Thursday, March 29, 2007

SHOULD WOMEN HAVE REALLY BEEN GIVEN THE RIGHT TO VOTE?

Of course. Who would seriously think otherwise today? Or who would consider repealing the right to vote for those who at one time it was illegal? No one I dare say. Who can we keep from voting then? Felons? We can keep felons from voting without getting into too much political trouble from anybody. Illegal aliens. We can keep them from voting. Dead people! Yes, the dead. We can say that it is wrong for them to vote (unless you die in Chicago.) (Just kidding.)

Interestingly it is seems that many would lump people of faith with felons, illegal aliens and dead people. It is held by some that faith should not influence so called “public opinion.” Apparently the term public is being limited to some chosen enlightened. The separation of church and state has been, in some cases, extended to a separation of faith and state. A person of faith, who pays taxes, who are called upon to fight in wars, who are citizens in every way should not allow their beliefs to be part of the debate of public policy. This is proclaimed as if there is some self-evident and uniform basic humanistic principle that trumps all other opinions.

I can understand being upset with a person who votes without a grasp of the issues or with a sound reasoning for why they are voting as they are. It upsets me that people vote simply along party lines or to support a certain sex or heritage or because someone is good looking. Reckless voting is reckless voting.

But so often it is suggested that a stance should be discounted with the disingenuous declaration that the position comes from a faith tradition. This is said as if intelligent people could not or should not hold such a position. Why should a humanistic view automatically trump a faith-based view? Are persons with religious thoughts and agendas less a citizen? Are they not sincere in believing that what they hold dear is for the good of all just as a person with strictly humanistic views would?

To disregard a position out of hand by declaring it unworthy simply because to aligns itself with a belief in God is a dishonest means of debate and to pull such a trump card is inherently un-American and unites the user with the worst blemishes in our history.

(All right. Time to cool down. Here is a little comic relief for you.)

3 comments:

Barb the Evil Genius said...

I suppose in the big picture it doesn't do much good, but that's why I don't shop from Land's End anymore, after Garrison Keillor "joked" that Christians shouldn't be allowed to vote. Land's End gives money to A Prairie Home Companion, and I believe Keillor's "joke" was made during an event associated with Land's End. Eh. Land's End and LL Bean are just clones anyway.

uncle jim said...

I prefer life along the shores of "Lake Won't Be Long". Here, we can criticize people other than Christians ... we are not so short-sighted and ham-strung as are the Keillors of the world. Our Evil Genius is the barb that cuts both ways. Faith based voting should be Federally funded, 'cause it works.

Adoro te Devote said...

You make such a good point here; there is a complete double standard as it applies to practicing Christians. We are expected to leave our faith at the door and make decisions with the same lack of logic and morality the lost minority do. How sad. No wonder secularism has taken over; we let them.

Great link, by the way! I watched it on my lunch break! :-)