Moving Away from Chasm of Theocratic Politics

This last election was about many different issues. But for once, we saw that socially divisive issues, at least at the national level, were not the centerpiece our discourse. Religious conservatives did not drown out the secular voice of America.

When the Bill of Rights passed in 1791, our Founding Fathers showed amazing foresight toward the influence of religion in our country. They seemed to know that religion and politics were inextricably linked yet diametrically opposed to each other. They understood that we were a nation founded on the pursuit of religious freedom. They also understood that no one religion should have a monopoly on political power or the ability to impose or inject their beliefs on others. For reference here is the text of the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Americans are, by and large, religious. In 2001, 4 out of 5 Americans identified themselves with a religious group. The largest percentage identified themselves as belonging to a Christian church (Orthodox, Catholic and the many Protestant denominations). And for many, their religious beliefs have a strong influence in their lives.

Over the last 30 years we have seen a strong insurgence of religious groups injecting their beliefs into the political sphere, in large part because of strong opposition to Roe v. Wade. But many religious groups have broadened their political influence to a wide range of social issues, including gay civil rights, sex education and science in the classroom.

There is no doubt that certain social issues run counter to the religious beliefs of some. Yet the problem is that by coupling religious beliefs with political activism is construed as the equivalent of imposing one's religious beliefs over someone else. With such an imposition, we violate the basic principle of the First Amendment - we have the right to practice our religion with impunity, but with equal regard to the religious beliefs (or lack thereof) of others. In other words, religion deeply influences American mores, but it has no place in the political process or public institutions. Hence: the separation of church and state.

One area that we have seen the encroachment of religion into our public institutions is the injection of creationism into the public school curriculum. In 2005, the Kansas School Board voted to subvert the scientifically accepted theory of evolution with the more religiously infused concept (note that this is not the equivalent of scientific theory) of "Intelligent Design", simply because evolution runs counter to Biblical teachings found the in the Book of Genesis.

I grew up in the Catholic Church, and for a time, I was educated by them (Marists at Central Catholic High School in Lawrence, MA). I took mandatory religion classes alongside Biology, Chemistry and Physics, and History, Literature and the Arts. And through it all, there was no conflict of belief that the Bible (both the Old and New Testaments) could peacefully coexist with Science. And in fact, the two had a powerful influence over me. There is something extraordinarily spiritual about what occured just before the Big Bang that's beyond our scientific knowledge. The same can be said of the fact that I am writing this billions of years after Earth formed from super heated atoms, assembed through the laws of physics to provide a sustainable ecosystem that we can live in today (the evolution from primoridial slime to sentient beings is in itself an awesome spiritual experience).

Just this past week, Prop 8 (the repeal of Gay Marriage) in California passed in large part to the political efforts of the Mormon Church (and the help of many other religious groups). While the notion of homosexual relationships is antithetical to many religions (Catholicism too, has rejected homosexuality, to the extent of saying that only those who abstain from homosexual practices may receive the Sacraments). I respect the fact that they think that homosexuality is in opposition to their religious beliefs (though I disagree in principle because it violates Christ's teachings of tolerence). Certainly, they have the prerogative to excommunicate those in their church who oppose these beliefs. But they have no right whatsoever to impose their religious beliefs on others who follow other spirtual paths. How does the marriage of a gay couple affect, affront or otherwise attack my or others religious beliefs? Do I, as a heterosexual, married man lose any of my rights because of gay marriage? Are my kids in danger because two committed, loving men or women own (with rights of survivorship) the house down the street from me? Will my house value fall (any further) because they live there?

Just before the election, I heard reports from friends of robocalls with Denver's Archbishop Chaput's voice telling Catholics that they must vote for McCain because Obama supported abortion. All across the country, this same message was spread by pastors and other church leaders to their congregations. In 2004, John Kerry, a Catholic was told that could could not receive the sacrament of Holy Communion because he was pro-choice. Catholics were urged to vote for Bush for this very reason. A few, including John Garvey, wisely argued that we shouldn't mix religious canon with political choice. And where has this choice led us? Two wars with hundreds of thousands dead (including soldiers and civilians), and many more injured, maimed and scarred for life (physically and psychologically), and possibly millions homeless (yes, that includes many here in the wealthy U.S. of A.). I've seen little in the way of Church or the Religious Right speaking on their behalf, or backing candidates who strongly support these issues.

At what point did Christian principles get boiled down to single (small set of) political issues? When did the Church and Evangelical right obtain a monopoly on social discourse here in America? When did the democratic principle "Majority rule, minority rights" get subsumed by theology?

Secular politics and religion should not be antithetical to each other. In fact, we want our leaders to have a strong spiritual and moral compass. We want their decisions to reflect what is good and right, but we don't want them to impose religious dogma into public discourse. George Bush did this with stem cell research, despite the fact that the majority of Americans support it.

Similarly, we need to respect those who do have strong religious beliefs to the point of providing a means to practice their faith without compromise. Those who are strongly influenced by their religious beliefs have the right to refrain from public discourse at-large. The Amish lead very ascetic lives that happily coexist at a distance with the rest of America. Those who disagree with the public school science curriculum including evolution can choose to educate their kids elsewhere in an evironment that better reflects their beliefs. Those who disagree with gay marriage need not allow gays to marry (or participate) in their church.

The moral of the story is this: we've gone down the road to edge of a very deep chasm with theologically infused politics over the last eight years. The 2008 election brought us back from the ledge. Had we gone much further and over the edge, our First Amendment rights may well have been at risk by those who would have imposed their own religious views on all of us. And that would have been the greatest American tragedy. America is at its best when we encourage our religious beliefs to influence our public discourse, but no one religion is allowed to dominate the discussion.

Center-What?

I'm not terribly surprised that Republican leaders and pundits are trying to salvage any shred of hope from the drubbing they took on November 4th. Karl Rove, John Boehnner and others are claiming that we're still a "center-right" nation, firmly anchored on conservative social values and small government.

Even the media has gotten into the mix. Frank Rich's column in the NY Times adds:


Still, change may come slowly to the undying myths bequeathed to us by the Bush decade. “Don’t think for a minute that power concedes,” Obama is fond of saying. Neither does groupthink. We now keep hearing, for instance, that America is “a center-right nation” — apparently because the percentages of Americans who call themselves conservative (34), moderate (44) and liberal (22) remain virtually unchanged from four years ago. But if we’ve learned anything this year, surely it’s that labels are overrated. Those same polls find that more and more self-described conservatives no longer consider themselves Republicans. Americans now say they favor government doing more (51 percent), not less (43) — an 11-point swing since 2004 — and they still overwhelmingly reject the Iraq war. That’s a centrist country tilting center-left, and that’s the majority who voted for Obama.

There's no doubt that we saw a significant pendulum swing to the left. But for the life of me, I don't subscribe to the view that the country is ideologically anchored to the left or the right. I submit that the majority of Americans (sans the Evangelical right or the militant left - that means you, PETA) are more pragmatic than that. Overwhelmingly, they vote their wallets and their families' immediate interests - health care, education, the interminable wars.

This election was a perfect example of that. Bludgeoned by the economic meltdown and the comitant loss of jobs and financial security (just look at your 401(k) statement), Americans were disgusted and tired of the current administration's policies and philosophy. "Throw the bums out!"

Still, to suggest that Americans naturally lean one way or the other from centrist, moderate philosophies is a spurious argument. If a lean was present, we would see much stronger evidence of this in the polls. Instead of 51-49 or 52-48 spread either way, we would more frequently see 55-45 or 58-42 spreads. We wouldn't see candidates courting independent voters as aggressively. But they do. And the reason is that independents who make up the largest percentage of voters in the United States aren't willing to be suckered into religiously adhering to liberal or conservative ideology. They're interested in what's best for them and their families, and by virtue of that, their country.

The last 8 years have pelted us with one-sided propagandistic spew that drowned out alternative competing ideas for the sake of ideological orthodoxy. It's no wonder the American people lurched so far in the opposite direction. In many regards, it was a natural correction for straying too far from the center.

So let's stop the meaningless blathering about where Americans lean ideologically. We, as a nation, are smack dab in the middle, and we're willing to follow the best ideas from both the right and the left. We welcome rigorous discourse from both sides and are willing to engage in comprimise when it makes sense. Hopefully the pundits and political leaders will finally wake up to this fact and stop patronizing Americans. We're not that stupid.

T-minus 3 Days and Counting: What a Long Strange Trip It's Been

This presidential campaign has been remarkably long - 21-plus months - the longest in US history. In retrospect, it's no surprise why the political season started in three months after the 2006 mid-term congressional elections: George W. Bush.

The 2006 election cycle was primarily a repudiation of Bush's handling of the Iraq War. At that time, we had lost nearly 3,000 soldiers with many thousands more wounded, with no end in sight, and increasing doubt about the premise of why we invaded in the first place. Silent whispers of "Vietnam" turned into audible concerns throughout the country and Bush demonstrated that he was tin earred.

The Democrats gained 32 seats in the House and 6 Senate seats. Momentum was on their side and the Republican party's once rock-solid infrastructure was beginning to show cracks. The Bush Administration's actions and revelations (sweetheart no-bid contracts to Haliburton and others, tapping into ordinary American's phone calls and emails - a blatant and clear violation of the Fourth Amendment, the unprecedented and egregious rescinding of Habeas Corpus, and the complete disregard for the Geneva Conventions) only weakened their position further. The Democrats, who had been in the minority since 1994 (see: Contract With America) had regrouped and took advantage of the Republican weakness.

More importantly however, the key factor was the difference in the quality of the candidates running for the presidency. Using a baseball analogy, the Democrats bullpen was much stronger than the Republicans. Hillary Rodham Clinton was the favorite of any candidate, regardless of party. I didn't feel that the Republicans had anyone near her caliber - even McCain, I felt, was inferior to her. Other Republican candidates like Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Ron Paul (though he has garnered interest as being one of the few conservatives to denounce the war) and Tom Tancredo seemed like sway-backed fillies that were added to suggest a semblance of race for the Republican nomination.

I had seen Obama's keynote address delivered at the Democratic Convention in 2004, and was thoroughly impressed back then. And when he announced his candidacy, I had my doubts that he could compete against Clinton's significant advantages in money and organization. Still, I was impressed with his message and insight. I also felt that Clinton's achilles heal was her name: Americans either loved her or flat out despised her.

Throughout the entire campaign, it has been eminently clear that Americans wanted a change in direction from the Bush debacle, and it was McCain's and Obama's job to define that course change.

I think McCain had several factors working against him even prior to 9/15 (the economic meltdown): His campaign was in complete disarray to the point of near disintegration prior to the New Hampshire primaries. And while he was able to pull things together, it cost him significantly both in terms of finances and people. He also had the unfortanate disadvantage of being Republican at a time when the mood of the American people had soured on the party. He couldn't distance himself from Bush for fear of alienating the base, and he desparately needed the evangelical wing of the party if he stood any chance of winning the election. It was a Hobson's Choice at a time when he needed to find a way to build a clear firewall between himself and Bush. Add to that, many in the party weren't enamoured by McCain anyway.

But McCain's true disadvantage (and clearly the Republican Party's also) was Obama's unprecedented organizational and financial strength coming from individuals rather than large donors. Obama's ground game - field offices virtually everywhere, a massive army of volunteers, and most importantly, the millions of small donations (under $100) via the internet - is awe inspiring (you might want to call this: polical shock and awe). Even with an Electoral Vote map that favored Republicans, the GOTV (get out the vote) effort turned a significant Republican advantage into a liability.

The election will be over in three days. And after nearly two years, I think that most of us will be relieved, regardless of who we voted for. It's been a long political season, and we all need a break from political rhetoric.