Editorial on Pope Francis - Is Francis Moving to the Left - Part 1

For today, I will allow the following editorial to stand on its own. I’ve included the full text here rather than a link since to view the editorial on the paper’s site one must have a subscription. Tomorrow or Friday I will publish an observation about the editorial.

 

Editorial – The Papal Seal
Daily News Record – May 20, 2015

Is Francis Moving to the Left?

There’s little question that Pope Francis – by virtue of his humility, spirit of inclusion, and desire to rid the Roman Catholic Church of its bureaucratic sclerosis, and even corruption – has rallied many folks to his standard, if not the papal standard. But, at times, we’ve been given to wonder if the Holy Father is appealing to the wrong people – and if he is, at heart, a man of the left.

Why such cause for wonder – and consternation? Consider these recent developments. The pope, Vicar of Christ on Earth, has reached out to the radical padres of Latin American, whose Liberation Theology seems animated more by the diktats of Marx, Lenin and Mao than by the teachings of Jesus Christ; he welcomed avowed communist Raul Castro, president of Cuba, to the Vatican; and he gave his official imprimatur to Palestine as a separate state.

The first two developments can be attributed – and readily explained – to Francis acting as Good Shepherd, tending to his flock, whether they be fallen-away Catholics or, in the minds of conservatives, misguided ones. Even so, Senor Castro casting himself in the role of the Prodigal Son beggars belief – and sincerity – given that he long ago renounced the faith of his fathers for a total immersion in the Marxist dispensation.

But alignment with the Palestinian cause – and with it a veiled repudiation of Israel – is not simply a apolitical act, but also one that suggests little discernment aforethought. We understand the pope’s eagerness to embrace Palestinian Catholics – he canonized two Palestinian nuns on Sunday – but doesn’t he realize that on all parties in the Middle East, Christians have nothing whatsoever to fear from Israel.  The real threat to their well-being is from Islamist extremists. What’s more, by advocating a two state solution, Francis is, at least implicitly, endorsing Fatah and Hamas, which have not only turned down statehood three times since they turn of the millennium but also continually refuse to even acknowledge Israel’s existence.

All those strange imprimaturs prompt us to ponder whether past statements from Francis were not aberrations . For instance, in 2013, he said, “Some people continue to defend trickledown theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world.” He considers this defense of capitalism an “opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts.”

Has the Pope never been to America, never witnessed success engendered by opportunity? And what, pray tell, is the alternative to capitalism? Surely not a socialism that levels and “includes” but stifles opportunity and squelches human potential, as practiced by the Raul Castros of this world.

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.

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.