Citizen Tom

There are various approaches to pamphleteering on the Internet.  Most of us are familiar with how bloggers spread their views.  A different approach, however, is by its nature more obscure.  That is the commenter who posts the same long and detailed comment everywhere he can.

The first time I saw such a comment I was sort of flattered and amazed.  Who would do so much work just to refute me?  Fortunately, my curiosity worked against such an ego trip.  Taking advantage of the wonders of Google I did a search.  Sure enough, I had no particular reason to feel so flattered.  

The last such pamphleteering comment on my little website came from Doug Indeap (see here) on this post, AN EXCUSE TO BE OFFENDED .  Here is a list of some of the places Indeap has posted variations of or a portion of the same comment.

• Back to the Constitution provides a concise explanation of the origin of the the phrase: Separation Of Church And State
• Video: The Truth About “Separation of Church and State” provides a teenager’s point of view.
• In his version of the Separation of Church and State, Mr. Garner Goes To Washington very carefully explains what is wrong with the oft used phrase, “separation of church and state.”
• The Emerging Scholars Blog, on the other hand, asks an interesting — and the crucial — question:  Is God Relevant in the Public Square?

While Doug Indeap’s comment is carefully reasoned, it is not well reasoned.  What follows is an explanation of why I hold that opinion.

For starters, please take the time to read Is God Relevant in the Public Square? I think you will find this post well worth the effort. Is God Relevant in the Public Square? considers the alternative options we have for dealing with the subject of faith in the public square.  With Option #3, Is God Relevant in the Public Square? offers our nation’s traditional solution.

This third option is the one for which Guinness argues. In such a public square, all faiths (and non-faiths) are welcome. In such a public square, persuasion is used, not coercion.

Unfortunately, I don’t think this third option is what Doug Indeap advocates.  If you look at the video I posted on AN EXCUSE TO BE OFFENDED , it is about a 75 year old cross.  Presumably Indeap viewed the video.  The cross he thinks violates his religious freedom is about as close to the middle of nowhere as you can get in the lower 48 states.  Nonetheless, Indeap still (albeit politely) takes exception to this so-called promotion of religion by government — even though veterans paid for this 75 year old cross.

Indeap either too much fears or reviles any evidence of God in the public square. Perhaps Indeap confuses secular government with the secularization of the public square.  There is a clear difference.

Because we are self-aware, we are inherently religious creatures.  Because we think, we wonder why.  How did we come to be?  Although our search is too often aimless, many of us live much of our lives in a quest to know the answer.  We debate, we argue, and sometimes we fight over our differing conclusions.

What history has too often demonstrated is that a politically powerful faction will often try to use government to enforce its religious views upon everyone else.  In spite of the 1st Amendment, the United States is no exception.  In our era, many, particularly many of our elites, have no use for religion.  Thus the citizenry must be vigilant against secularism.  To ensure each of us can practice our own particular religious beliefs (both in private and in public), we must stand up for each other’s right to practice religion.  As a People we must ensure our government leaders do not abuse their powers to either stifle one religion or to promote another.

Forced secularization of the public square is the stifling of religious belief. Look at Arlington Cemetery.  Would you have the Christian crosses and the Jewish stars expunged from the tombstones?  Would you have the crosses removed?  Would you deface the image of Christ?  Look at what the secularists demand.  The majority religion of the United States is Christianity; that the secularists would have us forget.  Christian belief is integral to our history, but the secularists say no way.  Christianity is at the foundation of both our culture and our method of government, but the secularists insist it never was.

Without Christianity, could the United States exist as we know it?  If you were educated only in the public schools, you may think the answer is yes.  However, without Christianity, we would not have religious freedom in the United States.  Look at at the Declaration of Independence.  God is where it all began.

To secularize the public square is to insist we deny and ignore the truth of our nation’s origins.   Secularization creates  an unsupportable fantasy.  What was the Founder’s objective?  Did they create a secular government to protect or to deny the practice of religious belief?

We cannot give into the secularization of the public square.  If we continue giving ground, not just our government, but we too, including our families and our children, must become more and more secularized.  Yet when he argues for the secularization of the public square, that is what Indeap risks advocating.

We live amongst predators who find it profitable to be offended by the beliefs of others.   Here is what the 1st Amendment (from here) says.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

When the Founders wrote this law, what were they concerned about?  The People looked around, and they saw the possibility the Federal Government might impose a state religion upon the new nation.  Because England and some of the colonies had state sponsored churches, they feared being forced to tithe to a church not of their choice.  They also did not want to be pressured to attend a church not of their choice.

On the other hand, the People had no desire to separate government from religious practice.  Even Thomas Jefferson (famed for that widely misunderstood phrase, “a wall of separation between Church & State”) approved the use of federal funds to Christianize the Indians (see here).

Now, however, we have lawyers paid with taxpayer funds to find objectionable religious objects on government property (see here).   In addition, stirring up useless controversy generates free publicity.

This video provides an example.

Here is a link to a group fighting the easily offended.  Until we can get judges willing to accept the original meaning of the Constitution, we have to fight fire with fire.  This mess is profitable for lawyers, but it is a waste of time for everyone else.

My reaction to the torture issue has been largely one of disgust.  What I have found most disgusting is that Conservatives have defended torture.  For example, a relative sent me a commentary by Charles Krauthammer.  Here is how it begins.

Torture is an impermissible evil. Except under two circumstances. The first is the ticking time bomb. An innocent’s life is at stake. The bad guy you have captured possesses information that could save this life. He refuses to divulge. In such a case, the choice is easy. Even John McCain, the most admirable and estimable torture opponent, says openly that in such circumstances, “You do what you have to do.” And then take the responsibility.  (continue here)

Is Krauthhammer right?  Are there exceptions?  Or is he answering the wrong question? If torture is wrong, whether it works or not is irrelevant.   What matters is that we are no longer defending ourselves or someone else.  Instead, we are inflicting pain for the mere sake of inflicting pain.  Instead, we give license to our hatred to run rampant.

Krauthhammer is answering the wrong question.  If it is moral to kill an enemy in self defense or in the defense of another, then it is certainly moral to inflict pain on an enemy in self defense or in the defense of another.   The Law, however, is an awkward instrument.  Our forebears banned torture because they saw little use for it and much potential trouble.  They saw the problem as defining what constitutes torture, not whether or not torture works.

Unfortunately, thanks to the pragmatic souls who lead us, what the Law says is now no longer especially important.  Because we have so elevated legal pragmatism, the Law says whatever we “need” it to say.  So now, instead of considering what defines torture, we find ourselves arguing over whether or not torture works.

For Conservatives, this argument over whether or not torture works is a trap.  What if we “win” the argument?  Do we want legalized torture?  What Conservative would trust the government to use torture with appropriate discretion?  What defines a Conservative is that we do not expect the best from mere men.   Instead we prepare for the worse and only hope for the best.

Imagine what would happen to a law defining the “appropriate” use of torture.  Thanks to Democratic Party’s tireless efforts to “evolve” the Law, has it not become guesswork to anticipate how a judge will interpret the Law?  Too many judges disregard the letter of the law.  Instead they worry about results.  They see their job as competently evolving the Law to meet modern needs.  These judges legislate from the bench.

What would such judges do with a law that defined the appropriate use of torture?  Would they consider the law or look at the circumstances and decide each torture case pragmatically? Of course they would apply legal pragmatism, not the law.   So the law defining torture would “evolve.”    As the law that defined torture evolved, what vile thing would “appropriate torture” become?

A politician, a pundit, a lawyer – most anybody can call anything they want moral.  It is even easier to define anything we want as pragmatic.  It is just a matter of starting with the “right” premises and disregarding any disagreeable facts that get in the way.  Such is the nature of men.  Angels do not need laws.  An angel also would not try to bend the Law so out of shape that the people who wrote it would not recognize it.

I got the above cartoon from here.   It is a web site that sells books.  The author wants to tell us how to become happy — for a fee.  The fee is buying his book.

People want happiness.  I started to give this post a different name:  ARE YOU STILL MAKING A DIFFERENCE?   Then I Googled “making a difference”, I realized that title would give the wrong impression.  What follows below is an excerpt from speech that Charles Murray gave at the American Enterprise Institute’s Dinner.  The speech explains how European governments are denying their citizens the opportunity for individual happiness.

I start from this premise: A human life can have transcendent meaning, with transcendence defined either by one of the world’s great religions or one of the world’s great secular philosophies. If transcendence is too big a word, let me put it another way: I suspect that almost all of you agree that the phrase “a life well-lived” has meaning. That’s the phrase I’ll use from now on.

And since happiness is a word that gets thrown around too casually, the phrase I’ll use from now on is “deep satisfactions.” I’m talking about the kinds of things that we look back upon when we reach old age and let us decide that we can be proud of who we have been and what we have done. Or not.

To become a source of deep satisfaction, a human activity has to meet some stringent requirements. It has to have been important (we don’t get deep satisfaction from trivial things). You have to have put a lot of effort into it (hence the cliché “nothing worth having comes easily”). And you have to have been responsible for the consequences.

There aren’t many activities in life that can satisfy those three requirements. Having been a good parent. That qualifies. A good marriage. That qualifies. Having been a good neighbor and good friend to those whose lives intersected with yours. That qualifies. And having been really good at something–good at something that drew the most from your abilities. That qualifies. Let me put it formally: If we ask what are the institutions through which human beings achieve deep satisfactions in life, the answer is that there are just four: family, community, vocation, and faith. Two clarifications: “Community” can embrace people who are scattered geographically. “Vocation” can include avocations or causes.  (from here)

Are you happy?  Can your government make you happy?  What Murray argues is that by expanding the role of government, European societies have undermined the happiness of their Peoples.  By removing from people their responsibilities and transferring these responsibilities to government, government has made it difficult for people to think their lives can make a difference.  If you do not think your life can make a difference, can you be happy?

The Cartoons

Cartoon from here.

Tonight I listened to a mere man make endless promises.  I listened to President Barack Obama, a mortal filled with supreme confidence, make his first State of the Union Address (here).

Supposedly, we face a huge and frightening economic crisis.  Supposedly, we must give government tremendous powers to solve this crisis.  So it is our government has quickly spent hundred of a billions, leaving many to wonder where all that money has gone.  Nonetheless, it was such an easy thing to do.  All we did is double down on the debt that created the economic crisis in the first place.

Why has crisis has not passed?  Why does Obama tell us these huge sums were not enough?  Why does he say that more is still required?  What does that wonderful man intend to do?

Obama told us he does not intend for government to supplant private enterprise.  No!  Who could imagine such a thing?   Instead, he told us his schemes will catalyze private enterprise.  What does Obama intend to do?  Go.  Look carefully at his speech (here).

• He will “fix” our economic crisis by completing the take over of our banking system.
• He will “fix” our education crisis by converting our public education system, now a system of monopolies run by state governments, into a national monopoly.
• He will “fix” our health care crisis by completing the nationalization of health care.
• He will “fix” our energy crisis by picking winners and losers in the energy business.

Yes.  In the future — in the years to come — wherever there is a crisis, there you will find the Obama administration “fixing”.  And what be his authority?  That will be the crisis itself.   There is nothing in the Constitution — not one word — that allows him to “fix” these things except the fact the government broke them in the first place.