Today, in New York, Governor Andrew Cuomo signed a bill into law legalizing same-sex marriage in that state, more than doubling the population living under such an arrangement. It's about time.
First, let me say this. The fact that some people in this country are allowed to marry those that they love and that others are not is a travesty. It is simple bigotry--it gives some a right which is withheld from others. There is really no simpler way to put it.
I would then, in my own small way, like to commend the four Republican State Senators who crossed the aisle and voted with the Democrats to pass this bill. They showed remarkable political courage in the face of a slew of conservative retribution--a truly wonderful example of what politics and governance should truly be about: voting with your heart.
"We worry that both marriage and the family will be undermined by this tragic presumption of government in passing this legislation that attempts to redefine these cornerstones of civilization." That statement was released by Catholic bishops in the state, and signed by archbishop Timothy M. Dolan. I find this statement laughable. The statistics show us that heterosexual marriage doesn't exactly have a flawless record, and for anyone to suggest that the ability to raise a family in a loving environment depends upon the presence of one male and one female parent is both irresponsibly presumptuous and overbearingly conceited. It is disgusting. And for the statment to suggest that "cornerstones of civilization" are always right is simply foolish. For the greater history of the world, slavery was a cornerstone of civilization, and women were (and sometimes still are) second class citizens.
This new law is a tremendous step in the quest for the equality of all United States Citizens. It recognizes the rights of all to love whoever they desire. It is a great success for the progessive cause, worthy of celebration by all.
Saturday, June 25, 2011
Thursday, June 23, 2011
Political Parties and Organized Religion
Let me begin by going out on a limb with the following statement: An organized religion and a political party are inherently the same thing. Ok, so that may overstep reality by a little bit. The two clearly deal with entirely different subject areas, but exclusive of this, the two types of organizations share their goals, their techniques, their benefits, and their issues. For better or for worse, the two are remarkably similar.
Just so you don’t immediately dismiss me as insane, let’s begin by taking a peek at some of the similarities between an organized religion and a political party. First and foremost, each serves as a connector—they are entities which guide people to answers. A religion directs a person towards a God or Gods by facilitating and regulating the connection between the two parties. A political party does much the same thing, but guides the person to a candidate through a mutual association of values between the party and that candidate. In order to accomplish this core goal, each organization use specific rituals designed to enhance and solidify the connection between person and God/candidate. A religion might have a weekly service, while a political party might organize a town-hall meeting. These are the core goals and means of these organizations, and the similarities are striking. If we care to be superficial about the matter, both religions and political parties regularly ask for money, ask people to officially join, send out mailers, and encourage volunteer work for the organization. These similarities, however, are cursory and coincidental. The organizations’ roles as connectors is what truly defines their similarity.
In revealing their similarities, I believe we also may have highlighted the positive roles of religions and political parties. Religions make, through the facilitation of a connection to God or Gods, the formation of a specific set of morals decidedly simpler (and perhaps more likely). Having morals is, generally, a good thing. Political parties, on the other hand, make following this moral compass in the voting booth a less arduous process. Through association, a candidates core values can quickly be generalized by a voter through their party affiliation. By making voting easier, political parties make the likelihood of a person voting higher. This is, naturally, a good thing.
But let’s not get ahead of ourselves. There are plenty of negative aspects to both political parties and organized religions. The most obvious is that any such organization believes its beliefs to be correct, and therefore other organizations beliefs to be wrong. This inherent superiority complex leads to competition between organizations, which can often be destructive. Religiously, let’s look at the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre in the sixteenth century, when the Roman Catholic Pope applauded the murder of thousands of French Protestants. Today, we see destructive and deadly religious competition in the incessant Arab-Israeli conflict. Politically, we can see today, in our hate-driven, negatively-based political climate the destructive nature of never-ending campaigns and never-present governance. Another inherent flaw of both political parties and religions is their natural tendency to neglect their role as connectors and to instead exist for purposes of self-enrichment and –glorification. Politically, we see this manifested in the unofficial current attitude of “the good of the party” over “the good of the people.” Religiously, we turn again to the catholic church and its shameless historical quest for political power and monetary wealth (I don’t mean to specifically rag on the Catholic Church. I am, in fact, Catholic. History simply shows us that, over time, it’s made more than a few errors). This attitude still exists in organized religion today, though certainly not as egregiously. These organizations are clearly not without flaws.
So now I make my grand declaration: in an ideal world, no organized religion or political parties would exist or be necessary. Now, what I’m not saying is that I’m an atheist and an anarchist—I’m neither. In my ideal world, every individual would be capable of spiritually and religiously guiding themselves, without the aid of an organized religion. The development of morals would be an individual, rather than communal, affair. While those with similar interests would still congregate, it would be a form of grassroots, rather than hierarchical, religion. In this same ideal world, political parties would not exist—everyone would have the time necessary to study and evaluate candidates on that candidates stances and merits, rather than relying on a party label for a general idea. Without the assumed positions based on this party label, elections would be more issues-based and less focused on negativity and debasement of the opposition. The expensive and bumbling middleman role of the political party would not be necessary. This is my ideal world.
Ideal, but not realistic. Regrettably, very few people, myself included, are capable of internally creating and marshalling a spiritual life and set of morals. Equally unrealistic is the assumption that our ever-busy lives will suddenly become filled with free time which can be dedicated to being politically informed. As long as we’re busy, fast food restaurants and political parties will be in business. Perhaps all that we can realistically hope for is incorruptible, moral religions and civilized, issue-driven politics. To those I say, “Amen.”
Just so you don’t immediately dismiss me as insane, let’s begin by taking a peek at some of the similarities between an organized religion and a political party. First and foremost, each serves as a connector—they are entities which guide people to answers. A religion directs a person towards a God or Gods by facilitating and regulating the connection between the two parties. A political party does much the same thing, but guides the person to a candidate through a mutual association of values between the party and that candidate. In order to accomplish this core goal, each organization use specific rituals designed to enhance and solidify the connection between person and God/candidate. A religion might have a weekly service, while a political party might organize a town-hall meeting. These are the core goals and means of these organizations, and the similarities are striking. If we care to be superficial about the matter, both religions and political parties regularly ask for money, ask people to officially join, send out mailers, and encourage volunteer work for the organization. These similarities, however, are cursory and coincidental. The organizations’ roles as connectors is what truly defines their similarity.
In revealing their similarities, I believe we also may have highlighted the positive roles of religions and political parties. Religions make, through the facilitation of a connection to God or Gods, the formation of a specific set of morals decidedly simpler (and perhaps more likely). Having morals is, generally, a good thing. Political parties, on the other hand, make following this moral compass in the voting booth a less arduous process. Through association, a candidates core values can quickly be generalized by a voter through their party affiliation. By making voting easier, political parties make the likelihood of a person voting higher. This is, naturally, a good thing.
But let’s not get ahead of ourselves. There are plenty of negative aspects to both political parties and organized religions. The most obvious is that any such organization believes its beliefs to be correct, and therefore other organizations beliefs to be wrong. This inherent superiority complex leads to competition between organizations, which can often be destructive. Religiously, let’s look at the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre in the sixteenth century, when the Roman Catholic Pope applauded the murder of thousands of French Protestants. Today, we see destructive and deadly religious competition in the incessant Arab-Israeli conflict. Politically, we can see today, in our hate-driven, negatively-based political climate the destructive nature of never-ending campaigns and never-present governance. Another inherent flaw of both political parties and religions is their natural tendency to neglect their role as connectors and to instead exist for purposes of self-enrichment and –glorification. Politically, we see this manifested in the unofficial current attitude of “the good of the party” over “the good of the people.” Religiously, we turn again to the catholic church and its shameless historical quest for political power and monetary wealth (I don’t mean to specifically rag on the Catholic Church. I am, in fact, Catholic. History simply shows us that, over time, it’s made more than a few errors). This attitude still exists in organized religion today, though certainly not as egregiously. These organizations are clearly not without flaws.
So now I make my grand declaration: in an ideal world, no organized religion or political parties would exist or be necessary. Now, what I’m not saying is that I’m an atheist and an anarchist—I’m neither. In my ideal world, every individual would be capable of spiritually and religiously guiding themselves, without the aid of an organized religion. The development of morals would be an individual, rather than communal, affair. While those with similar interests would still congregate, it would be a form of grassroots, rather than hierarchical, religion. In this same ideal world, political parties would not exist—everyone would have the time necessary to study and evaluate candidates on that candidates stances and merits, rather than relying on a party label for a general idea. Without the assumed positions based on this party label, elections would be more issues-based and less focused on negativity and debasement of the opposition. The expensive and bumbling middleman role of the political party would not be necessary. This is my ideal world.
Ideal, but not realistic. Regrettably, very few people, myself included, are capable of internally creating and marshalling a spiritual life and set of morals. Equally unrealistic is the assumption that our ever-busy lives will suddenly become filled with free time which can be dedicated to being politically informed. As long as we’re busy, fast food restaurants and political parties will be in business. Perhaps all that we can realistically hope for is incorruptible, moral religions and civilized, issue-driven politics. To those I say, “Amen.”
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
Who is Jon Huntsman?
Jon Huntsman is--and please, take this lightly--my favorite Republican presidential candidate so far. This is saying very little. After watching about twenty minutes of CNN's recent Republican Presidential Debate (before growing disgusted and turning it off), I realized quite quickly that I really, really disliked every single person on that stage. Michelle Bachman seemingly thought she was at a Tea Party Rally, Santorum and Pawlenty felt the need to remind voters of all the currently insignificant things they did years ago, Ron Paul isn't worth mentioning, Gingrich is irrelevant, and Mitt Romney just flashed that winning smile of his (and even decided to break out a tie from the old collection).
Jon Huntsman has, at least, some history of bipartisanship (which is only one reason why he probably won't win the Republican nomination). He worked well with President Obama as ambassador to China, briefly considered a health care mandate in his state of Utah, and even admits that Global Warming is real! This being said, I still disagree with his economic policy and his conservative stances on abortion and gun rights. All I'm saying is that, if the next president is a Republican, maybe this guy would be the lesser of eight evils.
As a liberal, I'm not rooting for Hunstman, however. His somewhat moderate past could draw support from independents whom a farther right candidate would push towards voting for President Obama. My dream Republican nominee would have to be either Michelle Bachmann or a resurgent Sarah Palin--I'm not holding my breath, however. In any case, my ideal president for 2012 is a reelected Barack Obama.
Jon Huntsman has, at least, some history of bipartisanship (which is only one reason why he probably won't win the Republican nomination). He worked well with President Obama as ambassador to China, briefly considered a health care mandate in his state of Utah, and even admits that Global Warming is real! This being said, I still disagree with his economic policy and his conservative stances on abortion and gun rights. All I'm saying is that, if the next president is a Republican, maybe this guy would be the lesser of eight evils.
As a liberal, I'm not rooting for Hunstman, however. His somewhat moderate past could draw support from independents whom a farther right candidate would push towards voting for President Obama. My dream Republican nominee would have to be either Michelle Bachmann or a resurgent Sarah Palin--I'm not holding my breath, however. In any case, my ideal president for 2012 is a reelected Barack Obama.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)