We enjoy certain freedoms. In many places these freedoms are not to be found. Freedom of religion, of political status, freedom to choose where to live, freedom of choice in occupation, schooling, all sorts of things.
Here in the US we proudly claim a separation of church and state. One of those important issues to the Founding Fathers, those guys the politicians love to quote, cite, and do all that can to give the impression that they are connected with them, on some common spiritual, emotional, attitudinal plane. As abstract as that seems, apparently the mention of the Founding Fathers and the impression of being in tune with their thoughts, intentions, and current take on things, brings on the urge to vote among the grass roots.
Or so it would seem, the way these politicos toss around Founding Father sound bites.
Agree to disagree. This concept is out of the question n some parts of the world. Here it is supposed to be a basic tenet, a true fact of life. We can agree, agree to disagree, and agree to do some agreeing and disagreeing on various issues.
We also have freedom of religion. As long as the religion isn't breaking laws (like the holy car thief congregation) or preventing others from observing their religion, we can practice as we so choose.
Despite how much it appalls and shocks some folk, we also have the right to not practice any religion. Freedom of non-religion, so to speak.
I hold mostly Liberal views, lean rather Libertarian, and can be appallingly reactionary on a few items. Despite the popularly held wisdom stated in the adage, "the older one gets, the more one becomes a conservative," I only suffer from the mildest of such symptoms.
FREEDOM OF CHOICE is very important to me. Our individual freedoms of choice and disagreement are right up there, on the same level.
There are two friends of mine, one of 30+ years, one a recent acquaintance, who espouse rather right-wing views. Both of them are intelligent, decent people. I like them, I enjoy their friendship, and our discussions (debates?) about various topics.
For one of them, a major litmus test for his vote is the abortion issue. I am on the side of personal, individual rights. I also believe this is an area where church and state need be separated. What a person decides to do within their own domain (apologies to Seinfeld fans) is their business. Their choice. Not my choice, not yours. Their choice.
My friend believes differently. He makes it clear that this goes against the teachings of his religious belief, and that he cannot accept abortion as a legal act.
He has, at least, agreed with me that this litmus-test issue is a religious one with him. Despite the fact that it guides his vote, he knows --in his case-- it is church trumping state.
I like this guy. No bullshit from him. We discuss it, air out our thoughts, and move along. No name-calling, no harboring of ill feeling toward each other. A disagreement. And life as we know it continues.
Now you understand the reason he voted for our next president. My friend agrees with me that Shrub is a poor excuse for a leader, even worse of an excuse for a candidate. But his Republican of choice, McClain, didn't get the nomination, and since Bore was so openly Pro-Choice, my friend felt his vote had to go to the dummy who passed the litmus test, as opposed to the smart guy with whom he generally disagrees. Of course, he did once say to me that Bore would probably be the better man in the hotseat than Shrub. But a candidate's view on the abortion issue is the deciding factor for him. I respect his honesty, and his commitment to an idea.
Even one I happen to disagree with, vehemently.