I Thought You Meant It: Take Two

[pameladlloyd]

In the comments to my post, Politics and Values: I Thought You Meant It, handworn wrote the following:

Well, with some of those things it's completely possible and logically consistent to live a life that way and encourage it in others, but not to be in favor of it as a basis for government policy, or to be in favor of its institutionalization[. . . .], but that would be a legitimate viewpoint.

In this post, I'll look at each of the statements in the "I Thought You Meant It" essay and address whether I agree with using it as a basis for governmental policy, and why. First, I think that what we're discussing here is when and how should our values inform our conception of government. Before I discuss the individual points made, I'm going to say for the record that all of our views about what government should be are going to be based on our values. That's pretty clear, I think. But, each of us is going to have a large set of values, many of which we're not discussing here, which will also influence our ideas of government. For example, financial matters, states rights vs. central government, etc. all play a role in our perceptions of what government should do. The interaction between some of those issues and the social issues raised by the "I Thought You Meant It" essay are going to influence what you think about how these issues should be resolved.

So, on to the statements from the essay—

I have friends of different races because when you taught me not to judge people based on how they look, I thought you meant it.

What the original essayist didn't directly say, but did, I think, imply, is the idea that neither we nor our government should discriminate against people on the basis of race.

I can't imagine anyone who is in agreement with the idea of equality wanting discrimination to be institutionalized, nor can I imagine that they would not want instances of existing discriminatory laws, rules, regulations, and practices to be dispensed with. However, I do think that reasonable people can and do disagree about what constitutes discrimination and how best to address or redress it, in large part because many people feel that efforts to redress past discrimination wind up being simply another form of discrimination.

I respect other people's religious beliefs because when you taught me that a person's religion is between them and God, I thought you meant it.

Again, the concept here, as it relates to government, is implied by the context of the entire essay, rather than stated directly. My interpretation here is that neither we nor our government should discriminate against people on the basis of religion. To that, I will add that while it's not in the original essay, I firmly believe that our government should not promote the interests of a single religion or group of religions at the expense of other religions.

Since this concept's built into the Constitution through the Bill of Rights, I wish I didn't think I need to say anything about it, but I've seen and heard too much in recent years that suggests to me that there are large numbers of people in this country who are convinced that we are a Christian nation. (This one is very personal for me, because I didn't grow up as a Christian, or even a theist, and I have experienced discrimination because of this.) Our founders, particularly Jefferson and Franklin, were extremely concerned that our nation should not establish a national religion, give preference to one religion over another, or give preference to "religion over non-religion."¹

So here, I believe we must be very careful about how our government treats religion, because despite the wording of the Constitution ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"), we do have laws that, at the very least, affect religions and religious practice. For example, currently, we prohibit the use of drugs for religious purposes, with the only exception I'm aware of being the use of traditional herbal drugs used in some Native American ceremonies. Another practice we prohibit is polygamy, even for people who see this as consistent with or even required by their religion. (I'm not going to go into the merits or failings of either of those practices or our decisions to prohibit them.) But, our government's support for or discrimination against any given religion directly affects many, if not most, of us. Here, I'll point to President Bush's decision to use "his first executive order as President to establish the Office of Faith Based and Community Initiatives at the White House."². I'm still appalled that he did this (and I was even more appalled to learn that President Clinton had quietly established a similar office) and I cannot understand how we have allowed this to happen, because I truly believe that this absolutely and incontrovertibly is in opposition to the First Amendment.

Okay, I can see that I'm getting a bit worked up over this one, so I'll return to the place where I started and simply say that I believe, wholeheartedly, that our respect for other people's religious views is very much something I believe needs protection.

I believe in universal health care and social assistance because when you taught me to be kind to those less fortunate than myself, and when you taught me that people are more important than money, I thought you meant it.

I recently posted about the need for universal health care when I responded to a LiveJournal Writer's Block prompt on Health Care, so I won't repeat myself about the reasons I think this is important. However, I'm aware that many people have suggested that helping those in need should not be a function of government, but of individuals and non-profits. Many point to Bush's support of health-based initiatives as an example of the direction they think we should be moving.

Ignoring for the moment that governmental support of non-profit programs still requires a fair amount of governmental involvement, particularly financial support, and the fact that many of these programs push a religious agenda in disregard of the law while they assist people, I will explain why I don't think this is the right solution. It doesn't work.

We've had governmental support of non-profit assistance for people in need, including people who need health care, for most of the time Bush has been in office. Despite that, there are still people who don't get the health care they need. There are still people who are living on the streets, begging. There are still families who don't know where to turn when one or more of the breadwinners in the home lose a job—whether through economics, error on their part, or because of health issues—and they can't figure out how to pay the mortgage, pay the utilities, and buy food, once they've exhausted their unemployment benefits (if they had any), used up their savings, and maxed out their credit cards.

In an ideal world, people would step in to help their neighbors directly every single time someone needs help. In this world, some people can and will step in, but more often there's nobody who can, or nobody who will.

In this instance, I see the government as the agency that should act as our proxy, taking care of those of us who need help, both on behalf of our society and for its well-being.

I support equal marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples because when you taught me that every person has the same human worth (and also to keep my nose out of other people's business), I thought you meant it.

Here, I feel that our government clings to an outdated religious connection between the state and religion. I think we should make a distinction between religious and civil marriage. Religious marriage can be whatever the leaders and followers of a religion decide; civil marriage should be available to any two consenting adults and be completely unrelated to religious marriage, except that it can be automatically conferred upon the individuals in a religious marriage. Thus, the "sanctity" of marriage stays where it belongs—in the church, and the government's role is simply to enforce the societal contract that civil marriage represents.

I am environmentally conscious because when you taught me to take no more than I need, and to clean up after myself if I make a mess, I thought you meant it.

It's taken the collusion of individuals, corporations, and government to create the mess we're in and that mess is far too large and entrenched to be dealt with effectively without government intervention.

I support reproductive rights because when you taught me I shouldn't judge someone when I don't know what their circumstances are, I thought you meant it.

I have two wonderful sons and three wonderful stepsons, I was never faced with this particular choice, and I no longer have the ability to reproduce, but I fiercely insist that anyone who needs it should have access to information about reproduction, access to contraceptives, and, when they need it, an abortion.

Right now, I think there's far too much government intrusion into what should be a private decision. The debate about reproductive freedom is dominated by what I consider to be religious concerns, which I feel need to be left to the individuals involved, instead of forced upon others. Anyone who's serious about reducing the number of abortions should be supporting sex education and making contraception available to anyone who needs it.

I am dismayed that you would call someone "elitist" merely because they are educated -- because when I became one of the first people in our family to earn a college degree, and you told me how proud I'd made you, I thought you meant it.

I don't think that this one isn't about governmental action, but about the attitudes people hold toward others, so I don't have much to say here.

I am not ashamed if these things make me a liberal, because you taught me not to let other people belittle me about what I stand for, and I choose to believe you meant it.

The only connection I can see to governmental action here, is in the use during political speeches of the word "liberal" as a epithet with which to condemn others. The same could be said of the term "conservative" in this context. It's sad really, to think that we use these terms to hurt each other with.

I believe that if we looked closely, most of us would discover that we have far more in common than otherwise. We all love our families and want what's best for them. We all have dreams and hopes and fears. We are all Americans and we are all human.