Separation of Church and State

So this is becoming a big topic of discussion ever since Christine O'Donnell failed to realize that the Constitution addresses this issue in the First Amendment. [Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.]

Conservatives, of course, love to scream, that this text fails to use the exact expression "separation of church and state" and love to tell us that this precise expression comes only from a letter written later on by Thomas Jefferson. But the issue, of course, is what the "establishment clause" means in practical terms. And if that can be accurately characterized as the separation of church and state, shouldn't we be allowed to talk about it thus.

What the Constitution states, as fundamental law of the land, is that no citizen shall be prevented from the free exercise of his/her religious beliefs. That applies to any religious belief, including the refusal to have any religious belief. That includes Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, etc. as well as Christians. That's in our cherished melting-pot country! Where is that anti-Muslim sentiment now?

So Congress may not make a law establishing a national religion. That means that wherever Congress has authority no religion can be singularly preferred. Education is an interesting example. The concept of public schools and required elementary education originated in the Federal government. Today, the Federal government continues to provide a large portion of funding for public schools. This means that the Federal government has jurisdiction in public education. Hence, classes in Christian religion, support of Christian positions against instruction in biological evolution, and other situations in which Christian views are supported in opposition to others cannot be tolerated. To do so is to place the Federal government in the position of establishing Christianity as a state religion.

What Are We Doing?!!

The United States maintains military bases in MMM countries in the world outside of our homeland, including a total of XXX military personnel. [Don't have the exact figures at my finger tips.] Generally speaking this is rationalized as necessary for our homeland security, though we also explain it as part of a program of pacifying the world, an obligation that we seem to have assumed after the Second World War. In the 65 years after the War, this "program" has been primarily aimed at suppressing Communism around the world, even where Communism was obviously the local popular choice. One could say that the whole thing has been motivated by "making the world safe for Capitalism" but it has obviously been mostly aimed at supporting Capitalist Imperialism around the world, with American Capitalists fully involved. The story behind this has always been that Communism was expanding to threaten us. But, of course, the truth of the matter has always been that we ourselves were taking an increasingly aggressive anti-Communist position around the entire world. How have we gotten away with this behavior?

How many other governments in the world have military bases outside of their own countries? How many foreign governments have military bases inside of the United states? When the world looks at this picture and answers these questions, how can they avoid believing that the United States is an aggressive militarist nation with world domination at the heart of their foreign policy?

Not only is this policy inappropriate for the democracy that we are supposed to be, but it is also the major reason for our economic shutdown. Yet I have heard no one in this midterm election cycle actually bring up the fact that our economic woes at home are due to our extravagant missions abroad. It seems so much easier for us, as a nation, to kill and maim foreign citizens than to educate our own children or feed our own poor or offer better health care to Americans who couldn't afford it. Why is it that the American character has arrived at this strange state in its historical evolution?

The "Washington Rules"

I have just finished reading Andrew Bacevich's book "Washington Rules: America's Path to Permanent War," published this August. This is a book that every American should read, regardless of political party. The fact is that every political party has thoroughly subscribed to the militarist foreign policies that Bacevich carefully describes and documents, since the late 1940s. Even the Obama administration has carefully advanced this policy point of view in spite of Obama's claims of ending wars and being at peace with the world. The book is thoroughly researched and very well written.

Americans today, as we face up to the November mid-term elections, are fundamentally disturbed by economic issues at home. However, if Bacevich is correct, and I am sure he is, our economic woes are a direct result of Washington's disposition to believe and to act according to the principle that everyone in the world must conform to American values and that it is our obligation to police the world for offenders. If we were to back off of our militarist and aggressive policies abroad, we could easily deal with the many problems we have at home.

Fundamentally, the way to influence the world regarding the virtues of democracy is to exhibit the virtues of democracy at home rather than attempting to stuff it down everyone's throat abroad.