Bank of America and Slavery Through Debt

 by Roland Hulme

Bank of America has announced a $5 fee for customers using their debit cards. Is this the last straw?

Debt holders are suckling pigs

When I was seven years old, my father took me to National Westminster Bank to open my first account. I received a free piggy bank (with the promise of more if my savings grew) and earned the princely sum of 4% interest on my balance.

Flash forward two and a half decades and the situation is starkly different.

My Bank of America accounts now give me no interest on my balance. My "savings" account gives me less than 0.2% return on my savings. In addition, I have to pay for the "privilege" of having these two accounts..

You have to wonder what went wrong. How did the entire concept of banking change so dramatically in just a few short years? How did banks go from eagerly scrabbling to earn our business to suddenly  demanding we pay them to spend our money?

My understanding of banking was always that they were indebted to the account holder, not the other way around. Banks made their money by investing the deposits they received; giving out loans, collecting interest and basically making a profit on their customer's money (a proportion of which they returned, modestly, through interest.)

When did that change? How come banks are now making their profits by charging customers for being customers?  It seems there are fees for everything; from using a teller to charging stuff on your card. Banks no longer seem to be in the business of making their customer's money grow, but of filtering as much of it as they can from their customer's pocket into their own.

They've become parasites, plain and simple.

The latest travesty is Bank of America deciding to charge a $5 monthly fee for customers who use their debit cards. That's on top of up to $12 monthly fees for simply having an account, and other costs (like I get charged $5 if I use a teller instead of a cash machine.)

You know what? I've had enough. America has, too.

As a nation, we need to take our collective trillions of dollars out of these parasitical corporations and trust them instead to Credit Unions and smaller banks - the ones that appreciate customers and treat them, and their money, with respect.

But we won't.

Because the reason Bank of America, and other banks like them, have continued on this path of sucking customers dry is because they own them.

If customers were in the enviable situation of being able to take their money and move it elsewhere, they would. But today, most Americans owe more to the banks than they have in their savings accounts, in the way of mortgages, car loans, private loans and other debts.

And you can take your money and run, but banks don't let you walk away from your debts.

So as a result, millions of Americans are forced to put up with banks sucking more and more of their hard-earned money out of them; and there's nothing they can do about it. They're captives; like juicy little flies caught in a spider-web.

This is why America promotes its consumer culture so much. This is why we're bombarded with messages to Buy! Buy! Buy! all day. Because the moment we take money from the banks, they own us; and turn us into obedient diary cattle who they can milk for money long into our old age.

Well, not me.

I don't owe Bank of America a cent - so if they pursue this additional charging matrix, I'm walking. To a different bank, or a local credit union, or anywhere that is willing to pay for the privilege of borrowing my money.

The moral of the story, my friends, is that debt is slavery. We might believe that Abraham Lincoln emancipated the country; but he merely ushered in a different form of slavery; one that ignores race, or gender, or religion. It's the indenture of debt and it's what keeps this nation in bondage.

We talk so much about liberty; but there is only one true American liberty left: freedom from debt.

It's one too many of us will never see.

Forget this talk of "tyranny" from government. The government is a pawn, much like we are. It's banks and the banking system that own this country - and if we indenture ourselves to them through debt, they own us.

Instead, live free.

Live debt free.

Occupy Wall Street - Media Silent

 by Roland Hulme

If you ever wanted an example of how our media is bought and sold, observe the silence about "Occupy Wall Street."

Real, breaking news is being ignored

As I write this, the New York City Police Department is battling head-to-toe with violent protestors on Wall Street, in lower Manhattan.

The protestors have encamped on the heart of the world's capitalist system to protest a variety of things - from the growing disparity between rich and poor, the fragrant abuse of power by Wall Street's fattest cats and even the concept of capitalism itself.

This might not seem all that astonishing - but I'll tell you what is. The fact that NOTHING is being reported about it in the news. In fact, if it wasn't for real-time social network Twitter, perhaps nobody beyond Wall Street would even know about it.

And why is that? I mean, it's certainly news. It's an epic protest that today turned bloody. Dozens of demonstrators have been locked up. On Wall Street itself, they're on the knife-edge of descending into anarchy that would give London's rioters a run for their money (and unlike Britain's best efforts, it's not fueled by Stella Artois and inspired by a desire to steal a flatscreen television.)

The fact is, though, that most of the major news corporations are owned lock, stock and barrel by Wall Street and reporting this inconvenient civil unrest would not be in the best interests of those in charge. It's a demonstration of the awesome power of America's capitalist elite - and also how little word travels when our ubiquitous news and information networks choose not to broadcast it.

But word is getting out - in the words of Mr. Universe: "You can't stop the signal." On Twitter now, using the hashtag #occupywallstreet, hundreds of protestors, supporters and critics are ranting, raving and reporting about what's happening.

Observe for yourself: #occupywallstreet

My issue is not with the protests that are going on, but the fact that there seems to be a global conspiracy to ignore and dismiss any attempts to publicize or promote them as a news story. Despite over 80 protestors having been arrested in the just the last few days, this story is conspicuously missing from the landing pages of Yahoo!, CNN.com and even the BBC. How can that be?

Or how, when the reality of how we're spoon-fed our information is becoming increasingly clear, can we believe anything we read from these mainstream news sources ever again?

Can there be a "big tent" Republican party?

  by Sarah Marie Anderson

Sarah Marie Anderson explains how a "big tent" party still needs four, strong stakes in the ground to stay standing.

Defining the "big tent"

There are a number of incredibly irritating political catch-phrases that are rarely defined and so broad they ultimately end up meaning nothing.  Grassroots, establishment, RINO, liberal, libertarian, conservative, SoCon, NeoCon, tea party… the list is sadly endless.  But my least favourite always has been… “big tent”.

Most people use this to mean we should be inclusive of all ideas, races, creeds, etc.  The problem is, when you stand for nothing, you fall for everything.  This, in a nutshell, is the core problem with the Republican Party today—and I should know, I’m an officer of the Republican Party in one of the largest Republican counties in the nation.

The problem with the idea of a “big tent” is that no one sees the bigger picture.

For example, where you pitch your tent matters.  You build it on sand, and it’s going to collapse.  You don’t secure it properly, the wind will blow it around.  This is where we are right now, on a sandy, windy plain and our tent is flopping around in the breeze.  If there isn’t a tent, you can’t put people inside.

In addition, you can’t let everyone in.  Who invites a bear or a mountain lion into their tent?  This doesn’t mean necessarily creating a litmus test for everyone to enter, but maybe they should know the password.

Since it seems we’re stuck with the big tent mumbo-jumbo, we might as well define it so well no one can use it against us.  If we have to have a tent, let’s make it the best darn tent anyone’s ever seen.

First, we have to build it on the proper foundation.  No matter what stripe or variety of Republican you are, we can all agree on 4 core principles.  These principles, which are limited government, lower taxes, personal responsibility, and free markets, are the foundation of this party.  Seriously, I dare you.  Walk up to any Republican, be they libertarian leaning, socially conservative, moderate, defense hawk, elitist, establishment, grassroots or anything else… and ask them if they agree with those 4 principles.  I’d say easily 9/10 will, and probably closer to 95/100 or more.  THAT is what makes them core principles, because we all do agree on them.

Once you have a solidly-pitched tent on a firm foundation, people can start to gather inside.  Inside a large tent, you can build rooms.  Each “flavour” of Republican can build rooms and throw parties, wooing onlookers with chocolates and champagne (or donuts and coffee for the non-lushes), and rooms can expand or shrink as needed.  Under one roof are many rooms, and those rooms don’t have to all be the same… but when it comes to elections, we all know where we have to be in order to stand… and that’s in the Republican tent.  Go ahead and try to get Democrats or the Green Party or someone else to listen to you about social conservative issues.  You won’t find it.

Sometimes those in the tent lose their way, having a bit of a Lord of the Flies moment, where chaos and those drunk with power momentarily reign.  When someone is threatening the very foundation of the tent by breaking out a jackhammer… it’s time to send them out into the wilderness until they learn to fend for themselves, find another shelter, or just get so wet and cold they want back in.  If the party cannot keep its own in line, who will do it for them?

I believe very strongly in the 80/20 rule… that is to say, I don’t have to agree with someone all the time to be able to work with them or even vote for them.  We’ll never have a perfect candidate.  There must be a caveat to the 80/20 rule, though.  The 20% cannot violate the core principles of the party.  My personal hill to die on is reducing the size and scope of the federal government to the lowest level humanly possible (i.e. limiting government with lower taxes and an emphasis on personal responsibility and the free markets).  You vote wrong on any number of other issues?  I can forgive that.  You violate the Constitution you swear to uphold and platform you were elected on from the party you purport to represent?  I take issue with that and think you better find a different tent until you can uphold core party principles.

Why you shouldn't vote Perry in 2012

As a conservative, Rick Perry has a terrible record. But will that win him the election?

Primaries are fun, because Democrat or Republican, that's when the lunatics take over the asylum.

Rick Perry is a shill

Unlike the presidential election itself, when rational folk from both sides of the political spectrum get to cast their vote, the primaries are limited to registered party members; and candidates are forced to pander to the most vocal of them.

For the Republicans, that means the conservative right wing and the newly minted 'tea party.'

One candidate whose been incredibly successful in this regard is Texas governor Rick Perry, commonly known as Bush 2.0.

A charismatic Texan with a laconic drawl, he's managed to win favor with the Republican voters largely by reciting soundbites from Ron Paul's manifesto (which, ironically, people start listening to when other people say them.)

But Rick Perry is a fraud. He's no more conservative than he is a cowboy. This Texas loudmouth is actually as entrenched an establishment politician as it's possible to get; and his appalling political record speaks for itself.

For example:

• Rick Perry claims he wants to reduce the size of government, but has done the complete opposite while in office. He's actually doubled the size of the Texas state government since taking office.
• Rick Perry claims he wants to balance the federal budget, but doubled Texas' state debt as governor. Since taking office, Texas' outstanding debt has ballooned from $13.4 billion to nearly $40 billion; with a gaping deficit in the state budget.
• Rick Perry claims he wants to lower taxes for Americans, but raised taxes 6 times as governor of Texas. Today, the people of Texas pay significantly higher taxes than they did before Perry took office; and that's despite the budget having a huge deficit.
• Rick Perry claims to be against lobbyists and the "same old game" in Washington, but is an old-school Republican shill:
• He passed an executive order forcing parents to vaccinate their kids with the controversial Gardasil vaccine because he received hefty campaign donations from the company that made it, Merck, and got one of his staffers a cushy job with the company.
• In 2007, he attended a meeting of the Bilderberg Group; which is essentially a dating service for pairing corporations with obedient political puppets. 
• As a state legislator, he led the charge to deregulate dangerous pesticides that were poisoning farm workers – in exchange for campaign donations from the Texas Farm Bureau.
• In 2005, Perry passed an executive order expediting the issuing of permits for building coal-fired power stations – and received over $100,000 in campaign donations from utility company TXU in return.
• In 2003, Perry allowed the building of a controversial nuclear waste dump in Andrews, Texas – and denied protestors the right to appeal the decision in court, even though the dump was within 14 feet of groundwater, and posed a very serious risk of contaminating the local water supply. In return, his campaign coffers swelled with $1.1 million in donations from Waste Control Specialists, which built the dump.

• Rick Perry claims he would govern America according to the constitution; but has outlined seven ways in which he intends to change it, including amending Article III and by repealing the 16th amendment. 
• Rick Perry claims to support and American's right to life, liberty and property – but will steal their property to build a "superhighway" between Mexico and the rest of America;  largely accomplished by use of 'eminent domain' (or, forcing people to give up their land.)

Republicans should also not overlook the fact that Rick Perry campaigned for Al Gore in 1988, and was his campaign manager in Texas during the election. How is this man marketing himself as a conservative Republican when he used to be an active supporter of a very liberal Democrat?

Well, he's how - because that's what might win Rick Perry the election.

Once you strip away the posturing Perry is doing to win the Republican primaries, you're left with a centrist politician with a Democrat-friendly history and a track record of applying the same sort of political policies as the previous governor (and President) George Bush. The fact that he's such a laughable failure as a 'conservative' actually makes him arguably one of the more viable contenders for the 2012 election.

And that, my friends, is a somewhat scary proposition. Because here's a man who's bankrupted his state, raised taxes, poisoned kids and stole people's land. Is that really who you want in the White House?

Why I Registered Republican

 by Roland Hulme

I'm a registered Republican. Here's why.

A few months ago, I finally became a United States citizen. As part of that process, I became eligible to vote for the first time - and register as a member of a political party, if I so chose.

And chose I did. I registered as a Republican.

It's a decision that might surprise many people who know me, but not surprise many others. After all, I am officially a "conservative." Back home in Britain, I was a member of the Conservative Party at university, and actively campaigned for them during the '96 election (the last one I was home to take part in.)

Of course, when I arrived in America, my position on the right wing of Britain's politics landed me firmly as slightly left of center in most people's estimation - but I could see that American politics was slightly more complex than that.

Here in the states, there are two parties - the Democrats and the Republicans. Both have histories that date back practically the revolution; and have very pure philosophies at heart that have become increasingly diluted over time.

The Democrats started life as the Federalist Party; founded by founding fathers Alexander Hamilton and John Adams. Theirs was the party that believed in strength through unity. They believed that the 13 colonies that made up the United States would be stronger if they had a single governing body that controlled the majority of their decisions - from road building to taxation.

The Republicans started out as the Democratic Republican Party, with Thomas Jefferson as their figurehead. He believed that the United States was an association of separate states; and each should have the right to govern themselves, with only essential decisions of national importance - like war and foreign treaties - being handled by the federal government.

As time progressed, these philosophies diversified into two distinctly different schools of thought.

Today's Democratic Party have extended that federalist mandate to embrace a philosophy of "the greater good." They believe that what's good for the majority of people, or for the good of a disadvantaged minority, should be policy. This is why Democratic policy resembles that of European nations; with an emphasis on government-run programs, welfare, perceived equality through legislation and other ideas that the less enlightened among us accuse of being "socialist."

Republicans, on the other hand, have evolved into something of a contradiction. At the heart of the party, they're supposed to support a philosophy which sees government having a minimal role in the economy of the country, with an emphasis on personal responsibility, rather than welfare, and legislation that is actually "equal" in its application, rather than just giving the perception of being so.

In fact, though, the Republicans are a party which supports just as many government-funded programs as the Democrats - as long as they're related to the military, pharmaceutical industry or local pork belly projects - and give generous "welfare" programs (tax breaks) to corporations and millionaires who donate to their candidates. Instead of supporting equality through legislation, most Republican lawmakers try to control morality through legislation; pandering to the religious right which makes up a huge majority of their electoral core.

In essence, the Republicans have become whores in order to win seats. What the Republican party is sickens me; but what it is supposed to be ignites me in a way British politics never did.

Which is why I decided to register as a Republican - because as a member of the party, I can vote in their primaries, have my say in their debates and at least attempt to reconcile the modern party as it exists today with the noble aspirations of those brilliant men who founded it.

You see, if I had to vote tomorrow I'd always be tempted to vote Democrat - because they support the social freedoms I believe in (equality for gay people, for example) and "Clintonomics" which is a viable system of running an economy, as opposed to the lunacy of "Reaganomics".

But in my heart - at the core of my being - I believe in everything that the Republican party is supposed to stand for. One of the reasons I couldn't stand Europe is because the people who earn money, who make stuff, who drive the economy forward, are punished for their success  - while a huge, undeserving tranche of society are given "benefits" paid for by this punished class for the simple achievement of existing.

European society has essentially become a pool of quicksand; with each class clinging to the other for leverage, seemingly unaware that the pyramid stops at a certain sinking point; because just like in American society, the wealthy who control the political system neatly divorce themselves from having to pay for it.

No, screw all that. I believe in the philosophies of Thomas Jefferson; and have discovered that life without a safety net is possible in America. She's a tough country, but a fertile one. In Europe, there are so many welfare programs in place because the economic harvests are so lean. The beautiful thing about America is that there is always - always and without fail - money to be made if you're willing to go out there and work for it.

In fact, when it comes to my motivation for being a Republican, a fellow European-turned-American explains it far better than I could. My idol since childhood - and arguably one of the greatest Americans of our modern age - Arnold Schwarzenegger:

I arrived in America in 1968. What a special day it was. I remember I arrived here with empty pockets but full of dreams, full of determination, full of desire.

The presidential campaign was in full swing. I remember watching the Nixon-Humphrey presidential race on TV. A friend of mine who spoke German and English translated for me. I heard Humphrey saying things that sounded like socialism, which I had just left.

But then I heard Nixon speak. Then I heard Nixon speak. He was talking about free enterprise, getting the government off your back, lowering the taxes and strengthening the military.

Listening to Nixon speak sounded more like a breath of fresh air.

I said to my friend, I said, "What party is he?"

My friend said, "He's a Republican."

I said, "Then I am a Republican."

That's why I'm a Republican. That's the America I believe in, and want to be a part of.

Although I'll admit there's one more reason...

We're on the brink of a presidential election, and the leading Republican candidates are patsies, stooges, shills or batshit crazy religious nutters.

In addition to all the other reasons I want to declare myself a Republican, an important on is simply the fact that finally, desperately, I will have a vote to hopefully prevent some lunatic representing the party - and, by proxy, me - in the next election.

9/11 Remembered

  by John Northrop

What happened to our pledge to “Never Forget”?

Photo from Concordville

It feels like I am the only one who was actually working in the city that day 10 years ago.

Could this be true? Could the current workforce in New York City actually be too young to have witnessed this tragedy?

It is apparently so at my job.

I was the only one who felt an eery similarity to 9/11 during the recent earthquake. Could I really be the only one in my workplace who remembers?

I certainly remember …

I remember the normalcy of that Tuesday morning. September. Fall. Beautiful.

I remember how blue the sky looked when I transferred from the LIRR to the #7 subway at Hunterspoint Avenue.

I remember I was working at Pfizer as a consultant for Intrasphere Technologies.

I remember my colleague Sebastian Payne rushing into the office I shared with colleagues Jeff Chin and Bev Brown saying “a plane hit the World Trade Center”.

I remember asking if it was a Cessna, and Seb replying, “no...a big fucking plane”.

I remember trying to get to CNN, FOX News and MSNBC and not being able to. Traffic to the sites were overwhelming.

I remember rushing to the Conference Room to check it out on TV.

I remember the room being packed with eyes glued to CNN.

I remember us watching in horror as the second plane hit.

I remember the ladies in the room crying over loved ones who worked in the area.

I remember thinking about Intrasphere folks at our home office at 100 Broadway. Less than three blocks from the Trade Center.

I remember trying to make a phone call but couldn’t. Phone lines were out or jammed.

I rememebr getting emails from friends and family asking if I was OK.

I remember being a newlywed having just gotten married less than six months prior.

I remember emailing my brother Frank, saying call Caitlin, tell her I am OK and I love her. Email was not so common in every work place back then, and she did not have it.

I told Frank I loved him too and I would be in touch.

I remember an email from the IST home office to go home. They were evacuating.

I remember hearing their was a third plane that crashed into the Pentagon.

I remember watching the South Tower fall.

I remember Jeff showing me his wedding pictures taken on a downtown rooftop with the Towers in the background.

I remember hearing all subway and commuter transportation had been suspended.

I remember hearing their was a 4th plane that crashed in Pennsylvania.

I remember hearing the passengers tried to retake the plane. “Let’s Roll”.

I remember walking from 42nd and 3rd towards Penn Station with colleague Chris Donato.

I remember looking south down the aveneues we passed and seeing nothing but billowing black smoke.

I remember seeing everyone out on the street. Nowhere to go. Nothing to do. Pale, white faces. No one moving at all. Subways not running. Buses not running. Millions of people in Times Square watching the news ticker and the jumbotron. Hoping for some positive news. Every electronics store had the coverage on. Playing and replaying the incident. Over, and over, and over.

Fear. Anxiety. Pain. Terror.

I remember Penn Station was closed. There were no trains coming in or out and they were not letting anybody inside.

I remember feeling trapped on the island.

Fear. Anxiety. Pain. Terror.

I remember walking two blocks to Mustang Harry’s.

I remember having a few ice cold Bud drafts. Strong. American. Proud.

I remember smoking a lot of butts. Marlboro. Strong. American. Proud.

We could still smoke inside then. Nobody was going outside. No one left the television screens.

I remember images of people covered in ashes in soot. Confused. Disoriented. Shocked.

I remember Mayor Giuliano. Leading. Addressing the public. Letting us know he was on the case.

Fear. Anxiety. Pain. Terror.

Hope.

I remember for the first time hearing the names Mohammad Atta, Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda and Cantor Fitzgerald.

I remember someone coming into the bar saying LIRR was running one train at 2:30 to Ronkonkoma.

I remember how much I loved my wife. Constantly.

I remember calling Frank and telling him to pick me up in Deer Park.

I remember that train. Packed. People crowded in the aisles, having no issues with rubbing against eachother.

Fear. Anxiety. Pain. Terror.

I remember the cheers of euphoria from all passengers when the train exited the tunnel on the Queens side. We were off the island.

Hope.

I remember smiling at the site of Frank’s big blue van in the Deer Park parking lot, and the giant bear hug he gave me when I met him.

I remember piling people into the van and driving them to Northport train station. We didn’t know them at all, but wanted to help.

I remember getting home to an empty apartment. Lonely. Still scared. Shocked.

I remember the answering machine blinking furiously from so many messages. My mom. Caitlin’s mom. My sister Judy. My sister Laura. Friends. Family. Love.

I remember when Caitlin got home. Her work let her out early.

I remember hugging her stronger and longer than I ever had before and probably have since.

I remember kssing her several times, all over her face. Hugging some more.

She was shaking. I was shaking. I was safe. Tears of joy.

I remember the Intrasphere office was closed for a while.

I remember joy that everyone was safe and accounted for.

I remember the 100 Broadway evacuation stories.

I remember the group therapy session for all Intrasphere employees.

Fear. Anxiety. Pain. Terror. Trauma.

I remember Greg Marston and I being extremely angry.

I remember being sick of moments of silence and wanting a moment of extreme noise.

I remember first hearing the term Ground Zero. And not liking it.

I remember the concerts. FDNY, NYPD, PAPD.

I remember The Who - “We Won’t Get Fooled Again”.

I remember wanting someone to do something. Someone to say something.

I remember George W. Bush on the bull horn. He heard us. He heard me.

I remember the U.S. Open continued. I remember the World Series continued.

New York moved forward as best as it could.

Hope.

As I look out the conference room of my current employer, 10 years later, I can see the rising of the new “Freedom Tower” or 1 World Trade Center, or whatever it will be called. What took so long? The greed over it disgusts me. The politics over it disgust me. The wars over it disgusts me. The continued fears disgust me.

I have hope for the future of this city and this country, and this world - that were all turned upside down on that day.

But I do feel compelled to ask if anyone else shares these feelings?

I remember.

Do you remember?

I will “Never Forget”.

Transparancy in religion: Asking 2012 presidential candidates difficult questions

 by Roland Hulme

 

Do we need to start looking deeper into the significance of presidential candidates religious beliefs?

As was demonstrated in 2008, presidential elections are won and lost in the pulpit.

In 2008, Barack Obama's much touted falling out with the pastor of his church, Jeremiah Wright, might have been viewed as a political liability at the time – but it neatly swept the legs out from under those who'd been trying to undermine his campaign with rumors that he was a "secret Muslim."

And likewise, John McCain's quiet, downplayed attendance of an Episcopalian church might have seemed like the "safe" route to go during the contentious election season; but it failed to ignite the deeply religious conservative Christians who made up a significant chunk of the Republican demographic.

This explains why the 2012 Republican candidates for the White House have followed in the footsteps of George W. Bush, rather than McCain, and are enthusiastically embracing their religion instead of shying away from it (except for Mitt Romney, of course, whose Mormon faith hangs around his neck like an albatross.)

I find it rather ironic how the founding fathers once fought so hard to create a secular government – building what Jefferson referred to as "a wall of separation" between Church and state – yet the idea of a non-religious president seems more inconceivable today than ever.

Yet although I'm not religious myself, I have no problem with a spiritual man (or woman) in the White House.

Within reason.

Because the more you start peering into the religious beliefs of some of the leading GOP candidates, the more worrying they become.

Michelle Bachmann, for example, has professed admiration for the beliefs outlined in Total Truth: Liberating Christianity from Its Cultural Captivity which puts forth the goal of making America a true "Christian nation" by governing the country under conservative Christian understanding of Biblical law.

Rick Perry, increasingly being referred to as "George W. Bush 2.0", has similarly expressed his belief that the Bible is 100% literal and inerrant and has claimed he'll ignore Supreme Court rulings he disagrees with on religious issues; for example the 1962 ruling that barred organized prayer from school.

It's my belief that the beliefs and world views that make Perry, Bachmann and their ilk "good Christians" also make them spectacularly bad Americans; and most of the country would agree with me if they knew just how deep their conservative Christian philosophies went.

Which is why I suggest we introduce some "religious transparency" to the 2012 presidential campaign – asking a few simple, pertinent questions about each candidates religious beliefs and then letting the great American voting public figure out for themselves if they would support a candidate who thinks that way. There are no "right" or "wrong" answers; just the opportunity to delve a little deeper into an issue that Republicans especially feel strongly about.

Since we're talking about transparency, I guess I should be open about my own motivation for such a survey: The belief that the majority of American voters are informed enough to have serious issues supporting a candidate who believes the world is 6,000 years old, or that Jews don't go to heaven.

I'm not one of these Richard Dawkins atheists; but I do believe rationality should trump religion every time – and a test of religious transparency like the one outlined below could make or break a 2012 presidential candidate's campaign.

The Survey of Religious Beliefs

1. Do you believe the Bible is literally true and inerrant?
2. Do you believe in separation of Church and State?
3. How old do you believe the Earth to be?
4. Do you believe homosexuality is a moral sin equivalent to pedophilia?
5. Do you believe women should be submissive to men?
6. Do you believe there should be organized prayer in public schools?
7. Do you believe non-Christians go to heaven?
8. Do you think Christian morality should be enforced through legislation (for example, banning pornography)?

Are there are any questions I missed? How would you answer such questions. Would the way a potential presidential candidate answers them affect your willingness to support them in an election?