NO RELIGIOUS TESTS FOR OFFICE- FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

COMMENTARY

Every once in a while left wing propagandists, including 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 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 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 Ladies’ 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 of the bedrooms (or wherever) whether White House or hovel. We do no favor political witch-hunts of the highborn or the low for their personal predilections. Interestingly, no one at the time proposed that Clinton 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 to deal with the issue 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 tests, formal or otherwise, for political office.

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 on so kind of first name basis with his God. Enough. 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 Romney, want a faith-based state- get back, way back. In the fight against religious obscurantism I will stand with science, frail as it sometimes is, any day. Defend the Enlightenment, and let’s move on.

SEX AND THE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN, PART II

COMMENTARY

THE HYPOCRISY OF BOURGEOIS POLITICS

IDAHO SENATOR LARRY CRAIG GETS THE AX BY BROTHER ROMNEY

Earlier this summer I made comment on a small controversy that flared up between straight-laced Republican presidential candidate ex-Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and fellow presidential aspirant Illinois Democratic Senator Barack Obama over the appropriate age to begin sex education in the public schools. I have reposted that commentary below. Why? This week, the week of August 27, 2007, long time Idaho Senator Larry Craig a leading senatorial supporter of one Mitt Romney’s bid was unceremoniously canned from that campaign for some men’s room misconduct. Now we have become fairly inured to these sexual escapades,one sort or another, by politicians from both major bourgeois parties but the hypocrisy involved by those who would deny gays and lesbains equal rights makes small comment necessary here.

This writer made the point in the commentary below that given the haphazard nature of sexual education in late capitalist society that more and earlier sex education is the beginning of wisdom. The bizarre nature of the particulars in this case and last year’s Florida Republican Congressman Mark Foley’s case only add fuel to that observation. To speak nothing of poor proto-Victorian Romney’s response. Indeed, as I observed below, this issue cannot wait for the introduction of socialism. Again-for now the more real sex education the better.


SEX AND THE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN (PART I)

COMMENTARY

OBAMA AND MITT DUKE IT OUT OVER SEX EDUCATION


For those who expected some lurid copy about the behind the scenes sex lives of the above-mentioned candidates, forget it. This is much more prosaic. It is hard to believe but in the year 2007 this writer is compelled to make a few comments on the latest 'tempest in a teapot' on the campaign trail over the question of the appropriate age at which public institutions, mainly the schools, should make children aware of sexual issues. Mitt Romney, staking himself out as the king of ‘family value' issues in order to cozy up to the social conservatives, believes that sex and kindergarten students do not mix. Obama, rightly in this case, believes that age appropriate sex education can be started at that age.

Mainly this is a question of public policy guidelines and as is the case with most current state-mandated sex education programs aimed at the youth there are opt out procedures for those adults unconformable with public institutions teaching their children about sex. That, however, is not the real political or cultural question. For those of us who learned about sex the hard way on the streets or have been stuffed with erroneous knowledge about sex or have had to face the sometimes bizarre nature of sexual mores under capitalism without much guidance early sex education would seem to be the beginning of wisdom. Ignorance never did anyone any good. This simply program, moreover, is not something that has to wait until we are in a socialist society. Trotsky reputedly once spoke of the three great tragedies of life- hunger, sex and death. He noted that Marxists had staked out the struggle against hunger as the axis on which they would fight. But he also noted that these other issues would be addressed most fully under socialism. And they will. But for now- the more real sex education the better.

THIS IS PART OF A SERIES OF ARTICLES ON THE 2006-2008 ELECTION CYCLE UNDER THE HEADLINE- FORGET THE DONKEYS, ELEPHANTS, GREENS-BUILD A WORKERS PARTY!

GENERAL ROMNEY AND HIS 'TROOPS'

COMMENTARY

THE FRONTLINE ON THE 'WAR ON TERROR' IS APPARENTLY-IOWA

IMMEDIATE UNCONDITIONAL WITHDRAWAL FROM IRAQ

FORGET DONKEYS, ELEPHANTS AND GREENS- BUILD A WORKERS PARTY!

You do not often find much that is unintentionally humorous on the bourgeois presidential political campaign trail but last week, the week of August 5, 2007, ex- Massachusetts Governor and current Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney won the prize. Why? In Iowa, an early and important caucus state in the race for party nominations, an anti-war activist asked the Governor why, given his extreme hawkish defense of the Iraq quagmire and calls for huge increases in the military budget, none of his five sons had seen fit to enlist to fight the ‘war on terror’. Romney’s reply rightly enough included the fact that they were their own agents. Then he tipped overboard. Apparently Romney’s concept of ‘alternative service’ in the war on terror for his sons is to have them run around Iowa in campers ‘fighting’ for his victory to be president. Strange. I do, however, wish that I could have used that argument with my draft board back when I was faced with being drafted for the Vietnam War.

As a socialist I am opposed to reintroducing the draft. And that includes for Romney’s sons. Why? Simple, socialists do not want to give the capitalist state any more ways of enforcing its rule than it already has at present. Another way of putting it in its proper perspective-its a rich person’s wars, but a poor person’s fights. If, however, a draft were reinstituted over our opposition we would reluctantly go along with the other draftees and expect Romney’s sons to be there with us. No exemptions for those pursuing ‘other options' as 'chicken hawk' Vice President Cheney so succinctly put it when asked why he did not enlist for his generation's war-Vietnam. Fat chance of that, right? I would note that those who either have not fought in a war or have not had to be faced with the prospect of fighting in one should be very circumspect about having some other father’s son or daughter fight that war for them. Nevertheless it may almost be a law of capitalist human nature that the farther away from the battle field these ‘sunshine’ hawks are the more belligerent they are. But to take the pressure off the poor Romney boys and their consciences our best bet is- Immediate Unconditional Withdrawal from Iraq.