Equality, while constantly being redefined to accommodate disadvantaged groups, has been something the United States strived for since the foundation of our country. In more recent light, we should acknowledge that there are many inequalities that still plague our nation. With the upcoming Presidential election, I think reflecting on the candidates is an important topic to discuss. I am fearful that neither candidate will be able to help heal the diaspora taking over our social climate, let alone repair the damage done to our population. Prior to stating my opinions about the two candidates I would like to preface it with the fact I support neither candidate. But, to be very explicit, I think Donald Trump is a sexist, racist, bigot, who has the audacity to negate the topic of him sexually assaulting females. I would like to say that no apology can rectify the assault he put onto some unsuspecting woman and in that way he perpetuates rape culture in America. To the people who claim that he is just honest, I agree with you- he is honest about all of the terrible, offensive, unaccepting, hate-filled beliefs he has, and supporting him is saying that you also think inequality is a way for America to thrive. On the other hand, Hillary Clinton is lying her way to the top of the polls, evading her previous injustices regarding National Security, her email scandal, and the sex scandals that involved her husband. Supporting either candidate is trying to truly choose the lesser of two evils, which I feel there is not. In order to mend the brokenness within our society, we should look to senators, and congresspeople, given that regardless of who is elected Commander in Chief, the needs of many will not be met.

In regards to all of the social inequalities our nation as a whole faces, we have been slowly bringing the issues into light. Discussions, open forums, and protests, have been the center of media into helping people realize that our nation is in a civil war of sorts. But what we are not seeing represented in the media, are suggestions to solutions, or any highlights of positive actions being taken. What I have personally experienced from this lack of representation in the media are a series of activists coming to voice their opinions to as many people as possible. Being a college student, my campus has been swarmed with people coming to speak to the student body. In the past week I have gone to four lectures, two of them focusing on the duty to vote as a Catholic. I would like to reflect on these two talks in particular. I personally identify as Catholic- but I also identify as a female, a liberal, and someone who is pursuing a STEM career, so you can imagine the conflicts between some of the values I have, but listening to two lectures on the same talk left me feeling like I was sitting on different poles of the Earth.

The first lecture I attended was given by an Orthodox Catholic woman, who is not only a law professor at a well known college, but is also an advisor to the United Nations. I was enthralled to listen to her evaluation of the two candidates with a Catholic lens, but I was taken back when I sat in on a lecture where anti-abortion, anti-immigration, and anti-equal marriage values were the main point of the discussion. A series of statistics were misrepresented in a lengthy Powerpoint that slandered people other than Caucasian, Catholics of at least middle-class status. I am more than open to hearing perspectives of others (as I think combating social ignorance is best done through obtaining multiple perspectives on the same issue), but I was astonished by the hateful tone, misrepresentations, and general lack of human decency that filled the lecture hall. I felt offended enough to leave the room. Mind you I wholly support the preservation of life, and I agree that abortion should not be used as a manner of contraception, but under certain circumstances such as instances of saving the mother, or in the instance of rape, I think abortion is a feasible option. Moreover, while the Bible relays viewpoints regarding gay marriage, if someone strongly believes that gay marriage is immoral, then don't partake in it. While an individual may not believe that gay marriage is acceptable, another couples choice to marry, is not a matter that should concern anyone other than the two people being married.

Using the example of gay marriage- I feel strongly that judicial decisions should not be influenced by religion for multiple reasons. Firstly, the United States is abundantly diverse in terms of religion. Our nation is a cultural melting pot and it is unethical to base a law on the fact it may not be in accordance with one of the many religions prevalent in the U.S., regardless of the abundance of followers of said religious belief. Not allowing gay marriage in the U.S. would disadvantage an entire community of our nation on the premise a religious group was uncomfortable or didn't believe in gay marriage. As long as the act of marrying someone of the same sex is not physically harming someone, it should not affect anyone outside of the marriage. While I think it is important to firmly follow your faith, I think it is ignorant, and judgmental to not be understanding of someone else's difference in beliefs. Secondly, allowing religion to influence political decisions creates a division among the population in which the people who follow a religion the laws are based off of, will become more advantaged. I mean this in the fact their religious beliefs would always be catered to (given they are the majority vote in our democratic society) and therefore potentially disadvantage followers of another religion. Finally, allowing religion into politics would influence who is elected as government leaders. By this I mean, some people tend to prefer government officials based on their religious affiliation because they feel they will coincide with their beliefs. This is fine and it is natural to support someone who's beliefs coincide with yours, but if one religion predominates in number of followers who can vote, it would tilt the scale of equality toward one group in particular, therefore creating inequalities. This is not to say you cannot vote for an official who's beliefs are in agreement with your own, but their beliefs should not influence the judicial decisions they make.

The views presented by the first lecturer strongly contrasted the views of the second lecturer I saw. This lecturer was a liberal, male, who also identified as Catholic. He managed to examine all four Presidential nominees under a Catholic lens that specifically focused on social justice. While he did not advocate for a candidate in particular, he urged his audience to seriously consider all the standpoints the candidates had to offer to evaluate which candidate would be making decisions that bettered not only the Catholic population, nor the population of the United States, but the world population. This lecturer focused in on the "wars" we are involved in as a nation, whether a civil war at home dealing with social injustices, or wars in foreign nations that impacted more than just ourselves. He claimed we have a moral obligation to make choices that better humans regardless of religious affiliation. While his perspective is idealist to the fullest extent, and in my eyes almost unattainable, I think the regard for human rights can trump (no pun intended) religious beliefs even if they are intertwined by morality. I think there is a way to exclude religion from government, while still being able to identify with the beliefs of one's religion and maintain what is inclusively best for all if not most people.

In light of the impending Presidential election, this leaves me with one question: where is our nation headed? More specifically, which candidate will be the one responsible for attempting to make decisions- ethical, religious, or otherwise- for the diverse population of the United States. It leaves me with the realization that our choices beyond this moment are influential to the world, and not just our national population. I urge you to reflect deeply on the impacts outside of yourself, when deciding to or not to vote, or more importantly who to vote or not to vote for this election season.