
A few weeks ago
I challenged the Baptist Messenger for publishing a voter guide that gave skewed survey results from Oklahoma political candidates.
The editor of the Baptist Messenger has responded to criticisms of his voter guide with an editorial entitled "
Are You a Political Party-Pooper?"David Flick, former Director of Missions of one of Oklahoma's Baptist Associations, has written
a response to that editorial.
Here's a letter to the editor regarding voter guides from Richard Kahoe that the Baptist Messenger did not print:
Editor, Baptist Messenger
3800 North May Avenue
Oklahoma City, OK 73112
Dear Editor:
Recently I read a criticism that Southern Baptists are more concerned about "truth" than about Christian "ethics." I hate to see Cooperative Program dollars going to violate both. I refer to the 2006 Oklahoma Voters' Guide under the name and apparently funds of the Baptist Messenger.
As for "truth", the front emblazons "Impartial" and "Nonpartisan." A quick review shows both to be distortions (does "lies" sound too harsh?) I have done survey research both for the Southern Baptist Sunday School Board (old name) and as a research psychologist, but I claiming no corner on working of truly "impartial" survey questions. Any unbiased reader could find abundant evidence of partiality in the Voters' Guide questions. I could write reams o this supposedly impartial Guide, but just a few examples. Why must the question on casino-style gambling have to add: "despite its high social cost"? I?m personally not for gambling and certainly agree with its social costs. But, any rule of impartiality would omit the tag-on. Or, to give balance, the question on revising the U.S. constitution to define marriage "as between a man and a woman" should tag-on something like: despite its violation of centuries-old states' rights to define and control the institution of marriage.?
And, on impartiality, why does a Lieutenant Governor candidate get credit for having negotiated tax cuts, while the standing governor at the time gets no such credit? And, of course the governor's contributions are not-so-subtly smirched by noting his "approval" of state-sponsored gambling. Or, why not note that another candidate for governor had repeatedly and publicly contradicted virtually all scientific knowledge (and the opinion of two-thirds of U.S. citizens?by a recent poll) to deny the reality of global warming, possibly the greatest threat to humankind of the 21st century?
So much for "impartiality"! Is the Guide nonpartisan? Anyone who glances over the survey questions with any knowledge of the two major political parties' platforms, will recognize that the questions are virtually all part of the platform of one party. A Martian picking up the Baptist Messenger Voters' Guide, without any knowledge of current U.S./Oklahoma political issues would surely note another anomaly. Why did virtually all candidates from one party return the surveys, whereas about 95% of those from another party smelled something fishy and chose not to get burned by the stench?
Any student of political surveys, such as this from the religious-right-wing-affiliated "Oklahoma Family Policy Council," knows that there are two reasons for such surveys. The secondary is to convince voters that one group of candidates is anointed by the "right" (no pun intended) party. The primary purpose is to try to embarrass another group of candidates, by making them appear to be against all that is right, godly, Christian, and Southern Baptist. The rigid wording of questions makes it virtually impossible for a candidate of discernment to qualify his or her opinions. The bellwether question on abortion defines life from "conception," whereas many biologists and Christian ethicists make a better argument that meaningful human life begins at implantation. But how can such a subtlety be expressed in this poll? Then the one exception for abortion is to save the life of the mother. Decades ago Southern Baptists recognized validity of an abortion if, for example, a thirteen-year-old retarded girl became pregnant when raped by her step-father. The Family Policy Council would obviously vote, "tough luck!"
Other questions are more political than moral, e.g., repeal of the inheritance tax. The Old Testament recognizes the responsibility of the state to look after the unfortunate. It gives no sanction to a tax cut that would affect only the very, very, very, very rich, and thereby miss revenues that could be expended for the sick, poor, disabled, or Old Testament "widow, children, and strangers in your land."
Continuing with Old Testament ethics, I don?t have space to cite all the references that a ten-minute perusal of Nave?s Topical Bible reveals on the treatment of those ?strangers in the land.? Certainly those scriptures (whether taken literally or in social context) would never justify the Family Policy Council suggestion that we "Deny publicly-funded benefits and services to illegal immigrants." Imagine a publicly-funded ambulance service called to the scene of an auto accident. They find four apparently Mexican men injured. Two have "Green Cards," showing legal status. The other two have no identification and speak only Spanish. So the publicly-funded ambulance presumably would have to leave them by the side of the road. Or an illegal-immigrant woman presents herself at a municipal hospital emergency room, in advanced labor. Do they let the woman deliver on the sidewalk, or maybe they can compel a private ambulance or taxi to give her a free ride across town to the Catholic hospital?
Then what do we do with the school-age children of such illegal's, who are also illegal? Perhaps they can form elementary-school age gangs to learn the finer points of packet-picking and burglary. Or wait until First Baptist Church opens a five-day, all-day Sunday School for them. Now that would be the day!
Conclusion: There is nothing impartial about the Cooperative Program funded Voters' Guide. It is blatantly partisan, and I will not specify which party it obviously caters to. And, finally, in ways I have pointed out, and reams more I could delineate, the ethics it implicitly promotes not only are not Christlike nor New Testament, but even violate more primitive ethics of the time of Moses and the giving of the Old Testament law.
Sincerely,
Richard D. Kahoe, Ph.D
Licensed Psychologist