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!

 

The Angry Preacher.

Having come from a church where my pastor, or in my case, a resigned Apostle who spoke offensively is a personal and touchy subject.  Because of that, I have the authority to speak upon Senator Barack Obama’s preacher, Reverend Jeremiah Wright.

American history tells us what kinds of leaders are birthed from such radical thinking.  At the same time, Biblical history tells us that great men have been birthed because they thought outside the box.  In fact, our nation celebrates Jesus Christ’s birth and his resurrection every year.  Yet, America gets offended when someone proclaims what he stood for. 

The separation of church and state are now facing off.

As a black woman, not only did I have the opportunity to choose on behalf of my gender and color, but now I feel somehow, I must choose between my faith verses the righteous way to govern.

Consequently, the two are not that different.  Although it can be argued that the two indeed clash.  This all depends on an individual’s viewpoint.  What is your perspective?  Is it from the spiritual or political eye?

If the perspective is from a spiritual viewpoint, particularly Christian, which is the religion American was founded upon, then biblically speaking, Reverend Wright speaks the truth to a certain degree.  His proclamation of doom and gloom on America reflect those from the book of Revelations, prophesying damnation on a civilization that has not turned from their sins and refuse to accept Christ as their Lord and Savior.  The offensive part comes only in the reverend’s opinion which from a political standpoint is appalling and insulting to any political official as it should be if anyone’s job, career, gender, or race was spoken ill upon.  However, Reverend Wright is entitled to his own opinion and if anyone does not like or agree with his sermons, they have the right and liberty to go to another church.

Now Senator Obama has already stated that he does not always agree with Reverend Wright’s opinions but he does look up to him as a spiritual advisor.  American citizens have a valid concern in wanting to know who influences the political candidates running for President of the United States.  A man of Reverend Wright’s political viewpoints is indeed a pivotal factor in determining how Senator Obama plans to rule as president.  Yet, these presidential debates are designed to determine who and what our future president stands for.

From a political viewpoint, consider this:  like Geraldine Ferraro stepped down from Senator Hillary Clinton’s campaign, so should Reverend Wright resign from Obama’s.  Ferraro and Wright’s personal opinions and beliefs have tainted the Democrat’s campaign.  The difference between Ferraro and Reverend Wright is that Ferraro’s statement was aimed directly at the presidential campaign.  Reverend Wright’s sermons were not. Both comments are offensive.  However, Reverend Wright’s speech was geared toward a smaller audience while Ferraro pushes her opinion upon the masses.  Both possess the individual right to relay their message any way they like.  Neither comment has a place in the arena of political campaigning.

Just as Obama’s retired preacher Reverend Wright had his pulpit, I’m sure Ferraro is on her soapbox proclaiming her thoughts and beliefs in front of a substantial audience then later having tea with Senator Clinton at high-noon.  Just because Ferraro resigned from Clinton’s campaign does not mean that they are no longer colleagues.  Is not Ferraro and Clinton long-time friends just as Reverend Wright and Obama are?

Reverend Wright and Ferraro actually have this in common:  Their own righteous indignation of disgust toward a particular group or class that may have cost Clinton and Obama their presidential campaign.

Overall, the only difference between Ferraro and the reverend is just their opinion!

Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King set the example of what a spiritual leader and political activist should be.  King says, “We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline”.

King referenced “our struggle” toward the black population.  In this case, we ought to refer “our struggle” to America’s struggle or more specifically, the Democratic struggle.  Neither Ferraro nor Reverend Wright has appeared to adhere to this teaching.

Time for Obama to Move On. Ferraro a Distraction.

Having pondered over Geraldine Ferraro’s ridiculous statement about Senator Barack Obama achieving his political status because of the color of his skin, then claiming to be a victim because multitudes have voiced how racist the comment was, two conclusions remain.

First conclusion:  Ferraro is nothing more than an opportunist.  She gained a high position in Senator Hillary Clinton’s campaign and allowed dormant racist thoughts, which she clearly refuses to recognize, to manifest through the media.  The theory here is that once she discovered the Rush Limbaughs of the world applauded her statement, she realized she did not need Clinton anymore.  She claims she stepped down from her position to stand by what she believes in and not to hurt the Clinton campaign.  I’m sorry, but the damage is already done!  Ferraro said what she said as a Clinton representative.  Why step down now?

Ferraro knows by re-hashing such an offensive and controversial statement, she will continue to get as much media coverage, if not more than the political candidates.  It can be said with national attention like that, Ferraro is well on her way to becoming a published author and maybe a radio personality. 

That said, Ferraro stepped down because she saw the opportunity to start her own campaign based on being a so-called victim by stirring up the old melting pot of the watered-down version of a separate-but-equal mindset.

Consequently, Ferraro’s tantrum is damaging the entire Democratic Party, smoothing the way for McCain, all for her personal gain.

Furthermore, it is absolutely ridiculous and downright pathetic for Ferraro to claim discrimination.  Unless she can identify with being raised by a people where some have inherit a dormant mindset of being afraid to improve themselves and their quality of living from generations and generations of mentally oppressed people who by law, was not even allowed to try to better themselves, she cannot begin to understand what it is like to be discriminated against for the color of her skin; maybe for her gender and even her ignorant tongue, but NOT because of the color of her skin.  Ferraro is the lucky one.

Second conclusion:  Senator Obama needs to brush this issue off the soles of his shoes and specifically address the issues supporters have been waiting for him to address.  He cannot afford to let this sad and tired attempt to distract him from what can be assumed was his original tactic which is to answer that 3 a.m. challenge.

If Obama can ignore the Ferraro accusations and respond to the media’s questions regarding it with a swift answer of how he plans to operate as Commander in Chief, he will succeed in shutting the mouths of his enemies proving to America that he is indeed capable of effectively serving the term as President of The United States.

Clinton Should Get Rid of Ferraro!

First of all, if Geraldine Ferraro still holds the same position in the Clinton campaign after making such an absurd statement, then I have to say Senator Clinton must not be too upset by it.  In fact, it can be said at some level, she agrees with Ferraro. 

Ferraro is quoted saying Senator Barack Obama would not be in the position he is in today if he were not black.  That racist statement was an attempt to strip the integrity, and every achievement, victory, and goal Obama has and will continue to reach by tainting it, triggering dormant racist thoughts, reducing him to being just a black man.  Consequently, this type of thinking allows an individual to dismiss Senator Obama’s talent, intellect, and capabilities as President of The United States.

In my experience, if a non-African American were to dismiss my talents, capabilities, and accomplishments by “complimenting” me as a smart black lady, that only tells me that they are so intimidated by me, that they must reduce my character in some way in order to build their own, and make them feel good about themselves and if they voice this skewed perception loud enough, people might believe it.  I suppose that is the name of the game in politics.  However, when a political candidate allows their campaign to touch on a subject as sensitive and inhumane as racism, you reveal how immature you really are despite the years of politcal experience you have in office.  I will go as far as to say even Republicans are intelligent enough to avoid that kind of tactic.

At the same token, if Senator Obama would not be where he is today because he is black, then Senator Clinton would not be where she is today if she were not a woman or even the former President Bill Clinton’s wife.

So now what?

Having said that, let us analyze Ferraro’s statement.  Senator Obama is a one-of-kind individual.  Senator Clinton is a one-of-a-kind individual.  Both candidates have achieved history-making goals because they are who they are.  Obama happens to be black and Clinton happens to be a woman.  Everyone knows because of this, citizens are taking more interest in these elections.  These elections are getting more media coverage because there are more angles to cover given the diversity in each candidate.  So yes, Ferraro is right in saying Obama is where he is politically because he is who he is but we all know that is not what she meant.

As for Mrs. Bill Clinton, I am not so quick to let her off the hook just because she says she doesn’t agree with Ferraro.  Ferraro represents Clinton.  Ferraro has not retracted her remarks nor does she apologize for it.  In fact, she claims to be offended because she’s viewed as a racist for her statement.

Oh. Well.

I’m all for women standing up for what they believe in but only if the intention is to enlighten and uplift for a positive purpose.  Ferraro’s statement was ignorant and essentially had nothing to do with presidential responsibilities.