Markin comment:
In 2007-2008 I, in vain,
attempted to put some energy into analyzing the blossoming American presidential
campaign since it was to be, as advertised at least, a watershed election, for
women, blacks, old white anglos, latinos, youth, etc. In the event I had to abandon
the efforts in about May of 2008 when it became obvious, in my face obvious,
that the election would be a watershed only for those who really believed that
it would be a watershed election. The four years of the Obama presidency, the
2012 American presidential election campaign, and world politics have only
confirmed in my eyes that that abandonment was essentially the right decision
at the right time. In short, let the well- paid bourgeois commentators go on and
on with their twitter. I, we, had (have) better things to do like fighting against
the permanent wars, the permanent war economies, the struggle for more and better
jobs, and for a workers party that fights for a workers government . More than
enough to do, right? Still a look back at some of the stuff I wrote then does not
a bad feel to it. Read on if you like
NO TO RELIGIOUS TESTS FOR OFFICE - FOR SEPARATION OF
CHURCH AND STATE
Every once in a while left
wing propagandists, like this writer, are forced to comment on odd ball political
or social questions that are not directly related to the fight for socialism.
Nevertheless such questions must be addressed to in the interest of preserving
democratic rights, such as they are. I
have often argued that socialists are, or should be, the best defenders of
democratic rights, hanging in there long after many bourgeois democrats have
thrown in the towel especially on constitutional questions like abortion and warrantless
searches and seizures.
A good example from the not
too distant past, which I am fond of citing
because it seems so counter intuitive, was opposition to the impeachment of one
William Jefferson Clinton, at one time President of the United States and now potentially
the first First Lady’s man. How, one might ask could professed socialists
defend the rights of the Number One Imperialist –in-Chief. Simple, Clinton was
not being tried for any real crimes against working people but found himself
framed by the right- wing cabal for his personal sexual preferences and habits.
That he was not very artful in defense of himself is beside the point. We say government
out off the bedrooms (or wherever) whether White House or hovel. We do no favor
political witch hunts of the highborn or the low. Interestingly, no one at the time proposed
that he be tried as a war criminal for his very real crimes in trying to bomb
Serbia, under the guidance of one Wesley Clark, back to the Stone Age (and
nearly succeeding). Enough said.
Now we are confronted with
another strange situation in the case of one ex-Governor of Massachusetts and
current Republican presidential contender Mitt Romney on the question of his
Mormon religious affiliation and his capacity to be president of a secular
state. Romney, on Thursday December 6,
2007 fled down to Houston, apparently forced by his vanishing prospects in Iowa,
and made a speech about his Mormon faith, or at least his fitness for office.
This speech evoked in some quarters, at least formally, Jack Kennedy’s use in
the 1960 presidential campaign of the same tool concerning his Roman
Catholicism as a way to cut across anti-Catholic bigotry in a mainly Protestant
country and to affirm his commitment to a democratic secular state. I pulled up
that speech off the Internet and although Kennedy clearly evoked his religious affiliation
many times in that speech he left it at that, a personal choice. He did not go
on and on about his friendship with Jesus or enumerate the virtues of an increased
role for religion in political life.
Romney’s play is another
kettle of fish entirely. He WANTS to affirm that his Mormon beliefs rather than
being rather esoteric are in line with mainstream Protestant fundamentalist
tenets. In short, Jesus is his guide. Christ what hell, yes hell, have we come to when a major political party
in a democratic secular state has for all intents and purposes a religious test
for its nominee for president. A cursory glance at the history of 18th
century England and its exclusion clauses, codified in statutes, for Catholics
and dissenters demonstrates why our forbears rejected that notion. It is rather
ironic that Romney evoked the name of Samuel Adams as an avatar of religious
toleration during some ecumenical meeting in 1774. Hell, yes when you are getting
ready to fight for a Republic, arms in hand, and need every gun willing to
fight the King you are damn right religion is beside the point. Revolutions are
like that. Trying to prove your mettle as a fundamentalist Christian in order to
woo the yahoo vote in 2007 is hardly in the same category. Nevertheless on the
democratic question- down with religious test for political office, formal or
otherwise.
Now to get nasty. Isn’t it
about time we started running these religious nuts back into their hideouts? I
have profound differences with the political, social and economic organization
of this country. However, as stated above I stand for the defense of the
democratic secular state against the yahoos when they try, friendly with Jesus
or not, to bring religion foursquare into the ‘public square’. We have seen the
effects of that for the last thirty or forty years and, hit me on the head if I
am dreaming, but isn’t the current occupant of the White House [George W. Bush,
for those who have forgotten] on some kind of first name basis with his God.
You know, all those faith-based initiatives Look, this country is a prime example of an
Enlightenment experiment, and tattered as it has become it is not a bad base to
move on from. Those who, including Brother Ronmey, want a faith-based state-
get back, way back. In the fight against religious obscurantism I will stand
with science, frail as it is sometimes, any day- Defend the Enlightenment, and
let’s move on.
No comments:
Post a Comment