Category Archives: Politics

For Illegal Immigration? (re-post)

Posted on by
1

On my near-hour commutes to and from the office, I like to listen to talk radio. I don’t feel compelled to agree with the talk show hosts (usually locals Brad and Britt in the morning and Sean Hannity in the evenings), but enjoy hearing opinions that may or may not mesh with my own. The latest hot topic has been immigration. This is a topic that I struggle to come to an actual opinion on, because there are two competing desires within me.

The problem I have with the majority of anti-immigration advocates is that there are often strong nationalist, xenophobic, and ethnocentric underpinnings to this stance. Yes, there are legitimate concerns with national security and law enforcement that come in to play, but all too often I hear people complaining about the increasing cultural diversity as if America has always been static and English is the only language that should be spoken in a civilized country.

As a Christian, I worship a God that is calling all peoples to Himself. America is not the new Israel, a nation chosen by God in some special way. Yes, God has blessed America, and I am incredibly thankful to have been born here. However, my citizenship is ultimately in heaven and that is where my true allegiance lies. This influences how I view American foreign policy.

I’m excited to live in a place where the nations are coming to us. The American church has the blessing of being able to reach out to individuals who come from places where they would never have heard the Gospel. I never want to be a part of a local church that does not welcome “outsiders” whether openly or by simply by ignoring them.

I generally agree with the ideas I’ve heard about the latest immigration bill, but I’m not willing to support it outright without knowing the details. While I don’t like the fact that there is a huge number of immigrants who have entered our country by breaking the laws, I’m not going to push them out. They are no more or less important than anyone else.

The issue of immigration is where my love of rule-following and my love of all people come at odds with each other, but I’m okay with that. I know which one will come out on top.

Originally posted 5/18/2007

Can I Add a Moderate Voice to This Word Fight?

Posted on by
15

I feel compelled to speak up on a controversial issue, one I usually would have the smarts to stay out of. But so much rage has been filling my Twitter feed that I can’t stay silent.

I just can’t believe that people are all up in arms about Limbaugh’s “slut” comment.

Not because what he said wasn’t insensitive; it was. But have these people that are so angry at Rush ever listened to his show? He makes his bread and butter by being insensitive and spewing barb-filled rhetoric. There’s just not anything particularly special about these latest comments that, in mind is more (or less!) insensitive and unhelpful.

Now that we’ve opened the can of worms, what are my thoughts?

Well, I am a single woman that has used birth control for medical reasons. I actually know many women that are prescribed birth control for therapeutic reasons, not because they’re necessarily using it to prevent pregnancy.

When I was first prescribed these pills, I was shocked at how expensive they were with my insurance. I could get a month’s worth of each of my other prescriptions for $10 or less, but my birth control would have been $35 a month (for 24 pills) if I hadn’t had a coupon lowering it to $24. Which, with the excellent insurance coverage I had at the time, still seemed high for a fairly routine medication.

I don’t know why they are so expensive after insurance. I can only assume that they were treated differently by my insurance company because they’re not seen has medically necessary, even when they are. Was I prescribed these pills because I was a “slut”? Of course not.

I would love for my insurance to have to cover these pills at least to the same level they cover my other medications, if only for a selfish, money-saving reason.

But, do I think that religious institutions that take issue with the use of birth control be required to pay for it for their employees? Absolutely not.

I personally have a problem with using birth control pills as birth control. If I were married (and thus sexually active), I would work with my doctor to get off of birth control pills or use an alternative birth control method to prevent the pills from having any possible abortive effect.

So, yes, I understand why a religious institution with similar beliefs would not want to fund birth control pills. I believe that this is perfectly within their rights as a religious institution in this country. They are not preventing their employees from using birth control, only declining to subsidize its use.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” is a right guaranteed by our constitution. Having someone else pay for your health care, is not. When you go to work for a place, you can’t expect that they will condone or support your choices when they do not align with their beliefs.

At this point, you might wonder why I’m asserting that I have a “moderate voice.” Perhaps I do lean a little bit to the right, and I’m okay with being accused of doing so. But here is what I have to say to Rush Limbaugh and his type: stop calling names. No argument, from the playground to the Supreme Court, has ever been won by calling the other person names. A civil, reasonable discussion will never happen if we resort to name calling and raising our voices.

Of course, the same First Amendment that guarantees the free expression of religion also gives you freedom of speech. So go ahead. But just don’t be surprised if we ignore you as irrelevant and unhelpful.

Reflections on the Election

Posted on by
2

Sorry for the spotty blogging this week. My life has been a bit on the crazy side lately (not necessarily in a bad way). That said, this will likely be the last post this week.

I really enjoyed working the election yesterday. The people I worked with were fun, and I enjoyed working to get people in and out as quickly and efficiently as possible.

We had about 27% turn out at our precinct, though there was only 21% turnout county wide. It was a municipal election so those aren’t bad numbers, but it’s sad to say that. Personally, I find the municipal elections to have more relevance to my life than national ones, you know?

Even sadder than those numbers is the fact that I only met 2 others who live in my complex, and I personally dealt with at least 1/3 of the voters who came through. So if we extrapolate that, we’d have to guess that maybe 9 people from my complex came through. Out of at least 100 possible voters (probably more than that), that’s absolutely horrible.

One of the people I helped was actually a candidate for school board, a candidate that I just voted for about an hour prior. She commended me on handling my job appropriately and told me a horror story of something that happened in another precinct the year before. That was before I realized she was a candidate who had a vested interest.

I’ll definitely be working elections again, Lord willing. It was an exhausting day, but we get paid okay, and honestly, I’d do it for free. Our next elections are in May (primary and constitutional amendment) and November, which both promise to have much higher turnouts.

In Defense of Planned Parenthood?

Posted on by
19

It’s no secret that I’m against abortion and think that the laws of this lands should prohibit the killing of innocent children in the womb as well as out.

And I realize that by saying that right there, I may have convinced a good number of my readers to ignore this post. That’s okay…I’m really wanting to speak with those who would agree with that statement.

Why? Because I have a problem with the House GOP (or anyone else) wanting to cut Planned Parenthood funding.

Say what?

Look, I don’t like Planned Parenthood any more than you do. When I see one, my first response is to pray for the young ladies seeking their services. I don’t want them using my money (or my very small share of the federal money) to encourage or perform abortions. That prohibition, I believe, should be spelled out in law.

However, that’s not all Planned Parenthood does.

Sadly, conservatives and Christians in recent times in America have by and large done a bad job of helping the poor. I’ll even admit that I’ve done a bad job of helping the poor. Still thinking through what that should look like in my life, but I know that I’m far from off the hook.

So, sadly, I can’t support the complete denial of federal funding to Planned Parenthood. Until someone else steps up and offers gynecological exams and pregnancy care to low-income women, it’d be better for them to receive these services from someone with an agenda radically different than mine than to not get them at all.

That’s my two cents…what’s yours?

At Least Do It for the Sticker

Posted on by
7

I can’t believe it’s Election Day again.  It feels like it was just Election Day 2008…am I the only one who thinks that?

I actually haven’t been following politics as closely as I used to.  It seems like it’s all the same old debates, and no one in politics really seems to see things like I see them.  That’s okay…just means that I have to spend a lot of time researching, thinking, and praying over whom to vote for.

Regardless, I’ll be voting today.  If you’re a US citizen 18 and older, you better be too (unless, of course, you voted early).  No one can speak for you like you can speak for yourself, so don’t remain silent.

I may not be very patriotic, but voting is one of my favorite parts of being an American.

Photo by Jessica Whittle Photography

Logical Conclusions

Posted on by
23

How about a little controversy, shall we?  It’s been too long, hasn’t it?

If I only had to go by the reaction to the Judge Walker’s decision on California’s Proposition 8 that I saw on Twitter, Facebook, and television, I’d assume he was the people’s hero.  I hope that’s not quite the case…I know I’m not the only one saddened by last Wednesday’s decision.

Though I don’t know if I’ve specifically mentioned it (in 999 posts…yes, that makes tomorrow’s the 1000th…get ready for it!), I don’t think you’d be surprised to find that I take the biblical, traditional, and (until recent years) only definition of marriage.  We all have the right (regardless of our sexual preferences) to marry an unmarried adult of the opposite sex.  Equal rights.

So yes, I was saddened by Judge Walker’s decision.  But you may be surprised to know that what saddened me wasn’t primarily the decision against marriage.

First, I was disappointed that the federal government once again has unconstitutionally taken away power from the states.  If the people of California decided to refine “marriage”, I would have to accept that (though I would still argue that they are wrong).  That is their decision.  But the decision was taken out of their hands.  They no longer have that right.

And if they no longer have that right as the residents of California, I no longer have that right as a resident of North Carolina.

But more than that, what saddened me was that there is now a precedence for the out-right disregarding of gender.

We no longer have to use the slippery slope argument.  You can get a judge to almost anything as long as they have a legal precedence to do it.

And now there is.

If gender no longer legally matters in marriage, should it in a draft?  I think it’s pretty clear that the logical answer is “no.”

What about dorm room assignments?

The sex of chaperones on school trips?

“So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.” – Genesis 1:27, NASU

I think this is a pretty good time to remind you of the comment policy.  Thanks, loves!

Photo by Joe Gratz

Taking Liberties with Liberty

Posted on by
11

If you don’t like something in the American culture at large, is it okay to say it? Fight it? Encourage lawmakers to restrict it?

If the issue is the treatment of animals, the emission of greenhouse gases, or the enforcement of immigration laws, the answer seems to be yes.

But what if the issue is moral? Limiting pornography distribution, the defense of the traditional family, or the ending of legal abortion?

The answer seems to be no.

I know we Americans pride ourselves on our freedom.  I’m thankful to live here, truly.  But when did our inalienable rights to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” come to mean “you mind your own business and I do whatever I very well please” ?

I’m okay if that “whatever” is just a difference of opinion.  Or just stupid.  But when it is something harmful to others or trashes and distorts one of God’s good gifts, a line has been crossed.

Civil discussion encouraged.

Photo by Beverly & Pack

When the Government Becomes the Parent

Posted on by
21

libraryIt’s been a while since we’ve tackled a controversial topic here at the Ignorant Historian, hasn’t it?  Well, let’s dive right in!

You may have heard already, but President Obama has said this weekend that he wants schools to be open longer: longer school days and longer school years.

In some ways, I agree with him.  It bugs me that the local school district here is open for the minimum numbers of minutes and the minimum number of days.  To me, that just screams, “We’re only doing this if we have to…if we could get by with it, we’d be open even less.”

I DO think that we’re not doing a great job educating our children.  That’s why what he’s saying resonates with me.  But I think that it just might be the wrong approach; the federal government once again stepping into the role that the parents have abdicated.

To be honest, it really bugs me that the federal government is involved in education at all.  As a citizen, of course the President and other elected officials (on the federal, state, and local levels)  have a right to voice their opinions on the matter.  But the decisions should be made on the state and local levels.  More importantly, parents need to make those decisions for their children and remember that it is their responsibility to educated and train up their children.

Of course, at this point, you might be thinking, “Well, that’s all well and good, but she doesn’t have children!  She doesn’t know how it is!”  And of course, you’d be right.  Though I haven’t had the privilege of having children to call my own, this is still a passionate subject to me since I regularly work with children myself.  I do know it’s possible, because that example was set for me.

I went to a public school growing up, but my mom didn’t leave my education to that.  She read to my brother and I nightly from chapter books (I believe this is the number 1 best thing she did to encourage us to love reading, a vital skill of a lifelong learner).  She reviewed our textbooks at the beginning of the year so she’d know what we’d be learning.  She took us to the library.  She required us to keep up and continue to develop our skills in the summer by spending about an hour a day on workbooks, flashcards, educational computer games, and other activities.  She took us on fun field trips where we could learn while having fun.  Both my mom and my dad took many opportunities to teach us through everyday situations.

So, while children do need more than 7 hours of education 180 days of the year, that just might be enough time in school if the students weren’t receiving all their education during that time.  Sadly, that’s often not the case.

Parents, please step up.  You have been given a blessing, but with that blessing comes incredible responsibilities.

Photo by digicla

Parents and the President

Posted on by
33

I know, I know, two posts today!  I’m thinking if I post again today, you’ll let me off the hook for Monday, right?  It IS a holiday, even if it’s one that I have no idea what it means!  Really, though, this is a current issue, and not one that everyone cares about.  If you don’t, skip it, and enjoy some football down below!

If you follow politics (or listen to any of a number of talk show hosts), you probably have heard the controversy of Obama’s speech tomorrow to school children.  To be honest, I’m quite surprised at the outrage over this matter.

This is what the White House is saying about it:

“The President has spoken often about the responsibility parents have for their children and their education, but in this message he’ll urge students to take personal responsibility for their own education, to set goals, and to not only stay in school but make the most of it.”

While a speech admonishing parents that it is their responsibility to educate their children is probably more in order, I think this is something that children and teens in particular need to hear.  From what we know thus far, I don’t see/hear anything political about it (though a transcript will be released Monday, and I might join the detractors then based on what I read).

My surprise really comes from the response’s quickness to jump on this as a problem.  I see nothing inherently wrong with the president addressing an encouraging, challenging message to students.  He’s not doing it behind parents’ backs…he’s releasing a transcript prior to so that parents can choose to talk to their children about it or have them exempted from the speech.  He appears not to be foisting his partisan agenda on the students, unless challenging oneself and taking advantage of educational opportunities is considered a political viewpoint.

On this issue, Vicki and I had a bit of a Twitter discussion, as followed.  I’m sorry if at times it’s not quite sequential as most conversations of this sort often aren’t.  In the interest of full disclosure, Vicki and I share many of the same political view points.

Ronnica: Yeah, Rep. want more dropouts. (?) RT @La_Shawn Hadn’t realized Obama’s gov’t school speech was so controversial…http://tinyurl.com/mn436y

Vicki: Concerned parents don’t want more drop outs. We don’t want the invasiveness of Socialism either, that’s why he scares us.

Ronnica: I agree with concerns about prez, but not this address yet. Once we see the transcript Monday, then we can judge.

Ronnica: Basically, I don’t think Obama is the enemy. *shock*

Vicki: Why would that be a shock?

Ronnica: It just seems that so much of what comes out of other conservatives mouths is vilification of those who they don’t agree with.

Vicki: You’re right but why is that not acceptible if what we have found out seems villainous to us? When can we speak our minds without reproof? We’re no louder or more obnoxious than those on the left vilifying what they don’t agree with.

Ronnica: I have no problem w/ppl saying, well, anything. I just think that the enemy is Satan and sin (and Dems aren’t the only sinners).

Vicki: To me his ideals go against my ideas of Christianity, of life, of liberty and of pursuit of happiness. I will speak against that.

Ronnica: I just find it surprising that some conservatives don’t even want their children to hear Obama, period.

Ronnica: Totally, I will/do, too. But I don’t disagree with everything he says, and he’s still the president, regardless.

Ronnica: And I guess I get more frustrated with ppl on “my” side acting like this than those I disagree with.

Vicki: I will let my daughter here him when I am there to guide and “interpret”. Kids @ school don’t have that. And it’s more than that. It’s a political/social message saying we understand where you’re coming from and we’re not going to sit idly by. (sorry for spelling errors, I’m dealing w/ many things…kids…at once) :)

Ronnica: That’s def. a big plus w/homeschooling (parents need to be more involved in their child’s ed when it’s not the prez speaking).

Ronnica: LOL kids: isn’t that what this is about? I’ll have more to say when transcript is released. Might blog this conv, if that’s ok.

Vicki: Yes, he’s the president and we are to respect that office, but I’m fine with being angry and honest. And protective.

Vicki: I know this is God’s will. My hope is that it’s bringing us closer to His Kingdom.

So, what do you think?  If you’re a parent, will you let your children watch this broadcast?  Are you going to read the transcript and then decide?  Will you discuss this with your children/youth?

A Case for Civil Discourse

Posted on by
20

yelling babyCivility (n) – politeness, the act of showing regard for others

Civility…that’s a good word, no?  Then why is it sorely lacking from political debate in this country?

I love a good discussion.  Whether I’m discussing an issue with someone who I mostly agree with or with someone I mostly disagree with,  I believe it’s healthy to question and examine one’s assumptions.  It’s rare that my views are not changed or at least fine-tuned after a discussion of an important matter.  Being forced to state my views in a comprehensible way helps me realize my argument’s weaknesses and recognize any unfounded and unjustified claims.

So why do people think that yelling at one another and calling one another names is a good thing?  Why do they think that this is “debate?”  Why are talk radio shows and cable news programs filled with venomous, vacuous speech?  Do they even think it’s helpful, or is their only aim to disrupt their sworn enemies (because we’re really at war and there can be no middle ground)?

Perhaps I’m naive, but I believe that there is a place for meaningful debate.  That doesn’t mean that we’ll walk away from the table at the end of the day with the same opinions, but we can walk away with a greater respect and understanding of one another and an idea on the things that we can agree on.  While I don’t agree with the President on many of the issues, I share his belief that there is a place for meaningful discussion beyond party, religious, cultural, and racial differences.  I believe our country would be a better place if more people believed this, but I also believe that the sinfulness of man will always taint how we relate to one another.

Photo by Jenn Jenn