Ramblings of a Constipated Mind

I'm planning on going to vote early on Friday morning. I've known for a while that I'll be voting Obama for the presidency, but I don't know as much about the state and local candidates. In terms of the North Carolina race for the Senate, I interviewed the Libertarian candidate, Christopher Cole, a few weeks ago and he seemed like a cool guy. I don't agree with him on everything (particularly the Libertarian stance on the economy), but I think it would be refreshing to have another third-party member in a major office. The current two-party system we have now is pretty awful.

There has been a war of attack ads between Elizabeth Dole and Kay Hagen for a few months now. The sad thing is, a lot of the ads weren't actually run by their campaigns, just by other independent agencies who try to influence the election. Even so, it's been a very dirty race.

If I had to pick either of the two candidates, I would probably pick Hagan just because she's a Democrat and overall I tend to lean more Democrat than Republican. However, I don't know the details of either's position on the issues. At least I know where Cole stands.

Today, I saw something that settled it for me: I am definitely voting for Cole. Not because I agree with him on everything, but because the other two candidates are hateful, ignorant bigots. I was looking at CNN.com this morning and noticed a headline about a "godless" campaign ad. It turned out to be a story on the controversy caused by a new ad put out by the Elizabeth Dole campaign. And yes, the Dole campaign really did put this one out. The ad in particular deals with religion (or lack thereof), and left me in shock at how low it stoops. Here it is:



This is probably the single most offensive political ad I have ever seen. Here are my thoughts on the matter:

1) Kay Hagan is not an atheist. As far as I'm aware, she is an elder at her Presbyterian church and taught Sunday school.

2) The ad implies that taking "In God We Trust" off our money or "under God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance would be a bad thing. Honestly, I don't see how anyone who understands the history of this country (we are not and never have been a "Christian nation!") and of those phrases (they were only added during the Cold War to inspire anti-Communist sentiment!) could say that.

3) And this is the thing that annoys me the most: What if Kay Hagan was an atheist? So what? Just because someone isn't a Christian does not mean that they would not make a good leader. This kind of Christianization of politics infuriates me and offends me, and seems counter to the inclusive message of Jesus.

We like to think that anyone in this country can become president. That's just not true. I'm very happy to see that in all likelihood, our next president will be black. This is a huge step. However, there are still certain types of people out there that would never, ever be able to win a presidential election. Namely: homosexuals and anyone who was non-Christian.

This country is gradually becoming more tolerant of homosexuals. Regardless of whether or not we think homosexual behavior is moral, I think we can all agree that as Americans they deserve the same basic rights as heterosexuals (note: I don't consider "marriage" in the religious sense to be one of these rights, though civil unions would qualify). But even if gay marriage became legal on a national level, the odds of seeing a gay person in office are slim to none. Why? Because there is a huge number of people out there who automatically equate "homosexual" with "unfit to lead" for some obscure reason.

The same is even more true of non-Christians, and atheists in particular. There seems to be an unspoken rule of thumb if you want to run for president: You'd better be a Christian, or you can kiss your chances of winning goodbye. If you aren't, you'd better pretend to be. For every person out there who says they would never vote for a black man, there are probably fifty more who would say they'd never for a non-Christian. When did being a Christian (the more conservative the better) become a requirement to lead a country? When did it become an indicator of "better values" or "higher morals"? A look at history indicates that Christians are no more moral than anyone else. If anything, they're probably a bit worse!

As someone who has atheist friends and who co-hosts a regular podcast with an atheist, I can tell you that being an atheist does not mean anything when it comes to politics. Some atheists would be excellent politicians. Others would be awful. It's the same with religious people. Being a Christian does not somehow mean that you are endowed with magical powers of greatness that make you more qualified. Just look at George W. Bush. I mean, sheesh. You'd think the hard right would have learned by now.

This is similar to the whole controversy over Barack Obama and whether or not he's a Muslim. He isn't. But so what if he was? Would that somehow change the fact that his plan for the country is a good one and that he seems fit to lead? No. If anything, it would only make him a better president because it might make dealing with the Middle East a bit easier...

How is it that the most powerful country on Earth is also the most prejudiced? Race, gender, class, sexuality... you name it, if someone isn't part of the majority in any of those categories, we hate them. Religion especially. If you're not a God-fearin', Bible-readin', Jesus-believin' Christian, then you're pretty much viewed as an evil hell-bound hedonist trying to corrupt the country. This reminds me of the McCain rally a few weeks ago when that crazy woman said she wouldn't vote for Obama because she heard she was an Arab. McCain's response was [paraphrased], "No, that's not true, he's a good family man."

I applaud McCain for defending Obama, and I honestly don't think he meant any harm with his comment, but the very fact that most people didn't pick up on the implication and immediately take offense is telling of how ingrained this idea of "Middle Easterners are bad" has become in our minds. When did it become acceptable to infer that a person's race or nationality meant that they automatically weren't good family men?

And, more importantly, how we come to accept the twisted logic that

1) All Arabs are Muslim.
2) All Muslims are terrorists.
3) Therefore, all Arabs are terrorists?

Nowadays, people throw around the words "Arab" and "Muslim" interchangeably as if they're the same thing. They aren't. And the Bush administration's use of scare tactics and propaganda has been so effective that now we automatically view followers of Islam as fundamentalist suicide bombers.

How is this tolerated in a country that claims to be free and accepting of everyone?

If there's anything this election season has shown, it's that Muslims and atheists are the minorities in America that face the most discrimination and prejudice. And the sad fact of the matter is that the vast majority of the hate they receive is given on behalf of Christians. The same people who claim to follow the guy who said the second greatest commandment was to "Love your neighbor as yourself." How the mind boggles at the hypocrisy.

To sum up: being a Muslim or an atheist does not disqualify you for political office. However, ads like the one Dole put out should. Whatever respect I had for her or could have come to have for her in the future has just evaporated. As far as I'm concerned, there is no way she can make up for such a despicable move, and she should never be allowed to work in politics again. She could have the best plan for the country ever, and it wouldn't matter, because this ad reveals what a weak, pathetic, and hateful individual she truly is. That may sound harsh, but it's how I feel.

Stop the madness. Vote for Christopher Cole.