Keywords or
Term: Republican Party; Bill Kristol; Constitutional Principles; Healthcare Law;
Huckabee; Control their libidos; Reproductive Rights, Civil Liberties; Civil
Rights, Affordable Care Act; Presidential Campaigns; Separation of Church and
State; Fundamental Christians; Religious Bigotry; Supreme Court ruling in
Torcaso v. Watkins; and, Article VI of the U.S. Constitution
In a heartfelt memo sent to the Republican Party leaders in 1992, Bill
Kristol warned that excessive criticisms of precursor to OBAMACARE, the Clinton
Healthcare initiative, has the potential of turning voters away from the party.
Today, I have the temerity to suggest that religion as used by conservative
Republicans like Reverend Mike Huckabee has the potential of turning voters
away from the party.
Instead of pushing some arbitrary, fundamentalist Christian agenda in party
political discuss, Republicans have the obligation to ensure that thoughtful
conversation about issue of civil liberties, even on instances of disagreements
on provisions of a law, are not
relegated to the back of the burner. Criticizing voters on hot button issue of
constitutionally protected rights, even while opposing a law, is often not
taken kindly. When a Reverend Brother decides to judge others and offer close
to derogative comments about their body, he is readily creating a divide that may
ostracize well-meaning people and voters in coming election season.
Republicans must understand that absence of sterner requirements or
provisions in a law, hardly show an amoral, or even immorality of the law; and
or its supporters. The protection of reproductive rights in the Affordable Care
Act, hardly justifies conclusions as: “Democrats has painted [women] as victims
of their gender", as offered by the former preacher and 2008 Republican
presidential candidate. Discussing reproductive rights absent issues of civil
liberties, paints a contrarian image of a progressive party. There have since
been demands, particularly from women groups, that protection of reproductive
rights in the Affordable Care Act, or employers’ requirement to cover the full
range of contraception in their health insurance plan, is tantamount to
protecting women’s civil rights.
I. Constitutional
Principles, Reproductive Rights and Civil Liberties
Certain distinctions must be made before one wonders farther into the
thicket of problems:
First of all, in a multi-religious and multi-ethnic society, where people
are sensitive to civil liberty issues, saying
an opposition party is trying to convince women they need the government
to help them "control their libidos, with respect to reproductive rights,
has the potential of creating voters
backlash and grievances against a political party or its candidates. Advocates
of civil liberties frown at comments that betray basic constitutional
principles. They often seek that politicians or preachers clarify or explain
themselves regarding comment that has the potential of eroding their constitutionally
protected rights.
When Reverend Mike Huckabee stood up at probably a pseudo-presidential campaign
trail, the Republican National Committee’s winter meeting, holding in
Washington DC, and claiming that the Democratic Party is making women believe they
are helpless without Uncle Sugar coming in and providing monthly prescription
coverage in the Affordable Care Act, because they cannot control their libido
or their reproductive system without the help of the government; he is awfully
threading, knowingly or unknowingly, on the constitutionally protected rights
of American women. When a political party conversation is shifting towards the
evaluation of women reproductive rights, that party and its members are stepping
in hot water or fire that may come back to bite them. Voters are not seeking
moralistic Christian judgment of themselves; or rights protected in laws
designed to help them counter privately protected civil liberties.
Affordable Care Act requires most employers cover the full range of
contraception in their health insurance plans. The responsibility of the
government or current Democratic Administration is relatively diminished in
this provision; however, Republican leadership continues to claim that the
Affordable Care Act involves the control of women’s private body. What the
Affordable Care Act is talking about, is the protection of women’s health in case
of eventualities that may lead to probable loss of life from unexpected pregnancy
or conditions involving un-progressing pregnancy. Anything more that is second
guessing.
Second, Republicans like Huckabee and others, used to making derogative
comments about women and women health’s activists, must recognize their
comments are offensive. If Republicans are seeking to claim back the White
House in 2016, there is going to be need for a more civil communication of
those policies and plans they anticipate engineering for American people. Just
like Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus intoned in his reaction to Huckabee’s Thursday
comment, [Presidential Political Aspirants] have to be conscious
of the tone and choice of words used to communicate those policies and plans, effectively.
Comments arousing resentments, meanness and discontentment will do the
Republican Party very little in their new venture.
Republican Party wants the voters to take them seriously. Their current enterprise
must be finding out those common grounds and language that are appealing to
voters; and, actions that insert party discipline in conversations regarding
policies and plans. The over-crowding concerns of the Republican Party since
the passing of the Affordable Care Act have been how to repeal, undermine or
discredit the law. Americans who benefited from similar laws on Social Security,
Medicare or Medicaid are finding Republicans’ criticisms of the Affordable Care
Act as unfounded. Worse still, many of the provisions of the bill, including
allowing American children to stay on their parent’s health plan until the age
26, calling private insurance carriers to spend eighty percent of health
insurance premiums on actual healthcare instead of administration, and
eliminating exclusion of protection due to pre-existing conditions, are polling
very well with Americans. When Republicans accept the responsibility of
governing and are able to communicate their plans and policies without running
down an existing law and or policy, at that time, voters will start to take
them seriously.
The unfounded assertions that the Affordable Care Act is a job killer or
bankrupting the nation are seen as absurd by many observers and beneficiaries
of the law. This assertion assumes that average American cannot think for
himself or herself and is not benefiting from the parts of the law that are
phased in; and potential provisions that are coming on-board. In an Internet age,
it is very difficult to miss-inform or undermine the obvious. The few
challenges of the law cannot be more than relative; and to the extent that
other provisions in the law are addressing the health needs of Americans, the
purpose of the law is served; and, its provisions probably sacred. Continued
criticisms of the law by Republicans become mundane and questionable. Once
again, the reality is, Americans are catching on to the truth and Republican leadership
going around the country running down the law, are becoming more of the uninformed
and outcasts
.
Whoever looks thoughtfully of the persistent effort to undermine or kill
the Affordable Care Act by Republican leadership, will have to agree that the
Party is doing more disservice to America than ever through their continued
effort. If Congressional Republican leadership is attempting to meet the
demands of the conservative wing of their party by introducing and
reintroducing bills to kill Affordable Care Act, and this effort is going nowhere,
it is probably in their own interest to say, enough, it is time to divert
energy and attention to more productive ventures.
Finally, Republicans and Democrats, understand that there is no one
perfect law out there; and, if there are needs to tweak or make some changes to
improve the Affordable Care Act, it is within moral principles to proceed in accomplishing
these; rather than devoting attention to repealing the whole law. It is true
that there are certain words or phrases in the law that is somewhat confusing
or conflictual; however, these words or phrases can be re-written to make the
law more explicit and simple. If American women are asked about protection of
reproductive rights in the law, they will cheerfully subscribe to this
continued protection. Further, when similar provisions, especially those that
involve protection of civil liberties and constitutional principles are raised,
women and men alike would stand up and be counted. Continued pronouncements of derogation statements or altercations will only prolong undue innumerable
confusions that currently becloud the mind of the average American.
II. Religious
Bigotry and Presidential Campaigns
So much for making distinctions between constitutionally protected
rights, reproductive rights and civil liberties; Affordable Care Act and persistent
criticism of the law from conservative Republicans; we will now divert our
attention to the issue of religious bigotry and public office.
The current array of candidates seeking, overtly or covertly, their party’s
nomination as the flag bearer to contest in November, 2016, is growing and
hopefully, will become diverse before the deadline. Those who are inspired by
social issues like religion and other hot button issues would no doubt face
some tough questions. Americans United for separation of Church and State
identified eight states (Arkansas, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina,
Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas) which once limited public
office to people who profess belief in God; and, thanked the 1961 Supreme Court
ruling in Torcaso v. Watkins, for dousing this religious bigotry; celebrating
that since that Supreme Court decision, public office is open to every American.
Really, you mean believers and atheists are welcomed?
Interjection of one’s religious beliefs into political campaigns can be
formally defensible only if one’s audience is like-minded; otherwise, such
venture is considered injurious to public interest based on US Constitutional
provisions. There will be of course, those Americans guided by their faith, who
will argue that this nation was built on religious puritan values and no one
can write God out of American politics or classrooms. Incidentally, Article VI
of the U.S. Constitution requires that officeholders swear an oath or give an
affirmation to support the constitution they swear unto. It clearly states no
religious test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or
public Trust under the United States laws. Unfortunately, this is not
invariably what we see in political candidates, their supporters or others
nursing ambition to win the White House in 2016. Many people are more committed
to their faith and would want it to reflect in their choices; either in
politicking or in formulating public laws once in office.
There are forms of religious bigotry, intolerance, hatred or fear of
those that are not part of our faith or religion. While considered generally
unacceptable, bigotry against those that are not part of our faith persists;
and has been known to slip into the contest for the White House oval office in
the past. Many will recall the frenzy of Catholic JFK or Mormon Romney, when
both declared their candidacy or won their Party’s nomination to be the flag bearer
in 1960 or 2012. Contemporary familiarity with ethnical, cultural, sexual or
other bigotries in the American narrative experience are well documented;
however, promotion of democracy calls for all to be invited to the table, whether
men and women of faith, or not. Few of us can profess to be completely bigotry
neutral; however, the ideal is for us to expose anyone, group or institution,
that sponsors any form of bigotry in our national life. That is why this entry
is calling out conservative Republicans with fundamentalist Christian agenda in
the run for 2016 Presidential elections.
Many Progressives are committed to reaching
out and engaging people of all faith; however, they are hardly interested in
colluding religion with political and public lives. To this group combining faith
or Church with politics is very uncomfortable; and even more, unconstitutional.
As re-emphasized by Americans United for Separation of Church and State on
their WEBSITE: “Where church and
government intersect legislatively, politically and in the public square, it is
essential that all voices, both religious and secular, be included in the
discussion.” Many varieties of folly and injustices have been committed in
the name of faith. The trappings of faith and religion have made some public
office holders benevolent authoritarians, in the name of God. Critics of faith
or religion in politics have argued that there can be tyranny of a majority men
and women of faith, just as can be the tyranny of minority atheists, with one
hardly less odious than the other. Our commitment must be the banishments of
any form of bigotry in our national life.
No comments:
Post a Comment