United Christian States of America

A lot has happened in the three years since the 2012 election when Rick Santorum was elected president and social conservative Republicans secured a two-thirds majority in the House and filibuster proof majority in the Senate.  Within a month of the election, Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus presided over a reforming of the Republican Party into the United Christian Party.  President Santorum and his allies were able to push through Constitutional amendments to rescind the 13^th, 14^th, 15^th, 17^th, 19^th and 24^th Amendments. 

New amendments making the United States into the United Christian States, eliminating freedom of religion, banning abortions and contraceptives plus banning all political parties other than the UCP were also enacted.  Former leaders of the now banned Democratic Party were tried for treason, found guilty and executed on national television including former President Obama.  Any person of African or Latin descent who hadn’t “self deported” themselves were rounded up and sold to the highest bidder.  Gays and lesbians, such as myself, had their property seized and forced into “detainment camps” like the one I am currently in.

Public schools, colleges and universities were closed and sold off.  The military was ordered to burn Hollywood to the ground and all entertainment production has to be approved by the Department of Christian Standards.  The Department of Education was reformed into the Department of Christian Development.  The Departments of Housing and Urban Development and Health and Human Services were abolished, as were all social programs, including Social Security and Medicare.

The United Nations and NATO are no more.  Mexico is now a territory of the United States plus Iraq and Afghanistan are officially “protectorates”.  Iran is occupied after our successful invasion in 2014.  Now there are rumors that Saudi Arabia and other oil producing nations in the Arabian Gulf may be invaded as well.

Ah, the rumors.  Every day there is a new rumor or an expansion of an older rumor.  Rumors that only clergy belonging to the UCP may hold public office.  Rumors of executions on sight of Mormons and Muslims.  Rumors that gays and lesbians aren’t being deported, as the government ordered, but are instead being executed and buried out in the desert.

It is scary to think that all of what has happened since 2012 didn’t have to come to pass.  It is scary to think that President Obama lost the election because he tried to be Republican-lite and didn’t stand up for liberal ideals.  It is scary to think that Democrats thought they had an easy win and didn’t need to fight.

-------------------------

I was never very good at storytelling, but this dystopian future doesn’t have to happen.  This is a future that President Obama and other Democrats can prevent, but they need to see the error of their ways.  They need to see that embracing long held Republican ideals is not the way to win over progressives and liberals.  Democrats can’t be wishy-washy on renewable energy, equal rights, abortion, fair taxation or the social safety net.  They need to be something more than “Not the Republicans”.

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.

Responding to a Challenge

Distributorcap over at The Reaction has challenged all of the readers of his post How about a real government of the people to suggest changes in how our national government is chosen.  I love a good intellectual challenge and the following is my response to his challenge.  As he mentioned, there are no right or wrong ideas, just points of discussion.  Feel free to let Distributorcap and I know your views.

Amendments: Distributorcap makes a good point that only 17 Amendments have been made to the Constitution since the original 10 were adopted.  I actually believe it is a good thing that it so difficult to get an Amendment added to the Constitution otherwise the anti-gay marriage Amendment would have been the supreme law of the land.  With that said, I would recommend the following amendments.

• No state or lesser government entity may pass a law that is in contradiction to the U.S. Constitution or U.S. Law.
• Marriage is the purview of the Federal government and as such cannot be prohibited or the rights and privileges associated denied on the basis of sexual orientation or religion.  The minimum age for marriage shall be 17.
• As businesses are not "persons" they are not afforded the same political speech rights as Citizens of the United States and are prohibited from making contributions to individual political campaigns, political committees or parties.
• As affordable medical care promotes the general welfare of all, the Federal government will manage and maintain a universal single payer health care system.

Elections for National Office:  I like the concept of the Electoral College, but I think there should be two fundamental changes to it.

1. No state may have "winner takes all" for their Electors.  Each state will divide their electors based on the percentage of the vote each Presidential candidate achieved.
2. Electors are required to place their votes for the candidate they represent and may not change their votes.

I agree that elections are way too long.  I think that no one should be allowed to campaign before February 1st of any election year.  I also believe that there should be serious campaign finance reform, even possibly going to complete public financing.  I don't believe in term limits.  The best form of term limits is an educated electorate.

I do think that Washington, D.C. needs to be allowed to vote on statehood (which would require an Amendment) and should they become a "city state", be given their two Senators and however many representatives they are allowed under apportionment.  I also think that Puerto Rico and the other territories and protectorates either need to vote for statehood or independence.  This would help diversify the Senate and the House of Representatives without resorting to giving larger states more Senators and smaller states fewer Senators.

I do believe that no state should be allowed more than 2 Senators and 13 Representatives (15 Electors).  Once a state is eligible for a 14th Representative after the census, it has until the next census in which to become two or more states.  This would break up New York, California, Texas and Florida and several other states into smaller states.

Supreme Court: The only thing I would change is making clear ethics rules that Supreme Court justices must follow.  An Amendment would be needed to make sure those ethics are spelled out.

Well, those are my responses to the challenge.  What are yours?