Politics? Kinda, Sorta. But Not The Way You Think

Yes, it's true. "The conduct of public affairs for private advantage" has invaded my blog. Let's hope it doesn't infest the majority of my posts.

You may have, by now, heard of Christine O'Donnell, a Senatorial candidate from Delaware. Originally, this post was going to be about her now-famous "separation of church and state" comments from a recent debate with her opponent, Chris Coons. I was all prepared to join in on the mockery, except that I see her point. According to her web site, she was not expressing ignorance of the Constitution. Rather, she was questioning the claim that "separation of church and state" are in the Constitution. Technically, she's right. The phrase appears nowhere in the Constitution. What is there is Amendment I, which reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I guess that technically only Congress is forbidden to pass laws "respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", and under Article X ("The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.") the states could pass such a law. But that would also give them the right to pass laws abridging the freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, and of petition for redress of grievances. Also, I'm pretty sure that Article IV Section 1 trumps this whole mass of craziness anyway...

But I lose sight of what I'm actually wanting to write about. This whole Christine O'Donnell thing has gotten me thinking. Let's get away from the tawdry "is she or isn't she" argument about whether or not she's a good candidate, and look at something else. Ms. O'Donnell is famous among pagans by now for this ad:



Which, of course, is responding to all of the hoopla about (in part) this clip:



So she dabbled in witchcraft. So she obviously dabbled in the shallow end of the pool. (Satanic altar? With blood on it? Really?) So she's not practicing anymore (if, indeed, she ever really was), and she's embarrassed by what she sees as some sort of childhood stupidity. So fucking what? I think Thomas Jefferson said it best in Notes on the State of Virginia, when he said:

The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

If she was a witch when she was 19, it doesn't pick my pocket. If she's embarrassed by it now, that doesn't break my leg. If she wants to worship Yahweh or Xenu or Astarte or Eris or The Flying Spaghetti Monster or nothing at all, it doesn't matter. Or, at least, it shouldn't. But that's probably not good enough for some people. So Article VI of the Constitution of the United States of America also says it pretty well:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Now, it's easy to get pissed off at Ms. O'Donnell for her mischaracterization of paganism in general. Really easy. It's also easy to be afraid of the kind of things she might vote for if she were to be elected. She is, as far as I can tell, an evangelical Christian running on the Tea Party-backed Republican. Being labeled a "witch", when you're trying to court the evangelical Christian vote is the proverbial kiss of death. (Why being a woman trying court the evangelical Christian vote to hold political office isn't another kiss of death, I don't know. But that's neither here nor there.)

But getting upset at her and her views misses the broader picture. Think about it. We live in a society where there is a de facto religious test, even though there shouldn't be. It's been around 50 years since it was unthinkable that a Catholic could be elected President (he might place the orders of the Pope above the laws of the land, was the fear). Remember the hysteria around Keith Ellison doing his photo-op reenactment of his swearing-in ceremony with a Koran instead of a Bible? That was in 2008.

So, if you're offended by Ms. O'Donnell's remarks, stop (just) bitching about her lack of respect for Paganism. Step up and confront the larger issue. We have legislative freedom of religion in this country, but we don't actually have freedom of religion as long as we feel we have to hide our religious beliefs (or lack thereof) from the mainstream.

Tolerance and respect are not hiding in your broom closet.