On Thomas Jefferson

I was going to write a long, thoughtful piece about Thomas Jefferson, his views on religion, and economy and social safety nets, but I am tired and lacking patience today, and I have progress reports to finish, so I'll just make this short and sweet, and save the deeper discussion on our Third President for a later day.

I just want to say, if you are going to make it a point to quote Jefferson in defense of your  ideology, please make sure he did in fact say what you think he did.  Please.  As the election season heats up in earnest, I am seeing and hearing the same old ridiculous quotations, and I really wish people would do some homework before repeating them. So, here it is, for those who can't be bothered to do their own homework.

"My reading of history convinces me that most bad government has grown out of too much government."   

He never said this.  What he did write, in a letter penned in 1807 and addressed to John Norvell is that "History, in general, only informs us what bad government is."  He offers no indication what that is, nor any judgments on the size of government.  Interestingly, in the same letter, Jefferson recommends, among others, the writings of John Locke, who many consider to be the father of liberalism. 

As an aside, for those of us who follow politics, but are distrustful of today's media, this letter is an interesting read, in that it reveals Thomas Jefferson having the same misgivings.  You can read the letter here. This  is a taste of his reservation: "It is a melancholy truth, that a suppression of the press could not more compleatly deprive the nation of it's benefits, than is done by it's abandoned prostitution to falsehood. Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle."

If he only knew.

Moving on . . .

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."

Another favorite of people who operate under the offensive assumption that those in need are lazy do-nothings who aren't willing to pull their own weight. A lazy excuse for not caring about others, in my opinion.  Some defend this one by referencing another quote, which appears to be a note to an editor regarding his translation of Destutt de Tracy's Treatise on Political Economy, "To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, -€˜the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry, & the fruits acquired by it.'"   The ways that even this quote has been misused and abused is fodder for an entirely separate blog post. Suffice it to say that seniors, the poor and the disabled would not likely be classified by Jefferson as people who have "not exercised equal industry and skill." 

"That government is best which governs least." There is no record of Jefferson ever saying or writing this.

Aaaaand , last one for today.  Gotta get those progress reports turned in.

"Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%."  Contrary to this sentiment, what Jefferson said in his 1801 Inaugural Address was “All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate which would be oppression.”  

 Reasonable.  Does the Tea Party even understand that concept?

OK - Vent over. Progress reports, here I come.

Can We All Just Calm Down?

As you've no doubt heard, five high school students in California were asked to turn their shirts inside out or go home because they bore the American flag on Cinco de Mayo. Obviously, the decision made by the Administration was wrong, and in violation of the students' constitutional rights to free speech.  I don't think I've heard any disagreement on that point. The decision was reversed and the Principal of the school issued a public apology.  That should be the end of he story.  Sadly, it isn't.

Despite the apology, the mother of one of the boys contacted Fox News (of course) and a media maelstrom was born.  The teachers at the school started getting hate emails, the local Tea Party group has called for a rally in the town, and there is even a facebook poll asking if the Principal should be fired.  (95% have answered yes).  Fired.  For one bad decision.  I hope all the people who are calling for the firing are judged as harshly at their jobs.  Imagine knowing that a single error in judgment could send you to the unemployment line?  

The reaction is so wholly disproportionate to the offense, it's disturbing.  Why are people so easily angered?  Why do they use the slightest infraction to justify that anger?  

Yes, the Administration of the school made a bad decision, but let's not operate under the delusion that those five boys were somehow innocent victims.  These are kids on the verge of adulthood.  They are aware of the world around them, they know what's going on and they were perfectly aware of the political climate and heightened anxiety in this country over the issue of immigration.  They made the decision to wear those shirts on that particular day not out of some deep sense of patriotism, but to be provocative.  (Set aside for now the fact that patriotism has nothing at all to do with what you wear, put on your bumper, or post as your facebook status.) They did it to cause a stir and garner attention.  They got exactly what they wanted and now people are unjustifiably angry.  If they thought their actions would somehow help the public discourse in this country, they miscalculated.

 What is so rally worthy?  Were all the teachers asked to take down the American flag in their classrooms?  Was the Pledge of Allegiance suddenly banned?  No.  In a misguided attempt at being sensitive, and proactively avoiding conflict, a bad decision was made.  That's it. One bad decision, with good intentions.  A decision which was consequently reversed and for which an apology was issued. That isn't good enough for the "I'm more patriotic than you" crowd, and now their self-righteous anger has led to hate mail being sent to good, honest, hard working teachers, who in all likelihood have a better grasp of what it means to be patriotic than the people propagating anger and hate in the name of patriotism.

I find hope in the students. In the wake of this nonsense, they gathered together to hold an impromptu peace rally on their campus.   They had a moment of silence for the teachers receiving hate mail,  and they raised the American and the Mexican flag together in a show of solidarity and mutual respect. The next day, many of the students wore plain white shirts to school to promote peace and calm tensions.

I wonder if the rest of the country will take a moment to learn a lesson from these kids and all just calm down.

At Least She Is Predictable

Following my previous post (which apparently reveals me to be an angry bitter person. That should come as a shock to my friends.) Sarah Palin did me the favor of proving me right. Her outrage over the use of the R-word, as it turns out, is nothing more than a political tool.

Before I explain further, I do wish to retract something I said. I said I think Rahm Emanuel should be fired. I take that back. Rahm Emanual, whatever other flaws he may have, handled the criticism like a grown up. He apologize and he signed a pledge to eradicate that word from his vocabulary. I appreciate that.

As it turns out, other far more vocal people have thrown the R-word out there, most recently Rush Limbaugh, and Sarah Palin didn't have much to say about that. Everyone's favorite psycho talk show host, Glenn Beck has used the term repeatedly on air, and Sarah Palin has remained silent. When confronted with Rush's transgression, Sarah's spokesperson issued a watered down generic statement about how it's not nice for anyone to call names, and then she later walked it back by clarifying that she was not talking about Rush in particular.

So, let's review. A democratic member of the President's staff issues the word in a closed door meeting amongst a small group of people, and Sarah Palin composes a lengthy diatribe on her facebook page about his lack of decency and demanding that the President fire him. Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck repeatedly use the term on public airwaves where they are heard by huge numbers of people, and that gets . . . nothing. The Democrat apologized and signed a pledge. Sarah thinks he should be fired. The Republicans have offered no sign of concern or recompense. Sarah remains silent.

Sarah Palin is as transparent as she is shallow. She has no convictions. She can't be bothered to defend her son, unless it is politically advantagous for her to do so. She truly is shameless. Trig deserves better and so does our country.

Sarah Palin Sure Loves to Talk

Her latest diatribe is against Rahm Emanuel, for his ignorant use of the R-word. Let's be clear, Rahm Emanuel is an ass. I hope he gets fired. He deserves every ounce of criticism he gets.

But not from Sarah Palin. Sarah Palin is the biggest of hypocrites, and her feigned outrage is completely hollow. She will jump on the bandwagon to criticize someone for the use of a word, and she'll trot her poor son Trig out, when it suits her, to promote her own self. But what, exactly has she done for the DS community, other than give birth to another member? Nothing.

Has she sponsored or fought for any legislation? No. Although, I guess that's hard to do when you quit your job halfway through. Has she fought to increase funding for research or programs? No. Has she participated in any of the nationwide Buddy Walks to raise awareness? No. Has she come to any conferences and given a speech? No. I was at the last NDSC Conference, and she was nowhere to be seen. One would think, given her state of voluntary unemployment, she might have the time to squeeze in an appearance or two to help promote awareness, research and programs. She seems to have enough time to speak to foreign audiences about what she perceives as failures in this President, and she seems to have enough time to speak at "Tea Parties." She has enough time to pontificate on the evils of providing healthcare to everyone, conveniently using Trig as a tool to manipulate opinion. Heck, she's been able to squeeze in writing a book (I use the term "writing" loosely) and promote it at book signings all over the country.

Here's a novel idea Ms.Palin. You want those of us in the DS community to take you seriously, perhaps you should consider engaging, instead of using your son's diagnosis as a convenient prop in your endless quest of self-promotion. You're mighty good at talking the talk. Why don't you wipe off some of that lipstick and walk the walk. I, for one, am not holding my breath. Given that you willingly put his life at risk to go make a speech, I personally don't think you hold your son in as high regard as the rest of us. It's a damn shame, really. Trig has such great potential, if he only had a mother who was interested in being his advocate, even when it's not to her benefit.

An Open Letter to the Democratic Party

Dear Democratic Members of Congress -

I have never before felt so betrayed by my government. You, the elected members of the Democratic Party have completely betrayed me, my children, and every other voter who fought for your right to represent us in 2008. I have a child with a disability that no health insurance will touch. So we plan for his adult support knowing that if the system remains as is, he will be forced to live in poverty just to qualify for basic care. I had such high hopes that his future wouldn't have to be that way. I thought we finally had a government that really and truly cared about its people. I thought we finally had a government that wanted to do something about the 40,000 people who die every year needlessly because insurance companies won't cover them. It is so heartbreaking to realize I was wrong.

You have the majority. Tonight you have one seat less, but you still have the majority in both houses. Instead of assuring us that you will continue to work on reform, you back away from the fight? There is not one single reason beyond your own ineptitude that we shouldn't have reform by now. It was, and still is, what the American people want. It is why we elected you. So what have you done? You have allowed a minority party, whose stated purpose is to stop anything and everything you propose, to do just that. You have allowed a minority party, that spent the last eight years trashing this country, to bring the halls of Congress to a standstill. You have allowed a minority party that cares only about defeating the President who WE voted for, to stand in the way of any progress on an agenda that the majority of Americans support.

WHY? You do not have to allow this. You are the majority, and you still represent the majority of Americans who still want change. You have the power to set set the rules - and to change them when they are so badly abused. But you don't. WHY? Where is your courage? Where is your conviction? Where is your moral spine?

I truly fear for the future of our country. We have a two-party system, with one party who doesn't want to govern, and one who can't govern. Where does that leave the rest of us?

You have ten months to prove to us that you are not the gutless, spineless whelps we see today. You have ten months to DO what we want you to do. Are you going to stand up, or are you going to lay down? How I hope and pray you stand, but if the last several months are any indication, I fear it won't be the case. I can't tell you how sad that makes me, especially when I look into the eyes of my sweet boy.

The Sistine Chapel Wasn't Painted in a Day.

Democrats need to get off their asses, and I don't mean Congress. I'm talking to you, Voting Public. The ease with which so many have fallen into complacency is disconcerting, to say the least. This election year is important. Dare I say, more important than the last. Last year we overwhelmingly voted in a new administration with high hopes and unrealistic expectations. Since the change we voted for hasn't been delivered in a nice, complete package, people are discouraged and becoming disengaged. This is a mistake.

The frustrations are justified. We have yet to see what we envisioned when we voted 14 moths ago come to fruition. Which is why it is more important than ever to stay engaged, to keep ourselves in the dialogue and to continue to vote! The euphemism I have most commonly heard is that this is a marathon and not a sprint. We need to keep up the drive and the energy, and I agree. But I tend to think of it another way - I think of the Sistine Chapel, arguably one of Michelangelo's greatest works. Imagine if Pope Julius II had decided after one year, that progress was too slow and unsatisfactory. What if he had decided he wasn't seeing what he wanted to see, and cancelled the project, or brought in someone else.

The painting of the Sistine Chapel ceiling was a daunting task, and it took Michelangelo four years to complete. Rather than painting a single canvas or wall, Michelangelo had to plan for an area 133 feet long and 50 feet wide, which was 65 feet off the ground, and curved. Before he could even begin he had to plan not just what he would paint, but how he would paint. A full scale scaffold built from the floor up wasn't possible because the Pope wanted to be able to continue to use the chapel for services, so Michelangelo had to design a scaffold that was supported from the walls near the ceiling. When he finally got to the actual painting of the fresco, he had to stand with his head tilted fully back day in and day out. It was a long and arduous process, but in the end, what he accomplished is one of the world's greatest artistic achievements.

The process of making the changes we want is much like the process that led to the masterpiece that is the Sistine Chapel ceiling. Right now, we are still building the scaffolding, and we will never see the paint on the wall unless we enforce that scaffolding and support the painters. We began to put that scaffolding into place by electing a new President and a majority in both houses. Unfortunately, we have seen that scaffolding weakened by a minority that has lost all sense of moral objective. Rather than negotiate and compromise, they have decided to alter the function of the government so that a simple majority is no longer sufficient for governance. They have stymied, objected, obstructed, and abused the procedures and protocols to shut down any and all progress. They have made it necessary to have a super majority in order to get anything done. This is NOT how our forefathers designed our government to function.

So what do we do? We put a super majority in place. If we can build a stronger scaffolding in 2010, then 2011 we will finally see the paint applied to the walls, and real change can start to happen. That can only happen if we stay focused and engaged. Do not allow the frustrations of this year discourage you - let them motivate you. Show up, make your voice heard, keep pushing for change - and demand it with your vote. The Sistine Chapel wasn't painted in a day, or even a year, but what it became after years of hard work, has stood for centuries. We can make change that will withstand the test of time, too, but we have to do it one paint stroke at a time.

True Christians Should Fight FOR Health Care For All

I've opined previously that health care is a Christian value, that Jesus exhorted us to care for each other, and we should support policies that espouse that value. Real health care reform epitomizes the very core of Christ's teachings: "Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me." I have asked fellow Christians why they would fight against this reform and none of what they have offered as reasons can be reconciled to that which Christ has taught us.

I have been told Christ wants us to act as individuals, and not have the government "force it" upon us. Where in the bible does Christ say that "Do unto others, but don't ask the same from your government?" If we care about acting upon Christ's teachings, why would we not support policies that do the same? Why would we support policies that oppose helping the least among us? How does one reconcile wanting to help others on an individual level, but support policies that undermine that effort? Beyond that, is it realistic to expect that individual Christians can provide health care? Can we as individuals provide access to MRIs, or chemotherapy, or surgery, for those who need it and don't otherwise have access? WE CAN'T. This is a need that is far greater than what individuals can provide, which is why we, as individuals, are failing miserably. Tens of thousands of people die every year, because we cannot fill this need. So we should support policies that will fulfill this need, and we should not give in to the fear and falsehoods that are being argued against it.

Another argument I have heard, along the same vein, is that people shouldn't have their hard earned money taken from them to support people who . . . and you can fill in the rest of that with all manner of judgment; who chose to go without insurance; who are going to use that care to seek abortion (a whole other conversation in and of itself), who are sick because they are drug addicts or alcoholics . . . the list is endless. To those who make these arguments, I have one simple question. What would have become of us if Jesus had approached caring for others with the same level of judgment and condemnation? What if Jesus had said "You know, Heavenly Father, I don't want to spill my blood for people who are so sinful and unrighteous and just plain undeserving." Where would we be if Jesus had decided we just don't deserve his mercy and sacrifice? Christ gave it all away for free. He asked for nothing in return. Not a commitment of faith, not a promise of piety. He gave his life without judgment. If we are to be TRUE followers of Christ, then we should strive to do the same. Christ didn't beseech us to provide for only those we deem worthy.

Returning to the abortion excuse - there are a number of tangents to be addressed. Believe me when I say I understand the position that says,"I don't want my money used to fund something that my faith tells me is wrong." I get it, because we are now in year eight of a war about which I feel exactly the same. My money has been spent waging an illegal and unjustified war that has resulted in thousands of innocents dying. My money has been spent torturing people, many of whom are innocent. This is the nature of democracy. We all will have our tax money support things to which we are morally opposed. It is the giant grain of salt we all must swallow if we want to live in a country that respects all views and beliefs. Beyond that simple truth, however, is a far more complex and grey issue that is being used as a weapon to deny people the most basic of care. Using abortion as an argument against health care is to willingly sacrifice the lives of husbands, wives, fathers and mothers. The vast majority of the uninsured, the people who would be covered by tax dollars, are not going to be getting abortions. They are going to be getting well checks and preventative care and, when necessary, treatment for serious illness. Are you willing to say to these people,"Sorry, but I don't want to provide for your healthcare because a small minority of you *might* seek an abortion"? Trade places for a moment and ask, are you willing to sacrifice your own life, or your child's life to prevent someone else from seeking an abortion? Abortion is not a clear black and white issue, because even a majority of "pro-life" proponents can say "I oppose abortion EXCEPT IN CASES OF . . . " Where there is exception is where the issue becomes grey. Abortion is an issue that is complicated and is completely separate from the black and white issue of whether everyone deserves access to health care. It is wrong to use the former as an excuse to prevent the latter. Which brings me back to the basic point. Christ wanted us to care for each other, to tend to each other, to feed the hungry, house the homeless, to tend to the sick WITHOUT EXCEPTION, WITHOUT JUDGMENT. True followers of Christ should support the policies that champion that basic tenet. Health care for all does just that and Christians should be fighting for its passage, not against it.

Disrespecting History

Last night, Robert and I let Nick watch an Indiana Jones movie. He has been wanting to watch them for awhile now, so a few weeks ago, we let him watch the first one, and last night we watched the third one (with supervision and editing, of course). He noted that both movies had Nazis and asked who they were. At first, I simply left it at "They are bad guys. Very bad guys." Then we got to the scene in Berlin, where there is a bonfire of books and people are throwing more and more books on the pile. This prompted more questions, the answers to which prompted even more questions in turn. I found myself trying to relay to my son that these people were real, and they were not simply bad. They were pure evil. He asked who the man who signed Indiana's book was, and I told him. "He is Adolf Hitler and he is one of the most evil men to ever walk the face of the earth." Eventually I was able to refocus his attention on the movie without having to get into more detail of who were the Nazis and what made them so evil. I really did not want to have to expose my son to the reality and horror of what this world witnessed during WWII and its aftermath. I am not ready to mar my son's innocence with the knowledge of how evil men can be, and have been.

The next day, I was reading up on political news, and one thing jumped out at me. I had read about it earlier in the week, and had read the criticism from the "librul media" but, in light of my conversation with Nick, it struck me anew, in a way that at once saddens and angers me. At a rally this week, that included lawmakers, there were people protesting the proposed health care reform, and they were carrying the usual allotment of Nazi references - it has become so standard at these gatherings, that no one thinks twice anymore - but this time they carried something more. A photo. An enlarged photo of the dead, victims of the Holocaust who died at Dachau.

The constant comparison of Obama to Hitler is patently absurd, of course, yet there is no outcry or backlash when the comparison is made. Obama is trying to keep people healthy by providing access to healthcare for those who have none. Hitler systematically slaughtered millions of people. There is no way the two are similar in any way. They are about as polar opposite as you can get. Yet the references continue. Only now they come with visual reminders of the depths of the horror and evil that was the Holocaust.

Those people who want to parade photos of the dead because they are ideologically opposed to our democratically elected President should be profoundly ashamed of themselves. They desecrate the memories of the dead they seek to use. They disrespect the survivors who carry that horror with them every day. They trample the lessons of history and they belittle the suffering of all who were and are affected by the Holocaust.

We are so blessed and so fortunate to live in a country where dissent is valued , but to be a productive part of democracy, dissent must be brought forth from honest opinion, and not from the disingenuous disrespect of the Holocaust. Those who suffered and died in the concentration camps of Nazi Germany deserve better than to have their memories and their images abused in a dishonest attempt at dissent. And we, who love democracy, deserve better than elected leaders who quietly consent to this abuse of history.

Scraping the Bottom

Our political discourse over the last couple of years has been pretty nasty, with new lows seen almost weekly during this last Congressional recess. It is disheartening to many of us. Yet, here I am, simply stunned that it could be brought any lower. Tonight, as our fairly elected President addressed the Congress, a Republican lawmaker heckled him! He shouted out and called the President a liar! What has this country come to that such blatant displays of disrespect are tolerated?

Can you imagine the outcry if a Democrat had dared called Bush a liar during a Congressional address? Oh Lordy, the press would have had field day! "Traitor!" "UnAmerican!" Those would be but two of the choice words we'd have heard screamed from the rooftops. The GOP would never have allowed it to go unpunished. How times change.

I think the GOP needs to take a step back and engage in some serious introspection. President Obama won the election less than year ago, by margins larger than his predecessor could have ever dreamed. The majority of voters WANT him to bring the change he promised. Your scare tactics, your lies, and now your bold-faced disrespect of our President is not going to bring your party back into the good graces of voters. When you show such insolence and contempt toward our democratically elected leader, you show contempt for us, the people. Eventually, that contempt is going to come full circle, so I hope you have a good job that offers health benefits waiting in the wings when we the people finally tire of your do-nothing, fear mongering, ways. Karma can be a real bitch.

Are We a Christian Nation?

I see and hear this a lot. Lately, I see it on signs being carried by protesters, or hear it being screamed at some rally. I have to admit that I am utterly befuddled by these people. While they are out there shouting about how "Christian" we are supposed to be, I see nothing Christian in their actions, or their arguments. They say we are a Christian nation, but they are angry over wanting to provide healthcare to those that don't have it. They don't simply disagree, they are downright angry. Over HEALTHCARE. I have tried and tried, but for the life of me, I cannot see what Christian principle is driving their views. Jesus was pretty adamant about how he felt when it comes to the sick and the poor. He wanted them to be cared for. Isn't a government that chooses to provide care for all its citizens regardless of income or education espousing and modeling the very lessons taught by Jesus? Why then, are people who call themselves Christian so angry about that? Matthew 25 : 40 tells us “ AND THE KING SHALL ANSWER AND SAY UNTO THEM, VERILY I SAY UNTO YOU, INASMUCH AS YE HAVE DONE IT UNTO ONE OF THE LEAST OF THESE MY BRETHREN, YE HAVE DONE IT UNTO ME.” Our government wants to reach out and help the least of our brethren - a very Christian principle. What is there in the government's desire to care for its people do some Christians find so abhorrent? Their position makes no sense.

Perhaps we simply have very different views about what constitutes "Christian nation." When I think of a Christian nation, I think of a government that espouses the foundational teachings of Jesus in the way they treat their citizens. When others think of a Christian nation, I get the distinct feeling that they feel it is the governments job to enforce particular beliefs on everyone. I don't think enforcing one groups religious views on everyone is at all a Christian approach. Jesus wants us to share our faith by modeling it, not by demanding it from others. Why then, should we be upset at our government modeling those principles?

And while we are on the subject of Christianity, I am wholly disgusted by a certain Pastor, who has been praying for the death and damnation of the President. From his sermon, titled "Why I Hate Barack Obama": "Nope. I'm not gonna pray for his good. I'm going to pray that he dies and goes to hell. When I go to bed tonight, that's what I'm going to pray. And you say, 'Are you just saying that?' No. When I go to bed tonight, Steven L. Anderson is going to pray for Barack Obama to die and go to hell."

Pastor Anderson, what bible are you reading from, sir, because it very clearly is not the same bible I grew up with. What theological institution taught you? You say "that God is a God of wrath and vengeance." The God I know is a God of love, compassion, grace and forgiveness. You may be ordained, but you are not Christian by any measurable standard.

Perhaps this is why some Christians are so angry at our democratically elected President. He can model the teachings of Jesus till the cows come home, but if people who are supposed to be Christian leaders are out there spewing such vile hatred in the pulpit every Sunday, it stands to reason that people would be confused. I guess all I can do is pray more fervently than Pastor Stevens, for my President's safety, and for guidance as he seeks to actualize true Christian principles within our government. I hope others will do the same. The future of our country depends on it.

Election 2008: A study in Contradiction

Like a great many Americans, I wept tears of utter joy this week. The election of Barack Obama was such a monumental moment in our history, and something I am so proud to say I helped make happen. Yet, the next morning, my joy was tempered by a profound sadness over the passage of Proposition 8 here in my state. How is it possible that my state, that boasts of such diversity and openness, could possibly amend our constitution to enforce discrimination? I just don't understand it. Our nation can be proud, and celebrate that it has, at last, broken the barrier of color, and elected a man to the Presidency, because of his immense qualifications and in spite of his skin. The profound irony is that as we celebrate that accomplishment, we simultaneously, at the state level at least, chose to uphold discrimination and bigotry in our laws.

For those who don't know or are confused about Proposition 8, the text was quite simple. Proposition 8 asked voters to amend the state constitution to read: Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. That's it. Proponents of Proposition 8 wanted to change the constitution to strip marital rights from gay couples. The constitution is supposed to protect civil rights, not take them away.

Marriage predates religion. Marriage existed as a social contract in ancient civilizations, and in the case of the Greeks, same sex marriage was considered equal. In fact, the Christian Church did not outlaw same sex marriage until sometime in the early 4th century. So to claim that marriage is a religious institution first is incorrect. In our country, marriage is in all cases a civil right granted by the government. Couples are free to also have their marriage sanctioned/blessed by their particular religion, be it Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, etc. but it is not a requirement in our society for marriage, because we are a nation that recognizes many religions, as well as the right to not have a religion. If we hold to the concept that marriage is only a religious institution, you necessarily exclude all heterosexual couples who do not participate in a religion. We don't do that, because marriage is first a civil right bestowed by the government. That is to say, you can be married by the state without being married by the church, and it is still a marriage like any other, but you cannot have a marriage by the church without it also being recognized and approved by the state. Each of those marriages, the one sanctioned in a church, and the one not, is equal.

In the case of Prop 8, and other similar legislation, people of deeply held religious conviction are asking the state, the secular government, to apply a religious litmus to the marriage contract. They are in essence asking for the state to apply religious belief to all who seek marriage, regardless of whether all who seek marriage share that religious belief. This clearly oversteps the separation of church and state, and the proponents of this legislation know that, which is why they hide their intent behind fear and lies. This brings forth the next great irony of this election. The "Yes on 8" campaign was funded mostly by the Mormon Church in Utah. (Don't get me started on another state getting into my state's business, that's a whole other can o'worms). How ironic that the a church whose foundations were forged in the fires of discrimination would now turn and exert that very same discrimination upon another group of people. I'm not even sure irony is the right word. Perhaps hypocrisy is the more apt term. Adding to the hypocrisy is that a "christian" movement couldn't even be bothered to run an honest campaign. They swayed voters with lies and misinformation. One of the arguments they made is that churches would be forced to conduct gay marriage ceremonies or else lose their tax-exempt status. It is ridiculous on its face, or course, but that is the argument they made. The court decision last May that said gay marriage was protected under our constitution specifically addressed the religious freedom of churches and assured them that they will not be compelled to conduct any acts antithetical to their teaching. In the short time that marriage has been recognized as a basic right afforded to all, not a single instance of churches being forced to accept something against their teachings has materialized. The government does not and will not have the authority to tell churches who they can and cannot marry within their walls. If it could, Catholics who marry non-Catholics would have had a field day in the courts many times over. No, churches are not in any way having their doctrine dictated to them. They are still free to say no to whomever they deem unworthy of their blessing.

Worse than the false charge about government intrusion into religion, the Yes on 8 campaign lied about what children learn in school. California curriculum has not changed since marriage was recognized as a right for all. It will not change when it is once again recognized as a right for all. Sadly, these tactics of lies are typical in any election, but what does it say that a group of Christians feels compelled to engage in this kind of deceit? I am reminded of Mohandas Gandhi, when he said "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ. "


Eventually, I have faith that the rights of all people to marry the one they love will be recognized legally, if not accepted by all. In the meantime, this Christian will be happy to know that at the National level, we have overcome at least one barrier. Bigotry is not dead, but it has been stricken a blow. I can take some joy in that, and continue to have faith that the rights of all people to love and marry who they choose will be the next barrier overcome.

Comparing the Economic Plans of McCain and Obama

There has been much accusation flying back and forth between presidential campaigns regarding economic plans. I'm hearing a lot about how the other guy will raise your taxes. Who to believe? I don't put much stock in ads, so best go to the source, I say. The Urban Institute Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center has taken a hard look at the plans put forth by Senators McCain and Obama, and offered a detailed analysis of how each. If you want to read the whole thing, click here for pdf, or here for html version. It's kind of a dry read, so I'll just share a few tidbits, that I feel are important:

The two candidates’ plans would have sharply different distributional effects. Senator McCain’s tax cuts would primarily benefit those with very high incomes, almost all of whom would receive large tax cuts that would, on average, raise their after-tax incomes by more than twice the average for all households. Many fewer households at the bottom of the income distribution would get tax cuts and those whose taxes fall would, on average, see their after-tax income rise much less. In marked contrast, Senator Obama offers much larger tax breaks to low- and middle-income taxpayers and would increase taxes on high-income taxpayers. The largest tax cuts, as a
share of income, would go to those at the bottom of the income distribution, while taxpayers with the highest income would see their taxes rise.

Being as my family would fall into the "middle-income" bracket, you can probably guess whose plan I find more attractive.

There is some common ground between the two plans. Both candidates agree that the elements of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts primarily affecting those with incomes below $250,000 should be extended, that the estate tax should be substantially reduced but not repealed, and that the research credit should be made permanent (though Senator McCain would change the formula by which it is calculated). Both candidates would continue to limit the number of taxpayers affected by the AMT but would not repeal it.

However, the differences between the candidates’ plans are large. For one thing, both have a back-to-the-future look to them—McCain continues major themes of the Bush administration (lower marginal tax rates, low taxes on capital) while Obama follows the Clinton administration approach of expanding targeted tax breaks for social policy objectives and introducing new tax breaks. Their distributional impacts differ greatly as well: Senator McCain’s plan gives the largest tax cuts taxes to high-income taxpayers, while Senator Obama’s plan directs the largest cuts toward lower-income taxpayers.

What I find disconcerting is that according to their analysis, both plans will see an increase in the deficit, and I hope that there will be some re-tooling to make deficit reduction a bigger priority.
Something to consider when you go to the voting booth. In researching all of this, I discovered a new blog I'm adding to my favorites called Economistmom. Check it out!

Who Should be Allowed to Marry?

Last month, the California Supreme Court ruled that banning marriage between same-sex partners was unconstitutional. The reaction was predictably emotional; supporters exuberantly cheered the decision while opponents chided the “activist liberal judges” for overturning the “will of the people.” In November, voters will voice their opinion on a proposed constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

It is my fervent prayer that common sense and a respect for the founding principles of our nation prevail, and voters deny the amendment. The judges in California got it right. Until someone can present an argument against gay marriage that is not rooted in religious dogma, the government has no right to deny that right to an entire segment of the citizenry. That argument does not exist. The government, national or state, does not possess the authority to enforce religious teachings. Nor should it. Yet, that is exactly what opponents of gay marriage are asking the government to do. Our founding fathers, who were Christians but also secularists, would be ashamed.

George Washington believed that one’s religion was extremely personal. There are few, if any texts or quotations from our First President about his own beliefs, as he kept them to himself. Thomas Jefferson is credited with the oft-recited clause “Separation of church and state.” His exact words, written in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802, were “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship . . . I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.”

It saddens me to see that so many have forgotten the importance our founders placed upon that separation. They came here to escape the oppression of religious tyranny, and it was foremost in their concerns when drafting our Constitution. I believe they, too, would be greatly saddened at the erosion of that wall. It is not just for the protection of the people, but also the protection of religion that Jefferson cared:

“I do not believe it is for the interest of religion to invite the civil magistrate to direct its exercises, its discipline, or its doctrines; nor of the religious societies that the general government should be invested with the power of effecting any uniformity of time or matter among them.”

If we ask our government now to enforce religious doctrine regarding marriage, we open the door to government intrusion on all religious doctrine. Perhaps the government can decide it is in the interest of national unity to enforce a national order of worship, or to deny certain forms of worship that do not adhere to beliefs of a religious majority. Opponents of gay marriage, particularly those whose particular denomination might be considered outside the mainstream of Christianity, should think carefully about whether they wish to open that door.

I can respect that there are those who view gay marriage as a sin, or immoral, if that is what their religious conviction dictates. I only ask that they apply their conviction to their own way of living and not insist that others must do the same. If you believe it wrong, then don’t do it. There are a great many things I believe to be wrong or immoral, but I would not dare ask my government to enforce *my* moral code upon the entire nation. To do so is the antithesis of everything our nation was founded upon. Our founders’ ancestors came here to escape the violence and tyranny that necessarily flows from having a government enforce religious belief. Thomas Jefferson kept the knowledge of that history always in mind, as he helped forge our nation, and he said it best on March 4, 1801 in his First Inaugural Address:

“All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate which would be oppression.”

What is so Wrong About Reverend Wright?

I admit, when I first heard the snippets of sermon that have caused such outrage this last week, I too was taken aback, and greatly disappointed that Senator Obama held someone like this in such high esteem. I certainly wasn’t going to defend Mr. Wright, though I wanted to defend the Senator. So, I did what any political junkie would do, and I looked into it, and read as much as I could to find out what this Reverend and his views were all about. And the more I read, and the more I dug, the more I came to realize, the outrage isn’t in what this man said, it is in the meaning being assigned to his words by outsiders who don’t want to hear the truth of his message.

The totality of Wright’s sermons, indeed of his life’s work, has been to bring positive change into the lives of those in his community. His theology is one of social justice. The words at issue, though angry, are not false in taking our nation to task for its failures. The very foundation of social justice theology, as I have come to understand it, is not to take for granted that we are blessed as a nation by God for our greatness, but to hold the nation accountable for its faults and prod it to work harder to earn God’s blessings through greater works. When Wright chastises America for its social failings, he is upholding a long tradition in social justice theology, a tradition upheld by Frederick Douglass and Martin Luther King, Jr. Those who would argue that Wright is the opposite of everything MLK stood for should go back and read King’s speech from April 1967 – an admonishment of our government and our policies of war in Vietnam. Replace Vietnam with Iraq, and imagine Wright speaking that sermon today. I’m sure the outcry would be immense.

And what of his comments about AIDS. Certainly on their surface, they seem absurd, and it would be easy to write him of as a crazy America hater for believing them, when again, they are taken without context. Consider then that for forty years, our government did indeed conduct a heinous medical experiment on black men in this country, an experiment that led to unimaginable suffering by these men, and their wives and children. The Tuskegee Experiment continued until the early seventies before it was finally exposed and brought to an end. It was less than ten years after the end of the Tuskegee Experiment that AIDS raised its insidious head. With that heinous experiment so recent in our history, is it not then reasonable that some would cast a suspicious eye toward our government? Had I been old enough to understand, I would have thought it possible that my government was involved. Had I been raised with Mr. Wright’s generation, I would have thought it not just possible, but probable.

Actions speak louder than words. We have been exposed to a handful of sound bites, which people are willing to use to condemn a man, and label him hateful and unpatriotic, but his actions do not support that assumption. Over his forty year career, Reverend Wright, and his congregation have brought enormous positive change to their community. Action speak louder than words. Look not to the pieces of words, but to the works they support. For all the anger and offense of those incomplete pieces of his sermons, the effects are something to be praised, not condemned.

So what about Senator Obama? I admit I did not vote for him in the Primary. But after this week of outcry and accusation, and after looking for and reading more of what his pastor preaches and what he has done, I can say I unequivocally will vote for him in November. This firestorm, and his response, has convinced me that this is the kind of leader this nation desperately needs. Barack Obama is the antithesis to everything we have grown accustomed to in a government. We have lived with dishonesty, corruption, division, secrecy and abuse. Here is this man who is open, honest, and forthright. He has responded to all of this with uncommon grace, intelligence and honesty. Policy differences aside, everyone can see this is a man of character, integrity and true moral fiber. His opponents fear that and they have done their best to damage his character, because policy differences alone won't defeat him. What this nation needs is a leader who will bring respect and dignity back to our government. His opponents see that and fear it, so they tear him down, label him a racist and an America hater. America haters don't subject themselves to scrutiny in order to run for President. America Haters mail bombs and blow up federal buildings. There is nothing in Senator Obama’s life that justifies the labels being cast upon him. Not one word he has uttered, nor words he has written, not an action in his life invites the disparagement. He lives the social justice theology which his pastor preaches. This is the kind of leader I want to have representing me and carrying our country.