In the 1991 movie “City Slickers”, a group of  three city guys in the midst of a mid life crisis of sort find there way to a dude ranch type program where they take on a real life Cattle Drive. They meet up with the trail boss, Curly, played by the inimitable Jack Palance – a real character with a whole bunch of , shall we say, idiosyncrasies. In the course of a conversation between Curly and Mitch ( Billy Crystal ) , Curly speaks about “the one thing “. Now, This may work on a cattle drive and for some, might be good advise in the business world. A single product or service honed to the top of the game.. All in all, perhaps a reasonable way to go. However, is this good practice in the world of politics or in the process of deciding an election. Allow me.

Recently, a Memorandum came out from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) requiring that firearms dealers located in the border counties in California, Arizona , New Mexico and Texas alert them to multiple purchases of semi-automatic rifles with the capacity for exchangeable magazines. The purpose was to alert ATF about possible dealings across the Mexican border, a rather lucrative business these days. Without getting in to the blatant stupidity of the “Fast & Furious” project and the mess that followed,  this requirement seemed to be a rational idea. It was not intended to outright ban the sale but rather to alert ATF as to who was buying in bulk, so to speak, especially semi-automatic assault type weapons.

Immediately, the NRA pounced on this as being a clear infringement of rights under the Second Amendment. Of course, that it had little to do with infringing didn’t seem to matter. I called the NRA office in Virginia and spoke with a young lady who, over and over, gave me the company line about the Second Amendment. That this requirement was one way to address the pressing issues in border counties and weapons trafficking made no difference. I tried to press the discussion but then she abruptly hung up.

So, the NRA’s position appears to be this – no matter what the consequences, no matter what the effect, especially those of an international importance,  the NRA will stand for the Second Amendment, or rather their interpretation of it and anything which in any way SEEMS to be any sort of infringement under the Second Amendment will be fodder for its canons.

Many Catholic groups today as before are  hard at pointing out that the Democratic platform supports access to birth control. The opposition to birth control stance – no matter if it is for medical purposes or for actual contraception – is one which the Church has consistently taken as part of its philosophy and tenet of  faith. Whether or not one agrees with it or not is up to the individual. What I found to the point at hand is that many Catholics were perfectly willing to vote, for instance in the 2008 election, based  a lot on that single issue, for the opposition – Senator John McCain. The same senator who doesn’t believe you’ve served your country unless you’ve fought a war ! The same senator who testified before a senate committee expressing regret that funding and involvement in the Viet Nam war was discontinued and  then stood by as the Bush administration lied its way into war in Iraq.

Simple examples of how single agenda lobbying or interest groups – and I fold churches in to that group – can sway an entire voting block. I don’t particularly fault the lobbying group. It is, after all, their role to press their point of view and push their  often singled  minded agenda. However, is it not the responsibility of the voting population to sift out what is valuable and what is not ? What is compelling and what is not ? And most of all, what is the broader view of the agenda of either the political party or the candidate himself or herself as it impacts the society as a whole.

The current election race is a prime example. While some may like the GOP side of having big business control so many facets of our lives, including health care, and get rich doing it,  are you willing to have the principle elements of the Ryan budget become the paradigm for government while sacrificing education, clean water and air and a safe interstate highway system ?  Should you be  willing to eliminate Medicare and other safeguards for those who do or will need it ? Should you be willing to subsidize the wealthiest corporations in the world while forty-eight million children are food insecure ? ( Cf.Feed America .Org and the Con Agra Food Foundation )

These are indeed the questions one must ask. While taking a look at certain aspects of  rule or precept, one must also take the broader context into consideration. Simply put, policy myopia has no place in  the discussion or the decision process if one is to be rational about it all. To stand in concert with the beliefs of one’s church is one thing.  To inflict – and I mean inflict the agenda of the GOP and the Ryan budget  – an agenda which would be nothing short of a catastrophe for the country – is not what I think any church should be all about. It must  take the broader context into consideration on this one. The issues around sectarian rules, whichever church we are addressing, need to be a matter  for the individual.

The context of ones church is similar to non sectarian organizations or associations. They have certain creeds and beliefs, if you will, and that is usually what attracts their membership. All well and good. However, my take is that it is contingent upon the leadership of those organizations to, if not support a particular platform or plank within, at the very least  provide factual information from both sides of the question. This is what I hold is the honest and ethical way to proceed. Then, after all, when one enters the voting booth, it is all up to the individual.