From The American Left History Blog Archives (2007-08) - On American Political Discourse -NO TO RELIGIOUS TESTS FOR OFFICE - FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE (2007)

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 18^th 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.   

Hands Off The Mormons!

Commentary

I thought I was done talking about Mormons for a while after the demise of Mitt Romney’s Republican presidential campaign, but apparently not. At that time I spent not a few words on Mr. Romney’s family history, including an admiring comment on the executive ability of his great-grandfather in presiding over a household with five wives. I mentioned at the time that, in the old days, I had my hands full when I has more than one girlfriend. I also have in the past expressed an interest in Joseph Smith, the founder of the Church of Latter Day Saints (LDS), not for his finding golden tablets, or whatever, out in the wilds of upstate New York in the 1820's but as a Free-Soiler (anti-slavery advocate) and presidential candidate in the mid-1840’s before his murder by the rabble in Illinois. Today, though I have to speak of more serious issues, even though belatedly.

We have all become painfully aware over the past several weeks of the plight of several hundred women (mostly mothers) and children of the separatist Fundamental Church of Latter Day Saints as they were hounded and rounded up by a phalanx of Texas legal and social service authorities over some sexual abuse that was allegedly going on at their rural ranch. This sect, which has no direct relationship to Mitt Romney’s mainstream LDS’ers, holds the practice of polygamy as one of their central tenets, a tenet given up by the mainstream Mormons in 1890. Since that roundup which eventually scattered the children all over the state in foster homes and state institutions, a series of Texas court actions, including a successful appeal to the Texas Appeals Court, the state’s highest court, has finally gotten the children back with their kin. There are, however, still rumblings by the state authorities about their self-ordained right to carry out such invasions at will.

But here is the real issue for socialists and just plain civil libertarian types. Why was this sect being so readily prosecuted by the state on what, at best, were flimsy and unsubstantiated charges that proved to be laughable in court? As distant as I am from the beliefs of this seemingly harmless, reclusive and isolated sect and as distant as I am from either wanting to have several wives or being one of several husbands of a woman (polyandry) for that matter, I find it that it is necessary to defend these fundamentalist Mormons against the ravages to their personal lives by the state actions. As long as the question of effective consent is given, the only real criteria that should govern such relationships, it is nobody’s business, especially the state’s what social relationships people enter into. For all those shocked by the notion of so-called "child brides" look to the history of marriage regulation or for that matter the common law of your locale (if in a common law state).

I think that the way that the state of Texas has handled this matter has outraged more people than normally would be the case, unlike the Waco governmental invasion under Bill Clinton, and that is to the good. As the old adage goes- if they can get away with carting off the helpless and reclusive then what about the rights of rest of us- is fully operational here. But this episode should also make us aware, very aware, of why we leftists support the slogan- Government out of the bedrooms! Hands Off The Mormons! And Keep Them Off!

The Long Struggle Between Church And State

DVD REVIEW

Becket, Starring Peter O'Toole and Richard Burton, 1964

One of the decisive battles of Western civilization, one that lasted many centuries, once Christianity became the norm in late Roman times was the seemingly never-ending fight between the secular authority of the state (under God, of course) and the religious authority of the Catholic Church. That tension forms the backdrop for this film about an early English battle around the question.

At least as depicted in the film this seemed an unlikely controversy between two dear friends Norman Henry II (played by a young Peter O’Toole) and his personal political advisor Saxon Thomas a Beckett (played by Richard Burton). But that is the rub. Henry takes his kingship seriously, as he should at this point in history. Beckett does likewise as he grows into his role as Archbishop of Canterbury (when that job had real power). In the end one or the other had to win. With the benefit of hindsight and dressed in the full regalia of the Enlightenment and its modern extension, socialism I am glad that Henry won. But it was a near thing. See this interesting and well-performed film for a slice of our history not badly done.

WHATEVER HAPPENED TO SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE?

COMMENTARY

DEFEND THE ENLIGHTENMENT

PRIVATE RELIGIOUS EXPRESSION –YES (IF YOU NEED IT). PUBLIC FUNDING-NO


Let us face it there has been a deep and sustained retrogression of progressive human thought over the last generation or so. Apparently the progressive goals of the Enlightenment have run out of steam and night has fallen over much of human thought. And not for the first time. Remember the Middle Ages. In many ways militant leftists are reduced to a flat-out defense of those values that in an earlier time we thought were merely the base-line from which human progress would surge. The fight against religious obscurantism represented by the key fight to separate church and state in order to make religious expression, at most, a personal expression was one of those important values. We are definitely back on the base-line on this one.

Why do I bring this up now? A glance at the news on any given day brings forth new horrors done in the name of religion. And these actions most certainly are not to defend the right to personal religious expression. Name the religion-Christianity, Judaism, Islamism, Hinduism, etc., and the fundamentalists are spearheading the drive to impose their religions on the body politic- weapons in hand. Damn, even the Hari Krishnas are getting belligerent these days. What has got this writer’s blood pressure up today, however, is the erosion of the principle of separation of church and state in this country.

A recent newspaper article really brought this point home. Apparently a town in the suburbs of Houston, Texas is the capital of the religious building boom. And town administrators, although they do not apparently know what to do about it, are not happy. This small town has 51 churches, temples, shines, whatever, all exempt from local property tax laws. All it seems you need to set up shop there is to have been directed there by god. Curious, very curious. Shinto, Hindu, 12th Day Adventist, Jainist it doe not matter. Apply and you are in. The town administrator in charge of permits, bewildered by it all, sees no way out in the face of god’s wrath. Let us help him.

To answer our befuddled Texas town public official. Here is the word. Tell your applicants this- If you want your storefront or shopping mall church- pay up. No more tax exemptions. Hey, remember this country was founded on a principle of free private religious expression- in the gathered churches of those times you paid your own way. Where the hell did we go wrong?

Religion is deeply embedded in the human psyche. No question about that. As long as humankind fought against the mysterious forces of nature, for the most part unsuccessfully, a religious explanation for humankind’s plight made some sense. And certainly it was no worst than some other explanations. However, as humankind through science, technology and more sophisticated organization of society began to tame nature that rationale lost its force. That is where the ideas of the Enlightenment began to come into there own. Religion, if necessary, became a personal expression of citizens in a secular society. Or, at least, for the past couple of centuries we thought that is where we were heading. We are duty-bound to start that fight all over again. Why? If one recalls the last time that religious fundamentalism motivated human thought was ascendant was during medieval times. That used to be called the Dark Ages. And, brothers and sisters, that lasted for a long time. Forward, again.