Compare and Contrast

Time to dust off the blog with a politically charged post. Yes, indeed.

This will be an excercise for the reader. Compare and contrast the following two videos. Both are on religion's role for the country. One is McCain's view, and the other is obama's view. My comments follow.





Though I've always been a Mike Gravel fan myself for the true Democratic nomination, when forced back to reality about the majority of Americans being moderate to right-leaning moderate, I was always more partial to Obama's nomination. If he maintains his position in the video of this speech, then he is perhaps the better of the two major-party candidates.

Why? It is quite clear that a government built from a background of reason and not the authoritarian eddicts of religion would desire to remain as seperate as possible from religion. The typical religion represents a sort of anti-thetical thinking of our government model. That is, a central figure or figures are in charge of developing the rules and way. This figure was not typically elected or chosen as leader according to the generalized mythology, but was born into or simply present at the beginning of the process. This figure or figures are thus simply tyrrants: a monarchy sitting upon the throne of the universe dictating its whims.

It is precisely the whims of the monarch compounded by the malice of Parliament which drove the colonists to rebel against their motherland. Thus, a new government, built from the idea of proper representation and arguing for the interests of the State over the interests of the Individual emerged. This new system did away with a unitary rule in favor of the bicameral legislature with judicial and executive counterparts for a complete picture. Our government represents our ability to choose whom we wish to represent us, and thus we have the ability to elect or remove representatives and other elected officials as we please. And in the spirit of choice, of freedom, we are able to decide for ourselves whom we wish to govern our spirituality, if we even believe it to exist or be important.

But if you don't agree with my perspective and odd analogy, the driving point of Obama's position is clear and more correct than the disaster of McCain's pseudo-history. It isn't fair for those of faith to have their religion used as a tool to obtian means, and it isn't fair to those who lack faith to be subjected to abide by a foreign morality. Matters of state ought to be framed within the perspective of the people, and as such must address the concerns and consequences developed in that frame. Adding religion spins the perspective into a frame particular to a specific individual's preferance and ultimately not the desire of the people.

I like Obama. Not as much as Gravel, but Obama is leagues ahead of McCain in understanding the role of religion in polticis, it seems.