One of the first things I learned about politics, sitting in Mr Rupnow's current events class during my sophomore year of high school at Kettle Moraine, is that America historically elects only w.a.s.p's for president.

We just elected the first African-American President of the United States of America, I said, as I held my wife's hand watching Senator Obama's acceptance speech.

Amazing!

Yet, during the night as I watched the returns, I held my breath until enough states went blue and Obama could take a commanding electoral lead. I could not forget the Kerry defeat of 2004. For the first 90 minutes, McCain lead with one southern state after another capitulating red, beginning with Kentucky. Electorally, that was no problem if Obama could eat into some of the states which have voted republican in the past, like Ohio and Florida - which he did seemingly without effort.

When Charlie Gibson called the election quietly and almost non-nonchalantly for Obama, there was a moment of silence until my wife and I realized what he just said.

My wife and I promptly celebrated with a $4.99 bottle of champagne.

While its fantastic that Obama did indeed win – by an electoral landslide no less, and McCain conceded as honorably as he did, there is still much work that liberals need to do in raising social consciousness of how we should regulate social policy administrated by our government..

On that note, one the most evocative moments last night was watching the interview with Congressmen Jim Sensensbrenner at the Ryan campaign – who was re-elected over the less crazier choice of Constitution Party candidate... what's his name... Raymond? To the interviewer, Sensenbrenner stated something to the effect, that in order for Republicans to once again lead, they had to return to a party of low taxes and fiscal responsibly, good governance, and true social conservative values.

I wonder what Sensensbrenner meant by "true social conservative values." If "true social conservative values" is legislating policy predicated upon a religious worldview - then I'm afraid I won't be voting Republican anytime soon.

Presently, the Republican party is largely a party of social conservatives. The culture wars that social conservatives purposely engage in, like the banning of gay marriage or civil unions, creationism versus evolution, threatening a woman's health where abortion is concerned, religion over science, drug policy, are really just a whole host of quasi-religious or outright religious principles.

Republicans actively crusade for these principles at the behest of churches or religious right advocacy groups – forever negating the concept of small government by legislating these religious values and imposing them onto our collective freedom of conscious.

I do agree with the opinions of other pundits who state that this country is center-right, if not in economics and regulation, at least in the sphere of the social values I listed above. The banning of gay marriage in Arizona, Florida, and at time of writing this as returns trend, California – illustrates that liberals have much work to do in achieving equality for a class of citizens and restraining government off our bodies and in the choices that we make in our relationships, and the beliefs we wish to, or not, ascribe to.

This is why I admired McCain when he stridently stood up to the religious right, a key base of the GOP as the "agents of intolerance." If our democracy is to survive, it must not function as camouflage for one religion over another - even if that religion is one idiosyncratic variety of a larger whole.

That is why liberals, in this regard, are functionally libertarians – that is, more like true social conservatives then social conservatives are. Liberals are more prone to maintain and fight for the boundaries between religion and secularity.

Personally, my libertarianism expresses my social liberalism which in turn is informed by Humanism and the secular nature of our Constitution. Science, for me, illuminates reality, where religion only substitutes superstition and unfounded and untestable notions on reality.

Where will the Republican party go after this? Where will the Democratic party go after this?

I do not know, but I do have hope.

But it is clear to me, that both parties have a long way to go on these social issues.

Democrats are closer, while Republicans are far from it.

"In their seventies, with a friendship that had survived serious political conflicts, Adams and Jefferson could look back with satisfaction on what they both considered their greatest achievement – their role in establishing a secular government whose legislators would never be required, or permitted, to rule on the legality of theological views." (1)

Some Background

The United States is not unique because it is a democratic republic. The ancient Greeks were the first to experiment with democracy. What makes the United States unique is in its approach, separating religious practice from governance. Beginning with the paganism of the ancient Greeks, to the Pax Decorum of Roman paganism, or to western European autocracies pandering to Christian Rome in the middle ages, government had never been free of religion. The only substantial difference is in the number of gods – from many to one.

This all changed in 1786, when Virginia's Act of Establishing Religious Freedom was the first of its kind to end state sponsorship of religion – irrevocably separating the two. (2) The immediate reaction to the passage spread quickly throughout Europe, with translations appearing in France, Germany and elsewhere. In the States, the Act was condemned by the right wing that supported establishment – promising that God would damn and soon destroy America. (Sound familiar?) A weaker version of the Act was later incorporated into the Article 6, Section 3 of the US Constitution. (3) Many other state constitutions, like Wisconsin (4) copied the Act, nearly verbatim.

Because of the secular nature of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, it should be no surprise that the United States is an incredibly devout country. Recent polls show that belief in the supernatural and god ranks among the highest of industrial and information rich societies, as Europe quietly leaves god behind. Reasons for our country's religiosity is due in part to being colonized by religious dissidents and secular freethinkers, and the fact that the US has not established a particular Church – like the Anglican Church of England. A person is free to follow their religious or non-religious convictions in a variety of religious or non-religious experiences without governmental interference, creating a competitive market for adherents among a variety of religions.

Case Number 1

Currently, the South Carolina legislature plans to sell license plates that feature a cross and the statement "I Believe" in the design. Special plates like this must be requested at the behest of a particular group and law-makers can not decide to sell plates of religious meaning just because it can. Reverend Dr. Thomas A. Summers, states that this "arrogant action taken by the legislature is absolutely divisive, oppressive and is an affront to what true interfaith cooperation is all about," and has joined with Americans United for Church and State Separation and the ACLU to sue over this recent incursion of state interference into religion. (Source)

Case Number 2

This past April, the ACLU represented Shawn Miller, a street preacher who was arrested for disorderly conduct while preaching at an abandoned gas station near other street vendors. He spent a 109 days in jail, for as he put "I was preaching the word of God and not hurting anybody." Miller was promptly released. (Source 1) (Source 2)

In Conclusion

While it is true that the state many not endorse or promote a religion, it is also prohibited from interfering with your right to believe or practice your religion. There are exceptions of course, child abuse, neglect, incest, rape and murder which is religiously motivated are not excusable.

Secularity is not anti-god, nor is it anti-religious.

Secularity is the accommodation between government and religion. We live in society composed of many types of believers: Jews, Pagans, Muslims, Hindus, Mormons, Scientologists, and the many different types of Christianity. Not to mention non-believers, too.

It is inevitable that tensions between church and state will exist over the limits and boundaries of each, but it is vitally necessary that such a wall remains, unless we descend into something less than a democracy.

________________

References:

(1) Freethinkers - A History of American Secularism. Susan Jacoby.

(2) The Virginia Act For Establishing Religious Freedom. Thomas Jefferson.

(3) US Constitution. Article VI, Section 3.

(4) Wisconsin State Separation Clause. Article 1, Section 18.

(See also) First Amendment. Bill of Rights. US Constitution.

There's been lots of stuff in the news about religion and it abuses over the past week, other church and state issues, human rights issues that I did not have time to comment on.

Here's a quick rundown.

Faith Healing

Remember this spring the case of Madeline Nuemann, the 11-year who died of a treatable diabetic condition because her parents sought to heal her by prayer over the phone rather than seeking a doctor? Now another case of failed faith healing ends the promising life of 16 year old Neil Beagley. Disgusting. Look, I don't think we should ban "faith healing" (prayer), however there should be strong penalties against parents who do not also take the necessary, additional step and seek the aid of scientific medical advice and help. I understand that prayer does bring comfort to those that need it. By all means - Pray. But do not risk the life of your child for your beliefs.

Religious Cannibalism

I don't even know where to begin with this one. Utterly horrific. A report from the Czech Republic of Ondrej Mauerova indicates that he was kept in a closet and "partially skinned" as part of some cult called the Grail Movement. I've never heard of this cult. So I did a quick Wiki. Apparently, the book that the religion is based upon promises to "...answer(s) with clarity all the unsolved questions of human existence. The recognitions mediated with this book are so immense that they force the unprejudiced reader to ponder, investigate and go forward." In other words, read this bull-crap uncritically. If any book or person claims to answer all of life's mysteries, beware. It's no wonder why crimes against humanity like this happen.

More Abuse

John Freshwater, a former public school teacher was fired yesterday for branding a cross in the arm of two of his students. His friend defends him: "With the exception of the cross-burning episode. ... I believe John Freshwater is teaching the values of the parents in the Mount Vernon school district," Ha Ha. With the exception? Anyone want to bet he'll play the persecution card? You bet they will. The following lawsuit will be over religious freedom and why can't Freshwater preach his Christian beliefs in class. Fine. Then not only is he guilty for the abuse of a students, but in violation of the separation clause. He'll lose doubly.

Creationism

The Louisiana Senate voted 36-0 Monday on a bill that would allow science teachers to bring in supplemental materials for subjects like evolution, cloning and global warming. These bills, like Bill 733, are under the guise of academic freedom. Sorry, but teachers do not have academic freedom. Science text books are highly vetted to be as scientifically accurate as possible, and by experts. What I've read that this bill will stage similar lawsuits in the country like the Dover case. Which is fine. More chances to expose creationism for the pseudo-science and religion that it is. Also, ever notice that subjects like history are never picked on? I would love to bring Turtledove books, or Graham Hancock books into the class room and teach those as valid histories. 

Gay Marriage

Gay couples in California finally got a chance to marry one another. Congratulations! I was married last Sunday, and contrary to assertions by the bigots of the religious right, I do not want to leave my wife. Anyone else? Another canard that the religious right trumps is that gay marriage is supposedly a sign of Revelation when "men become lovers of men." I have to ask them, shouldn't they allow gay marriage and even welcome it? Wouldn't that entice Jesus to come back to earth a little sooner from whatever hiding place he been for the last two-thousand years? Are they not opposing God's will? Or are they doing it? 

Books

The Family. I'm a little wary of this one. Conspiracy theories always require such a fantastic mechanism of gigantic proportions as to make the actual conspiracy impossible. But the author may have something. A closer look at his evidence is critical.

Devil in Dover is about the inside story over the Dover case and the pious fraud of the school board members who brought ID into science class.

That's it for now.

One has to wonder if John McCain has ever bothered to read the Constitution, or the Bible for that matter. In an interview on belief.net McCain is asked three questions regarding the role of Christianity and in the founding of our country.

McCain, inarticulately hamfists his way through this interview. These questions are pretty easy to answer, but being a guy that vitally needs the religious right to vote for him without alienating the mainstream of society, he has to carefully position and parse his answers. His lack of citing the Constitution or the Bible for support also demonstrates that he has no clue in how to answer what he is being asked.

Here's a video abstract of his answers. You can see the whole video here.

"Most Americans believe the Constitution established a Christian nation. Do you agree?"

McCain, with discomfort states "probably yes."

What? Probably yes? The Constitution is a legal document and nowhere does it explicitly state that Christianity as the official religion of the US. In England, the Anglican Church is the official Christian practice and thus receives taxes. In the US, the Church is separate from the state and does not receive taxes and does not have to support the state by being taxed. Nowhere does the Constitution state "God." This is unlike the recently minted constitutions of Afghanistan and Iraq, where Islam is the official religion and that no (secular) law may contradict the Koran. Furthermore, the Constitution explicitly states that "...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." I do not know how more explicit against an establishment of Christianity you can be, or any other religion for that matter. Hint: an establishment of religion is like being pregnant. You either are or you are not. So there is no "probably."

McCain continues to add that, although the Constitution establishes Christianity, it is in the "broadest sense." But not so broad to include Judaism. Although both religions share the Old Testament and Yahweh, the similarities stop there. Their practice, belief, and worship in a sacrificed, risen messiah hopelessly divides them both. Both Christianity and Judaism are mutually exclusive. The answer is also very vague.

McCain goes on to mention other great American sentiments that have nothing to do with the Constitution, but are often skewed by the religious right who want to replace a democracy with a theocracy. Again, two mutually exclusive concepts.

(Also, I object to the wording and the premise of the question, but I'll save that for another time.)

Many Republican activists say that separation of church and state is a myth. What is your opinion?

In the first question, McCain answered a (weak) yes, yet now says that, in fact, the US has separated church and state. Okay. Does he see the obvious contradiction between both answers? You can not have one or the other. McCain could have cited a specific example from the Constitution where it expressly establishes Christianity, but instead he now says that this establishment is on "Christian principles." What are "Christian principles?" If he means the articles of faith that one must subscribe to to be a Christian, then no. But if he means charity, reciprocity, and basic humanism then yes. However, all religious and the non-religious espouse basic kindness, so being kind and good is not solely the providence of Christianity.

McCain then goes on to sum up the religious beliefs of our the founders. That's all very nice and all, but we are talking about law of the land here. And nowhere did any of the founders, Madison, Jefferson, Madison, Paine, Allen etc ever state "In God We Trust." This statement was added later in 1957 to our currency. The phrase "All created equal" is not part of the Constitution, but part of the Declaration of Independence. This declaration of war, does not explicitly state or even imply the Christian God.

Is America exceptional because it is divinely chosen?

This has to be one of the most poorly answered questions. Why did not McCain just answer with the platitude of "God bless America" and move on? Again he makes an appeal to whatever "Christian principles" are and also states that the Founders were "inspired" by these very same Christian-Judeao beliefs. BS. While many of the Founders were Christian, Jews, and some were deists, if it wasn't for the fact that they were Enlightenment rationalists and dissident protestants agreeing to separate church and state, we would not have had a secular democracy today. That was the boldest move.

How do we know this? We know this by many things, like the Virginia State constitution (where much of the US Constitution is based upon), from legal document like the Treaty of Tripoli, or from the private correspondence between Jefferson and Madison. And we also know by the critics. Take Reverend George Mason for instance, who stated that "we will have every reason to tremble, lest the Governor of the universe, who will not be treated with indignity by a people more than individuals, overrun from its foundations the fabric we have been rearing and crush us to atoms in the wreck." The rhetoric is the exactly the same today when Christianity attempts to Christianize the commons and the schools and loses in court.

No. They were inspired, not by Christianity, but by secularity. The resounding silence of the Constitution about God and Christianity and the fact that nowhere is it written into law that there are "no other gods before me" within our founding legal document should put McCain's assertions to rest.

Yet it doesn't. McCain is playing to the religious right. The religious right wants to take away American's freedom to worship and replace it with they way they think you should or should not worship. This is patently UnAmerican.