Subscribe
Here is part II of my review of John McCain’s issues as published on his website. Part I can be found here.
Human Dignity & the Sanctity of Life: Uh-oh! With a title like that, you know McCain is going to talk about regressive policies that will put woman’s rights back 40 years and sexual rights back to the Victorian Era. It will, of course, be dressed up in holier-than-thou language meant to appeal to people who want everyone else to obey their narrow interpretation of Christianity. Let’s see if I’m right…
Yep. First order of business for McCain is to appoint judges based on one criteria: whether or not they will overturn Roe v. Wade. These judges are his idea of judges that won’t “legislating from the bench”. Bullshit. His only criteria for appointing judges is to change one law! How is that not legislating from the bench? Worse yet, his desire to overturn that precedent is based on nothing more than his religious beliefs (or at least the religious beliefs of the people’s whose votes he wants). I could innumerate all the reasons why McCain is wrong on this issue, but I’ve already done that in part.
His next topic on this ‘issue’ is quite reasonable: promote adoption. This is a laudable goal and I support it as well, unless his idea of promoting adoption is legally removing choice from women. But adoption can be promoted in such a way that it becomes an additional choice for women.
McCain also wants to ‘protect marriage’. This means denying same-sex couples equal protection under the law. (“Screw the gays! Er, not literally, of course”) He tries to make this sound noble by describing the ‘traditional’ family as “the foundation of Western Civilization and civil society”. The obvious implication is that if homosexuals marry, Western Civilization will crumble into chaos. That’s quite a claim Senator, care to back that up with some facts? What’s that? This is based on one verse from the Old Testament? Thought so. Sorry, “Congress shall pass no laws regarding an establishment of religion”.
The topics under this heading are pretty much an Evangelical wish-list. Next, McCain is against embryonic stem cell research. It’s strange how conservatives object to destroying embryos for research purposes but supported it for fertility treatment. After that, he wants children protected from online pornography. I don’t have a problem with that. I do have a problem with how he motivates agreement on this issue. He equates the availability of pornography on the web to child pornography and pedophilia. “Along with the access and anonymity of the Internet have come those who would use it to peddle child pornography and other sexually explicit material and to prey upon children.” America’s obsession with child molestation is disproportionate to the risk. Of all children who are sexually molested, only 5% are victimized by someone they don’t know, even less by someone they met online. 95% are molested by someone the parents know and trust. Of course, politicians can’t use this reality to motivate you to vote for them.
Lobbying & Ethics Reform: I would be surprised if this issue moves closer to the top of his list in the general election. He has a cross-party reputation for decrying the undue influence of Lobbyists and money on government as well as pushing for ethics reform. This would strongly appeal to undecided voters.
As mentioned before, McCain wants to (and has worked to) ban earmarks, increase transparency of lobbyists and their activities, and ban gift-giving to politicians. To prevent money from having an undo influence on elections, McCain also wants to ban donations by corporations and unions, set sensible contribution limits, and to require full disclosure of all funding sources. I think these stances are ones that we call all get behind.
Strategy for Victory in Iraq: His rather straight forward answer is “More troops!” He goes on to explain what the extra troops would be used for.
- Securing more of the country thus eliminating insurgences’ bases and allowing for development
- Training Iraqi police and armed forces
- Enable political stability
- Improve the infrastructure of secured areas
I’m glad that he recognizes that improving the day-to-day lives of average Iraqis is key to victory. Once the people discover that their lives are better under US occupation and the new Iraqi government, insurgence will lose support. Our enemies will find that they are not welcome in Iraq and will have more difficulty recruiting members. Of course, a prerequisite of improving Iraq is securing Iraq and that would require more troops. The difficulty see is that there are no more troops to be had (as far as I know). Troops are leaving the military at the first opportunity because of being overworked (multiple, extended tours) and recruitment is down. The only other source is a d-r-a-f-t, which would be political suicide.
I am not a typical antiwar liberal. I felt since the beginning that we had no business invading Iraq and that doing so would be disastrous, but that argument became moot on March 16, 2003. Now that we’ve invaded and occupied Iraq, I feel we have a moral obligation to the Iraqis. It would be morally reprehensible to destroy their infrastructure and cause the deaths of 90,000 civilians to overthrow a despot only to withdraw prematurely and allow yet another despot to rise to power. They have endured the lion’s share of the cost of the war and have done so without choice. We forced this upon them. We justified are actions by promising them freedom. To fail to deliver is unacceptable.
Border Security & Immigration Reform: First McCain says that he will secure our borders; not just with respect to the crossing of people, but also that of goods. He’s careful to avoid the ‘keep the Mexicans out’ overtones of some border security er… enthusiasts and even recognizes the importance of maintaining good relations with democratic, Latino countries. Really, the only thing his website says about immigration is that new citizens should learn English, American history, and the values of democracy.
I believe we already have a history/civics exam, given in English, that immigrants have to pass to become a citizen. This is really a jab at the illegal immigrant population, which is really what this issue is all about. I’m a bit of a fence sitter on this issue. I believe in the rule of law but also think our immigration policies are too restrictive, especially on Mexicans. I would like to see a path to legalization for those already here, but I am ambivalent as to the details of such a path.
Commitment To America’s Service Members: Past And Present: McCain starts with this statement, “America owes its liberty, its prosperity, and its future to our veterans who have dedicated their lives to protecting our great country.” While there is much that is true about this statement, I find it misleading. It seems to suggest that every time our troops go into combat, they are fighting for our freedom. Sadly, this is not true. In fact, the last war we entered into in which our liberties were actually at stake was WWII. Korea was no threat to our liberty. Neither was Vietnam. Nor is Iraq. Each of these times, we entered into war for other people’s freedom or, more commonly, political ideology.
That being said, I do believe that most US troops enter into combat out of a sense of duty knowing full well that they may be called upon to die to defend our freedom. We, as a democracy have asked them to serve, and they did. I find it shameful that we have asked them to die for reason far less noble than that. Still, they honorably fulfilled their end of the bargain, we should uphold ours.
McCain, as a veteran of the most infamous unnecessary war, has already done much to this end as a Senator. He has worked to increase pay and benefits for troops, to increase bonuses for enlisting and reenlisting, and to provide tax relief to troops serving overseas. He would like to ensure the long-term wellbeing of veterans. He wants the best healthcare for them which would include care for veterans’ special needs, including mental health care. He’d also like to eliminate the ban of collecting both disability and retirement benefits so that disabled veterans would not have to choose between the two. Other goals of McCain include creating and supporting transition-to-civilian-life programs, debt protection for overseas troops, benefits to widows and widowers of fallen soldiers, and creating monuments to honor our past veterans.
I don’t think anyone questions Mr. McCain’s dedication to the men and women who serve in our military. What I do question is his inexplicable desire to create more combat veterans via unnecessary wars like the current Iraq war. Considering the personal losses he suffered as a result of the Vietnam War, I find his hawkish nature very surprising.
“This is based on one verse from the Old Testament?”
There’s a little in the NT too. Of course how many verses would be enough for the Christian to determine that God looked down on a particular behavior? One I’d reckon should be.
I’m aware of that because we’ve discussed it before, but how many Christians who claim homosexuality is wrong know any basis beyond the one in Leviticus? And how many would hold that belief if there were no relevant verses in the Bible? My point was that McCain can’t make a law simply because of his religious beliefs.
While on this subject, do you know the validity of this statement from Jagannath: “Leviticus is a rulebook for priests, it was never meant for laymembers of faith.”
If it is valid then it would seem that even Leviticus isn’t a sound basis for opposing the rights of same-sex couples.
“Border Security and Immigration Reform…I’m a bit of a fence sitter on this issue.”
I’m going to assume you did that on accident, because if so it makes it that much more hilarious.
Also, the paragraph stating your position on the Iraq War is essentially identical to my beliefs on the issue. It’s not often I find people who agree with that. It’s either, “Well we freed them, so they should be happy with us still there for as long as we need!” or “This was bad, so let’s get the hell out!”
Ha! That was an accident.
It is rare to find people who agree with me on Iraq. I’m glad that you do.
Well it would strike me as reasonable that most Christains are far more familiar with the New Testament given that it is that group of books that form the foundation of our religion. Most Christians I know are fairly ignorant of the OT. FWIW that includes me. I’ve certianly read and studied most of the OT, but I’m no expert.
I don’t believe that the entirety of the book of Leviticus is entirely for the priests. According to Wikipedia “The first 16 chapters and the last chapter describe the Priestly Code, detailing ritual cleanliness, sin-offerings, and the Day of Atonement, including Chapter 12 which mandates male circumcision. Chapters 17-26 describe the holiness code, including the injunction in chapter 19 to love one’s neighbor as oneself.” And given that all male Israelites were to be circumcised I don’t think that argument would bear much weight. I for one have never heard that the book is solely for priests. It is largely aimed at the Israelites though. For instance I as a gentile am not required to circumcise my son. I can also eat shellfish thankfully.
“And how many would hold that belief if there were no relevant verses in the Bible?”
Probably far fewer, but that’s a moot point since there are.
“My point was that McCain can’t make a law simply because of his religious beliefs.”
Certainly we agree that he can’t make the law simply because of his religious (or even non-religious) beliefs. Of course the Constitution doesn’t say that religious beliefs shouldn’t form the basis of any law. It simply (heh) says that we can’t establish a state religion. If the will of the people is to make union between homosexuals legal then so it shall be. If the will of the people is that it should not be then it should not be. That’s how I understand our system to work. I think that the former is the way we are headed and I for one am fine with that.
Regarding the war, I have no desire to stay in any longer than we have to and if our sole reason is to wait until that region is “stabilized” then we’ll be there until my grandchildren have grandchildren. I know full well that no President will pull us out in a month, a year, or probably a decade. But I don’t understand how anyone can think that we can somehow prevent a despot from arising in that country once we leave. We have a poor record when it comes to removing despots and keeping them “removed”. I think our only success is Germany and maybe Italy. Since WWII we’re not exactly batting a thousand.
Hello Scott,
I thought so as well. Yet I’ve only ever heard Christian’s use Leviticus 18:22 verse to justify their oppression of homosexuals. There also seems to be an unhealthy emphasis on Genesis as well.
In fact, it does say that, at least based on a couple centuries of judicial interpretation. The problem with using religion as a basis for a law is that it becomes a de facto endorsement by the government of that religion. The government would be establishing a preference for a particular religion in violation of the 1st Amendment.
Fortunately, it’s not that simple. In a pure democracy, you’d be correct: majority rules. But we are a constitutional, representative democracy. Our constitution was wisely amended to include protection for minorities from the majority. Someone can still say something even if the majority rather she not be allowed to say it. The majority cannot punish a criminal cruelly or unusually even if they all think he deserves it. Blacks were allowed to vote (albeit belatedly) even when a majority didn’t want them to. And all individuals are guaranteed equal protection under the law, even if the majority disapprove of their choices and behaviors. A direct democracy with simple majority-rule is nothing but mob-rule, and I’m glad that’s not how our government is set up.
Yeah, my personal belief is that that’s due to an agenda/poor scholarship. Not sure which comes first.
You might think I’m splitting hairs and I may be but I’d differentiate between a person’s personal religious belief and a religion as a body. If I push to enact a law on the basis that I think it should be immoral to slap someone with a fish due to my religious beliefs and enough people get behind that to ratify it would it then be unconstitutional? I don’t think so. And the government can enact a law that protects a religious belief without establishing a preference for that religion. There’s a long way between a fish slapping law and establishing a state religion.
And I would argue that that only happened due to the will of the people. Today especially when politicians are so paranoid about reelection it’s almost as though we’re turning into a de facto pure democracy. It’s easier now than ever to get enough folks together to push a certain bit of legislation through or prevent a certain bit from being pushed through. So while “majority” doesn’t rule the political wind does after a fashion. We’re not to mob rule yet, but you wait and see if it doesn’t happen. I think that we’re growing closer to a pure democracy. I’m not sure I like that any more than you, but there you go.
Indeed every individual has the freedom to vote based on any criteria they choose. They also have the freedom to donate to campaigns and lobby lawmakers. Finally, they have the right to assembly. When such assemblies become large and sustained, they become a bodies. So the line between one’s personal religious beliefs and a religious body is blurry. So you’re not splitting hairs, but maybe picking two different points along a spectrum, which is valid.
That’s a good point and that’s precisely what the second clause of the First Amendment does. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof“. Outlawing homosexuality in no way inhibits anyone’s free exercise of their beliefs. It does, however, give preference to Christian beliefs over, say, pagan beliefs, which allow (and in some cases, celebrates) such behavior. That’s not even to mention the free speech issues that have been used to eliminate sodomy laws.
With real-time polling, it seems that we are heading in that direction.
So I’m just curious, which pagan belief celebrates homosexuality?
The ancient Greeks are who I had in mind. Homosexuality is in their mythology. Consider Achilles and Patroclus from the Iliad. You can also look up the honored roll of being a ‘two-spirit’ in some native American cultures. I’m sure there are others as well.
We Do! actually there is several references to the homosexual act in Egyptian myth the one quoted regularly is the duel between Set and Horus. Set calls Horus “you of the beautiful Buttocks” this could just mean he’s well shaped and healthy, but it has been inferd otherwise as well. Amun was called the “great He-She” and in one variation of the myth masturbated the world into existance from his own semen. There are plenty of gods and goddesses that are both dual and or have a specific sexual component. in my branch of faith. Pagans as a rule have very little upset over homosexuality and on another tack, Transgender or Transsexuals either. We find that identity is not hingent on how you interact with the divine. You can feel the touch of divinity without going through a screening process first to see if you qualify. After that, then it’s a philosopher’s hobby to debate the hows and whys of faith and practice.