Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann, two of the GOP candidates for President of these United States, made the news yet again today. Both candidates signed a pledge put together by the Christian organization The Family Leader. The pledge they signed was called “The Marriage Vow — a Declaration of Dependence upon Marriage and Family.” This was reported on CNN because the pledge, in its initial form, contained a clause about slavery. (See http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/... for this and all other source material for this post.)
The CNN story made a big deal about the following passage:
“Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA’s first African-American President.”
The reason it was removed, again according to the article, was because the source information from the above quote was cited as coming from “The Consequences of Marriage for African Americans: A Comprehensive Literature Review.” This work was written in 2005, before President Obama became President Obama.
When I got to that point in the article, I couldn’t help thinking that this was a slow news morning over at CNN. Two candidates spoke out against slavery before signing a pledge that no longer mentioned slavery. Ms. Bachmann and Mr. Santorum each gained a sound bite out of the deal, but so what?
I kept reading the article, however, and as I did I learned some of the other things contained within this pledge signed by Mr. Santorum and Ms. Bachmann. Things like:
■Defending the institution of marriage as between one man and one woman
■A pledge of personal fidelity to the candidates’ spouse
■Recognition that “robust childbearing and reproduction is beneficial to U.S. demographic, economic, strategic and actuarial health and security”
■Enacting safeguards for military personnel from sexual harrassment
■“Rejection of Sharia Islam”
Now the first bullet point is the standard Republican fare; I can't agree with it, but I understand why a group like The Family Leader would want it in their pledge. The second point seems like a good idea for all of us. The third point seems a bit like a pledge to make more white people, but whatever. The fourth point seems like a good idea to me.
The fifth point, however, potentially violates the freedom of religion which is guaranteed in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Here’s your story, CNN — rather than make a big deal about a slavery clause that no longer exists, why are you not asking the candidates why they signed a pledge that at first blush seems to be a direct violation of the Constitution, a document that they will have to swear to preserve, protect, and defend should either of them be elected President?
Now, to be fair, “rejection of Sharia Islam” could be taken a lot of ways. I have not read the entire pledge, I have only seen the CNN story that I have referenced above. I suppose it is possible that as a staunchly Christian organization, The Family Leader is simply asking Ms. Bachmann and Mr. Santorum to reject Sharia Islam personally — no real danger there, as I doubt that either candidate plans to convert any time soon. But perhaps a reporter might ask the two candidates if that’s how they took the meaning of the document when they signed it. They might even ask the two candidates if they actually read the document before they signed it.
Because if the two candidates did in fact read the document, and they interpreted that particular phrase to mean that they should actively work against the free and open practice of Islam in a nation that protects the free and open practice of any religion, then these two candidates, in my own personal opinion, have just shown that they are not worthy of being President of the United States of America. I recognize that the U.S. Constitution is open to interpretation, but it’s not really interpretation to pledge to wilfully ignore the rights of a group of Muslim-Americans to practice their own religion — it’s malice toward a certain group of Americans, and it shows a willingness to oppose the very document that forms the basic framework of rights and laws in our nation.
I am hoping that CNN — or anybody, really — will go back and ask what seems to me to the more important question.
(A slightly different version of this post previous appeared on www.bangthebuckets.com)
