We can label ourselves as Republicans, Democrats, Muslims, Atheists, Christians, Libertarians, or Communists, but no matter what we consider ourselves to be, people have a tendency to label anyone other than what they are as "the enemy." One label in particular is one we often see in everyday media, on the shelves of bookstores, and even in many of today's churches; that is mainstream Christianity's unfortunate tendency to label liberals and Democrats as evil.
I'd like to give you another side of the story. Try to maybe convince everyone that people with liberal views aren't as immoral as they're made out to be, and that we should all be open to other people's opinions and views without being so quick to label people as "the devil."
Barack Obama and John McCain definitely have a few things in common: they both believe we have a constitutional right to own a gun, they are both in favor of lowering taxes for working class families, and they are both against gay marriage. They both believe that marriage is defined as a religious bond between a man and a woman.
The difference is that Barack Obama supports something that many people consider to be the same as gay marriage, but shouldn't, because it is, in fact, very different and separate from marriage: civil unions. A civil union guarantees homosexuals the same rights as heterosexuals. The end. It gives them the same tax breaks, the same medical rights, and all the other benefits that heterosexuals enjoy when choosing a life partner.
Men are capable of falling in love with men, and women are capable of falling in love with women. No matter what anyone believes about homosexuality and about whether it is moral or not, it still exists, and just because someone is different doesn't mean they should be treated differently.
Opposing civil unions is saying "I believe that, because of my religious beliefs about homosexuality being immoral, the Federal Government should not allow same-sex couples to have the same legal rights as heterosexual couples. They should be discriminated against and not given any legal recognition or rights at all because I believe it to be immoral."
This doesn't seem to be the kind of tolerance we should have as a nation. We should learn to accept other people for their differences, whether we personally agree with them or not. There's nothing in the Bible that tells us to force the government to give people different rights than us simply because we disagree with them. Perhaps we should also outlaw adultery and divorce, making them criminal acts and illegal as well. My point is that sometimes we arrogantly forget Christianity isn't the only religion in this country.
Probably an even bigger obstacle facing a lot of Christians is abortion. I hear it all the time, "Democrats are pro-choice, so I vote Republican." Obviously abortion is not something anyone should be expected to compromise over; anyone who has any views about abortion holds those beliefs strongly. But just because Republicans typically oppose it and Democrats typically support it doesn't mean it's the end of the debate.
President Bush is 100% pro-life, has been in office for two full terms, appointed two Supreme Court Justices... and nothing has changed about abortion as a whole. No Federal ban has been put in place, and abortion is still as legal as it was when President Bush began his Presidency eight years ago.
This is because abortion will never be a Federal issue. There are too many people on the west and east coast in favor of abortion, and too many people in the midwest and the south against abortion. Which means it will continue to remain a state battle, with each state independently deciding for itself whether or not abortion should remain legal in that state or not. The Supreme Court isn't even where this battle will be fought, much less the President's desk. The political affiliation of the current U.S. President will never be the reason Roe v. Wade is overturned, if ever.
This is something everyone is going to have to realize. Whether you are personally for abortion or not is beside the point: Abortion doesn't seem to be going anywhere. Under Christian doctrine, abortion is, of course, immoral; but no matter how much half of the country opposes it, there are just too many people on the other side of the fence with other opinions that should be considered just as valid as anyone else's. When America is this divided, a Federal ban will never be put in place. Despite the moral travesty it is made out to be, Abortion is not an issue.
Abortion and LGBT rights are just two issues that I see on the top of many Conservative Christians' lists of "Reasons I am a Republican." Historically, the Democratic Party has also supported government welfare to help poor people, creating alternative fuel sources which would completely remove our dependence on foreign oil rather than just drilling for more, making sure everyone in the country has health care, creating more jobs in the U.S., removing tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas, using diplomacy and peace-talks instead of jumping straight to war, and creating an entirely new system of energy that is renewable, cheap, and non-harmful to the environment -- which, no matter what your stance on global warming is, abusing the environment as we currently are will only be able to go on for so long before problems arise.
Are these positions really so horrible? If you really take the time to look at all the issues, Democrats are the ones that stand for morality, justice, and equality. Not Republicans and their "make the wealthy wealthier" politics.
This November, you have two options. You can say, "I like all of the Democrats' positions except abortion and gay marriage, so I'm going to let the economy continue to go down, let gas prices continue to go up, and vote Republican. People dying without health care aren't a problem as long as I pay 10% instead of 15% on my taxes." Are people really capable of being this selfish? Money is more important than saving lives and curing people? This is not what Christianity teaches us.
Or, you could try, "I am a Christian, and while I might disagree with abortion and homosexuality, I realize that these battles will not be fought in the Oval Office, and that there are other important issues besides these that will." I think that these past eight years have finally shown us that you're not necessarily a better President simply for making yourself seem pleasantly Evangelical and Christian in the months before the election.
Democrats are not evil, and neither are Republicans. Just because someone has different views or beliefs than me doesn't mean I have to hate them. Please, all I'm asking is to just be smart about your decision, whatever decision that is. Watch the debates over the next couple months. Get involved. Make up your mind for yourself. Consider other options. Don't be afraid to go against the flow.
Listen to yourself, rather than everyone around you telling you what to think -- your parents, your religious leaders, your media pundits -- try to listen to the other side make its case, no matter what side you're on. Maybe you'll find out that you're wrong about your initial beliefs and you'll switch sides. I did.
I've grown tired of hearing arguments that are based on the wrong things. You wrote the words a lot more clearly than I could have.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You can't ignore me, for I'll not lie down quietly.
http://insanitek.net
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Do explain to me then, what the difference between civil unions and marriages is, then. You clearly say that they're very different from marriage, and then claim that not supporting them is akin to not supporting gay marriage. What if you don't support civil unions because they represent a 'separate but equal' institution? We all know how the last one of those turned out...
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
Perhaps I should change the wording to indicate that the imaginary quote ("I believe that...") is referring to people who oppose gay marriage, civil unions, and everything in between.
If I remember correctly, "separate but equal" was the beginning of "equal rights for all races." It may not be perfect, but allowing homosexuals to have civil unions is at least a step in the right direction.
Also, it's fairly obvious that I'm spreading a message of tolerance and open-mindedness. Anyone else reading this recognizes this opinion. You're just being nit-picky.
The English language is a wonderful thing... if you know how to use it. The quote I quoted seemed completely in opposition to what the rest of your message was, which is why I quoted it. You were not being very open minded if you believe that the only people in opposition to civil unions were those bigoted individuals who hate homosexuals thanks to religious beliefs. I know plenty of homosexuals who oppose them as well, since they aren't equal, or at least have the potential not to be equal.
Personally, I'm in favor of making every 'marriage' done by the government a civil union.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
That's my view as well; that the government should only perform "civil unions." Instead of adding homosexuality to marriage, I say get rid of marriage. Marriage is a religious thing that should be left to churches.
But explaining all of this in my article is going off into a subject that doesn't have to do with what I'm trying to get across: Basic tolerance.
You miss one very important point in your argument that Christians should consider voting for Barack Obama and other Democrats. You assume that because one believes in helping the poor, etc., then they believe that government should do it (e.g. universal healthcare, welfare). Just because something is the right thing to do doesn't mean that it's the right thing for government to do.
Government's job is simple: "establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity." The preamble to the Constitution says it better than I ever could. Justice is obvious: make laws to protect the people from violence, fraud, etc. Domestic tranquility is more shaky, but judging by the context in which it was written (the Articles of Confederation, with all the rebellions under that government), it most likely means to prevent civil war and rebellions. The common defense is self-explanatory. General welfare is another phrase that is often exploited, but the intent of the phrase is clearly not referring to welfare as we know it, as that is not referenced elsewhere in the Constitution. Securing the blessings of liberty is obviously to ensure that all citizens have use of their rights under the Constitution.
Seeing as how the Constitution nowhere implies that government should give the people everything they need or want, I think that Christians should feel good about voting for small government conservatives (which happen to be mostly Republican) (and which Barack Obama couldn't be further from).
"A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have." - Barry Goldwater
"... the ostensible means [diversity] of acheiving a desired end [equality] had become the end itself." - Clarence Thomas
One thing the Constitution does outline, however, is the opportunity for change. They're called Amendments. This is because the founders of our country were smart enough to realize that a policy implemented in 1772 isn't going to necessarily apply as well in 1972. Or 2072.
Times change, and so governments must change with it. Libertarian / Conservative policies may have worked before, but that doesn't mean they'll work now.
Okay, you believe that limited-government policies won't work now. Why won't they? And please, give a deeper response than "Because times have changed."
"A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have." - Barry Goldwater
"... the ostensible means [diversity] of acheiving a desired end [equality] had become the end itself." - Clarence Thomas
Also, your system doesn't seem to be working, as there are millions of poor people, people without health care, and so on. You say that you believe in it, but it's not the government's job. Well then whose job is it?
Whoever your answer is, they are not doing their job. Someone should, and I'm willing to pay a little more taxes to ensure that.
I believe in helping the poor, not giving them everything they want. The poor of America would be considered well-off by the majority of the world's people.
As to your question, it is the responsibility of individuals, churches, charities, etc. to help those in need. Why shouldn't government do it? Because government almost always does it wrong, for one.
"A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have." - Barry Goldwater
"... the ostensible means [diversity] of acheiving a desired end [equality] had become the end itself." - Clarence Thomas
As to your question, it is the responsibility of individuals, churches, charities, etc. to help those in need.
As I already said in the post you just responded to, they are obviously not doing their job. It's amazing to see people trust our government with things like war and bombs, but when it comes to food stamps and running a hospital, suddenly "the government almost always does it wrong."
*snorts* I don't trust the government at all with war and bombs. But I don't have much say in the matter, apparently. I'd much rather trust them with peacekeeping efforts than with war.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
Okay, when was the last time government succeeded with a welfare program?
Also, I argue that private citizens and organizations are doing their jobs. All Americans are incredibly rich when compared to the rest of the world and history. There are very few people in America that are actually destitute, the homeless among them. Compare this to the rest of the world. Americans also give more money to charity per capita than any other nation ever. I'd say we're doing pretty well.
"A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have." - Barry Goldwater
"... the ostensible means [diversity] of acheiving a desired end [equality] had become the end itself." - Clarence Thomas
"Under Christian doctrine, abortion is, of course, immoral"
Christ taught his followers to follow a Spirit (Truth, Love...), not a doctrine (graven image). I really enjoyed the spirit you brought to this blog. Bravo!
I could quibble endlessly over some of your facts, but I enjoyed the theme of dismissing some of the false polarities of the 'issues' too much to do more than aplaud.
Exactly! The point is not to generate some specific discussion about whatever detail... just read it, take my main point, and walk away with it.
Where you stand depends on where you sit:
I gather that as far as healthcare is concerned, many of the people ranting for government to do something about this, if they care so much about the sick should be volunteering themselves to donate to people who can't afford healthcare, or volunteering in hospitals to help out. If you don't have the time or money (or don't want to make the time or money to do this) on an individual basis, then where do you think the government, who pulls it's resources from the people's money/time worked, is going to pull this out of ? It has to come from SOMEWHERE, and placing the desire to offer poor people healthcare in the government's hands isn't really coming up with a solution, in my eyes, it is just an outlet for people as individuals to transfer the blame or guilt they may feel when they see someone unfortunate but won’t do anything about it themselves, to the huge government so that this is off their conscience. I am more conservative in this respect because I think that the government is already too powerful and people who truly care for the less unfortunate will go out of their way themselves and do something. Since a lot of the religious organizations run charities, and for the Christians or non-Christians who actually DO go out and do something, I can see why they would be against the government organizing healthcare. Having the opinion of not wanting healthcare to be a larger government issue, not in any way unchristian if we are looking at everything as a whole, not just government.
And another thing is that maybe the problem isn't that healthcare COSTS so much, vs. the fact the doctors and hospitals are greedy and CHARGE too much, or that people will spend money they don’t have, or society doesn’t have, to live a month longer under an unnaturally pro-longed life in pain and half-unconscious instead of naturally dying. I can't help mentioning how almost every student that I have known in med school (and in nursing) says that their main reason for wanting to become an MD (or nurse), is the money, which may have something to do with this (and I have noticed this is a more common statement for students in the healthcare field more than in the engineering field..but that is just my personal observation)! I finally met a med student who actually wants to be a doctor to HELP people this year, where as I meet engineers and mathematicians all the time who enter the field because they LIKE it or CARE about it! Although making a comfortable living is the majority’s goal, and people should be smart about the professions they enter, reasons for being involved in healthcare shouldn’t be mainly about making more money than the next guy. I don't care if a trader wants to be a trader to make lots of money, or a broker, stripper or financial analyst enters their profession to "make lots money"...at least they are being honest about their intentions and entering a field relevant to thier intentions: they love money. But for doctors(and nurses) and people who run hospitals to have this attitude more than the above mentioned professions is upsetting since healthCARE should be about CAREING about people's general health. I feel like the government pulling our tax dollars to give everyone healthcare may just cater to the inflated salaries of many hospitals and doctors, and have the people abuse it because it is “free,” once again transferring the money of the middle class to the rich, and isn't addressing the root of these problems. “If you don’t like something, first try to change it yourself.”
Uhh... really? Cause the nurses I know (I went to a university with a large nursing program, so many of my friends went on to become nurses) know that they aren't going to be making much money. And as a student going into medicine, I know many many people planning on going into medical school that are not going in for the money. I mean, you have to spend at times $250K to get through medical school in the first place, then you have to deal with 80 hour work-weeks making less than $50K a year (before taxes) for 3-10 years, depending on what you plan on going into. Most of them just want to make enough money to pay off those loans and make a decent living with something they enjoy. Medicine is not the way to become rich. You can become a whole lot richer a whole lot faster by going into some other field, like business. No, most times, there's another motivation for people wanting to deal with the pain and heartache of medical school and residency.
As for other health professions... comparing the training to how much you get paid isn't bad... as a phlebotomist, I'll go to school for 13 weeks and make about $12 an hour starting, which is nicely better than minimum wage. And I have the room to grow a little more with more training. Still, my instructor, who's been in the field for 6 years, only makes $35K a year or so. No exactly rolling in the dough, especially since her husband didn't work last year. CNAs get crap for pay, and they do a ton of back-breaking and drudge work. All in all, it's a very demanding profession, since it's very difficult to take time off (as a phlebotomist at a hospital near where I go to school, if you call in sick 3 times in a year, you can get fired), and you're around sick people allll the time.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
What does a "Phlebotomist" do? I've never heard of one; it sounds intriguing...
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
- George Bernard Shaw
I poke people with needles to get blood out of them. It literally means 'vein cutting'.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
well, I guess my experience with people going to med school has been different. And the same with nursing. I am sure some doctors care a lot about people, but all the people that I know personally (and many people I meet who are in med school)say that they are going in for the money. Nurses get paid alot, and so do doctors at least where I live. (Physicians are on average the highest payed profession in the USA, regardless of the reasons.) There are people who put in many hours of hard work elsewhere and do not get compensated.
sorry if I got carried away there: my main point is that helping poor people isn't a simple solution that a large powerful entity (that may be part of the problem) can fix. If human nature, or the majority's traits are greedy and un-empathetic, then this will be reflected in society, regardless of who we shove off the responsibilties to. I know i sound like a typical conservative, and on this issue I am, but I am actually not a conservative as a whole, just so you know : )
"My point is that sometimes we arrogantly forget Christianity isn't the only religion in this country."
This thought particularly struck me. As an agnostic Buddhist practitioner, I realize I am in a very small minority in this country, and I often find it frightening that "value voters" are able to band together through their common monolithic religion to push their agendas forward.
People in this same group also tend to forget (or knowingly distort the fact) that a majority of our "founding fathers" were not Christians, but Deists - a group who believed that God's greatest gift to man was not dogmatic religion, but the ability to reason. Calling America a nation founded on Christian principles is an affront to our history, and our future.
I'm thoroughly convinced that everything starts at the local level--food production, distribution, various natural cycles (water, sedimentary, atmospheric, carbon), and democracy. We should focus our strength as such. Speaking of, do you know any of the candidates running for your city council, other public boards and state representatives who are running for election this November?
You bring up the point that issues of abortion aren't decided by Presidents or SPJ's. I agree, and I submit that many other issues aren't decided by the higher ups. Think about the politics of food--the foodshed-- from individual community gardeners to businesses that sell them to the consumers that buy them. We the people play a role in this web, and we have a higher stake in the investments and returns of the food system than, say, agribusiness and conglomerated agriculture.
my documentary...
Wanna smile on the spot?