Why I Felt Unsettled This Independence Day

A host of insights are readily drawn from the Donald Trump's various tweets attacking his critics, particularly those made about the mass media. The tweets reveal a troubling picture of the nature and depth of his character, specifically when he hurls vile insults. 

Mr. Trump's statements reveal a sensitivity to criticism, as well as an ugly, vicious and vindictive nature. How he speaks of Mr. Obama indicates that he has an obsession with his predecessor, and feels that only by running him down on everything will elevate his own character and accomplishments. Mr. Trump is an insecure salesman and showman whose sense of decorum and truthfulness is horrendously lacking. Under his direction, his administration spokespeople peddle "alternative facts", aka, lies.

He claims that he respects women, yet his action and words indicate that such respect of females is highly selective. He claims that he loves the press, but his words speak otherwise. He adores the press only when they do his bidding, positively telling his fables and laud him. Anyone press outlet who dares not to laud him, who hold firmly to the press's responsibility to question him, his staff, and policies in any manner are deemed "fake news." The result is that true news is of the sort of stories that Pravda published during the Soviet era.

In speaking of his negative tweets, on July 2 one of his apologists dismissed them by noting that Mr.Trump is not a politician. She went on to say that he will learn. I would be surprised if Secretary Cho truly believes what she stated to the press. Since November, a period where growth should be evidenced has lacked such evidence. His vile, capricious and unpresidential behavior remains unchanged. 

Mr. Trump is a man set in his ways, who for decades has pandered to one side, then the other. He freely shifts positions within a short period, saying what his target audiences want to hear. He can shift readily because he has few positions that he holds by personal conviction. This pattern of shifting is part of the life-long process that he has used to make deals and to push himself forward. Trump has been at this obfuscation and "alternative facts" game far too long to change. It is part of his character and value system.

I've long concluded that Mr. Trump's attacks are a result of personal insecurity, poor self-image. He has a narrow range of personal convictions. When I hear or read an attack, I tend to see it as Trump projecting his own issues and failings into the lives of others. 

What is more troubling is that to date Mr. Trump's style is to rule the nation, not govern it. As evidenced in his repeated states about his admiration for strong rulers, such as Vladimir Putin, who firmly control their governments and country, that is how he wishes to rule. Does he feel constrained by the laws of the nation? Is he of the same mindset of Richard Nixon who felt a president most of the nation's law did not apply to him? 

Heading into July 4th I recall that when the United States declared its independence, its established model was that of an executive and legislature that governed, not ruled. The founders of the nation did not view the president as being an unitary ruler. They wanted a president who would be distinct and different from the model of the kings of England, France and Spain. Mr. Trump is eroding the governing presidency for that of a ruling one.  

Mr.Trump should be highly concerned about foreign interference in the American electoral system, and doing the same to other Western democracies. Instead he is dismissive of such interference, alternating between that it did not happen, to it may be just a fat guy sitting in his bedroom to maybe it happened, but we cannot tell who did it.  Why is not external interference in the election viewed as a serious issue for Mr. Trump? Why does he not see this as a direct attack upon the heart of American democracy? Is it because he does not fundamentally understand and value the democratic processes?

Mr. Trump should be more concerned about his relationship with the German, French, Italian and Canadian leaders, NATO and solving real national problems than he is with cable news hosts, the media in general, and in dismissing his intelligence agencies. Instead, he fires off mean spirited thought out tweets as well as spending sufficient time surfing the web to find things he can repost to attack his straw figure of the moment, like the Reddit CNN video he recently tweeted out.  

Has the press been stellar in all its coverage. No. The press are no perfect. They are as human as you and I.  Do some outlets and press officials have biasses?  Yes. Biasses have existed as long as people have been printing and reporting the news.
And outlet and reporter bias will always exist. There are many examples of poor stories, quotes taken out of context, but they are in the minority, and far less frequent that such political ads doing the same. The small minority of stories that are poor are no justification to demonized he press as a whole. By doing so, Mr. Trump and his spokespeople are undermining democracy itself. Without a vigorous independent press, the light of attention would disappear, and leave our elected leaders being unaccountable to the people. As a result, power hungry individuals would be free to pervert political processes and through incremental steps, over a decade or so, leave the United States a democracy in only trappings and name. 

Regrettably, to their national shame, too many Americans are increasingly opposed to hearing and weighing different views. Instead they rely, July upon uncritical acceptance of their selected echo chamber, and thereby reinforcing the walls of their silos. The result is increased division, and the increased possibility that a small group in the right places will be able to move the nation towards one party rule. 

While claiming that his hands are clean, Mr. Trump has repeatedly through his actions, comments and tweets, driven the existing divisions wider and stronger. Also, he is creating new ones. The division is so significant that NPR was repeatedly lambasted by his supporters for posting on a series of statements on Twitter during Independence Day. These followers called NPR's Twitter postings revolutionary, biased, undemocratic, unjust attacks of the President, and that these statements indicate exactly why NPR is unAmerican and that all it's funding should be withdrawn. These revolutionary Twitter posts by NPR were nothing more that NPR posting on Twitter of the American Declaration of Independence. When NPR was strongly attacked by these people, it is evidence that Mr. Trump has given voice to the more base nature and elements of American society. 

The nation and its citizens need to have vigorous debates of diverse views in a respectful manner, agreeing that we will disagree agreeably. We need people who critically question not just the views of the other side, but of their own too. We need people who work together to address issues through consensus building, just as did the nations founders. Each party should welcome diverse views and exchanges of opinions. Use of the term DINOs, or RINOs, should be an anathema that flies against the country's founding processes and principles. 

The nature and character of the United States is being tested. How its people interact and work together is being tested. On Independence Day 2017 I was uncertain what and how to celebrate as I have a welling fear that over the last years the United States and its people have moved away from what made America great, that is inclusive civil discourse, strong adherence to democratic processes, and above all leaders who we can hold as examples for our children and who govern rather than being authoritarian rulers. 

m

I Cannot Support a Tempestuous Man-Child Who Undermines Democracy

I will not vote for a tempestuous, cold-hearted man-child who is more akin to an elementary school bully who is far from being a balanced thoughtful leader of a nation. He is a thin skinned, blowhard, feckless egotist whose shaky proposals to complex national and international problems is offer “trust me” and a handfuls of empty platitudes. He had serious critical reasoning shortcomings, and I fear that he will make decisions based upon either feelings of the moment or taking the opposite posture of his predecessor, even when Obama's action is upright, thoughtful and balanced. I am concerned that he claims that he knows more than the generals and a host experts on international relations and processes, yet at the same time highly trusts a retired general who was dismissed from his last security position.

I will not support a candidate who feels his own views are better than the nation’s intelligence agencies, dismisses his intelligence briefings, thereby casting doubt upon the various intelligence agencies that have input into the briefing. I cannot vote for a man whose statements regarding the military suggests that the military is not a major power. Further, I cannot support a man with control of the American nuclear arsenal who states that he loves war, speaks about bombing enemies, and all from a man who used questionable means to avoid the draft. In my view, the likelihood that he will take the nation into a hot war with either Iran or North Korea within 30 months of assuming office is high.   

I definitely cannot support a man who is neither capable of accepting criticism nor able to acknowledge mistakes because he is always right. Such a man tends to be incapable of taking advice of either his cabinet officials, Congress or other experts....he is right, they are wrong, and they should do his bidding.


He is a man who is a bully, inside the business world and in society, verbally and who is a major cyberbully.  He is a man of contradictions with regard to women, hiring and appointing women to significant positions in his organization while at the same time speaking of various women in most degrading terms, and treating women as mere sex objects subject to his advances and bedding. He is a man who behaves and thinks in a pre-1998 framework when this nation via the Clinton-Lewinski event rightly went through the redefining what is and is not acceptable behavior between men and women, particularly between those in power positions over those subordinate positions. He acts and thinks that that national redefinition doesn’t apply to him.  

Trump postures himself as not being a politician. He has made a plethora of sketchy promises which I doubt will come close to being fulfilled. It stands to reason that a number of them cannot be fulfilled as he claims they will be fulfilled, such as boarder wall, Mexico paying for the wall, that North Korea will not get the bomb as he will stop them, and the coal industry will return to robust form regardless the high volume of cheep, clean, natural gas pouring onto the market. Either he is naïve, which is scary to think a person entering the White House as being that naïve, or he is a bold crass man using the ultimate political technique, selling promises that he knows are empty. How can I trust such a man being in the top office in the nation and representing the nation to the world. 

Above all, I cannot and will not support a man who by his word and actions undermines the democratic process, its election system, its institutions and leaders! His comments repeatedly undermine the press and the role that they play in keeping the public informed and elected officials accountable. His numerous comments about the election process question the system's soundness, and thereby putting the results under a cloud (interestingly, it would by extension imply that we would not really know if the truly won the election). 

That Trump was selected by the Republican masses to become their standard-bearer is most disappointing. That he was selected speaks volumes regarding the party. My respect for the party is greatly diminished, so much so that at this time I would vote for a Green party candidate ahead of any Republican. The big-tent party Reagan envisioned and challenged the party to be has devolved into being a pup-tent party of hate and division that has turned its back upon the Nation’s founding processes and principles. Mr. Trump has not only ridden this dark segment of the party to be the nominee, but he has embraced and enlarged it, bringing it to be one of the dominant forces of the party. I pray and hope the Republican leadership and the balanced portion of the party will undertake some serious soul-searching in the coming years and move back towards Reagan’s big tent so that a Trump like character cannot again be the nominee. That said, I fear that the leadership of the party will be found wanting, and that they will be enablers of a man who will have undermined the office of the presidency and American democracy.

The Confederate Battle Flag

The killing on June 17^th 2015 of nine people attending a prayer meeting in a historical Charleston SC black church has shaken that community as well as many across the nation. While senseless in the mind of most people, it was not in the mind the alleged murderer who clearly identifies himself as being a white supremacist. His stated intent was not only to terrorize that black community but to help spark a race war under the banner of the Confederate battle flag. Instead of triggering hate, he received back a demonstration of forgiveness and affirmation of life that has moved the nation.

 

At first SC US Senator Graham in talking about the Confederate battle flag flying on his state’s capital grounds noted the flag was part of the state’s heritage. His carefully worded response was an effort not to offend the citizens who form his base and elected him. On the surface the implication was that if the majority of the people wanted it fly on capital grounds that it would remain. His statement lacked passion and conviction hinting of an underlying implication carefully crafted response, that he would not be against its removal.

 

At the beginning of this week when Governor Nikki Haley courageously advocated for the battle flag to be removed from the state’s capital grounds Senator Graham joined her. When she stated that any flag flying over the seat of government should represent all the people, and that battle flag clearly doesn’t, Senator Graham concurred with her. While these two powerful South Carolina leaders have pushed the conversation on the flag into the open we wait to see if they secure the supermajority in both SC houses to retire the flag or if a symbol of racism will continue to be embraced and affirmed by the government of South Carolina.

 

Some claim that they fly the Confederate battle flag not as a sign of racism, but of pride in the old south, southern values, state’s rights and freedom of expression. There are many who say that the flag honors their forefathers, most of whom did not own slaves, who thought fighting and dying for their state in the civil war was the right thing to do. As noted in a prior post, if we would be revolted by a person of German heritage using the same rationale and similar statements justifying the flying of the Nazi flag in honor of his/her family members who bravely fought to the end in the German armed forces in World War II, then why do we not have the same reactions about the Confederate battle flag?

 

The Confederate battle flag is part of history and the heritage, a heritage that includes open overt racism as well as its more subtle forms. While such a symbol is part of its past, it should not be part of its future. No local, state, federal government should sanction its use on government lands and property, including license plates which are state sanctioned communication. Of course exceptions should be granted for filming of dramas and re-enactments, etc. There is a big distinction between private speech and government sanction speech...I may have the freedom to express a view but I should not expect my government to affirm my views through its various vehicles and symbols.

 

A private company should be allowed to determine for itself whether it wishes to produce and/or market the flag or items containing that flag. No retailer should be expected to sell any product it does not belief aligns with its corporate goals and/or image. If a retailer does, that is their choice and I in return have the freedom to support that retailer or take my business elsewhere if I’m offended strongly enough.

 

If a private citizen, or a private organization, wishes to fly the Confederate battle flag on their property, they should not be prohibited from doing so. They can do so as it is an expression of free speech. I in return have the freedom to dislike their expressed statement that they align themselves with a symbol and a heritage of racism, and take that into account in my interactions with them.  

A Prime Case for Capital Punishment Becomes a Prime Example Against the Death Penalty

Advocates for capital punishment commonly point to horrendous murders as justification for the citizens to terminate a life of the person convicted of first degree murder. More often than not such cases involve murder of children and/or where gruesome suffering was been involved. One such case used to validate the need for capital punishment was the conviction of Henry Lee McCollum of Sabrina Buie who was raped and murdered in September 1983. 


The rationale and need to execute McCollum was sited by US Supreme Court Justice Anthony Scalia as a prime example as a case that unquestionably supported the value of capital punishment. In addressing another Justice's questioning of the value and appropriateness of capital punishment, Justice Scalia responded that the McCollum case is one preeminent case “cries out for punishment”, and that punishment being capital punishment.

 

Henry Lee “Buddy” McCollum, 19 at the time Buie was murdered, along with his younger half brother (age 15) were arrested and convicted of murdering eleven year old Buie. The police were so certain that McCollum and Brown committed the crime that while McCollum and Brown were in jail, another rape and murder that took place in the same area less than a month later, and with marked similarity as the earlier murder, were never viewed as connected to the Buie murder. The man who lived near where the Buie murder occurred was arrested for the second murder, and later convicted, yet even with similar MOs neither the police nor the District Attorney ever considered that the two murders could be connected. The police and the District Attorney never reconsidered that Buie could be murdered by anyone other than Buddy McCollum and his half brother because they had confessions from the two men.

 

Though the DA and police had confessions from the two teens, other than them knowing the girl and being seen with her, and having no alibi as to their whereabouts at the time of the crime, there was no direct evidence that the teens committed the crime.


What was not considered was that both young men are intellectually handicapped…McCollum’s IQ was between 60 and 69, and that as both were intellectually handicapped, they could easily be led and misled by others. They were likely terrified in being arrested and jailed. Clearly they lacked the capacity to understand their Miranda Rights or the nature of the crime they were being accused of committing. If people with IQs of 125 common police interrogation tactics that can confusing and challenging, what does this say about these two men and their “confessions” that took place without legal representation present both before or during confession. The claim by the police that the confessions were true must be considered with a high level of askance, but the DA's office didn't hold such a view. They had the confessions that would give them the needed conviction and increase their batting rate for convictions.  

 

Despite the other murder, lack of direct evidence and questionable confession, the case moved forward resulting in McCollum and Brown being convicted and with McCollum receiving the death penalty. This case was the first time North Carolina jurors had ever recommended the death penalty for anyone who evidenced mental retardation, let alone with an IQ as low as McCollum. Also this was the first time that capital punishment was recommended for anyone under the age of twenty at the time of the crime. Though the trial judge acknowledged that McCollum lacked the capacity to understand the crime and the proceedings, he supported the jurors recommendation of death. 


The prosecutor and the jury noted that there were two compelling reasons for the citizens of North Carolina to remove Mr. McCollum from breathing on this earth...one, that he killed Buie to keep her going to the police (a conjectured conclusion), and two, the especially heinous nature of the murder and suffering Buie experienced. Since, concurring with the jury and judge, the advocates of capital punishment have sited the McCollum case as a prime example as a just conviction and penalty. They have argued that McCollum confessed to the crime, that the court carefully examined the evidence which definitively points to McCollum and Brown as the murders, and that it is a case where the State and the people of North Carolina justly convicted them and McCollum deserves to be expunged from the earth.  

 

While there were many who questioned whether the ultimate punishment was warranted given McCollum’s intellectual capacity, and questioned the validity of the confession, for the most part their arguments were dismissed as being of little consequence. Even US Supreme Court Justice Scalia in his unabashed certainty and rightness of his views held firmly that the system had got the case correct and that capital punishment of McCollum was more than justified.     

 

To the frustration of many death penalty advocates, McCollum was not been executed as scheduled for since 2006 a series of lawsuits in North Carolina have blocked any capital punishment executions from being carried out in the state. But for those successful lawsuits, Buddy McCollum would have been executed years ago. Advocates for capital punishment were working to remove those blocks with Mr. McCollum being one of the first on the list to be executed. At least his name would have been on that list until September 2014.

 

Thirty years after being arrested, McCollum and his half-brother are free men, thanks to DNA evidence on a piece of preserved evidence. The DNA evidence points to the man arrested for other murder as being Buie's murderer too. Suddenly, the case which was viewed with absolute certainty as being gotten right and execution justified. We now know that if McCollum had been executed that the people of this nation would have executed an innocent man...in other words we the people through our appointed officials would have committed willful murder.


Any human judicial system is highly flawed. The judicial system of the United States is a highly flawed system. Our system is fraught by politics, inequities, and inappropriate economic and racial prejudices. It is filled with snap conclusions by police and the DAs, flawed theories, police investigations that ignore evidence and twisting of evidence to fit a theory. It is a system that too often places value upon conviction and vindictive punishment than upon the seeking of truth and restorative justice. The failings of such a system are so evident that even men and women like Justice Scalia who possess such vast knowledge of the law, exude such confident dogmatic reasoning and judgment can be so wrong. 


Capital punishment has a finality to it that should give us pause. For me, Justice Scalia's citing the McCollum case as substantiating the value of capital punishment now serves as an argument against. This is not a case where the system eventually got it right for if the system had continued as it should have continued, today McCollum would be dead. The system on so many levels got it wrong.  But for factors outside this case McCollum would not be alive today for us to acknowledge the injustice he experienced. The system is flawed and it failed in this case. 

 

A nation's views on capital punishment is one of the clarion declarations of nation’s values, not "the nation" in a general sense, but the values of its citizens like you and I, and with those who walk our streets, work beside us and with whom we recreate. The time to rethink the utilization of capital punishment dawned long ago.   
 

Gay Marriage Battle in Virginia and Defending of the Virginia Amendment - part 2

In yesterday’s post I noted that the 4^th US Circuit Court of Appeals heard a lower court ruling that Virginia’s constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage, civil unions and gay partnerships was unconstitutional. I am troubled after reading several of the arguments put forth by the lawyers defending the amendment, some of which essentially devalue marriage, the very institution the defenders are arguing that they are defending as having high and sacred value.

 

Following are some of their primary arguments, the ones I found alarming. While I am far from being legally educated, I brief note why I found several of the key the arguments defending the amendment to be troubling.

 

Voters by a 57-43 margin approved the amendment to the VA Constitution and their vote should stand: This argument calls for majority rule as the primary rule of the land, that majority rule trumps all including fundamental rights belonging to each person, that a citizen has no preexisting human right to liberty, freedom and happiness. This argument means that any right, even the right to life, can be denied or removed from individuals or a class of people by the state if the majority so decide to do so. The argument means that the claim Americans have proudly proclaimed and boasted about being the nation of fundamental rights is a false assertion. The claim is that a person has a right only if the majority agree to grant the person or class of people a right. The flip side of the coin is that the right can also be taken away at some point in the future if the majority so wills it. The argument means that minorities, whether racial or religious or political or lifestyle, are tolerated only as far as they don’t offend too many outside their group. Hence the only defense against the tyranny of the majority is not the courts, but by either conforming or finding little niches in the nation where your neighbors are tolerant of your kind of minority.  

 

What I find most interesting is that not only does this mean majority rule as the ultimate principal of the land, and contrary to what I’ve understood as the heart of a founding principle of the United States, is that the argument is akin to the arguments King George and the British Parliament used to deny the Colonies representation in Parliament…that the majority of British Parliament, the British citizenry and the King deemed it appropriate to deny the Colonials basic rights that they enjoyed. The Colonies has no right of representation because the majority wished not for them to have such opportunities. Therefore in a way, if this argument holds, this nation has come full circle, that King George and Parliament were right, and the founding fathers wrong.

 

 

Marriage is primarily about procreation, and as gay marriages cannot procreate, such marriages cannot exist:  This argument is simple, that my marriage, and your marriage too, is defined by my wife and my ability to procreate. It means that if marriage is defined primarily by the ability to procreate, there is no reason for the marriage to exist. By extension it means that women who have gone through menopause and men with very low or nonexistent sperm levels should not marry as there is no grounds for such marriages to be allowed. It also means that those who do not have children have marriages of a lesser order than marriages that produce children.

 

Not only am I extremely uncomfortable with any marriage that is defined primarily around having children, I am firmly against any such argument that devalues, and in a sense even negates the companionship and love elements of marriage. When my wife and I stood before the alter of the Paxton United Methodist Church that June morning, not one word in our vows even hinted at procreation. We testified to our love for the other, our commitment to each other, to be mutual companions and comforters for each other, and to cherish and nurture the other through good times and bad times for the rest of our lives. Our marriage was not a contract about having offspring and raising children together. While alarmed by this argument, I am highly offended that Christians are embracing this argument as being solid and proper.

 

For anyone who agrees with the argument put forward in the Court I would point out that if you are a Protestant that this argument contradicts what most Protestant churches have taught about marriage since their founding. Protestant churches have traditionally claimed that their beauty and value in marriage and marital sex. The value of marriage is founded upon mutual companionship and love. For Protestants marital relations is wholesome in itself, a beautiful and enjoyable way to express one’s love for one’s spouse. Marriage they have taught is about the quality of the husband and wife relationship, about the loving couple, not about having children. Children are the by-product of the essence of a marriage, not the ground for the marriage’s existence.

 

If this argument prevails, it does more to undermine the value of my marriage than if the amendment’s defenders lost.  

 

 

The State has the right to determine who can procreate and marry: Wow, reading this one sent chills down my back. The lawyers are claiming that the State has the right to say who can and cannot have children.  Are we going to require people to pass a test or gain permission of some government official in order to have children? Are we going to deny people the right to have children if they lack a certain level of intelligence? Lack a certain amount of annual household income? If to have a child and support the children they are having, the mother would have to work outside the home (after all is it not best for children to have mom at home rather than working in the community?), or the father to work a second or third job?  This rationale sounds too much like a totalitarian state argument.

 

                                                                                                                                      

Marriage is a fundamental right that historically has focused on preserving stable families. As such every child deserves a mother and father: It is the later part that bothers me. If every child deserves to a mother and father, what does that actually mean? Are we saying that children should not be raised in a gay household because a parent of a particular gender is lacking from the home? I’ve heard friends and Christian preachers and talk shows argue this point in the affirmative. Pointing to various studies some conservative Christians argue that children raised without both genders present in the home are at much high risk of socially dysfunctional behavior as children and adults than do children in homes where both a mother and father are found. But is this a result of parental disengagement or the lack of two adults of opposite genders? Are not the at risk rates similar in two adult homes where both parents are disengaged from their children? I can readily agree that when parents disengaged, regardless whether there are one or two parents in the home, and are too busy to nurture and care for their children that children from such homes have a significantly higher at-risk rate than those from loving homes where both parents, or even one parent, is supportive and engaged with the children.

 

While there are studies that support both sides, let’s remember that the body of research into gay households is thin as it has been for the most part lacking. A number of studies are full of unanswered questions, and some are poorly designed, or lack longevity to be reliable. Also we much recognize that some authors of studies have biases, they design studies in a manner and cherry pick data that will help support their desired proof. Further, the general public and politically engaged people tend to pick and choose the studies and data that lend support to their positions while dismissing studies which contradict their position. For me the studies claiming children in gay homes are highly impacted have reliability issues, and at first glance appear to be less scientific than are the climate warming studies those out of my religious tradition so quickly tend to dismiss.

 

Regardless of the quality of the science behind the studies, for the sake of argument let’s say that there is some type correlation. Even if there was some type of harm, if we deny gay marriage based on this argument are we as a nation then going to remove children from all single parent households which have a similar or greater rate of risk? What about homes where one parent is convicted of a felony for children raised in such homes also are at high risk too? What about removing children from homes where wife abuse exists, whether that abuse be physical or emotional? Are we then going to remove children from two parent homes whose household income are near or below the poverty level since numerous studies over the decades have indicated that those homes too have a high risk rate? If we are to be consistent in our arguments our communities should start removing tens of children from their homes, and if we are not going to do so, why not? If the only reason is that I was not to do so because I am talking about a gay couple, then what does that say about me?

 

 

I find myself troubled by the above arguments. Why did the lawyers defending the amendment use such arguments? We did they not craft and put forth more solid and balanced arguments?

Freedom of Religion in Schools - Virginia SB 236

In recent days there has been consternation in some circles over Virginia’s recently elected Governor McAuliffe’s vetoing SB 236, a bill that passed the Virginia House of Delegates and Senate allowing for student driven prayer and religious meetings in public schools. At first glance it seems to be an innocuous bill. The bill’s proponents argued that it would allow for prayer, religious meetings and artwork/signs much like is allowed for other clubs, organizations and civic/athletic groups.

 

The Governor argued that though the bill allowed for religious activity by any faith tradition, functionally it would present local school administrators with an impossible mandate to give equal treatment to all without resulting in the giving of preferences to some groups over another. There is some validity to his view, particularly when conflicts for space occur or a range of activities and space are requested at a might higher rate than another. A school administration could find themselves in a difficult position when one faith seeks to put up a religious symbol in proximity to another symbol which may be viewed with anger by the other by its placement or timing.   

 

Does government not permitting the exercise of religious activity in our schools and public space turn the government into being anti-religion? McAuliffe argues that neutrality is not an anti-religion position, and for the smooth functioning of society within a civic space such as schools, that neutrality provides for least conflicts. On the other hand, the proponents of SB 236 loudly and forcefully exclaim yes to that question. They argue that the law is there to protect religion, ensuring that religious can be welcomed and take place in schools and that to bar such expression devalues the place of faith and its roll in society and the lives of a school’s students.

 

Yet is the proponent’s argument that simple? Or is their effort to position Christian expression as the most visible and dominant faith in the schools, and in at that, the more fundamentalist and evangelical understanding of Christianity? Is it that simple for schools to balance and give equal allowance for all religions?

 

When the forgers of the Constitution were shaping the founding documents they had the clear option of ingraining into the founding document an unapologetic declaration that the United States is a Christian nation. It was not a strange or uncommon notion for at the time Great Britain and several European nations were formally recognized as Christian nations in their governing documents.

 

Most of the signers of the Declaration of Independence and the shapers of the Constitution were men of faith. While for a few going to church may have been more a cultural or family expectation, most were sincere in their piety and earnest about practicing their faith. Some were more conservative and evangelical whereas others more liberal or even deists. A small number of notables like Franklin and Jefferson, appear to not have been of faith by any of modern definitions of faith commonly utilized by modern evangelicals, or even by even the definitions of the mainstream church of the day.

 

Though the framers were living in a highly Christian culture, why did they not take the opportunity to declare the nation as a Christian nation? It could not have been something simply overlooked. Why did these men not define the United States as a Christian nation rather than speaking in broader terms to God or a Supreme Being in their documents without any further definition? Why did they instead state “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”

 

In an ideal situation in a nation where true freedom of and from religion exists there would be no need for the proposed law SB 236. Prayer and religious meetings by groups of any religion background would not only be tolerated but accepted at school as having value for both the participants and, to a degree, the overall community. Each would conduct their private and personal activity, respecting others of different faiths, and not using the school and other civic meetings and celebrations as proselytizing opportunities, and not being offended by the teachings, preaching and symbols of another.

 

In that plethora of religious expressions and acceptance would be a host of Christian denominations, ranging from those who believe that their particular denomination are the only true followers of Jesus Christ to evangelical religious streams who openly engage in sharing to the more liberal traditions who are may not be as demonstrative as other Christians. There would also be openly practicing Muslims with their various traditions with some reading and preaching from the Koran more openly and demonstratively than others. The various Hebrew traditions would also observing and talking openly about their faith without conflicts between them and the Muslims, or them and some Christians seeking to persuade them to become Messianic Jews. There would also be Buddhists, Hindus, Taoists, Satanists, etc, each having their religious symbols displayed as openly as Christian ones. Of course in the mix would be the meetings of professed atheists talking about why they hold that there is no God while people of their various faiths respectfully accepting and tolerating the atheists.

 

Is it possible that the nation’s founders recognized that such openness though ideal was an unrealistic expectation of their citizens to live out in every day practice? Is it possible that they readily recognized that differing religions can become that ground for civil discord, that even with the Christians traditions over the course of human existence heated feelings and disagreements existed over various points of the Christian faith they hold in common. And if Christians who then hold so much in common end up in armed conflict with one another with faith differences as part of the cause, did they then acknowledge to themselves that there was slim hope that peace across a diversity of different religions would occur if they all worked and practiced their faith in the public square at the same time?  Is it possible that in the framers accepted that the best position for government to take on religion was a neutral one, that it is better to rule and govern all its citizens equally, showing no preference to one religion over the other, promoting none of the other thereby allowing and encouraging its citizens to practice their faith privately in their homes and places of worship according to their own teachings and beliefs, and to work civilly alongside each other as the live and work together? If so, then it seems that they felt religious neutrality by government was from being anti-religion but instead became the guarantor of the freedom of all religions and the ground from which each could flourish and find expression in communities across their young land.

 

Over two centuries later has our society progressed and matured to the point where we can readily accept open expressions of divergent religions without conflict? Are the Virginia proponents of SB 236 arguing that those with whom they worship with on Sunday, that their children and grandchildren, their friends and associates are so highly tolerant of each other religions that they would not take issue with Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists putting up signs in the local schools inviting others to their worship observances? Are they saying that the crowd on at the Friday night high school football game, or the college game on Saturday, would accept either Muslim or Hindu opening the game with a prayer from those religions?

 

Are they saying that there would be no controversy from amongst themselves or their constituents if a Muslim or Buddhist opened an upcoming meeting of the House of Delegates in prayer? Are they saying that the citizens in their districts would not be up in arms if the 10 Commandments were placed in front of the Legislature and within a few yards there be a statue of Buddha and a Satanist of some sort? If they have that confidence, the proponents of SB 236 are certainly a most optimistic lot with regard to their evaluation of the spirit, tolerance and nature of our citizenry.

Is the Republican Party About to Shift on Gay Marriage?

Evidently there is a growing pressure from local rank and file Republicans for the party and the leadership to stop opposing gay marriage. They argue that the issue distracts the party from dealing with more fundamental issues related to the economy and health care. They continue on to note that for the party to attract younger voters in larger numbers, they Republican party needs to formally change its position.

 

While nearly all of the nationally elected leaders and a large number of state leaders oppose gay marriage, while a growing majority of the upcoming leaders who are being elected to local offices are in favor of the party changing its position. Though the majority of Republicans over the age of 55 are against gay marriage, a majority of Republicans under the age of 30 are supportive of gay marriages.

 

Is a significant shift in the offing in a year or two?  Though some political observers suggest it is at hand within a year or two, I doubt that it will occur, at least not until at least two more presidential election cycles. I cannot foresee it has happening that quickly because of the evangelical and fundamentalist Christian wing of the party dominates the agenda, and Christians of that persuasion provide a significantly large portion of the party’s income.

 

The shift will occur as the dominance of the religious right declines, but it will not be for some time yet. Data going back into the early 80s signaled that the evangelical and fundamentalist churches were likely headed for decline in the first two decades of this century. Studies in the last decade have not only confirmed this but are indicating that the decline may become more rapid that anticipated two decades ago. There is also growing evidence that the more politically active the religious right has become, the more its sway and profile is before the public, the number of young people leaving evangelical and fundamentalist churches has grown. There seems to a correlation between the activism of the religious right and the lack of attraction for the younger generation.  

 

The power and influence of the religious right will decline over the next decade. Fewer election officials on the national level will feel beholding to the religious right for securing their election. It is then that the shift will occur. There will be much consternation within the religious right when the Republican party changes its position on gay marriage. And when it does, the religious right will face a conundrum, hold their noses while supporting the Republican on the ballet, or run a candidate of their own who is unlikely to win the seat, or not vote. While some will cease voting, running their own candidates in primaries will be first pursued by most. Eventually more and more will become engaged and support a candidate even if the candidate does not align with their views of marriage and the gay lifestyle. It will be a painful process but that is the price of being highly engaged in one party and pushing a narrow agenda.

 

Christians need to be involved in politics, allowing their faith to guide their thinking while speaking respectfully on a breath of issues, just as those of faith different than theirs should do, put forward their arguments in a cogent manner while recognizing that the government and society is not a branch of the church, or expected to do the bidding of the church. Expecting government to do the bidding of the church, or a theological brand of the church, it is unhealthy for the church, government and the nation.

 

When the distinction between faith and governance becomes enmeshed in politics, particularly so when heavily aligned with one party, the distinction between the secular and the sacred worlds are blurred but at risk of being erased, with candidates rejected on a narrow set of standards for not being “Christian” enough. Also, such political endeavors result in the church supporting government actions that are not only highly questionable but may well be contrary to the church’s proclaimed values and faith…which may partly account for far fewer under 30s attending conservative churches than their parents did in the 70s and early 80s.  

Opposition vs. Loyal Opposition

Years spend observing both the American and Canadian political systems I’ve noticed that there is a concept that is not as firmly embraced in the American system as it is in Canada…the concept of loyal opposition.

 

In Canada the parties who do not form the government are not just in opposition, but they are the loyal opposition.  In my civics courses in junior high and in high school we were taught that the loyal opposition is not to oppose legislation for the sake of opposing the government. Rather they hold the government accountable and via balanced critiquing advocate for strengthening legislation for overall sake of the nation. The loyal opposition may well strongly oppose one measure while at other times somewhat supporting another while advocating for amendments. The opposition is to serve the government through its opposition. The daily question and answer periods where members of the loyal opposition can arise to directly ask questions of the government ministers and Prime Minister (or Premier) is a critical component of being part of the loyal opposition.

 

Being in loyal opposition is not a game whereby an opposing party using techniques and maneuvers to win a victory or opposes an idea just because it is advocated by the other party. Nor should the party in power use maneuvers to dismiss ideas from the opposition or worse, to marginalize the opposition, is contrary to the loyal opposition concept.

 

In America Congress is held in low esteem. I would say that the major power brokers, the major lobbyists, should be held in the same low esteem. There is good reason to hold Congress and lobbyists in low regard when the nation sees time and time legislation and ideas rejected, opposed and dismissed as horrible when only months to a few years before, the criticizing party and individual first proposed the idea and they are now rejecting it because the idea is now supported by the other party. That is not governing. That is game playing. Trying to win a game for the sake of the party, versus trying to serve the people and bring about the best possible legislation possible for the nation as a whole.

 

What would Congress look like, and how would they act if the loyal concept was integral to the process? I wonder what damaged has been done by the concept not being part of the governing process.

A Two Party Political System and Extremism

There are a host of structural differences between the American and Canadian political systems due to the difference structures, America being republican with the direct election of the chief executive official and Canada being parliamentary with the indirect election of the chief executive.  Beyond the structural and resulting differences thereby created by the different structures, one of the differences, not created by the founding structure but which has evolved and become well settled is that in the United States there is two party system. In the United States, while a third party is theoretically possible both regionally and nationally, due to the entrenchment of the two party system with rules designed to hinder the formation of a statewide or regional third party, the rise of a third party is functionally impossible short of a split taking place in one of the two current parties.

 

By contrast, in Canada, and in Great Britain and Australia, multiple parties with regional and national appeal are not only possible but are common. Three or four options is such a common occurrence in Canada that having candidates on the ballet from three major parties is taken for granted by Canadians. While it is theoretically possible for Canada to have dozens of parties with wide national or provincial appeal, having more than three or four nation-wide or provincial-wide parties having broad appeal is rare for when a party becomes too small its effective voice for impacting change is so minimal that the party thereby ceases to be viewed as a viable option.  

 

A common argument for two having only to parties is that it ensures the winning candidate and party has the support of the majority of the citizenry. Such reasoning is based upon math, but we it does not mean the victorious candidate or party has a mandate. We should not fool ourselves into thinking this way for as evidenced in the current political environment few winning candidates truly has the support of the majority. The 2013 gubernatorial election in Virginia is an example of where many voters vote not for the candidate but against the other candidate and for lesser of two poor choices.

 

This dynamic of voting for the lesser of two evils or poor candidates is more than rarity in America politics due to the extremes having strong sway and/or those with deep money yielding a victor in the local primaries who the general public cannot support. Well motivated organized extremes can readily have significant impact in a primary given that only a limited number of centrist voters become engaged in the primary process. Hence, a small group, a hundred or so, which are well organized and solidly funded, can color the results far beyond what their numbers would at face value indicate.

 

While in any system a drive to an extreme can occur, a two party system is particularly prone so such a drift. The extremes on the both left and right push their parties to away from being more centrist, and thereby leaving voters voting against a candidate than for a candidate, the lesser of two evils rather than embracing a candidate who reflects for the most part the views of the major of their constituents.  I like other’s too often find myself voting for a candidate that is not close to where I stand. And there are times when I’ve voted against someone who is closer to my economic and social views but cannot support that candidate because the party at large has become too far removed from my position. Hence, in a two party system, the choice sometimes comes down to going o the devil you least dislike.  

 

Unfortunately, when elected the individual and party come into power they think they have a mandate to do some more extreme things when no such a mandate exists except within the fringe that gave them the primary victory.

 

An ongoing via third party tends be a brake against extremes heavily influencing the other two parties for if the left of one party takes their party too far to the left while the right of the second party takes the second in the opposite direction, it is highly likely they will discover that they have ceded power to the more centrist party. For a party to remain on the extreme too long invites ongoing marginalization or even extinction as the majority of the voters will look to the party or party that is towards the center. For a party’s survival, the pragmatic center will ultimately pull their party away from the extreme.  Voters will more frequently be voting for a candidate they can affirm rather than choosing between the lesser of three evils.   

Public Housing Rules

I recently read an interesting letter to the editor commenting upon those in public housing obeying the rules. The letter reflects a general strongly held viewpoint that is having a strong sway in American politics, a sway that has greater influence than their raw numbers would indicate.

The letter entitled, “Public Housing Must Have Rules That Are Obeyed” reads, “Of course, ‘these people will smoke, drink, and do whatever they want in subsisted housing,’ if they don’t have a manager to enforce rules and regulations.

 “It seems that people in public housing think, ‘Well, I pay rent, I can party, smoke, drink and do what I want to.’ What happened to the rules and regulations? Yes, stop smoking in public housing, really everywhere. Think of the lives that could be saved – lung disease and other things that smoking causes.

 “They should get better managers to enforce all rules and regulations. You go into public housing knowing they must be obeyed.

 “I would think anyone who pays $55 a carton would want to quit for themselves as well as everybody else’s health.”

 

Many comments and observations could be drawn from this short letter regarding the author’s views regarding law and human rights. Following are a few comments upon the letter.

The letter’s author views those in public housing as being unemployed, lazy and generally unproductive citizens. Unfortunately such dangerous stereotyping is held by a significant portion of our communities. Yes, there are people in public housing who reflect the picture, but they are not the norm as I’ve discovered in working with and assisting people who live in public housing. While there are exceptions while there are those who are unemployed, including the disabled, in public housing there are far more productive citizens who are employed, but employed in low waged jobs. They are those who are drive our children to school on school buses, our receptionists, clean our offices, cook and serve our lunches, who look after our children in day care, are sales staff at discount stores, etc.  

I wish that we could all agree that the cost of housing in many areas is out of reach for those earning a low hourly wage, and that because we are not willing to pay 10 to 15% higher costs for a TV bought at a discount box store or 15% to 20 more for our fast food meal, public housing is a necessary burden we carry.  What we save on fast food and in discount stores becomes a larger burden on our taxes for public housing to help support these low wage workers that serve us every day. We pay one way or the other, and as a society we want low cost products from retailers who keep their overhead low by paying a very low wage.   

The letter clearly states that the lays the problem of smoking, drinking and holding parties in public housing to the lack of rules enforcement. The thought that such rules as being unjust or improper escapes the letter's writer. Evidently he is comfortable with the government limiting and denying American citizens rights held by other citizens, and that those rights should be denied to them solely because they live in public housing. In other words, if you enter public housing, you become a second class citizen. What should we then deny these citizens next? The right to travel? The right to watch television or own a car? The right to vote?  I would disagree with any rule in public housing which limits or denies legal behavior in the privacy of one’s home the rights allowed other citizens to the same behavior. This is supposed to be a nation where all citizens are treated equally. Since America is a nation that prides itself on personal liberty, we must be slow to limit those liberties.

The author of the letter reflects the all too common tendency of holding that as one has experienced life or religion in a particular manner, or reasons in a particular fashion, that too should others think in the and experience the world, event or religious experience in the same way. And if you don’t have the same experience, then you are deficient at some point and you need to correct yourself. It is a version of my view is better and more righteous than yours. Since humanity and life is not so simple, measuring/judging others primarily upon one’s own experience is a most dangerous enterprise.

Guns Rights, NRA, and Democracy

For what it’s worth, I’m adding my voice to the gun control debate. From when I first shot a rifle at the gun range in the basement of Mississauga’s Thomas Kennedy High School I’ve enjoyed shooting rifles. I affirm the right of hunters and recreational target shooters to own guns. I also seek to understand the Second Amendment within its original context rather than the twisted recasting that has current sway.    
 

After yesterday’s drivel from NRA’s Wayne Lapierre, I cannot remain silent. He has drawn me into expressing my views to my elected officials. Some gun advocates say that this is not the time to discuss such issues. When would be the time? Two months later following another shooting? Six months later? There is bound to be another shooting that would be used to justify the “now is not the time” posture. The “now is not the time” statement is commonly made after shootings. Yet I remain perplexed why many of the same people don’t refrain from speaking out and taking action doing similar when people are killed by drunk drivers, or underage drinking parties, or major accidents with loss of life occur at poorly designed intersections, or when mass transit safety is a concern following an accident, or with regard to abortion, in rare cases of voter fraud, etc. They would never accept, “now is not the time” argument on these type of issues. Many of those who advocate “respectful silence during a time of grief” after a shooting are the first to call for action and push for redress to limit its recurrence. I don’t see any reason to treat Second Amendment rights under different rules than other issues.


The NRA’s reasoning is flawed, and we would never accept such flawed reasoning on any other issue. Nonetheless, it is accepted widely and embraced because it taps into our own fears and paranoia, both national and individual. Therefore, we want to accept such reasons to justify gun ownership. If I understand LaPierre’s reasoning, it runs this way…gun ownership provides the foundation to keep America free. Furthermore, America is a dangerous country, so much so that all its citizens must be armed to protect themselves from each other; if more citizens were armed, gun crime would decrease as people would be afraid to use guns illicitly; and as gun free zones schools are particularly vulnerable because they invite people to take guns there and to use them against helpless victims.

The NRA argues that government legislation should not prevent law-abiding citizens from buying whatever guns they want. I have two problems with this argument. First, it opens the door wide open to enabling criminals and the emotional unstable to buy guns too. Just as we do by locking our doors and by having keys to start our cars limit theft, having some gun purchase barriers/qualifications helps limit the opportunity and the frequency of criminals and the unstable securing guns. Second, it also overlooks that a good number of those who have used a gun in suicide, to commit homicide and even many of these mass shootings that catch our attention, were law-abiding citizens up until the moment they pulled the trigger.

What Lapierre is proposing for arming schools with armed officers is exactly what Columbine High School had when the shootings occurred there. In fact, that school had two armed police officers on duty at the moment of the shooting. The shooters knew their school had armed officers, but that knowledge did not instill any fear in them. The shootings still took place. The mall in Washington state had armed security, yet the shootings still occurred. The shooter in the Sandy Hook had guns in his home, which were owned by his mother. Instead of her guns protecting her, as the NRA argues should have been the case, they were used against her.

When the shooter of President Ronald Regan drew out his weapon, he knew there would be a multitude of Secret Service agents and local police officers with weapons ready to be used. The shooter who attempted to shoot President Ford faced the same and she knew it. Robert Kennedy had similar protection. Yet in all three cases, did all that well armed protection deter the shooters? Evidently, the armed protection was not a deterrent, which argues against LaPierre’s reasoning. Also arguing against Lapierre’s reasoning is the Fort Hood shooting, a place where thousands of people were well armed, and still unable to prevent a tragedy.

More Americans have guns in their homes than at any other time than in over a hundred years. According to LaPierre’s reasoning, gun crime should be decreasing. We should be at our lowest point. Have the number of gun crimes decreased? No, they have not; in fact, they have increased. The severity of the shootings higher than it was in the 70s and 80s when large gun clips were not available to the general public.

Switzerland and Israel are two countries with trained civilian military who, until recent years, took their military arms home. Both countries were experiencing unaccepted levels of accidental shootings, domestic homicides and suicide. After they changed their policies regarding military guns in home, the rates of such instances in all three types of gun activity dramatically decreased.

Israel discovered that when a soldier had a gun in the home and became depressed, that the gun was too available to be used in a moment of depression and heightened emotions. Removing the gun allowed time for the heightened emotions to diminish and moments of depression to work themselves out. Is gun availability in the home a factor behind law enforcement being the highest profession for suicide by gun? It’s a question that needs attention.

Part of me pities Lapierre for having such a negative feeling about the society in which he lives and works. Imagine living in such fear, believing that your society is so dangerous that you must be heavily armed at work, as you drive around your community, as you shop, as you travel, as you go out to restaurants and entertainment venues and as you live in your home. I cannot imagine living with such fear. I could not work in an office where I felt I needed to have a weapon at hand, because I did not think highly about my workmates and had a gun just in case they started shooting and I had to be willing to kill some of them. The same applies to how I view my neighbors or who will be with me tomorrow morning in church. I live and work in the neighborhood in which he works, travels and lives. The NRA headquarters is just two hundred yards from my home and I have never had a fear walking and driving in the community. But alas he has such fear. Then I remind myself that LaPierre is a paid mouthpiece, albeit a highly paid one, for the gun manufacturers and dealers who underwrite the bulk of the NRA budget and much of LaPierre’s salary. He is paid by gun manufacturers and dealers to spin a story to help protect their business and pump gun sales.

I think it is a sad commentary that an organization is advocating that every school become an armed camp. In a time when schools are cutting teaching positions due to budgetary constraints, it is being argued, implicitly, that more teaching positions should be eliminated so armed police officers can patrol school hallways and guard school doors. I do not want my children, or future grandchildren, stepping off school buses and having to walk past guards carrying military grade rifles; I don’t want students to be compelled to pass through metal detectors as they enter their school, nor do I want them to see their teachers standing before them with guns on their hips. What a horrible message to send to them day after day, year after year. What a horrible message to send about a free democratic society, that they are no safer in the community than children in conflict torn countries.

As an aside, the NRA boasts about its membership numbers, which have, sadly, increased since the Newtown massacre. I look at such boasting with askance. If you own a gun and wish to go to a gun range, you are likely going to have to join the NRA as a condition of using the range. Like the closed union shops with union membership required to work at the plant, NRA membership is required to practice with your gun at gun ranges, and though the majority of NRA members hold that registration, background checks and clip limits are reasonable protections, the NRA uses their dues to advance views that many of their members do not support. Yet, while conservatives decree the unions for having closed shops, no one word of protest is heard about the NRA requirement to use a gun range…a most interesting inconsistency that suggests that when it comes to the gun industry in America, it is allowed operate by a different set of laws.

To hold that the gun is the foundation is our democracy is a most unfortunate commentary on the nature and fragility of American democracy. History continues to teach us that armed, biased local militias and thugs stifle democracy, not enhance it. Further, does this not imply that countries that have gun control laws are not true democracies? The Canadians, Japanese, British, French, Germans, Swiss, Italians, Austrians, Dutch, Danes, Norwegians, Swedes, Fins, Australians, all vigorous democracies with gun control, would disagree with such a position. The ballot and free speech, not guns, are the true foundations of democracy. American democracy is well and strong, it is no so fragile that it needs a gun to protect it!

I favor reasonable registration of all firearms, background checks, limits on the type of guns and clip sizes available to civilians, and mandatory firearms safety certifications. Would such laws eliminate all gun violence? No, and to think otherwise would be delusional. Do car registrations, required annual safety inspections and safety standards, driver licenses and licensing standards eliminate all accidents? No, but accidents rate would be much higher with poorly trained (or untrained) drivers. And vehicle safety standards help remove unsafe cars from the road, thereby make driving our roads a much safer experience for all. The same things apply for gun use and regulation.

At the top I noted that I enjoyed target shooting. It is a sport I would like to enjoy again, but, unfortunately, to do so functionally requires that I be a member of the NRA. THAT I will not do, for I repudiate that organization’s irresponsible policies, as well as its warped views of my neighbors, workmates, and society in general. Unlike Wayne LaPierre, I choose to respect rather than fear my fellow humans.