Tag Archives: morality

Why I’m Voting for Barack Obama

Standard

Conservative friends, or anyone who is considering voting for Mitt Romney, please read this. Those of you who know me well know that I am not generally a judgmental or hateful person. I enjoy making people happy and helping others in need. Keep your knowledge of my personality in mind while you read this. I’m writing out of significant concern that has been resting on my heart and mind the past few weeks. I don’t want to knock anybody’s political opinions or belittle anyone’s religious views. My purpose is simply to express how I feel about our presidential candidates in a moral and ethical context.

“Young people, you are the people who belong to the twenty-first century. You should think how to bring this century into a more peaceful century, a more compassionate century.” ~ Dalai Lama

This statement above sums up conceptually why I am voting for Barack Obama to continue his role as President of the United States. Here is my reasoning:

Take a moment, if you will, to think of someone you admire who has given up their ENTIRE life, SELFLESSLY to promoting what he or she believes is morally right. I say ENTIRE and SELFLESSLY in all caps because I don’t mean a politician, your first grade teacher, or your parish priest. These people have chosen a way of life specifically to influence a group of people, and they are usually paid for their work. My two examples would be Mother Teresa and the Dalai Lama. They did not choose to be religious and spiritual leaders. They simply committed themselves to live a devout and selfless life, living the core values that they believe are vital with their actions, thoughts, and words. They did not choose to be influential. They are because we have experience their wisdom and chosen to follow them.

Public service, which includes the office of President, should be a very similar way of life. Our candidates are FAR from the status Mother Teresa or the Dalai Lama, but we should consider them within the same selfless and moral context. Which one will serve people more consistently without considering their own personal gain? Which one will view the people of the United States as individuals who all have the same rights and needs?

Friends, division of our country morally will continue to set us up for failure. If we try to separate the gay from the straight, the rich from the poor, the old from the young, the Christian from the atheist, the legal citizen from the illegal immigrant, the black from the white, no one will win.

Mitt Romney’s policies are divisive and lack compassion and tolerance. The decisions he would make for the United States and our country’s interaction with the rest of the world would attempt to move us toward a more homogenous society that resists the very nature of humanity, which is diversity.

I am no economic expert, so my examples are based on moral issues. I find these issues the most troubling because people voting for Mitt Romney based on what they feel matches their religious and ethical views should reconsider what values his policies really enforce.

Mitt Romney’s lifestyle does not suggest an attitude of selflessness. He has led a privileged life, which is not a fault, but he lives far outside the boundaries of what is necessary. What is the moral purpose of having multiple cars and houses? There is no purpose other than material wealth.

Consider Mitt Romney’s views on gay marriage and the rights of gay parents:

“Some gays are actually having children born to them. It’s not right on paper. It’s not right in fact. Every child has a right to a mother and father.’’

What is his motive in this statement? Is it the well-being of the child? Many children have grown up with grandparents, an aunt and uncle, a single parent, or in foster homes and turned out just fine. I think Mother Teresa and the Dalai Lama would argue that what is important is not the presence of one man and one woman in a child’s life, but the presence of love and compassion in that child’s life.

Consider this paired with Romney’s views on government funding for organizations such as Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood does much more for our country than provide abortions. It provides educational materials to help teach people about pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. It provides free and reduced-cost contraception to help people avoid babies they are not ready for. Many women and men cannot afford doctor appointments, or prescriptions to treat STDs or to acquire birth control. Cheaper methods of birth control are more accessible to these populations but not as effective. Mitt Romney’s policy focuses on stopping abortions from occurring, but it does not focus on how to support those who might turn to an abortion when they feel there isn’t another option, or give them resources they need to prevent pregnancy in the first place. Shouldn’t his policy be concerned with the health and well-being of all citizens, rather than the moral views of some?

Mitt Romney focuses on the market and competition to provide people with health care options. Health is not a competition; it is a necessity for life. Our country should not be survival of the fittest, it should be a country where those with more help those with less so that everyone has what they need to live with a high quality of life. Not a life of excess, a life of necessities: affordable healthcare and medication, control over his or her body, access to resources that will help them when times are hard, the ability to legally bind themselves to someone they love and raise children with that person.

Obama’s policies on marriage, abortion, and health care offer SUPPORT and PROTECTION for those who need it, regardless of what his personal beliefs might be. He offers men and women the choice to marry whomever they choose, because love is stronger than hate. He offers women the resources they need to stay healthy and control their bodies, because the views of many should not control the needs of all. He offers everyone the chance of affordable health care to ensure quality of life. These are the actions of a selfless, compassionate leader. These are the beliefs of a man who values the well-being, freedom, and individuality of everyone in America.

What would your moral role model say about Mitt Romney’s policies? Would they agree that satisfying the religious and moral beliefs of some Americans is more important than allowing everyone the right to choose what is right for them in their life path with their family? Would they turn away those who make it to this country seeking help and a better life? Would they value profit and competition over health and quality of life?

The answers of my role models are crystal clear. I will vote for Barack Obama because I choose compassion, I choose to aid my neighbor, I choose to honor the experience of love no matter who experiences it with whom, I choose the soul over the material, and I choose unity and peace over division and war.

 

Advertisements

A Moral Recession

Standard

Image

Like any self-respecting individual of my generation, I listen to a lot of podcasts at work. I’ve developed a knack for selective listening, allowing myself to tune out most of the boring blabbery while I work, knowing that my ears will perk up when I hear something of interest. There is one podcast, however, that nearly always keeps me listening: On Being. This show interviews scholars, musicians, religious leaders, scientists, people from all walks of life, to discuss matters of humanity and, well, being. What I like most about this show is how it always gets me thinking about my own perspectives on the issues they discuss.

Recently, the show has been broadcasting segments from the Civil Conversations Project. I think everyone should be required to listen to them. Period. The premise of these conversations is having an open, respectful dialogue with two sides of a morally tricky issue: i.e., abortion. Rather than debating/arguing which side is right, the participants discuss what ideas they agree with from the other side of the issue, and bridge the “grey” areas of these issues, trying to get at what makes them so divisive and attempting to vocalize ways we can move toward a common understanding and ultimately a solution.

I have nothing but respect for people who voice their opinions loudly and act on these opinions to further causes they believe in. What I have no tolerance for, however, is people who are so blinded by their own opinions that they become incapable of considering other perspectives. There is a quote on this subject from Thich Nhat Hanh that I particularly enjoy:

No single tradition monopolizes the truth. We must glean the best values of all traditions and work together to remove the tensions between traditions in order to give peace a chance.

What troubles me the most about the upcoming election is the apparent lack of humanity. Too often we forget that we really are all in this together. United we stand, divided we fall. It’s cliché, but it’s very, very true. Fighting about which polarized side of politics or religion will make the best decisions for our country is pointless, because most people do not fall into one of those extreme categories. Even if they did, this is not what our moral and religious traditions teach us to act upon. Every major religion, at its pure core, teaches compassion, acceptance, and benevolence.

If we could just be open to the idea of having civil conversations with those we view as “opponents” that would be the first step toward a unified, successful, country. If your values lie solely in the material world, then perhaps this doesn’t matter to you. But for those whose values exist beyond their liquidated assets, this is a matter of moral concern. No matter whom we elect, as long as we are content to remain divided and hateful toward one another, we will stay in a moral recession, regardless of what happens to our economy.