The Goad of Our Ideals.

Today is the day we celebrate the USA.  We justifiably take pride in our origins.  Of being the first large scale democracy.  Of having rights enumerated, and yet appropriately vague.  Of the inspiring ideals contained in these words of our Declaration of Independence:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

These ideals also found themselves in our Constitution when we got around to writing it:

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

Although we did not fully live up to these ideals then, they were there as a goad.  And as an inspiration for many other countries.  And while not fully there yet, these goading words have caused us to come closer to realizing them today than when they were first penned in 1776.

However, during the 247 years since the Declaration the world has changed.  While we are first in economic and military power we are no longer first in the strength of our democracy and in rights and freedoms.  Oh, we are still top tier, but the other countries have caught up and in some areas surpassed us. 

Recently we have been hit hard by changes that have made voting more difficult for many. Suffered under schemes to dilute one group’s voting power in favor of another. Made reading about other ideas and people and our own history more difficult in the schools.  Made discrimination due to race and gender and sexuality easier.  Tossed out irrational and paranoid suspicion on the integrity of our voting. Increased the income gap. And more.  All are important issues and are the reasons why we have been downgraded a bit on the numerous reports on worldwide freedom. 

However, that is not the focus of this blog.

Instead I want to focus on a reason that is not much talked about for these issues.  Let me first say though that I think our recent challenges have shown our basic governmental structure, while not nearly perfect, is still basically strong.  But it is most definitely severely strained.  But it has not collapsed (yet) even with the current stresses and challenges.  Personally, I don’t think it will.  I think we are going to go backwards on so many rights and issues for awhile, but will, eventually, start to move forward, regain ground and then move forward again.

I think that the process of doing this would be done more efficiently if we realized why so many other countries are ahead of us in rights and freedoms.  We need to realize that in many ways they took the words of our declaration more seriously then we did.  Oh, probably not totally consciously.  But due to their own unique histories they would up taking the ideals we expressed and, in many ways, did a better job than we did. 

How? 

By understanding these words better than we did – “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

in other words, in a democracy that is well structured, the government is the tool of the citizens.  One meant to help them attain “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. 

In the US there is a strong, very strong, strain of thought that the government is always the problem.  Just keep it out of our lives and everything will be OK.  There is a good reason for that strain’s existence. 

Governments are powerful and all of them have abused the rights and lives of their citizens.  However, they have also often been necessary in the protection of those lives and rights.  This power is why it is essential to have the government involved.   

Governments can be both a protector and a threat to liberties and freedoms.  Most democratic governments are a mix of both depending on the specific government and issue. Where democracies differ is in the proportion of this mix.  The United States is mainly a protector and supporter (going down some though at the moment) but still has been and is also a threat.  The sad thing is that the ratio of protection to threat is not the same for each citizen and too often dependent upon race, gender, sexuality, religion and income in this country. 

The problem is though that if you deny government a role in protecting and limit it to doing nothing, and leave it all up to individuals then groups, both private and business, step in and do the limiting for many of our citizens.  Or their rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are limited by things beyond their control.  But not beyond a government’s, should their citizens decide to use that power.   

And here is the thing, governments are the tool of its citizens.  Which means we have more control over it than we do over businesses and other forces.  And we can see how potent government can be when controlled by the people and its power used – universal healthcare, maternity leave, paid vacations, better access to education, and more.  All of which allow their citizens to more fully and freely live their lives.  It increases their choices and opportunities.  The lack of this awareness, that governments are the tools of its citizens, and what this can mean is why the US is somewhat behind now. 

Just as we did in the 1930s with the New Deal, and again in the 60s and 70s with the Great Society and Civil Rights, we need to embrace and fully use the controlled power of the government for the tool it is.  A tool unused is useless. 

So, the good news we are still a functioning democracy, one whose basic framework is proving its robustness by still surviving our recent history (and will hopefully bounce back fully).  We are still one of the leaders in freedoms and rights, even if not the total top tier anymore.  We also have a magnificent tradition of words and ideals to goad us. 

So, for today, to have survived this long, even through many trying times, let us give ourselves a pat on the back and a rocket in the sky on this our birthday.  But then work hard tomorrow to regain ground lost and move onward to become once again the leader.  To become a country that more fully lives up to its ideals.

Read Full Post »

Planning for Inevitable Imperfection

I came across this Propublica interactive article on all of our rights that are at risk with our current Supreme Court due to its willingness to overturn all precedent even when it involves taking away rights.  It is well worth a read. 

Instead of focusing on possible fixes (I will mention some though at the end of this blog), I want to take a step back and deal with a broader question.  Why do these things happen?  No matter how well thought out, no matter the history, no matter whatever, all institutions fail at some point.  Doesn’t matter whether it is the Supreme Court, Congress, the Catholic and Baptist Church, the American Legion, Boy Scouts, a Chess Club, or any other sort of organization.   All will fail at something at some point if they last any amount of time at all.    

In other words, no human institution is perfect.  Nor ever will be, no matter how much thought is put into it, no matter how many fail safes, no matter how many resources are devoted to prevent failure. In this blog I thought it would be fun to look at some reasons why this is true and what it means in regard to systems, and to our current situation in America. 

One of the most basic reason for inevitable failure at some point is that while all humans share similarities in values and emotions, similarities that allow the creation of viable and long term societies and governments, they are also each very different.  In addition to those similarities we are also very diverse in temperament, values, emotions, beliefs, tastes,  personalities for any system to work for everyone.  That is true not only for large institutions such as nations, but smaller ones – towns, cities, counties, states.  And still true for even smaller ones such as social clubs, sports clubs.  And even for that most basic of human units, the family. 

This means that there will always be disagreements and dissatisfaction – the root of all strife.  Grist ready to clog the machinery of any machine. 

Most of the time these do not flare up due to our commonalities, as well as to well-designed systems that allow for the expression of such disagreements and to the possibility of peaceful change.  But the seeds are always present for such to happen.  Add in change – weather, people, ideas, resources, and so forth – then that is even more true as some are impacted more than others, and some profit at the expense of others.  It is one reason why climate change is such a danger.  The grist is present to tear down and break what has been created, especially during times of stress.   

Because of this, there can be and never will be a perfect institution, of any sort.  They will fail at times.  Our propensity for disunity is almost as strong as that for unity. But some organizations take this into account and work to find ways to maintain some sort of unity (not uniformity by the way) even with these differences and forces for failures. 

Currently we are in the midst of a possible catastrophic failure of the American system of democracy.  Not only our Supreme Court, but voting rights, civil rights, and the growing disparity between the wealthy and the rest. 

Please note that I said possible.  We still have a ways to go. The reason I say this, that we have a ways to go yet despite the appearances of growing chaos around us, is because our country was not set up with the expectation of perfection.  It was set up with the knowledge that any one system can and will fail at some point.  It was set up with the expectation of imperfection. Because of that we do have safeguards that, while strained, still hold.  Safeguards such as:

The Constitution with its protections of rights. Yes, this current court is a threat to many of these rights, and to the workings of good government.  But look back at the Tanner Court.  And some of the others throughout the years.  This is hardly the first time.  And each time that same Constitution was used to eventually further our rights and protections

Separation of Powers into the Executive, Legislative (with its separation into Senate and House), and Judicial.  If one goes too far the others are there to provide a counterbalance.  Each can take actions to limit the others.   

Our federalist structure of state and federal powers.  Yes, many states since the Supreme Court struck down Roe have moved strongly into taking away rights.  Many are trying to make voting more difficult for groups they do not favor.  And many are also working to exert state control over cities to prevent them from doing anything they do not like.  But many other states are doing the opposite and are trying new ideas that can improve our country.  They also provide a haven for politicians and people to gather and push back in the future. 

Voting   is being made more difficult to do in many Republican dominated states.  Or watered down by redistricting. But difficult does not mean impossible.  Difficult now doesn’t even mean as difficult as it was just 60 years ago.  Further there are groups and organizations pushing back to change things, to keep it from becoming as bad as before.  And even to improve voting access. 

Free Speech and Free press Despite what many say both a free press and free speech are alive and kicking in the US.   In fact, there is so much of it with the growth of social media that finding consensus can often become harder with each group forming their own isolating bubbles.  Nonetheless, they still exist and remain an important safeguard. 

These structures, and other more informal ones, do not create perfection.  As I said there is no such thing and never will be.  They do though allow for the inevitable and constantly forming cracks in our foundation and structures to be kept from destroying the whole building. The damage kept limited so something exists that still that can be repaired, even, eventually, built upon and improved.  For while perfection is not possible, improving always is. 

We can create improved systems, and have done so many times.  The elimination of slavery, the legal protection of voting for all citizens, women gaining the right to vote, and more.  Often these come at the end of a long buildup of serious issues and serous dissatisfaction and unrest.    

The most prominent example of this is the Civil War.  And even after the Civil War, it took over a hundred years to capitalize on that improvement. In many ways we are still far from fully realizing it. But improvement did happen and the setting was created for further improvement. 

Other examples include: senators being directly elected by the people instead of appointed by the states legislatures, the creation of civil service, the creation of agencies to protect workplace safety, food and drug safety, Social Security, and so forth

The lesson here is that any one organization will fail.  The trick is to have several working together so that one can limit the damage in the other.  Rather how a rope has multiple strands so that if one fails the whole rope still holds.  And that is how our government was created, with multiple strands. 

Today there is a great deal of pressure to tear down what we have built. That can be seen clearly in the Supreme Court.  But even there it is not all lost, as witness the recent ruling on jerrymandering and on Medicaid. Just as there is pressure to take us backward, to limit and eliminate rights, not to mention justice and fairness, there is equally a great pressure to preserve what we have and to build on that. 

As for the Supreme Court, there are several ways to deal with it. 

• On needed laws that have been struck down, they can often be recrafted taking into account the reasons why some of the justices struck it down.  In fact, many of the problems with the Citizens United ruling could be dealt with that way. 
• Congress controls the size of the Supreme Court.  It could be expanded. 
• Creating “judicial ethics, conflict of interest, and good practice and procedure standards” is another measure that could help. 
• Instead of for life terms, set up staggered term limits.  Each justice would serve for, say, 18 years on the Supreme Court after which they could serve in a lower court.  Further, the term limits would need to be staggered so that one president during one term does not appoint all the justices.  In fact, ideally, it would be good to stagger in groups of two or three four years apart, or some variant thereof. 

Of course, none of this will happen overnight, or even in the next year. But they are possibilities, many of which have support by many Americans.  And just as with the Senate voting, Civil Rights, and other changes in our past, current injustices and wrongs create more outcry for changes.  The main goal for now is to hold what we have together long enough for the needed changes to occur.  And that is still a very achievable goal. 

Read Full Post »

Partisanship is Not the Root of the Problem

With the current debt ceiling crisis in the news partisanship seems to be rearing its angry face again.  In fact, partisanship seems to be all the rage today, more so than in most periods of our history. 

But what is partisanship?  And is it really the main reason for the dysfunctional state of our politics today? 

My father and I seemingly always discussed politics and social issues of the day, me being liberal and him a moderate conservative.  I have memories of doing so all the way back to when I was in junior high, 54 years ago. Unlike many we enjoyed our disagreements and discussions.  And while disagreeing we never became disagreeable and still respected each other. 

I remember that he would often disparage partisanship and said that our politicians just need to quit being worried about their party and being partisan and just vote for what is best for the country.  That seems to be the attitude of many today about partisanship, ignore the party and just vote for the good of the country.  However, doing this will not change the state of our politics today.   

One reason why Democrats and Republicans and those members of other parties vote the way their party does most of the time is because they agree with it.  Very few join a political party in which they disagree with most of the platform and ideas espoused by that party. 

Take myself for an example.  I am a Democrat. I joined the Democratic party because I supported their stance on the environment, racial issues, women’s issues, LGQT issues, and so forth.  I formed my views first and then found the party that matched them most closely.  I did not choose a political party and then form my views around their platform.  This is the way most people choose which party to belong to.  Most people includes our elected officials, our politicians. 

And yet many people when they say drop the partisanship seem to think that if all the politicians stopped looking at whether an idea came from a Republican or a Democrat or a Libertarian or a Green party member and instead just looked and voted on what would be in the best interests of America then the gridlock would be gone.  Magically. 

It wouldn’t.  It wouldn’t because they already, for the most part, vote in ways that they think best for the country. The problem is that there are fundamental differences on what the best interests of the country are, and how different policies and laws would impact that.  In fact, these differences are why our political parties came about, and came about as soon as our nation was created. 

In fact, partisanship is normal and expected in a democracy.  Groups of similar minded individuals form who then work together to promote their views on what is best.  And, in order to be able to better implement what they think best, they also support their resultant party. 

Partisanship alone is not the root problem of our current almost dysfunctional government.  Partisanship will always exist. People will always form groups to better promote their political views.  In fact, it is one of their rights.  And then they will promote their group and protect it.  This is not necessarily a problem, but rather the normal workings of democracy.

The problem, instead, is an extreme unwillingness to compromise.  An unwillingness to vote for the second or third or fourth best bill for America in the interests of getting something done that is needed.   The problem is partisanship combined with an extreme unwillingness to compromise, as well as an unwillingness to believe that even though they strongly disagree the other side is acting in what they perceive as the best interests of the country. 

Let’s call this dysfunctional partisanship. 

The formation of the first political parties is instructive in regard to this.

The US won our independence in 1783.  In 1787 we created our Constitution which was ratified in 1788 and in 1789 was put into effect.  The first Congress under our new Constitution met in 1789.  This first session of Congress, from March 1789 to March 1791, was probably our most important Congress in that they decided what the words of the Constitution meant and how to apply them to real governance. 

One of the most critical questions they addressed was one that we are struggling with today, albeit in somewhat different form – what to do about our debt.  Specifically, in 1790 they were looking at what to do about the debt accumulated by each of the states during the revolution.

What made this issue so contentious is that before and even during the Revolutionary war we had considered each state sovereign and independent of the other.  Now though we had created a nation out of 13 formerly independent states.   The question was how far to take this unity.  Those states who had already paid off all their debt and were doing well economically, such as Virginia, argued that each state was responsible for paying off their own debt.  They had no responsibility to pay off the debts of the other states.  This side was championed by James Madison, and later Thomas Jefferson, founders of the Democratic-Republican Party. 

The other side though said that debt was accumulated on the part of all of us in the war against Britain.  And that we are no longer 13 independent states but one interdependent nation.  Because of this the federal government should assume all the debt from all the states and pay it off, raising money through issuing bonds that would later be paid off through revenue generated by tariffs on imports.  This side was championed by, and the brainchild of, Alexander Hamilton, founder of the Federalist Party.  And in 1790 Hamilton did not have the votes to pass his economic measure.  Fortunately for the economic health of our new nation, he did have something both Jefferson and Madison badly wanted. 

Jefferson, Madison, and Hamilton had a private back room dinner to discuss what might be done.  The result of this “dinner table bargain” was that Jefferson and Madison would withdraw their opposition to Hamilton’s plan to have the federal government assume the state debt and in doing so created the basis for public credit. In return Hamilton would support creating the capital of the new nation within the states of Virginia and Maryland – agrarian and slave owning states.   This might not seem such a big deal today, but back then with the travel times and trying to influence which voices the federal government would most listen to, it was of huge importance. 

What makes this Compromise of even greater interest is that Hamilton and Jefferson hated each other.  Jefferson saw the centralized government Hamilton was trying to create as nothing more than a version of European style monarchy and tyranny.  Hamilton saw Jefferson as a radical with hidden political ambitions. 

This is an example of what non-partisan truly means.  Working with those you disagree with, and maybe even hate, because not doing so would harm the country. 

A few years later Hamilton provided another, in many ways a better example of the thinking needed when he, when pressed, said he supported Jefferson in his bid for Presidency over Burr. Writing in a letter to Harrison Otis, a Massachusetts Congressman, Hamilton explained:

“In a choice of Evils let them take the least – Jefferson is in every view less dangerous than Burr. Mr. Jefferson, through too revolutionary in his notions, is yet a lover of liberty and will be desirous of something like orderly government.” 

This letter also hits at the other part we are missing – the belief that those whose views we oppose nonetheless hold those views because they do care about this country and the people they represent. We may think their policies and ideas disastrous for America, but we shouldn’t be questioning the ultimate motivation for these views.  At least, not for most.

Hamilton continued;

“Mr. Burr loves nothing but himself – thinks of nothing but his own aggrandizement – and will be content with nothing short of permanent power in his hands.” 

And this gets to the kernel of what is partisanship.  This sentence about Burr. But instead of “his own aggrandizement” insert “the party’s aggrandizement”, although personal gain is also often a part of this. 

Now such people have always been part of our system and society, in both the Democratic and Republican parties as well as all other third parties.  But they rarely had control, not totally.  Over the years though that has changed, with the Republican party becoming more and more beholden to the extremists and their attitude of take no prisoners, make no compromises. 

So, what can be done? 

First off, at a very minimum, vote.  And make it an informed vote.  Know not only the candidate’s position but any financial or criminal actions they may have in the past or that are pending. Look at how effective they are.  Know who you are voting for, not just their position papers.

But this will not be enough.  Over the decades our political system has moved towards one that fosters and creates this sort of dysfunctional partisanship.  To correct that, and to improve on what we had, we also should:

• Get rid of gerrymandering by using Independent Redistricting Commissions (IRC) to draw up boundaries instead of the state legislatures.  There needs to be standards set up serving on the IRC, such as not allowing recent or current elected officials to serve on this commission, as well as not having political party officials, lobbyists, or government employees serving.  Also, guidelines for how to draw fair boundaries.
  • Along with this Congress could create a law banning gerrymandering.  While this one is a good goal, and one worth pursuing, I think the IRC’s the best and more likely way to stop gerrymandering.

• Change our way of voting from plurality wins all to ranked choice voting.  Ranked choice voting is where voters pick their first choice, and then who would be their second, their third and so on.  If someone gets over 50% then that person wins.  If not though then the person who received the least amount of votes is dropped and their votes distributed to their second candidate.  This continues until someone receives over 50% of the vote. 

• Controlling the money going to candidates.  And make it completely transparent.
• Change how Congress does its job.  Over the last few decades changes have been made that encourages and promotes this type of dysfunctional partisanship.  Changes such as:
  • fixing the discharge process so that a committee chairman cannot hold legislation hostage from a majority of the House;fixing the special order of business process so that a leader cannot hold legislation hostage from a majority of the House;making committee composition more proportional between the parties.
  • All legislation goes before the House and Senate, regardless of whether it could pass or fail on the votes of only one party. 

We have made it so that laws can be held from a vote, a hostage, if there are not enough votes to either pass or block it by the votes of just one party.  Which means that working across the aisle is no longer needed to get things done.  Or tried. And the good of the country gets sublimated to the power of the party. 

These are just a few of the needed changes.  I am sure there are more that could be thought of, but these would be a good start.  Currently dysfunctional partisanship has put our country in the greatest state of dysfunction since the Civil War.  That needs to change. 

Read Full Post »

A Future History Class – Again

This old post is even more true today, sadly. 

I first posted this on March 27, 2010.  Today, 13 years later, this history class seems even more possible, even more likely to become a reality.  Continual actions against libraries and school curriculums, against the LGBQT+ , against minorities, the war against women’s rights most prominently showcased by the recent Supreme Court Dodd ruling and the hard assault on abortion rights, and so forth are evidence that we are in greater danger of making this future history class a reality than we were when I first posted this 13 years ago.  Or first wrote it almost 16 years ago.  It needs very little revision for it to be fully applicable to today.  By the way, I did not revise any of it.

With the Republicans trying to hold on to power through changing the election process – gerrymandering, who can vote, how voting is held (what days, how long, and where), etc. – to make it much more difficult for those who would vote against them to vote the odds of such a history lesson happening are increasing. Not to mention the harmful effect of a small but definitely present and prominent strain of Republicans denying fair and honest elections that they lost has also greatly contributed to the odds of this history class coming into being.

To add a bit of light to this depressing thought though, let me say this is by no means a sure and certain future.  It is far from being set in stone. It is only one possible destination out of many. There are many people, groups, and politicians working to prevent this history class from ever forming, and actions and reactions are being taken that give some hope.  But we need to be aware of our possible futures and what leads to them in order to prevent the worst of those possible futures from becoming real. The times are always in flux, always capable of being changed, for better or worse. We need to work to make it for the better. And then work to make it even better still.   

Preshambles

This is something that I actually wrote a long time ago but never published.  I found it whilst rummaging through my almost forgotten writings, and with the Texas Board of Education’s recent actions on curriculum for social studies and history thought now would be a good time to dust it off and publish it.

Now I know we are still a long way away from having this little story become reality, but I do get concerned.  When you figure in the book bannings, the continuous creationist political assault on science education, the large number of far right religious advocacy groups, the largely religious based objections to gays and to reproductive rights, and the high-jacking of the Republican party by the religious right along with the Texas Board of Education’s shenanigans it can cause a rational person some concern. 

My concern is that someday the Christian right will get their way and turn our secular government into a Christian one and make their now false claim true.  If that ever happens then we will walk the same path of every other government which took a stand on which was the true religion (and this includes atheism).  Religious intolerance and persecution will become the norm.  Certain religious beliefs will be outlawed and suppressed at the very least.  At the very worse – well, just read a bit of history, both in the early colonies and in Europe. 

Shambles

Once upon a time our beloved and blessed country promoted evil and ignorance and was a great help to Satan in his war against God for the possession of men’s souls.  It did this not through malice, although there were many in the government then who knew what they were doing and took great pleasure in destroying the souls of their fellow men. Rather, our country did this because of a twisted, perverted line of reasoning that allowed a separation between God’s church and state and that allowed men to think for themselves on issues too complex and great for them. 

They believed, wrongly of course, that the state should not foster a religion or any group of religions upon its people.  They believed that each person should be free to believe as they please.  This idea was even protected in a document they called the constitution, one of the subtler works of Satan.  This damnable constitution of theirs even protected those whose beliefs ran counter to those of the Christian majority.  This constitution protected the rights of all individuals – ungodly as well as Godly –  so that the government, even with the will of the majority of a Christian nation, could not infringe upon those rights.

Satan had implanted in our ancestors the idea that there had to be limits to the powers of government.  According to this idea if there were not certain basic individual rights that were not protected from both the government and the will of the majority of God’s people then either a tyranny of one man, group of men, or the mob would develop.  Of course, in their own twisted and perverted way they were right.  Without the moral and spiritual guidance of the one true church, to allow any government absolute power would indeed be foolish.

Following this line of reasoning these deluded souls even went so far as to ban organized prayers and displays of the Ten Commandments in the public schools and courtrooms.  Their rationale was that this was a land of diversity containing many people with different beliefs and that the government was bound by this constitution to respect those beliefs no matter how wrong and blasphemous. 

They maintained that this diversity of thought and belief was this country’s greatest strength.  According to these people this obscene diversity allowed society to grow and mature, enabled it to find new and better solutions to problems, and let it adapt in an easier and better way to a continuously changing world. 

This satanic government said that the place of religion should be in the hearts and minds of people and not enshrined in government institutions set up to serve a diverse people. 

Praise God though that the people of this Christian nation finally saw through this twisted reasoning and elected responsible men who changed the laws and this constitution and put prayer back in schools, eliminated Darwinism from the classrooms, displayed the Ten Commandments in all the courtrooms along with enforcing all of its commandments and not just some of them.  Gradually, for Satan had invested much time and effort into building up this unnatural and evil barrier between the church and state, the separation between church and state was done away with. 

With the help of God these good men and women returned this blessed government of ours back to its Biblical and Godly foundation.  A foundation now protected against those who believe wrongly by laws against them promoting their errors.  It’s need is seen by the vast numbers of those in prison for violating those laws. 

We have much to be thankful for.  But we must be ever vigilant lest we once again let church and state separate and allow people to grope blindly through the darkness and arrive at their own misguided beliefs, for humanity is too easily led astray.  We truly are the descendants of the fallen Adam.

That is all for today class.  Remember that after the closing prayer there will be a book burning held in the football field.  All the works of the Great Heretic Thomas Jefferson will be consigned to the flames.  This will be followed by the witness of a newly outed and converted Jewish classmate of yours.   

I know all of you will show up.

Read Full Post »

States and the Protection of Civil Rights

Most conservatives and libertarians argue that states are better protectors of rights than the federal government is.  And/or that they are more responsive to the will of the people and so better positioned to do right by their citizens.  However, history and polling show that both of those beliefs are flawed. 

Today all Americans are guaranteed certain rights by the Constitution. But at one time  those rights were protected only against the actions of the Federal government.  States were free to violate any and all of them.  And many did.  Freedom of press, freedom of association, freedom of speech were all commonly curtailed and violated.  As were others such as due process and freedom of conscience. Often these violations were committed by the slave states as they tried to suppress the abolitionists. But other states did so too.  The Bill of Rights did not protect the civil rights of Americans against the actions of the individual states. 

That changed with the passage of the 14^th Amendment which provided all citizens with the rights under the Constitution, and protected them even against state actions.  It was regrettably slow in getting enforced for all the provisions of the Bill of Rights and for all American citizens, against state actions, not really getting there until the 1960s (and in many ways still a work in process).  But it laid the groundwork for limiting the ability of states to violate American citizen’s constitutional rights.

What this means is that history shows that if states are given the responsibility to protect Constitutional rights, many, and perhaps most will fail to do so.  Witness the actions taken by many states after the passage of the 14^th amendment to limit the civil liberties of minorities. Or, for that matter, look at abortion rights today.

It makes no sense that the protection of Constitutional rights that apply to all Americans be fragmented among 50 different states. Some states will do well. Others, not so well. Other will be deplorable or even hostile in their protection of these rights. Instead of E Pluribu Unum, we would need to change our motto to Ex Uno Disunitate.

In that situation what does it mean to be called an American citizen? Logically, if a right pertains to all Americans it should be protected by the government that is over all Americans, the national government. And should be protected by this national government even against the actions of the states.

Yes, there are many things best left to the states to work out – regulating business and commerce within a state, issuing licenses for marriages, hunting and such, conducting elections, establishing budgets, and more.  But protection of rights, while it should be done by the states too, is primarily a function of the federal government when those rights being violated are violated by states.  Again there is a long history of such violations, both before and after the 14^th amendment.  Just look at the race laws in place in many areas until the 1970s.  They were created by states to limit the rights of blacks within their state.  The same holds true of other areas and groups.  Jews and Catholics for example.  Women. 

I recognize that the Federal government has shared responsibility for violating rights too.  For example, the internment of the Japanese during WW 2, the limitation of the VA benefits for blacks after WW2, and racist loan and lending practices.  However, it was the federal government that changed and then eliminated many of these violations, both nationally and within states.  I do not think there has been an area where a right protected by the Constitution and which was routinely violated by one state was then, without federal action, spread to all states by the example of some who did protect it.  It took action by the federal government to do so.  The Civil Rights Act for example.  

Again though, the bottom line is that if a citizen is guaranteed rights in the Constitution those rights should be protected even against actions by the states. Even if the majority of the state wants to limit or do away with those civil rights for some.  And the only government body capable of doing this enforcement is the Federal government, the national government.  The one that all citizens belong too in addition to whatever state they live in.  I am a Texan.  I am also an American.  My family members that live in California and Arkansas are also Americans even though they are Californians and Arkansans.  We share a common identity.  And should have the same protection for our rights, not a patchwork quilt of good and bad. 

As for state governments being more responsive to the will of the people.  Not really.  Using my home state of Texas as an example, 60 % of support abortion being available in all or most cases.  Only 11% support a total ban on abortions. Yet Texas has passed one of the most restrictive anti choice laws in the nation, not even allowing exceptions for rape or incest after the first six weeks.  And even encouraging individuals to sue those who “aid and abet” an abortion, with an minimum award of $10,000. 

Other such dysfunctions exist too on things such as climate change with 81% of Texas saying climate change is a problem, with most of them willing to pay more for cleaner energy.  Yet you wouldn’t know that from our state government’s actions.  Actions which often seek to limit how far, or even if, individual cities and communities can take action against climate change. 

Both arguments for the primacy of states in protecting civil rights are shown wrong by a look at history and polling.  States are not consistently responsive to the will of the people, nor do they do a better job of safeguarding the rights of all citizens.  While the Federal Government has a spotty record it has a better one than the states. 

This may be partly due to Madison’s argument in Federalist Paper 51 saying that basically size matters. That while a majority will tend to act like a faction against those in the minority in any democratic government, that a large Federal government consisting of many large and different groups, this becomes less likely. Or more improbable for the Federal than the state governments. That while the Federal government will still act “unjustly” at times, it will do so less often than smaller groups, such as states.  

“For on such a system we can create a country so large and disparate that factious majorities – majorities formed on any other principles than “those of justice and the general good” – become “very improbable, if not impracticable”….

Thus, only a large republic can escape the political logic that leads from factional conflict to either authoritarian or hereditary rule.  Stated positively, only a large republic makes possible self-government, or government wholly dependent on the will of the society with no participation at all of “a will independent of the society itself”.  Majorities in an extended republic will not always be just, but they will less often be unjust, and so minorities are much more likely to feel secure.  The result is a more stable society as well as a more respectable one, for only in this system will the majority, which Madison here identifies with the people and even with the “society itself”, deserve our respect as being (more often than not) a voice for “justice and the general good.”

While not totally right, I think Madison was still on to something with this.  And this might be a large part of the explanation of why the Federal government is a better protector of rights than states.   Whether it is or not, it is clear from both history and recent events that states should not be allowed to do as they please in regards to rights.  That path leads to greater injustices. 

Read Full Post »

Democracy and The Wisdom of the Crowd

I came across Kevin Frazier’s “Education in America” opinion piece a few days ago.  I was immediately struck by his opening paragraph:

“The wisdom of the crowd is at the foundation of any belief that democracy can produce a good society. Elections, public forums, comment periods and the like all offer each person the chance to share their assessment of a candidate, issue, or regulation – the aggregation of those assessments determines the outcome. If we did not assume the superiority of the collective, then such a system would serve little societal value. After all, it makes little sense to shape a society around the recklessness of the rabble.”

This grabbed my attention because it highlights a fundamental mistake in regard to Democracies.  One many people have.  The wisdom of the crowd is not the foundation of any belief that “democracy can produce a good society”.  Democracy is instead based upon the consent of the governed. 

In fact, the “wisdom” of the crowd often must be restrained. Unfettered the wisdom of the crowd too often winds up harming and creating and perpetuating injustices on those who are not the majority.  Which is why we all have rights that cannot be infringed, even by the “wisdom” of the crowd.  In fact, for a functioning democracy to have a chance to create a good society the protection of such rights from the wisdom of the crowd is just as necessary as the democratic aspects of a government. Without it no good society can be created. Even then there is no guarantee of a good society, but the odds are nil without it. 

Then there is the fact that the crowd is often not wise at all.  They are riddled with prejudices, ignorance of different aspects of reality, conflicted among itself, and prone to short term thinking.  These flaws are one way that demagogues are able to gain power, by exploiting the unwisdom of the crowds.

So, why is democracy the best form of government?  An aside here – nothing created by humans is perfect, and that includes forms of government.  However, while perfection might be impossible, better is well within our grasp.  And democracy is a form of government better than the others due not to the wisdom of the crowd, but because it receives the consent the consent of the majority of the governed. 

Without consent change does not happen.  Especially needed change. The government takes actions which impact people and if they have no way to voice their views and no way to create effective change then frustration, discontent, and emotions rise greatly increasing the chances of very bad things happing – as witnessed in Iran today.  In fact, often the government itself is ignorant of these views and of how widespread the discontent is.  Because of this restlessness increases and emotions rise.  As does the chance of violent actions, including violent change of the government instead of a peaceful one  (which even under the strain trump and his administration and followers put on our democratic institutions, and an attempt at a more violent change,  still happened).    

This is a greatly oversimplified overview of a democracy and its why it is better.  But even so it provides the gist of the why democracies are better forms of governments than others.  Even if the crowd is not wise. Under a democracy people have a way to make their voice heard and there is an outlet for discontent.  No other form of government has that benefit. No other form of government is able to change as quickly if change is needed. 

This does not mean that there will not be protests and violence at times.  Our history has a great many such.  I would point out that all governments, no matter the type, have protests, and often violent ones.  However, protests, even those that turn violent, are much less likely to turn a democracy into a Syria because of those democratic institutions.  Citizens have a means of effecting change. 

Change.  That is another benefit of democracy. Consider the war Russia has started with Ukraine.  With a free press and a functioning democracy I do not believe that Putin would be in power.  Vietnam did in President Johnson, and that war’s impact on America in terms of American lives lost and economic damage was nowhere near what Russia is currently experiencing. 

There is though a sense in which the wisdom of the masses holds true for democracies.  With more people participating, with more voices being heard, and with more people grouping together to effect change, then more ideas are heard.  And not only heard, but often tried and good ones found.  Ideas that might not have been considered or even thought of under a more repressive or restrictive form of government has a greater chance of being found and then flourish under a democracy Especially one with the protection of individual rights. With these rights – such as free speech, a free press, and freedom of assembly and the others – as well as the consent of the governed, new ideas can be heard and have a better possibility of rising up to become policy and create change.  The civil rights movement, women’s movement, gay rights, the environmental movement, and such are examples of this. 

Frazier did make some good points in his piece though.  However, at the same time he undercuts his own words about the wisdom of the crowd by making these points, points which highlight the limitations and flaws in believing in the wisdom of the crowd.  He writes about new found lack of understanding on how to read and interpret words and concepts, as well as a new found a poor understanding of civic duties. That to once again create the wisdom of the crowd these need to be taught and learned to benefit from the wisdom of the crowd.  And to a large extent he is correct. 

But he is wrong in thinking these lacks a new thing. They have been present all through the history of democracy as practiced in the US, and other countries, from its founding days.  Read the newspapers and periodicals and letters from the founding days of the US until the late 20^th century, the time before the rise of social media, and that becomes very clear.  During those years education was limited. A great deal of the population who were the wrong color or gender were repressed and denied.  The wisdom of the crowd has never existed in the sense Frazier means.

In fact, most of the founders had a strong mistrust in the wisdom of the crowd.  Which is why when they created the Constitution it had rights built into it that could not be taken away by the wisdom of the crowd.  Many founders thought they could be legitimately inferred from the Constitution, others thought that they should be more explicitly stated. The latter won, resulting in the Bill of Rights. 

Oh, the United States is most definitely in one of our worse situations today and would probably have to reach back to pre-Civil war days to find as dysfunctional a society and government as we have now.  But a great deal of our problems arise from the wisdom of the crowd, not despite it.  We are feeling and suffering the effects of a society and government impacted by “the recklessness of the rabble”, and of those who would take advantage of it.   

Read Full Post »

What Do You Mean

“God does not play dice with the universe”.

When I was younger a family member who was concerned about me presented me the Einstein quote above.  Their intent was to say that even a genius like Einstein believed in a God.  However, being already very familiar not only with this quote but with Einstein’s thoughts and beliefs, since I had admired Einstein from a very early age, my take away was not that maybe God existed after all. Instead, it was on the importance of understanding what the meaning of even commonly used words when others use them. My response to this relative? I asked them what did Einstein mean when he used the word God? 

The reason I thought of this incident was because of a headline I read from Pew Research Center – “45% of Americans Say U.S. Should be a Christian Nation”. 

The headline concerned me since I am aware of the importance of the separation of church and state for all of our rights.  And also because, being an atheist, I would not be welcome in a Christian Nationalist’s version of America.  However, just as with the Einstein quote, the devil is in the details. Namely how do those Christians who believe this define a Christian nation. 

This need to define words, by the way, is something that comes up frequently in discussions and disagreements of all sort – religious, political, social..  Words and language are usually an imprecise way of communicating.  It is why dialogue and questions are necessary, and also why scientific journal articles are often so dry. They have to be very, very precise using words whose meanings are known and accepted by all scientists.  

People often use the same word but have a different understanding of it, such as God in the above example from Einstein.  An understanding of what is truly meant by all involved can, if shared and looked for, often result in compromise and agreement, or show greater agreement than initially thought. Or, at the very least, help focus and better define the issue.

So, let’s look at the layers under this 45% a bit more closely.  Fortunately, Pew gave the information needed in not only the first article, but in other articles – “In Their Own Words: How Americans Describe Christian Nationalism”, “A Closer Look at Americans Who Believe the U. S. Should be a Christian Nation”, and also, a 2021 article, “In the US, Far More Support Than Oppose Separation of Church and State”. 

The first clarification that is needed is what are these people referring to when they say Christian Nation- our government or our society, or both?  

From the article “45% of Americans …”  and the 2021 article “In the US…” we can find more detailed information what is meant by Christian Nation. 

This quote from that article provides a good summation of the possibilities and realities of thought among the 45 % group: 

“While some people who say the U.S. should be a Christian nation define the concept as one where a nation’s laws are based on Christian tenets and the nation’s leaders are Christian, it is much more common for people in this category to see a Christian nation as one where people are more broadly guided by Christian values or a belief in God, even if its laws are not explicitly Christian and its leaders can have a variety of faiths or no faith at all. Some people who say the U.S. should be a Christian nation are thinking about the religious makeup of the population; to them, a Christian nation is a country where most people are Christians. Others are simply envisioning a place where people treat each other well and have good morals.”

This is a bit better than what my initial thoughts had been in regards to so many wanting a Christian Nation.  Some specific numbers from the 2021 article further help ease concerns, even if it doesn’t eliminate them (more on those further down). 

• Only 28% believe that the government should declare the U.S. a Christian nation.  Over half, 52%, believe that the government “should never declare any particular religion as the official religion of the United States.”

• Only 24% believe that the government should advocate for “Christian religious values”.  Most, 52%, believe that the government should “advocate for moral values that are shared by people of many faiths”.

• Only 31% said that the government should stop enforcing the separation of church and state. While still a plurality in that most believe the government should enforce the separation of church and state, at 39% it does not constitute a majority. 

Now, having said this, there is still a great deal to be concerned about from the beliefs of the 45%.  From that article:

• They are much more likely to favor the government officially declaring Christianity to be the nations religion. As well they favor the government advocating Christian values and are against the government enforcing separation of church and state.
• Even worse, almost 80% of these people believe that the “Bible should have at least some influence on US laws”.  More than half, 54%, believe “…that when the Bible conflicts with the will of the people, the Bible should prevail”.    

One thing I would like to note in regards to the majority who believe that the Bible should overrule the will of the people when they conflict – that might not be a bad thing in and of itself.  Consider Nazi Germany and those who opposed the will of the people there.  Or, in the US, the abolitionists of the pre-civil war days, or MLK and his marches.  The question here is on what issues should this be true.  I can see myself working alongside a Christian who believes this on some issues.  So, again, more clarification is needed. 

Also, in this article about 45% of Americans believing the US should be a Christian nation, is the fact that 32% of the 45%, believe that religious diversity harms this country and American society. On the plus side though, among those who believe the US should be a Christian nation, there is almost the same number of people who believe that religious diversity strengthens American society, 28%. 

Overall it seems as though most when they say Christian Nation do not want a government imposed theocracy, they do want a government more leaning towards Christians and not a strictly neutral one. 

This part of the article does a nice summation of what those who want a Christian nation mean:

“Indeed, in response to a question that gave respondents a chance to describe, in their own words, what the phrase “Christian nation” means to them, nearly half (48%) of those who say the U.S. should be a Christian nation define that phrase as the general guidance of Christian beliefs and values in society, such as that a Christian nation is one where the population has faith in God or Jesus Christ, specifically. Fewer people who say the U.S. should be a Christian nation explain that they mean the country’s laws should be based on Christianity (6%).”

As if all these differences in meaning did not muddle up things enough, in the  “In Their Own Words” article we find that most Americans, 54%, have not heard of Christian Nationalism. Another 16% have heard of it, but did not know much about it and had no opinion either way of it.  Of all Americans, only 24% have an unfavorable view of Christian nationalism.  Only 5% view it favorably.  From that article:

“Many describe “Christian nationalism” in terms of Christian dominance in society, while others associate the concept with racism, authoritarianism, bigotry and exclusion. A smaller portion of Americans describe it as the positive influence of faith and morals in society.”

While this number of Americans who believe that America is a Christian nation is a cause for concern, when you look deeper, it is not as concerning as a reading of only the headlines would indicate.  What does make it a greater danger though, and of far greater concern, is how the Republican Party has embraced the more radical partion of those who believe this way, and how many of those who don’t hold such radical views may wind up going along due to ignorance or leanings.  At the same time we should not lose sight that it is a minority position, and that if properly mobilized and organized numbers can and do matter. 

Although this blog was dealing with a specific issue, the broader context applies to all issues. The different sides – and there are usually more than just two – often have different understandings of words such as freedom, democracy, rights, and so forth. When you start to drill down to find out what is really being meant things get muddled and complex.  And while this can be and is frustrating, it is also an opportunity to find common ground and compromises on different issues. Or even work together. If any progress is ever to be made a resolving and reducing the amount of vitriol that is inherent in so much of our political dialogue today, understanding what is actually being said is a necessary first step.  

Read Full Post »

The United States, Democracy, and Their Founding Christian Values

I have seen many Christians argue that the United States is a Christian Nation, founded upon Christian values and thought.  They usually claim that democracy and the idea of human rights is due to Christian thought and values, that without Christianity democracy and the idea of human rights would not have existed.  Or, at the very least, been very much more limited in scope. 

However, this claim faces many severe problems showing it is not true. Or, at best, just a very small bit of the truth. 

The first problem is the 10 Commandments.   In fact, the First Commandment of this integral part of both Jewish and Christian religions creates a severe problem with this claim.

“³ Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

⁴ Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

⁵ Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

Exodus 20: 3 – 5. 

Contrast that First Commandment with the United States Constitution’s First Amendment:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;…”

The First Commandment of the Ten Commandments is in direct conflict with the First Amendment to the US Constitution.

Of you should now look at how this First Commandment has played out in history you come across the Second problem with this claim of Christianity being the foundation and cause of the United States Constitution and Democracy.   None of the early Jewish states allowed for freedom of conscience. Instead, these states often harshly punished those who believed in a pagan religion.  The Christian countries that followed them also followed their examples and understanding of the First Commandment.  The countries of Christian Europe outlawed blasphemy, heretics and other religions (including Jews of course, often greatly limiting the free speech, free press, and free assembly of those who did not believe rightly. And, like the Jewish states before them, they too often killed those who believed differently, even and especially other sects of Christians.  For that matter, in most of Colonial America this persecution of those who believed different was just as true on our shores as on European shores, and the earlier Middle Eastern shores. 

You find this same lack of all the human rights we take for granted today in our day – freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of the press, etc. – until very recent times, the late 18^th century. 

Yes, there were precursors of some of these rights to be found in the Bible.  For that matter, such precursors of some of these rights can be found just as strongly in many sources other than the Bible: the Law Code of Hammurabi, the Persian Empire of Cyrus the Great, the Qur’an, the Analects, the Hindu Vedas, some of the Incan and Aztec codes of conduct, the Iroquois nation and more.  

But none of them included the complete package.  Many of them had limits on these rights that we do not recognize today in regards to people and places.  And very, very few of these were applied to entire governments rather than individuals. 

But that is human rights.  What about the idea and form of our government?  Democracy? Perhaps they had a Christian origin. 

Again, there is the problem of history for this claim.  Both the Popular Democracy and the Republican form of Democracy, were originally pagan institutions.  Yes, there are passages in both the New Testament that talk about the equality of all people before God.  Yet, again, this was before God and was about individuals.  The ancient Jewish state was not democratic, and nor were the early Christian nations of Europe. 

So, no.  Christian values and ideals were not the foundation of the creation of the United States government and its Constitution.  Yes, there were some ideas and beliefs within it that were conducive with many of the right, and with the idea of democracy.  However, you will find those same ideas expressed in other religions, and often much earlier than in Christianity and Judaism.

Another fact that creates problems for this claim is the fact that you not find discussions or mentions of the Bible and Christianity in the records of the Constitutional Convention as our founders hammered out our founding document.  You do find a great deal of discussion of and references to the writings of Locke and Rousseau, Greek and Roman democracies, the Venetian Republic and so forth.  But not the Bible. Not Christianity. 

In fact, still another problem with this idea of a Christian origin for the Constitution is that after the Constitution was published before it was ratified by the people of the United States, there was a great deal of criticism of it not including at least a general reference to Christianity, or at least to God.  Despite the challenges involved in the Constitution’s passage, none of the writers of it seriously considered changing it in order to make it’s passage more assured. 

So, this claim fails the test of historical fact.  However, that does not mean Christianity does not contain elements within itself that can lend themselves to democracy and rights. 

The thing about being a condominium of either 66 books (Protestant Bible) or 73 books (Roman Catholic Bible), or 81 books (Ethiopic Bible) is that there are materials in there for several directions and views, often conflicting ones.  Some of the ideas within these varied books are easier to see and use than others, but they are all still there, ideas waiting for just the right collision with new thoughts and views to come to fruition. 

Among these ideas within the Bible and Christianity there are some that can and were used to support the ideals of democracy and rights and freedoms for all, not just the majority or the powerful minority.  The first is, of course, Jesus’s words: “So give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” Matthew 22:21., as well as verses discussing all men being equal before God, and the Golden Rule.

This is one reason why the first person to advocate for a total and complete separation of church and state was not Locke or Rousseau, but was, instead, an Enlightenment era Calvinist theologian and the founder of the Baptist Church in America, John Williams.  His arguments included not only the items mentioned above, but also the fallibility of man.  No man, and hence no man-made institution, no matter whether divinely inspired or not, is perfect.  Not only can they be wrong but will be wrong at times and on some issues.  And if wrong in areas such as salvation the consequences would be severe – eternal damnation for those forced to believe. 

Because of this Roger Williams argued and believed that religion and state should be totally separate. The state should neither help nor hinder religion, nor should the church influence the state.  In fact, he held to a stricter standard than is held today on this issue.  And showed he believed it when he founded Rhode Island with this being one of its bedrock principles, and held to them even in regards to a religious group he despised, the Quakers.  His book, “The Bloudy Tenent of Persecution for Cause of Conscience” is considered by many to be a classic defense of the right of freedom of conscience. 

So, yes, Christianity did help in promoting some of the values and ideas in our modern democracies and in our current view of human rights.  But, they did not create them.  They were not foundational in the creation of the United States Constitution.  And some variation of them would have come about even if Christianity had never existed. 

But wait. There is one other possible meaning that those who claim Christianity was responsible for the founding of this nation, and that without Christianity human rights and this country would never have come about.  This involves a more basic claim than democracy and rights.  A claim about the whole concept of right and wrong, of morality.  I have seen some Christians argue that without Christianity the morality and respect for all individuals that is needed for a democracy would never have come about. 

And yet, this too has severe problems with historical fact.  Mainly the same ones mentioned above.  you find democracies arising first in non – Jewish and non- Christian cultures and nations. The same with respect for individuals and morality.  Morals and the idea of right and wrong, as well as the idea of an orderly universe pre-date both Christianity and Judaism, and is present in cultures all across the world.    

Let me end this with a challenge for those who still believe Christianity was responsible for the creation of the United States Constitution and of the rights protected therein.  Here is a list of the rights contained within the Bill of Rights. 

• Freedom of religion.
• Freedom of speech, press, petition, and assembly.
• Freedom to keep and bear arms in order to maintain a well regulated militia. 
• Freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures.
• Right to due process of law, freedom from self-incrimination, and double jeopardy. 
• Right of accused to a speedy and public trial.
• Right to trial by jury in civil cases.
• Freedom form excessive bail as well as cruel and unusual punishments. 

Please find me the relevant Bible passages as well as the history of how these have been manifested throughout history in ancient Israel and Christian Europe before the 18^th century.  As well, do a search for those rights you think are in the Bible and in the history of Christian nations to see if they were also present in other non- Christian nations, in other religions, and if they pre-dated Christianity. 

I think such an exercise will make it very clear indeed how little support there is for this claim. 

Read Full Post »

In God We Trust, In Government We Don’t

Recently Texas has encouraged private groups to donate to public schools signs that read, “In God We Trust”.  And then made it mandatory that schools accept such signs.  Being an atheist, I do not really trust in God that much. However, I have a great deal less trust in a government that promotes one religion over another.  Or that promotes religion over non-religion. 

It is surprising how often articles in defense of a particular cause or action have within it the exact reason it is wrong.  So too in Nicole Russell’s opinion piece defending the requirement that schools accept donations of and post signs with “In God We Trust” on them. 

“Not everything must be inclusive and not everything can be: Sometimes exclusivity has a purpose or intent, whether it be a phrase, a place, or an event. This is true of the phrase “In God We Trust,” which is meant to relay reliance on a higher being, particularly in times of crisis, like the Civil War.

So, I wonder what “purpose or intent” exists in requiring such signs in the public schools.  A public organization funded with tax money that serves children and their families by providing the children an education.  Children and families whose religious beliefs are varied – Baptist, Lutheran, Catholic, Jewish, Sufi, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Wiccan, Atheist?  What crisis is prompting this promotion of a “higher being”. 

Further, the thinking here is that by promoting the belief that a “higher being” exists and that we can trust in him, that it provides us the courage and motivation to continue on.  However, not everyone believes in a “higher being”.  And of those who do believe in such, their ideas and beliefs about such a being are varied and diverse.  Meaning that the support and comfort such signs may provide are going to vary greatly depending upon each individuals’ religious beliefs and background. Worse, such signs may do the exact opposite, promoting a feeling of alienating unease, of not belonging, or even of fear.

It is good that this is just the day after 9/11.  Memorials and remembrances have refreshed our memory of why that date became scorched into our memories and history 21 years ago. Of when terrorists killed 2,977 innocent men, women and children by flying passenger airlines into buildings. 

I was at home that day, taking a day off work.  I vividly remember getting a call from my wife, in tears, telling me to turn on the TV, it didn’t matter the channel.  I turned it on just in time to see the first tower fall. 

I watched as the second tower collapsed.  I watched as the Pentagon was attacked and saw the destruction there.  I watched people faced with a choice of burning or jumping choosing to jump. I saw ash shrouded people shrouded emerge from the cloud of collapsed towers.  I watched it all until late that night. 

My wife watched with her co-workers.  At the time she was working for the city of Fort Worth. Given the scope of the catastrophe, and the trauma experienced by all, the city, to its credit gathered its employees together for a day of remembrance and consolation during the week that followed. 

When she came home afterwards, she was upset and almost in tears. The memorial service was good for the most part. But they had a minister speak and give a prayer, one that ended in the name of Jesus Christ.  No other God or religion was mentioned or, apparently, invited.  While that was the most flagrant it was not the only instance of only the Christian God making an appearance at a city function meant to provide comfort and support and a sense of unity for those who work there. 

During this gathering meant to comfort and support, meant to show unity in grief, my wife was with some friends.  My wife is an atheist. Two of her friends with her were religious but not Christian. One was Hindu. The other Jewish.   

Dindy and her two friends did not feel the comfort and support from this mention of God.  They did not feel the unity in grief. And far from being made to feel part, they felt excluded.  Their beliefs did not matter. They did not matter as much as those citizens and employees who were Christian. Disunity instead of unity. Discomfort instead of comfort.  Exclusion – goal achieved Ms. Russell – instead of inclusion. 

Our government consists of We the People.  The rights protected by our Constitution are for all of the people, and not just some. One of the main purposes of our government is to protect those rights. In order to protect them in regard to our freedom of conscience, the right of everyone to believe as they feel is best, the government has to be neutral.  Otherwise it becomes a government of not We the People but of Some of the People. 

Nicole Russell is totally correct that this sign, this “In God We Trust” is indeed meant to exclude.  And because of this it is wrong and cannot be a part of a government created and inspired by “We the People”.  It is, in fact, a danger to such. 

Read Full Post »

Unifying the Country

On Thursday, 9/1/2022, President Biden gave his Soul of the Nation speech. A speech in which he said that the MAGA Republicans and trump “represent an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our republic” and are a “threat to this country”.  Predictably, fireworks ensued.

Biden has insulted and smeared half the country.

Biden is not a unifier like he promised but a divider instead. 

Fox news said that Biden “vilifies millions of Americans”, “Biden uses primetime address to fuel more division” and “Clueless Biden spews hate in dark, dismal speech”.

Biden is divisive, and “demeaned and disparaged many of his fellow Americans” as House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy said. 

However, those that criticize President Biden’s speech as being divisive, and also as evidence that he is not trying to unify the country, are both right and wrong.  Yes, it was divisive.  But there are times when being divisive is needed in order to unify the country. 

In more normal times political differences would not justify such a speech. In fact, during more normal times, and certainly within my lifetime, such as speech as this that calls the other party out as being an actual threat to our nation should be condemned by all.  But, this is not normal times. And what President Biden condemned is not normal political behavior. 

Most of the commentators either state explicitly or imply that President Biden called MAGA republicans a threat to this country due to policy issues.  However, if you listen to his speech, or read the transcript, you will find that this is not true. Instead, he lays out his reasons and evidence for these charges.   None of the reasons involve policy differences – whether on climate change or immigration or healthcare or whatever.  Yes, towards the end he mentions some of these items, but they are in the context of accomplishments and not as evidence supporting why he called MAGA Republicans a threat to democracy.  This is not about differences in policy, which is why so many Republicans have joined him in condemning trump and the Republicans who follow him.  It is, instead, about the fundamental nature of our government – whether it is a democracy or a autocracy. 

President Biden starts off by correctly stating that the ideals embodied by both our Declaration of Independence and the Constitution can be summed up by the words of We The People.  That they establish the ideals of equality and democracy as the bedrock of our country.  This is something that I freely admit we have never fully lived up to during our whole history. But that does not change the fact that those ideals are present and are the motivating force for all the changes we have seen in our history as we strive to more fully live up to and realize those ideals. 

President Biden then goes over the actions and words by the MAGA Republicans that threaten the ideals of democracy.  His words and specifics all boil down to one thing – they refuse to accept the results of a democratic election.  Worse, they have tried to overturn it.  Further,  they are working to change things so that they can overturn any results of a democratic election that they do not like.

A free and fair and honest election is the cornerstone of a democracy. Without it democracy does not exist. Autocracy, despotism, and tyranny exist, but not democracy.

Trump and his followers do not accept the results of the 2020 election. Not then, and not now. This despite numerous challenges and recounts and audits by groups of all political beliefs showing that the election was fair and honest.

What is worse, a mob on January 6^th tried to forcibly change the results. By itself that would be greatly concerning. But this mob action is raised to a level beyond mob by the fact that it was encouraged and supported by trump, many of his staff and associates, and many Republicans holding office.  Even planned by such. This changes a mob action to an actual insurrection.  And a threat to our nation’s fundamental ideals.  

And now, now, using this false cover of a fraudulent election these Republicans are trying to change elections laws so as to make it easier for them to change election results they do not like.  These Republicans are running for offices that directly oversee elections, and all too often winning. Threats are being made to long time election workers and forcing many of them to quit, thus robbing us of their knowledge, experience, and integrity.  They are being replaced with many whose goal is achieving a result instead of protecting the process. 

And that is the crux of this – the process. We all want a certain outcome on elections.  However, to truly have a democracy the process of how these outcomes are determined must be more important than the outcome, than who wins.  For the MAGA Republicans the outcome is more important. The process, our democracy, is of far lesser importance to them.   Thus they are indeed a clear and present danger to our country as a democracy. 

The problem with being inclusive, with being a unifier, is that it is not and never has been and never will be possible to unify everyone. There are too many differences and views within our country to ever happen.  It did not happen in the Revolutionary War, it did not happen during WW2, it did not happen during 9/11.   Large majorities of Americans can be united in a common purpose. But not all. There will always be a smaller, but often still large, number of Americans who disagree. 

When those who disagree wind up posing an existential threat to the United States – and I am not talking in just ideals and words and theory, but also in concrete actions, then the only way to unify is to be divisive. Point out the truth and the danger and lay out the reasons why. And by doing so unite those who do support our process and believe in these ideals of equality and democracy, no matter how much we may disagree on how best to realize them, against those who do not.  Reality can be paradoxical at times, and this is one of those times.  To be a uniter, sometimes one must be divisive.

As President Biden said in regards to our democracy, “We have to defend it, protect it, stand up for it — each and every one of us.”

One final thought. This sort of logic can and has been misused to justify mobilizing the masses against minority groups and views.  Look at the history of Jews and of blacks as examples.  Care must be given to the reasons given for being divisive.  President Biden in his speech gave compelling and valid reasons for divisive as being the way forward to unity. 

“We can’t let the integrity of our elections be undermined, for that is a path to chaos.”

Read Full Post »