I figured I would use my first real post to discuss a divisive issue that many people simply are not willing to talk about. The basic premise for my argument is that there is a line that needs to be drawn when making political decisions based on the individual voter's or politician's views on morality. Whether this is true and, if so, where this line needs to be drawn is the subject for much debate.
First, let me lay out the scope of my thoughts by telling you what this opinion does not apply to. Morality is inherent throughout all facets of our government. Our laws are based on right and wrong. Our society functions together because of a shared set of moral values and what constitutes acceptable behavior. It would be nearly impossible to operate a government without some set of inherent values shared by the majority of the population. This set of commonly held beliefs, such as you shouldn't kill people or rob old ladies, is not the subject of this post.
The moral beliefs I am concerned with are the tangential beliefs that seem to rear their heads during an election season more than any other time. Issues like abortion, gay rights, and evolution in schools are the main focus here. The key thing about all of these issues is that their main opposition comes from the religious sector. I do not question the right of a religious person to make personal decisions regarding these issues based on their faith. However, I am tired of people picking a candidate or political party to support based solely on one issue of morality.
I am not going to go into a diatribe about the separation of church and state and how that applies to this discussion. Instead, my reasoning is fairly simple. If what you want is a government that serves, and is in touch with ALL of its citizens, then basing political decisions on moral beliefs that not everyone in the country holds is completely counter-productive to that mission. It's divisive and breeds resentment, because it assumes that your beliefs are correct and everyone else can (literally) go to hell.
Freedom is important in our nation. It was founded on the concept. Legislation on issues of morality necessarily requires some individual or some group to say they are morally superior, and therefore they know the answer to the issue in question. This is dangerous because it undermines the very backbone of our government's foundation. How can you tell someone they are free, and then not allow them to make moral decisions for themselves? Isn't that the very essence of freedom?
I don't care who you vote for this November. That is your business, not mine. However, when you do vote please take into account more than issues of morality. Consider the policies. Consider the candidates. Consider several different issues and weigh them appropriately. Believe me, whether or not they teach evolution in schools is not going to matter at all if you lose your job or the bank forecloses on your home.
So, what do you think? Did I hit or miss?
On a side note, I realize this topic is a little heavy for the first one but I will follow it with something much lighter. I'm thinking World Series.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
I'm calling this a miss. You've got to see that voting based on morality cuts both ways, and both sides are viewing candidates through their own personal moral lens.
We can say all we want that Sarah Palin needs to leave her personal morals out of it and shut up about teaching Creationism or keeping rape victims from having an abortion. But Barack Obama, and you and I, also vote based on morality. I think it is immoral to keep women from having abortions. I think it is immoral to borrow money from our children to inject counterfeit money into the economy. I think it is immoral to narrow the educational focus of schools based on religion. I think it is immoral to eat lobster (not that this affects my voting, but you get the idea).
These morals are going to shape a candidate's platform (modified for public consumption), and they're going to shape a voter's decision. You can say that one must keep personal morality as it relates to religion out of politics, but as this is the basis for what many people view as right and wrong, it is philosophically impossible.
To clarify: I don't think it's OK for W to keep us from expanding stem cell research because the Bible tells him it's wrong. I DO however, think it's OK for him to have that viewpoint because he believes it is immoral and WRONG to use embryos in such a way. Even though I disagree with him strongly on the issue. I've got my morals, and you've got yours. Regardless of what you want to call it.
I will come straight to the point. in my opinion this is a miss. Sure some people have other beliefs and morals of certain issues. One thing this country needs to remember is that this United States of America was founded upon our Lord Jesus Christ. The constitution of the USA said it was founded upon the values and morals of God. If we take a look back when this country's morals were in the right place, we seen a country that was very prosperious. Ever since the 60's revolution and thier so called "free love" and the start of an anything goes society was the starting point of wich our nation started to go down hill. We have for the most part, lost our morals and so many people live without any to even go by. It is not any wonder our nation is in trouble. I surely am not perfect and far from it. But I will say that I was raised with a set of morals and even if I don't follow alot of them the way I should I know the morals as a guidline. It is important yet on the other hand that people can worship and believe what they want. I believe maybe what the constitution was saying (without saying) is this is a free country and it is founded upon God, you can worship who you want because this is a free country. I KNOW this sounds like then if you don't believe in God you are the minority. It is confusing to me and I'm sure that others have wondered about it but I've never heard anyone comment about it. Thing is, I think when the constitution was written up, their sole intention is to keep america free. I mean, what else was they supposed to do? So then people can be athiests, buddists, Jewish, or even a brand new funky off the wall religion and practice it in america. It is such a fine line when it comes to morality and politics. I also understand what you said when a person will not vote for somebody because of one single moral issue. The way I look at it is if lets say a canidate does'nt believe the way I do but if I vote for him I know he is still the best for the country. I'm still going to vote for that canidate. In a world as over populated with so many different beliefs, It's a wonder we even have half assed got along as much as we have so far. It's amazing we are still here and not blown each other apart (like we still probably will anyway) who knows.
Thanks for the comments guys! At this point it may seem there aren't many people taking interest in this blog, but it got 113 hits just today. Not bad for only being up for 24 hours. Keep the support coming!
I'll call this is a hit. I think that while we all look at the candidates and the issues based on our own morals. But, I think it's important to take a step back, and think about what would be best for the country.
I think that everyone would agree that on most issues not everyone has the exact same morals, and that's okay. I don't mean it to seem like I'm back tracking here, but I do think that in the end we all end up voting based upon our own moral standards.
So, I guess what I'm trying to get across is that in a perfect world we'd all vote with our morals on the backburner, but we still pay attention to them, but aren't the deciding factor. The bottom line is that just doesn't happen...so many of the issues out there for us to decide on our moral based. Sorry if this doesn't make sense..I'll clarify if you need me to.
Post a Comment