You’re Too Stupid to Vote   8 comments


“We don’t want to restrict your religious freedoms in any way. Just keep your beliefs in the church.”

That was posted on a Christian’s forum on a writer’s site a while back. Other postings there said “Just keep your religion out of the ballot box” and “Your beliefs have no business outside of your own home and church.” To clarify, although it was not my thread, I asked “So, when I — as a Christian — vote for public officials, what should be my criteria for deciding my vote?” I received various opinions from “Christians shouldn’t vote because their opinion doesn’t support society’s (I mean, my) viewpoint” to “You should support the Democratic candidate because they really understand that Jesus came to feed everybody.” Someone finally got around to saying  “Your beliefs are irrelevant and should have no voice in the public square.” I countered “But yours should?” And it went from there.

For the record, I think everyone should have a say in the public square. I’m a civil libertarian, so I’m fine with idiots stating their opinions. I think the best ideas will usually win out in the marketplace of ideas because as ideas are adopted, we see which ones work and which ones don’t. The problem is when idiots get together to control the government and forget this little thing called the Constitution and the first amendment to that document and start insisting that anyone who doesn’t agree with them should be silenced.

The church is not a cloister. Certain Catholic orders aside, most Christians live in the real world, where we own property, raise children, work or own businesses, spend our money and vote our consciences. Our private beliefs fuel our public acts. That’s as it should be and there’s no shortage of non-Christians doing that.

President Obama (and you can argue with me about whether he’s a Christian or not, if you want, but I have the Bible on my side of the definition) claims he took his public stand on same-sex marriage based on conversations with his daughters and his interpretation of Jesus’ teachings. He brought his private beliefs into the public square. Although his stance and interpretation of Jesus’ teachings were criticized, I can’t recall any of the criticism being directed toward his promoting his private beliefs in public. If we’re going to be fair and equal, shouldn’t everybody hold their private beliefs in their home and not make them public?

Reverend Canon Gary Hall, Dean of the National Cathedral in Washington DC, offered a prayer at the opening of Senator Diane Feinstein’s anti-gun press conference in which he said “Everyone in this city seems to live in terror of the gun lobby, but I believe that the gun lobby is no match for the cross lobby.’”

So, a clergyman opens a Senate-related press conference with prayer, invoking the cross and calling on Americans to fulfill their moral duty, and the secular media does not howl in protest. What about “separation of Church and State”? Can you imagine what the reaction would have been if, hypothetically, Senator Tom Coburn had invited Rev. Franklin Graham to pray and offer comments before a press conference defending the right to bear arms? How long would it have taken for shrill cries of “Religious Jihadists!” to ring through the airwaves?

The hypocritical double standard is so thick you need a chainsaw to cut it.

In America today, there is a vocal minority that believes that those with spiritual or moral convictions are welcome to their beliefs so long as they don’t vote or act based on those beliefs. They have deemed our convictions immoral and wrong, therefore, we must submit to tyranny (governed without representation or even voice in public) and since we can’t be trusted not to vote our convictions we shouldn’t be allowed to vote.

I particularly enjoyed the PBS article that said “misinformed” voters shouldn’t be allowed to vote when the writer himself put forth misinformation in his article. How will our society make the determination of who is misinformed? And what if the disenfranchised voter doesn’t agree that he is misinformed? How do our atheists intend to decide which Christians are delusional and which are sane?

America has worked for 230 years based upon the idea — modified over time — that reasonable people can govern themselves. We have never agreed with one another, but we’ve always given our opposition the right to speak their minds and — if they have a good argument — win the public to their way of thinking. Yet, today, we have those who would silence anyone holding an opinion that they disagree with.

How did we get here? Really, liberals, please explain why you think this is a good idea?

8 responses to “You’re Too Stupid to Vote

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Reblogged this on sally1137.


  2. You are right on the money. Well said.


  3. I have to echo Sally:
    Really, really well said.

    Pointing out Leftist hypocrisy never gets old, but it’s gone past the “galling” stage. We’re no longer just being insulted, we’re being railroaded.

    The Left is not playing by any set of rules, other than “if it works, do it”. That opens up all sorts of options for them, since they don’t have to worry about honesty, integrity, or other boring stuff….


  4. Reblogged this on contentconservative.


  5. “How did we get here? Really, liberals, please explain why you think this is a good idea?”

    It’s doubtful they really do. But maybe a look into their ever evolving use of titles such as “Liberal” might offer some insight to their mentality. With that being said, ‘et’s take a moment to discuss the history of communists, socialists, leftist, and liberals to show exactly how the various titles “stick”….

    The history of communists and socialists and leftists and liberals is never to take ownership of their past. If one remembers, the Democrat Party is the party of slavery, secession, segregation and now socialism. They are very diligently always trying to rework the unworkable and trying to recast their ideology into some new mold by calling it new names… modifying it, softening it, making it acceptable. Whether it was Progressives’ love for Woodrow Wilson (who segregated the military) or Progressive admiration for Mussolini’ fascism in the 1920’s, these are all indicators of the inherent rot of the movement.

    David Horowitz, one of the New-Left’s activist leaders in the 1960’s claims that pure communists in 1950’s America always called themselves “progressives”.

    So progressives then recast themselves in the forties and fifties as liberals because of the negative connotations. But they were forced to change names back again to “Progressives” after the 1980’s, because Reagan exposed them as socialists trying to make socialism acceptable by calling themselves liberal. Following that exposure by Reagan, Hilary Clinton then admitted to preferring the name Progressive.

    In any case the liberal trajectory is always downward and destructive. You see this in public policy, social norms, and political extremism of the left. The Democrat Party as you have always envisioned it no longer exists. Much like a hermit crab that assumes the shell of another, the Democratic party has been taken over by the hard left over the years.

    In all honesty, the movement really should be named “regressivism”.


    • I agree with you about the revisionist history, but I would point out that both national parties exist to be elected to a majority in Congress and to the White House. They both have changed their ideology in order to meet what they perceive as voter demand. Neither is exempt from the charge of vote pandering. Look at the GOP right now. The “moderate” leadership is falling all over itself to appear more like Democrats in the vain hope of winning future elections, in effect disenfranchising the conservatives that make up much of its ranks. There was a recent article on RealClearPolitics by a Democrat that said the GOP was pretending to move left while actually moving right. Liberals can (rightly) observe that conservatives (as represented by the GOP) are equally flexible in our ideology. I don’t think this is actually true of conservatives, but is very much true of the GOP.


      • Fortunately I am no longer a card carrying member of the GOP. They change their ideology … I change my voter status. They fix their issues, and move back towards my ideology, then I change my voter registration once more.

        I have no problem with being as choleric with the GOP as I am with Obama’s flippant administration, and party.


      • I’ve never been a member of a political party, though I’ve been a registered voter since my 18th birthday. Mom took me to lunch and then to the Lt. Governor’s local office. I doubt I’ll ever join a political party. I don’t trust any of them enough to actually join them.


What's Your Opinion?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

The Libertarian Ideal

Voice, Exit and Post-Libertarianism


Social trends, economics, health and other depressing topics!

My Corner

Showcasing My Writing and Me

The Return of the Modern Philosopher

Deep Thoughts from the Shallow End of the Pool


Jacqui Murray's WordDreams

Steven Smith

The website of an aspiring author


a voracious reader. | a book blogger.


adventure, art, nature, travel, photography, wildlife - animals, and funny stuff


The Peaceful Revolution Liberate Main Street

%d bloggers like this: