Active RNS subscribers and members can view this content at the RNS Archives website.

(RNS) We are living, for now at least, in a "Wild West" of gerrymandered voting districts, unfairly enforced laws, corrupt arbiters, and the rich getting richer by buying and tilting basic systems like courts of law and media coverage.

Categories: Culture, Ethics

Tags:

Tom Ehrich

Tom Ehrich is a writer, church consultant and Episcopal priest based in New York. He is the author of “Just Wondering, Jesus” and founder of the Church Wellness Project. His website is www.morningwalkmedia.com.

7 Comments

  1. So, religion fell victim to ideological rigidity, did it? That sounds like a liberal’s way of saying: “We don’t like eons-old moral certainties about anything, and we’re out to change all that. After all, truth is what we want it to be; and we don’t want to pay any price to abide by it. We won’t have to because we’ll invent it ourselves, even if we have to redefine plain and simple language.”

    We’re not living “for now, at least” in gerrymandered electoral districts. We’ve been living in them for quite some time. Do you know how some of this happened? If you do, I doubt that you’d be willing to talk about some key examples of this gerrymandering.

    I’d be curious as to what you have to say about “the media” were it not for my being quite certain already about what your principle complaint is.

    If I’m wrong, I’ll quickly admit it. Something tells me, though, that none of what you have written is open for discussion, at least by you. “I have spoken. That IS discussion.”

    • My irony detector just broke. You are the example of rigidity of religion being discussed. Religion as an excuse to act and treat others badly for its own sake.

      Obvious attempts at gerrymandering and vote stealing (onerous voter ID laws) have been in the news for some time. Its been part and parcel with the GOP strategy to over-represent themselves beyond what populations of communities would rationally allow.

      As for proof of such things, my question to you is whether you understand how to use a search engine. Denial of such things is either a sign of dishonesty or ignorance of your part.

      • You’re dead wrong about your first statement, but you feel good about having written it. That suffices for you. Always has. You’re welcome to take a point I’ve made and dispute it, though. That you won’t do. Never have.

        You clearly wish to avoid the sort of gerrymandering that has produced districts a half-mile wide and snaking through half a state–in places where the residents have no problem in the first place electing minorities to office. You also seem to be unaware of the many changes made in state legislatures in the past couple elections where previously liberal districts have themselves thrown out the liberals–doing so prior to any redistricting.
        Besides, gerrymandering has been the work of both political parties. You know it. You choose only to highly GOP hijinks. You give yourself away every time, bub. Or maybe you actually don’t know it.

        Yes, I know how to use a search engine. You’ve demonstrated little ability at using them yourselves. You recently tossed up a URL that did absolutely nothing remotely to aid what you thought was an argument. I suspect local high school sophomores could do much better.

        • So you are OK with gerrymandering if it can produce a conservative majority legislatively but not if it means increased minority representation. That is your argument more or less. If you are honestly against gerrymandering in general, you would be saying something negative about the conservative actions as well. But you aren’t.

          Yes it has worked for both parties, but only one of them is really stepping up their game nowadays, the GOP. It works hand in hand with their attempts to deny 4-5% of the Democrat voting electorate through phony voter ID laws.

  2. People can’t pick up a sweater at the post office or a UPS store without a driver’s license or other form of photo ID; people need to prove ID to at least reduce the amount of voter fraud-which used to be a “progressive” issue; it was corrupt “machines” that let people vote without ID-the “progressives” wanted the rolls for voting to be checked against actual people to prevent ballot box stuffing or even voting by the dead.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comments with many links may be automatically held for moderation.