Marcomentum Assaults the Constitution

Next January 20th the president-elect will swear the following oath of office: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Does anyone see a conflict with the following statement?:

“We are clearly called, in the Bible, to adhere to our civil authorities, but that conflicts with also a requirement to adhere to God’s rules. When those two come in conflict, God’s rules always win (emphasis added). In essence, if we are ever ordered by a government authority to personally violate and sin, violate God’s law and sin, if we’re ordered to stop preaching the gospel, if we’re ordered to perform a same-sex marriage as someone presiding over it, we are called to ignore that. We cannot abide by that because government is compelling us to sin.”

Pundits are calling his surge in the polls “marcomentum,” but, to my way of thinking, with that statement, handsome and wholesome-looking Marco Rubio has disqualified himself from being president by asserting that God’s laws—if there is a God—supersede man’s. That might hold true in a theocracy like Iran or the ISIS caliphate but here in the United States we have always valued separation of church and state. 

Until now, apparently. Besides, who’s to say who gets to interpret God’s law? Catholics? Jews? Muslims? Protestants? Hindus? Shintos? Mormons? Which of their respective sects gets to adjudicate what God meant, which of the laws must still be followed? The Bible and Koran condoned slavery, prohibited the eating of pork, permitted multiple wives and admonished believers to live according to rules modern cultures consider barbaric. 

The Framers of the Constitution were quite clear in creating a separation between church and state. No pope, no ayatollah, no cleric would be supreme above the law. Neither would a president. 

Sadly, Rubio is not alone among Republicans who would place their religion above executing the law. Among candidates still in the race, include Ted Cruz. And through his comments on restricting Muslims from entering the country, even U.S. citizens, count Donald Trump among those who would violate the Constitution. 

Also sadly, acceptance of religious diversity is fading in our land. During his visit to a Baltimore mosque Wednesday, President Obama appealed for tolerance. But derision greeted his visit from quarters that have reviled almost all of his actions during the first seven years of his presidency. How could it not when almost three out of 10 Americans (43% of Republicans) think he is secretly a Muslim, according to a CNN/ORC poll last September? 

Irony, Purple Power and Some Big Business Questions

I enjoy irony, especially when names are involved. Take, for example, a recent article in The New York Times Magazine. “A Tale of Two Valleys” related the entrepreneurial conflict between old and new techies in Silicon Valley. The first source quoted by the author was Sanjit Biswas, a nouveau techie whose last name cannot help but be a metaphor for the past as prologue in this rapidly evolving business segment.

Here’s another: An invitation arrived from the White Plains Historical Society to support its Historic Preservation Fund by buying raffle tickets. Grand Prize I would be a four-volume set of Carl Sandburg’s biography of Abraham Lincoln. 

Grand Prize II would be a four-volume biography of Robert E. Lee, a Pulitzer Prize winning effort by Douglas Southall Freeman. How deliciously ironic for the author of a biography of the general fighting to keep millions of Afro-Americans enslaved to have the surname “free man”! How further ironically amusing that his middle name would be an all-for-the-South rallying cry, if ever there were one.

Purple Power: How would you like to walk around with a target on your chest or back? Probably not, considering the trigger-happy country we live in today. On the other hand, despite threats from the Taliban, nearly 60% of eligible Afghani voters are walking around with purple ink on their forefingers, proof positive they voted in Saturday’s elections. 

Which makes me wonder, why don’t we in the United States dip people’s fingers into an ink well, or create some other visual sign, to signify involvement in the one political process where all of us are equal? In our free society we fail to vote in markedly higher percentages than the threatened populace of Afghanistan. A purple finger would mark for all to see the commitment each individual has to our democracy. Conversely, lack of a purple stain would be a sign of shame, assuming one is a citizen and has not lost the right to vote.

My suggestion does have some kinks that need working out. We have a high percentage of absentee ballots cast. We also have early voting in some states. How would we identify those who take advantage of these alternatives to polling station visits? Maybe we could issue packets with just enough purple ink to paint one finger, to be applied on election day? 

If Catholics are willing to walk around in public with blackened foreheads on Ash Wednesday, if observant Jews are willing to walk around wearing yarmulkes, if Sikhs walk around wearing turbans, if Amish, Mennonites and Hasidic Jews are willing to walk around in distinctive garb, then everyone who cares about democracy should be willing to display their allegiance to the Red, White and Blue (the combination of red and blue make purple; add white and you get lavender).

Here’s another (tongue-in-cheek) idea: If we can't vote in superior numbers, perhaps we can enfranchise people in other democratic countries to help us select our president, for, after all, he or she is the leader of the free world. 

Shouldn't, say, the British or the Australians or the Polish have a vote in whom our commander-in-chief is, considering those countries always seem to support our military initiatives?

Keep Reading: Democracy demands an informed electorate. Yet, I sense a growing percentage of voters agree with a sentiment expressed during a dinner party we attended last Friday. Our host lamented he has been so depressed and distressed by the news lately that he has curtailed his reading of the front page of The Times. 

Secretly, I thought I was in the minority by also doing so, but the consensus around the table was that our host was not unique. Though we were all liberals (to the best of my knowledge), I believe the trend spans political denominations, and is not restricted to shunning The Times. We’re also turned off by network news telecasts.

I’m a big believer that an informed electorate is a prerequisite for a strong democracy. But I am distressed by the bickering from both sides of the political aisle and the tendency to reject outright any suggestions from the other side. 

Here's what I don't understand. If Republicans are the party of Big Business, why isn't Big Business pushing them to pass more projects that would help industry and put more people back to work and thus give the masses more money to spend on the products of Big Business?

Take infrastructure, for example. We need to shore up our bridges and tunnels, our highway overpasses, our rail beds and airports.

We need to modernize our power grid, our telecommunications network, our water supply system.

Surely the captains of industry see this. So why are they flushing tens of millions of dollars into the vest pockets of GOP legislators who are voting against their vested interests? What Machiavellian purpose is achieved? I'm no fan of Sheldon Adelson, but at least his wants are out in the open. When Republican presidential wannabes kowtow to him, we all know what he is demanding in return.

Sure. We know the fat cats don’t want to be forced to pay higher taxes. Nor do they want to pay higher wages. Or pay for health care for their workers. They want less regulation, fewer labor safety laws. But let's be practical. Democrats won't give them that, especially when the president is a Democrat. So why doesn't the industry elite look long term and push for investment that will benefit them in the present and near future?

Back to the Stone Age

In the wake of the killings of four American diplomats Tuesday night in the consulate in Benghazi, Libya, now thought to be perpetrated by adherents to or sympathizers with al-Qaeda, and angry mobs in several Moslem countries protesting against the United States and other Western countries over a less than flattering depiction of the prophet Mohammed in a movie produced by right wing Christian conservatives, it’s time to ask a fundamental question—would we all be better off reconsidering monotheism in favor of good old-fashioned polytheism? 

Seems to me the ancients fought wars just for the sake of conquest, not in the name of religion. It was a whole lot easier back then to know your enemy and to defend yourself. Nowadays, at least from the time Jehovah told the Israelites to rid Canaan of the seven nations who lived there, or maybe even before that when He smote the Egyptians with 10 plagues so the Hebrews slaves could be freed to worship Him in the desert, societies have been killing each other over which one has the one true god. 

Back in those idolatrous times, gods didn’t move around. They had territorial boundaries. Only when monotheism expressed a universal presence did the concept of a singular god residing everywhere take hold, with the inference that He could be conjured up to save the souls of Indians, Black Africans, Asians and other indigenous peoples not privileged to have been touched by the grace of Jesus or Mohammed. 

Of course, even those so graced have not been immune to religious warfare. Catholics have fought among themselves. Catholics have fought Protestants. Russian Orthodox have fought among themselves. Christians have fought Muslims. Muslims have fought Muslims. All of the above have fought Jews. Religions that espouse peace and love for all are guilty not just of denying peace and love to outsiders but also to sects within their own religion. In the name of god, how could we allow such a defamation of religion to occur?

Muslim extremists have usurped their religion’s embodiment to the world. The West is appalled by Sharia law practices. In Northern Mali, thieves had hands and feet cut off in public demonstrations of justice. Accused of adultery, men and women have been stoned to death in Afghanistan. Honor killings are still common in backwater villages. Western nations are powerless to stop these practices. Indeed, many Muslim extremists welcome a return to the era of the Caliphates, back to the 7th to 12th centuries. 

Perhaps we should let them go back in time. It is futile and foolish to believe we will ever be able to soothe the savage breast of a people who reject Western culture and codes of behavior. As insulting and provocative as the film “Innocence of Muslims” may be, it fell within the bounds of freedom of speech cherished by Western societies. This wasn’t the first time the Muslim world has reacted violently to the alleged slander of Mohammed. Nor can we expect it to be the last, given our tilt away from censorship except in extreme cases of national security. Perhaps the answer is disengagement.

Let’s put aside for a moment the West’s collective need for oil buried under the sands of Arabia. Let’s consider how we might disengage and assist the Muslim world in its quest for yesteryear. Let’s start by not supplying them with any modern convenience—no TVs, no cars, no cell phones, no computers, no radios, no modern medicines, no irrigation projects, no aircraft, no trains, no Internet, no indoor plumbing, nothing but handwritten books, no modern military equipment. You get the picture. 

Naturally, this idea has more than its share of problems and hyperbole. We’d never get the industrialized world to embargo its goods to Muslim countries. And we still need its oil. But we really must figure out a way to stimulate a culture war within Islam, forcing its citizens to choose if they’d like to live in the 21st or 10th century.  

During the Vietnam War, General Curtis LeMay suggested we bomb North Vietnam “back into the Stone Age.” I’m not comfortable with that game plan. I think we’d have a better shot at world peace if we voluntarily return to idolatry. 

Casting a Political Line to 2016

Let’s cast our political line a little deeper than November of this year, all the way to the Republican nominating convention of 2016.

(For the record, I’m assuming Republicans reluctantly will embrace Mitt Romney as their standard bearer this year. The rest of the country will not see the wisdom of the choice. Barack Obama will be re-elected.)

After another grueling primary battle in 2016, Republicans will pick...Rick Santorum, first because their hard core members will turn even more right wing following Obama’s presidency, and second, it has been Republican practice, for better and worse, to place the mantle of leadership on the next in line. They did it with Reagan after Ford, Bush 1 after Reagan, Dole after Bush 1, McCain after Bush 2 and now Romney after McCain. Unless they break the mold, the GOP will anoint this year’s runner-up, Santorum, as the favored son four years from now.

During these next four years, rather than soften his rhetoric, Santorum will stiffen his resolve to remake America into a Christian nation in law as well as custom. He will seek to reduce personal privilege when it conflicts with his dogma, in areas such as gay rights, contraception and abortion rights. It’s been widely reported the former Pennsylvania senator said he almost puked when recently reading the text of John F. Kennedy’s famous 1960 speech outlining the separation of church and state that he, Kennedy, would follow if elected president. Though Santorum apologized for his graphic, insulting language, he did not recant his distaste for the doctrine Kennedy espoused.

It is interesting to note conservatives often cite the Founding Fathers when they look for foundational support for their beliefs. Yet when the Founders offer contrary evidence, they ignore them. So it is with Santorum’s failure to embrace Thomas Jefferson’s clear call in 1802 for a “wall of separation between church and state.” Perhaps Jefferson wasn’t of sufficient Founding Father status for Santorum to abide by his words.

Let’s be clear—no one is suggesting clergy of any faith cannot voice their opinions on issues confronting the country. Indeed, we have a long history of involved, though not always wise, clerics speaking out. In the 1930s, Father Coughlin spewed anti-Semitism from the airwaves; Reverend Falwell rallied a moral majority 40 years ago; the Berrigan Brother priests protested the Vietnam War, to name a few examples of religious leader involvement in the national dialogue.

A line must be drawn, however, when a religious leader seeks to impose his or her values on the rest of the nation. While polls show 98% of American Catholic women use some form of contraceptives, how disingenuous is it for the Catholic hierarchy, and Santorum, to want to curtail their use and to demean those who want to practice responsible family planning?

Many are quick to demonize Islamic countries for basing their laws on the Koran. How different would we be if we adhered to civil and criminal codes locked into the teachings of religious leaders instead of the rule of law we have followed since the inception of the republic?

Yes, it will be an interesting four years. Rick Santorum is only 53 years old (he’ll turn 54 May 10). He’s going to be with us a long time. He’s not going away.