Let me paraphrase the late Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

I too have a dream.  That Americans will live in a nation where they will not be judged by the deity to whom they pray or not, but by their values and ethics, whatever the source.

The event which triggered this blog was NOT the recent Republican National Convention where religion, and specifically Christianity, were constantly on display.  More about that later.  I began thinking about this topic when someone shared with me the first article about WikiLeaks' release of emails from the Democratic National Committee.

As always, the news media is focusing on only a portion of the story.  Headlines in the major newspapers and stories on cable news present this revelation as confirmation that the Democratic National Committee was biased in its support of Hillary Clinton.  The following email from DNC CFO Brad Marshall to other DNC staff including executive director Amy K. Dacey is among the most egregious.

From:[email protected]
To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] 
Date: 2016-05-05 03:31 
Subject: No shit

It might may no difference, but for KY and WVA can we get someone to ask his belief. Does he believe in a God. He had skated on saying he has a Jewish heritage. I think I read he is an atheist. This could make several points difference with my peeps. My Southern Baptist peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist.

 
Sadly, instead of telling Marshall the email is inappropriate, her one word email reply?  "AMEN" (her capital letters).

But that is only half the story and maybe the least important.  We had just been witness to a Republican National Convention which promoted a melding of church and state.  It began on the first day, when SC Pastor Mark Burns, in the opening benediction, warned, "Our enemy is not other Republicans, but is Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party."  What happened to the other party being referred to as the "loyal opposition?"

In reference to the Republican candidate, he continued, "We are thankful that you are guiding him [Trump], that you are giving his the words to unite this party, this country, that we together can defeat the liberal Democratic Party...Because we are the conservative party under God."

In his acceptance speech, Trump proposed a greater role for religion in political discourse, promising to repeal laws which prohibit tax exempt organizations, including churches, from political activity.  There are two kinds of tax exempt organizations in the IRS Code.  Those designated as 501(c)(3) are generally charitable or educational entities.  Currently, religious organizations fall into this category.  Advocacy groups such as the US Chamber of Commerce are designated as 501(c)(6).  The major difference is contributors to a (c)(3) charity can deduct the gift on their individual tax returns.  Contributors to a (c)(6) cannot. Under Trump's proposal, someone like Sheldon Adelson could create a religious entity (not very hard as proven by John Oliver on HBO's Last Week Tonight) and offer personal income tax deductions to "donors" who support political speech given from the pulpit.

Is this wrong?  Ask Thomas Jefferson who wrote the following in a letter to the Danbury Baptists in response to their congratulations on his election as president.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.

So if you want to live in theocracy, there are plenty of nations where you are welcome.

Which brings us back to Marshall and Dacey.  Not only did they demonstrate improper bias, they chose to undermine a candidate based on his religious beliefs or lack thereof.  To use choice of faith as a criteria for public office, is a violation of the very principles on which our country was founded.  For both their lack of neutrality during the nomination process and their violation of the imperative of religious freedom,  Dacey and Marshall, and chair Debbie Wasserman-Shultz if she knew and said nothing, must RESIGN IMMEDIATELY or be FIRED.  (Not to mention the sheer stupidity of raising the issue in an email.)

In contrast, I was heartened listening to Senator Tim Kaine yesterday.  In previous posts, I stated I have no problem with people using faith as a source of inner strength and personal ethics.  Kaine ascribed his passion for social justice to his religious upbringing.  But this man, who as a Catholic personally opposes abortion, supports the law and Constitutional right for women to control their own bodies.  This is a good start.

Let me close by sharing one other dream.  If we really believe in separation of church and state, one day a president of the United States will be sworn into office with his or her hand on a copy of the Constitution as this is the ONLY document they promise to faithfully execute, not any religious artifact.

For what it's worth.
 Dr. ESP