If this is an example of how Howard Dean is going to talk about his religion, perhaps he shouldn’t be doing it:
“The overwhelming evidence is that there is very significant, substantial genetic component to it (homosexuality),” Dean said in an interview Wednesday. “From a religious point of view, if God had thought homosexuality is a sin, he would not have created gay people.”
I’m not sure where homosexuality falls in the nature versus nurture debate, but the fact that it exists doesn’t mean that God approves of it. Humans are capable of doing plenty of things which God probably didn’t intend for them to do.
I do give Dean credit for being honest in discussing the role religion has paid in his political decision making:
In the interview Wednesday, Dean said that he does not often consider his religious views when making policy. “I don’t go through an inventory like that when making public policy decisions,” he said.
That’s the approach officeholders should have. Unfortunately, in today’s political climate, I don’t think such an admission will be very helpful to his campaign.
I suppose I disagree a little here. Dean’s point wasn’t that the simple existence of homosexuality equates with divine approval, it was that a strong genetic, presumably ‘natural’ component makes it hard to conceive of a merciful God’s disapproval. There presumably remains some free will in the matter, but if it’s relatively small, condemning the (your choice) condition/life style/choice as “sinful” would be cruel, not principled.
Disclaimers: not wild about Dean, nonreligious.
On considering his religious views when making policy – I would be concerned if a politician didn’t consider his religious views. If I was confident he followed Christian principles, then I want him to fully use those moral guidelines in doing his job – especially a president, who can called upon in crisis situations to make a moral decision.
However, and maybe this is what you’re intending, I don’t want him to base policy decisions on his Religion’s views. You see, there’s a difference – religion should be intensely personal, but a lot of people fall back on the dogma and dictates of their church itself. Letting a Religious Institution influence your decisions without a strong check of your internal moral compass can be dangerous.
It’s actually quite similar to following a strict party platform, at the expense of your own creative ideas. Just because you’re a Democrat doesn’t mean you have to support abortion – although some probably do, ever if they don’t believe in it personally because it’s not good for their career.
Similarly, if your particular denomination tells you to shun homosexuals whenever possible, but your own internal understanding of the gospel reminds you to Love your Neighbor….which should the responsible human – not just politician – go with?
At a fundamental level, one’s moral beliefs certainly influence his or her values, which naturally have some impact on policy.
I was trying to point out the distinction that Barry made. One should have a religiously-neutral approach to governing, not one one based on a particular faith. For instance, my denomination frowns on abortion and a bunch of other stuff. That kind of stuff is wonderful for citizen me to follow. But it shouldn’t be the basis for governing me to use the power of government to push social policy. That should be dictated by objective, secular principles.