» posted on Friday, December 2nd, 2011 at 10:29 pm by Andy D
America the Beautiful Day 31: Voter Involvement
For the final installment in America the Beautiful, I thought I would cover something most of us take for granted: our ability to be involved in our government through open elections. In our republic, we are free to get as involved in our government, or stay as uninvolved as we see fit.
Personally, I believe we have a duty to stay as involved in our government as we can. You should be actively engaged with the issues of the day, and what your representatives are doing. You do have a certain amount of power you can exercise over the government. The Tea Party movement has illustrated that an actively engaged public can tremendously affect both elections and the national discussion on very important issues. However, this only happens if you spend time staying up to date on the current issues and what your representatives are doing. You don’t need to turn this into a full time job. There are websites around such as Mega Vote that will report to you how your representatives vote. Other sites, such as Real Clear Politics and The Week work hard to present the best political writing from both sides of the aisle. You have to exercise your own judgement on exactly how much weight to give these opinions.
Finally, I have found that discussion with other individuals who stay up to date on the issues is the best way to learn. I have had to learn a lot about a wide range of topics to have the confidence to post them here for anyone and everyone to take apart. You don’t need to start your own blog if you don’t wish too. There are sites across the political spectrum that are always looking for more people to voice their opinion. And you are always welcome to comment, or even write a guest post, here.
filed under 31 Days of Blogging · America · elections | 7 comments
Political Friends Blog | 31 Days of Blogging: America the Beautiful said:
Dec 02, 11 at 10:31 pm[...] Day 31: Voter Involvement [...]
Gerrit said:
Dec 03, 11 at 8:06 pmI agree very much, although a sidenote which I posted before: some states have laws that prevent atheists from taking some posts in state government. As an atheist who however respects everyone’s believes, I would feel a bit uncomfortable with a law like that in my own home country (I know though, the states with such laws are exceptions and are few)
I agree with you and get irritated often when people ask me why I joined a political party. “You cannot change anything anyway, so why care?” or “In the end it’s not easy to cause change so I wouldn’t bother”. If Che Guevara, Nelson Mandela, Mahatma Ghandhi, Barack Obama, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk etc would have thought in such terms, the world would have not been what it is like today. There are examples enough that the right person with the right ideas can cause change, and even if you fail in your attempt you can at least look in the mirror and know you tried your best.
I fully agree with you, get involved, stay updated, no matter what political opinion one has. In the end, indifference is the least situation we can use.
By the way, I admire you for having this great blog running. You know I am in the far left of the spectrum so your ideas are very different than mine. But you always treat differenting opinions with respect and your posts are interesting to read. I admire you for having the guts to openly post your opinions, without worrying about who would take offense. No matter how much our political ideology may vary, I very much respect you for that and this blog IMO is great reading.
Andy D said:
Dec 04, 11 at 9:00 amThanks for the compliment. We disagree politically, but I appreciate the kind words. That being said, I have to challenge you one one thing. You have said a number of times that some states, “…have laws that prevent atheists from taking some posts in state government.” Can you provide an example of this? I am not aware of a religious test in any state for holding office, and I know there isn’t one in my home state of Georgia.
Gerrit said:
Dec 05, 11 at 4:16 amhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination_against_atheists#United_States
“In the United States, seven state constitutions officially include religious tests that would effectively prevent atheists from holding public office, and in some cases being a juror/witness, though these have not generally been enforced since the early nineteenth century”
Unfortunately the names of these states is not mentioned, I read it long ago but cannot remember by heart. Also, wikipedia is always to be taken with a grain of salt. That said, even when not enforced, such laws should be removed from the lawbook to have a true freedom of religion. Freedom of religion does not only mean you can choose the religion of your choice, it should also include the choice not to have a religion.
I’ve always respected all faiths, and would never disregard anyone for his believes. I respect all religions and their believers, since it’s such a personal thing. When someone gets strength out of their religion, then it’s a good thing. While every religion has extremist branches, the majority of believers of any religion actually get strength out of their believes and most religions spread messages of respecting your fellow man, solidarity and tolerance. So I will always respect all religions and their followers. I can only hope though that us atheists are not excluded simply because we don’t have a religion.
PS: I wish to disassociate myself from those atheists that arrogantly say religious people are wrong. We cannot prove if a god exists or not, that is why it is called “believing”. Atheists who mock with religions while they cannot prove their own ideas, are arrogant and unrespectful. Please remember not all atheists are like that and that there’s plenty of us who will respect all religions and their followers. We cannot ask for respect if we would disrespect those who have a religion. So please don’t think all atheists have this arrogance to mock with believers.
Gerrit said:
Dec 05, 11 at 4:21 amPS: I found it! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_in_the_United_States#Religious_tests
“The affirmation or denial of specific religious beliefs had, in the past, been made into qualifications for public office; however, the United States Constitution states that the inauguration of a President may include an “affirmation” of the faithful execution of his duties rather than an “oath” to that effect — this provision was included in order to respect the religious prerogatives of the Quakers, a Protestant Christian denomination that declines the swearing of oaths. The U.S. Constitution also provides that “No religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification of any Office or public Trust under the United States.” As of 2007, seven states have language included in their constitutions that requires state office-holders to have particular religious beliefs. These states are Massachusetts, Maryland, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee.[8] Some of these beliefs (or oaths) were historically required of jurors and witnesses in court. Even though they are still on the books, these provisions have been rendered unenforceable by U.S. Supreme Court decisions”
Again though, this is wikipedia and the golden rule is not to take it for granted without having a reliable source confirming the info …
Andy D said:
Dec 09, 11 at 5:19 amI think the key to everything you just quoted is that it is “…rendered unenforceable by U.S. Supreme Court decisions.” I can tell you that no state in our Union could get away with any sort of religious test for public office. I am a Christian, and I wouldn’t support a religious test for public office. The vast majority of Americans won’t support it either.
Gerrit said:
Dec 09, 11 at 6:56 amThat’s good to hear. I often get the impression atheists are discriminated against in many nations, it’s good to hear that at least by law the US includes atheists in their freedom of religion (sadly enough, there’s enough countries where even by law atheists indeed are under fierce discrimination… In iran for example, atheists tends to pretend being religious until they can get asylum somewhere safe)
I think a politician should mainly be capable of leading his government in a proper way. His private lift is irrelevant to his political decisions. Weither someone is atheist, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, … should not even be an issue as long as the person is capable as a politician. In the end, politicians are entitled to a private life too and should not be asked to share their private believes with the world. A good president or governor is a leader for the entire nation, which means all citizens, and will try his best to lead the nation in a way that benefits all citizens even when those citizens include a wide variety of religious believes.