Skip to main content

5 Thoughts on Issue 1

I have been mostly trying to avoid thinking or posting about politics lately.  Let's just say I was really jaded by the vitriol and propaganda from both sides during the COVID years.  However, a special election in August with only one issue on the ballot was enough to peak my interest, so I've been doing my due diligence and mulling over Issue 1.  Here are 5 thoughts on Issue 1.

Firstly, my initial reaction when reading the actual language of the proposed amendment was Meh.  As voracious as both sides have been, this issue is hardly as black and white as they're making it to be.  I am leaning a certain way, but I can see the validity to both sides of the debate.

Secondly, the fact that Progressives really, really want me to vote No makes we want to vote Yes.  I generally avoid defining myself by what I oppose, but occasionally the most convincing argument in favor of a proposition is the people who are threatened by it.  In fact, before I knew anything at all about Issue 1, I assumed I would want to support it simply because of the vehemence with which several of my Progressive friends were opposing it.

Thirdly, I don't think I've ever seen such a convoluted campaign over an Issue.  The Progressives have been using sensational language designed to scare and manipulate.  The Conservatives have been little, if any, better.  Neither side seems to want to discuss the actual political merits of Issue 1.  It is proper to consider the potential impact of a proposed political idea, but when our vote is purely motivated by the "what ifs" of an Issue, we probably aren't thinking straight about the propriety and wisdom of the idea itself. 

Fourthly, the Liberal slogan One Person, One Vote perfectly illustrates the civic illiteracy of the populace.  We do not believe in pure Democracy, either in Ohio or in the United States.  We believe in electing representatives who legislate on our behalf.  We do not believe in mob rule.  Mobs are too easy to rile with inflammatory rhetoric.

Fifthly and finally, Issue 1 is the height of political irony, a fact which seems lost on both sides.  You see, Issue 1 is, in fact, a proposed amendment to the Constitution of our fair State.  The Conservatives don't think you should be able to change our Constitution through a simple popular majority, so they're attempting to change the Constitution through a simple popular majority.  The Progressives think we need to preserve the right of a simple popular majority to decide major issues in our State, but they don't want to let a simple popular majority decide this major issue.

Somebody cue the Alanis.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

4 Reasons I Affirm Paedocommunion

If you have interacted with me on social media, you know that I have always been outspoken on the issue of Paedocommunion .  It is a theological position and a liturgical practice about which I am passionate.  Having been raised, and having raised my children, at the Table, I cannot imagine attending a church that didn't allow PC.  I hope that when I am old and gray, I will still be an advocate for bringing little children to the Sacrament. Throughout the 12 years that I have had this blog, I have written scattered thoughts on the topic, but it appears that I have never written a concise summary of my reasons for affirming PC.  I was thoroughly convinced that I had, but I can't seem to locate it, so I guess I never did.  So, to rectify the omission, here are four reasons I hold to PC. 1) Paedocommunion is Biblical.   Any discussion of the topic should start here, and I would hope that both sides of the debate would make this assertion.  However, l...
Post a Comment
Read more

1 Corinthians, the Covenant Hermeneutic, & Paedocommunion

As an adherent to Paedocommunion  (hereafter PC), I have always found it painfully ironic that Credocommunionists use 1 Corinthians 11 to withhold children (among others) from the Table.  One can imagine St. Paul shaking his head as he watches theologians using his discussion of unity at the Table to divide the body at the Table.  You're missing the point! he would say in exasperation.  Not only does 1 Corinthians 11 not forbid PC; I would go so far as to say that there is no better defense of PC in the New Testament than the epistle of 1 Corinthians. Credocommunionist logic is pretty straightforward.  1 Corinthians 11:28 says, "Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup."  If, they argue, one is unable to fulfill the exhortation to examine himself, then he may not eat of the bread and drink of the cup.  This is a pretty logical deduction, right? Credobaptists would adamantly agree.  Acts 2:38 says, "Repe...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Real Presence & Paedocommunion: A Deeper Rift Between Reformed Churches

You're going back to Rome! Theological disagreements within the Reformed world, especially those of the last half century, often devolve into these sorts of accusations.  As controversialists like Doug Wilson and Peter Leithart began to break away from the larger conservative Presbyterian and Reformed denominations, it became clear that the rift was deeper than semantics and systematic minutiae.  Much like the Reformation four centuries before, the Table was a primary point of conflict.   What does it mean?  Who may partake?  What do we call it?    These questions, along with a few more, divided Reformed brethren as the physical elements of our religion reflected deeper conflicts.  Good men began to understand that the problem wasn't just in our logos, but in our pathos and ethos, as well. Paedocommunion (hereafter PC) has been one of the hottest points of contention.  PC has always been normal to me as I grew up with it.  I underst...
Post a Comment
Read more