Let me make it really clear that I am an independent. I can not call myself a democrat or a republican currently, but I will say that I have voted both ways in the past.
The premise of the article was the supposition that you can know if you are a "liberal" based on the following items. I am going to try to dismiss and prove the hypocrisy of these items. It really demonstrates the problem the "right" has right now. They just don't get that there isn't a "voter" mold we all fit in.
Item #1 from the article - If a Republican doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one; if a Democrat doesn't like guns, he wants them outlawed.
I think republicans get this wrong because most "liberals" I know, don't want to completely ban guns. The fact is that gun ownership is a right in the constitution and I have no intention of banning guns. However, I think that it is the right of society to demand that you know how to use a gun and that you are not a criminal. Also I think it should put in place to restrict your access to military weapons such as machine guns, etc.
Item #2 from the article - If a Republican is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat; if a Democrat is a vegetarian, he expects the federal government to ban meat products, along with salt, sugar and chocolate.
The author is just wrong. I totally agree that there are some liberals that go too far wanting to ban everything under the sun. However, a lot of people don't. Do we, as Americans have a problem with obesity? Of course we do. I certainly don't want the government to be involved in banning certain foods. I think the author is just trying to be insulting with this point. It is a gross generalization just like saying all republicans want to ban birth control. It isn't true and it just works to alienate and divide people.
Item #3 from the article - If a Republican is a homosexual, he quietly leads his life; if a Democrat is homosexual, he demands that marriage be turned into a free-for-all.
What a statement? It is an outrage that someone would say, "Oh, your life would be all good if you'd just sit down and shut up." How insulting is that? The author doesn't describe what he means by a marriage "free-for-all," but I suspect it goes back to the silly argument about marrying your pets, siblings, or inanimate objects. Perhaps he needs to remember that pets and inanimate objects can not sign legal contracts, like marriage contracts. I could easily make the statement that republicans believe that everyone would be happy if they just did what the GOP leadership said and just "quietly lead my life" regardless of the injustice around me or the pain that my LGBTQ brothers and sisters are having to endure. This was the line that ultimately led me to write this article. It is just the ultimate insult to be told to just take it and do what we say. Talk about an elite mentality.
Item #4 from the article - If a Republican is poor, he thinks about how to best improve his situation; a Democrat demands a hand-out.
The problem with this statement is almost self explanatory. "Thinking" about the best way to improve your situation is entirely noble and I would hope that anyone would try to think of a way out of a difficult situation like poverty. However, "thinking" about how to improve and actually having the tools to improve are two completely different things. Are there people that abuse the system? Absolutely and those should handle appropriately. Personally I have no problem with making sure people have a basic safety net to make sure we don't have poor people dying in the street. I do believe the government perhaps over spends on these programs, but I feel that they are a vital part of a civilized society.
Item #5 from the article - If a Republican doesn't like a talk show host, he switches stations; Democrats demand that he be tossed off the air.
Another lie. Ever heard of Bill Maher? Sure you have. Because nearly every day he is mentioned by talk radio as a "Million Dollar Obama supporter." I listen to talk radio nearly every day and I can tell you for a fact that Hannity has mentioned him every day for the last two weeks. There is even a Fox News article on the front page right now! (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/16/bill-maher-facing-bipartisan-criticism-over-ann-romney-comments/?test=latestnews?test=latestnews). The moral of the story is that not only does the right want you off the air, they want you to not be able to donate to political campaigns!
Item #6 from the article - If a Republican is a non-believer, he doesn't attend church; an agnostic Democrat wants all references to God, Jesus and Christmas, to be banished from the land and will lie about the First Amendment to help him get his way.
I don't know if there is anything to this point, but I think it is interesting that the author says non-believer in one part of the statement and then agnostic (rather than the more correct term "atheist" according to his premise). I'm not sure if it means anything, but I found it interesting. I think you'll find, if you do any real research, that most atheists, agnostics, or non-believers (whichever one you want to use) just want to live free of religious influence and free of being "preached" to. I know people of various faiths (and indeed of no faith) and none of them want to ban god(s), Jesus, or Christmas. They even take a Christmas holiday, Christmas pay, or even give and receive Christmas presents! There are extremists in any view point - even atheists. Some of them perhaps do want to ban all those things, but the majority don't. Just another lie to "scare" the masses into submission. The first amendment to the constitution makes is very clear that
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
The founding fathers knew the dangers of entangling religion and government. They were visionaries. The amendment protects all religions, not just Christianity. It is such a vital part of our country, I can't believe that anyone would argue that it says something other than what it says. Congress can't endorse one religion over the other. You can't pray in public schools that are government run. You can't have only Christian displays on government property. Put yourself in the position of the minority. If your religion was a minority, how would you feel if your children were taught that they are praying to the wrong god and forced to pray to Horus when they are at school? How would you feel if people showed up at your door unannounced trying to convince you to come to the temple of Apollo? Then imagine what is it like for the millions who are not Christians and those that are agnostic/atheists. How can you claim a religion of peace when you have nothing but hate for those of other religions?
The article goes on and on and I encourage you to read it for yourself, but I have to say that - even as a moderate - I was insulted. Feel free to leave a comment and let me know what you think. Also feel free to go to the original article and let him know what you think to!
No comments:
Post a Comment