The surging candidacy of Rick Santorum has done wonders in reshaping American politics. We are now able to look away from peripheral issues such recession, the disintegrating situation in Middle East, the unwinding of the European Union and its euro-based economics, and finally focus on the really important stuff — theology, and a president’s adherence to biblical imperatives.
Some folks might find this shift troubling. Find fault in the transformation of a secular republic in which religion is not merely tolerated but honored, into one in which its rules are imposed or just made too hard to disobey. Some religious people themselves might wonder if basing politics on the Bible might lead to serious disagreements over who should interpret the Bible, disagreements such as the very spirited one that savaged Europe between 1618 to 1648.
That particular debate, however, is for another day. The immediate questions in our own time and our still pluralist nation involve other matters. And perhaps a good first place to consider in this regard is the question of whether institutions such as schools and hospitals receiving federal aid be obliged to serve only kosher food to get it.
No one should be forced to eat kosher, of course. It’s a free country after all. But since some Americans won’t eat anything else, and they pay taxes, and there are parts of the Bible they interpret as suggesting this is important, withholding government funding here would seem as logical as, say, withholding it from health plans that pay for contraceptives because other Americans find this a religious no-no.
And then there’s the borqua issue. I know, I know. Most Americans don’t want Sharia Law running things in the U.S., and I’m certainly not advocating it should. All I’m suggesting is that government might consider not giving aid to any institution that doesn’t apply it when it comes to female dress. Women could naturally continue to dress anyway they choose. Government, however, would no longer be obliged to support some Americans’ notions concerning immodesty.
Getting the religion/government thing right can get really tough in a pluralistic society when it comes to core beliefs of some small minorities. Like Janes. This outgrowth of Hinduism believes that the taking of any life is sinful. And this could pose serious difficulties in a country that currently allocates about 20 percent of its annual budget, more than $700 billion, to a military that exists (niceties aside) to kill people who oppose U.S. interests.
Getting the theology right here, getting the president and congress on board with religion, might require privatizing the military, maybe have it supported by military super-PACs that don’t directly influence military decisions (the Supreme Court wouldn’t like that) but merely contribute to ventures of which they approve. Or, we could simply let the military pay its own way by keeping a percentage of the assets it seizes.
Please don’t misunderstand me. I do not wish to contradict Senator Santorum’s deeply felt moral feelings that religion and theology should play a greater role in American politics. God forbid. I’m merely suggesting some difficulties might accrue along the way.
Well, on to Arizona and Michigan. On to the next great adventure as we waddle our way through our national political fun house.
More from this writer at: http://blog.wallstreetpoet.com/