This past month I had jury duty. It was my first opportunity to experience the jury process in the state of Alaska. Like all those called to serve on jury duty for the month of September, I was given a juror number and instructed to phone the Clerk of Courts’ office to listen to a pre-recorded message to learn if we had to report or not. Surprisingly, I was only called to appear once in the course of the month. Those of us who were summoned that day to the Dimond Court House were seated in a kind of holding area for prospective jurors on the third floor. After receiving a form to fill out, I got settled for what I thought was going to be a long period of waiting. I came equipped with my electronic devices and enough work to keep me busy for a couple of days. A court clerk asked for our attention as he began a video on jury duty as a civic responsibility.
While we were watching the video, the clerk turned it off and introduced the judge who informed us that the case had been resolved and no trial was needed. The judge thanked us showing up and expressed the importance of serving as jurors. With that, we were excused.
But the portion of the video that I was able to watch along with the words from the judge provided a good reminder about the significance of the duties of citizenship. Every American has the right to a trial before a jury of his or her peers. Serving on a jury makes it possible for a criminal or civil defendant to exercise that important legal right. There is something profoundly democratic in ordinary men and women coming into our courtrooms, listening to the case for the prosecution and defense, weighing the arguments and the evidence and deciding on the guilt or innocence of their fellow citizens.
Another civic duty that is on my mind these days is voting. The right to vote is fundamental to our representative democracy and is not only a civil right, but also a civic responsibility. Because we are able to exercise our right to vote so freely in this country, it is sometimes taken for granted. But I am reminded that many people around the world are denied the right to vote: either because their government is a dictatorship like China that does not allow its citizens to vote at all or because the so-called elections are rigged so the ruling party always seems to win by a landslide. In light of this, I rejoice in seeing news clips from countries that show thousands of people patiently standing in long lines for as many hours as it took to cast their votes in their country’s election.
Even in our own country voting rights has been the moving force in achieving freedom and civil rights for all of our people. The 15th Amendment, which gave the right to vote to freed black slaves in the years after emancipation and the defeat of the Confederacy, was a great step forward in according African-Americans full citizenship and equality (along with the 1964 Voting Rights Act) and in 1920 the passage of the 19th Amendment guaranteed women the right to vote.
It is important that all who participate in the public life of society do so with the intention of promoting the common good and upholding the dignity of each person. That is to say, we cannot think simply about ourselves when we go to the voting booth. From my perspective, I believe that we are called upon to make choices about political candidates and ballot measures based on two fundamental moral principles: the intrinsic sacredness and dignity of every human being and the promotion of the common good. Our responsibility is to apply these fundamental principles to evaluate public policy and candidates for electoral office. It asks if this candidate or policy promotes or undermines the right to life, human dignity, and the common good including the liberties that are vital to our society. One example of upholding the common good is seen in strengthening the family and defending marriage from distortion or attempts to redefine it. Another example would be providing health care for the growing number of people who cannot afford it, while respecting human life, human dignity, and religious freedom in our health care system.
These moral principles also compel us to attend to the needs of the poor as well as uphold the rights of workers and immigrants. Likewise, we are to express solidarity with the global community and protect the environment. While these principles of Catholic social teaching are grounded in our desire to stand up for human life and dignity as well as the good of all society, I am grateful that there are many people in our state and in our nation, from a variety of religious traditions as well as those of no faith, who are committed to working toward liberty and justice for all.
I urge you to exercise your right to vote this week in the local election and, in the event that you need a reminder, the last day to register to vote in the general election is October 7.
• Burns is the Roman Catholic Bishop of the Diocese of Juneau and Southeast Alaska.
Comments (21)
Add commentInterestingly enough...
...women aren't allowed to participate in the process of selecting the catholic church's leadership.
So much for that "intrinsic sacredness and dignity of every human being and the promotion of the common good." Do as I say, not as I...
unnecessary
-*-
?
I thought the Constitution says separation of Church and state? Why is the Empire allowing a church official to write and post something about politics?
The Catholic church still
The Catholic church still finds itself in a bit of a quandary.
The Obama administration has backed the church into a corner with the healthcare mandates and they've had to come out swinging in order to protect their religious liberty.
On the other hand, Bishop Burns promotes "providing healthcare for those that can't afford it". Does he want nationalized medicine? And who in America can't receive healthcare? Bush was right when he said just go to an emergency room. Beyond what some may consider a flippant remark, there are insurance plans available (and with government help for those truly in need) for those willing to seek them out. Socializing medicine is not the solution.
The Catholic Church is still marching to the social justice mantra and this is where they lose me.
What do you suppose Burns is saying with this statement - "These moral principles also compel us to attend to the needs of the poor as well as uphold the rights of workers and immigrants."
I'm guessing he isn't talking about his solidarity with labor unions! No, he left out the one little important word - illegal. So, on one hand he likes the Constitution and the rights it affords his church but on the other hand he wants to disregard American law and cater to the illegals in our country?
Then he throws in protecting the environment and defending marriage and oh my, so many issues!
How does a Catholic sort through them all once in the voting booth?
If this doesn't make the case for a one issue voter, I don't know what does. Just pick your issue...
@billb
1. you thought wrong. I suggest you revisit it;
2. it's an op-piece, as in: "From my perspective, I believe..."
@bill - churches should be
@bill - churches should be able to talk all they want about politics as it relates to biblical teachings. It's religious liberty. It's a guaranteed right in America.
Somehow, the left has advanced the talking point that any mention of any issue, that happens to be political to someone, is off limits. It's not true.
http://www.lifenews.com/2012/09/26/1000-pastors-to-challenge-irs-talk-po...
"The pastors are participating in Alliance Defending Freedom’s fifth annual Pulpit Freedom Sunday and the figure of 1,000 pastors doubles last year’s participation. Registration continues until October 7, so the number continues to rise.
“Pastors should decide what they preach from the pulpit, not the IRS,” said Senior Legal Counsel Erik Stanley of ADF. “It’s outrageous for pastors and churches to be threatened or punished by the government for applying biblical teachings to all areas of life, including candidates and elections. The question is, ‘Who should decide the content of sermons: pastors or the IRS?’”
“No government-recognized status can be conditioned upon the surrender of a constitutionally protected right,” Stanley explained. “No one would suggest a pastor give up his church’s tax-exempt status if he wants to keep his constitutional protection against illegal search and seizure or cruel and unusual punishment. Likewise, no one should be asking him to give up his church’s tax-exempt status to be able to keep his constitutionally protected right to free speech.”
@calypso
Is that why the Catholic church is one of the richest corporations next to the Mormon church in the world?
An Atheist's Perspective
Not one mention of the war-god Yahweh, his possibly married Son, or anything supernatural like healed amputees. Oh wait, that never happens.
In fact, there was nary a mention of anything in this column that requires me to accept a claim based on make-believe, I mean faith.
Bravo!
Mike
Latitude - Oh, thank you!
For a truly excellent comment.
My thought was, "hey the bishop got to paragraph 6 before telling 'us' that our 'peers' are always Christians, and that individual rights don't matter if someone else's god wants to tell them what to do."
How does an otherwise rational person contain and justify that much hypocrisy?
Thank you, Swimmer
Aside from the hypocrisy of his own institution, the bishop danced around the edge of politicking from the pulpit when he 'gave examples' of appropriate voting booth behavior by voting against anyone defending gay marriage or freedom of choice.
Inappropriate and unappreciated meddling by the catholic church in our democratic processes...again.
@lat - soooooo, what's the
@lat - soooooo, what's the difference - an institution (like the Catholic Church) that doesn't pay taxes influencing the flock through biblical avenues or an "institution" like the so called non-profit Planned Parenthood that received $487M+ in taxpayer dollars, according to their latest financial report, spending $3.2M on ads attacking Romney?
Read the whole story here - http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/09/28/Planned-Parenthood-La...
It's kinda like what's good for the goose is good for the gander, don't you think?
You call it "meddling", I'll call it free speech.
@Calypso
The difference is that PLanned Parent Hood does the country good and the Catholic Church is trying to make the country think that freedom of choice is wrong.
@bilb
1. Work harder with your ESL studies (does the country WELL);
2. That's not a difference; it's a knee-jerk ad hoc response. Enjoy the "likes" Pavlov.
@Grendal
Grendal, you must be one of the Catholic belief, that thinks the church can tell people what they have to believe in.
Ask Lat58 about that one.
Ask Lat58 about that one. Look bilb, there was a time when I could not put a thought together in English. I know- it's a bastardized tongue with free-style rules. Advice: if you have something to say, say it. The vocab & grammar cut thru the rough edges. Just quit spouting the tripe.
compulsory voting.
We need it. Voter turnout is over 90% in Australia where voter registration is required for anyone over 18. The US had just over 60% show up in 2008, becoming the highest voter turnout since the 60s.
Election reform could bring about more interest in my opinion. The electoral process is discouraging for most. Alaska doesn't matter, and for federal elections, we should all feel relevant as US citizens. It's difficult to raise interest when our state has no compelling voice within the electoral system. Heck, the popular vote made the 2008 election competitive. The electoral vote made it look as though John Mccain wasn't even on the ballots, even though the popular vote showed him in the game.
The electoral system makes it easier to campaign but it doesn't make the election process appealing.
@cp
I did a coffee-snot on that one. Gaff your free methadone. Don't tell your parents about that PP abortion, go hide out in their basement till you are 26 on their healthcare-- but if you don't vote, well, we are gonna get tough-- real tough.
@grendal
Alright, you and the Catholic church SUCK. YOu both need to STOP trying to impose your way of thinking on others!
grendel,
what? Gaff my free methadone? Abortions? My parents' basement? Maybe you should take your own advice and "quit spouting the tripe."
As is, I honestly can't understand the mangled trash you posted in reply to me. Maybe you should try it again. Maybe the coffee-snot got on your keyboard and that's why your post resembles a random collection of conservative talking points. By the way, even rush limbaugh doesn't make the amateur mistake of mashing too many knucklehead remarks into one drawn out thought.
1. It was a response, not a
1. It was a response, not a reply;
2. Libs are funny in that they only tolerate & condone what they personally espouse. It's not personal and never was. The sooner you get that into your grape-- that's your moment of clarity. Conservatives think long term - I guess that's another term for strategically.
3. Compulsory voting? You want to load our prisons up with non-voting rabble? Sieg heil
1. It's "all right" bilb;
1. It's "all right" bilb; remember, all wrong is the opposite of all right;
2. You should stop before I fire-up my real mind control juju.