Religion and Politics

The founders of the United States were wise in creating the separation of church and state. They were far from being anti-religion for nearly all attended church services from time to time. Church attendance and religious discussions in public were common practices. This did not mean that like today people of different faith backgrounds readily accepted one another as friends, co-workers and married across denomination backgrounds, and spoke well of denominations that were outside their own stream.

The culture in the 1770s and 1780s was vastly different than our cultural of broad acceptance of people of other Christian denominations. Marrying outside one’s denomination was far from being widely accepted. A Baptist marrying a Roman Catholic created a family scandal. Baptists viewed Methodists with suspicion. People tended to live, work and socialize within their faith tradition.

It was from this cultural milieu that those who signed the Declaration of Independence and shaped the American Constitution came. Coming from a diverse array of faiths, and some non-practicing any faith, they cautioned against the mixing of politics and religion. While they recognized that value faith played in the daily lives of themselves, family, friends and neighbors, they were also well aware of the problems that are created when one’s personal faith is a highly dominating factor in determining public policies. They were unlike the French revolutionaries who, in reacting against the abuses of the dominant religion of their culture, were anti-religion and created national policy that was strikingly anti-religion.

In shaping the national documents and in setting forth public policy the founders set aside their own religion’s doctrinal positions. Admittedly their religious believes shaped their thinking and moved their hearts to be more passionate on some issues than another, but they did not seek to entrench specific and narrow religious dogma or statements into public policy. For example, while all were of the Christian faith in background, and most in practice, they did not enshrine into the founding documents or in early documents that Sunday was to be a non-work day or speak in any manner to compel people to attend church, or that Christian values should be taught by the state to its citizens. They knew from oberservation and experience that when religion battles to be a dominate voice in shaping public policy in general that the consequences for the community, nation and citizenry as a whole has detrimental consequences.

Instead, these Christian men, many with strong religious convictions, established a religious neutral nation, a nation where people of different faiths can and should participate in public discussion and the shaping of public policy without any one faith stream dominating another. In an era when there is much pandering by various politicians to those of a particular religious persuasion, it is worth recalling the significance of the United States being founded as to be a nation that is religiously neutral and tolerant.

The United Nations and the United States Being a Christian Nation

Within the American evangelical church for more than two decades there has circulated the claim that the United Nations no longer considers the United States to be a Christian nation. This claim is used to bolster the sermonic statements that the United States is in a period of moral decline, so much so as goes the argument that even the United Nations, a secular group, cannot recognize the United States as being Christian.

Any preacher or Christian leader who makes such regarding the United States is either showing that they are uninformed and are uncritically repeating false statements they have “heard” and accepted as being true. In other words, they are engaged in the same activity, spreading rumors and fear mongering, that they proclaim from the pulpit as being wrong. If the preacher/Christian leader is not uniformed and accepting uncritically the statements, and truly know what they are talking about, then they are willfully misleading their listeners. I prefer the former than the latter.

While it is true that the United Nations does not list the United States as a Christian nation, the same body does not list Iran or Saudi Arabia as Islamic nations or India as a Hindu nation. The United Nations has never changed the religious classification of any nation as it does not make such judgments. When the United Nations was being established in 1944 the founders recognized that the body should not evaluate the nature or quality of the nation’s religious activity, or make any such judgments in any form.

As to the changing religious life of the United States, it has evolved over the decades and will continue to evolve in the coming years as it does in every nation. The degree to which the general citizenry is more or less “Christian” is a highly subjective value judgment. That said, surveys over the decades by Pew Research and Faith Matters clearly indicates that the number of people claiming faith in keeping with traditional evangelical definitions is in decline.

In a few subsequent posts I will note some trends in religious life. Is there a decline in religiosity and spiritual faith? Maybe there is a decline, or it may be a shifting way of defining faith, just as the older generations in the 50s and 60s were concerned about lack of religious respect and spirituality from the teens to 30 yr olds of that era due to the manner in which they were dressing, being willing to go to movies, going out to eat at a restaurant on Sunday after church, going for a swim on Sunday or even put gas in their car…all of which the older generation felt were violations of keeping the Sabbath holy and contrary to holy living.

Is Democracy At Risk? Can We Learn From Rome?

Last year’s trip to Italy rekindled an interest in refreshing my knowledge of the Roman Empire, a glorious empire that dominated the Meditation and much of “civilized” Europe. All empires go through a life cycle of rise and decline. Though causes for both the rise and decline of any empire are numerous and can be debated, with Rome the decline highly involves three primary factors:

a.  Corrupt leaders who used their positions to advance their own wealth and power as well as those of their family and friends

                b. Centralization of power in the hands of Caesar and the leaving the Senate marginalized as a paper tiger

                c.  A military industrial complex that increasingly dominated the society and the budget of the empire to the point where the military, and a handful of public works which more often than not were either military driven or designed to placate the poor with entertainment.

Threats from outside were real, but Rome declined due to internal reasons and when it moved away from what had given rise to the empire.

News reporters and commentators, and political leaders at all levels and of all persuasions in modern democracies need to be heedful of what happened in Rome. The citizenry likewise needs to be heedful of the lessons.

To remain vibrant and strong, modern democracies ensure that all branches of government civil discourse, freedom of information and the exchange of the same, and each branch in the checks and balance process are vibrant and well. Consolidating power in the hands of one or two leaders is unhealthy and moves any country down the Roman pathway.

When Congressmen, Senators (or MPs in Canada, England) are expected/required to fall in line behind their leadership (President, PM, House or Senate Leadership) on all but minor matters a democracy is under threat. Thinking that what is good for the party is good for the country is dangerous thinking…it is dangerous is like a driver driving at a high rate of speed and thinking that they are too skilled to have an accident. Party winning at all costs stifles independent thinking, civil discourse and undermines a democracy.

When a party membership is reluctant to call out its leadership for potentially immoral or criminal conduct, or when it gives them passes for what they would consider most unacceptable if done by those of the other party, democracy is under attack. When leaders say that their number one priority is to defeat the opposition in the next election and to obstruct as much of their other party’s agenda as possible, democracy is eroded and slipping away. The good of the country should never come above the good of the country. When an is attack, even ones the attacker had proposed in the past, primarily because it is put forward by the opposition, democracy is starting to become a shell.

When people are appointed to the judiciary, particularly to the highest court in the land, mainly because of narrow political beliefs on a handful of issues ranging from the highly questionable unitary executive doctrine to abortion, the checks and balances within that democracy is being lost. The court system, including the highest court, should not be used as an extension of a political position for if it were, not only is democracy threatened but so is justice itself.

Any country which does not give attention to lessons from the past is at risk of repeating the same mistakes. Are our democracies vibrant and on a sound footing? While for the most part they are solid, I fear that they may not be on as firm as we believe.     

In A Way, Is the United States Becoming Like the Country It Rebelled Against?

In a time of peace, when a country has a large diverse military paired with it is a drive to use it in various non-defense reasons, from threatening other countries to bow to your intent and to directly interfere in the affairs of other countries. This is particularly true for superpowers such as the United States.

I am not opposed to a nation having a solid military system to protect itself from undue aggression. As evidenced in times of disasters the military with its command and rapid response infrastructure to rapidly move and deploy aid as well as provide a framework of civil order.

What concerns me is when a peacetime military is unduly large. As evidenced by Somalia, Panama, Lebanon, Granada and the current Iraq war, politicians have a way of using the military in unjustified ways. We have too many who have not served in the military (or worse who during the Vietnam era used connections to have deferments or homeland service) being too quick to spill the blood of our youth.

I am also concerned with its size not only is a major expense in the national budget but it dominates the budget, and that education, roads, care of seniors, etc suffer significantly in order to pour more money into arms. I am concerned when it is so large that the defense industry is a major factor in the political process.

Since Gorbachev brought a unilateral conclusion to the Cold War, the United States military budget as a percent of the national budget and GDP has continued to grow. And if a large number on Capitol Hill have their way, even more of the national GDP will go into defense.

Draconian cuts are being proposed by Congressmen Paul Ryan and his colleagues across the board except for the military. This is an atrocity. The military needs to be cut even more so than civilian expenses. The current justifications for a strong military, for all other expenses to be slashed to the bone to keep the military strong while the industrial military complex that Eisenhower warned us about (and we have conveniently forgotten) become wealthy is not new. The current arguments and dynamics at play in the United States are the same rationale, arrogance and dynamics that existed in England in the mid 1700s against which this country rebelled. It is unfortunate that in so many ways that as a nation the United States is coming full circle and doing what its founding fathers rebelled against.

Iraq War Costs Coming Due

Two or three years ago I blogged Iraq War and why the US should withdraw. While the invasion of Afghanistan was justified Iraq was not. To put forward their argument to the UN the Bush/Chaney administration sent Colin Powell, the person in the administration with the greatest credibility. Within weeks of the invasion it became clear that the Bush/Chaney administration intentionally misled America. To cover their folly and distract the nation from the crumbling rationale, in dramatic fashion Bush announced “mission accomplished”. Powell’s credibility and character were mere tools to be spent by people who lacked Powell’s depth of character and principles.

Over the subsequent months and years new rationale was put forward post invasion as pre-invasion rationale. Bush led a great nation into a war that is problematic on several levels. Besides being unjustified, the strategy and follow-up plans were highly questionable, and the war was not paid.

For any country to prosecute a war successfully, the entire nation must be involved in the sacrifice. War making must be a national activity, not only a military activity, that requires the nation to sacrifice not only its blood, but also its treasures. It is a folly not to demand the latter from the outset. It is the latter that helps hold the civil armchair political generals in check. What happened? Rather than paying for the war by demanding the sacrifice of the general public through increased taxes and the closing corporate loopholes, Bush/Chaney amplified the folly by cutting taxes and allowing American daily life to be lived as if there was no costs and thereby leaving the nation with a growing time bomb debt.

Costs do come due, costs that Bush/Chaney pushed the problem off to the next administration. Further compounding the problem their deregulatory actions enhanced the depth of the crisis by contributing to the housing bubble and the mortgage meltdown. Still further, contrary to his pontificating of being a “Uniter” and his campaign trail claims to work in a bi-partisans consensus building manner, the imperial Bush/Chaney administration worked in a highly dogmatic partisan manner which created today’s political environment that makes it problematic for the White House and Congress to achieve any bipartisan solution not only on the budget but most matters.

As more and more is revealed about the Bush/Chaney administration the more disgusted with their administration…and for acquiescing to his imperialism and imperial presidency, the Republican Congress, and the Republicans party. Some scholars are speculating that the Bush/Chaney administration may well go down as one of the worse two or three administrations in the last century, and be amongst the worst seven in American history. I am coming the conclusion that the administration not only bumbled its opportunities for greatness, to build a better nation and world, it also sowed the seeds for the problems that would will take the United States, and to a degree the world, a generation or two to overcome.

American Civil War and States Rights

This year marks the 150th Anniversary of the commencement of the American Civil War (April 11), a war that on numerous levels transformed the United States. These transformations ranged from hundreds of technological advances to military strategy to the elimination of slavery to how the nation would think of itself both internally and internationally.

Why did the Southern States secede? One of the most commonly reason given is that the South seceded over a fight for state’s rights against an overbearing central National government. Over 55 to 70% of respondents today give this as the primary cause with slavery representing about 20 to 25% and the election of Lincoln receiving a slither of responses, 2 to 5%. Some surveys have 10 to 20% of respondents stating the cause was tariffs and taxes.

Was state’s rights the primary issue? Shortly following the Civil War, a growing number of the surviving Confederate civic, corporate and military leaders articulated states rights was the root cause. As the number of leaders articulating that states rights as the reason, it was not long before the general population of the southern states to state the same, and then by the middle of the 20th century a growing number in the northern and western states listing states rights as the dominant cause.

Do the South’s pre-Civil War newspaper reports, letters from leadership and the secession documents speak of state’s right? If this was the primary cause, not slavery, then we would find state’s rights repeatedly articulated in the South’s documents and newspaper reports before and during the Civil War. There is not a hint of state’s rights in South Carolina’s “Ordnance of Secession” or in the passionate rhetoric filling the Palmetto State’s newspapers. Instead they speak of the right to own and trade African Americans. Mimicking the Revolutionary call “give me liberty or give me death,” the cry of the South Carolinian leaders was “Give us slavery or give us death.”

South Carolina’s complaint was that their northern neighbors have “deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof” and to “an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery.” What SC were referring to was northern states banning slavery from their soil, allowing slaves to marry and in some cases granting them citizenship and the right to vote in local elections. If anything, with northern states exercising rights to ban slavery, South Carolina was against their northern neighbors exercising states rights and their anger that the national government was not repressing the actions of the north, including prohibiting the formation and meeting of anti-slavery associations.

Mississippi’s and Georgia's Secession documents and newspapers speak of slavery, not state’s right. State after state in the Confederacy echo South Carolina’s documents, letters and newspapers. States right is not found as a triggering cause. Slavery was the primary cause and the election of Lincoln, a man who openly and strongly argued against slavery, was the last straw and the end of a process that started in the 1830s with South Carolina’s nullification crisis that President Jackson put down.

What has occurred is that after the Civil War those who know that they seceded over slavery restating their rationale with a falsehood, and the general population of succeeding generations has accepted a falsehood as truth.

Societal Trends

Societal trends over two to four decades can be telling in helping one to understand significant shifts that are taking place. Since 1980 the average personal income in the United States has increased from $24,079 to $40,454, adjusted for inflation. How does that 168% increase compare to other major expenses.

Average gasoline prices have increased from $1.25 to 2.85, at 228% in real dollar terms. While the number of miles driven a year have increased by about 22%, with more efficient engines the amount spend on gasoline when inflation is taken into account has increased only 12%, from $2,015 to 2,269.

First class stamp has increased 193% from 0.15 to 0.44, This increase does not take into account inflation.

Milk has increased from $2.16 per gallon to 3.29, a 52% increase.

The cost of the average new home has risen from $76,400 to $268,800, 251% in real dollar terms. Primarily due to more expensive land, much larger and more well appointed homes, the increase is new home prices has been a greater rate than income increase. When inflation is taken into account, the increase drops below 160%.

Over the last thirty years the amount spent on health care on a per capita basis, and adjusted for inflation, has increased 202%, again at a much higher rate than income. Health care is consuming more and more a person’s budget from 1980 when it consumed about 7.5% of the average person’s income. Today health care consumes almost 14% of a person’s income…and with more than three times the rate of people who uninsured than ever before. An aging population is a factor but it and lawsuits are not as significant a factor as the citizenry believes. The major factor is a growing profit return at all levels.

Suppliers of equipment and medicine profit share on a per dollar of sale prices has increased dramatically. In 1980 most major health care insurance plans and hospitals were run by nonprofits companies who had 3.5 to 5.5% rate of return whereas today the insurance and hospital market is dominated by profit firms who have pushed the rate of return to 18 to 20%. In 1980, 95% of insurance premiums went out to providers whereas today that has dropped to 82 to 80%. This does not take into account that for profit hospitals are retaining a greater share of each payment they receive. Further it does not account for fewer benefits being provided and with co-pays that are rising three to fivefold. Matters are not expected to improve for the better as companies seek to increase the rate of return to 78%.

Healthcare is and will continue to be one of America's greatest challenges, and will become even more so over the coming years. Significant changes are not likely to happen until the system starts to crash. Hopefully it will not take the type of protests and marches that took place during the Viet Nam error or at the level we have just witnessed in Egypt.

America's Commitment to Democracy is Tested

With what has been taking place in Egypt we are seeing played out in the White House and in Congress the depth and nature of the United States’ commitment to democracy and the citizenry choice of government. Politicians of both parties and citizens of the United States repeated proclaim that democracy is one of its core values, yet cracks have appeared in the nature and depth of that commitment when an American friendly despot is being openly challenged by his citizens.

Some have criticized President Obama and his administration from giving mixed signals to Egypt in the first day or two the protests started. One can understand some mixed signals while information is being evaluated. In those early hours we heard statements supporting the citizenry to peacefully express their opinions, for the Egyptian leadership to listen to those voices and not respond with violence. As the days passed the public statements by the Obama administration clearly signaled that the Egyptian despotic government had lost credibility.

There were too many political voices who have insist that the United States government should have stood behind Mubarak as Mubarak had been a good friend. Those voices still continue to insist that it was better for the USA to support a tyrannical regime that is friendly to the USA than risk the people establishing, even via a democratic process, a government that is less friendly or even hostile to America. When it is all boiled down to the essence, those voices, regardless of pontifications otherwise, are stating the democracy, an empowered citizenry, and personal freedom are not the dominant principles as they hold them to be.

Email Received

The following is an email we received. It reflects the attitude of a large number of fundamentalists and the more conservative evangelicals…a group that makes up a large component of the Tea Party movement.

The spirit behind the email boldly reflections what is termed as “American exceptionalism”….that America is the most enlightened country in the world, that it was created by God, whatever America does is right and the best, and its mission is to bring American democracy Republican democracy to the world. It also means that Americans cannot learn from other countries. as such cannot learn anything from other countries.

Though the content of email is posted as received, the font size was more than three times what follows.


WOULDN'T IT BE GREAT TO TURN ON THE TV AND HEAR ANY U.S. PRESIDENT, DEMOCRAT REPUBLICAN,


OR WHATEVER, GIVE THE FOLLOWING SPEECH?


'My Fellow Americans: As you all know, the defeat of the Iraq & Afghanistan regime has been completed.

Since Congress does not want to spend any more money on this war, our mission in Iraq & Afghanistan is complete.

This morning I gave the order for a complete removal of all American forces from Iraq & Afghanistan. This action will be complete within 30 days.. It is now time to begin the reckoning.


Before me, I have two lists. One list contains the

names of countries which have stood by our side during this conflict This list is short .. The United Kingdom , Spain , Bulgaria , Australia , and Poland are some of the countries listed there.

The other list contains every one not on the first list. Most of the world's nations are on that list. My press secretary will be distributing copies of both lists later this evening.

Let me start by saying that effective immediately, foreign aid to those nations on List 2 ceases indefinitely. The money saved during the first year alone will pretty much pay for the costs of the Iraqi war. THEN EVERY YEAR THEREAFTER It'll GO TO OUR SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM SO IT WONT GO BROKE IN 20 YEARS.

The American people are no longer going to pour money into third world Hell holes and watch those government leaders grow fat on corruption.

Need help with a famine ? Wrestling with an epidemic? Call France ..

In the future, together with Congress, I will work to redirect this money toward solving the vexing social problems we still have at home. On that note, a word to terrorist organizations: Screw with us and we will hunt you down and eliminate you and all your friends from the face of the earth.

Thirsting for a gutsy country to terrorize? Try France or maybe China .

I am ordering the immediate severing of diplomatic relations with France , and Russia . Thanks for all your help, comrades. We are retiring from NATO as well.

I have instructed the Mayor of New York City to begin

towing the many UN diplomatic vehicles located in Manhattan with more than two unpaid parking tickets to sites where those vehicles will be stripped, shredded and crushed. I don't care about whatever treaty pertains to this. You creeps have tens of thousands of unpaid tickets. Pay those tickets tomorrow or watch your precious Benzes, Beamers and limos be turned over to some of the finest chop shops in the world. I love New York.

A special note to our neighbors: Canada is on List 2. Since we are likely to be seeing a lot more of each other, you folks might want to try not pissing us off for a change.

Mexico is also on List 2. Its

president and his entire corrupt government really need an attitude adjustment. I will have a couple thousand extra tanks and infantry divisions sitting around. Guess where I am going to put 'em? Yep, border security.

Oh, by the way, the United States is abrogating the NAFTA treaty - starting now.

We are tired of the one-way highway. Immediately, we'll be drilling for oil in Alaska -which will take care of this country's oil needs for decades to come. If you're an environmentalist who opposes this decision, I refer you to List 2 above: pick a country and move there.

It is time for America to focus on its own welfare and its own citizens.. Some will accuse us of isolationism. I answer them by saying, 'darn tootin.'

Nearly a century of trying to help folks live a decent life around the world has only earned us the undying enmity of just about everyone on the planet It is time to eliminate hunger in America . It is time to eliminate homelessness in America . To the nations on List 1, a final thought. Thank you guys. We owe you and we won't forget.

To the nations on List 2, a final thought : You might want to learn to

speak Arabic.

God bless America .. Thank you and good night.'

If you can read this in English, thank a soldier.

(Please forward this to at least ten friends and see what happens! Let's get this to every USA computer!)

The Necessity of the Separation of Church and State

As a Canadian who is also an American citizen, one of the most puzzling things about American society is how the separation of church and state is understood. The concept has gone well beyond the separation Canadians understand.

In Canada the government is religious neutral. It does not promote or support one religious faith above another. It recognizes that every resident has the right to congregate for worship and worship as they so wish without governmental interference. People are free to hold any religious views a person so wishes. Likewise her residents are free to reject any and all religious believes as conscious so dictates. In return what the government and the country expects is that its faith communities to be respectful of those that hold different beliefs, to carry out religious dialogue in a civil manner and to respect the law of the land.

In return, the government protects the individual’s and group’s right to religious express if that expression is not contrary to the law of the land. Each group’s property is treated the same and allowed certain property tax exemptions and its income is tax exempt if it falls within designated bounds. Gifts to all recognized religious bodies treated the same with no group being favored above the other.

In other words, in Canada not only is government and religion not antagonistic towards one another, they frequently partner together to provide significant good for the overall welfare of the community. In the United States there is an antagonistic edge towards church and state relationships.

When the Unites States was created, it appears that the founders had similar religion neutral practices in mind. In various commentaries penned by them regarding the founding documents are references to religious neutrality and the recognition that other than Judaism other religions such as Islam may well be part of the American milieu. They also recognized that it would be left to subsequent generations to work out religious neutrality in practical terms as the country evolves and changes.

The religious neutrality has been an ongoing challenge, particularly in the last six decades. As the nation became more pluralistic court ruling and other laws were specifically designed to be religion neutral. Unfortunately some the the reaction from the conservative church became anxious that the Lord's Prayer and other Christian expressions were being removed from schools and other government locations. The intent was for neutrality but various elements in the church saw it as a threat to the church and the "dechristianization of the Christian nation." While there was some cause for concern as there was some rulings and legislation that appeared to be an effort to create a religion free environment, the bulk was an effort toward religious neutrality. As with many other conflicts the more conflicted the spirit, the further both parties pushed each other apart so that increasingly a religion free environment seemed to the goal.

Today there is a growing reluctance to see religious communities be involved in any venture that involves public funds. A religion free rather than religion neutral stance appears to have greater force. Some on the left fear that the funds will be used to proselytize while some on the left see the funds as providing an opportunity for the government to dictate religious belief, conduct and employment policies. The church does not have innocent hands.

What I find most interesting is those who are most fearful of governmental interference in her beliefs and practices are frequently the very same groups that are aggressively attempting to force government legislatures to design various laws around their religious teachings. The Roman Catholic bishops and the right to life elements of the church are demanding that government funding for abortion for any cause (including incest, rape and immediate physical health risk to the mother) be explicitly prohibited in the health reform legislation. This is an example of religious views being pushed out upon the country which on the whole does not support such an extreme position.

One bishop has gone as ask a Roman Catholic Congressman not take communion because he is willing to allow for federal funding of abortion. Communion within the Roman Catholic Church is one of the primary sacraments of grace, and the Church is withdrawing that primary vehicle from the Congressman because he will not agree with the Church on this one point. There is no separation of church and state.

Another example of a branch of the church that is attempting to force its views upon the community as a whole is the ballot and other initiatives regarding gay rights and gay marriage. While the initiatives are carefully crafted in their wording, and positioned to be defending “the traditions marriage”, what underlies it all is inflexible religious teachings and homophobia. As an aside, any cursory understanding of western and world history through the course of history shows us that the “traditional marriage” is anything but traditional, but is for the most part a modern North American creation.

Interestingly these groups do not see their political lobbying as being wrong or as entrenching a particular set of views upon the country at large. If the Jehovah Witnesses had greater political clout and were pushing for blood transfusions not be permitted or paid from public funds, would these same groups not take issue with the JWs for imposing their religious views upon the country as a whole? I doubt that they would remain silent.

It is such political activities of the religious right that pushes for people to have a stronger demarcation between church and state within the United States. In the last year I have come to see that the more dogmatic views of the separation of church and state is necessary in the United States whereas it is not in Canada. The separation is necessary to protect the state and the citizens of the country at large from a highly active and forceful religious group from having undo sway and having that brand of religion receiving preferential treatment, or worse tyranny of one religious viewpoint dominating society and how the country is governed.

Paranoia, Conspiracies and Obama

Two the elements of the American character are distrust of government and a bent toward conspiracy theories. These two elements are alive and well in the health care debate. As there were some who did not view Bush as a legitimate President during his first term, there are those who hold Obama is a usurper.

Though the evidence is to the contrary, there are those who still maintain that Obama was not born in the United States and therefore not eligible to be President. Even worse is when a politician like Palin who give tacit support to the claims that officials in Hawaii have falsified records (and the birth announcement in the paper was a recreation).

These same folks hold that Obama is not a Christian but a Muslim. They ignore his statements of faith. They watch and firmly believe videos on youtube that have Obama admitting he is a Muslim. The authors of these videos have vivacious and maliciously edited out words and phrases that would give a contrary meaning to the words. Yet these videos continue to live on, particularly in the church with the “my friend at church” statement testifying to its validity and reliability.

What is interestingly many of these are the same people who attacked Obama for being part of Rev. Wright’s church. They argue that he is a Muslim one moment and then condemn him for being a long time member of a church under the leadership of Rev. Wright without seeing the inconsistency.

This past week the President made a speech to the nation on Afghanistan. Even the timing is viewed, by individuals like Russell Wiseman mayor of Arlington TN, as a nefarious plot to preempt Charlie Brown’s Christmas and keeping people from hearing a character reading the Christmas story (http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2009/dec/04/mayor-fires-at-obama-online/). While I want to laugh at the unwiseman and others with similar views, when there are pastors telling their congregations to pray for the President’s demise, I can laugh. I can only feel disgust at the utter hatred that lies in such hearts and which is masked by religious language.

These are the same individuals who are attacking Obama with the following picture by saying that that on Veterans Day he showed disrespect to the Veterans and Nations by not saluting. At first glance the picture does look poorly upon Obama.

According to Factcheck.org this picture was taken not on Veterans Day (Nov 11) but on Memorial Day. On Veterans Day President Obama was wearing a blue tie and an overcoat, not a red tie without an overcoat. The picture in question was taken seconds after the President entered the platform and “Hail to the Chief” was still being played. In other words, those on the stage, and those in uniform below were not saluting the nation, the flag or veterans, but President Obama, the President of the United States. Yet, the falsehood continues to live on and spread fueled by the paranoia of conspiracy theorists who are anti-Obama and a distrust of Obama and his motives.

Equal But Not Really Equal

The Constitution of the United States states that all men (male and female) are created equal. These noble words are taught to the young, and held close to the hearts of each adult citizen. Entrenching them in the Constitution does not make them a reality in everyday life.

Equality in America is must be understood within a narrow context as clearly not all are created or are equal in America. Equality means that there are no first or second citizens, each citizen of age having a right to vote, having the opportunity to express their opinion to the community and elected representatives, to run for public office, to travel freely, to live anywhere within their means and as zoning allows, to free public elementary and secondary education, to have their day in court if grieved or if charged with a crime and to walk the streets without fear of arrest.

While each has the right to vote, and all votes within the ballet box are equal, not all votes are equal outside the ballet box. While all are free to express their opinions, not all voices have equal weight. Due to wealth and financial support some individuals and groups have far greater access to their representatives and to influencing the outcome of legislation. While all have available to free public education, not all schools are equally funded or equipped with equally skilled teachers. This inequity means that students from a community and family of less means are far less likely to succeed than their neighbors in other communities. Such students do not lack the capacity of their neighbors that live in wealthier communities, what they lack is equal opportunity.

While justice may be blind, access and the veracity of an argument are influenced more by the dollars of the one before the court than we wish to admit. Those with true and legitimate grievances who have the means have a far greater capacity to pursue their claim than those who are the working poor. Courts history is replete with cases victorious and questionable cases being successfully pressed by those with means over those who lack.

While in theory all have access to medical care, it is all theoretical to the 45 million Americans who lack insurance. This result is that 24,000 uninsured people under the age of 65 yrs. die a year from treatable and recoverable illnesses a year that those with adequate health care coverage. While that 9-11 attacks are considered a national tragedy the deaths annual of a number eleven times than those who died at the Pentagon and Twin Towers is not considered a tragedy. Eight years ago we saw the vivid images but the 24,000 dying one at a time hidden from sight does not move the heart of nation. Instead of being enraged it into moral action far too many of us shrug our shoulders and dismiss their deaths as being of little consequence…that is until one of our loves ones or a very close friend becomes part of that statistic one year, and will happen for at least half the families at least once in 50 years, then we will howl but our neighbors will shrug their shoulders and remain unmoved.

In America, all are equal, but some are just more equal than others…that’s just the reality of life. While all should not be equal, the nation does not view health care as something to which all should have equal access which will continue to remain in contrast to other developed industrializated nations that have said yes, all should be equal when ill or need of a health care professional. In America it is not a moral imperative as it is within its world peers.

What Is So New?

Nation troops lack discipline, slow to meet enrollment goals and when they enroll, quick to desert.

Local authorities slow or unwilling to recruit troops necessary for their defense.

Ethnic cleansing campaigns conducted by locals with local officials looking the other way and in some cases hindering the foreign troops from interceding.

Other local authorities declining to raise men for the military noting that there is no need given overtures of peace being made by some on the other side.

Foreign officers complaining about lack of discipline amongst local troops, and that they run to quickly from a fight.

With mounting debt the foreign nation expends a significant portion of their wealth on military expenditures and in keeping their military in the field.

Foreign troops sacrificing themselves but wondering why local governments and troops are not doing the same to protect their own people.

The hot war was simpler than the victorious aftermath. The ongoing fighting and political folly has become a greater quagmire than the hot war.

Locals claim they want help, but then do not what to help themselves.

Foreign leadership seeking ways to have the other country pay its own bills.

Local government wanting to take control but the other nation questions the commitment and viability of self-rule.

Rampant factionalism with no unified vision or sense of nationhood uniting various provincial governments into one central body.

The foreign country pouring large sums into building public works and infrastructure, but while local authorities argue over the needs or whether they should contribute to the paying of the same.

Large cultural divide between the country and the foreign country.

Homeland politicians crying out that it is long overdue to bring troops home and to end putting money into an endless pit with little home of return.

Local authorities wondering how much say they really have in running their own country.

People questioning whether the other country is really governable and worth the fuse, particularly when the citizens of the other country do not appreciate what they have been doing for their benefit.

For several years we have heard the above over and over again, so why recount the familiar and the recent. History is repeating itself. As today the Americans are speak of Iraq and Afghanistan the British were speaking of the Americans between 1755 and 1770. As Americans then came to detest the British crown and Parliament so too are the Iraqis and Afghans today. By the way, other similarities would make the list is much longer.

It is ironic that America has forgotten its own history and in many ways has been doing to Iraq and Afghanistan what they complained about the British doing.

Christian Right's - A Fallacious Claim

The American Christian Right putting forward its agenda upon the national scene frequently argues that they have a right to do so as the United States was founded to be a Christian nation and that they are only fighting to remain true with the original intent of the Founding Fathers. I have been reading on and off the Thomas Jefferson’s autobiography. In his work I came across the statement that makes fallacious such a claim.

"The bill for establishing religious freedom, the principles of which had, to a certain degree, been enacted before, I had drawn in all the latitude of reason & right. It still met with opposition; but, with some mutilations in the preamble, it was finally passed; and a singular proposition proved that it's protection of opinion was meant to be universal. Where the preamble declares that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word 'Jesus Christ,' so that it should read "a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion." The insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of it's protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and infidel of every denomination."

The Founding Fathers held that the United States should be a nation that allows freedom of religion for all religion, as well as freedom not to believe any set of religious teachings. Though they did not think through the consequences, or envision how society would evolve, they also held that government should not favor any particular religion.