Religion and Politics: Absolutism in the Separation of Church and State

The United States founding fathers are getting a lot of air time lately.  Various political figures and interest groups have taken up quoting those men of exceptional character in order to support whatever cause they champion.  Libertarians cite writings and quotes warning of the dangers of big government while progressives  bring up essays and early American government expansion policies that provide them with precedents.  In both of these cases, the sources are factual and clearly exist.  In a third case, however, multiple "liberties" are taken with the truth.  Christian conservatives claim that our founders meant for the U.S. to be a Christian nation, even though they rarely (if ever) cite a source.

This claim, in the strictest and most pure sense of the term, is wrong.

The first amendment of the Bill of Rights states that the U.S. government will recognize no state or civil religion.  Later on in the 1790's, this was expanded upon to include the complete separation of church and state, including (eventually) making churches tax exempt.  Founders such as Ben Franklin and particularly Thomas Jefferson warned of the extreme dangers of melding religion and government, and allowing the church to influence social and governmental policy.

Opponents of this separation will claim that our laws and policies are directly based off of Christian morality, and without the moral compass of God in our government, we will descend into ethical darkness.  To this I say: Stop, and think.  Values such as not killing your fellow man or not unlawfully taking what isn't yours are universal codes.  These and many more have been found in nearly every great organized society, Christian or  otherwise, and do not magically vanish if you take Jesus out of the equation.

By far, the two most talked about religious based social policies are the outlawing of same sex marriage and the legality of abortion.  Opponents of homosexual marriage claim that it is an abomination, is against the the Bible and will destroy the institution of marriage, which honestly makes me wonder how many of them have actually read the word of God.  Homosexuality is specifically mentioned only a handful of times throughout the course of the bible, and is expressly forbid on only two occasions.  The first is found in the old testament book of Leviticus, where it is stated that a man laying with another man in the way he would lay with a woman is wrong, and in such a case both men should be killed.  This verse is the most commonly quoted, and also the most easily debunked because of the verses that surround it.  Such verses include listing the consumption of shellfish as a sin, and that if your wife cheats on you, it's perfectly acceptable to drag her into the town square and have the citizens kill her with large rocks.  Apparently, it's OK for modern day Christians to pick and choose which apparently equal sins to uphold and which to throw away.  Oh wait... it's not alright to do that.

The second place that homosexuality is forbidden in the Bible is found in Paul's teachings in the book of Romans.  Christians will claim that Paul was divinely inspired in his teachings, and that his word is God's law.  This is, of course, despite the fact that he spent his early adulthood making a hobby of killing Christians.  Even if divine inspiration was the case, his teachings against homosexuality were listed in the middle of a long list of other sins, such as pride and being "effeminate".  He did not raise one single sin above another.  Furthermore, Jesus never once mentioned homosexuality in any of his teachings, as he was busy stressing everyone to love and embrace one another, and to help those in need.  However, I'm sure that he really hated gay people in private (/sarcasm).

The issue of abortion legality is, in my humble opinion, far more complicated.  Though there is no direct reference to abortion in the Bible, religious opponents of Roe v. Wade will cite the sanctity of life, and that life begins at conception as arguments against legal abortions.  For this particular concept, I have set aside personal beliefs on the subject to look at the deeper implications involved.  Though I personally find abortion to be horrific, I am far more appalled by the idea of the Federal Government being able to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her uterus.  Furthermore, if life truly begins at conception, why not provide funerals and death certificates to miscarried fetuses, or imprisoning women who have abortions?  Pretty absurd when you think about it.  Finally, repealing Roe v. Wade and thus making abortion illegal would not stop women from having abortions, it would only stop them from getting it done safely in licensed medical facilities.  Before it's legalization, back ally abortions and other shady operations cost countless women their lives and severely injured many more.  The body count is the only thing that would change.

In closing, I would like to state that I could not care less about your religious affiliation or beliefs.  It is your right in this great nation to believe in whatever you want, be it God, Buddha, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and no one can ever take that away from you.  However, using your beliefs to deny others their rights or freedoms, or violating the clause of separation of church and state, is not something that should be tolerated, or within your rights to do.

Also, if churches truly want to get into politics, how about you start paying taxes like the rest of us.  We could definitely use the revenue.

The Greatest Game Ever Played

The political game, the way that people have been manipulated, is nothing short of fascinating.

Both political parties in the United States are embroiled in a deadlock of massive proportions.  As Mitt Romney and Barack Obama fight for the presidency, rumors run rampant as money flies from hand to hand. News stations spin stories in any way possible to hurt or help their chosen candidate, and in nearly all cases it becomes impossible to see the whole truth, or any truth at all for that matter.  Even supposed "fact check" websites have some amount of bias these days.  So what then, is the truth?

The truth is that our political system, and it's coupling with corporations on an intimate level, is both complicated and utterly fascinating in its intricacy.  The conservative and liberal ideologies are still in place, to an extent, and calling them mere facades is not strictly true.  It is instead how candidates are elected, and each uses the platform to appeal to the voters who's vote they want.  The Republican Party still places their faith in small government, lower tax rates, traditional Christian religious values and lower federal spending.  Democrats, by contrast, promote social and economic welfare programs, regulations on banks and Wall Street, and progressive social policy.  These are their running points, and they are largely accurate.  But the inner workings and true purpose of each party is far more than simple morals or policy.

Looking at the Obama Administrations actions over the last 4 years, it's easy to draw several different conclusions regarding what he has done.  The various bailouts, particularly the billions spent on getting the auto industry back on its feet, have been touted as saving and creating hundreds of thousands of jobs, and conversely condemned as the very essence of socialism.  Though the former may be true, the latter is not entirely accurate.  The bailouts were corporatism at its finest, with the federal government giving gross sums of money to a private industry with few requirements.  In turn, such mega corporations provide campaign money (particularly the unions, as far as the Democrats are concerned) in order to help the Obama administration get re-elected.  The government runs the state, and the corporations run the government, with both fueling each other.

The internal workings of the Republican party are similar at their core, but differ in the way they get there.  Instead of funding private businesses directly, they receive gargantuan sums of money in campaign contributions from the Koch brothers and their ilk.  In return, the conservatives offer them tax breaks and softer regulations on large businesses.  Supporting evidence to our dual corporatist party system is the mutual support of Goldman Sachs.  GS has contributed millions to each campaign, making sure that whoever wins will play directly into their pockets.  A widely accepted definition of a state or government is a ruling body that has a monopoly on force, but this ruling body seems to be controlled not by a greater application of force, but a greater application of money.

Even the news reports and media regurgitation of political ideology work to protect the corporate interests of both parties.  Conservative media, down to the most local and obscure level, enjoy spreading the sense of "other" in President Obama.  Whether it be the "birther" argument, the false claims of his Islamic religion, or rumors abound of his communist or socialist background, all of it turns a certain demographic of people against him.  These people are not ignorant or stupid, but mainly trusting of their chosen news sources and unwilling to look anywhere else.  The liberal media is no less devious in its presentations, though they are markedly more subtle.  By presenting republican politicians and presidential candidates as being old fashioned, out of touch, and entirely against the worker or the common man, they solidify the divide between parties and turn their own constituency against the opposition.

So where does that leave us?  Well, to be honest, pretty shit out of luck.  We the people are caught between two parties who put corporations first at their core.  Personally, I agree more with the outward ideology of the democrats, so in all likely hood I'll vote for Obama.  One has to admire the brilliant complexity of all, though.  The whole thing fits together perfectly when it really shouldn't.  Beautiful.

However, a very smart man told me that there is a storm coming, with social unrest and political intrigue the likes of which we have never seen.  Despite the horrifying implications of all this, I can't help but smile.  I will come into my 30s and 40s right in the middle of this storm, and I will admit I was born for it.  Politics and intrigue simply make sense to me, and any battlefield where charisma is the best weapon is a battlefield I'd want to be on.

I will love every minute of it.  This is the greatest game ever played.

Republicans vs. Women. Fight!

One has to wonder about Rush Limbaugh sometimes.  Does he hear what he's saying?  How can he think that half of the putrid refuse he spews out of his mouth can be considered valuable information?  And how has SOMEONE not shut him down yet?  Most of thinking America is aware at this point that Mr. Limbaugh almost never says anything of value, and when his actions or comments do stir up controversy, it's certainly not because the comment has made us think or argue with each other.

The comment was just so outlandish, unthinking and usually racist or vulgar that he falls under immediate attack.

From his "Nappy headed hoes" comment several years ago to his rant about how a highly educated post grad student was a slut and a prostitute just a few short days ago, Rush has demonstrated time and time again a deep rooted and shocking hatred of women.  Did mommy not hug you enough?  Or have you just been rejected by women of every shape, size and ethnic group so many times that you've just decided to bring them down as much as you can?  Personally, I don't care how long it's been since you got laid, ya fat bastard.  When you verbally assaulted that woman on live and nationally syndicated radio, you assaulted every woman on birth control in America, including some individuals very close to my heart.

As for the rest of the circus that was once the proud and noble Republican party, they all seem to walk on eggshells around Limbaugh, meekly stating that his actions are "out of line" every time he says something else horrible.  Indeed, they're the ones who started this war on women in the first place, wishing to make it so that any place of employment or religious affiliated medical facility can exclude birth control from the coverage of their insurance.  To this, Rush said exactly what I'm sure most republicans thought; that taxpayers were handing these women hard earned cash so they could go have sex.

Um... What?

Firstly, insurance is one of those things that, like government, should not be affected by millennia old and obviously outdated religious beliefs.  This is a free society, and the church and state should be separated. Secondly, the republicans barred the verbally assaulted woman (Fluk) from speaking at their convention, in front of an all male panel.  No, this is not a movie about a corrupt theocratic society.  This is the Republican Party.

As for their potential presidential candidates, Mitt Romney has taken a fairly substantial lead.  This is probably the best possible outcome, as the three other candidates were arguably worse.  Gingrich is a complete slime ball who lacks any form of morals or ethics, Santorum is a crazy hyper-religious basket case who wants to mash church and state together until the damage is irreversible, and Paul never had a chance.  No, this is not because the government is afraid of him.

But don't think I'm just trashing on the GOP.  Join me next time as I talk extensively about why President Obama needs to grow a pair!

Been a long time...

So it's been almost 4 months since my last post.  Far too long, if you ask me, but the good thing about time is that it always brings both welcome and unwelcome change, and recently I've had about enough of both.

Long story short, I moved out of one house and back in with my parents, cut back my hours at work, quit smoking, and (most recently) wrecked the ever loving shit out of my car.  Yes, I'm ok.  And yes, the car is totaled.

But that's not what we're here to talk about today, ladies and gentleman.  We're here to talk about my favorite group of old, fat white dudes, the Republican Party.  Currently, said party seems to be ripping itself apart from the inside.  Mitt Romney is leading the pack as far as presidential nominations go (despite his obvious hatred of the poor), but Rick Santorum's recent string of victories have shown that not all red states are happy with good ol' Mittens.  And then their's Newt.

Ahh, Newt Gingrich.  This is the man who wanted to get rid of child labor laws and put kids as young as 12 and 13 into janitorial and maintenance in order to help low income families.  Aww c'mon Newt, you slimy little fuck, why don't you just pay the families to ruin their kids childhood and dump cleaning agents all over them every night?  That would have about the same effect.

This isn't to say I'm gung-ho for President Obama.  Looking back at his 4 years in office, it's easy to spot the multitude of wonderful promises that were never fulfilled.  We as a nation were let down, and have suffered because of his inaction.  Yes, several great things were accomplished during the Obama administration, and yes, the last few months have seen him step up and begin to be the president we had all hoped for, but this is not enough.  Obama has failed us, and has opened us up to the arguably worse republican party.

Where is our hope?  Where is the light at the end of the tunnel in these dark times?  If our current president cannot keep his promises, and each republican candidate is more horrifying than the last, who then will step up and set things right?  Our country is dying, folks.  The American dream is dead, and lays rotting in the gutter with whats left of the middle class.

No one is here to help us.