Abortion, guns, socialism, and now, unions. Just a few of the myriad issues used by Republicans to fan the flames of unrest, to get us worked up and fighting each other. To use our beliefs against us to serve their political agenda. An agenda set by billionaire lobbyists and corporations.
I, for one, am tired of defending unions, of explaining the concepts of freedom and democracy over and over. Because people, none of these wedge issues are the problem. Not one of these issues -- nor even all of them together -- has contributed to our country's current situation. The real problem is the corporate welfare policies supported by our elected officials.
And yes, it is welfare. What happened to the free market? If it's such a fabulous, inviolate concept, then doesn't "too big to fail" present a contradiction? Why did we bail out Wall Street, instead of letting the free market dictate the outcome? Why do we allow corporate tax havens and loopholes? Shouldn't they be able to survive without such handouts?
(For an article on the tax burden shifted to you and me, instead of corporations, check out this link. It also has a handy table of state-by-state stats. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/15/offshore-tax-havens-a-sta_n_186640.html )
This is just one example of the Real Problem. Everything in modern politics is geared to help corporations. Heck, our own Supreme Court even declared them to have the same rights as human beings! But the Republicans (and yes, the Dems who silently support the very same policies) are clever -- they won't let us protest their actions. They know that it's easy as pie to whip up a furor over some side issue, something that has no bearing on the state of our country, and get us fighting among ourselves instead of targeting them.
(I find it ironic that some of the loudest anti-government protestors today so willingly allow that same government tell them what to think, but that's another topic.....)
So people, here's my plea: let's stop fighting each other. You don't have to be pro-union or pro-choice, you don't have to think taxes are good, you don't have to believe guns belong in every American home. All you have to do is recognize that we have more in common between us than any of us do with those receiving billions in annual salary and millions in bonuses. They are the real enemy. Sure, unions aren't perfect, healthcare isn't perfect.....but right now, we have bigger issues at hand. When our country's economy is no longer racing to the bottom, when we are no longer becoming a third world country, when the gap between rich and poor closes and the middle class rises again -- then we can focus on these other issues. We need to stand together if we are to survive.
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Sunday, February 13, 2011
Separation of Church and State: is it really Constitutional?
Yes, it is. Many people try to pull the old "the Constitution doesn't say 'separation of church and state' anywhere" argument, but that just doesn't hold water. True, those exact words do not appear in the document; however, their intent does.
Let's start with what the First Amendment actually does say, shall we? "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The first part is known as the Establishment Clause, and it is the meat of the matter. What exactly does it mean to respect the establishment of religion?
Rather than put it in my own words and have you accuse me of being a Communist-Manifesto reader (which, by the way, I am), allow me to quote the Supreme Court. In the Court's decision on Engel v. Vitale, 1962, Justice Black said:
When the power, prestige, and financial support of government is placed behind a particular religious belief, the indirect coercive pressure upon religious minorities to conform to the prevailing officially approved religion is plain.
Call me crazy, but I think having Congress and the President host the National Prayer Breakfast is a pretty clear example of throwing the power and prestige of the Government behind Christianity. As is the use of the title "National" for this event; everyone knows that this makes it sound like an officially-sanctioned event sponsored by the Government. Oh wait, it is.
But Justice Black didn't stop there. Of the purpose of the Establishment Clause, he said:
It's first and most immediate purpose rested on the belief that a union of government and religion tends to destroy government and destroy religion....The Establishment Clause thus stands as an expression of principle on the part of the Founders of our Constitution that religion is too personal, too sacred, too holy to permit its "unhallowed perversion" by a civil magistrate.
Oooo, now that's unexpected! The Founders chose to separate these two not to protect laws from religion but keep religion unsullied by government! That's not an argument you hear every day. Frankly, I think it's a bit grandiose of a statement, but the core ideology is nonetheless intact: mixing these two institutions has historically proven detrimental sooner or later.
But wait, there's more:
Another purpose of the Establishment Clause rrested upon an awareness of the historical fact that governmentally established religions and religious persecutions go hand in hand.
Case in point: the furor over the Non-Mosque Not at Ground Zero. If there were not such widespread misconception that we are a "Christian nation," would there be such oppression of Muslims? Another case in point: I heard some people expressing outrage that Muslims were allowed to pray on the grounds of the White House. Upon questioning, it became patently clear that this indignation was not over the act of praying at the W.H. but that it was a Muslim prayer; expression of Christianity would have been a-ok. Long story short, I caught them in their own logic: anyone truly believing in freedom of religion wouldn't have batted an eyelash at this occurrence, and it was only because of a perceived State religion that these people were offended.
Now, for those of you who may consider Justice Black a Communist, allow me to quote from the Burger Court. In Lemon v. Kurtzman (1970), this Court developed a three-part test for determining establishment of religion: (1)whether the program at issue has secular purpose; (2)if the primary effect is neither to advance nor inhibit religion; and (3) whether the legislation fosters "an excessive government entanglement with religion."
Call me crazy again, but I'm pretty sure the National Prayer Breakfast could be considered excessive entanglement. And it certainly advances Christian dogma. We all know damned well that if the National Prayer Breakfast were sponsored by, say, Sikhs, the Tea Baggers would be up in arms over Obama and his socialist government forcing Hinduism down our throats. If the shoe fits.....
The fact that a measely two Supreme Court cases so clearly demonstrate that the Establishment Clause does in fact constitute separation of church and state should give you an idea of what the rest of the voluminous case law says. I will continue reading it, so you don't have to. Just check back here for more.
Let's start with what the First Amendment actually does say, shall we? "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The first part is known as the Establishment Clause, and it is the meat of the matter. What exactly does it mean to respect the establishment of religion?
Rather than put it in my own words and have you accuse me of being a Communist-Manifesto reader (which, by the way, I am), allow me to quote the Supreme Court. In the Court's decision on Engel v. Vitale, 1962, Justice Black said:
When the power, prestige, and financial support of government is placed behind a particular religious belief, the indirect coercive pressure upon religious minorities to conform to the prevailing officially approved religion is plain.
Call me crazy, but I think having Congress and the President host the National Prayer Breakfast is a pretty clear example of throwing the power and prestige of the Government behind Christianity. As is the use of the title "National" for this event; everyone knows that this makes it sound like an officially-sanctioned event sponsored by the Government. Oh wait, it is.
But Justice Black didn't stop there. Of the purpose of the Establishment Clause, he said:
It's first and most immediate purpose rested on the belief that a union of government and religion tends to destroy government and destroy religion....The Establishment Clause thus stands as an expression of principle on the part of the Founders of our Constitution that religion is too personal, too sacred, too holy to permit its "unhallowed perversion" by a civil magistrate.
Oooo, now that's unexpected! The Founders chose to separate these two not to protect laws from religion but keep religion unsullied by government! That's not an argument you hear every day. Frankly, I think it's a bit grandiose of a statement, but the core ideology is nonetheless intact: mixing these two institutions has historically proven detrimental sooner or later.
But wait, there's more:
Another purpose of the Establishment Clause rrested upon an awareness of the historical fact that governmentally established religions and religious persecutions go hand in hand.
Case in point: the furor over the Non-Mosque Not at Ground Zero. If there were not such widespread misconception that we are a "Christian nation," would there be such oppression of Muslims? Another case in point: I heard some people expressing outrage that Muslims were allowed to pray on the grounds of the White House. Upon questioning, it became patently clear that this indignation was not over the act of praying at the W.H. but that it was a Muslim prayer; expression of Christianity would have been a-ok. Long story short, I caught them in their own logic: anyone truly believing in freedom of religion wouldn't have batted an eyelash at this occurrence, and it was only because of a perceived State religion that these people were offended.
Now, for those of you who may consider Justice Black a Communist, allow me to quote from the Burger Court. In Lemon v. Kurtzman (1970), this Court developed a three-part test for determining establishment of religion: (1)whether the program at issue has secular purpose; (2)if the primary effect is neither to advance nor inhibit religion; and (3) whether the legislation fosters "an excessive government entanglement with religion."
Call me crazy again, but I'm pretty sure the National Prayer Breakfast could be considered excessive entanglement. And it certainly advances Christian dogma. We all know damned well that if the National Prayer Breakfast were sponsored by, say, Sikhs, the Tea Baggers would be up in arms over Obama and his socialist government forcing Hinduism down our throats. If the shoe fits.....
The fact that a measely two Supreme Court cases so clearly demonstrate that the Establishment Clause does in fact constitute separation of church and state should give you an idea of what the rest of the voluminous case law says. I will continue reading it, so you don't have to. Just check back here for more.
Saturday, February 5, 2011
National Prayer Breakfast: a Slap in the Face to the Founding Fathers
Can someone please explain to me why on earth we have a Government-sanctioned National Prayer Breakfast? I'm sorry people, but this is just plain wrong.
When I sat down to write this, my intent was to discuss why the President should not be attending such an event in his official capacity. But when I did a little research, what I found was even more appalling. While "officially" this event (actually a week-long series of events) is sponsored by The Fellowship Foundation (aka, The Family -- more on that later), but it is hosted by members of Congress!!!! Yeah, that's right: your elected representatives are hosting a big ol' Christian meetin'. Separation of church and state, anyone?
Not to mention that your tax dollars surely pay for, at a minimum, their time/salaries to attend these functions. If Christian conservatives can suppress women's rights by refusing to allow taxpayer dollars to pay for birth control, abortion, and other reproductive services, then can we demand that they also don't pay for events that clearly violate separation of church and state? That elevate the status of one religion to that of State Religion, even if unofficially?
I really wanted to say that the Prayer Breakfast would be ok if it were non-sectarian and celebrated all religions -- but it's not. There is no way that ANY religious ANYTHING should be sponsored or endorsed by the Government. And yes, that includes the White House Christmas tree. (Call me a Grinch, but I'm sure Thomas Jefferson agrees).
As if all this weren't bad enough, it is sponsored by THE FAMILY. Forget DaVinci Code - this is the real secret society that runs our politics. Anyone wanting to know more should read Jeff Sharlet's frightening true tale, "The Family" (handy link: http://www.amazon.com/Family-Secret-Fundamentalism-Heart-American/dp/0060560053/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1296925694&sr=1-1).
I can't believe I'm about to make a Dirty Dancing reference, but here goes. There's a scene towards the end of the movie wherein Baby says to her father, "You always said I could grow up to be anything I wanted. But you really meant someone like you." (or something to that effect) Such is religious freedom in the U.S. -- we are free to practice whatever we want, as long as it's Christian. We are free to express our "values" and maybe even have them reflected in politics -- as long as they are Christian. Separation of Church and State absolutely applies, unless you're talking about Christianity. Because of course, we are a Christian nation! (Not.)
I won't go into the whole argument about the Founders being Christian versus Deist -- you can go google it if you want to kick that dead horse. Even if they were died-in-the-wool, fundamentalist Christians, the fact remains that they established a country firmly based on a foundation of secular government. Got that people? S-e-c-u-l-a-r. It means we should be free of having "Christian values" shoved down our throats by our elected officials, that we shouldn't have a single law based on them, that if the Muslims want to turn an old coat factory into a community center, they should be allowed to.
I am really, really tired of hearing these bigots, closet gays, immoral and corrupt people telling us about Christian values. My heathen children, who have never set foot in a Church, hold more Christian values then any of these hypocrites. Caring for each other is the ultimate Christian value, and time and again the GOP shows irrefutably that this holds no place in their politics.
But I digress. Just as it would be inappropriate for our President to publicly preach about Jesus or the Bible, so it is inappropriate for him to attend the Prayer Breakfast in an official capacity. Ditto for any elected officials. If they want to participate on their own time (and dime), then of course they should be free to do so. But to attend as the President? To post it on the White House website? To use taxpayer dollars in any way? If the Founders are watching any of this, they must surely think they have gone to Hell.
When I sat down to write this, my intent was to discuss why the President should not be attending such an event in his official capacity. But when I did a little research, what I found was even more appalling. While "officially" this event (actually a week-long series of events) is sponsored by The Fellowship Foundation (aka, The Family -- more on that later), but it is hosted by members of Congress!!!! Yeah, that's right: your elected representatives are hosting a big ol' Christian meetin'. Separation of church and state, anyone?
Not to mention that your tax dollars surely pay for, at a minimum, their time/salaries to attend these functions. If Christian conservatives can suppress women's rights by refusing to allow taxpayer dollars to pay for birth control, abortion, and other reproductive services, then can we demand that they also don't pay for events that clearly violate separation of church and state? That elevate the status of one religion to that of State Religion, even if unofficially?
I really wanted to say that the Prayer Breakfast would be ok if it were non-sectarian and celebrated all religions -- but it's not. There is no way that ANY religious ANYTHING should be sponsored or endorsed by the Government. And yes, that includes the White House Christmas tree. (Call me a Grinch, but I'm sure Thomas Jefferson agrees).
As if all this weren't bad enough, it is sponsored by THE FAMILY. Forget DaVinci Code - this is the real secret society that runs our politics. Anyone wanting to know more should read Jeff Sharlet's frightening true tale, "The Family" (handy link: http://www.amazon.com/Family-Secret-Fundamentalism-Heart-American/dp/0060560053/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1296925694&sr=1-1).
I can't believe I'm about to make a Dirty Dancing reference, but here goes. There's a scene towards the end of the movie wherein Baby says to her father, "You always said I could grow up to be anything I wanted. But you really meant someone like you." (or something to that effect) Such is religious freedom in the U.S. -- we are free to practice whatever we want, as long as it's Christian. We are free to express our "values" and maybe even have them reflected in politics -- as long as they are Christian. Separation of Church and State absolutely applies, unless you're talking about Christianity. Because of course, we are a Christian nation! (Not.)
I won't go into the whole argument about the Founders being Christian versus Deist -- you can go google it if you want to kick that dead horse. Even if they were died-in-the-wool, fundamentalist Christians, the fact remains that they established a country firmly based on a foundation of secular government. Got that people? S-e-c-u-l-a-r. It means we should be free of having "Christian values" shoved down our throats by our elected officials, that we shouldn't have a single law based on them, that if the Muslims want to turn an old coat factory into a community center, they should be allowed to.
I am really, really tired of hearing these bigots, closet gays, immoral and corrupt people telling us about Christian values. My heathen children, who have never set foot in a Church, hold more Christian values then any of these hypocrites. Caring for each other is the ultimate Christian value, and time and again the GOP shows irrefutably that this holds no place in their politics.
But I digress. Just as it would be inappropriate for our President to publicly preach about Jesus or the Bible, so it is inappropriate for him to attend the Prayer Breakfast in an official capacity. Ditto for any elected officials. If they want to participate on their own time (and dime), then of course they should be free to do so. But to attend as the President? To post it on the White House website? To use taxpayer dollars in any way? If the Founders are watching any of this, they must surely think they have gone to Hell.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)