What is a Democratic Socialist?

With Independent Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders leading DNC hopeful Hillary Clinton in early primary states, and with many media outlets declaring Sanders the winner of the Oct. 14th, 2015 Democratic Debate, there are a lot of Americans out there who are now trying to figure out just who Bernie Sanders is.

Sanders' biggest struggle has been competing with Clinton's household name recognition. Now that Sanders has given Clinton a run for her money in a nationally televised and widely streamed debate, people who haven't previously heard his message are Googling him like crazy to see what he stands for.

Merriam-Webster blew up during the debate with people looking up the word "socialism."

Unfortunately, the dictionary definition just makes people think of this:

Some people have trouble understanding that what Bernie Sanders calls "Democratic Socialism" does not in the slightest resemble the communist government of China or the former USSR.

So what is a Democratic Socialist?

A Democratic Socialist is still a capitalist, but a capitalist who believes you can still make a buck without stepping on the poor and starving the worker.

A Democratic Socialist believes in a living wage.

A Democratic Socialist in America believes that things should be "Made in the USA" to provide good jobs here, and not outsourced for cheap labor to other countries through trade agreements like NAFTA and the TPP.

A Democratic Socialist believes that healthcare is a right and not a privilege.

A Democratic Socialist believes that education is a right and not a privilege.

A Democratic Socialist believes that soldiers should be sent to war not for corporate profit, but only as a last resort when foreign policy fails.

A Democratic Socialist believes that the government's responsibility to that soldier doesn't end when the soldier comes home.

A Democratic Socialist seeks a government that uses tax money to create equal opportunities for everyone.

A Democratic Socialist believes corporations should pay their fair share of taxes as they did in Eisenhower's time (people who hold this particular belief are also called Rockefeller or Eisenhower Republicans).

Before you decide this system of government could never work, take a look at Scandinavia.  This type of government has been working for a long time in countries like Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden.

Don't believe me that this works?  Then take a look at the World Happiness Report, an index that rates the happiest populations on Earth.

Source: Bloomberg

Any questions?

Kim Davis Should Not be a Figurehead for Conscientious Objectors

UPDATE 10/2/2015: The Vatican has distanced itself from Kim Davis, saying that the meeting was set up by an American bishop and not by anyone in Rome, and that the audience Ms. Davis was granted should not be construed as an endorsement of her actions by Pope Francis.

During his recent tour of the United States, Pope Francis met with Kim Davis, the Kentucky County Clerk who was jailed for 5 days for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples after the U.S. Supreme Court's Obergefell vs. Hodges decision legalized marriage for gay couples at the federal level.

The idea behind this meeting between Kim Davis and Pope Francis seems to be that the Pope wanted to make a statement about conscientious objection. So he rallied behind Kim Davis to make a point about people having a right to object to the duties of their job based on religious and/or moral reasons.

Here's the problem:Kim Davis is not a conscientious objector. Or at the very least, that's not why she went to jail.

First, Kim Davis refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples because she said it violated her religious beliefs. Issuing these licenses was part of her job, and she objected and refused to do it.  At this point, Kim Davis was a conscientious objector.

But, other people in her office did not object to issuing those licenses. As their boss, Kim Davis forbade them from issuing marriage licenses for gay couples even after she had gone to jail.

I was a soldier. In the Army, what soldiers cannot do when they are a conscientious objector is interfere with the duties of other soldiers under their command based on a personal belief system.  If a squad leader decides she/he can no longer perform her/his duties because those duties violate personal religious beliefs or moral holdings, that squad leader cannot order the squad to also not perform their duties. You step out of the system because of your objection, you don't force the system to abide by your personal beliefs.

Second, when a soldier develops an ethical dilemma that prevents him or her from doing their duties, they can request a conscientious objector discharge, which is an honorable discharge. Because if you hold a job that violates your moral belief system in some way, you should leave that job. If Kim Davis honestly cannot issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples because she has a religious objection, she should resign.  If she wasn't in an elected position, she would've been fired already. You don't get to have a conscientious objection and demand that you keep the job that you're refusing to do.

If Pope Francis wants to make a statement about conscientious objectors, by all means do so. But if he's going to hold someone up as a figurehead for this cause, Kim Davis is the wrong person for the job.

Why Your Freedom of Religion Doesn't Protect You From Doing Your Job

On June 26th, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) released a now infamous decision making marriage equality a right for all, including homosexual couples.  This was a monumental day for gay rights, and for American history.

Frankly, when it comes to equal rights, we have a pretty shady track record. We didn't abolish slavery until 30 years after the rest of the "civilized" world, and it took a bloody Civil War to make it happen. Women couldn't vote until 1920.  It took us all the way until 1964 to pass the Civil Rights Act, and three more years before SCOTUS heard Loving v. Virginia and allowed interracial marriage nationwide. I'm sure there are other victories that I'm leaving out here.

What saddens me is that even with all of these monumental victories for equal rights over the past 100 years, we still have a large percentage of our population who has learned nothing.

For instance, an Ohio judge refused to marry a same-sex couple in defiance of the SCOTUS decision. In Kentucky, a county clerk refused a marriage license to a same-sex couple and was caught on video.  A gay couple in Texas was also refused a marriage license.  Another in Arkansas, until her lawyer advised her that she had no legal standing. The list goes on an on.  An epidemic of county clerks refusing to do their job, or flat out quitting their jobs in protest of the SCOTUS decision, is sweeping this great nation.

Why? Because Jesus.

Problem is, from a legal standpoint, that argument really doesn't hold water.

Recent Pew Research shows many Christian denominations that are just fine with same-sex marriage. So if you are choosing to discriminate based on your religious beliefs, it is because your personal interpretation of your religion encourages bigotry, and not necessarily because the Bible say so.  That is your right to feel that way, but your personal views are not a reason to oppress others under the law.

Here's the problem with using your religion to deny rights to other people.  You can't.  It isn't legal. You are free to practice your own religion and believe what you like.  But so is everyone else. Your freedoms only exist insofar as they do not infringe on the freedoms of others.  If you subscribe to a denomination of Christianity that strongly feels homosexuality is a sin, that's your right.  You are fully protected under the First Amendment to say and believe what you want. But you cannot force your religion on others.  You cannot force other people to subscribe to the beliefs and tenets of your personal belief system.  That is not oppression, or persecution.  Other people have the right to subscribe to their own belief systems insofar as they do not hurt anyone else, and that is equality.

If you think gay marriage is a sin, so be it.  Don't marry someone of the same sex.  Don't have sexual relations with someone of the same sex. Don't do those things and you are covered.

But SCOTUS didn't rule on the definition of marriage as defined in the Bible. It ruled on the definition of marriage as defined by the secular government of the United States of America, and whether or not homosexual American citizens were afforded equal rights to marriage under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. SCOTUS ruled that civil marriage is a right afforded to homosexual couples, because sexual preference is not a reason to define someone under the law as being less than a citizen. What it comes down to is this: Gay people getting married has nothing to do with your religion.

So if you are a judge, or you are a county clerk, or some other person who works for the United States Government, it is your duty to uphold the laws of this nation.  That includes issuing marriage licenses or performing civil marriage ceremonies, if those are normally a part of your duties.

If that isn't good enough, look at it this way. If you choose not to perform those duties, you are going to get sued.  And because your religion doesn't apply to American law, you are going to lose. You don't have to be happy about issuing that license, but you do have to issue it.  You don't have to like reading out those civil vows at the courthouse, but you have to read them regardless.

Honestly, if you can't handle that, I encourage you to seek a new line of work. We don't pick and choose who we provide services to when we work for the government.  If you can't uphold your oath and impartially provide the services you were hired by the government to provide, maybe that government job isn't for you after all.