Jim Stillman
NevarA letter to my Grandson about liberals
May 30th 2011 22:47
:
Always Positive, Sometimes Right
Dear Aaron:
The other day, you said that you were a Republican. You continued that you were pro-life and President Obama was not. The personal opinions of the President, whoever he or she may be, matters little regarding social issues. If you feel strongly about the availability of abortion, direct your concern to Congress and the state legislature.
As being pro-life I would think everyone is.. Who wouldn't be? Everyone would prefer that there be no abortions, ever; the conflict is whether in a specific instance, the decision is made by the pregnant woman or the law.
If you wish to be a conservative Republican, thatÃÂs fine with me but I urge you to educate yourself so you are able to understand and articulate the bases of your beliefs. In lieu of slogans, which both sides of the political spectrum employ as a substitute for thought, you will have to really work to be part of a democracy. It is not for the intellectually lazy.
I am a liberal, for the most part. it ts much easier being on the fringe, right or left. One merely has a cliche ready, a bumper sticker attitude, and an assurance that only one vi ew is correct. So what, exactly do I believe and what in my opinion is the nature of liberalism?
Liberals do not necessarily have a uniform set of beliefs, suitable to be condensed into a ten-second sound bite. We do not go for slogans or categorical statements. Our weakness is the lack of absolute certainty but there are core principles.
When we lived in isolated small villages, the residents would take care of their neighbors and address homelessness or child or elder abuse, or the unavailable of medical care as it may apply to a specific person. We are now too big and spread out and government, federal, state and local, is the mechanism by these societal needs is met. These needs are also addressed by private non-governmental entities, such as church or secular charities and organizations. But the private entities cannot do it all.
Government has the obligation to preserve and protect an individualÃÂs rights to speak freely, worship as he or she may wish or not to worship if that is the choice. There are limits to these rights where they might infringe on the equally protected rights or the safety of another but those limits are to be defined strictly. If my choice is to worship with deadly snakes, that is my prerogative; if I insist that a child handle deadly snakes that is another story.
Rights of individuals should not be limited by the religious or moral views of the majority. Every child is entitled to a public education in a public-funded school. Religious doctrine should not be taught and, certainly, not to the exclusion of secular instruction. If a parent insists a child be taught the Bible is literally true in all respects, then the child needs to attend a non-public school. If a parent wants the child to be free to offer public prayers whenever the urge strikes, or that the teacher or school official publicly pray, the child belongs in a religious school. The prayer that is acceptable or commonplace to one person may be offensive to another. For example, a Christian prays through and in the name of Jesus; to a Jew or Muslim, this is anathema.
Private behaviors should not be limited or denied based on othersÃÂ concepts of morality or religious precepts. For example, abortion is a personal decision to be made by a woman, with consultation if she so decides, with clergy, the father or anyone else she chooses. It is not to be determined by government or outside interest groups.
Government cannot be homophobic. An individuals sexual orientation should not impact rights under the law. Should marriage or civil unions between those of the same gender be prohibited? If you remove the religious or biblical arguments that are suggested, it is difficult to argue against those rights. Is marriage solely for procreation? Then refuse a marriage license to women who have had a hysterectomy or who are in their 60s. If the intent is to strengthen the principle of marriage, then how does one explain a 50% divorce rate? If we are that concerned about the importance and sanctity of marriage, we should stop glamorizing celebrities who have baby after baby sans marriage.
Having rights in a vacuum is interesting but worthless unless government enforces those rights. An individual has the right to equal treatment under the law regardless of race, color of skin, religion, national origin, gender, sexual preference or any other characteristics.
The people who need this protection are those in the minority, those whose beliefs offend the majority. The person who needs protection stands on the street corner spouting radical and unpopular views or the homosexual who wants to receive all of the benefits of marital status heterosexuals receive, including health coverage, pension rights or inheritance rights.
To some extent these principles will overlap. Some choices made by individuals may be inconsistent with the choices of others. For example, I may choose to go to a strip bar or an X-Rated establishment. I may act in a manner others consider immoral. So long as my choices, as an adult, do not cause harm or take advantage of another, especially a person weaker than I or a child, I should not be restricted by Government. If my employer, private organization to which I belong or my wife objects to my behavior, action may be swift and unpleasant - but that is a private matter.
I do not suggest that you adopt these views as your own, but consider them and whatever you decide, keep an open mind.
Grandpa
The other day, you said that you were a Republican. You continued that you were pro-life and President Obama was not. The personal opinions of the President, whoever he or she may be, matters little regarding social issues. If you feel strongly about the availability of abortion, direct your concern to Congress and the state legislature.
As being pro-life I would think everyone is.. Who wouldn't be? Everyone would prefer that there be no abortions, ever; the conflict is whether in a specific instance, the decision is made by the pregnant woman or the law.
I am a liberal, for the most part. it ts much easier being on the fringe, right or left. One merely has a cliche ready, a bumper sticker attitude, and an assurance that only one vi ew is correct. So what, exactly do I believe and what in my opinion is the nature of liberalism?
Liberals do not necessarily have a uniform set of beliefs, suitable to be condensed into a ten-second sound bite. We do not go for slogans or categorical statements. Our weakness is the lack of absolute certainty but there are core principles.
When we lived in isolated small villages, the residents would take care of their neighbors and address homelessness or child or elder abuse, or the unavailable of medical care as it may apply to a specific person. We are now too big and spread out and government, federal, state and local, is the mechanism by these societal needs is met. These needs are also addressed by private non-governmental entities, such as church or secular charities and organizations. But the private entities cannot do it all.
Government has the obligation to preserve and protect an individualÃÂs rights to speak freely, worship as he or she may wish or not to worship if that is the choice. There are limits to these rights where they might infringe on the equally protected rights or the safety of another but those limits are to be defined strictly. If my choice is to worship with deadly snakes, that is my prerogative; if I insist that a child handle deadly snakes that is another story.
Rights of individuals should not be limited by the religious or moral views of the majority. Every child is entitled to a public education in a public-funded school. Religious doctrine should not be taught and, certainly, not to the exclusion of secular instruction. If a parent insists a child be taught the Bible is literally true in all respects, then the child needs to attend a non-public school. If a parent wants the child to be free to offer public prayers whenever the urge strikes, or that the teacher or school official publicly pray, the child belongs in a religious school. The prayer that is acceptable or commonplace to one person may be offensive to another. For example, a Christian prays through and in the name of Jesus; to a Jew or Muslim, this is anathema.
Private behaviors should not be limited or denied based on othersÃÂ concepts of morality or religious precepts. For example, abortion is a personal decision to be made by a woman, with consultation if she so decides, with clergy, the father or anyone else she chooses. It is not to be determined by government or outside interest groups.
Government cannot be homophobic. An individuals sexual orientation should not impact rights under the law. Should marriage or civil unions between those of the same gender be prohibited? If you remove the religious or biblical arguments that are suggested, it is difficult to argue against those rights. Is marriage solely for procreation? Then refuse a marriage license to women who have had a hysterectomy or who are in their 60s. If the intent is to strengthen the principle of marriage, then how does one explain a 50% divorce rate? If we are that concerned about the importance and sanctity of marriage, we should stop glamorizing celebrities who have baby after baby sans marriage.
Having rights in a vacuum is interesting but worthless unless government enforces those rights. An individual has the right to equal treatment under the law regardless of race, color of skin, religion, national origin, gender, sexual preference or any other characteristics.
The people who need this protection are those in the minority, those whose beliefs offend the majority. The person who needs protection stands on the street corner spouting radical and unpopular views or the homosexual who wants to receive all of the benefits of marital status heterosexuals receive, including health coverage, pension rights or inheritance rights.
To some extent these principles will overlap. Some choices made by individuals may be inconsistent with the choices of others. For example, I may choose to go to a strip bar or an X-Rated establishment. I may act in a manner others consider immoral. So long as my choices, as an adult, do not cause harm or take advantage of another, especially a person weaker than I or a child, I should not be restricted by Government. If my employer, private organization to which I belong or my wife objects to my behavior, action may be swift and unpleasant - but that is a private matter.
I do not suggest that you adopt these views as your own, but consider them and whatever you decide, keep an open mind.
Grandpa
| 28 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
Comment by Marty
Political Swat
Comment by Jim Stillman
For example, if one disagrees with the Obama agenda (as I do in part) but plays childish games with his name (e.g., "BO(BS)" or still questions his birthplace, he or she has forfeited the right to be considered sane and rational.
I have for years wished for someone to engage me on the issues -- but not one person accepted my offer to open this blog for adversary opinions. Actually one person did and they were pressured by the nutty ones to stop.
In any event, I want my gradchildren to think for themselves and that cannot be done without reading everything, from the Right and Left.