In attending the lecture given by Michael Heath on Monday night, an event sponsored by the College Republicans, I saw a Republican party that over the past decade has been transformed by an increasingly polarized American political system.
I am by no means an expert in political science or the study of American government, but it is my understanding that two central tenets of conservatism are the protection of an individual's rights over that of a group and the tendency of an elected government to restrain itself from legislation unless absolutely necessary, so that the system itself does not obstruct the rights and progress of the people it protects.
In this sense, the Republican party no longer holds as its standard the conservative values it purports to further. The greatest social issues we face today?those concerning gay rights, abortion, and medical research using embryonic stem cells?are being actively attacked by the Republican party, and these attacks are primarily grounded in religion.
I strongly believe that there is a place for religion in government; there are no religions of which I am aware that do not teach its followers to practice love, compassion, and care for fellow people. I feel that a commitment to these base values is a true requisite for an elected official.
However, when the influence of one's religious practices leads to legislative attempts to limit the rights of those outside of a certain faith, the line between church and state must be drawn and enforced.
Pastor Sandy Williams, spiritual leader of the First Baptist Church of Freeport and a participant in Monday night's question and answer session, was asked to interpret Paul's first letter to the Corinthians, specifically the passage that, in my Bible, reads, "for what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge?" (1 Corinthians 5:12).
In interpreting one's right and responsibility to judge another, Pastor Williams proved the point of those who would object to a religious group strong-arming legislative action in the interest of one group's religious ideal.
He explicitly stated in front of a group of primarily yellow-clad Bowdoin students, myself among them, that it was his responsibility to spiritually guide those within his faith. It is not the right of religious interest groups to legislate their views while obstructing those of others.
Clearly the vote to repeal the gay rights law on November 8 is of vital importance to the state of Maine and the individual rights of those residing within its borders.
But this highly partisan fight speaks to a greater conflict over the new face assumed by a political party that no longer values legislative restraint.
Today religious pressure dictates that spiritual law shall become the de facto law of every individual in this country.
I am a conservative, and I am a spiritual (and hopefully) moral person. I have reluctantly supported George W. Bush in two presidential campaigns, perceiving him to be the lesser of two evils. His agenda, and that of his party, has proven to be a demonstrated threat against the civil liberties of the American people.
It is for this reason that I write this indictment of the Republican party, asking, as a former member, for an explanation of how a party of conservatives can support a social agenda that is decidedly not conservative.