I am arguing that voting based on social values is as important as voting based on economic policy. by KLH
(liberal)
Friday, September 30, 2011
I hear and read about many people saying they are only voting based on the economy but if one looks at the crop of Republican presidential candidates, they have built their base through their stance on social issues. The most notable topics being abortion, gay marriage, Islam and workers right (the last of which I still dont see having a religious link). Even though they would like to steer the questions towards the economy, it is very hypocritical for someone who has established his or her political career on the premise of championing certain values only to distance themselves from them when they reach a certain point. And the rise of the extreme right in and of itself has demonstrated that social values are very important to many people.
The right wings angle in gaining power, which was successful, was to argue that they would create jobs but they have been too busy restricting abortion and voting rights. And the fact that so much time has been given to social issues demonstrate that even business-friendly Republicans either do not what to do about the economy which is dictated by global forces, changes in technology and other things that they cannot change. I suspect that corporations sitting on record profits are filled with very happy and very wealthy CEOs who tend to be Republican. And recently, a Tea Partier named David Lewis is going to Challenge Boehner in 2012 on the basis of social issues.
I can understand that some people have strong beliefs about many social issues but for a party that is all about minimal government interference, I think it is awfully intrusive to tell someone what medical procedures they cannot have, that consenting adults cannot marry or even have sex with one another and what religions are approved by the American government. And while they do not say anything about their economic policies which I understand is important in these difficult times, if you care about discrimination these issues should at least be on your radar.
For example, what if abortion is made illegal and then birth control is banned which some very religious people would like to see? Will they also tell me I cannot have my tubes tied or that men cannot have vasectomies? How will it be good for our society and economy if even more women are having kids they do not want or cannot care for? I honestly never understood why rich men would try to prevent poor women from preventing an unwanted pregnancy. But they do not want to just control the pregnancy; they want to control her sexuality. And it would not just affect poor women; middle-class and rich women use birth control who very much want to plan the size of their families are not going to tolerate such a mandate.
And the gay marriage debate has gotten so ridiculous that some states have banned it when it was never legal. What else can we do to discriminate against gay people in our country? Are we going to ban AIDS research, which has also taught researchers about other viruses, because right wingers believe that AIDS is Gods punishment for immoral sexual activity and will that lead to a ban on researching other sexually transmitted diseases. Lets ban the HPV vaccine and become a Right to Have Cervical Cancer country! Many choose to ignore or simply do not care that viruses do not discriminate between the godly and ungodly. Many innocent people who do the right thing pay for others past behaviors, but this may be right in line with the idea of letting uninsured people who get sick die, a policy that was applauded and reaffirmed by the crowd at a Tea Party Debate.
And how does this affect other relationships that religious right may not like? Are non-Christians going to be banned from marrying because Fundamentalists believe it is a tradition that only belongs to them? Are unmarried people who live together or have sex going to be forcibly separated and possibly prosecuted? I hope people see where this could go if proponents of small government take over.
Lets move onto Islam and Shariah Law, a code of laws not even close to being part of U.S. Law. In order to protect us from the not even remote possibly of becoming law, will Islam itself will be illegal? How are Muslim-Americans who can no longer practice their religion going to feel about their place in the U.S.? It is a really good way to piss off Muslims around the world and cement our title as Crusaders. What if some Tea Partiers in office want to ban Catholicism because they believe the Pope is the antichrist? Could atheists, Hindus and Jews and other non-Christians be discriminated against by employers and businesses by owners who believe that living in a Christian nation means they can exclude anyone who does not follow the official national religion? I would fear for my country if there is even a remote possibility that this could happen.
Even if our economy makes a turn for the better, we will be living in a tyrannical country. And one has to wonder about the economic cost of government programs that will be created to root out immoral behavior and ensure everyone meets the Biblical standards that will become law. Many argue that policies such as universal health coverage would turn us into a nanny state but what would conservative social policies dictating ones very personal life turn this country into?
I have come to the conclusion that this religious-socioeconomic movement in some part is tied to the idea of Prosperity Theology, which in a nutshell states that being faithful to God leads him to rewards us with material goods. So it makes sense that many would believe that those who are poor and not part of Real America are 100 percent at fault for their socioeconomic status. The Bible seems to be telling them that corporations can damage the environment, endanger their workers and treat them without dignity. Maybe I have a different Bible, but Jesus did not run the Kingdom of God, Incorporated which cheaply produced justification, salvation and grace at the expense of the poor, only to dump the byproducts in the Jordan and place it on the shelves of JC Penney (couldnt resist) at a price only the super rich can afford.
He told a rich man to give up all his possessions to the poor and follow Him (Matthew 19:21), instructed one to pay his taxes to Caesar (Matthew 22:15-22), told the rich pious men that the poor widow gave relatively more alms than they did (Luke 21:1-4) and told his apostles to shake the dust of the city from their sandals and move on if they were not welcome (Matt 6:11). And even in the Old Testament, the prophets Isaiah, Amos and Hosea were telling Israelites, many of whom were very prosperous, that doom would befall them if they continued to ignore the plight of those in need.I understand that social policy is not going to produce jobs but I believe they do reflect how we treat one another and it make me wonder how much Americans value their own religious freedom, privacy and desire for tolerance from others.
And while I understand that people are not happy in the current economic situation, I would rather continue in a troubled economy than in the Theocracy of the United States that is obsessed with creating a Christian nation that will not take care of the poor, elderly and vulnerable because those in power have managed to reconcile Jesus teachings with everyone pulling oneself up by their own bootstraps.People may call me crazy for thinking these things are going to happen, but many conservatives have openly expressed their desire to ban abortion (sometimes birth control), gay marriage and the rise of Islam in the United States and steps are being taken to enact such laws. Many states are in the process of banning Shariah law for although I know of no attempt to implement it anywhere in the country. Conservatives often suggest that the next step after gay marriage is bestiality and now girls getting vaccinated against HPV are being seen as victims.
I also know that I will be labeled an intolerant liberal by those who disagree with me but let me point something out; as a liberal, my belief system will never allow me tolerate ideas that justify legalizing the discrimination of others based on one group's personal beliefs. If you want to be a heterosexual, fundamentalist Christian that lives by a strict Biblical code, good for you but you cannot make me or anyone else live that way and it is not ok to use the law to force us to or discriminated against us. My beliefs allow my fellow Americans a lot of leniency to live they way they see fit without questioning their legitimacy as an American and loyalty to this country.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 1
thumb so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of KLH only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
KLH is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: Mark Vogl
Date: October 3, 2011 09:31:09 AM
This liberal author is 100% right when he suggests that social values are equal in importance to the economy. I would go one step further, they are what makes the economy. Socialism is a social value. Redistribution of wealth, naitonal health insurance, Gay marriage are all social issues, not economic ones. But how they are dealt with shape, and in some cases, totally redefine the economy. Where I would disagree with the author is that the Republican portfolio of candidates are all socially conservative. That's false. As a conservative only Michelle Bachman gets even close to the social conservatism I would like to see in the next President. Americans have not been given a clear choice between right and left, instead both parties have drifted further and further socially. And its social drift which explains 17 trillion in naitonal debt. And it is the social issues whidh drive that expense!
