I posted this earlier today as a Facebook status. As statuses go, I got a little carried away. I'm re-posting this here as I wanted to save this in a place I could easily find it in the future...and I'll let Google find it here as well. ;-)
****************************************
While I'm ranting on politics, one of the reasons I personally value the separation of church and state is that it helps -- or should help -- to keep any one religion from legislating its positions as law.
It's usually easy for any of us as individuals to assess a situation and determine the "right" course of action, given our sense of morality, ethics, and concern for our fellow man. However, it's often difficult for us to determine if that common "right" course of action is so obvious, so fundamental, that it should be made a law and that we all are forced to behave that way. It's appealing to our senses of morality and ethics, our psyches, and even our egos to say, "Yes, that should be a law. This is common sense. This is right." We don't have that same self-indulgent pull to say, "No. This should be up to the individual. I may disagree with how you exercise your choice, but you deserve the right to choose."
Freedom is a difficult beast. It's something we're blessed with as Americans, it's something we most defend (from internal as well as external threats), it causes us plenty of problems, and it comes with responsibility. As Americans, we often don't do well with responsibility, so it's no wonder we don't do well with protecting our freedoms from a government that would take them away.
Mitt Romney angers me. In these final throws of the election, he's wrapped himself in the flag and proclaims that a vote for him is a vote for loving your country. I'm sorry, Mitt, but I don't know how you can make that leap. I hear you tell us what you believe in, but that seems to change with your audience. I hear you say that we can't afford another 4 years of Obama, but you give me no plan as to how your 4 might look any different, save the legislative pandering to the far right you brag about. And you tell me that a vote for you is a vote for love of country? We must be talking about different things.
I love my country for its freedoms and its opportunities. I don't like it when anyone -- let alone Mitt Romney -- is OK revoking the freedoms of others. If you're a woman, you lose freedoms in a Romney administration. If you're gay, you lose freedoms in a Romney administration. If you're middle class or poor, you lose tax dollars and federal programs (read: "opportunity") in a Romney administration. What do you gain under Romney? Inevitable tax increases, trillions more in spending in a national defense that is already funded at 5x the spending of the nearest rival, a continuation of the NONSENSICAL "war on drugs", and far fewer freedoms. Limiting the freedoms of my fellow Americans does NOT equate to "love of country" in my book. No how. No way.
Don't get me wrong -- I'm no huge fan of Obama. I think he had tremendous political capital that he squandered. But he inherited a steaming pile of economic problems, too. The economic precipice that George Bush led us up to was pretty steep and Obama ultimately prevented us from going over the edge. The bail-out was a painful step, but deep down, I believe it was necessary in some form. In the end, I think the bad economy that Obama faced was a reality for any President to have to contend with, regardless of party. But Obama's presidency wasn't solely about the economy.
Obama eventually saw his way clear to support gay marriage, and you can choose to hold your own opinions about the "morality" of being gay, but as Americans, our freedoms MUST come first. Your religion and your morality are your business -- the only thing I ask of you is to allow me to have mine and for others to have theirs. The same argument holds for a woman's right to her own body. And for a Muslim that wants to build a mosque. And for a cancer patient that wants to smoke a joint. And that right must even be afforded to Fox News. As an American, you are entitled to your freedoms and you are responsible for protecting those freedoms -- for you and for your fellow Americans as well. You are not obligated to agree with how anyone else exercises their freedoms, but you are responsible to protect our freedoms when we meet in person as well as when you step behind the curtain of the voting booth. You cannot vote for "love of country" if that vote is depriving Americans of freedoms. This must be fundamental in our selection of a leader.
Could Obama have done better? Absolutely. Is Obama the best president we've had? Absolutely not. Is he the better of the options afforded us tomorrow? Yes. And it's not about his record or his promises or his capabilities or his charming wife. It's about freedom.
****************************************
While I'm ranting on politics, one of the reasons I personally value the separation of church and state is that it helps -- or should help -- to keep any one religion from legislating its positions as law.
It's usually easy for any of us as individuals to assess a situation and determine the "right" course of action, given our sense of morality, ethics, and concern for our fellow man. However, it's often difficult for us to determine if that common "right" course of action is so obvious, so fundamental, that it should be made a law and that we all are forced to behave that way. It's appealing to our senses of morality and ethics, our psyches, and even our egos to say, "Yes, that should be a law. This is common sense. This is right." We don't have that same self-indulgent pull to say, "No. This should be up to the individual. I may disagree with how you exercise your choice, but you deserve the right to choose."
Freedom is a difficult beast. It's something we're blessed with as Americans, it's something we most defend (from internal as well as external threats), it causes us plenty of problems, and it comes with responsibility. As Americans, we often don't do well with responsibility, so it's no wonder we don't do well with protecting our freedoms from a government that would take them away.
Mitt Romney angers me. In these final throws of the election, he's wrapped himself in the flag and proclaims that a vote for him is a vote for loving your country. I'm sorry, Mitt, but I don't know how you can make that leap. I hear you tell us what you believe in, but that seems to change with your audience. I hear you say that we can't afford another 4 years of Obama, but you give me no plan as to how your 4 might look any different, save the legislative pandering to the far right you brag about. And you tell me that a vote for you is a vote for love of country? We must be talking about different things.
I love my country for its freedoms and its opportunities. I don't like it when anyone -- let alone Mitt Romney -- is OK revoking the freedoms of others. If you're a woman, you lose freedoms in a Romney administration. If you're gay, you lose freedoms in a Romney administration. If you're middle class or poor, you lose tax dollars and federal programs (read: "opportunity") in a Romney administration. What do you gain under Romney? Inevitable tax increases, trillions more in spending in a national defense that is already funded at 5x the spending of the nearest rival, a continuation of the NONSENSICAL "war on drugs", and far fewer freedoms. Limiting the freedoms of my fellow Americans does NOT equate to "love of country" in my book. No how. No way.
Don't get me wrong -- I'm no huge fan of Obama. I think he had tremendous political capital that he squandered. But he inherited a steaming pile of economic problems, too. The economic precipice that George Bush led us up to was pretty steep and Obama ultimately prevented us from going over the edge. The bail-out was a painful step, but deep down, I believe it was necessary in some form. In the end, I think the bad economy that Obama faced was a reality for any President to have to contend with, regardless of party. But Obama's presidency wasn't solely about the economy.
Obama eventually saw his way clear to support gay marriage, and you can choose to hold your own opinions about the "morality" of being gay, but as Americans, our freedoms MUST come first. Your religion and your morality are your business -- the only thing I ask of you is to allow me to have mine and for others to have theirs. The same argument holds for a woman's right to her own body. And for a Muslim that wants to build a mosque. And for a cancer patient that wants to smoke a joint. And that right must even be afforded to Fox News. As an American, you are entitled to your freedoms and you are responsible for protecting those freedoms -- for you and for your fellow Americans as well. You are not obligated to agree with how anyone else exercises their freedoms, but you are responsible to protect our freedoms when we meet in person as well as when you step behind the curtain of the voting booth. You cannot vote for "love of country" if that vote is depriving Americans of freedoms. This must be fundamental in our selection of a leader.
Could Obama have done better? Absolutely. Is Obama the best president we've had? Absolutely not. Is he the better of the options afforded us tomorrow? Yes. And it's not about his record or his promises or his capabilities or his charming wife. It's about freedom.
