Separation of Church and State: You Can't Have it Both Ways

Remember when you were a kid and your mother told you that "you can't have it both ways" (often cited as "you can't have your cake and eat it too)? Of course you do, because it's one of those cliche sayings that made you angry. Kind of like "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger" and "If your friends jumped off a bridge, would you do it too?", or my least favorite "God only gives you what you can handle". We hate these sayings. Some of us hate them with a passion (and by some I mean me). Why do we hate them? Because they are horribly true and we don't like our parents to be right (no matter how old we get).

So, let's go back to the original statement that irks us all so, "you can't have it both ways", which brings me to my point of the day...  Either we want a nation that separates the church and the government, or we don't. We can't have it both ways. Once the connection is made and the partnership is formed, there is no going back. 

For years, churches, including the Catholic Church has been doing business with the government and in a BIG way. First, the church gets tax breaks from the government (in return they provide services to citizens that the government cannot provide adequately). In addition, the church and the state in many cases have voucher programs that help the church educate students (in return the state, although they could, does not dictate what the schools taught regarding religion). These are just two of the ways that the two are intertwined. 

Now, let's be honest with ourselves. The Federal Government has had this uncanny ability to force states, businesses and individuals alike to do their will. It started with the Commerce Clause of the Constitution (see Gibbons v. Ogden, which allowed the Federal Government to regulate interstate commerce, which it interestingly enough managed to do a lot, even if it wasn't really interstate commerce) and it expanded from there. Nowadays, the Federal Government uses the power of the purse (withholds funding) to get us to pass everything from drinking ages to seat belt laws. Essentially, the government telling others what to do is not all that unusual.

This brings us to the current battle. President Obama has spent a great deal of time fighting for health insurance companies to cover the cost of contraceptives for women who need them, as many companies either do not pay for them, or do not cover the complete cost. Considering the alarming rate of women who have children they cannot afford, the lack of financial stability of the economy and the host of illnesses birth control helps, most people would support this measure, right?

The truth of the matter is, that the measure would call for even those organizations with religious affiliations to provide birth control free of charge. The problem with this is that many religious organizations do not allow the use of birth control in the modern sense, but advocate natural family planning. So, many religious leaders are suggesting that their rights are being violated (in a nutshell). 

Here's the problem: the Church itself (and here, I can adequately lump all of Christianity together) does not support abortion. Okay, I get it. Fine. We can agree, at the very least, why you feel the way you do. But, that being said, why would you not support a measure that prevents the unwanted pregnancy to begin with? And, many Catholics actually support the use of birth control and some even use it. (Now, here we could insert a whole discussion about the Right to Life Acts creeping up all over the South, but I won't). 

What I will say is this: Conservatives (which is all so often synonymous with the religious right) loves to insert themselves in moral debate when it comes to issues like gay marriage, or abortion. They love to talk about us doing right and that this is a sin or that is an abomination. This is when they are okay with ignoring the dichotomy that is supposed to separate our country's government from those who lead us religiously.

Now, we could go back to the days in which the Church got nothing from the government, but let's be honest, doing so wouldn't work out for anybody, not even atheists (believe it or not). Or, the church can make an exception. Here's the thing about people. Just because something is available, doesn't mean that people will take advantage of it. I could drink and do drugs, everyday, easily, but I don't. Why? Because I am a moral human being, granted autonomy in order for me to make my own decisions. Isn't this enough. The job as a religious leader is to teach and guide, not terrify and stonewall. Religious leaders should simply trust that their congregation will make the decisions that they've guided them to make.

In the end, we are really in this together. We can't have it both ways wanting the two to be separate when it's convenient for us and together when we feel the need. It's imperative that we as a nation make decisions that will benefit the whole of society. Asking insurance companies to pay for something that deters a variety of social problems and is used more often than not in preventative care is something that we must do as a nation. Do those who disagree with it for religious reasons have to use them? No, of course not. Do we ask that this measure be supported for those who need to use them for one reason or another? Yes and it is the duty of an American to support it for that reason alone.

President Roseanna Barr? Implications of Third Party Candidacy

Earlier this week, Roseanne Barr announced via twitter that she would be running for President of the United States on the Green Party ticket. Seriously. She did. Now, get past the theatrics of the announcement and understand the greater implications of a Third Party candidate (which by the way, we have every year, but they don't usually get enough votes to gain notoriety).

Now, let's be honest. Third party candidates do not win U.S. Presidential elections. To be honest, they typically do not win on a national stage at all. Through some metamorphosis of American politics, or perhaps sheer dumb luck, the American system of government is generally run by two parties. Most people agree that this limits the possibilities. Many advocate that we have a multiple party system, or a no party system. The truth of the matter is, in a world ruled by majorities, it is incredibly impossible for a multiple party system to work. 

The result of such an election would usually lead to either a series of run off elections, or someone becoming president who did not get the majority of the vote (happens all the time anyway because of the electoral college, but that's another post on another day). This makes it incredibly unfeasible and unlikely.

So, why have third party candidates at all?

Here's what third party candidates can do: set the tone for the election. Outside of the hooting and hollering of a campaign debate, third party candidates can respond to the front runners and are even in position to ask questions, or make statements forcing the front runner candidates to take a stance on a particular issue. This often becomes crucial. Not because the third party candidate will some how overpower the campaign trail, but because in many instances the answers will change the dynamics of the campaign and maybe even sway some voters.

In addition, if the third party candidate gains any level of traction, they will likely steal votes away from one of the front runners. Now, I know it's a bit far back for any of you to have voted in the election, but the election of 1860 gives us a prime example of how this can happen. In the election of 1860, Abraham Lincoln (R) won the election with just 40% of the vote, beating out Stephen Douglas (D) who had about 30% of the vote. Do the math: that's only 70% of the vote!! What happened to the other 30%? The Southern Democrat and Constitutional Union Parties took the rest of the vote. Southern Dems made up 18% of the vote, which when combined with Douglas' would have been 48% of the vote and a loss for Abraham Lincoln. This would have changed the course of American History entirely.

While it is clear that having third party candidates can allow for the free flow of discourse and perhaps for argument's sake an interesting level of candidness among the candidates. It becomes put up or shut up, which can make the race refreshing. On the other hand, it can have an adverse effect. We know that a party divided will implode and will certainly fail. While this will likely be a good thing for the incumbent, it's bad for the idea of politics and of the best candidate always prevailing (not referring to Obama, Romney, or Gingrich being the best candidate here, just speaking in general about all elections). This becomes a dangerous game to play. My recommendation? When the third candidate gets to a point in the election (and can admit to themselves that defeat is imminent), they should concede the election and throw their support behind the candidate that most resembles their views and will likely provide their supporters with the proper guidance and leadership.

While I will not be voting for Roseanne Barr, I do applaud her for her bold effort to change the dialogue and shake up the game.