Something To Believe In

It seems this presidential election year has been going on forever and its only January 22, 2012!  It doesn’t help that myriad candidates for the Republican nomination have been running since the election of 2008 ended with the victory of then Senator Barak Obama.  It also doesn’t help that there have been 17 (I know, the number seems like it should be much, much higher) Republican debates since May 5, 2011 with the 18^th scheduled for tomorrow night.

Even as someone who has politics running through their veins, I am getting worn out.  Politics is a blood sport, no matter how “civil” we profess we want it to be and in 2011 the blood flowed in many parts of the nation.  The upper Midwest was a key battleground for politics as Republican governors and their very supportive Republican controlled legislatures sought to eliminate the ability of public employees to collectively bargain.  In Wisconsin and Ohio the citizenry fought back and at least in Ohio have won and in Wisconsin Governor Walker is facing a recall election.

In an effort to diminish the ability of voters to participate in elections, many Republican controlled legislatures are attempting to enact draconian “voter identification” laws.  Hell, even federal probationer James O’Keefe looks like he headed a conspiracy to violate both Federal and New Hampshire election law to “prove” the need for voter identification laws.  Of course we all know that the Republicans’ love for voter identification laws is bullshit considering that no one had to provide photo identification to participate in the Iowa Republican Presidential Caucuses.

In Florida anyone receiving government assistance became required to be drug tested until a Federal judge halted the law.  Now it seems Congressional Republicans would like to have even those receiving unemployment insurance benefits to be drug tested.  I wonder if maybe we should require those in Congress and their staff to submit to drug tests.

In Arizona, author of the infamous “papers, please” SB1070 and State Senate President, Russell Pearce, was successfully “recalled” in historic election.  The Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission was attacked from the very start by the shadow group FAIR Trust and state “tea party” movement members, not to mention Governor Brewer and Republicans in the legislature.  AIRC Chairwoman Colleen Mathis was removed by Governor Brewer and Senate Republicans only to be reinstated by the Arizona Supreme Court.  The attacks against the AIRC and Chairwoman Mathis were about preserving the Republican super majority in the Arizona Legislature and the seats of incumbent Congressional Republicans.

In September, the U.S. military formally said goodbye to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” as gays and lesbians were finally allowed to serve openly for the first time in our nation’s history.  This, of course, caused undue stress for Republican Presidential Nominee Candidates as they promised to reinstate DADT while debate audience members booed a gay Army officer.

But now it is 2012 and President Obama is ramping up his reelection campaign, presenting “gifts” to all the liberals he cheated on when bowing Republican demands in 2011.  First he recessed appointed Richard Cordray to head up the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau as well as Sharon Block, Terence Flynn and Richard Griffin to the National Labor Relations Board.  Then he tabled approval of the Keystone XL permit application until 2013.  Of course, these actions by the President are supposed to make liberals forget the last three years when we were chastised repeatedly for not supporting his milquetoast presidency.

As Senator Jon Kyl is retiring this year, Democrats will nominate someone who is Republican-lite to run against Congressman Jeff Flake and they will do the same in my new Congressional district.  I won’t be alone as a liberal Democrat since even after redistricting there are four “safe” Republican Congressional districts, two “safe” Democratic Congressional districts and three “competitive” districts.  That means that Arizona Democrats will be running Republican-lite candidates in at least seven of Arizona’s nine districts.

I just wish there was at least one candidate I could vote for instead of against their opponent.  I wish there was one candidate come Election Day who truly believed in and acted for the enactment of liberal ideals.  Is it too much to ask for a candidate to give me something to believe in?

The No Religious Test Clause and Social Conservatives

Article VI of the United States Constitution:

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Over the last couple of weeks, what was once simmering below the surface and talked about only in intimate company has now come out into the open: Mitt Romney is member of the Church of Latter Day Saints (Mormon).  For most of us, Mr. Romney (and for that matter Jon Huntsman) being a Mormon was never anything we worried about.  For most of us, his tendency to change his political positions more often than a surgeon changes scrubs is what matters.

To social conservatives and especially those who are Southern Baptists, Mr. Romney’s Mormonism is a very strong negative.  The question though is: Why should it matter if Mr. Romney is a Mormon, a Catholic, a Baptist, a Hindu, a Muslim or an atheist?  If social conservatives are such great followers of the U.S. Constitution, then why are they now claiming that since Mr. Romney is a Mormon and thus not only a member of a cult, but also not a “Christian”, he should not be the 2012 Presidential nominee?  Are they not putting Mr. Romney to a religious test?

The propensity of social conservatives to decide the political fate of a person based on their religion or lack of religion is one of the myriad problems with social conservatism.  Though it clearly states in our Constitution that one’s religion or lack of religion is not to be considered when deciding who should hold office, social conservatives believe it does matter.  Look at how social conservatives have attacked President Obama, claiming he is some secret Muslim and before that his choice of “Christian” church.  They went nuts over Congressman Keith Ellison to be photographed, after his swearing in, with a Koran in his hand.

Even social conservative darling, Governor Chris Christie has taken heat for appointing a Muslim to be a New Jersey Superior Court Judge.  And how many remember (or at least learned) the great fear over the fact that the election of a Catholic John F. Kennedy as President would mean that he would be the puppet of Pope John XXIII.  I also think that Senator Liebermann being Jewish was a factor in Vice-President Al Gore’s loss in 2000, at least in the South.

Our Founding Fathers knew the inherent dangers in allowing ones religion to be a factor in whether or not they could hold office.  They knew that unless they put a blanket prohibition on using one’s religion or lack of religion as a test of whether that person was qualified to hold office, they would have seen what we are seeing today.  In fact, I think they would be appalled at even the mentioning of Mr. Romney’s religion let alone the question of whether or not he is a real “Christian”.

Social conservatives have always loved cherry picking which parts of the Constitution they wish to follow and which ones they wish to ignore.  That is why we see candidates for the Republican Presidential nomination gleefully answering questions as to whether or not Mr. Romney is a true Christian because he is a Mormon.  The only answer to the question should be: I resent that you are even asking such a question, but since you have asked, the only answer I can give is that the U.S. Constitution does not allow us to consider one’s religion or lack of religion as to whether or not that person may hold office.  Of course, social conservatives, such as the ones running for the Republican Presidential nomination, could never answer the question in that manner and that is a problem.

I, myself, don’t give a shit what religion any candidate is or isn’t.  All I care about is will they be a good office holder.  Will they look out for all Americans or only the privileged few?   Will they be good stewards of our nation’s natural resources or will they turn a blind eye to the pillaging of those resources by corporations?  Do they believe in equality for all or do they believe that some are lesser citizens?

These are the questions I ask.  These are the questions that should be asked.  The only question I never ask is: What religion are they.  And that is how it should be, as declared in our own Constitution.