The wise ballot direction
One must be heartened by the ballot-access reform law newly opening up this state's electoral system to more than the two-party duopoly which has perennially controlled North Carolina politics.
But with unlimited campaign money still determining who can be a successful candidate of both the N.C. Republican and N.C. Democratic parties at all levels of government, choice of both parties' candidates has long been more plutocratic or oligarchical rather than democratic. Voters here have had to choose between the lesser of two evils on the ballot than vote for a candidate who more truly represents the views of the voter. Thus, political reform has been hard, if not prohibitive, to come by in North Carolina, where Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-Dum politics rule.
In order to establish a more democratic electoral system in this state and open up the possibility of real political change, we not only must rid our present system of unequal and corrupt voting districts, but broaden the range of the political ideologies of candidates voters can choose between on the ballot. Third- and fourth-party candidates, adding political ideological diversity to the voter's range of choice, seem a wise direction for N.C. political reform to turn to.
The recent ballot access reform law passed by the state legislature is certainly a step in the right direction. A follow-up bill for ranked voting in N.C. elections seems called for to further make our electoral system more democratic. I suggest a bipartisan committee of the legislature accompany Gov. Cooper to Maine to see if there isn't something in Maine's ranked voting system that could help Tar Heel voters get office-holders that more truly represent their real political and economic convictions.
Protecting the unborn child
There has been much discussion lately regarding the separation of children from their parents. Many people have expressed sincere concern about this critical problem. However, an Elon professor of religious studies does not seem to share this concern.
To the contrary, her guest editorial on July 31 “Trusting women to make abortion decisions is a Christian norm,” goes to great lengths to justify such separations, and not just for days or weeks but permanently. How can such drastic attacks on family unity be justified? Simply because the mother has decided she no longer wants her child.
In her attempt to convince us of the almighty “right to choose,” the professor totally ignores the possibility that the child has any inherent value worthy of protection. Her 500-word dissertation does not include one sentence defending God’s most beautiful miracle, the unborn child. Sorry little one, but even though you may be made in the image and likeness of God, the professor’s progressive religion has no place for old-fashioned ideas such as the sanctity of life.
Is there any wonder this nation has become so divided? The divisiveness starts at the most basic level of society when we drive a wedge between mother and child and then have the nerve to call it religion.
Please send up to 300 words to email@example.com. All submissions, online comments and Facebookposts may be edited for space and clarity.