The heritage of voting rights

I've mentioned this before, but usually while blogging about a related topic, so here is a chance to highlight some historical context.

With the election of President Elect Barrack Obama, many African Americans feel a very satisfying and moving sense of full circle, of full enfranchisement and the finding of a glorious missing piece in their perception of dignity. I completely agree with this and applaud it. I pointed out that I do not feel the same way about, for example, needing to see a woman become President, one way or the other, but the heritage of slavery is by far a greater wound and thus the election of Barrack Obama is doubly beneficial and sweet.

I want, however, to gently correct some feeling about the history of the right to vote that is a bit more painfully felt than it was meant when the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution. Many young and middle aged African Americans feel a sense of hurt about the painful denial of their vote when the country was founded and worse, the notorious developing of "fractional" equivalents for black and white votes when even those limited rights were conferred.

I understand the feelings since, of course, women could not vote either. Also, when I was young, people under the age of twenty one could not vote, so I still remember when the right to vote was given to eighteen year olds and I was able to vote for the first time. So I understand the wound that many African Americans feel when they think back to the Founding Fathers and feel discriminated against.

But in truth, it's not like they thought about giving the vote to African Americans and decided not to; it would never have crossed their minds at all. Why? Because voting was perceived to be a responsibility of land owners. This is why women could not vote either. Women being "irrational" was a latter day excuse; it was not the original reason for women, or young people, or slaves, or free blacks, or Indians not being allowed to vote. Few poor white people voted either. All of the world's cultures at that time derived from a separately developed but shared world view that voting or decision making was in the hands of land owners or, in tribal areas, "elders." So I have never felt hurt or personally insulted that women could not vote, since I am a student of history and understand that it was a class issue (land owners having "skin in the game" regarding society's view of their position as decision makers). That does not mean I would not be vigorous about pursuing the vote (though probably not as much of an extremist as some would like, had I been a potential activist during those times). I was thrilled at the right to eighteen year olds to vote, especially as the Vietnam draft underscored how our young men and women could fight, even drink in some states, but not vote.

Having said that, like I said, I fully understand the woundedness of many African Americans who read the Constitution, and view the Bill of Rights and Amendments as "corrections." That is a handy shorthand in a way, to think of voting enfranchisement as correction of an error, and in one sense it is, of course. However, it is not necessary to seek out more hurt than what is already inherent in the situation by viewing the Founding Fathers as being denying of rights. They were not withholding rights so much as they were giving rights to those who had traditionally held those rights from necessity, which is the "landed class." Sometimes it is easier to see where one is going if one more clearly see where and why people came from in their journey toward equality and social justice.

The Bible equivalent is that God did not invent slavery, but he gave rules to insist that the Israelites treat slaves more fairly and decently. Just because rules about slaves are given in the Bible (and the Qur'an) does not mean God endorsed slavery. God was insisting on a linkage between one's moral code (and thus acceptance in his eyes) and decent treatment of slaves, so long as humans were determined to have them. And it was, of course, from Christianity that the imperative to end slavery sprung.

I really wish that more history was taught in school. Just as an aside, when I went to school, we spent nearly a semester in grade school on the American Revolution. We learned the details of every single battle, for example; I am not exaggerating. That is not pointless, but the way that children learn about "what life was like" during those times, and why much of our civic and cultural structure exists as it does. When children study the battles they learn about the population, the militias, the volunteer army (a radical, VERY radical concept, as the Brits still "pressed" recruits, forcing them into their army and navy, while Americans fought with all volunteer local militias), the way people lived and what they needed (horse transportation, farming society, how vital trees were for firewood, etc). And they learn about diplomacy, and also the reality of how to deal with belligerence. I still remember what I learned, and it provides an essential context for feeling one "belongs" in this country, in its lineage. And this includes African Americans, as George Washington's constant companion was his servant, who was viewed as friend, companion, and aide in the conduct of the war. I was really surprised and disappointed when I learned that so much of American history has been dropped, to everyone's detriment of understanding. How many people today know that the USA fought a second war with Britain, the War of 1812, over the "pressing" of American citizens into the British army and navy? The volunteer army of the USA was a radical idea in the world, really, it was the only place that had such a phenomenon, and that really should be taught in some depth as it was when I was young.

Read about George Washington's valet, William Lee, at this link. Note that William Lee served for the entire eight years of the Revolutionary War, including in the thick of battle, right next to George Washington.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Lee_(valet)

Catholic voting and personal message

Catholics can and do vote for whom ever they want in secular elections. Obviously the type of governance one candidate would provide is not guaranteed by their perfect match to the voter in positions of faith. Thus one can have a very pious but horrible Catholic, Muslim, Jewish or Protestant leader. However, on the other hand, Catholics in particular must be wary of voting for any candidate who favors those who oppress the faithful and worse, claim to be speaking on behalf of God or his prophets.

Thus, there is a difference between voting for a candidate who is qualified, but has a great flaw in the viewpoint of Catholics, such as one who favors abortion, and a candidate who may or may not be qualified and worse, argues with the voter about whether their understanding of God is correct. I feel that we have examples of the latter in presidential candidate Obama and Speaker Pelosi. Pelosi's bumbling butchering of characterizing Catholic doctrine about abortion is outrageous, and her claims to be an expert when she's so pig ignorant is astonishing to say the least.

(By the way, Nancy, a "doctor" of the Church is not the author of Church doctrine. "Doctor" is a title given to a certain class of saints who acted in heroic defense of the Church during times of trial, through their intellect, example and remedies. Church "doctors" are individual saints who so distinguished themselves in an area of devotion, defense or church support that they merit a title that is much like "honorary doctorates" given out by universities today. Just because "doctor" and "doctrine" both start with "d-o-c" does not mean that one "invents" the other, duh.)

So I have voted for qualified candidates who, unfortunately, supported abortion. But I have never voted for one who has the nerve to be a self proclaimed inflated spokesperson on behalf of "what God really meant," and who then spews contrary to the institutional faith of two thousand and more years.

I need to also point out something so screamingly obvious I cannot believe that anyone is fooled by it. About the Church stance toward abortions. How can people like Pelosi with any intellectual honesty try to "scan" and cherry pick from Church teaching looking for a statement about "when life starts" when access to abortion was nill until recently? Don't get me wrong, some women have induced abortions throughout history (often through witchcraft, which is one reason witches were so hated). But very few women really sought abortion, rather, they risked their lives repeatedly having children, as children were their grace, their livelihood and support. No one except the most desperate sought abortions (in times of famine and so forth miscarriages negated the economic "justification" for abortion). But even then, obviously in times of famine, women wanted more children, more hands to help in the fields and household, not less. It was a totally different mindset than today. No one had to "put in the Bible" that abortion is wrong, because there was no mindset toward doing such an unthinkable thing. Also, remember that men and women prayed most earnestly for a child from God. When the woman became pregnant, she or her husband didn't wait to thank God until the baby popped out because "it's not a human life until x months in gestation." You know, the simple people among humans were always the wisest. I mean, duh, when they prayed to God for a child, as soon as the womb quickened and they knew of the pregnancy, they knew they had received a child from God, not a temporary lump of clay that gets a soul and a guardian angel on some man made date. God sends a baby with a guardian angel when the womb quickens with the embryo. I mean, duh, do you think God sends a "hold this place" card: "gift card must be redeemed in three months, six months, nine months?"

Stupid people need to read the Bible, and they should. But they should not then open their mouths and call themselves "experts" for their own self serving purpose, and especially when they demonstrate such ignorance of even basic information (see above about Pelosi's "Doctor Augustine.") Oh my God, what a mess this society has become, and our leaders are crap.

Election advice

People often wonder who I vote for, when I do vote (I've relocated a lot so my record has been spotty as I'm driven from pillar to post the past 10 years or so). It does not matter who I vote for. I'm not saying that voting itself does not matter; it does matter very deeply and many patriots died for that right and privilege. I urge everyone to vote but consider this advice.

The country (or state or city) "deserves" whoever is elected. Even when elections are "stolen," the country or other government entity gets exactly who they deserve. So there is no wrong election, even when an immoral ignoramus is elected to office, because for whatever reasons, the electorate has sunk to the level that deserves that candidate to win. Often I would vote for the candidate I thought the country deserved to get, if you know what I mean.

Having said that, this is why this country MUST stop looking at the idiots in government to regain the morality that this country once had and has stamped on, polluted, and thrown away. Look at abortion as the key issue. I am totally against abortion, but I'm not proud of how pro life people have abandoned it as a government/legal/rights adjudicated issue. I have been saying from the first day after Roe v. Wade that abortion must be stopped at the grassroots level. Then it will not matter if it is "legal," if virtually no one goes for an abortion. Let them have their damned "right" to an abortion if that's the way the country votes and plays it. But if for the past thirty years those who are pro-life had economically and spiritually "adopted" mothers about to deliver and sponsor their babies we'd have a fraction of the aborts we have today. More money and treasure has been pissed away in this country on garbage, such as entertainment, usury interest rates and finance fees, consumerism, and "globalization" than would have been needed to pay pregnant women to not abort and to either raise their baby with support, give the baby to adopting parents, or to have quality orphanages with living in families who raise children in real group settings and love them as parents. If pro-life people had banded together thirty years ago we would have made abortion "rare and repugnant" because most girls and women would have chosen the alternatives I listed above for you. You will never end abortion if all you do is vote for pro life candidates and then give your money to trash causes and consumerism instead of helping out a couple that is in a pregnancy jam.