Getting Over the Hurdle of Separating Church and State

Does anyone remember the term “separation of church and state”?  Why does this not apply to Senator Barack Obama?  As America appears to have excused The Pope from the Catholic sex scandals, so should Obama be exempt from the offensive comments of his former pastor.  Yet, this is not the case, proving once again, the idea of separating church and state will always have double standards.

For centuries, the conflict of whether Church or State should govern has always been an issue.  Temporary resolutions like oh, I don’t know, THE FIRST AMENDMENT, in The Bill of Rights of The United States Constitution states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting free exercise thereof…”.  The phrase, separation of church and state coined by former President Thomas Jefferson believed religion, being a very personal subject was a conscience state of mind that was between an individual and his God.  According to the British philosopher, John Locke, this concept of thinking is what early settlers brought to the American colonies and is what influenced the authors of The United States Constitution.

Today, a man runs for president and suddenly, America wants to combine state and religion even though former President James Madison wrote in The United States Bill of Rights, “practical distinction between Religion and civil Government is essential to the purity of both, and is guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States”.

If this is true, then why can we not make the distinction between Senator Obama as a political official and Obama who according to Jefferson, “owes account to none other for his faith or his worship…,” taking into consideration that “…the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions”.

That said, why are we focused on the opinion of a preacher who supposedly is not considered a legitimate power of government?  Many citizens expressed how scary it is to have someone with Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s viewpoint ruling our country.  Yet, it is not Wright who is running for president.  It is a senator who is (or was) spiritually influenced by him.  At the end of the day, America is persuaded to focus on our president’s political decisions, disregarding his religious practices and beliefs because after all, it is guaranteed to all of us in The U.S. Bill of Rights.

Reverend Wright’s sermon is taken out of context as if he and his congregation are planning to hand America over to foreign adversaries on a silver platter.  It can be said President George Bush and Senator John McCain are already taking care of that by planning to send as many U.S. Troops to Iraq until someone’s ego reaches its apex. 

Perhaps Reverend Wright’s proclamation of what he believes about our country pricks the hearts of Christians, Catholics, and other denominations because they know the prophesies written in the Book of Revelations reflect current travesties.

To all the offended and self-righteous, Revelations is the last book in The Bible.  I highly recommend it.  It is a good read.

Any proclamation Obama’s preacher may have had regarding religion was extinguished with bitter hate stemmed from generations of rejection and oppression.  I am by no means making excuses for Reverend Wright.  Yet, I understand where his anger comes from.  This does not mean that I fully support Wright’s outrageous opinions either.

It can be said everyone has a friend, relative, or colleague whom they are closely associated with whose political and racial opinion differs from their own.  Why, consider Hillary Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro.  I challenge you to even consider The Pope who is associated with The Roman Catholic priest, nuns, and monks where an estimated 0.2% of them are proven abusers.  The Pope states his moral opinion differs from the theirs.  If Obama must suffer the ramifications of his ex-preacher’s opinion, then why and how is it that The Pope remains sovereign?  Granted, we are comparing apples to oranges with The Catholic religion verses the U.S. government institution.  Yet, isn’t that what America is doing by paring Wright’s sermons with Obama’s presidential campaign?

Senator Obama’s ex-pastor is no different from the person scarred by a bad childhood.  Yet, only the underprivileged netting between $21,000 to $22,000 a year who are forced to live in affordable housing that is often located in hazardous communities can identify with this.  Dare I say not even non-minorities who today, suffer the social backlash of racism have only felt what could be thought of as a grain of sand compared to the overall treatment of the working-class citizen.

Yet, we have been told for years to “get over it”.

Some do.

Some don’t.

The bottom line is that Senator Obama has.

So, to all the people whose feelings were hurt from the words of Reverend Jeremiah Wright.  To all who are appalled by such outrageous statements against our country.  To all the white women whose hearts were pricked from Wright’s discriminating comments.  I urge you to march to the words of our forefathers and distinguish the actions of Senator Obama from his religious beliefs, which according to our U.S. Constitution he really owes no explanation for;  and if you can’t,  then I suggest that you simply get over it!

 

McCain and Rev. Wright’s Rage

Let’s just get over the fact that Senator Barack Obama happens to be a black man with a religiously irate preacher and admit he is the only presidential candidate who can make rational decisions with a level head and does not waste the public’s time with delusional tales of sniper adventures.

Senator Obama does not have an anger management problem.  Senator John McCain, a.k.a, McNasty does.  I don’t know what you’re opinion is about this, but the last leader who had anger issues and spoke tenaciously about war, caused a genocide of an estimated six million European Jews.  Yet, some favor McCain because he chooses to perpetually deposit trillions of dollars into foreign militia so that they can police their own country rather than invest in domestic healthcare.  People want Senator McCain as president because they apparently like the fact businesses receive ridiculous tax credits for conducting business overseas, leaving Americans unemployed.  It can be said that McCain supporters don’t necessarily agree with contributing welfare to unemployed citizens who, ironically, might be able to afford their own healthcare if they could get a job but cannot because big businesses are employing overseas and the government pays them to do so! 

All due respect, Senator McCain reminds me of the rich, snobbish family who would rather tongue-kiss their dog and put diamond collars around it’s necks rather than be their brother’s keeper.

Granted, a percentage of people take advantage of the system that often hinders people from contributing to the welfare of low-income citizens.  That said, reform the system by adding restrictions with more detailed responsibilities for case workers.  Get organized!  There is too much money filtering throughout our country NOT to get it right.

At the same time, I’m not one to throw my money away either.  Yet, as human beings, we have an obligation to contribute to the underprivileged.  Don’t we?  Perhaps we are all just too selfish and focused on pursuing the happiness believed to lie in our own perception of The American Dream.

But I digress.

Let’s just conclude by noting Senator Obama is not the angry one.  His ex-preacher is.  McCain is just a short fuse.  Like a recovering alcoholic might slip and take a drink, McCain is subject to lose his temper in The Situation Room.  Yet, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s ex-preacher, who is NOT running for president, by the way, is getting media coverage as if he is.  Meanwhile, Republicans believe McCain, a man who has admitted to having problems managing his own emotions, can manage our United States military better than Senator Obama (again, whose ex-preacher displayed emotional resentment toward political issues, not Obama himself).

Yep.

Give me the man with mental problems over the senator whose religious choice is in fact a constitutional law that is supposed to be viewed as a separation of church and state.