All around town, quite a number of Americans seem uncertain about voting in the 2008 Election, and they have their reasons -

1- Some people have already decided not to vote because the last President never did anything for them. Even those who had strongly voiced their opinions on issues affecting the country were ignored by the President who went forward promoting his own agenda.

2- Approximately half of all Americans will vote because as an American citizen, it's what they're supposed to do.

3 – Another considerably sized group will not vote because from past experiences they really believe that their vote will not be counted, given the ancient voting machines and the newer electronic machines that can easily be hacked, and which do not provide a paper trail for post-electoral verification.

4- Then there is a sizeable Demographic group of Americans who will vote according to their religious convictions, which many believe got Bush into the White House, and they are known as right-wing Christians.

Understanding the people's views on the above three, I cannot comprehend number four. How had religion come to cuddle with politics?

I was raised in a Catholic home and I went to Catholic school. I do not remember attending Mass or religious instructions nor the Priest speaking about politics or of politicians, not even in my Senior year when some of us were nearing the voting age. Religion and politics were not discussed in the same breath. The teachings were that religion is inherently personal.

I also do not recall my Priest reading a scripture from the Bible and then speaking as a matter of fact about politics and politicians. The two were respectfully separated and discussed when appropriate. During my last year, my religion class involved the history of Christianity and the Catholic religion. Politics was discussed only during our government and history studies.

Who's the first to bring politics before the face of God? How had this mixed bag become a norm for some people? When had the political leaders become representatives of this country through the words of religious leaders?

Giving careful thought to religion and politics, I watched to see how this worked and I still cannot understand the hype (but I do the reasoning.) My suspicion is that the God some preachers worship isn't in heaven but located in his bank.

Had the leaders come forth for those people in this country who lack faith in themselves and the ability to make a conscientious decision on their own? I know that many Americans only follow the leaders and rely on others to make their decision as to what is best for this country. (Where's the independence? Is this a new way of free-thinking?) Some people are followers, and depend on the leaders to make decisions for them. I cannot comprehend this slavish attitude, but I do know that religion and politics have sprung in recent years to be used for political advantage.

In 2004, Republicans (campaign) partied with their selected religious leaders. There is more than a handful in this country for those interested to choose from to fit their own ideals. You know, listen to what the leaders have to offer and then decide. "I like what this leader is saying to me, so I'm going to go by his words." "Nah, I don't like this leader's way of thinking. It doesn't jell with my ideals. Let me hear what the other leaders are talking about. Perhaps I'll hear what I want to hear to make up my mind whom I should vote for."

Religious leaders delivered a great deal of talk during the 2004 presidential election and the Republicans wasted no time catching the pieces of information they felt were favorable to their agendas. Still, today, I cannot comprehend how a religious leader can verbalize publicly that if we vote Democrats this country will be run by homosexuals, abortion clinics, terrorists will attack us daily and that the only one to save us from this are the Republicans.

The comedy of errors is that some people had actually taken those leaders words to heart. What a way to go when one lack’s faith in themselves. Hilarious though is to learn that those leaders were involved in extra marital affairs, homosexual affairs with male prostitutes, sexual predators of the worse kind and/or preyed on children. The icing on the cake, quite a few Republicans had their share of corruption, lies and dirty deeds.

The Democrats cannot get off that easily. Plenty of information about those religious leaders could have been discovered before 2004. As well, all the colors Bush used to spell out terror attacks upon us at any given moment. Yet in the same breath, he suggested that all's under control, go out, have a good time, spend money, go the movies and restaurants and to the stores before we begin to encounter serious problems with the economy. He spooned it to us and most swallowed the words. The Democrats could have used the information as leverage, but they chose to show emotion in the face of the bluffing, poker playing Republicans.

Is the time now for a positive change? As individual Americans with bursts of energy and strong spirits, wouldn't it work best to think for ourselves, conduct our own research, look up information and study the candidates who are closest to saying the truth on issues important to us; which politician is best to handle the mess left by the former President and bring back what the United States of America means to all of us? Most Americans believe, We the People first.

Have faith in yourself when you vote November 2008. Rely on your own research and studies to conclude who will be our next President. Sway from relying one-hundred percent on the media, polls, religious leaders (who ought to stay focused on lecturing religion, not politics.) Let's show strength and independence. Only you can know who's right to run this country.

Let's believe that as American citizens, we can look inside a candidate and choose what is best for this country with independence. May all voters this coming election, choose honest candidates. Truth matters.

CORNERSTONE
1- The Volokh Conspiracy - Ministers Trying to Mix Religion and Politics, Cleveland Plain Dealer Newspaper -
"Politics from the pulpit was so pervasive in Black churches that the Republicans came up with a strategy of quietly handing over cash to Black ministers for church projects in exchange for a promise to stick to preaching instead of exhorting a vote."

"I've only heard serious arguments that preachers who use tax-exempt assets such as churches to promote specific candidates may be crossing the line. If that's what the preachers are doing, then he's just as bad as the rest. I believe that talking politics in church cheapens religion."

2- Daily Times Newspaper - Thinking Aloud: Politics, Elections and God by Razi Azmi 11-4-04

"Modern and contemporary history is replete with instances of rift, violence and bloodshed when state and politics are infused with religion. Western and central Europe, now an inland of peace, stability progress and prosperity in a sea of instability, poverty and violence, was a theatre for war and bloodshed in the name of religion only a few centuries ago. Heretics were burnt alive and battles raged to preserve religious purity. It is due to this historical experience that Europe is now averse to mixing religion and politics and so tolerant of religious differences as to be a magnet for those fleeing religious persecution in other countries. Europeans learnt long ago that religion and politics don't mix well."

3- Peace Signs - Politics and Religion don't Mix or Just not Your Politics? By Leo Hartshorn 6-21-05 / http://mennoniteusa.org/peace

"We live in a dangerous time in which mixing religion and politics can be volatile, like mixing fire and fuel."

4- Mixing Politics and Religion: Politicians Must Stop Playing God by Dean Hartwell ( http://www.deanhartwell.com ) 6-22-07

"We should not let politicians or anyone else define God for us. It may be true that we will never have a consensus of whom God is or is not. But when anyone stands up and opposes the forces of logic and reason and directs us to go to war or act with hatred toward anyone without explaining it, it is time to call him on it and ask them to stop playing God."

5- Kathleen Kennedy Townsend - "Failing America 's Faith - How Today's Churches Are Mixing God with Politics and Losing Their Way."

"For millions of Americans, faith defines who we are. We are not judged by the symbols we wear or use in our speeches, but we are judged by our actions and by the quality of our religious practice."

6- Walter Jones, R-NC, introduced a bill that would allow churches, temples, mosques and other houses of worship to channel donations directly to political campaigns, and to use church resources to help elect or defeat specific candidates without losing their tax-exempt status. Even mainstream religious sentiment is strongly against it. Seventy-seven percent of clergy believes houses of worship should not be involved with political endorsements. Dozens of religious groups, including the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs, The Presbyterian Church Washington Office, The Central Conference of American Rabbis and the Congress of National Black Churches have signed a letter to Congress denouncing the Jones bill, saying, "Tying churches to partisan activity demeans the institutions from which many believers expect unimpeachable decency.”

For years, communities all around the world have relentlessly focused to resolve the issue of violence against women. Now, women are physically attacking and assaulting their partners.

Some people believe that research into the abuse of male partners by women is in its infancy, and that too many groups of men’s organizations are very hesitant to accept or speak out publicly about the long hidden abuse of males by their female spouses, or partners . . . Others who are aware of the increasing violence against men all around the globe cannot help wondering, are advocates seeking justification for female violence? (Very few advocates and feminist-inclined-experts have grudgingly admitted that abusive women exist.)

Have battered men become society’s invisible victims? Is this reversed abuse? Is society in denial? Do the people in our communities feel uncomfortable or are they embarrassed to admit that females may be as guilty as males of domestic violence? Could the reason for the increase of male victims that goes unnoticed be due to our communities and media having become accustomed to giving men the right to violence, while portraying females as enduring victims, peaceful and passive?

Needless to say, the continued attention given to battered females is absolutely necessary. However, why is so little attention given to men in domestic violence relationships? Why have 40 percent of abused men chosen to remain the invisible victims of domestic violence? (Wendy McElroy, www.ifeminists.com - “Perhaps the law will swing toward justice and equal treatment of battered men . . .)

Once upon a time, a segment on Maury Povich showed a wife who’d thrown a coffee table at her husband. At the time, the police suggested he go outside while they walked to his wife. Hence, the police did not arrest her, not only because she’s female, but because she alleged that he hit her first. The police officers believed her. After the police left, she got three guys to beat him up, in retaliation for his reporting her to the police.

A far more dangerous situation occurred when a female shot her husband. In this case the court system indicted her for attempted murder. During the trial, it was discovered that she was abusive from the beginning of their relationship. And although she pushed and hit him constantly, he stayed in the unhealthy relationship. If there’s violence in the home, it's because she initiated it, and the abused mate refused to strike back. Her abusive behavior escalated, but he never thought that she would shoot him.

The same behavior patterns and justifications battering males have used for decades to justify abuse against their partner, are now being echoed by some females when they say: "He just pushes my buttons. He aggravates me."

It’s been noted that abusive females behave violently because they feel anger and hatred toward their mate. And the same as abused females, the abused males are in denial about the abuse, tolerating the ill-treatment by passively claiming that, "She is loving when she wants to be. When she is on Prozac (or some other type of medication) she is not stressed out, mad or tense." Males may also profess that, "I love her. I believe in my marriage vows. I want to work it out and be a family." He will not leave the violent partner. Some abused (women) men are willing to take the chance because she does not always hate him, and there are times she really loves him. (http://www.angelfire.com/in3/shatteredmen/)

One of the differences is that when a male victim calls 911 to report that his wife beat him, he is given, not only minimal sympathy, but also the least possible support from the police, lawyers, prosecutors, judges and the media because most people do not take physically abused males seriously. Instead, they heckle the battered men when they confide in accepting and tolerating his wife’s abuse. (There are still jokes about abused men. There is a common stereotype image in our culture of the markedly masculine man who can take care of himself under any circumstances, which makes speaking out and getting the help needed even more difficult or emasculating. (http://www.eposib.com)

If poor, minority men are violated, their only option is to seek treatment at a public hospital where doctors must report suspected domestic violence to the police. However, because of the lack of support they receive from the police and the Courts of Law, legal action against the abusive female is rarely taken. The problem of violence against men is dispassionately and purposefully swept under the rug. Our communities, Courts of Law and police departments need to come to terms with the reality of battered men and take a serious look at females' potential to be dangerous.

In years past it was common for females to turn their anger on themselves, and males to turn their anger on others. Now the tables are turning and the females are turning their anger against their male mates. Yet society seldom discusses the issue of violent females, because people really want to believe that all women are gentle and law-and-order conscious to be qualified as abusive, despite the scientific surveys that have statistically shown that females assault their partners as often as males assault their partners. Furthermore, females are not only capable of violence, but are as actively and physically aggressive as men are. (There are approximately 250,000 battered men in this country, and this is interpreted by society and the media as if abusive females are driven to violence by men and by bad lifestyle choices, whereas men are simply naturally violent.)

There is a lack of equality in the justice system. Female abusers serve half the prison time a man does for the same crime, assuming she serves time in jail at all. And if men flee from the abusive relationship with their child, he’s charged with kidnaping. There are no safe havens for men who run away from abuse with their children, because the playing field is stacked against males. The justice system really needs to change the practices and customs of the courts, keep their minds and doors open to equal legal treatment of battered men. In other words, this whole phenomenon must be re-evaluated top to bottom.

During the last decade, legislation has called home violence the Violence Against Women Act. Unless we realize that home violence is not a gender issue, violence and resentments among the sexes will only intensify. Tragically, some men have delayed getting help and they have not survived. ( http://www.bmw99.ru)

Men are also Human. No one should live life in fear of another person, for any reason. Domestic violence is a two-way street; both genders are equally responsible for domestic violence, and this poor behavior should never be tolerated whichever way it goes. But if men are soon to become the next government-protected group of victims, then victim-ology as a growth industry for lawyers, social workers, experts and bureaucrats will flourish. Will battered men become the next oppressed group?

FURTHER REFERENCES
Violence Against Women Act Ignores Epidemic of Violent Women (Trudy W. Schuett, Publisher, Desert Light Journal/Men’s News Daily

“By ignoring the male victim, the Violence Against Women Act does a gross disservice to men. VAWA also violates one of our most cherished constitutional protections - equal treatment under the law. Has VAWA guided society right back into the Victorian era?” (Mother Jones - www.motherjones.com)

“. . . in no way denying the problem of battered women or trying to downplay their grief. Violence in a relationship is reprehensible.” (The Men’s Rights Agency = www.ecn.net.au)

You - the faithful light
Me - asking you to stay
You - shining bright in my Life

I say, my dearest Love,
You are the one
Who cares for me -
Day after day, compassionately
You are the one
Who takes care of me
Even while I dream,
Night after night, soulfully

You are the one
Who guides me
Time after time
The same as the loving Angels
Smiling sweetly from above

You are the one
Who keeps my heart safe,
From the moment I wake
Until I go to sleep,
Drift into sweet dreams
Until the next blessed sunrise

You - No one can deny
Divine moments happen when we have faith
You believe in me
I believe in you
God said - His voice gentle
Like the whisper of leaves blowing in the wind
You are the one for me

✞©RmA2007