensive Comment

The Pope doesn't get a vote
While the Pope is not an American, he seems to believe that he gets a vote in our elections. Scratch that, he seems to believe he get many votes in our elections. Tuesday is Election Day in America and the Pope wants to let everyone know who God wants them to vote for. If you vote for a different candidate you will apparently be tortured for all eternity.

I find it odd that the Vatican claims that voting is not just a civic right or a civic duty, but that it is a duty to God… the very same God which is described in the Bible as a Monarch and as a feudalistic Lord. The God of the Bible is not really a big fan of democracy. In fact, the character of God as he is portrayed in the “Good Book” is actually much closer to a ruthless dictator.

You can read the rest of my response to this topic:
http://exm.nr/cuFyLe

I will be responding to every issue posted in the 'On Faith' section. If you would like to be notified when my new response is up, please subscribe.

Posted by: dangeroustalk | November 1, 2010 11:27 PM
Report Offensive Comment

As someone who has been making a living as an internet developer for the past 15 years, it occurs to me that the only civic duty Americans feel anymore is super-sizing their porno downloads.

The only country more perverted than American is China ... bought any tiger testicles lately?

Posted by: eezmamata | November 1, 2010 6:32 PM
Report Offensive Comment

"...no one seems able to convince Americans that it is a civic obligation to vote..."

Perhaps because it is no more a civic obligation for one to vote, than it is a civic obligation for one to buy a gun.

Posted by: PSolus | November 1, 2010 3:24 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Post a Comment




characters remaining

 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company