I think this column in today's NY Times addresses an interesting issue.
I've thought about this myself to some extent. It's disheartening to know that Rove may have been mostly right about this, that you can divide an electorate on issues of faith and "morality", and stir your base to show up to vote by appealing to their desire to battle against gay marriages or unions, abortion rights, or prayer in school(and the complementary strategy of siezing a mandate based on this narrow victory.)
Unfortunately, this battle between enlightenment and faith(or belief)is a battle that has probably been waged in one form or another since the beginning of American history. Don't forget the real reason the pilgrims came over; to be free of religious oppression yes, but also to freely oppress those who disagreed with them. And it probably will be waged as long as our country exists, as it's waged in other countries and other societies the world over. The simple fact is there are always those who will value personal liberty to some degree more than "traditional" moral values...and vice versa. And those two elements will always compete, to some degre or another, on the political battlefield. Certainly those traditionalists, the "faithful", have the upper-hand now with their representatives domination Congress and the White House.
But we should also not forget that over time, history bends to those who believe in greater personal liberty and responsibility. Those with faith continually harp on the degredation of morality in America, but the simple fact is that they have yielded time and time again to a more modern, and sensible, position on morality and faith. And they will again. I have a strong feeling that in 25 years people who fought against gay marraige will be remembered along with those who battled against segregation, as standing on the wrong side of history.
Let's not forget though that this is not a natural phenomenon. This adjustment takes place over time because people like us, day in and day out, work to persuade those who stand on the edge that our view is one of true moral purpose. So there's no excuse to sit back and dally while "true belivers" storm the halls of Congress and the White House and try to roll back history. If anything, it should be more encouragement to go out and fight against these beliefs, and to show to our fellow Americans that what we hold as moral values is not an absence of belief, but a belief in and of itself that is even stronger.
Those are my thoughts; the issue is much more complicated and deserves uch more treatment.. But it's certainly a place to start.
Thursday, November 04, 2004
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Nice, man. I totally agree.
I have about above three blog entries worth of material to poor out over the next few days on this stuff...
The problem is the moral values are outdated. If the whole world were to follow such doctrines the human race will destroy itself even faster.
Considering the limited resources and overcrowding, being gay and having abortions could be the most altruistic thing to do. They are giving up reproduction of their own genes so that the earth could accomodate other people's babies.
I believe allowing gay marriage would encourage homosexual people to have more stable relationships. This could, in the long run, also help to lower the "down-under" phenomena in which gay guys get married to unknowing women but maintain sexual lives with other men, which often means dangerous unprotected sex. If the society as a whole could allow a more normal life for homosexual people by acts like allowing gay marriage, there could be less public health problems regarding AIDs and other STDs.
Moral values are only meaningful when they are scientifically sound. Unfortunately in this country (maybe the rest of the world as well), science is only embraced when it means convenience, like in cell phones, but seldom when it is good.
Post a Comment