Friday, February 17, 2012


rep·re·sent·a·tive   /ˌrɛprɪˈzɛntətɪv/ Show Spelled[rep-ri-zen-tuh-tiv]
1. a person or thing that represents another or others.
2. an agent or deputy: a legal representative.
3. a person who represents a constituency or community in a legislative body, especially a member of the U.S. House of Representatives or a lower house in certain state legislatures.

I have had a bee in my bonnet on this issue for a long time.  It seems like it is coming up more and more frequently, and not just because it is an election year.

When we elect someone to office, it is their responsibility to then represent us.  I know that each election has a winner and a loser and that the losing side deserves some consideration when it comes to their point of view.  The concept of "majority rules" is meant to keep both sides working to have their points of view debated and weighed during elections and the "side" that wins is the one which gets the most consideration when positions are taken.

What I see developing more and more is elected representitives making decisions based on their own religious beliefs, on what is politically expedient or what they think will make them electable in the future.  So when I see these polls indicating that 67% of Catholics and 64% of other voters think the President's birth control coverage requirement should stand, why are we still talking about this?  What leverage should there be when the will of the people, the desire of the voters is to support the President?

Why are the elected officials of this country even meeting with the Catholic Bishops Council?  Beyond their individual vote and the sway they may hold over their church members, what other say should they have in the governing of our country?  None.  If they want to become a political force, then they should give up their non-profit status, pay their way and join in the fray.  Otherwise, their constituency is their own membership - which is certainly not the entire country.

When John F. Kennedy was running for President there were a lot of people against him because of his Catholic religion.  They said they didn't want the country run by the Pope.  Yet just these few years later we are being forced to fight off  religious intolerance, whim, mandate, threat and  prejudice at every turn.

As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said, 'The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins.' Rights must be limited to claims of freedom to do anything which does not violate the freedoms of others.

If you don't believe in abortion, don't have one.  If you don't believe in using birth control, don't use it.  If you believe homosexuality is a sin, don't have sex with someone of the same sex.  If you don't believe in evolution, teach your children what you do believe and let the science teachers teach what they know.  Your right to believe in what you believe and practice your beliefs doesn't bother me until you try to foist it on me, my family, schools and the rights of others in this country.


smalltownme said...

Right on! Excellent post!

knittergran said...

I heard on NPR last night that the Bishop's Council wants desperately to kill the Affordable Care Act. Why do they have a dog in this fight? I don't get it. And the source for the information was the head of the Catholics for Freedom (something like that). I am really puzzled by all of this prejudice against women.

Tricia said...

Great post and a very good point...why do they not represent the majority of the people....cause they can. It is not really the idea of democracy.