The Cynical Liberal (original) (raw)

10:39a

Thank you Evangelical voters! Evangelical voters

Ignorance is not an excuse for stupidy, even if it can often lead to such a consequence. What I hate most about any fundamentalist religion is the lack of morality that is so inherently present in their sense of "morality." We've seen it time and time again, repeated in history: governments with a strong religious agenda do not work. How many times do you have to get hit by a stick to see this? Personally, I think morality should be left in the home -- taught by family and personal beliefs. It's bad enough that children are being taught to read by Elmo or how to behave by Ed, Edd, and Eddie (Cartoon Network show). Now, we're further expecting morality to be taught by an impersonal government? Have parents become lazy or do we just not want the responsibility? But, that's a different issue. Let's get one thing straight: there is a big difference between teaching morality (good) and imposing morality (bad). Guess which one fundamentalist religions wish to do.

To impose a "supreme" sense of morality over the (as Josh puts it) "immoral minority" by electing a man whose policies have greatly jepordized world peace is beyond ridiculous. Let's review. Is there still a war on Iraq? Yes. Is there still an increasing deficit? Yes. Does a majority of the world hate the United States? Yes. However, according to the voters who voted for Bush for his sense of morality, those issues don't matter. Why? Because homosexuals are gaining force in the fight against anti-homosexual laws. Because abortion is still a possibility. Because stem-cell research endangers the life of a possible life. Does anyone see a serious difference in issues here? Domestic problems, though not to be left ignored, is not the priority of the moment. At this moment, when a war is at the doorstep of American soil, you put domestic problems as a side thought while you handle the big issue: international relation policies.

I hate moral crusades. The president of the United States should not be judged on his moral character alone. Let's forget the fact that Bush Jr. is definitely not morality's poster-boy. Does government have a responsibility to the overall health and development of society by promoting "moral" laws? Definitely. However, to make moral based policies on ONE religion just seems entirely immoral. I hate to break it to you: no one religion is correct. The issue here isn't about denying anyone their rights. It's about giving them the choice to make it. Just because they make what you consider an immoral choice does not allow you the right to critize the government. Or, more importantly, to elect a tool of a man to get such preventative policies on the agenda.

And for your information, homosexuals are human beings above all else. No one has the right to deny them the privilege to be considered married under law or under the eyes of God.

Current Mood: annoyed