The United Church of America?

                For this post I chose an article entitled  'Rick Santorum presses culture wars attack'  from The Washington Post , in which Mr. Santorum shows himself  to be one of the potentially greatest threats our country has ever seen regarding personal freedom and our nation's core values. His statements threaten the First Amendment of the US Constitution which reads in part that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." In the article, Rick Santorum professes he doesn't "believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute". Santorum is actually quoted as saying that, "the church having no influence or involvement in the operation of the state is absolutely antithetical to the objectives and vision of our country."
                Really? What other purpose does the statement in the First Amendment regarding religion serve other than to make certain that the US government will not declare a 'national religion', or that Congress will not enact laws favoring any religious group over the interests and freedoms of society as a whole?
                Santorum also attacked  John F. Kennedy's  Speech on his Religion presented on Sept. 12,1960 to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association (a Protestant group) at a time when many Protestants questioned whether Kennedy would be able to separate himself from his Catholic Faith in regards to matters of State, should he be elected president. In his speech Kennedy stated that he envisioned an America "where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials." Is that what makes Mr. Santorum say that reading the speech made him "want to throw up"?  Or is it where Kennedy says "I would not look with favor upon a president working to subvert the First Amendment's guarantees of religious liberty"? Or maybe  Kennedy's statement that he wants "a chief executive whose public acts are responsible to all groups and obligated to none" makes Mr. Santorum queasy? Just what church are we going to allow to "influence" the "operation of the state", Mr. Santorum? Do I need a prayer mat or a rosary? Must I quit my job and my studies and become subservient to my husband in all matters?
                 In 1960, then presidential hopeful John F. Kennedy exhorted us not to allow "religious issues" to become more important than finding solutions to greater societal issues. I think that is sound advice. It is a mistake to view religious doctrine as political ideology. I think it  is wise to look with suspicion on any candidate who thinks that restricting my (or anyone else's) First Amendment rights is a way to address societal issues. Oppression is what is "antithetical to the objectives and  vision of our country". Now, just as then, I think we should look to the candidates who address the issues as they affect all Americans, not just those they resemble or whose lifestyle choices they agree with. I would much rather have a president who, in the words of JFK, will make decisions "in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be in the national interest, and without regards to outside religious pressures or dictates." The fact that Mr. Santorum believes otherwise (or stated he believed otherwise) quite frankly "makes me want to throw up". Still, I would never dream of restricting his  Constitutionally protected (for now) right to either profess or practice his faith.

Why 'The Civil Libertarian'?

           I searched for a title for my Blogspot  by using free association.Considering the parameters  (meaningful, relevant and socially acceptable) and craving something that also expressed my views, I created a quick list of approximately ten titles.I really liked  the sound of "The Civil Libertarian" but didn't wish to be associated with the Libertarian party, because as an Independent I reserve the right to vote for any candidate I feel represents my values and beliefs  as a citizen regardless of party line.

             So I turned to 'Webster' and his  "International Standard Dictionary". I found the definition of 'civil' on page 65; adj. "of citizens, civilized in manner; formally polite; of matters that pertain to the rights of Individuals".

            Then on page 167, 'Libertarian' is defined as: n. "one who believes in freedom of the individual from government intervention."

           " Of matters that pertain to the rights of  Individuals,one who believes in freedom of the Individual from Government interference." Works for me.

             It's not that I don't believe in government.However, it seems increasingly that our civil rights are in peril. A politician attempting to inflame the religious in an attempt to defend an untenable position regarding access to affordable healthcare? http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/19/politics/santorum-prenatal-testing/index.html?hpt=hp_bn3
             Employers attempting to control their employees morally,trying to force lifestyle changes, by denying them choice and access in Healthcare benefits? http://wpost.com/national/health-science/different-states-contraceptive-rules-leave-employers-room-to-maneuver/2012/02/15/gIQAN3tsNR_story.html
              Politicians trying to take the high moral ground by demonizing one another based on their religious affiliations or lack therof ?http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/18/10444177-santorum-obama-believes-in-phony-theology-not-based-on-bible It's fine for politicians to express their personal beliefs. Our founding fathers expressed their beliefs in documents guaranteeing us all the same privilege by asserting "these rights are not granted by humans, but by God" (AMGOV,Losco/Baker,pg.21) . I don't live in a Theocracy, so I don't look to politicians for religious authority. I live in a Democratic Republic and expect my representatives to protect all of my rights, not just those they or their church or their big money contributors wish to allow me to exercise.

            To me, that is the main function of government. Allowing every citizen the same inalienable rights to pursue Life, Liberty and Happiness under the Law. I know we need armies and infrastructure and tax laws and safety nets and penal codes, but they should all be formulated and developed with the rights of all citizens in mind. We should remember that the  laws we create will harm us if they infringe upon or limit those "Inalienable rights",or when it is decided such rights are not "for all" but just for some.