by Paul Johnson
OK, so who will I vote for? What are my reasons?
Let me start by saying a few things. 1) Refusing to or failing to support a candidate just because they’re not “viable” is a mistake, 2) Past deeds and votes are a better indication than campaign promises, 3) Those who donate the most to a candidate get the most representation, so donate today, 4) If we don’t like the premises upon which the US was founded, we have the right to fix and improve the constitution.
Unfortunately, each of these issues could take up an entire post, but each is important. So, I’ll try to address each of these issues in future posts. Maybe some of my fellow authors would like to expand upon one or more of these issues.
I’m going to start with #4 in this post.
Is Separation of Church and State Good for America?:
If you’re inclined to blindly interpret the Bible without taking into consideration common sense or logical reasoning, you’re still required to approach this issue as Jesus did here:
Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.
There is no more obvious and undeniable conclusion in the Bible than to honor the separation of church and state. It’s as plain as the nose on your face.
Adding a bit of common sense and some logic to the decision making process leads one to consider both history and current events (facts). Looking at today’s world, it is easy to conclude that the most religious governments in the world govern the most violent, ruthless, immoral, and ignorant societies. It’s not just a coincidence.
Look back over time at the most bleak and hopeless times in mankind’s history and you’ll find times when the iron fist of the church was making the decisions. This isn’t opinion, it’s fact. Is it just a coincidence? Of course not.
The obvious conclusion is if you love your country, or your neighbors or your Bible, you’ll vote for the candidate who is most likely to restore our separation of church and state.
I guess this simple litmus test disqualifies every single Republican candidate except Ron Paul. However, Ron Paul’s unchristian attitude towards abandoning our neighbors rather than helping, disqualifies him, as well.
I refuse to vote for candidates based on party affiliation. The past 10 years have shown us that political parties are bad for a democracy. Any time a politician makes a decision based on party you can guarantee that it’s a decision that is bad for America. Too bad I can’t find a single Republican candidate to add to my list of hopefuls.
So, who on the Indy or Democratic side passes the Separation of Church and State litmus test? Hillary is the least viable, followed by Obama. Both these candidates speak endlessly of their religion and neither has made any stand against our slide into a church state. Edwards has made a few comments but is too afraid of the church-state to actually speak up against them. Looking at track record, I’m not too excited about Edwards, either.
Wow, this drops way down to the bottom of the popularity pool. Why? Why is it so unpopular to support separation of Church and State? I suggest that it’s not unpopular to support separation of church and state, but rather unpopular to voice opposition to too many things. This information is valuable for us voters but is risky for politicians.
Unpopular as he may be, I like Dennis Kucinich for his courage to express his opinion on things that he knows need attention, at the risk of angering big businesses, including our Church State.
The bottom line, though, is any non-Bush (non-Republican) candidate would be a vote for a better America. Any vote for a religious candidate is a vote against America.
Remember, only through separation of church and state can we keep both good.
Loading ...
Don’t Discount the Non Viable Candidate
Monday, January 14th, 2008by
Paul Johnson
[Updated]
Don’t Discount the Non Viable Candidate.
When you hear that a particular candidate is not a viable candidate and you’d be wasting your vote, remember who, today, gets to say who is viable. It certainly isn’t you and me. It’s the Corporate Media who gets to show us. And, who would they want to be viable? The ones with the most money to spend on advertising?
Take a look at this poll. You will not see this in the corporate media because they don’t want you to see it. But, if you didn’t see this poll, you would have no idea that there are plenty of viable candidates that the press is ignoring. Just look at this:
If the media was truly diabolical, like MSNBC refusing to allow Edwards in the debates, they could actually show us any crap they wanted and we’d shuffle around behind them and say, gosh, I guess I better not vote for Edwards, since it would be just throwing my vote away. Well, lookie here, someone has been lying to us. What a surprise.
If you want to avoid those candidates who are not viable, you’re just playing into the hands of the corporate media, and giving them power to arrange the list of viable candidates in all future elections.
There are times, though, when we just know that candidate X would be best but nobody will vote for him. I don’t believe today is that day. Today is the day the corporate media has control over what you feel is viable.
See for yourself who is viable and vote with your heart and your common sense.
[Update:] Well, okay, there does come a time when a non-viable candidate is really no longer viable, mainly, once they withdraw from the race. I’m sorry to see you go, John.
Posted in Politics | Comments Off