Martha Coakley, Single-Party Rule, and Scary Secularism

Martha Coakley, who is running for a Senate seat in Massachusetts as I write, said in a radio interview that "You can have religious freedom but you shouldn't work in an emergency room." That is, that Catholics should be prevented from working there, because this is a "church and state" issue. Well, most hospital jobs are not government jobs, and forbidding Catholics from working there would be a violation of the liberties of Catholics. Imagine if a right-winger said atheists should be banned from becoming EMTs.

There is already a shortage of health care workers, and Coakley wants to exclude Catholics, which make up 53% of Massachusetts according to exit polls from 2008? Catholic organizations provide a huge portion of the health care in the US. If Coakley loses this election, voters are sending a message that they are tired of single-party rule where politicians can spout partisan ideologies and claim they are right because "they won". I think voters want a reasonable, working government and are tired of the culture wars from both sides.

However, what really scares me is thinking about how Coakley's views could be implemented by government. Suppose the US had universal, government-run health care and Catholics were banned by law from working in emergancy rooms. How would this be enforced? If a hospital hired a Catholic, would they be fined? If they fought the fine, would someone be convicted and thrown in prison?

Here's hoping that voters have learned to ignore Obama's promises of bipartisanship and decide to take their grievances to the ballot box.