No We Can't Talk About Race

Update:

A modified version of this post (edited for length) has been picked up and reprinted in the August 1st edition of the:

It used to be that there were only two subjects that you were told you shouldn't discuss in public, politics and religion.  And while these two may yet remain on the forbidden list in polite society, we can certainly add a third ... race.   Today it seems, some aren't allowed to talk about race anywhere, while others can talk about nothing else. It has probably always been so, but it seems that while over the years the situation between races improves, the potential to hold a rational conversation on the subject gets no closer than it has on the other two banned subjects.  As someone fascinated with words however, it's interesting to note how much these three in particular have in common:

• Such 'discussions' these days are not so much about achieving consensus (or even hoping to) as much as they are contentious debates in which competing sides attempt to win debating points.
• Those who speak the loudest or interrupt the most are often held to be the most persuasive in such discussions, regardless of the truthfulness or effectiveness of their arguments.
• There are 'trigger words' that dare not be spoken in all three, lest any rational discussion break down (far earlier than would otherwise happen).  
• There are a far too people who appear to make their living off of one subject or the other (and in some cases, more than one).
• Facts and statistics are not as important as feelings and emotions in such discussions; and as such, the former are often subject to multiple interpretation through the window of the latter.

Politicians can't talk about race, but that's because they can't seem to talk about anything these days.  There's something about turning a camera or a microphone on in front of a politician today that creates an electronically generated field that disrupts rationality and enhances party politics instead.  Race, as a consequence, becomes little more than another partisan issue in which the other party's policies (past or present) become not only the issue, but the overriding cause.  And since today's politicians are always fundraising and running for office, any subject worthy of a recorded sound-bite must be one met with carefully prepared rhetoric designed to enhance the officeholder and his or her party, denigrate opponents, and encourage contributions regardless of its relevance.  (In other words, it has to be full of double-speak and bullshit.)

The Media can't talk about race because it's not a subject that lends itself to the six or twenty minute segment (six on TV, twenty on radio).  The current mainstream media is after all a business enterprise built around the interruptions of its commercials.  Any subject being covered by the media must therefore be capable of being diced up into convenient segments in order to accommodate this monetary necessity.  While this might work for a birth in the British Royal Family, the opening of the State Fair, or the latest Lindsay Lohan arrest, it's not a format that lends itself to anything resembling weighty discussion on so serious a subject.  Besides, most of what passes for punditry in the mainstream media has already divided itself into ideological or political camps that must be zealously promoted and defended in order to serve the true purpose of the medium ... ratings.

Churches can't talk about race because they have their own axes to grind.  Religion has enough a problem getting past the normal dichotomy between enforcing top-down 'Official Religious Doctrine' and the dealing with the local policy interpretations of its various ministries on a multi-national basis.  Throw in the flaws of human nature and personal idiosyncrasies of those standing behind what passes for a pulpit and you end up with a confusing inconsistency that most true believers find easier to ignore.  Besides, Churches survive through the willing contributions of their congregations.  Even with the ability to offer veiled threats of eternal damnation, they must at least to some extent follow the same rules used by politicians and the media, lest they risk the anger of their audience / contributors. 

The general public can't talk about race because they're scared to death of it.  In today's Twitter connected, Facebook addicted, politically correct society, an incorrect public pronouncement on such a subject could well make one an unemployable social pariah, soon abandoned by even friends and family electronically and otherwise.  (Who knows, writing this may have cooked my own goose.)  Life moves damned fast these days and there's little time (and often less interest) in doing proper research on anything that doesn't help you pay the bills every month.  Accepting this as the world we live in, grown lazy from a lack of exercise in free will, and unable to easily discover source material not already tainted with the prejudices of politics, media, and organized religion; far too many happily accept the instant gratification of the pre-packaged answers supplied without question.  

Besides, discussions of race are generational; and such conversations, like the species, continue to evolve (well, in most cases anyway).  Those old enough to remember real historic discrimination are fewer every day.  For the rest of us, the differences which one generation cannot get beyond are far less apparent to their offspring, and all but invisible (if not inconsequential) to succeeding ones.  Any multi-generational discussion therefore becomes difficult (if not impossible), since there is no singular frame of reference for them to use.

Oh I know that we would like to talk about race, that we should talk about it, and that somehow we have to keep on trying to do so; but it's unlikely today that any conversation that we begin will end up the one that we started with, the one that we want, or the one we should have.

The "Stuck On Stupid" Dictionary #36

As was noted in the previous SOS posting, it was a surprise to discover that it had been some three months since the most recent entry to this tome of tomfoolery used to document the misuse of the English language.  Perhaps in guilty recompense, there were multiple listings in the previous effort, and multiple entries in this effort as well. Being a powerful motivator (almost as powerful as the threats of personal violence), may even account for the multiple efforts this weekend.  

Having thoroughly 'discussed' this ridiculous lack of production with members of the Senior Staff in a way that they are not likely to soon forget, I cannot say I was surprised by their mostly lame attempts at greater productivity.  I expect some level of these increased efforts to continue for at least the next ten minutes (their normal maximum attention span). 

Now for those of you who have somehow managed to miss previous postings in this area (shame on you, now go back and read all of the postings under the label of dictionary), the SOS dictionary is a reference guide to terms which nominally mean something to the rest of the English speaking world, but appear to mean something entirely different when looked at through the jaded eyes and rose colored glasses of the SOS dictionary staff.

Mismatch

1.  A contest in which one contestant is unable to compete on an equal basis with another due to an inequality in size, training, or simple ability. While sometimes amusing to watch, such contests are normally viewed as unfair by the inequality of their very nature.

2. The decision of a lawyer or politician to challenge another in public without knowing how that challenge may be responded to.  Lawyers know this as the maxim:  "Never ask a question in open court that you don't already know the answer to."

3. Any attempt by Democratic Toledo City Councilman at-large Steven Steel to challenge or engage Independent Mayor Mike Bell either politically, rhetorically, or even physically; since recent attempts to do so have thus far revealed his shocking inability to compete at this rarefied and more professional level of play.


Religion of Peace

1.  A descriptive term used to designate and demonstrate that a given theology is one which encourages non-violence between believers and non-believers.

2. A descriptive term that cannot be used regarding the religion of Islam; since such such judgments should be made not on the basis of accepted doctrine, but on the actions that result from the application of that doctrine.  Religious Courts, Terrorist acts, and War resulting in the murder, mutilation, and property destruction of non-believers in recent history for no greater fault than non-belief disqualifies followers of this religion.

3.  A descriptive term that cannot be used regarding the religion of Christianity; since such such judgments should be made not on the basis of accepted doctrine, but on the actions that result from the application of that doctrine.  The Crusades in Middle East and the Inquisitions in Europe and the Americas, which were perpetrated as organized campaigns of war, murder, and mutilation of non-believers for no greater fault than non-belief disqualifies followers of this religion.

4. A descriptive term that cannot be used regarding the religion of Judaism; since such such judgments should be made not on the basis of accepted doctrine, but on the actions that result from the application of that doctrine.  The Hebrew Bible (Old Testament in the Christian version) which documents the early history of this religion is itself replete with stories of war, murder, and mutilation of non-believers for no greater fault than non-belief disqualifies followers of this religion.

TFP Column: I'm Going To Hell For This

They say that you should never speak of politics and religion in public places, but I decided to defy conventional wisdom with this week's effort for the TFP. (And why not, I've defied pretty much everything else.)  "I'm Going To Hell For This" is probably a fairly apt description of the future that lies in store for me after calling out a number of the Catholic prelates who are suing the federal government to prevent at least one part of Obamacare from becoming a burden on businesses owned by the Church.

It's not that I want going concerns owned by the Catholic Church to have to pay for things that violate their doctrines (though quite frankly, their doctrines have no place in creating or enforcing the law), it's that I don't want any of us to have to pay for government dictate that's a violation of the limits placed on it by the Constitution.

But listen, while my doom is undoubtedly written large in the Great Book, there's probably some much more cheerful reading to be had in the mid-week Free Press 'Star' edition.  If that's not enough to brighten your spirits and save you from sharing my eternal damnation, there's only a few days to wait before Toledo's largest Sunday circulation and Ohio's best weekly newspaper for the last three years, the Toledo Free Press.

What's in a Marriage?

There seems to be a great deal of debate going on lately about not only what constitutes a marriage, but who has the right to one.  As someone who has been married twice, there are some who believe that I should be able to speak on this right of joining with a certain degree of expertise.  As someone who has likewise been divorced twice, there are an equal or greater number who believe that, having twice failed to keep one together, I have absolutely no right to voice an opinion.

That's the thing about "Just Blowing Smoke" however.  Since this is in fact my world and you're just living in it, I not only don't have to check with the readers of this site (both of them) for permission; I don't normally even seek the judgment of the DJBSS or even the SOS lexicographers before speaking out on a subject (and usually can't sober them up enough to do so even on the rare occasions when I want to).  

Speaking about belief in general, if not my suitability to speak about the subject in particular.  One of the chief arguments about this ceremonial joining is that the Christian religious belief determines that this should be the relationship between one man and one woman.  That may in fact be the case in the New Testament, but there's a different story being told in the Old Testament.  Abraham had more than one wife, at least according to Genesis 16:1 and 25:1, Ahab is asked to give his "best wives and children" up to an enemy in The First Book of Kings 20:1, David appears to have been married to Michal (Book of Samuel 18:27), Abigail (The First Book of Samuel 25:43) and Eglah (The Second Book of Samuel 3:5).  All of this of course, discounts the concubines and slaves that appear to being sharing the beds, if not marital status with major Biblical figures (except in Abraham's case, where Hagar was apparently both depending on when you look).  

But religious groups can choose what kind and whose marriages that want to sanction and whose they don't; as I discovered during my first attempt at the practice when the Catholic Church refused me for in turn refusing to take and pass their class before going forward (though looking back at my record, one cannot help but wonder whether I might have learned something useful from the education process).  One cannot also help but wonder however, which religion we should use to judge by.  Many of them after all have permitted polygamy of one form or another, and most have tacitly sanctioned the reproductive practices purportedly restricted to marriage, at least to those sitting on the throne.  One might go even further and ask why, at a time when so many in this country (including myself) are seeking to keep Sharia law from being used in any way to judge or condone behavior, why laws of Christian tradition or the Jewish law that precedes it should be a standard from which we judge.  (Oh I know the arguments that this is a 'Christian Nation', but disregard their logical absurdity since I normally hear them from the same people decrying Sharia Law practiced by nations in the Middle East.)

And as we thereby seek to prevent religion beliefs (which are often contradictory and rife with seemingly irreconcilable differences) from being the standard for marriage, we might also ask ourselves by what right the State thinks it has authority to decide such an issue.  A "Marriage License" issued by the government is of course required in order to any union to be considered legal.  Where in the Constitution (federal or state) should we look to find that particular empowerment?  In point of fact there is none.  Marriage ceremonies were for most of history, simple ceremonies conducted locally to acknowledge a romantic bond publicly; and could be as simple as the couple jumping over a broom.  Of course things got more complicated as noble families bound themselves to each other and joined lands through treaties of marriage.  Likewise having some form of documentation of the bond came in handy when divvying up the spoils of inheritance in a grand estate after such mergers.  In none of this however (with the exception of some of the nobles getting hitched) was it required to obtain the 'permission' of the state.  So the question remains, by what right or documented ceding of power does any level of government get to issue a license for marriage, as if you were registering the ownership of a business or a dog (questions which have likewise yet to be answered). 

 -------------------

You know, this probably hasn't been as clever and amusing as some of my more recent weekend efforts (which in turn are probably not as clever and amusing as I would have like to have made them).  But it is in fact the discussion itself that provides the normally required humor.  The truth of the matter is that the discussion of the subject by the President (especially in an election year), the Vice President (for whom the concept of speaking on any subject without putting his foot in his mouth up to the knee is usually his greatest concern), or the opposition party candidate running for the office (whose religion does in fact permit polygamy) is all but ludicrous.  At a period in this country's history when the national debt is on the verge of of destroying it, at a time when half the people in this country are complaining that they're not getting enough from a government being paid for by the half being demonized for making enough money to do so, at a time when the economy continues to swirl the bowl with a fairly distinctive flushing sound; the last thing we need to be talking about is who gets to get married

What's more, at a time when out-of-wedlock childbirth is unacceptably high and when "baby daddy" and 'baby momma" have become all but acceptable descriptions of former partners that were never married; this discussion is becoming largely irrelevant.  After all, the "Leave it to Beaver", "Father Knows Best", and even "I Love Lucy" marriages from our parents day are mostly gone (and more's the pity).  For those trying to save what was once defined as a 'Traditional Marriage', sorry but it's largely gone.  Like it or not, we live in an extended society today where children understand the concept of step parents, step grand parents, and people related to them who aren't actually related to the kids at all.  We speak calmly of ludicrous concepts like my 'nephew' or 'sister-in-law' by my first marriage as if they had any meaning.  Hell, according to our current Secretary of State at the time when she was formerly the First Lady, but not yet a former Senator (How's that for complicated?); "It Takes a Village" to raise a kid anyway. 

As for my own feelings on who should be allowed to get married, I'm afraid that regardless of my past experience on the subject, I will not say.  Since I've already expressed the opinion that both the Church and the State have no standing in the argument, how can I then claim to have one.  As for my own potential marriage plans, while some say that 'the third time's the charm', others argue that 'three strikes and you're out'; I find that I am wary, but at least occasionally curious on the subject.  Having lost half of my stuff in the first of those marital partings, and half of what's left in the second, I appear to be having difficulty in finding someone who's interested in at least half of what's left ... let alone living and putting up with a stogie-smoking Curmudgeon.  If I ever find someone however (and I do continue the search), I believe that we will have to have a serious discussion about 'what's in a marriage' before I'm convinced to once more take the plunge.

Update:

It was only this evening while indulging in the guilty pleasure of reading other blogs that I discovered a posting on this subject by mi Amigo, Roland Hansen.  We don't always agree politically, but it's an interesting take on the politicizing that this subject has recently gotten in the news. 

Mixing Politics & Religion

They say that talking about politics and religion is a great way to lose friends; and yet here I am again bringing up the subject for no other reason than that something is beginning to stick in my craw. I feel that there is a lot of confusion out there between these two things, and everyone seems to be too afraid or too sanctimonious to talk about it. 


While everyone is talking about what's going on in the Middle East, quite frankly I'm concerned that there's far too much self-righteousness and religion in politics in this country these days. Doubt or discount me if your will, but before you completely write this idea off, consider the following. 


Forget if you can, the furor over the preacher and church that the current President attended for many years. Imagine instead a candidate for President running in 2012 that announced that he not only didn't attend church, mosque, or temple regularly, he didn't attend one at all. Can you conceive of the uproar that would follow? Can you comprehend the way that such a candidate would be assailed from media, the religious right, and those who believe themselves to be no more than simple "God-fearing Americans". Can you picture the cloud that would gather over what would no doubt be the remaining hours of that failed campaign. 


Yet why should regular attendance at any house of God serve as a qualification for elective office in this country. Does Ford pick their CEO based on his religious attendance? Do investors consider Donald Trump's church (if he even has one) before investing in his projects? Does the market price of Apple stock fluctuate based on Steve Jobs regular attendance at services? Why this should this nation pick its leader based on the regular attendance at religious services? Don't get me wrong. 


This doesn't mean that we shouldn't question a political candidates beliefs. There is in fact an absolute need to know the principles that guide a such a person when they make decisions. Those beliefs however, do not necessarily need to be founded in a particular religious belief, or any at all; let alone their regular attendance at religious services. If recent history has shown us anything, it is that some of those who profess the most public of such beliefs or in fact lead those services have been proven to be the most flawed of human beings. 


Caught up in their personal 'divine revelation', they assume a self-granted mantle of infallibility. With divine authority on their side, they allow those beliefs to dictate that they should work their will on those who they lead, often on some misguided mission to create a world in which only their beliefs reign supreme. Little thought is given to those who believe otherwise, except to add them to the list of those that must be converted. Isn't this in fact what we object to in the theocracies of the Middle East? Isn't this our objection to radical Islam? Isn't this confusion of political and religious mandate what makes us so fearful of their potential for destruction? Isn't the fact that political dissension in these countries becomes blasphemy the concept that makes these nations so out of control and so dangerous. 


Quite frankly I would prefer a political leader who told me that what they believed in was the Constitution, the rule of law, and their personal responsibility to serve the public trust to one who told me that they attended church regularly and believed in this or that Supreme Being. Belief after all, is not something that is subject to the democratic process or to the will of the majority in this country. 


The United States is not a nation where we vote on our favorite religion, making it the path that all must follow. Yes I know that many of the founding documents were written based on Christian principles. I have also done enough reading to discover that many of those Founding Fathers were closet Deists, who like their modern counterparts, wore a public face of regular church attendance in order to advance their professional and political careers. Like those founding documents however, it is the principles that are important, not the place that they came from. 


The world currently looks upon the 'Arab Spring' with mixture of joy and trepidation. We celebrate it when people seek freedom in Northern Africa and the Middle East. We likewise fear what will become of their future as Islamic extremists who see no separation of church and state seek political power in the vacuum created by these uprisings. But are we not likewise guilty in this country of insisting upon a certain level of religious adherence in our leaders? Are we not also guilty of mixing politics and religion?

An Ethical Dilemma

While I did not attend, like many other people in this country (and perhaps around the world) I watched a good bit of the C-Span coverage of the Glenn Beck "Restoring Honor" rally in Washington DC. I was curious about a number of things having to do with this gathering and hoped that such coverage would provide answers. 


In most cases it did. I wondered if the crowd would be as big as I expected it to be, and I think that it was (despite the disparate counts reported). I wondered if those attending would honor Mr Beck's wishes to refrain from bringing signs and attempting to make this a political event, and they did. I wondered if those attending the competing events held by Mr Beck and the Rev Al Sharpton could avoid less than exemplary behavior , and they did. I wondered if this crowd would, as requested, leave the site better than they found it, and they did. I wondered if the speeches would both touching and inspiring; and for the most part I think that they were, though some of those with the podium could have used the services of a good speech writer (sorry, but the the writer in me can't help but nitpick). 


I found myself later with my thoughts drifting however, and found a question nagging at me in the days since that had not, and seemingly could not be answered simply, either then or now. 


Why is it that the clarion call to return to the principles of the Founding Fathers could not be sounded without religious overtones? 


Don't get me wrong, I understand that those Founding Fathers called upon the Divine Spirit in creating both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. I understand that Divine Providence was often credited for the language used by these incredible men as they explained their thinking and was used to justify their motives and the success of their objectives. I will even grant that the fundamental principles of this country were laid upon a foundation of the Judeo-Christian ethic (though some of the Fathers considered themselves Deists rather than Christians). 


It is this last word however (ethic), that remained a sticking point for me. You see, while I consider myself a spiritual person and one who believes in a higher power, I fail to understand why this Deity must be called on in order for a man to show proper moral character and behavior amongst his fellows. Why is it not enough to do good, to yourself and to others, for good's own sake? Why are not self-sufficiency on one hand and charity to ones fellows on the other not valuable in and of themselves, without calling on the forces of heaven for guidance, regulation, and oversight? 


Forgive me Father (in the spiritual sense, of course), but requiring such behavior only as homage or obedience to a Supreme Being is making the very cop out that of principles that we are hoping to escape by the return of such thinking. These principles should not be adhered to out of a desire to worship, nor should this moral code be enforced out of a fear of Divine Retribution; but in fact should be embraced as the core of the very humanity that we possess. 


The concept of adherence to this morality because "Father is watching" is the kind of thinking that leads to the justification of red-light cameras and Patriot Act surveillance. Freedom cannot come in blind obedience, nor can truly good behavior be elicited under threat of punishment. 


I believe that men of good conscience must step forward to lead the way, and that this rally was a good faith attempt to do so. (A curious choice of words, don't you agree?) I applaud the spirit of Glenn Beck's "Restoring Honor" rally last weekend, and likewise applaud the example that was shown by the many gathered in attendance. I remain troubled however by this rally's apparent requirement of Divine guidance to elicit something that should by definition be part of the human condition; and therefore remain caught up in the midst of an ethical dilemma.

Religions of Peace

This posting may be the most controversial that I have ever written, and is probably capable of more misinterpretation than any that I have yet put on paper. It's something that I have been carrying around in my head for quite a while however (there is plenty of unused space up there after all), and realizing that the Wednesday rant this week would be my 600th posting on the site made it seem as good a time as any to trot it out.

Condemn me as an apostate if you will, but I ask that you at least read it through (and carefully) before making any judgment of me. This offering is not intended as denigration of any religious belief including my own, but instead of the acts that have been perpetrated in the name of such belief.      

There are many today using the attacks of Muslim extremists around the world to vilify the Islamic religion. They point out that while the tenets of this religion are ones of peace, those committing these violent attacks on civilian populations today do so in the name of such beliefs. They further make the case that these attacks are not limited to populations of non-believers (those believing in other religions), but that many of the attacks committed are by Shiite Muslims attacking Sunni Muslims, and vice versa (and yes, I do understand that their are differences between the two).     

One can hardly help but notice however that the current crop of terrorism in the world does seem to come from such contradictory beliefs and practices held under the religion of Islam. One can also say that believers in Islam seem to have cornered the market on such actions in recent years. To my knowledge there are no current Christian, Jewish, Hindu, or Buddhist terrorist groups currently operating on any scale around the world.   

This is not to say however, that the Islamic faith is the only one guilty of such inconsistency, or of acts of unspeakable violence and depravity, and that as a consequence, that many other religions have their share guilt to atone for. Jesus too preached a religion of peace some 2000 years ago, and yet some of the most violent and terrible acts in the time since have been done in His name.   

The Crusades for example, are often romanticized as heroic knightly deeds done in defense of the Holy Land; but the truth is far less appealing. Not only was a great deal of savagery and torture perpetrated by these Christian knights in their looting and pillaging of lands not their own in the name of greed (not their God), but far too often they pillaged their Christian allies as well on the road to what were considered ripe pickings in the lands around Jerusalem. 

No one who has studied history will likewise be able to ignore the acts of barbarism, torture, and murder that were committed during The Inquisition(s). History in fact defines four separate Inquisitions, the first beginning in the 12th century and the last going on until around 1860. One of the most notorious, The Spanish Inquisition, spread this reign of terror from Europe to the new world, torturing and murdering innocent native populations in the Americas who would not accept what these conquerors considered "the true faith". 

Even the suffering that occurred in the "Troubles" of Ireland, while attempting to deal with long-standing issues of a brutal occupation and national sovereignty, carried a religious component within the British Isles. 

If we want to look further back, we need only study the Old Testament of the Bible. Here we can read the chronicle of that same God (for members of both the Christian and Jewish faith at least) similarly putting unbelievers to the sword at various times. The Canaanites, the Midianites, and the Philistines all found this original Jewish state more than willing to take up the sword (and pretty successfully according to the accounts) in the name of their Deity when necessary. Those living in many of those same lands today (and still fighting the same battles, according to some) have found the current Jewish state an equally formidable opponent. 

The Old Testament further tells us that these acts were considered both righteous and Godly, and well in keeping with the behavior of a Supreme Being of peace who was not above committing an act of violence in the name of religious retribution Himself (Can you say "The Flood" or "The Tower of Babel"?). So while it must be admitted that believers in Jewish faith have, down through history, far too often been the target of such inexcusably brutal behavior (and continue to be today), their own past is not entirely unblemished. 

Some early civilizations of course, like the Romans and Greeks, simply gave in to the violence in human nature and religion by having a god of war on which they could blame such human activity. In the Americas, the Aztecs, Toltecs, and Mayans likewise had no problem reconciling the concept of religion and violence. Their belief system did nothing more to excuse such acts as being justified by religion, but did at least save them from the potential moral schizophrenia inherent in trying to follow a peaceful dogma while committing horribly violent acts. 

None of this of course, is an excuse for the current acts of terror and barbarism going on in the world today, and any moral justification for committing such acts by claiming that they are "the will of God" is little more than a cheap form of self-delusion. These actions are beyond deplorable regardless of any attempted moral justification, and those that commit them deserve no reward in whatever heaven they claim to believe in (or any other for that matter). That being said, it must be admitted that much of the violence perpetrated by one human being on another throughout history has been done in the name of belief in a purportedly peaceful Supreme Being. While there appear to be limited exceptions to this (some of the eastern religions come to mind), few of them can attempt to assume the moral high ground on the subject if they look closely enough at their own past. 

As for those committing these senseless and unsuccessful acts, they cannot even claim credit for being the inventors of violence in the name of such belief, merely the latest in a long line of disreputable perpetrators. (I call them unsuccessful since while they have proved tactically successful, they have consistently failed to achieve the hoped for strategic objectives for which they were committed.) They prove little more than the fact that vestiges of envy, hatred, and barbarism remain part of the what we choose to call the 'human condition'.

History, if it chooses to remember them at all, will hopefully do so as little more than failed villains. It's likewise to be hoped that their acts will have little if any lasting effect on the long course of societal evolution. If history can be said in fact to have taught us anything however, it is that no one has ever been entirely safe from those following religions of peace.

Separation of Church and State

Many people believe that the concept of the separation of Church and State comes directly from our Constitution, and is outlined in the 1st Amendment. In point of fact, they are wrong. What this part of the Bill of Rights states is, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…". 

This was something that our Founding Fathers were rather concerned about, having suffered under religious persecution in Europe before coming here, and therefore they felt it was essential such protection be included in the founding document of this country. No, the concept in question actually comes from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson on January 1, 1802 to the Danbury Baptist Association, where he writes of, "building a wall of separation between church and state". Now I am sure by now that you are wondering where in the heck I am going with this and how I knew it in the first place. (Does the word Wikipedia mean anything to you?)
Where I'm going with this is to state that in fact religion does not seem to be separated from government, in spite of the fact that we adhere strictly to the 1st Amendment. No non-Protestant president was elected to the office prior to the 20th Century. John F Kennedy was a candidate whose greatest flaw (at least that we knew of at the time) was that he was Catholic. Mitt Romney's biggest liability as a candidate during this latest election cycle seemed to be his Mormon religion. Barak Obama's fatal flaw may not be his positions or policies (how can they be flaws when we don't know what they are), but his association with Jeremiah Wright and the Trinity United Church of Christ. At a lesser level, we are told to celebrate Muslim members of Congress as if this says something about us that Jewish, Buddhist, or Hindu representatives in Congress does not.

Now I don't want to get into the specifics of the belief systems of any church and I am certainly not criticizing anyone here (I'm not qualified). These things are important, but they are a posting for another day. I am more concerned with the ties that seem to bind religion to politics. The right is pummeled and bullied by Christian zealots seeking to control the discussion and party platform on their side, and the left is overrun by special interest groups who want to treat everything from global warming to animal rights as religious beliefs. The process of debate in this country has become poisoned by doctrines which cannot and must not ever be questioned. Any form of calm, reasoned political discussion is shouted down by these Inquisitors of moral exactitude on both sides and any questioning of either side's dogma are met by cries of "Blasphemy".

Perhaps it is time in this country for a true separation of Church and State. Personally I don't care if a candidate practices Zoroastrianism (look it up, I had to), is agnostic, or (dare I say it) an atheist; as long as they have a proven track record of honesty, good judgment, and ethical behavior. Practicing an organized religion does not qualify anyone to run for or hold political office. It does not in fact, even qualify them as a good person. Only their actions will give us the answer to that question. In one of the few times that you will ever hear me break with the spirit of the Founding Fathers, I will say that a belief in God (in any name, shape, or form) means nothing to the good governance of this country, unless it is part of a larger framework of closely held personal beliefs. Until we truly understand that, there will be no separation of Church and State.