Sometimes I don’t understand how you can fuck up the rule of no religion in politics. It seems pretty clear cut to me. When you’re running for office, sure, you might be a [Monotheistic Belief Structure of your Choice], but when you obtain the status, you put that part of you aside. You are the representative of the people of your country, people who have all different beliefs.
In a nation where religion is practiced freely (or should be, at least), the only way to combat the issues of religion mingling with politics is to focus on the secular concerns of the people. For me, I understand this to mean civil liberties and rights. Typically I don’t really go on political rampages here on the blog since I try to keep to a practical level of information, but I think you know that I am all about women’s issues, gay issues, and really, human issues.
For the last several months, it has become dishearteningly evident that the modern day Republican Party just hates women and gays, and nobody can argue with me when I say it’s because of religion. Well, no, that’s a little too politically correct. Let’s just cut the bullshit – radical Christianity has obliterated the rights women and gays have in this country. And it’s a constant reminder that nobody has been penalized for using Christianity as a tool to gain power over those they perceive to be weaker, second class citizens.
I wrote about Richard Mourdock and his famous brain-fart of a declaration concerning God’s Will and pregnancy as a result of rape. Afterwards, I had a stroke of Baader-Meinhof and found a lot of similar stances being proposed by lots of Republican party members. Not necessarily quotes explicitly mentioning God/Jesus/whathaveyou, but simply in their sentiments.
Todd Akin got a lot of heat for his “legitimate rape” comment a little while back. I haven’t quite decided if this is just a sick example of how little is taught about women’s bodies in schools, or if this guy is so mucked up from his anti-abortion rallying days that science is the equivalent of a fairy tale for him. This shows me that Todd Akin has absolutely no idea about the world around him. In the bible, there are three passages concerning the “punishment” for rape:
If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city. — Deuteronomy 22:23-24
But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die. … For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her. — Deuteronomy 22:25-27
If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days. — Deuteronomy 22:28-29
The problem with these passages is that it doesn’t condemn rape as it should – but historically, Christianity has never held much respect for a woman on account of Eve being a slut for the devil, or something. The first promises death to both, since clearly a woman ought to be punished for being raped, right? Second passage promises death to the man only (their location seems to be important?), and the third throws death out the window on account of the victim being a virgin and promises matrimony to the rapist and his victim.
In today’s America, we don’t kill people up and down because the Guy in the Sky says so. Laws in the Bible have no rule in America. That’s what separates us from a number of theocracies in the world. And with that progression, of course people aren’t going to be affected by the words about rape punishment from the Bible. The only NEAR applicable passage listed is the third one, that doesn’t even punish the rapist, but rewards him for his exercise in power by gaining a wife in exchange for currency. Ladies are merely objects, and people who take too closely to the text and too far from the world grow up with a skewed idea that women are second class, sub-citizens that are just as good as three pigs and a cow. Human currency. Do you respect that dollar bill you keep in your pocket? The one you left there and sent through the rinse cycle? Yeah. Didn’t think so.
EDIT: A friend of mine pointed out that I have actually misinterpreted these passages. D 22:23:24 speaks as the two involved are in fact adulterers, D 22:25-27 is rape, and D 22:28-29 is, as elegantly put by said friend, “is seduction out of wedlock, which ends in marriage to restore honor or some such nonsense.” However, the point still stands – the only mention of rape is not condemned on a moral level in any way and only threatens death, which is no longer an option in the 21st century. Thanks, Tim!
Michele Bachmann is a personal favorite of mine, because she is a fantastic example of what it is to be a woman in an oppressive religious box. She has said that ladies ought to be submissive to their husbands, as the bible tells them to. This is problematic – I don’t read your bible the way you read your bible. You can’t tell an entire gender in the country you wish to help shape (America, in case we forgot) to obey a non-secular guideline. Not that any of those gay people can take your advice being that, like many of your party members, you don’t want gays getting married on account of them dirtying up the definition. But that’s cool – you know that with enough therapy, they can turn straight and hopefully submit/dominate their other straight marital partner. Another case of violating civil rights and degrading gays to a second class status. But the social construct post is for another time. Anyway, the idea that a woman is less deserving or less worthy than a man is not new, and if anything, is encouraged by the bible. Google that shit and tell me otherwise.
Mitt Romney says gays shouldn’t get married – a value that has no secular basis. I still can’t find any secular argument that explains why gay marriage should be illegal without it really being a prejudiced, roundabout way of saying, “we just don’t like gay people.” But Mitt doesn’t seem to get that there are more than a couple gay people in this country who have a right to the benefits of marriage like the straight folks do – he says nay because the bible tells him so. And that is why this hack should not be the President. He forgets that the position of the President requires him to preside over the entire people of his nation – even the folks he doesn’t understand or agree with. It’s his job to uphold the mission of America, which is freedom. But Mitt ain’t much interested in this so much as putting his own agenda before the needs of the people he wants to desperately to govern. He is no less than a religious zealot using the first amendment as a shield against his hate speech disguised as well-meaning tough love. And with his running mate telling their followers that Obama is a “threat to our Judeo-Christian values,” this drives the nail into the coffin. Which values, pray tell? Oh, marriage and abortion? Then yeah, it’s definitely a threat because hey – secular.
The Republicans have really dug themselves into a hole here. Almost every person of interest is of the Christian persuasion, which has no meaning for me, except that like the jerks that hold signs of aborted fetuses outside of women’s clinics (is that you, Todd?), they are constantly shoving it down my throat. And the shittiest part is that these people feel completely justified in unraveling the status of women because the bible says so. Even Michele Bachmann, a woman, is okay with keeping her own sex on the second rung because they live in a world where God says women are under the men, and that gay people should be shunned by society in substitution for stoning them to death.
When are people going to stop using the “word of God” as an excuse to continually suppress women and gays? When are we going to stand up to this archaic standard and wipe the slate clean and refuse to be treated like this any longer, by people who are meant to protect us, no less?
Todd Akin, Richard Mourdock? None of these folks don’t give a good goddamn about me, my body, my rights as an American citizen. And chances are, if you don’t fall into their collection of qualified worthy citizens, they don’t give a shit about you either.
This is why religion should not be a part of politics.
Your job is to represent the people. Not yourselves, not only the people who believe what you believe. Your job is to protect the civil liberties of everybody, make the laws to protect them, and keep your Bible at home. Using religion as a rallying technique is sneaky and underhanded. Preying on the fears of millions, and punishing millions more is no way to take part in running a country. We may not be a democracy, but we sure as hell aren’t a theocracy, so stop acting like we are.
That being said, in a few hours, the polls will open and a sea of people will appear to vote for the next President of the United States. Hopefully you take this information into account before you vote for Mr. Romney. If you do, just remember – you are perpetuating a long-time problem by voting for him. He may have some good ideas, but in exchange for a couple of promises – which we all know from a politician is as good as pig’s spit – you are voting for the suppression of free people. You can’t vote for Romney without voting to deny civil rights to millions of people everywhere.
Best Hysteria 