Friday, June 6, 2008

Vote For The Person

I just want to get something off my chest. Numerous times during the last year I've heard people say that they would/wouldn't vote for someone because they were a) a woman, b) black, or c) the wrong religion. What do any of those things have to do with how the individual stacks up as a leader in our government? Don't other qualifications matter more... like the person's intelligence? compassion? ability to communicate? knowledge of policy? previous experiences and accomplishments? good judgement? capacity to bring others along on a good idea? cultural sensitivity? strength under pressure? ... just to name a few. I've heard women say that if Hillary, after all she's done to win this race, didn't win the nomination they wouldn't vote for Obama because it's a woman's turn. Because it's her turn? I've heard people admit they wouldn't vote for Obama because he's a black man or because of "that Muslim thang." That Muslim thing?I've heard people say they could never vote for a woman for the highest position in our country because a woman would never be able to handle it. Oh really? Tell that to Indira Gandhi or Golda Meir or Margaret Thatcher.

Let me make a comment about "that Muslim-thang." First of all, it is very clear that Obama was never a practicing Muslim. Yes, his father's father was a Muslim, but Obama's father was not religious when he met and married Obama's mother. Obama's mother remarried some time after divorcing Obama's father, her new husband being a Muslim man from Indonesia, but the home was secular, the school was public (not a madrassa as rumor states), and Obama was not raised Muslim. In fact from the age of 10 he lived with and was raised by his white, Christian grandparents. But here's the big question: So what? So what if he was raised Muslim? Once capable of deciding for himself he, in fact, became a Christian and attended church... but why should any of that matter? Do you mean that a Muslim can't be a good president? Do you mean that someone who used to be Muslim can't be a good president? Do you mean that someone who is a church-going Christian but whose father was Muslim can't be a good president? Do you mean that only Christians can be good presidents, only Christians who were born Christian to Christian parents?

Contrary to what many people think, this country was not founded as a Christian society nor were the rules and laws based on the Christian-Judeo creeds. If you feel this is in error, go to a website called Archiving Early America where articles written by our founding fathers are replicated and discussed. You can also go to the Fresh Air Terry Gross interview of Steven Waldman, who researched the historical documents related to the separation of church and state and religious freedom in America. Sorry folks, we are not a Christian nation and were never meant to be. Religion should not be a factor in the presidential election.

So, I ask you -

? If you had to choose between Jim Bakker (Christian, went to jail for stealing church donations) or Shirin Ebadi (Muslim, humanitarian and winner of the Nobel Peace Prize) would you vote for Bakker because he's Christian?

? If you had to choose between O.J. Simpson and Oprah would you choose O.J. because he's a man?

? If you had to choose between Martin Luther King, Jr. and Pat Robertson would you vote for Robertson because he's white?

I suggest that we voters should be choosing our leaders based on the merit of their qualifications and that we do that only after we have done our own investigation of each candidate. Listening to other people's soundbites is dangerous. Hopefully each citizen can then make their decision to VOTE FOR THE PERSON who can do the best job instead of selecting our next president because he's a man, a woman, a white, a black, a Christian...

2 comments:

Saeed said...

Is it not interesting that all the three female rulers you named in your post took their countries to war. cause great deal of destruction, and made lasting hardship and conflict for millions everafter. I don't mean to imply that women rulers are miserable warmongers worse than male rulers, but I wonder what I can say about them if I just wore my Freudian analytic hat. Some sort of compensation, say like showing Super-Balls to cover up their true nature?

Ingrid said...

Yeah maybe. Perhaps that's what it takes for females to rise to the top in a still-male dominated world. I venture to say that we've seen a bit of that in Hillary. She's had to sound so tough, and I don't think it's much of a facade, to counter assertions that as a female perhaps she couldn't protect our country very well. Only men can afford to speak softly and carry a big stick.