Breaches in the Wall of Separation

Currently we are riding a wave of threats to our liberties coming from the religious right. A woman’s right to control her body, struck down.  Tennessee passing a law allowing public officials, government officials, to refuse to perform gay marriages due to that official’s religious beliefs.  And Alabama’s ruling that a fetus is a person, even using quotes from the Bible as part of its reasoning. 

Given all of this I thought it appropriate to again go over why the separation of church and state is not only important but also critical to the protection of all our rights.  I did so once using history to show why.  This time I plan to use current examples, namely China, India, Israel, and the US. 

China

Some, perhaps many, will be quick to point out that China is not religious.  It does not endorse Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, or any other religion.  It is an atheist state.  Which is exactly the point.  It proclaims a position on something considered religious – whether God exists.  While in one definition of the term secular China is indeed secular.  However, in another definition, the one I am using, it most definitely is not. 

What many do not realize is that there is a difference between being secular and being atheist.  Secular actually comes in three types.  However, in regard to government, it means that that government takes no stance on purely religious issues. They neither promote nor discourage any one religious view.  Even atheism.  And it is that meaning that I will be referring to in this blog when I say secular.  Let me also mention that as with all human institutions, there is no perfection.  There are several secular governments but some are more secular than others.  And many proclaim themselves to be secular but are not.

China though is not a secular government.  It officially describes itself as being atheist.  And although they recognize five religions – Buddhism, Taoism, Islam, Catholicism, and Protestantism – party officials have to be atheists.  And even the officially recognized five religions are closely monitored and restricted.  And if your religion is not one of these five – well, good luck. 

Through the years Chinese actions in regard to religion have changed.  However, they have always been regulated and those considered dangerous condemned and outlawed, while atheism has always been favored. 

The current government of China is “urging all religious groups in China to adapt to socialism by integrating their doctrines, customs and morality with Chinese culture.”  They also have to pledge loyalty to the state. 

They have tightened controls on all the official religions – detaining Uyghurs (Muslims) in Xinjiang and cracking down on underground Quran study groups,  reinforced its ban on unauthorized Protestant worship sites, forcing house churches to join a state-run association and detaining Protestant religious leaders who refuse to cooperate and other actions.  They have though been more lenient towards the native religions – Buddhism and Taoism, allocating money for different projects relating to these two religions. 

So, unlike in secular governments, religion and religious thought and belief is heavily regulated.  Limits are applied to speech and to associations.  All flowing from the lack of separation of church and state.

One point of interest here.  Laws against homosexuality are often said to be related to religious beliefs. Yet, in China, an atheist state, while it is legal to be gay it is still illegal for them to marry or to have civil unions.  Further there are no protections against discrimination in regard to housing and employment, conversion therapy is allowed, gays are not allowed to donate blood.  And can only adopt a child if they are single.   

India

India is officially a secular state.  It says so in its Constitution.  However, in that same Constitution the government is allowed to interfere in matters of religious belief and actions.  Some of this though was necessary and good, such as the abolition of the untouchable caste, and opening up the Hindu temples to lower castes.  Others though, such as the partial funding of religious schools as well as religious buildings are not, are dangerous cracks in the wall of separation. 

An even more dangerous crack in that wall is their allowance of the individual states to make their own laws regulating religious institutions.  And unless they conflict with the central government laws, they stand.  This has led to a variety of laws in regard to religious rights within India, and greater breaches to the wall.  These laws include 11 states outlawing religious conversions.

This mix means that India is more of a quasi-secular state than an actual one.  And just as in the US, there is a conservative religious movement working to have India declared a Hindu nation, with motions to have their Constitution reflect this.  It is no surprise that there has been a rise in religious violence, – Muslims mainly, but also against Christians and Dalits.  As exemplified by the many violent acts during the recent inauguration of the Hindu Ram Temple. 

Israel

Israel is not a secular state.  It proclaims itself a Jewish state and Jews are favored over other groups within Israel.  It does not allow civil marriages and non-religious divorces, the Chief Rabbinate controls all Jewish weddings, divorces, conversions and answers questions on who a Jew for purposes of immigration is.  The ministry of education oversees both the secular and religious schools of all faiths, giving them only a limited degree of independence along with a common core curriculum.  And although it protects some faiths, others are not so favored.  Including some Jewish groups. 

However, despite all of this, it does come closer to realizing the protections within its political structure for other religions than either India or China.  But that is trending downwards. Especially the rise of the religious right in Israel, the rights of non-Jews is becoming more precarious.

Even worse it is this religious belief on the part of the Jewish religious conservatives that is one of the main reasons why Israel continues to expand into the West Bank and controlling Gaza, with the claim that they both are part of the Israel in the Bible. 

Finally there is the fact that their religious identity conflicts with their identity as a democracy.  Currently that is not a pressing issue. Although it means that if Israel does formally make the West Bank and Gaza strip part of Israel they will be faced with a decision.  Name do they allow the Arab and mainly Muslim inhabitants to vote with the very real possibility that items related to Judaism and government may be changed?  Do they also formally make them second class citizens without the right to vote?  Or do they do a massive deportation?   None of those are good options, but that is what Israel will be facing someday, even without annexing the West Bank and Gaza. 

The United States

I came across this description of the state of secularism (from the above link about secular) in the United States and liked it.

“The United States is a secular country in theory, but it falls short in actual practice. The U.S. is a self-described secular state and is often considered to be constitutionally secular. The U.S. Constitution states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Additionally, keeping with the lack of an established state religion, Article Six of the U.S. Constitution states that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

On the other hand, many official U.S. materials still include clear references to religion. The Pledge of Allegiance includes the line “one nation under God,” which is undeniably non-secular. Also, the phrase “In God We Trust” appears on all United States currency (both coins and paper bills) and became the official United States motto in 1956. While religious references such as these are common in many countries, their presence inspires understandable debate about the separation of church and state, as well as whether the U.S. is truly devoted to secularism.”

There are many threats to rights from many different directions and with many different motivations and causes. Breaking the wall separating religion and state though is a common route for such threats to become reality.  That is because it involves matters of conscience and morality, and beliefs that most consider very important.

Once a state starts to identify with a religion then anyone not of that religion becomes, at the very least, slightly suspicious since they are not a good “insert name of state here”.  Worse case, they are persecuted.  Their speech is limited, their ability to associate with others limited, their ability to build houses of worship limited, their ability to hold office limited, their ability to marry and raise children limited.  Eventually these limits turn into being jailed, or forced to move to camps. 

When religions is used as the primary basis for passing laws then we see what we are seeing play out in the US – book bannings increasing, restrictions on bodily autonomy, making the fetus equal in the eyes of the law with a person, allowing government officials to refuse to marry gays, etc. 

The separation of church and state is not only important for the right of individuals to believe as they think best but also to protect us against unnecessary laws based upon other’s conscience. It is why there has to be a secular basis for laws.  It may coincide with a particular religious view – in fact it most often will. With several religious views in fact. But the basis for the law has to be secular not religious 

People look at the small things that encroach upon that wall of separation –  police cars with “In God We Trust”, a cross in a public school classroom, allowing students to fly the Christian flag on the public school flagpole, opening public meetings with a prayer, etc. – and think this is minor.  It is not a big deal.  However, it is through such small things that rafts are created that lift some people above others – those of the right religious beliefs.  The rest get left behind to swim, or more likely, sink. 

As a bit of an aside, for those who call us a Christian nation and who say our country was founded upon Christianity, you need to consider why I chose this time to write my blog.  My idea for this blog actually came about when listening to a Christian religious talk show discussing how the government of India was no longer protecting the religious rights of non-Hindus and of the dangers of “Hindu Nationalism”.  I think they should have used a mirror during that discussion. 

Read Full Post »

United We Will Stand, Divided We Will Fail

Why should the people and taxpayers of America be bailing out poorly run states (like Illinois, as example) and cities, in all cases Democrat run and managed, when most of the other states are not looking for bailout help? I am open to discussing anything, but just asking?  trump on twitter, 4/27/2020

 

Normally I do not do back to back blogs like this. However, I saw this quote, and along with trump’s actions in pushing the individual governors to do it all, and with McConnell’s statement about possibly letting the states go bankrupt, I decided to jump on it.

I am not approaching this in regards to whether it is true if the states and cities needing the most help are poorly run, although I would argue largely no.  Nor am I going to approach this from the angle that most states take in more federal money than they pay in taxes, and that many of the states needing the most aid are also those who actually take less from the federal government than they pay in taxes.

Instead, I am looking at the fundamental wrongness of how trump and McConnell think about our government, and its citizens.  This mistaken view is also one that is shared by many of those who are protesting the stay at home orders as being an infringement of their inalienable rights.

First, a little very relevant history.

War is expensive.  After the revolutionary war each state had incurred considerable debt in financing their portion of that war.  However, by 1790, some of the states, such as Virginia had either totally or substantially paid off their debt.  Many, though, had not. Alexander Hamilton proposed for the Federal Government to assume all the states debts through issuing bonds.  Then the government would pay the bond holders after generating revenue from different taxes.

Some of the states with little to no debt  protested against this, believing that they should not be taxed to pay off the debts of another state.

The debts of the particular states cannot in any point of view be considered as actual debts of the United States; and the United States are not bound by any past requisition, or any resolutions now existing to assume them, till the accounts are settled and the balances ascertained. James Madison, April 22, 1790.

Now, what I wrote above about the assumption of debt is a somewhat simplistic account of this issue.  However, it is enough to show that at its heart it is the same question that we face now – the actual nature of the United States and the relation of states to the Federal government.    Does each state face the consequences of a national crisis alone, or, regardless of the status of any individual state, do they work together with the federal government coordinating and providing resources?

Then, they decided that they were united as a nation. Yes, it took a great deal of debate and a critical compromise involving the location of the capital,  but they decided to continue in the direction they had started in their creation of the Constitution and voted for a nation, not a collection of individual states.

This is a question, though, that has never been totally settled.  It came up again and almost destroyed this country during the Civil War.  After that, and especially after the passage of the 14^th amendment, the idea of us being a union and not just a collection of states became even stronger.   And with good reason.

Had the assumption of debts by the federal government not happened, the United States would have fallen apart and, most likely, become a group of different independent countries, with all the conflicts and rivalries and loss that such would entail.  Had the Confederacy won the war, the same.

There is a reason why our national motto until 1956 was E Pluribus Unum, out of many, one.  Benjamin Franklin noted the value of unity with his statement, “If we do not hang together, we will all hang separately.”  It is why one of the most well-known of the revolutionary flags was a snake divided into thirteen pieces with the words “Join or Die” under it.  Another related one was of a whole snake with the words “Don’t tread on me.”  A unified creature, or country, can survive and do more than one divided.

Of course, this idea of strength in unity is not unique to the United States.  The phrase “United We Stand, Divided We Fall,” although often thought of as American, actually has a long history going back to the ancient Greeks in Aesop and the Bible.

It is a grave concern that now, in the midst of a national crisis that is badly impacting the lives of Americans and the economy, that this idea of unity is being ignored and denied.  Instead of the federal government providing coordination and leadership and needed resources, it is pushing down responsibility totally to the states, both financially and in terms of health policies.

Each state for itself winds up creating inconsistent policies and actions that work at cross purposes, with the end result being an increased loss of lives, and livelihoods.  Without the federal government helping procure supplies and working with the states on how to distribute them, it is each state in competition with the others, driving up costs and resulting in shortages at one area and surpluses at another.

Many of those who support trump in his views as quoted above (it is always necessary with trump to provide when those views were uttered as he so often and so quickly changes them) do so from a very strong states’ rights view, similar to that expressed by Madison, above.  Trump, though, does so out of expediency and necessity – he would much rather be dictator (do I really need to provide relevant quotes), but since he cannot, he lets the states take point and, instead, gives the appearance of leadership without actually leading, and also, by the way, creating a convenient scapegoat if and when the death toll climbs and the economy does not improve.

Regardless of the reason,  we are a nation.  One with a shared history, shared trade and commerce, both internally and with other countries.  Most of us have family living in several different states, and friends in even more. We are one country, and, because of this, we cannot afford to deal with a national crisis piecemeal.

While there is a difference between the states and the federal government, they are joined and one.  Rather like organs are different from the body, but are a part of it too, and whatever impacts one organ of the body most often will impact other organs in the body.

Finally, many who have this view also seem to have an extreme individualistic view of human nature.  They minimize the importance of society and government.  I have heard more than one such person say that they could live in the woods without any support and do well, that they did not need a government, or even much society other than a few friends.   These are the people protesting against the stay home restrictions.

They view society and government as a necessary evil attached to the allmighty individual. They have a difficult time understanding that individuals are part of society, and that both society and government are necessary for individuals to be free.  Because of this, even short lived restrictions on what they see as their right to do as they please is not to be endured.  It does not matter if it endangers others. What matters is their freedom right now.

Come what may, the United States will get through this crisis. That is not in question.  What is in question though is at what cost?  How many will die, or suffer permanent health problems?  How bad will our economy be at the end of this pandemic?  How damaged our governmental and social structures?

 

 

In order to minimize the costs we need to remember our original motto – E Pluribus Unum.

Read Full Post »

trump and Hitler, the US Today and Germany Then: A Comparison

I have seen many concerned people posting warnings about how they see many disturbing similarities between what is happening in the US today with trump and what happened in the Weimer Republic wiith Hitler and the rise of Nazism.  I am currently reading Volker Ullrich’s book “Hitler: Ascent 1889 – 1939”, an excellent book and one I highly recommend, and though I am not finished with it yet, I would briefly share my thoughts on this oft used comparison.

I am going to break my observations down into four categories – Person, Followers, Enablers, and Political and Social Structure.  Within each category I will be going over what I see as the similarities and also the differences.

 

 

PERSON: HITLER AND trump

Similarities

Both trump and Hitler share several of the same talents and methods

Hitler was a powerful speaker with the “ability to excite the base instinct of the masses. So is trump.

Hitler’s ability to act and assume roles. This was done to conceal his intentions from both friends and foes. trump does the same.

Linked to his ability to act and assume roles was Hitler’s “bottomless mendacity”. According to his close contemporaries, Hitler was constantly lying about everything to the point that some of his companions thought that “… he was so thoroughly untruthful that he could no longer recognize the difference between lies and truth”.   trump shares this trait in abundance.

Some aspects of trump and Hitler’s leadership style are similar.  Hitler’s was “…usually improvisational and personal style of leadership, which created constant responsibility conflicts and an anarchic tangle of offices and portfolios, was anything but an expression of political incompetence. On the contrary, it served to make Hitler’s own supremacy essentially unassailable.”

I should mention in regards to the previous quote, that although the results are similar, I think the causes are different. Hitler did this purposely in order to concentrate power with him, and to make “his own supremacy essentially unassailable”.  However, trump does this because of his ignorance and incompetence.

I also thought that this comment from a letter written by Rudolph Hess in March 1937 to Walter Hewel about Hitler can to an extent be applied to trump, especially with his evangelical supporters.

“This is where the great popular leader coincides with the great founder of a religion. An apodictic belief has to be installed in listeners. Only then can the mass of followers be led where they are supposed to be led. They will follow their leader even in the face of setbacks, but only if they have been instilled with absolute faith in the absolute rectitude of their own will, of the Fuhrer’s mission and the mission of their people. “ page 205.

I believe this sentence also applies to trump.

“The suggestive, binding power Hitler exercised over others reflected the self-delusional power he had over himself. Other people found Hitler so convincing, Krosigk remarked in 1945, because he was carried away himself by the momentum of his own words and thought, and completely believed in the truth of what he said.” Page 400

“When choosing his subordinates, Hitler was guided not by emotions, but by his estimation of people’s usefulness. The most important criteria were absolute loyalty, discretion and obedience.”  Page 396  This also describes trump.  Competence and knowledge are not the primary considerations for trump.  Loyalty and obedience are.

Both Hitler and trump shared an ability to understand and “…articulate and exploit people’s desires for a savior who would inject order into chaos, create an ethnic-popular community in place of party squabbling and class warfare, and lead the Reich to new greatness.”  Although in trump’s case it is not the Reich that he is claiming to lead to greatness but the United States.

“Thomas Mann attributed Hitler’s rise to his “eloquence, which although unspeakably base, has huge sway over the masses.’….”Strasser also compared Hitler to a “membrane” broadcasting the most secret longings and emotions of the masses. Krosigk concurred. “He sensed what the masses were longing for and translated it into firebrand slogans,” the Reich finance minister wrote. “He appealed to the instincts slumbering in people’s unconsciousness and offered something to everyone.”  trump does the same for his base.

Both also either believe or use conspiracy theories to defend their statements and further their agendas.

It is hardly plausible that he believed the transparently constructed lies about an imminent SA putsch, but in order to legitimize the purge he seized upon even the most ridiculous conspiracy theories.”  Page 466

A minor but interesting similarity between Hitler and trump.  Both were skittish about reprimanding anyone face to face.  Instead, both relied on others to do so after they had communicated their displeasure.

 

Differences

“and the ministers were impressed not only by Hitler’s knowledge of the issues, but by his abiity to ‘distil what is essential in every problem’ and to ‘summarize concisely the results of a long discussion.”  Page 425

Hitler was much the more intelligent of the two.

Hitler had an almost photographic memory, and was able to read reports and books rapidly and remember them afterwards. trump, not so much.

Hitler was also well read and had written his own book, as well as several articles. He largely educated himself through his own readings, which included architecture, politics, some philosophy and other subjects.

Hitler was much better informed about how the German government of the time worked than trump is on how ours works.  trump dictates but is unable to figure out how the use the system to get what he wants. Hitler excelled at manipulating the system.

Although under similarities I have put Hitler’s ability to sway the masses, my feeling is that Hitler had a broader range of speech, could vary it in tone and words more, and was the more impactful speaker.  And reached a broader audience than does trump.

Hitler also had a strong ability to “analyze and exploit situations” instantly. trump has no ability to do so.  He follows the same couple of scripts each time, no matter the situation.  Which, is another difference between the two. Hitler was able to vary how he came across, his message, and how he acted in order to fit the current situation he was in and then do what would best further his goals. It is why he first signed a groundbreaking peace deal with Poland and made several very well received speeches about peace.  He did this in small groups too, letting people see what he thought would best serve his purpose – a well spoken statesman, a fervid nationalist, a caring and loyal person.  trump lacks this ability.

trump has no allegiance to any ideals other than what benefits him personally.  It is all about trump. Hitler, though, had two overarching ideals that he followed during his whole political career.  The first was a rabid antisemitism.  Tied to this was his view of race.  Race was the most important aspect of the world and the only true way to interpret how it worked and to understand what was happening in the world around them.  And, of course, the German race was the most developed of all, with the members of the Jewish race, along with other inferior races, out to bring down their betters.

By the way, this is just one of many reasons why the extreme conservatives’ arguments that the Nazis were actually socialists and communists is so wrong.  Socialism and Communism interpret the world in terms of class. Hitler and the Nazis did not, they interpreted it in terms of race.  It was the German race, the Jewish race, the Slavic race and so forth, no matter the class, that was important.

The other ideal that Hitler fought for was the idea of living space. The Germans needed enough living space to support their numbers and their importance and status.  Hitler saw this living space as being in the East, to be taken from Russia and the other countries of the inferior Slavic race.

While Hitler may have downplayed or hid those twin goals at times, depending upon the situation and who he was dealing with, they were always on his mind and were goals he was always working towards.  Whether for good or bad, and a case could be made either way, trump has no such ideals. Instead, his only goal is what benefits him personally.

 

FOLLOWERS

Similarities

 

 

“It feels like there’s an airless layer surrounding the few of us who refuse to convert,” Ebermayer complained in his diary. ‘The best of my young friends are declaring their allegiance to National Socialism…You can’t talk to them at all. They simply believe. And there are no rational arguments against faith.’”page 432

This is very true of the strong trump supporters too. Reason and evidence mean nothing to them. Or rather, they are things that they ignore and twist  to protect their view of trump.  They simply believe in him.

In addition, trump likes his rallies.  Hitler did too, turning them into huge shows that helped cement the loyalty of the German people to him.  trump does something similar, although  at a smaller scale and not as much show.  But, the function is the same.

 

Differences

Hitler had many more followers than trump initially. During the first years of his Chancellorship he was often incredibly popular.  trump has his base, but has never had the majority on his side, especially as enthusiastically so as Hitler.

 

Similar with differences

Anti-Semitism.  Hitler and Germany as a whole, and most especially his followers, were incredibly anti-Semitic.  They blamed the Jews for losing the first World War, accusing them, along with communists, of stabbing Germany in the back. They blamed Jews for the bad economy. They blamed Jews, and strongly believed that they were not Germans, that they polluted the German race.

Now, among trump’s followers some may be and probably are anti-semitic.  However, I would imagine most are not. And of those that are, few would be as rabidly so as Hitler’s followers. But, different times and a different country mean a different scapegoat and bogeyman must be created. For trump and his followers it is the illegal alien. The undocumented, possibly terrorist, murderers and rapists, disease carriers who are invading our country and who use up our resources, resources that should go to good Americans.

The animosity towards illegals is not as strong as that of Hitler’s followers was for the Jews. But, while not as strong, the animosity, hatred of and fear of still exist.  Which is why they can excuse any sort of immoral action taken by trump.  Children needlessly and purposely separated from their parents and no way to reunite them, not an issue.  Children and adults dying while being held due to poor conditions and lack of care, not an issue. Children drowning trying to cross the Rio Grande, not an issue.  Families forced to live on the other side of the border when applying for asylum, in conditions that are wretched and subject to gang violence, not an issue.  This and more, not an issue because illegals are dangerous in so many ways. They are the bogeyman.  They are responsible for so much that is wrong in America. They are a grave threat to our way of life.

So, the hatred and actions are not as extreme as the anti -Semitisms of the Germans, but still there. What is more concerning is how this is now being extended to legal immigrants too, and those that have green cards and actual citizenships.

And, of course, hate crimes under both increased dramatically.  Much more so under Hitler, but still present under trump. Not only against Jews and Hispanics, but also blacks and other minorities.

 

ENABLERS: POLITICIANS AND OTHERS

Similarities

“All of these groups operated under the illusion that they had “engaged” or co-opted Hitler to give them the mass backing they desired for their authoritarian policies.  ‘The history of Hitler is the history of people underestimating him,’ wrote the historian Veit Valentin shortly after the end of the Second World War.”  Page 378

 

“…the Nazi consolidation of power in 1933 was characterized by an alliance between traditional elites in the military, major industry, large-scale agriculture and governmental bureaucracy, on the one hand, and the Nazi mass movement and its Furhrer on the other.” Page 452.

 

“…the first months of the new government left no doubt as to its radically inhumane character, which was hostile towards all principles of democracy, the rule of law, and morality.” Page 452

 

When Hitler was named Chancellor, he had a group of conservatives supporting and arguing his case. “Most were aware of the risk entailed by a pact with Hitler but believe the Nazi leader could be kept in check. ‘if we go with Hitler, we have to restrain him,’ DNVP Deputy Chairman Quaatz wrote in his diary on 29 January.  It would not be long before it became apparent how utterly misplaced all ideas of restraining Hitler actually were.”  Page 366

Republicans supported trump for their own political gain and both out of fear of and to take advantage of his own fervent base, which is similar to the motivations of many of those who enabled and allowed Hitler to become Chancellor of Germany.  And like them, they have now found themselves unable to control him as they had at first thought.

 

Differences

Eh, not so much.  Well, not among Republicans.  The difference here is that there is a much more robust and numerous opposition party against trump than there was against Hitler at the time of his rise.

 

Actually, there is one difference. trump got the Republican party nomination despite the efforts of the rest of the Republican Party.  Hitler’s power had already reached its zenith and was waning in 1933, with the Nazi party losing both members and money.  However, the previous Chancellor, looking for a way to gain revenge on a political rival and a way to get himself back into power again, worked out a deal with Hitler that wound up giving Hitler the Chancellorship he desired. Without that deal it is likely that Hitler would have faded away.

“The amazing thing about my life,” Heinrich Bruning quoted Hitler as saying in early February 1933, just after being appointed German chancellor, “is that I’m always  rescued just when I myself have given up.” Page 348

 

In other words, Hitler became Chancellor through political machinations, not popularity.  trump won the… hmmm, given that Hillary had three million more votes than trump, that Russia was actively trying to sway the election for trump, and that Comey violated FBI standards, policy, and precedents and announced his re-opening of the Hillary email investigation just weeks before the election, you could say that trump too won only due to political machinations.  Only, this time instead of being by the same government it was by an outside government and internally by a bone headed decision.  trump though did win his party’s nomination through popularity. Which, come to think of it, says poor things about his party and good things about America overall.

POLITICAL SYSTEM AND SOCIAL STRUCTURE

Similarities

In regards to political and social structures, there are really very few similarities beyond superficialities.

Actually, there is one similarity.  And it is an important one.  It is wide levels of dissatisfaction and distrust of the government, both in Germany then and in the US now.

 

Differences

Germany had no history or real experience with democracy, only different forms of autocracy.  The United States has always been a democracy with over 240 years of history and experience, and expectations. Further, while we have elites and industrialists, they were not pre-democracy ones and do not  hold the same sway and power here that they did in Germany then.  That’s not to downplay their significance and power, but just noting a truth, ours today are not as powerful as those in Germany then.

Along with this is that many, and probably most, Germans at the time did not think much of democracy, instead preferring to put their faith and fate in the hands of a strong leader.

On  page 376 there is a list of things that allowed Hitler to rise to power.  “Doubtlessly, there were powerful tendencies, deeply anchored in German history, which promoted the success of National Socialism.”  These included

• A rejection of what is termed the “ideas of 1789”. These were the ideals of individual freedom.  Germany had a long authoritarian tradition, and many, and probably most, were most comfortable with such, and distrustful of democracies.
• Germany’s defeat in the First World War and what they perceived as the humiliating terms of the Treaty of Versailles.
  • This gave rise to the “stab-in-the-back stories to explain that loss, most often involving the Jews, but including Communists too.
• Anti-Semitism present in all parts of the German society except among the Social Democratic working classes. This anti-Semitism had been “radicalized by the First World War and in particular by the revolutionary months of 1918 and 1919”
• “the influence of pre-democratic elites, above all the military, Eastern Elbian aristocratic landowners, large-scale industrialists and civil servants with the government and the justice system, whose power had basically remained untouched in the democratic Weimar Republic.”
• “the structural shortcomings of the Weimar Constitution, making the Reich president into something of an ersatz Kaiser and allowing him to rule by emergency decrees, which in the hands of a dedicated monarchist like Hindenburg, was practically an invitation to abuse political power during the economic crisis of 1929 and 1930
• “…and finally, the unwillingness of Germany’s political parties to compromise, which was partially to blame for the chronic functional difficulties of parliamentary democracy and which culminated in the collapse of the grand coalition in March 1930, ringing in the phase of rule by presidential decree.”

 

 

FINAL THOUGHTS

The situation in Germany leading up to Hitler’s Chancellorship is very, very different than what we have in the US.  Which means that we are not going to go the way of Germany.

Now, that doesn’t mean we can’t make our own way towards our own version of dictatorship, only that it won’t follow the German path.  Points of similarity, yes.  But also significant differences, which need to be kept in mind when evaluating where we are now, and what actions need to happen in the future to prevent the creation of our own dictator.  Our Constitution has been bent, but not broken yet.  Another four years of trump and the Republicans might break it though.

Which brings up one last difference, a difference that is also a cause for hope.  Within three months of becoming Chancellor of Germany, Hitler had almost total dictatorial control.  Including the full support of the military. Only President Hindenberg was a limit to his power. After a year and a half, when Hindenberg died, he had total control.

So far, trump does not have that sort of power. Not even close. Not with Congress, not with the judicial system, not within his party, not with the military.  Not even with the Republicans supporting and enabling him. Further, the election of 2018 saw a blue wave take over the House and flipped many state governments. Hitler never had similar setbacks during his time as Chancellor.

Which says something good about our system. And is a reason to have hope for our future.

 

Read Full Post »

The Longest War of the United States

Since the United States was created in 1776 it has been at war. I am not referring to the many short wars that have punctuated its existence: the war of 1812, the Civil War, WW 1 & 2, Vietnam, and all the other named wars. Instead, the war I am referring to has been one long continuous war, one whose existence was foreshadowed by the ideals that created the Revolutionary War and were then given form in the Declaration of Independence. This foreshadowed war flamed into existence by the creation, ratification, and implementation of our flawed Constitution.

The ideals? Ones that most people already know, at least by word.

• All men are created equal.
• All men have the inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
• That the power of government derive their powers from the consent of the governed.

The ideals expressed within our Declaration were given flesh and substance by our Constitution.  As is usual when ideals are translated into reality, a great deal was lost in translation.  Not all men were treated equal, even under the law. In fact, inequality of the most brutal kind was actually protected by the Constitution.  And, despite Abigail Adam’s words to her husband to not forget the women, women were forgotten.

The war I am referring to is the one to close the gap between the ideals and the reality of our Constitution, our government, and our society.  The two sides are those who believe that the gap between ideal and reality should be closed, and those who are fighting for the status quo, for the way things are, for a world of gaps. It is one that we are still very much engaged in and, indeed, are in the middle of a reversal, something I will discuss more later on in this blog.

Like all wars, there have been successful battles and lost ones, advances followed by reversals.  It seems that human society acts much like Newton’s universe, for every action an equal and opposite reaction.

In regards to slavery, some of the advances include the founding of the world’s first abolition society in Pennsylvania in 1775,  the Gradual Emancipation Act passed in Pennsylvania in 1780,  the passage of the Northwest Ordinance in 1787, the creation in Philadelphia of the first independent black organization/mutual aid society, the joining of several state and regional antislavery societies into a national organization in 1794, the first independent black churches in 1794, the passage of the federal Slave Trade Act of 1794, several attempts by both blacks and whites to organize a slave insurrection, Congress outlawing participation in the African Slave Trade in 1808, the creation of the Underground Railroad, and much more.

But, there were reversals and defeats too, starting with the creation of the Constitution which allowed the institution of slavery to continue and flourish, enshrining the idea that not all men are equal.  Other reversals include such things as the 1793 passage of the fugitive slave law, the passage in several slave states of laws that made organizations and speech promoting abolition illegal and punishable by expulsion or prison, anti-black and anti-abolitionist violence against blacks and abolitionists in free states such as Pennsylvania,  the taking away the right to vote from blacks in the revised Pennsylvania state Constitution in 1838, the Compromise of 1850, the repeal in 1852 of the Missouri Compromise, the Dred Scott decision, and others.

As most know, this battle on this front resulted in the Civil War and ended in bloody victory with the passage of the 13^th Amendment abolishing slavery, the passage of the first Civil Rights Act in 1876, the passage of the 14^th amendment granting blacks citizenship and the passage of the 15^th amendment granting black men the right to vote,

The problem with all such victories is that they are never complete and become the impetus of an opposite and, at times, equal reactions.  In this case, the reactions were the creation of the KKK, the numerous Jim Crow laws, the lack of protections for blacks across the country as well as the lack of help for those who were freed from slavery with no possessions, no money, and limited opportunities, the separate but equal ruling and much more.  This front of the war continued on, with the side of regression holding the upper hand for the most part, through both laws and terror, for almost 100 years. And, although great strides were taken with the Civil Rights movement of the 50s, 60s and 70s and the Civil Rights laws passed then, victory has still not been achieved.  The nature of the battle and the front has changed, but the battle to view and treat blacks equally as whites is still on-going.  In fact, it is an ironic truth that the very success of the Civil Rights movement has led to a new tactic by those against full equality – the belief that victory has been achieved and nothing further need be done.

This war though has several fronts, two old and one new.  The other older front is the battle for women’s rights. As with the battle for racial justice and equality, it too had its victories and defeats, its advances and retreats. In fact,  in the beginning there was a tight alliance between those organizations promoting the rights of women to vote and the anti-abolition movement, with women and men often active in both.  Both Harriet Tubman and Sojourner Truth were two such individuals.  However, the split between the two occurred early, when in 1840 the American Anti-Slavery Society split over the issue of public involvement of women, with one group against having women involved and saying they should have no formal role.  And, after passage of the 13^th, 14^th, and 15^th amendments, the abolitionist societies disbanded and their members no longer actively supported the women’s suffrage movement.   The women were on their own.

Many today do not realize how hard fought that battle was. It officially started in 1848 with the Seneca Falls women’s rights convention.  For the next 100 years these women tried to educate the public of the need for women to have the vote. Petitions were created and given and Congress was lobbied for the passage of a Constitutional Amendment; most of which were largely ignored. After all, why should these male politicians pay attention?  Women couldn’t vote, and their place was in the bedroom creating a baby, and in the kitchen feeding the children and her husband.  Some women tried to vote, or even run for office, in the hopes of forcing a Supreme Court ruling. They successfully forced a Supreme Court ruling in 1872. However, the court ruled against them.

Around the turn of the 20^th century, more active measures were taken – mass protest and demonstrations, with a great many women being arrested and jailed.  And, when those women then went on hunger strikes, they were force fed.  Eventually, they succeeded in getting the vote with the passage of the 19^th amendment in 1920.  However, just as gaining the right to vote was not the end of the war for blacks, so too gaining the right to vote did not end the war for women.  Having the vote was not the same as being equal, and just as with blacks, women were still considered inferior.

Laws and standards and mores existed which served to enforce women’s inferior status.  They could not go into certain jobs and what jobs they could get paid less than men’s.  Even doing the same work, women were paid less than men. Women were considered the ward of their husband or other male relative and usually could not enter into financial agreements by themselves.  Husbands were allowed and often expected to beat their wives if they got out of hand (think of the many movies in the 1950s and 1960s in which the women were spanked with the message she deserved it, or the commercials of that same time).   College was a rarity and taking science and engineering and other such masculine courses discouraged.  Women, like blacks, learned that being able to vote did not make them equals in the eyes of government or whites or men. Further, sexual harassment as well as rape was usually considered the fault of the woman.  And thus was created the Feminist movement.

Recently, there has been a third front on the war to live up to the ideals of our founding.  This one is attacking the restriction of the rights of those who do not follow the norms established for heterosexual desire, identity, and attraction, the LGBTQ.  Although the conflict and laws and debates have been around for millennia, in the US the push for equal rights for the LGBTQ could be said  to have started in 1924 with the founding of the Society for Human Rights, the first gay rights organization.  In 1950 another gay rights group, the Mattachine Society was formed.   In 1955 the first lesbian rights organization in the US was formed, the Daughters of Bilitis.

Laws against homosexuality have existed since its founding in the US. However, as gays started speaking out more and worked to gain societal acceptance new laws and actions were taken in reaction.  In 1952 the American Psychiatric Association’s diagnostic manual listed homosexuality as a “sociopathic personality disturbance”.  In 1953 President Eisenhower signed an executive order banning homosexuals from working in the federal government. However, in 1969 the one event that most people have heard of in regards to gay rights, the police raid of Stonewall Inn in New York City  launched the gay civil rights movement in the US.

After years of strife – Matthew Shephard, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, California’s Proposition 8 – a series of important victories in this war occurred. In 2003 the Supreme Court struck down homosexual conduct law, in 2004 the first legal same sex marriage in the US took place in Massachusetts, in 2013 the Supreme Court ruled that legally married same sex couples are entitled to federal benefits, and in 2015 the Supreme Court ruled that states cannot ban same  sex marriage.

However, as with women and blacks, this was not the same as being considered and treated equally.  In fact, this was still in the process of being worked out amid much opposition before being derailed in 2016.  And the work to just protect the lives of transsexuals, never mind protect their rights, was just beginning before 2016.

The year 2016, the year that the forces of the status quo, of inequality, of regression struck back. And did so supporting a most unlikely champion – a man of limited intellect and ability, rich and spoiled, abrasive and abusive.  A man of towering inflated ego. trump.  At first glance trump seems an unlikely champion for a group that wants a return to “traditional values”, since he has never exhibited any such thing in his personal life, nor has he demonstrated any commitment to a belief outside of pure self-interest.  However, he knows how to condemn and demean, to attack and push and tear down.  He knows how to harness the emotions of anger and fear. He knows how to destroy.  The fact that trump has no idea how to build matters not, because those supporting him do not want something built, they want something destroyed.

From eight years of a black president, of significant gains in regards to LGBTQ rights, continuing gains in regards to minorities and women, we are now going backwards.

I started this by stating that this war has been about making this country meet the ideals of its founding. However, I freely admit that many, probably most, and possibly all, of the founders and creators of the Constitution and the US would be horrified at where this push to live up to the ideals they espoused has led. Many would be against women voting, against blacks being equal, and feel disgust at the thoughts of LGBTQ equality.  However, they are the product of their times, no matter how great and visionary.  And they were visionary, visionary beyond their ability to accept. Although I do think some might have accepted all of this, whether they would have or not though doesn’t really matter.  The ideal of equality for all humans has an existence separate from them.  One that it is up to us to continue to form and create.

After such a long war, and after having made such significant gains, it is no wonder many of us are fatigued and stressed, seeing hard won victories for our fellow citizens and humanity in general being torn down and destroyed; seeing the pain and the suffering engendered by this reversal.   However, I agree with Martin Luther King Jr. that “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.”

I agree because of what I see in history, both of the world and of the United States. Even with the reverses since 2016, we are still further towards the realization of our nation’s ideals than we were during its founding, than at the dawning of the 20^th century, and even than during the turn of the 21^st century.  I also realize from history that progress is most often three steps forward and two steps back, each step labored and often bloody.  Although frustrating and depressing at times, there is some comfort to have that we are doing better than the universe with our reaction being slightly less.

A final thing I know. Just because I see this in our history does not mean that there is some mechanism that will ensure this journey will continue onward, that we will not fall back and back and back and not move forward again.  Whether it does or not depends on us, on our individual actions.  I know that many are tired, I know that I am tired of what I see going on, that there are times I have to take some time to turn away from what is happening or else despair. For so many to support this man, and these actions….  I had thought us at least slightly better than this.

At the same time, I know that I also have to come back and move forward to change things, to help us take those three steps forwards before the next two steps back are upon us. All  in all, a good New Year’s resolution.

Read Full Post »

What America is Not

Often America is called a melting pot, a place where people from different countries come with different languages, beliefs, and customs and are then made into one people.

However I don’t see this.   And don’t think I would care for what I saw if I did see it.

I don’t see this because in traveling through my home city, through America, in reading my local paper and listening to those friends and acquaintances at work, I can see that we are not melted into one people.

Just within my own hometown city I see many different communities – Latin American, black, Asian, Muslim, Hindu, Irish, German, and more.  All with their own celebrated customs and foods, dress and religion.  Many with voices leavened with accents, pronunciations, and words from their ancestral country.

I see people with short hair, long hair, no hair; people in jeans and in suits, in saris and burqas, in hijabs and short skirts, in robes and shorts. I hear people speaking in different languages, eating different foods, going to different houses of worship, or none at all. I hear people expressing different thoughts and views.

A melting pot implies that these differences are melted out and that we are all then just one homogenous people.  But we are not.  Instead we are a diverse people.

 

And that is good.

 

It is our diversity that gives us new ideas and new ways of doing things.  It promotes innovation and an ability to adapt to a changing world.  It provides us with a pool in which we can dip in order to better understand the world.

It is our diversity that makes us interesting.  Different foods, different and wonderful customs and ways of life.  New words to use. Different ways of thinking and viewing the world.

Instead of a melting pot we are an orchestra.  And the music we create together, that is America.

Manchester International Roots Orchestra

Strings over here, woodwinds there, and drums over to the right.  Lets add the sitars next to the harps, the mandolins and banjoes next to the piccolos.  And the hurdy gurdy accordion next to the piano.  The Kora and Kalimba playing next to the tin whistle and kuuchir.

And let each play the music that is dear to them.  Let each play what they believe it means to be an American.

Oh, there is a framework for the music, a score if you will.   It is the Constitution and a belief in freedom and liberty. And of human rights. But the score is a loose and largely improvised one, one that is made to promote and protect diversity, not uniformity.

Of course the ideal would be that together we create a music that is beautiful and harmonious.  The truth is though that often there are discordances in the music – tones and notes out of key with others.  Differing rhythms and scales. During the worse of times each instrument, each player seems to be playing his own tune without regards to the others, and a cacophony is created instead of music.

But out of that cacophony, eventually,  a new music is created, a new variation on a theme of America.

 

 

Read Full Post »

What to Expect of a Trump America: Part 3, What to Do

Finally, a short blog.  At least, shorter than the other two.

First and foremost:

Next:

 

Now, big broad dramatic actions, while nice, are not necessary and are not what is going to turn things around.  It will be the actions of millions of people working on mundane and often boring tasks that will turn things around.  It will be the actions of millions of people donating time and money to organizations that work to protect our rights, our economy, our schools, our environment, our nation that will turn things around.  It will be us, the majority, who will turn things around.

National groups are nice, but look local too.  The Republican conservatives who support Trump control too many states, and that needs to change.

Write letters to your local paper, to your elected representatives at all levels from city to state to national.  This means be aware of what is happening both nationally and locally.  Join in local organizations that are working to improve the environment, poverty, homelessness, civil rights, and all of those things that are most in danger now.   If you are up to it, get involved in local boards on different subjects and problems.  Volunteer to testify on issues that most concern you – locally in city councils to testifying before state committees.

 

For myself, I have never registered as a Democrat or Republican, preferring to be considered an Independent.  And early one there were Republicans who I could and did vote for.  However, those have vanished over the years as the Republican Party became more radically conservative and radically right religious.

So, for the first time in my life, I will become a registered Democrat and work with the local party here in Beaumont.  There are other things I will be doing, and there are a great many groups and organizations that you could become a part of.  Here is just a short and not even remotely exhaustive list of them linked to their websites, in no particular order.

 

Americans United for Separation of Church and State

Common Cause

National Center for Science Education

Texas Freedom Network –  for those living in Texas, this is a group I have worked with before and will become more active in now.

Planned Parenthood

Sierra Club

Friends of the Earth

National Organization for Women

League of Women Voters

American Civil Liberties Union

Southern Poverty Law Center

Center for Responsive Politics

Campaign Zero

Black Lives Matter

 

This is not a complete listing by far.  It barely scratches the surface in fact and doesn’t even cover all the areas of concern.  Look and find something that fits your interests and greatest concerns.

And, perhaps most important of all, remember we are all Americans.  We are all human.  Look at your neighbor, at your town, your city, your county, your parish, your state, and your country, and be aware of whatever threatens your neighbors well being whether it involves civil liberties and equal treatment under the law, the environment in which we all share, education or any of host of other areas that look like they may well be under attack during a Trump Presidency.

Because of this, of our shared humanity and identity as Americans, seriously consider even going beyond if things go badly.  If the Trump administration starts a registry for Muslims, register as Muslims.  If President Trump voids the Dream Act, write and call and protest – demonstrations and marches in solidarity with those who are most affected.  If you are white, go ahead and march in a Black Lives Matter protest.  If you are black, then demonstrate in support of that 18 year old American college student brought here from Mexico when she was 3 but being deported now, if you are an Atheist march with and in support of the American Muslims and the refugees.  Let your voice and presence be heard and seen in as many ways as possible.

Be aware and act.   And vote.  Vote in local elections.  In state elections.  And in National ones.  And, hopefully, we can blunt the damage that I fear is coming.  And in 2016 start to not only blunt but turn it around.

Read Full Post »

What to Expect of a Trump America: Part 1, Dictator?

I have seen several people express fears about Trump becoming a dictator and the US become something similar to what Nazi Germany was under Hitler.  That we will lose our freedoms; of speech, of religion, of assembly, to vote.  That our free press will become bound and gagged.

 

While I recognize the similarities between Trump and Hitler, and while acknowledging a dictatorship is a possibility, I strongly disagree on it being probable.  Many things are possible, only a few are really probable.  So, given the many concerns I have seen expressed about this, I thought I would first explain why I do not believe it will happen.  Then I will explain what I think are the more probable consequences of Trump’s election and give what I consider a more realistic worst case scenario Finally, I will go over  what needs to happen to prevent or at least mitigate this more realistic worse case scenario from happening.

 

This is going to be a long blog so I am breaking it down into each of these component parts to form three blogs on the same subject.

 

Why the United States will not go the way of Nazi Germany

While there are similarities between Hitler and Trump, and in how they rose to power, there are also differences.  However, more important than these differences is the difference between our country now and Germany during the rise of Hitler.  People such as Alexander the Great, Napoleon,  George Washington, and Hitler come to power not only by the force of their personality or by how they do things, but also as the result of their times.  Put those same people in another setting and they may, and probably will, fail.  Greatness or notoriety do not arise in a vacuum.

Now, there are some similarities between Germany then and the US today.  Both peoples were and are frustrated with their government.   They feel and felt that it was ineffectual, that it could not address the problems of the times, and that things were getting worse.  And there is a similarity in that, while Hitler used the Jews as a scapegoat for many of the Weimar Republic’s problems, many of Trump’s supporters use the illegal alien and Muslims as scapegoats.  And for the more racist of Trump supporters, blacks.

 

However, the similarities are limited, both in number, in intensity, and in scope.  For example, in Germany then:

 

• Germany became a democracy in 1919. In 1933, when Hitler rose to power and the Nazi Party won the most seats in the German Parliament, the German People only had 14 years of experience with democracy.   Their prior experience was with a dictatorial government, and that was what they were comfortable with.  Or at least more familiar with, and, more importantly, associated with a government that actually worked.  When democracy did not seem to be working and unable to solve the many problems the German people face, they set up no outcry with the onset of emergency powers and the suspension of rights.
  • The US has, counting from the ratification of the US Constitution, over 230 years of democratic experience. We have faced numerous challenges from the beginning.  And through each one, we, as a people, did not wave from our commitment to democracy.  Even in the midst of our worst crisis, the Civil War, we held open and honest elections.  Our expectations are different and backed up by over 200 years of democracy surviving through war, riots, the Great Depression, immense social upheaval, and all the other detritus that we have found ourselves in.
• Even worse, democracy in Germany did not arise from the people as it did here in the US. It was imposed upon the German people by the victors of WW2.  Because of that most of the German people of the time did not trust or really believe in democracy.  It was never theirs, never their government.
• To make matters even more difficult, their politicians had no experience with democracies.
  • Even at our start, the founders and the colonials had some experience in democracies. And we have had over 200 years more experience now.
• The German people were humiliated by the very demeaning terms of the Versailles Treaty. The war reparations imposed on them were economically impossible and crippling.  In 1923 the Allies grew tired of Germany’s inability to pay these reparations and occupied the Ruhr Valley, Germany’s industrial heartland.  And, instead of blaming their wartime leaders for this, the German people tended to blame the German politicians that arose out of this humiliating defeat.
  • Our democracy did not arise out of defeat, but out of victory. And we have not been defeated in the manner that Germany was, and have never been humiliated in such a fashion.
• To add to this, Germany faced a disastrous number of problems. We look back to our Great Depression as being a terrible time for the US.  However, Germany had it even worse (something I sometimes have a hard time convincing my parents of).   Unemployment in 1932 was almost 31%.   German citizens had to contend with hyperinflation (with many staples such a bread costing 100 billion marks) and millions lived in abject poverty and thousands of children died of hunger.
  • Our economy today, by contrast, is actually strong. Our economic numbers are good.  Now, the problem today for the US is that it is not strong everywhere, and that the recovery has left too many people behind.  Further, with the changes in society and business – mainly automation, the change from coal to natural gas, and globalization – many Americans are left feeling angry and frustrated.  Yet, most people in this country are actually doing better.  Our situation today is a far cry from Germany, and while there is enough frustration to allow the election of a Trump, there is not enough widespread frustration to allow him to dismantle our democracy.  Especially as the results of his policies become clear.
• The German Constitution at that time had a provision allowing the President to take emergency measures and issue emergency decrees without the consent of the German legislature. This was supposed to be limited to certain emergencies. However, given the state of Germany at the time, emergencies were plentiful.
  • The US Constitution has no such provision. There is a provision for the declaration of martial law by the President or Congress in the Constitution.  However, nationally, it has only been used once.  During the Civil War Congress approved most of the martial law measures enacted by President Lincoln.  During WW2, there was a partial enactment of martial law- some of which were overturned by the courts and those arrested and held then released. Others though, lamentably, were upheld (the internment of US citizens of Japanese descent).

So, the US has twice used martial law, both times during war.  Yes, there have been other declarations of martial law, but they have been made by governors at a state level and not nationally by the federal government.

Further, while the President could declare martial law, Congress still has the power to deny it or overturn it. And the state of martial law is challenged the Supreme Court could overturn it too.  Such provisions and safeguards not present in the German Constitution in 1932.

• In Germany at that time it was expected that laws did not have to conform to the Constitution as long as it had the support of two thirds of parliament. This made it easier to pass laws that limited rights and abridged freedoms.
  • The US has no such expectation. In fact, that is totally contrary to both our expectations and practice.
• Finally, in terms of at least going over the differences between Germany then and the US today, Trump is not Hitler. He shares many of the same traits, but he is not Hitler.  For one, Hitler was motivated by an ideology.  Trump, by his ego.  While many bad things are likely to happen, I do not think Trump would take it to the extremes that Hitler did – state sponsored terrorism against certain groups of citizens –  since his motivation is different.

 

In addition to the above differences, there are some political and social realities which would keep Trump from becoming a dictator.

• The majority of the voters voted for Hillary for President and more voters voted for Democrats than Republicans in the Senate. This indicates an already large group of people opposed to Trump and what he represents.  And provides the base for trying to limit the damage he and his administration does, and to ensure that he is, at best, a one term president
• While the Republicans, especially of the Tea Party variety, are lining up behind him now, there are significant divisions within the party. Divisions which would create strong problems in regards to privatizing Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.  Even the “dismantling” of Obamacare has to be handled with care.    Millions of Americans are already beneficiaries of it, millions are on the expanded Medicaid rolls.  Millions of people who would be hurt if it were just stopped.
• Getting passage of controversial bills in the Senate is especially going to be challenging. There will be 46 Democrat Senators and 52 Republican ones (two Senators are independent).  This means on the issues that are really controversial, there are likely going to be some Republicans who will not go along.  They with the Democrats will be able to block some bills.  And nominees.
• Trump has already backed off on some of his prominent promises – building he wall, prosecuting Hillary for example. And he is starting to receive criticism for it from those who supported him.  They are not dropping him yet, but they are starting to be unhappy with some of his decisions.  I imagine as it sinks in that most of his administration are not only rich and well connected, but extremely rich, and that they vote to their own benefit, this will become even more pronounced.
• Those who elected him expect things from him.  For example, the coal miners.  Trump promised them they would all get their jobs back.  His method for doing this – do away with environmental regulations.  The problem, those regulations were not why the coal miners were not working.  They are not working because natural gas prices dropped as our supply increased.  How do you imagine those coal miners will feel about Trump when they realize that he did not keep his promise?   Then extend this to the economy as a whole, and what will happen if, as I expect, the economy goes bad under him.
• I know that many are concerned about Trump and the Supreme Court. Currently there is one vacancy, which means it will probably be a conservative along the lines of Scalia.  But, that does not set us back any further than before since we have been living with that for years.  And that was a court that gave us gay marriage, upheld abortion rights, and decided that Obamacare was legal.
  • Now, if another vacancy comes up, that will be the time to worry. But, I do not look for any of the more liberal justices to be retiring until the next president comes along.  We might lose one due to health or death, but not retirement.  And, keep in mind, that there are enough democrats that they still can make it difficult to get too outrageous a candidate to become Justice.   It would not be good, but he cannot pack the court with Justices who would go along with him becoming a dictator (although they could go along with many other bad things though)
  • I would also note that on Trump’s idea to imprison those who burn the American flag, Justice Scalia had this to say: “If I were king I wouldn’t go about letting people burn the American Flag. However, we have a first amendment which says that the right of free speech shall not be abridged, and it is addressed, in particular to speech critical of the government.   I mean, that was the main kind of speech that tyrants would seek to suppress.”

I could go on for quite a bit longer.  We have a robust freedom of the press.  I am sure that Trump will try to limit that, and may well get a few victories.  However, there is still the independent judiciary.  Further, if you look at freedom of the press may go backwards many decades, but not to the point where the media becomes the puppet and totally under the control of the President.

 

In fact, overall, that is the more realistic scenario that I discuss in my next blog on this subject; that we will not have a dictator but instead many of the social gains and progress, many of the civil rights gains and progress will wind up being pushed back decades, possible even to a similar state as the turn of the 20^th century in many ways.  That our economy is ruined and  taking the world’s economy with it.  And the increased possibility of wars.

 

Those are realistic worse case scenarios.  But, Trump becoming a dictator and the United States a fascist dictatorship, or a dictatorship of any kind – no, that is not realistic at all.

Read Full Post »

Memorial Day Thoughts – How Best to Honor the Memory of Those Fallen

Memorial Day, a day to remember the brave men and women who have died defending this country. We will remember them in various ways – parades, speeches, flags, and flowers. Articles have been and will be written about them and what their sacrifice means. And all of this is good.

However, I would like to add just one more way to honor their sacrifice. To my mind the best way to honor their deaths.

Green Fields of France

Did they beat the drum slowly did they play the fife lowly,
did they sound the death march as they lowered you down
did the band play the last post and chorus,
did the pipes play the “Flowers of the Forest”

Well how do you do young Willie McBride?
do you mind if I sit down here by your graveside
and rest for a while ‘neath the warm summer sun
I’ve been walkin’ all day and I’m nearly done
I see by your gravestone you were only nineteen
when you joined the great fallen of 1916
Well I hope you died quick and I hope you died clean
Willie McBride was it slow and obscene

And the beautiful wife or the sweetheart for life
in some faithful heart are you forever enshrined
and although you died back in 1916
in that faithful heart are you forever nineteen?
or are you a stranger without even a name
enshrined forever behind a glass pane
in an ould photograph torn tattered and stained,                                                                                                               fading to yellow in a brown leather frame?

Now the sun shines down on the green fields of France
a warm summer wind makes the red poppys dance
The trences have vanished under the plows,
there’s no gas no barbed wire, there’s no guns firing now
but here in this graveyard it’s still No Man’s land,
the countless white crosses stand mute in the sand
for man’s blind indifference to his fellow man,
to a whole generation that was butchered and damned

Now Willie McBride I can’t help wonder why
Do those who lie here do they know why they died
Did they really believe when they answered the call
did they really believe that this war would end wars
Forever this song of suffering and shame
the killing the dying was all done in vain
for young Willie McBride it’s all happened again,
and again, and again, and again and again

The best way to remember the brave fallen who have defended this country is to work hard to create a world in which they are the last of the brave who have to die to defend liberty and freedom.

An impossible dream you might say. Quite possibly. But some impossible dreams are well worth striving for, for although they may never be attained it is in the striving to do the impossible that the world is improved.

Of course, setting impossible goals is easy. Finding ways to even start to attain them is much more difficult. As a nation though we need to:

– Make sure that any conflicts and wars we enter into are for a good cause and real need; that they cannot be resolved in any other more peaceful way even if the peaceful way may take more time (something difficult for us as we are an impatient people).

• Realize that we are too quick to war and too impatient in allowing the working out of non-violent solutions. Realize too that war is always evil, even in those few times it is necessary.
• Truly take a look at our and others actions leading up to conflicts where lives are lost. Even those that had to be fought.There are reasons why wars and conflicts become inevitable and learning those causes can help us – if we are wise – to avoid making decisions today that will create the seeds of future wars.
• Realize that while there is a horrifying glamour about war and violence and heroism, that what we need to be focused on is the more mundane, the more boring, the more frustrating path of diplomacy, of forging relations not only in terms of economics but also in culture and society.

But that is for nations. What can we as individuals do?

As individuals we must realize that part of the greatness of America is that we make up our government and influence it. With this in mind, look at who we vote for and what they stand for and how they mean to accomplish their goals.

Write letters and communicate not only to your representatives but also on social media about issues of the day.

Join and support groups of like minded people.

But, before the voting, before the communication, before the joining together and monetary support, spend the time to read and learn about the issues and problems facing us. Take the time to read both sides, and not just skimming the side you initially disagree with but read and understand fully. Forget what you know for a moment, set aside your certainties, and read to understand first and foremost. And then decide. And then act.

And one final thing – get to know those you disagree with. Personally whenever possible. And encourage programs that do the same between groups and nations.

So, yes, honor the fallen by placing flowers on graves and lights in windows. Set out the flag in front of your home, as I plan to do. Remember the dead and grieve for them and for our loss. Feel inspired by their courage and sacrifice. But go beyond that to work and make sure that the final verse of the Green Fields of France does not stay true for ever and ever, in conflict without end.

Now Willie McBride I can’t help wonder why
Do those who lie here do they know why they died
Did they really believe when they answered the call
did they really believe that this war would end wars
Forever this song of suffering and shame
the killing the dying was all done in vain
for young Willie McBride it’s all happened again,
and again, and again, and again and again

Read Full Post »

The Persecuted Christian

A bit over two years ago I posted “Gimme That Old Banned Religion”, about a t-shirt with the words “I am not ashamed of the Gospel because it is the power of God the salvation of everyone who believes. Romans 1:16” on the front. On the back it stated, “This shirt is illegal in 51 countries.”

Obviously I checked out the accuracy of this back statement and then used this to discuss the interesting fact that many Christians in America claim that they are persecuted, not only in other countries but also here in the United States.

This blog has gotten some interesting responses, including two that I did not allow due to their abuse of language. A few days ago I received in comment that made me want to briefly revisit the topic of the “persecution” of Christians in America. Before I do though, I realize that many if not most Christians in the United States do not believe they are persecuted. In fact, I received a couple of thoughtful comments from Christians to this effect.

However, while acknowledging the truth of this, it is still also true that a sizable number of Christians do believe they are persecuted in the United States. Now, I am not going to deal with all the problems in claiming that Christians are persecuted in the United States. Much of it stems from the fact that “They wish to elevate the loss of their religious privileges – which are forbidden by the United States Constitution – to the loss of their religious rights – which is very much protected by the Constitution.”

What I want to focus on instead is the claim of a commenter that “Christians are the MOST persecuted in the world”. Really?

Consider the following:

• In every country in which Christianity is outlawed and expressing Christian beliefs illegal, so too are other religious beliefs, including atheists. Does the Most Persecuted Religion trophy go to the group with the most individuals being persecuted? If so, then Christianity has an unfair advantage in that they are the largest religious group in the world. A better measurement would be a proportional one in which you look at laws outlawing and restricting a religion. By this measure, Christianity is not the most persecuted religion in the world. At best, it is tied with many others.
  
• In Iraq  today a religious group is in danger of being totally wiped out by ISIS. Those who follow the Yazidi faith are being hunted and killed for their faith. Just because they are not as numerous as Christians does that mean that their persecution doesn’t count? Or perhaps it counts, but just not as much. How do you compare their persecution with their smaller numbers with that of Christians? After all, they are in grave danger of giving their all, just as the widow did in Mark 12: 41- 44
  

  41 He sat down opposite the treasury, and watched the crowd putting money into the treasury. Many rich people put in large sums. 42 A poor widow came and put in two small copper coins, which are worth a penny. 43 Then he called his disciples and said to them, “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put in more than all those who are contributing to the treasury. 44 For all of them have contributed out of their abundance; but she out of her poverty has put in everything she had, all she had to live on.”

  It seems to me that even though the Christians today might be persecuted out of their abundance, those who in their poverty of numbers are in danger of being wiped out are being the more persecuted.
  

• Does it count as persecution when those persecuting you are also a Christian, just of a different variety? For example, the Catholic persecution of Protestants, the Protestant persecution of Catholics, the persecution of Quakers by both, etc. It seems to me that this should not count towards the count for most persecuted religion. Instead, this should be reserved for persecution by those of a totally different religious belief.

So, who do I think is the most persecuted religion? The Jews. They have been persecuted for far longer than Christians have, have suffered more deaths and restrictions than Christians have. What is of interest here is that the Jews have suffered deaths and restrictions frequently at the hands of Christians. In fact, this makes me wonder, does the fact that Christians persecuted other religions mean that they should be deducted points for most persecuted religion? This question is especially important in light of the fact that the religion that has engaged in the greatest amount of persecution of the Jews is Christianity.

Yes, Islam has done so too. Both have anti-Semitic elements within their respective sacred books. However, for most of history, Islamic countries have been a safer place for Jews to live than Christian European ones. That is not to say that Jews were considered the equals of Muslims, nor that they did not suffer persecutions and extra taxations . They did. However, what the Jews experienced in Christian Europe was worse, on average, than what they experienced in the Middle East. Just consider, the greatest number of Jews being killed for being Jewish occurred during the First Crusade and in Nazi Germany during the Holocaust. Both of these were Christian countries and these actions carried out by Christians.

So, how does the fact that Christians have engaged in severe persecution fit into these Christians calculations for being the most persecuted religion?

A more basic question, though, is why do so many Christians seem to feel this is important. They seem to believe that if a religion can survive such persecution then that is evidence that that religion contains the truth and is the one correct religion. However, is this true?

Not really. Although my tone may have, at times, been slightly sarcastic in my questions and points above, the questions and points are all valid. Christians have been and in many countries are still being persecuted – along with atheists, Jews, and other religious groups.

Christians have also often been the persecutors.

And it is Judaism, not Christianity, which has suffered the greatest amount of persecution throughout history.

Yet this belief that being persecuted validates Christianity still permeates the thinking of many Christians. It is why they so often try so hard to twist and distort the reality of Christianity within the United States so as to claim that they are persecuted too. It validates, in some strange way, their belief in the ultimate and exclusive truthfulness of their religion. Never mind the reality.

And the reality is? Persecution is no measure of how true a religion is. It is the result of many other factors instead – politics and economics, geography, social norms and values, and the interactions with other religions. If persecution were the measure of a religion’s validity then Judaism would be the winner. Of course, the atheist would rank fairly high too. Not to mention the Yazidi. Or the many other religious groups.

Instead of contemplating with joy how persecuted Christians are, even within the United States, these Christians should instead be working to protect all of those persecuted regardless of religious belief – atheist, Jew, Yazidi… all. They should be working to rid the world of persecution and discrimination for any reason whether it be for religion or race or gender or sexual orientation. They should, instead, be working to create a culture, a society, a world in which each is free to follow their conscience and to live their lives as they best see fit. That is a much more laudable goal than watching all their trials and tribulations sinking in a gentle pool of wine.

Read Full Post »

Of Short Memories, Ignorance and Illegal Immigrant Children

Of Short Memories

Approximately 1.5 million children died during the Holocaust.

In 1938, just after the German pogrom against the Jews known as Kristallnacht, Great Britain eased its visa requirements to allow children under the age of 17 from Nazi Germany, or from any of its annexed territories, to enter the country on temporary travel visas. From December 2, 1938 until May 14, 1940 between 9,000 to 10,000 children – about 7,500 of them Jewish – were rescued from Germany, Austria, Poland, and Czechoslovakia. This was done even though Great Britain was also experiencing the severe effects of the Great Depression – the value of British exports was halved, industrial output had fallen by a third, unemployment rose to 20% (with some areas reaching 70% unemployment). While some areas of the economy around London still prospered, poverty and unemployment devastated Northern England and Wales; and still they took in 10,000 children in need.

Between 1934 – 1945, in the United States 1,400 mostly Jewish children were rescued from Europe and the Nazi’s atrocities. Why did Great Britain wind up rescuing more than seven times as many children in just 1 and a half years than the United States did in 11 years?

•  Great Britain’s program was well known (the Refugee Children’s Movement or kindertransport) and promoted. The American One Thousand Children effort was kept quiet and low key so as not to antagonize the isolationists and anti-Semitists in this country.
•  Great Britain loosened the laws on immigration to allow these children to enter and stay. The United States did not, instead maintaining strict quotas even after the events of Kristallnacht made it clear the Nazi’s intentions towards Jews. Legislation was proposed, the Wagner-Rogers Bill, that would have admitted 20,000 Jewish refuges under the age of 14 to enter the United States. It failed to pass.

 

Of Ignorance

Guatemala – Due to crime cartels and gangs (often consisting of retired generals and police officers) there are 52 murders per 100,000 people every year. In the United States is it only five per 100,000, and only one per 100,000 for England. In 2009 the number of people shot, beaten, and knifed to death in Guatemala outnumbered Iraqi’s who died in the war zone in Iraq. More than 2/3 of homicides in Guatemala are unsolved. Police are both ineffective and corrupt.

Guatemala also has the fourth highest rate of chronic malnutrition in the world. According to a study by the US based research institute The Fund for Peace, this will get worse.

Gangs in Guatemala force children to join, usually young teens. The average age of those recruited has been going down and as of 2012 was close to 12 years old. Girls are recruited to be “girlfriends” (although last year two girls – age 13 and 15 were arrested for assassinating a 20 year old man). Boys to be soldiers. Even some kindergarteners have been recruited. Schools are often just as much recruiting grounds as educational institutions. Refusal to be recruited often results in beatings at first, and then escalates from there. Extreme poverty also eases the decision, even in the face of unwillingness and fear for what they might have to do.

Honduras – In addition to being the poorest country in Latin America, the Honduras also are region’s most violent and crime ridden. It also has one of the most corrupt police forces in Latin America. Often the political and economic elites of this country are the ones directing the activities of the drug cartels and crime syndicates.

Gangs in Hondura force children to join, usually young teens. The average age of those recruited has been going down and as of 2012 was close to 12 years old. Girls are recruited to be “girlfriends”. Boys to be soldiers. Even some kindergarteners have been recruited. Schools are often just as much recruiting grounds as educational institutions. Refusal to be recruited often results in beatings at first, and then escalates from there.  Extreme poverty also eases the decision, even in the face of unwillingness and fear for what they might have to do.

El Salvador – According to the United Nations office on Drugs and crime, El Salvador is one of the most dangerous places in the world, having a homicide rate of 69.2 per 100,000 in 2011. Again, corruption among public officials and police is rampant.
Gangs in El Salvador force children to join, usually young teens. The average age of those recruited has been going down and as of 2012 was close to 12 years old. Girls are recruited to be “girlfriends”. Boys to be soldiers. Even some kindergarteners have been recruited. Schools are often just as much recruiting grounds as educational institutions. Refusal to be recruited often results in beatings at first, and then escalates from there. Extreme poverty also eases the decision, even in the face of unwillingness and fear for what they might have to do.

According to the Border Patrol, 3 out of 4 current unaccompanied children are from the Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador.

In 2008 the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act was voted on and passed by both chambers of Congress without issue or objection. This law was one of the last law signed by President George W. Bush before leaving office. Its purpose was to fight against human trafficking, including sex traffic of children.
Towards that end, any child entering the country alone who was not from Canada or Mexico was to be given the opportunity to appear at an immigration hearing to determine their status. It was also recommended in this law that they have access to counsel. Further, these children were to be turned over to the care of the Department of Health and Human Services, placed “in the least restrictive setting that is in the best interest of the child” and to explore reuniting these children with their family members.

This law was originally pushed by a bipartisan group of lawmakers as well as by evangelical associations concerned with sex trafficking. It passed unanimously.

Health – Despite the rumors, illegal immigrant children pose a very low health risk to the United States. Despite the rumor, they do not have the Ebola virus, which is an African disease and not one found in Latin America. Despite the rumors, dengue is spread by mosquitoes, not people.

What these children do have are illnesses related to long journeys – diarrhea and respiratory illnesses – that do not pose a risk to Americans. In fact, although the U.S. has a 92% vaccination rate for our children, Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras have a 93% vaccination rate for theirs. There is no danger of plague being unleashed upon American citizens by these children.

Gangmember Infiltration of US – Yes, there are gangs in the countries these children are fleeing from. That is why they are running after all. And yes, 16 children have been found with links to gangs. Sixteen out of over 50,000. And are these children trying to hook up to gangs here (unlikely) or are they trying to get out of the gangs by moving far away?

Here is a good article from Insight Crime on this.

Nevertheless, it is still possible that some of the youths are active gang members, but this is unlikely to pose a serious security threat to the United States.

Latin street gangs, especially the MS13, already have a presence in the United States and there is ample evidence that they coordinate criminal activities with counterparts in Central America, in particular in El Salvador. Gangs on both sides of the border likely have access to established networks for the movement of arms, drugs, people and money. It is therefore unlikely they would utilize the routes of common migrants, which are arduous, dangerous and risky, for any important gang operations.

The numbers support this; while the US authorities have discovered 16 gang members so far, if Townhall.com’s account is accurate, this is a tiny fraction of the tens of thousands of children crossing the border.

Border Security – If they are being stopped and detained, then we are securing our borders at the entry point. What more would you have them do – shoot on sight? More boots on the ground would not hurt, but that is not the problem. The problem is that we have this massive flood coming in and we ARE stopping them. Now we have to figure out how to handle them after we have stopped them.

 

Of Illegal Immigrant Children

Today – July 15, 2014 – there are protestors in Tucson Arizona. They are protesting the bussing of 40 immigrant children to a nearby academy for troubled youths. Holding signs reading “Return to sender” “Take them away from here” and “Go home non-Yankees”, they plan to physically block the buses. Just as did:

July 1, 2014. Murrieta California. There protestors shouting “Go back home”, “Nobody wants you”, and “USA” physically blocked three buses carrying illegal immigrant children.

July 14, 2014. Vassar Michigan. Protestors waving American flags, holding signs, and praying together protested the possible arrival of 120 illegal immigrant children to be temporarily housed there while they receive their vaccinations and basic education before either being re-united with relatives or going into foster care. The process is supposed to take 2-4 weeks. Hence the adjective “temporarily”. Yet even this temporary is seemingly too long.

Today I see too many voices yelling at children. I see too many people displaying hatred to children. Today I see too many Americans following in the mindset of the 1930’s. No, these children are not fleeing a holocaust. But they are fleeing for their lives. Dead is dead whether in a Nazi gas chamber or beaten to death by a syndicate crime soldier. The crisis is the same, the lives of refugee children.

I hear many asking why are these children sent alone. They point out, quite rightly, that it is a long and dangerous journey from El Salvador, from Guatemala, from Honduras. However they and their family know that dangerous as that journey is it is still safer than staying in an impoverished home and being recruited for a gang. Just as the mother of Moses launched him to an uncertain fate in a basket upon the waters of the Nile, so too have these parents launched their children fate in the US, knowing too well what their fate will be should they stay.

SAN PEDRO SULA, Honduras — Twelve-year-old Maynor Serrano points to the rows of houses where his friends and neighbors used to live. All are gone — many fleeing to the U.S.

Two of his friends were killed as 10-year-olds, their bodies chopped to pieces in a suspected gang vendetta.
He saw homes reduced to crumbling wrecks, their walls pockmarked with bullet holes. Entire neighborhoods were abandoned in hours — the result of monstrous gang violence.

Some houses became casas locas, crazy homes, for torturing families in this macabre city, which has the highest homicide rate in the world. Daily newspapers are filled with graphic photographs of bodies.

Like many, Maynor Serrano yearns to escape to the U.S., where he has relatives.

“It’s tough to live without hope,” he said. “If it’s not there, you go look for it.”

Some call me a bleeding heart. It is a label that I willingly, proudly, and loudly embrace. After all, for atheists, isn’t empathy for others’ pain, suffering and problems an essential part of what we are? Isn’t this an essential part of why we create societies? Without empathy, without our acting on these impulses, we, eventually, lose what makes us human. Bleeding hearts help set goals that reason and logic then find ways to best achieve.

For the Jews and Christians, I have already mentioned Moses. For Christians, remember also that Joseph and Mary and baby Jesus were refugees too at one time. Remember to love one another. Remember your Bible and Jesus’ words in Matthew 25: 37-40:

“37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

For all those who are religious, isn’t concern for the unfortunate, the poor and suffering, the needy an essential part of your religion? From what I have read, whether Buddhist or Jew, whether Muslim or Sikh, almost all religions require one to help the other, to treat those in need as us and not them.

I am not saying that we should make all of these children citizens. No. What I am saying is that we have a law and a process set up to determine whether these children are refugees and in need of protection and shelter. Fund it so that those organizations set to implement this law and these processes can do their job quickly, efficiently, and effectively. And then if need be, if they would be in danger if returned, then we find homes for them here – just as we have for so many in danger and need, and just as we did not do for the Jewish children.

I am saying that they should have legal counsel during these proceedings to ensure that they do not become merely window dressings for a rubber stamp saying “Go Away”.

I am saying that while here, while waiting for the process to work itself out, they need to receive medical care, food, and a proper place to live.

I am saying that we should not let our bigotry, fear, hatred, uncertainty get the better of us and display our lack of humanity by picketing children and shouting hateful words towards them. They are not the source of your frustration and disagreements. They are merely seeking shelter from a harsh world. Treat them as children in need.

I am saying that we should find solutions that are true to what makes us human.

I am saying that instead of ignoring our bleeding heart, denying its existence, or killing it we should be healing that which causes it to bleed.

 

Read Full Post »