A Catholic website for the modern reader
Constitution of the United States
The Perfect Candidate
03/01/21 18:32 Filed in: Elections
To some extent all elections are about popularity. Most people do not vote for someone they do not like. Except, that is, when the electorate believes that they are voting for the lesser of two evils. So how do we determine the perfect candidate? As with almost everything else, it is easier to say what the perfect candidate is not, than to say what he or she is. Let’s start there.
Acknowledging that this is a very broad stroke, and admitting that there are exceptions, I would suggest that a former athlete, whether coach or player, is unqualified—regardless their popularity. In part, this is because the ultimate purpose of all sports is to win. The inspiring adage from Grantland Rice, “It is not whether you win or lose, it’s how you play the game,” has no relevance in modern American athletics—at least from high school on up to, and including, the pros. Coaches who consistently lose, get fired. Athletes who do not excel are benched or traded. Winning is everything.
But politics is not about winning. Yes, the campaign is. But once elected, the politician needs to be able to compromise and work toward a common goal. Unlike elections, passing legislation is not about victors and losers.
A second disqualifier is ignorance of government. How can someone be a politician without knowing anything about civics or governance? By a strange coincidence, the newly elected senator from Alabama, Tommy Tuberville, is not only a former football coach. He is also breathtakingly ignorant about the very office he was elected to. During his campaign he displayed surprise when informed of the senate’s role of “advice and consent.” And with stunning stupidity he declared that the three branches of government are “the House, the Senate and the Executive.” Thanks a lot, Alabama.
A third consideration is that the ideal candidate should not want to shred the Constitution or destroy democracy, itself. At this writing there are some 140 Republicans in the House and 11 senators who, on January 6, intend to challenge the certified, electoral tallies in six different states. The legal provision allowing such challenges is supposed to be based on irregularities or fraud in a particular state.
Since the election, the Trump campaign has filed nearly 60 legal challenges before a combination of state and federal judges, the federal ones being appointed by both Democratic and Republican presidents, some even by Trump himself. The unanimous conclusion is that there is no evidence of voter fraud that could overturn the electoral outcome. That means that what these elected officials will attempt on January 6, is the destruction of democracy.
If that were not enough, Texas Rep. Louie Gohmert has proven himself unqualified, indeed unfit, for elected office. He has called for violence if the challenge is not successful. It is essential that we recognize Gohmert as intellectually off-the-rails. More importantly, we must call him what he is—a modern day Benedict Arnold. He is demanding for the violent overthrow of the United States Government. In any civics class (which he apparently never attended) there is a name for that. It is treason—pure and simple.
There will always be good and bad candidates for public office and they will come from many quarters. In our two-party system it is necessary that those parties be committed to the principles of democracy and that the elected officials fulfill their sworn obligation to uphold the Constitution of the United States.
As I said in the beginning, it is easier to say what the perfect candidate is not, than it is to say what he or she is. We continue to look for people of competent intellect, those with good communication skills, a commitment to democracy, a vision for the future of our country, a recognition of the equality and value of all persons. But in our search for the perfect candidate, at least for now, it is not a Republican.
Acknowledging that this is a very broad stroke, and admitting that there are exceptions, I would suggest that a former athlete, whether coach or player, is unqualified—regardless their popularity. In part, this is because the ultimate purpose of all sports is to win. The inspiring adage from Grantland Rice, “It is not whether you win or lose, it’s how you play the game,” has no relevance in modern American athletics—at least from high school on up to, and including, the pros. Coaches who consistently lose, get fired. Athletes who do not excel are benched or traded. Winning is everything.
But politics is not about winning. Yes, the campaign is. But once elected, the politician needs to be able to compromise and work toward a common goal. Unlike elections, passing legislation is not about victors and losers.
A second disqualifier is ignorance of government. How can someone be a politician without knowing anything about civics or governance? By a strange coincidence, the newly elected senator from Alabama, Tommy Tuberville, is not only a former football coach. He is also breathtakingly ignorant about the very office he was elected to. During his campaign he displayed surprise when informed of the senate’s role of “advice and consent.” And with stunning stupidity he declared that the three branches of government are “the House, the Senate and the Executive.” Thanks a lot, Alabama.
A third consideration is that the ideal candidate should not want to shred the Constitution or destroy democracy, itself. At this writing there are some 140 Republicans in the House and 11 senators who, on January 6, intend to challenge the certified, electoral tallies in six different states. The legal provision allowing such challenges is supposed to be based on irregularities or fraud in a particular state.
Since the election, the Trump campaign has filed nearly 60 legal challenges before a combination of state and federal judges, the federal ones being appointed by both Democratic and Republican presidents, some even by Trump himself. The unanimous conclusion is that there is no evidence of voter fraud that could overturn the electoral outcome. That means that what these elected officials will attempt on January 6, is the destruction of democracy.
If that were not enough, Texas Rep. Louie Gohmert has proven himself unqualified, indeed unfit, for elected office. He has called for violence if the challenge is not successful. It is essential that we recognize Gohmert as intellectually off-the-rails. More importantly, we must call him what he is—a modern day Benedict Arnold. He is demanding for the violent overthrow of the United States Government. In any civics class (which he apparently never attended) there is a name for that. It is treason—pure and simple.
There will always be good and bad candidates for public office and they will come from many quarters. In our two-party system it is necessary that those parties be committed to the principles of democracy and that the elected officials fulfill their sworn obligation to uphold the Constitution of the United States.
As I said in the beginning, it is easier to say what the perfect candidate is not, than it is to say what he or she is. We continue to look for people of competent intellect, those with good communication skills, a commitment to democracy, a vision for the future of our country, a recognition of the equality and value of all persons. But in our search for the perfect candidate, at least for now, it is not a Republican.
A Need for Sackcloth
Sackcloth, especially when accompanied by sitting in ashes, has a rich history in the Scriptures and the life of the early church. In today’s world it is considered as beyond medieval in terms of its relevance, and barbaric in terms of a punishment. In fact, though, it was less punishment than it was repentance.
Sackcloth and ashes were used as very public displays of one’s sins and a sign of contrition—a promise not to sin again once the time of repentance was finished. Perhaps we should consider bringing back the practice. And do so on a very public scale.
The Covid 19 pandemic has unmasked a number of deep-seated issues festering within us all. On the surface some seem selfish and even infantile. Such as the suggestion that wearing a mask impinges on our freedom.
Others appeal more fundamentally to the Constitution, with the suggestion that restricting religious services somehow violates the First Amendment. That position is sometimes coupled with the absurdity that God will protect worshippers from falling ill to the power of the virus. In reality, a number of ministers who claimed that protection and continued to lead worship services have themselves died from Covid 19. Not intending to sound insensitive, there might be some poetic justice in that.
One would hope that a rational Supreme Court would see through the fallacy of that First Amendment argument to the more fundamental principle of life. But that hope was dashed by Justices who are less rational than we thought. What is most disconcerting, from a Christian point of view, is the twisted logic that religious freedom supersedes the government’s power to protect its citizens during a pandemic. Take Washington, D.C.
I have long been an admirer of Archbishop Wilton Gregory. When Pope Francis appointed him to head the Archdiocese I thought it was an excellent choice, as was the decision to elevate Gregory to the College of Cardinals. This is a man whom I have always considered to be a faithful advocate of the Gospel, both in word and deed.
However, he recently joined the chorus of misguided religious leaders by filing a lawsuit against the District of Columbia’s restrictions on houses of worship. He even argued his case in an op-ed piece printed in the Washington Post. Others have already demonstrated the weaknesses of the Cardinal’s position, particularly his comparison of religious services to retail establishments and liquor stores. Shoppers do not gather together for an hour shouting and singing God’s praises as they select their bread and wine.
Indeed Cardinal Gregory is correct to emphasize the importance of worship to believers, as well as the significance of the Christmas season. Yet Easter, being the core of the Christian Kerygma, is far more important. Yet the church survived the restrictions in place last spring. Still, there is a deeper concern at issue here. And it is to be found in the Gospel itself.
In the twenty-fifth chapter of Matthew’s Gospel (25:31-46) we are presented with the measurement of one’s worthiness to enter into the Kingdom. It has nothing to do with church attendance or, for that matter, with prayer. The sole criteria is how we treat one another, specifically those in need. Don’t get me wrong. Worship is important. But when it jeopardizes the health of the community—especially during a pandemic—it takes a back seat to restrictions. Does anyone really believe that God cares more about us worshipping him than he does about us protecting each other? The passage cited above would suggest exactly the opposite: “What you did to the least of these you did to me.” Cardinal Gregory would never suggest, in word, that we expose each other to Covid 19. But his lawsuit does exactly that—in deed.
There is an obvious contingency at work here. It is known as a super spreader event. Gathering people together during a pandemic, inside a closed building, to sing and pray aloud, exposes not only the worshippers, but the broader community to Covid 19. Couple that with what Jesus says, and we can conclude that the contingency is clearly sinful.
Perhaps the Cardinal would consider another way to proclaim the Good News. More powerful than lawsuits or op-ed articles in the local paper, would be acknowledging super spreader events and the sinfulness of encouraging them. A week or ten days of wearing sackcloth and ashes in the nation’s capitol might awaken in all Catholics a commitment to the Good News. Who knows? It might even even have an effect on Congress.
Sackcloth and ashes were used as very public displays of one’s sins and a sign of contrition—a promise not to sin again once the time of repentance was finished. Perhaps we should consider bringing back the practice. And do so on a very public scale.
The Covid 19 pandemic has unmasked a number of deep-seated issues festering within us all. On the surface some seem selfish and even infantile. Such as the suggestion that wearing a mask impinges on our freedom.
Others appeal more fundamentally to the Constitution, with the suggestion that restricting religious services somehow violates the First Amendment. That position is sometimes coupled with the absurdity that God will protect worshippers from falling ill to the power of the virus. In reality, a number of ministers who claimed that protection and continued to lead worship services have themselves died from Covid 19. Not intending to sound insensitive, there might be some poetic justice in that.
One would hope that a rational Supreme Court would see through the fallacy of that First Amendment argument to the more fundamental principle of life. But that hope was dashed by Justices who are less rational than we thought. What is most disconcerting, from a Christian point of view, is the twisted logic that religious freedom supersedes the government’s power to protect its citizens during a pandemic. Take Washington, D.C.
I have long been an admirer of Archbishop Wilton Gregory. When Pope Francis appointed him to head the Archdiocese I thought it was an excellent choice, as was the decision to elevate Gregory to the College of Cardinals. This is a man whom I have always considered to be a faithful advocate of the Gospel, both in word and deed.
However, he recently joined the chorus of misguided religious leaders by filing a lawsuit against the District of Columbia’s restrictions on houses of worship. He even argued his case in an op-ed piece printed in the Washington Post. Others have already demonstrated the weaknesses of the Cardinal’s position, particularly his comparison of religious services to retail establishments and liquor stores. Shoppers do not gather together for an hour shouting and singing God’s praises as they select their bread and wine.
Indeed Cardinal Gregory is correct to emphasize the importance of worship to believers, as well as the significance of the Christmas season. Yet Easter, being the core of the Christian Kerygma, is far more important. Yet the church survived the restrictions in place last spring. Still, there is a deeper concern at issue here. And it is to be found in the Gospel itself.
In the twenty-fifth chapter of Matthew’s Gospel (25:31-46) we are presented with the measurement of one’s worthiness to enter into the Kingdom. It has nothing to do with church attendance or, for that matter, with prayer. The sole criteria is how we treat one another, specifically those in need. Don’t get me wrong. Worship is important. But when it jeopardizes the health of the community—especially during a pandemic—it takes a back seat to restrictions. Does anyone really believe that God cares more about us worshipping him than he does about us protecting each other? The passage cited above would suggest exactly the opposite: “What you did to the least of these you did to me.” Cardinal Gregory would never suggest, in word, that we expose each other to Covid 19. But his lawsuit does exactly that—in deed.
There is an obvious contingency at work here. It is known as a super spreader event. Gathering people together during a pandemic, inside a closed building, to sing and pray aloud, exposes not only the worshippers, but the broader community to Covid 19. Couple that with what Jesus says, and we can conclude that the contingency is clearly sinful.
Perhaps the Cardinal would consider another way to proclaim the Good News. More powerful than lawsuits or op-ed articles in the local paper, would be acknowledging super spreader events and the sinfulness of encouraging them. A week or ten days of wearing sackcloth and ashes in the nation’s capitol might awaken in all Catholics a commitment to the Good News. Who knows? It might even even have an effect on Congress.
The Score Stands at 1 - 1
Forget about the multitude of World Cups in sports. Forget about the numerous World Championships in international athletic competitions. Forget about the different World Series events. As exciting as they all are, not one of them matters in the greater scheme of life. None of them makes a significant difference on world history; on how we live our lives; on whether or not we survive. Only one major competition truly matters. Call it the World Cup, or World Championship, or World Series of GOVERNANCE. The current score is Vladimir Putin 1, Democracy 1.
Putin inherited the Russian State while it was still a fledgling democracy and immediately began to morph it into an autocracy. His rallying cry was rooted in a forlorn despondency as he openly lamented the demise of the Soviet Union. In 2005 he stated that the collapse of the Soviet Union was the “greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century.”
Deep in what passes for his soul, Putin knew that he could not reclaim Russia’s former status without dismantling liberal democracy around the globe. Although he attempted to achieve his aims in some of the former Soviet satellite states, his most brazen venture was the disruption of the American democratic process in 2016. The result was that he took an early lead: 1 - 0. He proudly told his own people that liberal democracy did not work and was on the decline.
In one sense Putin chose the perfect candidate to foist upon an unsuspecting American public: Donald Trump. This was a man not only deeply indebted to Russian oligarchs. Trump was also a person for whom democracy meant nothing. He lived by the mantra of Lord Voldemort: “There is no good or evil, there is only power and those too weak to seek it.” But the deceptive reality remains. Voldemort’s mantra is itself the definition of evil.
Many bottles of expensive vodka were consumed as Putin watched Trump seek to demolish the United States Constitution. If he had succeeded, democracies the world over would have fallen. As insurance, Putin’s forces began to interfere with elections throughout Europe. But his eyes were always on the prize: The USA.
Putin interfered again in 2020. But this time he failed. As Biden repeated many times, this election was a battle for the soul of the nation. As true and critical as that statement was, something even more foundational was at stake.
Over four years Trump, systematically sought to emasculate the Constitution. He employed executive orders, relying on an acquiescent and sycophantic Republican congress, and a court system corrupted by numerous unqualified, but Republican-confirmed judges.
Give Trump credit. He telegraphed his intentions by claiming that the second article of the Constitution gave him authority “to do whatever” he wanted. Even to point of wrecking that same constitution. He saw no need to respond to Congressional inquiries or even subpoenas. He declined to turn over documents; he regularly refused to allow members of his administration to appear before congressional committees. With the Republican Party willingly enabling Trump, Putin sat back and drank—every sip of vodka better than the one before.
But Putin did not learn the lesson of history. 2020 would see the giant awake again. Although not as cinematically dramatic as Pearl Harbor, the United States once again woke from its slumber. Americans were not about to allow their democracy to be destroyed. More citizens voted in 2020 than in any other election in U.S. history. At this writing, Biden’s count of the vote was more than any person who ever ran for office—four million plus votes over Trump’s tally. As Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo tweeted, “Welcome back America!”
The United States is not the only victor in the 2020 election. The entire world has exhaled a sigh of relief. First, because the tense, fraught and exhausting last four years are approaching an end. Secondly, because the cause of democracy has been strengthened. For now.
It is also important to recognize that the contest is not over. Putin’s powerful army of GRU internet operatives are constantly at work. For the rest of the world, there is no going it alone. Democratic governments must stand together and support one another. The alliances that have maintained freedom for more than seventy years must be reinforced.
For now the score is Putin 1, Democracy 1.
But the world of Putin, Trump and Voldemort is driven by power. And it remains an evil world. My bet is on democracy. Its foundation is not power. It is truth. As it turns out, Voldemort was wrong. There is good and evil. Or, as it is phrased in American lore, “Truth, Justice and the American way.” Trump is gone and Putin has no chance.
Putin inherited the Russian State while it was still a fledgling democracy and immediately began to morph it into an autocracy. His rallying cry was rooted in a forlorn despondency as he openly lamented the demise of the Soviet Union. In 2005 he stated that the collapse of the Soviet Union was the “greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century.”
Deep in what passes for his soul, Putin knew that he could not reclaim Russia’s former status without dismantling liberal democracy around the globe. Although he attempted to achieve his aims in some of the former Soviet satellite states, his most brazen venture was the disruption of the American democratic process in 2016. The result was that he took an early lead: 1 - 0. He proudly told his own people that liberal democracy did not work and was on the decline.
In one sense Putin chose the perfect candidate to foist upon an unsuspecting American public: Donald Trump. This was a man not only deeply indebted to Russian oligarchs. Trump was also a person for whom democracy meant nothing. He lived by the mantra of Lord Voldemort: “There is no good or evil, there is only power and those too weak to seek it.” But the deceptive reality remains. Voldemort’s mantra is itself the definition of evil.
Many bottles of expensive vodka were consumed as Putin watched Trump seek to demolish the United States Constitution. If he had succeeded, democracies the world over would have fallen. As insurance, Putin’s forces began to interfere with elections throughout Europe. But his eyes were always on the prize: The USA.
Putin interfered again in 2020. But this time he failed. As Biden repeated many times, this election was a battle for the soul of the nation. As true and critical as that statement was, something even more foundational was at stake.
Over four years Trump, systematically sought to emasculate the Constitution. He employed executive orders, relying on an acquiescent and sycophantic Republican congress, and a court system corrupted by numerous unqualified, but Republican-confirmed judges.
Give Trump credit. He telegraphed his intentions by claiming that the second article of the Constitution gave him authority “to do whatever” he wanted. Even to point of wrecking that same constitution. He saw no need to respond to Congressional inquiries or even subpoenas. He declined to turn over documents; he regularly refused to allow members of his administration to appear before congressional committees. With the Republican Party willingly enabling Trump, Putin sat back and drank—every sip of vodka better than the one before.
But Putin did not learn the lesson of history. 2020 would see the giant awake again. Although not as cinematically dramatic as Pearl Harbor, the United States once again woke from its slumber. Americans were not about to allow their democracy to be destroyed. More citizens voted in 2020 than in any other election in U.S. history. At this writing, Biden’s count of the vote was more than any person who ever ran for office—four million plus votes over Trump’s tally. As Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo tweeted, “Welcome back America!”
The United States is not the only victor in the 2020 election. The entire world has exhaled a sigh of relief. First, because the tense, fraught and exhausting last four years are approaching an end. Secondly, because the cause of democracy has been strengthened. For now.
It is also important to recognize that the contest is not over. Putin’s powerful army of GRU internet operatives are constantly at work. For the rest of the world, there is no going it alone. Democratic governments must stand together and support one another. The alliances that have maintained freedom for more than seventy years must be reinforced.
For now the score is Putin 1, Democracy 1.
But the world of Putin, Trump and Voldemort is driven by power. And it remains an evil world. My bet is on democracy. Its foundation is not power. It is truth. As it turns out, Voldemort was wrong. There is good and evil. Or, as it is phrased in American lore, “Truth, Justice and the American way.” Trump is gone and Putin has no chance.
Constitutional Conflict
13/09/20 20:33 Filed in: Inalienable Rights | Voting Rights
I like to use alliteration in my writing and I had considered titling this piece “Constitutional Crisis.” However, in less than four years the Trump administration has created so many such crises that they have practically rendered the term trite. Still, Constitutional Conflict sufficiently serves my purpose.
We hear a lot about rights in today’s society. Of course, the consideration of rights has long been a part of American life, whether we speak of human rights, voting rights, equal rights… the list goes on and on. But in almost every instance we use the term incorrectly.
The Declaration of Independence states that all people are created equal and that “they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” The enumeration of those three rights was not intended to be exhaustive, merely representative—a justification for declaring independence from an unjust and oppressive government.
Our own history, however, has been complicated when it comes to rights—even up to the present day. It is almost as if we were willing to slide into the same oppression exercised by King George III. And it did not take long. The original draft of the Declaration condemned slavery. But that condemnation was removed to gain the support of the Southern delegations and ensure their vote for independence.
Only twelve years after the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution was drafted and it failed to guarantee all citizens, among other things, the right to vote. And here is precisely where the Constitution, current state legislatures and even the US Supreme Court have failed.
By their very meaning, rights are not granted by a king, a parliament, a congress or any law. They are inherent in nature, in being a person. Unfortunately, we tend to subvert logic, reason and even basic principles by subjecting them to the the agenda of partisan politics.
The concept of American democracy rests on the principle of one person, one vote. By that standard the women’s suffrage movement should have been unnecessary. No government, at least not within a democracy, has the power to take away any rights. Privileges, yes. Rights, no.
For example, no one possesses a right to serve in Congress. That is a privilege granted by the electorate. It can be conditioned, as constitutional age restrictions do. It can be revoked by the same citizens who grant it. But it is not a right. Driving a car is not a right. It is a privilege that is controlled by the state.
Voting is a right and it cannot be taken away. Unlike the suffrage movement, the Voting Rights Act sought to restrict illegal state government activities. It attempted to guarantee that no state could take away a person’s right to vote. That it took years of suffering and bloodshed before Congress passed the Voting Rights Act, is a blot on our nation’s history. That states are attempting to restrict that right today, is unconscionable.
Similarly, rights cannot be forfeited. Once again, that basic principle does not serve our political purposes. One of the problems with the death penalty is the idea that if someone commits murder they forfeit their own right to life. That, however, is obscene. The right to life is not only mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, the document also notes that the right is endowed by God and that it is inalienable.
The same holds true when people are incarcerated. They do not, indeed they cannot , forfeit their right to vote. And as noted above, it cannot be taken away. When they are released, that right is not restored to them. They never lost it. Unlike privileges, rights cannot be restricted. So poll taxes were declared unconstitutional.
In 2018 the people of Florida amended their constitution to restore voting rights to felons who had completed their sentences. First of all, it bears repeating that the right to vote could not have been surrendered or taken away even by the commission of a crime. What Floridians did, however, was to partially recognize that truth and correct a state injustice.
Immediately, the Republican led legislature realized that if more than a million former felons voted, the Republicans stood a good chance of being voted out of office. What to do? Deny the very definition of a right and pass an unjust law restricting that so-called right.
When the issue came up before the Supreme Court in July, the justices refused to intervene, just as they refused to intervene to protect voting rights in Wisconsin, Alabama and Texas. Just last week a federal appeals court upheld the illegal, illogical and unconscionable Florida law that restricts former felons from voting. I must stress and we must realize that this is not really an issue of law.
I suggest that each Supreme Court justice and each member of federal and state judiciaries be given two things: a copy of the Declaration of Independence and a dictionary. If any of them are serious about their work on the courts, they might also want to read the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights and maybe a philosophy book or two.
We hear a lot about rights in today’s society. Of course, the consideration of rights has long been a part of American life, whether we speak of human rights, voting rights, equal rights… the list goes on and on. But in almost every instance we use the term incorrectly.
The Declaration of Independence states that all people are created equal and that “they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” The enumeration of those three rights was not intended to be exhaustive, merely representative—a justification for declaring independence from an unjust and oppressive government.
Our own history, however, has been complicated when it comes to rights—even up to the present day. It is almost as if we were willing to slide into the same oppression exercised by King George III. And it did not take long. The original draft of the Declaration condemned slavery. But that condemnation was removed to gain the support of the Southern delegations and ensure their vote for independence.
Only twelve years after the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution was drafted and it failed to guarantee all citizens, among other things, the right to vote. And here is precisely where the Constitution, current state legislatures and even the US Supreme Court have failed.
By their very meaning, rights are not granted by a king, a parliament, a congress or any law. They are inherent in nature, in being a person. Unfortunately, we tend to subvert logic, reason and even basic principles by subjecting them to the the agenda of partisan politics.
The concept of American democracy rests on the principle of one person, one vote. By that standard the women’s suffrage movement should have been unnecessary. No government, at least not within a democracy, has the power to take away any rights. Privileges, yes. Rights, no.
For example, no one possesses a right to serve in Congress. That is a privilege granted by the electorate. It can be conditioned, as constitutional age restrictions do. It can be revoked by the same citizens who grant it. But it is not a right. Driving a car is not a right. It is a privilege that is controlled by the state.
Voting is a right and it cannot be taken away. Unlike the suffrage movement, the Voting Rights Act sought to restrict illegal state government activities. It attempted to guarantee that no state could take away a person’s right to vote. That it took years of suffering and bloodshed before Congress passed the Voting Rights Act, is a blot on our nation’s history. That states are attempting to restrict that right today, is unconscionable.
Similarly, rights cannot be forfeited. Once again, that basic principle does not serve our political purposes. One of the problems with the death penalty is the idea that if someone commits murder they forfeit their own right to life. That, however, is obscene. The right to life is not only mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, the document also notes that the right is endowed by God and that it is inalienable.
The same holds true when people are incarcerated. They do not, indeed they cannot , forfeit their right to vote. And as noted above, it cannot be taken away. When they are released, that right is not restored to them. They never lost it. Unlike privileges, rights cannot be restricted. So poll taxes were declared unconstitutional.
In 2018 the people of Florida amended their constitution to restore voting rights to felons who had completed their sentences. First of all, it bears repeating that the right to vote could not have been surrendered or taken away even by the commission of a crime. What Floridians did, however, was to partially recognize that truth and correct a state injustice.
Immediately, the Republican led legislature realized that if more than a million former felons voted, the Republicans stood a good chance of being voted out of office. What to do? Deny the very definition of a right and pass an unjust law restricting that so-called right.
When the issue came up before the Supreme Court in July, the justices refused to intervene, just as they refused to intervene to protect voting rights in Wisconsin, Alabama and Texas. Just last week a federal appeals court upheld the illegal, illogical and unconscionable Florida law that restricts former felons from voting. I must stress and we must realize that this is not really an issue of law.
I suggest that each Supreme Court justice and each member of federal and state judiciaries be given two things: a copy of the Declaration of Independence and a dictionary. If any of them are serious about their work on the courts, they might also want to read the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights and maybe a philosophy book or two.
Thank You, Mr. President
21/08/20 10:09 Filed in: Presidential Achievements | Unites States Government
In his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention, Joseph R. Biden made reference to former President Barack Obama and said, “Thank you, Mr. President.” I think it is high time that we do the same thing for Donald Trump. It’s time to give him a break and say, “Thank you, Mr. President.” There are a number of reasons I suggest this.
For too long, Trump has been denigrated for not reading. But from the early 1900s we have used the expression, “A picture is worth a thousand words.” So what if Trump does not read? He watches television and his example has encouraged Americans to watch more TV, themselves. In doing so we are treated to constantly changing visuals, to what is now thousands of pictures, equating to millions of words in hundreds of thousands of books. That means we are smarter, now. And watching television is faster than reading a book. Thank you, Mr. President.
Besides, it’s unfair to say Trump does not read. He does. But, like many of us, he stops reading when the book or subject does not hold his attention. For example, people have said that he never read the Constitution of the United States. Well, at least he started to. But he was understandably turned off by the first three words, “We the people.” How can anyone expect him to read on? I blame James Madison. The document should have started with "I."
In his speech Biden said that love is stronger than hate. He thought that would be a zinger against Trump. But look at foreign policy. Every president since the Korean conflict has treated the Kim family with disdain. It may not be a stretch to suggest that our presidents have hated the various Kim dictators. But let me tell you, Mr. Biden, Trump also knows about love. After all, he and Kim Jong Un have fallen in love with each other. Name another president would say so out loud—especially given the undertones of that expression. But Trump does not know fear and so he told the nation with clarity and conviction that he and Kim had fallen in love with each other. That’s how you build peace. Thank you, Mr. President.
So what if Kim continues to test ballistic missiles and build nuclear weapons? South Korea and Japan are not really our allies. They don’t love Trump. At least Kim knows the way into Trump’s heart. All you have to do is say nice things about him. It does not matter how dangerous, or evil, or out of touch you are with reality. All one needs to do is “like” Mr. Trump—a lesson learned well by the crazies of the QAnon conspiracy.
There are many more reasons to thank Mr. Trump than can be included in this piece. But it is essential to list one more. This has to do with the budget of the Secret Service. This agency of the United States Government enlists officers to protect the president. As the movie “Dave” notes, a secret service agent must be willing to take a bullet for the president. But this protection extends beyond a president’s term in office. They have life long protection. Many people have questioned why. Well, consider that once out of office a former president still possesses knowledge critical to the security of the United States, including methods of obtaining intelligence information. We cannot allow that to fall into the hands of a foreign enemy. Trump has eliminated the need for life long Secret Service protection and it did not require an act of congress or an executive order. He simply brought a new reality to bear.
When Trump leaves office he will possess no knowledge having to do with the United States Government. He will know nothing about the Constitution, nothing about foreign affairs, nothing about intelligence—his or the country’s. Therefore, when Trump leaves office he will continue to trim waste by saving the Secret Service a lot of money..
Thank you, Mr. President!
For too long, Trump has been denigrated for not reading. But from the early 1900s we have used the expression, “A picture is worth a thousand words.” So what if Trump does not read? He watches television and his example has encouraged Americans to watch more TV, themselves. In doing so we are treated to constantly changing visuals, to what is now thousands of pictures, equating to millions of words in hundreds of thousands of books. That means we are smarter, now. And watching television is faster than reading a book. Thank you, Mr. President.
Besides, it’s unfair to say Trump does not read. He does. But, like many of us, he stops reading when the book or subject does not hold his attention. For example, people have said that he never read the Constitution of the United States. Well, at least he started to. But he was understandably turned off by the first three words, “We the people.” How can anyone expect him to read on? I blame James Madison. The document should have started with "I."
In his speech Biden said that love is stronger than hate. He thought that would be a zinger against Trump. But look at foreign policy. Every president since the Korean conflict has treated the Kim family with disdain. It may not be a stretch to suggest that our presidents have hated the various Kim dictators. But let me tell you, Mr. Biden, Trump also knows about love. After all, he and Kim Jong Un have fallen in love with each other. Name another president would say so out loud—especially given the undertones of that expression. But Trump does not know fear and so he told the nation with clarity and conviction that he and Kim had fallen in love with each other. That’s how you build peace. Thank you, Mr. President.
So what if Kim continues to test ballistic missiles and build nuclear weapons? South Korea and Japan are not really our allies. They don’t love Trump. At least Kim knows the way into Trump’s heart. All you have to do is say nice things about him. It does not matter how dangerous, or evil, or out of touch you are with reality. All one needs to do is “like” Mr. Trump—a lesson learned well by the crazies of the QAnon conspiracy.
There are many more reasons to thank Mr. Trump than can be included in this piece. But it is essential to list one more. This has to do with the budget of the Secret Service. This agency of the United States Government enlists officers to protect the president. As the movie “Dave” notes, a secret service agent must be willing to take a bullet for the president. But this protection extends beyond a president’s term in office. They have life long protection. Many people have questioned why. Well, consider that once out of office a former president still possesses knowledge critical to the security of the United States, including methods of obtaining intelligence information. We cannot allow that to fall into the hands of a foreign enemy. Trump has eliminated the need for life long Secret Service protection and it did not require an act of congress or an executive order. He simply brought a new reality to bear.
When Trump leaves office he will possess no knowledge having to do with the United States Government. He will know nothing about the Constitution, nothing about foreign affairs, nothing about intelligence—his or the country’s. Therefore, when Trump leaves office he will continue to trim waste by saving the Secret Service a lot of money..
Thank you, Mr. President!
In Lieu of Statues
“An idea is a greater monument to God than a cathedral.” These words were spoken by Spencer Tracy in the film, “Inherit the Wind.” They are part of a lengthier monologue in which he discusses the individual human mind and the idea of progress. In a movie replete with memorable quotes, the one above is probably my favorite.
The recent movement to remove statues commemorating various Confederate generals, coupled with the suggestion to rename the Edmund Pettus Bridge after the late civil rights leader and Georgia congressman John Lewis, left me wondering. Do we approach our history from a perspective of immediacy and expediency, rather than principle?
Not unlike other cultures and countries, we lionize our past leaders—at least the ones we believe embodied the values we hold dear. There are, of course, exceptions. No other country would memorialize traitors. And, in fact, we have no statues to honor Benedict Arnold. He is the bane of the American Revolution. Then, why did we ever erect statues to honor the traitors who led the South during the Civil War? These monuments are a perfect example of bending history (and facts) to the expediency of the moment.
As has been pointed out in numerous journals and history tomes, most of those statues were built long after the war, the majority in the early part of the 20th Century. Had America forgotten the tragedy, the internecine conflict that tore apart not only a nation, but also families? No. But honoring these traitors served an agenda—the furtherance of white supremacy. As a result, while the violence had ended one could conceivably argue that the Civil War, itself, did not. After all, the Emancipation Proclamation did not end slavery, these statues espoused the clear conviction that blacks were subservient to whites, that segregation was natural and proper—all resulting in the civil rights movement of the 1960s. And continuing today.
But there are also memorials to people that the entire country can hold in esteem. The most obvious examples would seem to be the Founding Fathers. In August 2017 President Trump lamented the removal of statues to Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson, complaining that monuments to Washington and Jefferson would be next. Trump does not know enough history to be prescient, so it was quite by accident that he stumbled on the question of whether we should honor even our Founding Fathers with statues.
Consider the unpleasant truths buried within American history. Many, if not most, Americans believe that Washington was not only a great general and president, but that he freed his slaves. He did no such thing. Or consider Jefferson, whose brilliant, philosophical and enlightened mind crafted the Declaration of Independence, which in its original draft condemned slavery. In spite of that he not only did not free his slaves, he enslaved even his own children, his progeny with Sally Hemings. Are these men really role models?
This brings us to the current movement to rename the Edmund Pettus Bridge after John Lewis. Lewis was a man who commanded great respect for his lifelong commitment to equality, justice and civil rights, especially voting rights. I admire him greatly and consider him as much the heart of the civil rights movement as was Martin Luther King, Jr. Lewis gave his life, literally to the edge of death, in service of civil rights. But there is a danger that in death he may be lifted beyond the mere mortal. And future generations may discover the imperfect in John Lewis.
Only after King’s death did his shortcomings surface, reminding us that he was first and foremost a human being. Like all human beings he was imperfect. The same can be said of every great leader of every race. Every president in American history, all but one of whom were white, was human and imperfect. That humanity should not diminish their accomplishments. In fact, it should enhance them, with each person being judged on the merit of their principles and their achievements—or lack thereof.
In Psalm 146 we are cautioned: “Put not your trust in princes, in mortals in whom there is no salvation.” And yet, we need inspiration to strive toward perfection. If we do not find it by honoring those who came before us, where do we? Why not in principles, in movements and in legislation?
The Declaration of Independence, even in its final and less perfect form, is the premier document of the United States of America. Without it there would be no Constitution, another essential but imperfect document. Set aside for a moment the fact that Mt. Rushmore was stolen property and the carving of the presidential images illegal. How much greater would it be to have carved the Declaration of Independence in that rock?
We already have Independence Hall in Philadelphia and multiple Constitution Avenues. We now have Black Lives Matter Plaza in Washington, DC. In the case of the Edmund Pettus Bridge, might we not rename it “Bloody Sunday Bridge?” Then we can list the names of those who were beaten while peacefully marching to Selma.
It can be argued that erecting monuments to ideas, principles, movements and legislation serves another purpose. It causes people to think deeper than the image of a hero. It calls a nation to reflection and to the internalization of ideals. It reminds us that the work of justice is never complete. It prevents us from resting the on the laurels of those who came before us. It demands that we take up the mantel and be the force of change in our generation.
Perhaps future generations will see a Suffrage High School in every county. Or Voting Rights Parks dotting the landscape. Or downtown libraries named for Civil Rights. We are limited only by our ideals and our imaginations. Not only is an idea a greater monument to God than a cathedral. It is also a greater monument to heroes than a statue.
The recent movement to remove statues commemorating various Confederate generals, coupled with the suggestion to rename the Edmund Pettus Bridge after the late civil rights leader and Georgia congressman John Lewis, left me wondering. Do we approach our history from a perspective of immediacy and expediency, rather than principle?
Not unlike other cultures and countries, we lionize our past leaders—at least the ones we believe embodied the values we hold dear. There are, of course, exceptions. No other country would memorialize traitors. And, in fact, we have no statues to honor Benedict Arnold. He is the bane of the American Revolution. Then, why did we ever erect statues to honor the traitors who led the South during the Civil War? These monuments are a perfect example of bending history (and facts) to the expediency of the moment.
As has been pointed out in numerous journals and history tomes, most of those statues were built long after the war, the majority in the early part of the 20th Century. Had America forgotten the tragedy, the internecine conflict that tore apart not only a nation, but also families? No. But honoring these traitors served an agenda—the furtherance of white supremacy. As a result, while the violence had ended one could conceivably argue that the Civil War, itself, did not. After all, the Emancipation Proclamation did not end slavery, these statues espoused the clear conviction that blacks were subservient to whites, that segregation was natural and proper—all resulting in the civil rights movement of the 1960s. And continuing today.
But there are also memorials to people that the entire country can hold in esteem. The most obvious examples would seem to be the Founding Fathers. In August 2017 President Trump lamented the removal of statues to Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson, complaining that monuments to Washington and Jefferson would be next. Trump does not know enough history to be prescient, so it was quite by accident that he stumbled on the question of whether we should honor even our Founding Fathers with statues.
Consider the unpleasant truths buried within American history. Many, if not most, Americans believe that Washington was not only a great general and president, but that he freed his slaves. He did no such thing. Or consider Jefferson, whose brilliant, philosophical and enlightened mind crafted the Declaration of Independence, which in its original draft condemned slavery. In spite of that he not only did not free his slaves, he enslaved even his own children, his progeny with Sally Hemings. Are these men really role models?
This brings us to the current movement to rename the Edmund Pettus Bridge after John Lewis. Lewis was a man who commanded great respect for his lifelong commitment to equality, justice and civil rights, especially voting rights. I admire him greatly and consider him as much the heart of the civil rights movement as was Martin Luther King, Jr. Lewis gave his life, literally to the edge of death, in service of civil rights. But there is a danger that in death he may be lifted beyond the mere mortal. And future generations may discover the imperfect in John Lewis.
Only after King’s death did his shortcomings surface, reminding us that he was first and foremost a human being. Like all human beings he was imperfect. The same can be said of every great leader of every race. Every president in American history, all but one of whom were white, was human and imperfect. That humanity should not diminish their accomplishments. In fact, it should enhance them, with each person being judged on the merit of their principles and their achievements—or lack thereof.
In Psalm 146 we are cautioned: “Put not your trust in princes, in mortals in whom there is no salvation.” And yet, we need inspiration to strive toward perfection. If we do not find it by honoring those who came before us, where do we? Why not in principles, in movements and in legislation?
The Declaration of Independence, even in its final and less perfect form, is the premier document of the United States of America. Without it there would be no Constitution, another essential but imperfect document. Set aside for a moment the fact that Mt. Rushmore was stolen property and the carving of the presidential images illegal. How much greater would it be to have carved the Declaration of Independence in that rock?
We already have Independence Hall in Philadelphia and multiple Constitution Avenues. We now have Black Lives Matter Plaza in Washington, DC. In the case of the Edmund Pettus Bridge, might we not rename it “Bloody Sunday Bridge?” Then we can list the names of those who were beaten while peacefully marching to Selma.
It can be argued that erecting monuments to ideas, principles, movements and legislation serves another purpose. It causes people to think deeper than the image of a hero. It calls a nation to reflection and to the internalization of ideals. It reminds us that the work of justice is never complete. It prevents us from resting the on the laurels of those who came before us. It demands that we take up the mantel and be the force of change in our generation.
Perhaps future generations will see a Suffrage High School in every county. Or Voting Rights Parks dotting the landscape. Or downtown libraries named for Civil Rights. We are limited only by our ideals and our imaginations. Not only is an idea a greater monument to God than a cathedral. It is also a greater monument to heroes than a statue.
America First
12/11/16 21:21 Filed in: Politics | Elections | Immigration | Xenophobia | Catholic Teachings | Equality
For days, weeks and possibly months, the political sport of dissecting the election will continue. A wide range of explanations will emanate from leaders of both political parties, elected officials at all levels of government, commentators and the media. As we did during the campaign, we run the risk of over load and possibly even addiction. It might be more profitable to step back and slightly alter what we should examine. I suggest vivisecting the electorate itself—the people of the United States, regardless of how they voted or why they voted as they did. Who are we as a people? And what does it mean to put America first.
“God bless America” has become the norm for ending presidential speeches and even most campaign speeches. In and of itself it is innocuous. But it is also a blatant attempt to manipulate the listeners, at least those who believe in God. President Nixon first used the expression to deflect attention from his criminal activities surrounding the Watergate scandal. President Reagan used it to inflame the passions of patriotism. And now, in spite of the fact that it has become commonplace, it serves to suggest that every word in the speech that preceded it must be true because the speaker believes in “God and Country.” But there is a problem. Maybe the expression is not so innocuous after all, for it creates and then plays into a myopic vision of the world.
If there is one word that encapsulates this past election it is xenophobia—in its broadest sense. Not just fear of foreigners, but fear of anyone and anything that is different. Fear of people who are different whether because of their place of origin, the language they speak, the color of their skin, their sex or sexual orientation, their faith, their political beliefs. This broad definition of xenophobia also encompasses fear of international trade, of political and cultural exchange, even of scientific knowledge. In this kind of fear and uncertainty it is much more difficult to determine who are we as a people. Everything seems to have become unfamiliar and threatening. So we define ourselves by our past.
I am not convinced that the values of the right and the left are all that different. What I am convinced of is that we fear each other. But there is a solution. Getting to know an individual or group of people who are different from us; placing them and ourselves on the same plane; accepting them as equals; this is how we eliminate fear. By way of example, the reason that same sex marriage is so acceptable to most younger Americans is that they have grown up with friends who are gay, lesbian, bi and, more recently, transgendered. But when we ghettoize our existence, when we wall each other out—or in—we feed fear. And in that world of fear, who we are as a people becomes less attractive.
It is not surprising that the overarching xenophobia that drove the recent election centered around immigration. Immigrants are the ultimate other. They look, speak and worship differently than we do. And they come here to share (some would say take) our prosperity, our way of life. But this is the great conundrum for the Christian, and by extension for all other Americans.
Prior to WWII, most political and religious groups accepted that nations had an inherent right to limit immigration. After witnessing the devastation of the Nazis, and the Fascists and the threat posed by Communism, the Catholic Church made a profound move away from that right. This was partially influenced by the Church’s universality, and by its own immigrant experience, especially here in the United States. More importantly, though, the Catholic Church was evolving a body of social teaching that began in 1891 with Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical letter “Rerum Novarum.” In 1963 John XXIII declared in “Pacem in Terris” an absolute right to emigrate, and by 1967 Pope Paul VI made clear in “Populorum Progressio” that an individual’s right to emigrate supersedes a nation’s right to close its borders. Over the last fifty years, the Church has only reinforced its defense of the rights of immigrants to move where they will.
Although not popular with politicians or nativists, the Church’s teaching should surprise neither a believer nor a student of humanity. What country we are born into is purely an accident of birth. The land does not belong to us. We are its stewards, not its owners. For the believer all the earth belongs to God. For the non-believer it belongs to the whole of humanity. Immigration, along with globalization, must be seen as part of God’s plan for a universal humanity, one in which everyone partakes of and shares the world’s resources and where the few do not prosper at the expense of the many—not only within one country, but around the globe.
The Cold War that emerged at the end of WWII brought with it terms such as “Super Power” and “Leader of the free world”—words and ideas that became part of our daily lexicon. Whatever positive imagery arises from them, they also carry an unmistakable downside—dividing the world into us vs. them, and further deepening suspicion and fear. But we need not be restricted to the concepts that rise from those terms. Our imaginations remain unlimited and we possess the creativity to conceive the world any way we choose. The founding of the United Nations with its Declaration on Human Rights proves this. We have the ability. We seem to have lost the will.
I am glad to have been born in the United States and I appreciate my life here. But I do not believe in America first. America is a land of great opportunity, but it is not inherently better than other countries. We profoundly proclaimed our right to freedom and self-determination with words that have inspired people the world over: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” The rights articulated here belong to ALL people, not just Americans.
Our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution have long been beacons to the world, enshrining the concepts of liberty and justice. But when we surrender to the grasp of xenophobia they are reduced to the status of dusty documents, illuminating neither us nor the world. We should not accept America first. We should only accept America together. To borrow the language of fictional Camelot, all countries should be seated at a round table where all are equal.
“God bless America” has become the norm for ending presidential speeches and even most campaign speeches. In and of itself it is innocuous. But it is also a blatant attempt to manipulate the listeners, at least those who believe in God. President Nixon first used the expression to deflect attention from his criminal activities surrounding the Watergate scandal. President Reagan used it to inflame the passions of patriotism. And now, in spite of the fact that it has become commonplace, it serves to suggest that every word in the speech that preceded it must be true because the speaker believes in “God and Country.” But there is a problem. Maybe the expression is not so innocuous after all, for it creates and then plays into a myopic vision of the world.
If there is one word that encapsulates this past election it is xenophobia—in its broadest sense. Not just fear of foreigners, but fear of anyone and anything that is different. Fear of people who are different whether because of their place of origin, the language they speak, the color of their skin, their sex or sexual orientation, their faith, their political beliefs. This broad definition of xenophobia also encompasses fear of international trade, of political and cultural exchange, even of scientific knowledge. In this kind of fear and uncertainty it is much more difficult to determine who are we as a people. Everything seems to have become unfamiliar and threatening. So we define ourselves by our past.
I am not convinced that the values of the right and the left are all that different. What I am convinced of is that we fear each other. But there is a solution. Getting to know an individual or group of people who are different from us; placing them and ourselves on the same plane; accepting them as equals; this is how we eliminate fear. By way of example, the reason that same sex marriage is so acceptable to most younger Americans is that they have grown up with friends who are gay, lesbian, bi and, more recently, transgendered. But when we ghettoize our existence, when we wall each other out—or in—we feed fear. And in that world of fear, who we are as a people becomes less attractive.
It is not surprising that the overarching xenophobia that drove the recent election centered around immigration. Immigrants are the ultimate other. They look, speak and worship differently than we do. And they come here to share (some would say take) our prosperity, our way of life. But this is the great conundrum for the Christian, and by extension for all other Americans.
Prior to WWII, most political and religious groups accepted that nations had an inherent right to limit immigration. After witnessing the devastation of the Nazis, and the Fascists and the threat posed by Communism, the Catholic Church made a profound move away from that right. This was partially influenced by the Church’s universality, and by its own immigrant experience, especially here in the United States. More importantly, though, the Catholic Church was evolving a body of social teaching that began in 1891 with Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical letter “Rerum Novarum.” In 1963 John XXIII declared in “Pacem in Terris” an absolute right to emigrate, and by 1967 Pope Paul VI made clear in “Populorum Progressio” that an individual’s right to emigrate supersedes a nation’s right to close its borders. Over the last fifty years, the Church has only reinforced its defense of the rights of immigrants to move where they will.
Although not popular with politicians or nativists, the Church’s teaching should surprise neither a believer nor a student of humanity. What country we are born into is purely an accident of birth. The land does not belong to us. We are its stewards, not its owners. For the believer all the earth belongs to God. For the non-believer it belongs to the whole of humanity. Immigration, along with globalization, must be seen as part of God’s plan for a universal humanity, one in which everyone partakes of and shares the world’s resources and where the few do not prosper at the expense of the many—not only within one country, but around the globe.
The Cold War that emerged at the end of WWII brought with it terms such as “Super Power” and “Leader of the free world”—words and ideas that became part of our daily lexicon. Whatever positive imagery arises from them, they also carry an unmistakable downside—dividing the world into us vs. them, and further deepening suspicion and fear. But we need not be restricted to the concepts that rise from those terms. Our imaginations remain unlimited and we possess the creativity to conceive the world any way we choose. The founding of the United Nations with its Declaration on Human Rights proves this. We have the ability. We seem to have lost the will.
I am glad to have been born in the United States and I appreciate my life here. But I do not believe in America first. America is a land of great opportunity, but it is not inherently better than other countries. We profoundly proclaimed our right to freedom and self-determination with words that have inspired people the world over: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” The rights articulated here belong to ALL people, not just Americans.
Our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution have long been beacons to the world, enshrining the concepts of liberty and justice. But when we surrender to the grasp of xenophobia they are reduced to the status of dusty documents, illuminating neither us nor the world. We should not accept America first. We should only accept America together. To borrow the language of fictional Camelot, all countries should be seated at a round table where all are equal.
Time's Up! Law, Morality and Religion
It seems as though every aspect of life has been partitioned into an “us” v. “them” mentality. The most obvious example is black v. white--most obvious because it is so visually demonstrative. It has become the absolute metaphor for good versus evil, and right versus wrong. This is fine as far as it goes, but most of us do not live in an absolute world. Our lives are tinted by shades of gray.
The problem intensifies when we start applying that analogy to the real world, assigning goodness and evil to other people simply because they are different from us. This is particularly odious in the areas of morality and religion. And, no. They are not the same.
Moral values transcend religion in the same way that God transcends religion. To some that may seem incongruous, but the simple truth is that both God and morality existed prior to any concept of religion. Wrapping morality into one’s religious ideas, at least trying to make them synonymous, is an exercise in futility. It is certainly futile when one is in search of truth. At the same time, it is quite successful in creating a simplistic view for the simple-minded. But that has its own drastic consequences.
Several generations of white people believed that blacks were inferior. Some ignorant people still do. Who knows the actual root of such prejudice? Perhaps it was rooted in the economic and structural development of the Western world. But did such advances make the West more civilized? I suppose it depends on how one defines civilization. One thing is clear: The resulting prejudice defiled religion as believers sought to justify their bigotry in their faith.
A similar kind of discrimination occurred with women. In fact, choose your group and there is a prejudice to match. Many people of faith have continually twisted their thinking into knots to justify bigotry that has no rational foundation. And they have managed to complicate the matter even further.
Recently, people of religion have been making louder and louder claims to be the guardians of morality. Almost without exception, these claims to moral superiority are rooted in their religious values--values that are neither absolute nor universal.
Today, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments for and against same-sex marriage. There is nothing inherently immoral about same-sex marriage, nor about homosexuality itself. The morality exists only by way of social construct. And those constructs, like all moral values, differ from one society to the next and are always in a state of flux or evolution between generations.
To claim that religion determines morality is like saying religion determines God. Wait a minute. That is exactly what many believers do! They can only accept and believe in a God who conforms to beliefs they already hold. They are not about to be challenged by God. By extension, they can only accept people who believe and act the same way they do.
How else to explain the absurd refusal of some fundamentalist Jews to recognize a non-Orthodox marriage? How else to explain the absurd claim by Christian fundamentalists that non-Baptized people are going to hell? How else to explain the absurdity of Muslim fundamentalists who say that a person who converts from Islam should be put to death? How else to explain the religious belief that same sex couples cannot marry—a religious belief with a very uncertain ground in truth and no claim on the mind or heart?
Enter the law. One of the beauties of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are that they are not based in any religious tradition. The Declaration transcends faith, at least beyond the general acknowledgment that certain unalienable rights are bestowed by God. The Constitution transcends the contextual limitation of social morality, at least insofar as those same unalienable rights are inherent in being human.
The result of the American experiment in democracy is that law is the all important and ultimate measure of our society. Neither morality nor religion can make that same claim. A certain credit must be given to those who vociferously claim that God is being pushed out of public life, schools, etc. They have managed to distract many people from the truth. Many people, but not the courts. So a certain gratitude also must be expressed to those judges that have consistently held that God does not belong in public life and schools. The United States is not run on Christian or any other religious principles.
In this country the law is the foundation of our society. It should not be capricious, nor should it be dictated to by religious whim. Our Declaration of Independence states that all are created equal and endowed with rights. The rights mentioned are not meant to be all-inclusive. What is all-inclusive is the all people have these rights.
I disagree with the religious position of the anti-gay movement. It is a skewed and false reading of the Bible. But it does not matter. The United States is not a country based on the Bible, and that is a good thing. It is a country based on the law.
All people have a right to marry, black and white, gay and straight. I would like to believe that anti-gay is the last great prejudice to be overcome by our society. History suggests that as soon as we succeed, something else will spring up in its place. There will always be those people who seek to cast a black v. white, a good v. wrong pall over the world of gray that is human life.
For now, times up! In the United States of America, law, justice and equality trump religion. Thank God! And thank the Founding Fathers!
The problem intensifies when we start applying that analogy to the real world, assigning goodness and evil to other people simply because they are different from us. This is particularly odious in the areas of morality and religion. And, no. They are not the same.
Moral values transcend religion in the same way that God transcends religion. To some that may seem incongruous, but the simple truth is that both God and morality existed prior to any concept of religion. Wrapping morality into one’s religious ideas, at least trying to make them synonymous, is an exercise in futility. It is certainly futile when one is in search of truth. At the same time, it is quite successful in creating a simplistic view for the simple-minded. But that has its own drastic consequences.
Several generations of white people believed that blacks were inferior. Some ignorant people still do. Who knows the actual root of such prejudice? Perhaps it was rooted in the economic and structural development of the Western world. But did such advances make the West more civilized? I suppose it depends on how one defines civilization. One thing is clear: The resulting prejudice defiled religion as believers sought to justify their bigotry in their faith.
A similar kind of discrimination occurred with women. In fact, choose your group and there is a prejudice to match. Many people of faith have continually twisted their thinking into knots to justify bigotry that has no rational foundation. And they have managed to complicate the matter even further.
Recently, people of religion have been making louder and louder claims to be the guardians of morality. Almost without exception, these claims to moral superiority are rooted in their religious values--values that are neither absolute nor universal.
Today, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments for and against same-sex marriage. There is nothing inherently immoral about same-sex marriage, nor about homosexuality itself. The morality exists only by way of social construct. And those constructs, like all moral values, differ from one society to the next and are always in a state of flux or evolution between generations.
To claim that religion determines morality is like saying religion determines God. Wait a minute. That is exactly what many believers do! They can only accept and believe in a God who conforms to beliefs they already hold. They are not about to be challenged by God. By extension, they can only accept people who believe and act the same way they do.
How else to explain the absurd refusal of some fundamentalist Jews to recognize a non-Orthodox marriage? How else to explain the absurd claim by Christian fundamentalists that non-Baptized people are going to hell? How else to explain the absurdity of Muslim fundamentalists who say that a person who converts from Islam should be put to death? How else to explain the religious belief that same sex couples cannot marry—a religious belief with a very uncertain ground in truth and no claim on the mind or heart?
Enter the law. One of the beauties of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are that they are not based in any religious tradition. The Declaration transcends faith, at least beyond the general acknowledgment that certain unalienable rights are bestowed by God. The Constitution transcends the contextual limitation of social morality, at least insofar as those same unalienable rights are inherent in being human.
The result of the American experiment in democracy is that law is the all important and ultimate measure of our society. Neither morality nor religion can make that same claim. A certain credit must be given to those who vociferously claim that God is being pushed out of public life, schools, etc. They have managed to distract many people from the truth. Many people, but not the courts. So a certain gratitude also must be expressed to those judges that have consistently held that God does not belong in public life and schools. The United States is not run on Christian or any other religious principles.
In this country the law is the foundation of our society. It should not be capricious, nor should it be dictated to by religious whim. Our Declaration of Independence states that all are created equal and endowed with rights. The rights mentioned are not meant to be all-inclusive. What is all-inclusive is the all people have these rights.
I disagree with the religious position of the anti-gay movement. It is a skewed and false reading of the Bible. But it does not matter. The United States is not a country based on the Bible, and that is a good thing. It is a country based on the law.
All people have a right to marry, black and white, gay and straight. I would like to believe that anti-gay is the last great prejudice to be overcome by our society. History suggests that as soon as we succeed, something else will spring up in its place. There will always be those people who seek to cast a black v. white, a good v. wrong pall over the world of gray that is human life.
For now, times up! In the United States of America, law, justice and equality trump religion. Thank God! And thank the Founding Fathers!
The Federal Budget and Kingdom Economics
15/04/11 16:45 Filed in: Economics | Religion and Politics | Government Action | The Tea Party | The Federal Budget
The financial crisis of 2008 created havoc with economies around the world threatening virtually every government and economic system with potential collapse. No country lives in a vacuum anymore, not even the once forbidden kingdom of China, and so this crisis created challenges for every nation. It also created opportunity—the opportunity to reexamine our priorities. In the United States that opportunity presents itself in the form of three documents.
Of the thousands of documents that make up the body of American life, including speeches by great presidents, senators and congressmen, these three stand out. One reason is that these are the people’s documents. They define us collectively, and, not unlike the human eyes, they allow us to peer into the soul—in this case the soul of a nation.
The first document is unchangeable. It is the Declaration of Independence. Singular among our founding documents, it grounds the philosophical principles from which a new nation would be born. The passion and commitment to these principles give rise to the second great document.
The Constitution of the United States establishes the supreme law of the land. Because its authors could not anticipate every vicissitude of American life, the Constitution is constantly being interpreted. In extraordinary situations, to address unforeseen concerns and rights, it also can be amended. In the end, it serves to guarantee that the principles of the Declaration are extended to all.
At first, it may seem absurd to link the third document, the Federal Budget, to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. To begin with, the budget is in constant flux--at minimum from year to year. Even within a single year, it is frequently adjusted as politicians and special interests wrangle over its appropriations. And since most Americans have no real input on expenditures, it hardly seems like one of the people’s documents.
However, the budget is the practical application of the principles of the other two documents. It determines the priorities that allow (or do not allow) those principles to be lived out and secured in daily life. There is a reason that we use the term “shut down” to refer to an unfunded government. Without the budget, there is no government. Without a government, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are, at best, the dreams of philosophical genius. Precisely for this reason, the Federal Budget, more than any other piece of legislation defines the true soul of the country.
The process of crafting a budget does not just allow us to look into the soul of a people. It also allows to identify and to question the foundations on which priorities are determined. It may be that the world of economics, from the principles of the market economy to the funding of the government is the primary point where the Good News of Jesus Christ intersects modern life. It is certainly the most practical point. Unfortunately, that intersection does not merge into a common path. These days, at least, it leads in the exact opposite direction.
If we take the Gospel seriously, we find ourselves called to build the Kingdom of God here on earth. This Kingdom is not territorial. It is defined by neither a particular political system nor an economic structure. It is a community of shared responsibility and also shared resources. This Kingdom does not benefit one people or group of people over another.
In my last blog I suggested that the current vision of the American dream is incompatible with the Gospel. Human beings will always struggle with tendencies to be self-centered. Yet when major decisions are driven by personal gain, the Gospel call to build the Kingdom goes unheard, and subsequently unfulfilled.
For those who reject any notion of social justice in the Gospel, there is, unfortunately, no possibility of discussion. However, much benefit accrues to those who actually hear the Good News and are willing to examine it. In the parable about vigilant and faithful servants, Jesus speaks about the responsibilities of the servants. Peter asks if the parable is also meant for them. Jesus concludes with the startling statement “Much will be required of the person entrusted with much, and still more will be demanded of the person entrusted with more.”
One might expect that the budget is a document of shared resources benefitting all the people. In fact, much of the budget discussion in Washington is misguided in the extreme. It centers on balancing the budget by cutting resources to the poor. Worse still, is that some in Congress, like Paul Ryan, the House Budget Committee chairman, couples those cuts with outlandish benefits to the rich.
The despicability of attempting to balance the budget on the backs of the poor should be obvious. I would like to suggest that Ryan and company display a total moral vacuum, and demonstrate a complete lack of respect for the American people by suggesting that this is the way for everyone to share in reducing the deficit. What Ryan’s proposals do is take the United States of America, still the richest country in the world, and swell the ranks of America’s poor while expanding the wealth of the super rich. In the process the middle class simply evaporates.
The Paul Ryan types have probably never listened to the teaching of Jesus nor understood Gospel values. Still, it is not just the Gospel call to build the kingdom that is at odds with many of today’s budget proposals. History, also, is being ignored. While people have always balked at paying excessive taxes, most did not object to paying their fair share. The rallying cry of the American revolution was not “No taxation”. It was “No taxation without representation”—a significant difference. The idea that taxes are evil in and of themselves, and that the larger populace is not responsible for the poor must have arisen from the corrupted American dream that centers only on the individual and the self. Sadly, that is the dream adopted by many a Tea Party activist.
If the Federal Budget is to remain in place alongside the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, it must again become the people’s document. For that to happen, the people must rediscover the communal values that made America such a great nation, and then elect representatives who possess those same values.
The budget reflects the soul of the nation. What soul will we project?
Of the thousands of documents that make up the body of American life, including speeches by great presidents, senators and congressmen, these three stand out. One reason is that these are the people’s documents. They define us collectively, and, not unlike the human eyes, they allow us to peer into the soul—in this case the soul of a nation.
The first document is unchangeable. It is the Declaration of Independence. Singular among our founding documents, it grounds the philosophical principles from which a new nation would be born. The passion and commitment to these principles give rise to the second great document.
The Constitution of the United States establishes the supreme law of the land. Because its authors could not anticipate every vicissitude of American life, the Constitution is constantly being interpreted. In extraordinary situations, to address unforeseen concerns and rights, it also can be amended. In the end, it serves to guarantee that the principles of the Declaration are extended to all.
At first, it may seem absurd to link the third document, the Federal Budget, to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. To begin with, the budget is in constant flux--at minimum from year to year. Even within a single year, it is frequently adjusted as politicians and special interests wrangle over its appropriations. And since most Americans have no real input on expenditures, it hardly seems like one of the people’s documents.
However, the budget is the practical application of the principles of the other two documents. It determines the priorities that allow (or do not allow) those principles to be lived out and secured in daily life. There is a reason that we use the term “shut down” to refer to an unfunded government. Without the budget, there is no government. Without a government, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are, at best, the dreams of philosophical genius. Precisely for this reason, the Federal Budget, more than any other piece of legislation defines the true soul of the country.
The process of crafting a budget does not just allow us to look into the soul of a people. It also allows to identify and to question the foundations on which priorities are determined. It may be that the world of economics, from the principles of the market economy to the funding of the government is the primary point where the Good News of Jesus Christ intersects modern life. It is certainly the most practical point. Unfortunately, that intersection does not merge into a common path. These days, at least, it leads in the exact opposite direction.
If we take the Gospel seriously, we find ourselves called to build the Kingdom of God here on earth. This Kingdom is not territorial. It is defined by neither a particular political system nor an economic structure. It is a community of shared responsibility and also shared resources. This Kingdom does not benefit one people or group of people over another.
In my last blog I suggested that the current vision of the American dream is incompatible with the Gospel. Human beings will always struggle with tendencies to be self-centered. Yet when major decisions are driven by personal gain, the Gospel call to build the Kingdom goes unheard, and subsequently unfulfilled.
For those who reject any notion of social justice in the Gospel, there is, unfortunately, no possibility of discussion. However, much benefit accrues to those who actually hear the Good News and are willing to examine it. In the parable about vigilant and faithful servants, Jesus speaks about the responsibilities of the servants. Peter asks if the parable is also meant for them. Jesus concludes with the startling statement “Much will be required of the person entrusted with much, and still more will be demanded of the person entrusted with more.”
One might expect that the budget is a document of shared resources benefitting all the people. In fact, much of the budget discussion in Washington is misguided in the extreme. It centers on balancing the budget by cutting resources to the poor. Worse still, is that some in Congress, like Paul Ryan, the House Budget Committee chairman, couples those cuts with outlandish benefits to the rich.
The despicability of attempting to balance the budget on the backs of the poor should be obvious. I would like to suggest that Ryan and company display a total moral vacuum, and demonstrate a complete lack of respect for the American people by suggesting that this is the way for everyone to share in reducing the deficit. What Ryan’s proposals do is take the United States of America, still the richest country in the world, and swell the ranks of America’s poor while expanding the wealth of the super rich. In the process the middle class simply evaporates.
The Paul Ryan types have probably never listened to the teaching of Jesus nor understood Gospel values. Still, it is not just the Gospel call to build the kingdom that is at odds with many of today’s budget proposals. History, also, is being ignored. While people have always balked at paying excessive taxes, most did not object to paying their fair share. The rallying cry of the American revolution was not “No taxation”. It was “No taxation without representation”—a significant difference. The idea that taxes are evil in and of themselves, and that the larger populace is not responsible for the poor must have arisen from the corrupted American dream that centers only on the individual and the self. Sadly, that is the dream adopted by many a Tea Party activist.
If the Federal Budget is to remain in place alongside the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, it must again become the people’s document. For that to happen, the people must rediscover the communal values that made America such a great nation, and then elect representatives who possess those same values.
The budget reflects the soul of the nation. What soul will we project?