Will Huntsman Have A Chance?

If you were paying attention to politics at all last night or today or happened to even glance at the news then you would have noticed that Iowa’s Caucus had a rather ambiguous outcome. Iowa in the past has propelled presidential candidates through the primary season unto a party’s nomination. Barrack Obama is an excellent example. However, unlike most Iowa Caucus’ in history, no clear victor really emerged. Romney managed to beat Rick Santorum by a mere seven votes. Such a slight victory will not create a huge “buzz” around Romney; rather it highlights the fact that most Republicans do not want him as their party’s nominee. Romney’s victory in Iowa clearly will not skyrocket him to victory in the upcoming primary races. This does however provide an opportunity for another Republican presidential candidate in New Hampshire, Jon Huntsman.

Jon Huntsman, a more moderate Republican, has staked his entire presidential candidacy in New Hampshire. Until recently, Huntsman consistently polled last in New Hampshire even though he gave more face time to New Hampshire than any other candidate in the race. Fortunately for Huntsman his numbers have reached the teens. The last poll showed him at 13 percent, just behind Ron Paul. Huntsman just might be able to use Romney’s weakness with the Republican Party to his advantage. If Romney has even a moderately bad showing in New Hampshire this could really be a benefit to Huntsman giving him potential votes. His huge face time with New Hampshire voters and his more moderate views make him a viable candidate in New Hampshire.

Huntsman does not have to win. All he has to do is out perform what is expected of him in New Hampshire in order to continue with his presidential campaign. By doing this, he will create momentum around his candidacy to go forward in other primary states like South Carolina.

Prediction: (New Hampshire)
Romney : 43
Paul: 19
Huntsman: 16
Santorum: 9
Gingrich: 8
Perry: 5

The Occupy Movement - What Track to Take?

The Occupy Movement, which began in the United States, has spread throughout the world.  Demonstrations large and small have cropped up, with people coming together to protest a variety of issues that they see as problems in our nation and world.  This article is going to look at what the Occupy movement has managed to accomplish, and to try and make suggestions that, if followed, might actually help them accomplish their goals.

I.  The Occupy Movement Needs Goals.
           The Occupy Movement has been fairly leaderless.  Each city seems to have a grand assembly, where everything is voted upon in a beautiful example of pure democracy.  Unfortunately, what the Occupy Movement has not done is come up with a list of specific goals that they hope to accomplish.  The things they are protesting against seem to be almost everything.  The lists include corporate greed, the death penalty, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Space Exploration, (or conversely, the lack of space exploration), the climate, the environment, poverty, homelessness, foreclosures, and almost every other social and political problem facing the world today.  However, to put it succinctly, "The Lady doth protest too much, me thinks" (Shakespeare's Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 2)  While many if not all of the social and political evils protested by the Occupy Movement are important, by failing to focus on a few at a time, and work for meaningful change, the Occupy Movement limits its effectiveness.  Thus, the Occupy Movememt should establish a clear set of goals and agree that they will work towards those goals.  They can use their built-in democratic process to determine which goals they will pursue, and in what order, but do this they must or they will continue to be like a gnat:  they will get a lot of attention, but have little to no effect on American politics or the practices of corporate America.
          The goals must be reasonable goals.  This means, that the goals must not call for the demise of large corporations, for socializing America, or any other extreme position that will give their enemies ammunition to be used against them.  Reasonable goals, however, which are not extreme, will resonate with the reasonableness inherent in most Americans, and  further fortify the movement.  This means, for instance, that while eliminating corporate greed is an interesting idea, how does one do this?  'Tis a rhetorical question only.  The Occupy Movement will have to determine for itself what goals are reasonable, but I have faith that this can be accomplished given the resources in intelligence available to the movement.

II. Act Upon The Goals PEACEFULLY.
          The Occupy Movement, if it establishes clear, reasonable goals, which can be agreed upon by the majority of its members, can have a positive impact upon our nation and the world.   This means that the Occupy Movement will have to become a force for political change.   Through our political system will be the only methods of changing the vast majority of the problems.  The protesters need also to listen to the philosophy of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi, both of whom counseled against violence as a means of political protest.  To their credit, the protestors have largely been very peaceful, and most of the violence that has happened has been on the part of the police.  The police departments of several cities have proven their brutality several times, but that can backfire  upon civil authorities if not closely checked.
          How can the Occupy Movement  act upon its goals?  By organizing and getting involved in the political process.  In doing so, the Occupy Movement should not take aim at specific companies, for instance, but should instead look at the all companies, or an entire industry.  Boycotts, writing campaigns and other forms of social process are also effective when aimed at companies who are in business to make a profit.
          Influencing politicians is a different process altogether.  However, making sure that protesters who are eligible register to vote, and then vote, is an important first step.  While many in the US today are rather cynical about the power of the individual voter, the power of many voters, all of whom are irate over the action of any particular politician, is something that no politician wants to confront.  Add the publicity that the Occupy Movement seems to generate, and the Occupy Movement could become a force for political change.

III.  Do Not Give Up.
          The Occupy Movement started as a group of people who were fed up with the status quo.  Change in our system doesn't come overnight.  True change, of the type that is wanted by the Occupy Movement, is worth working for, until it comes about.  However, it will take long, hard work, by everyone involved, and involve sacrifice and courage to forge a better America and a better world.

The Occupy Movement - Christ would approve

“And the young man saith unto him, ‘All these things I have observed, what lacketh I yet?’ Jesus said unto him, ‘If thou wouldest be perfect, go, sell that which thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.  But when the young man heard the saying, he went away sorrowful; for he was one that had great possessions.  And Jesus said unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, It is hard for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven. And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. “  Matthew 19: 21-24.

             The moral of this story is astonishingly simple, yet it is a subject which is seemingly beyond the grasp of many Republicans.  Christ, in this story, was warning us against worship of a false god, money, and with the greed and averice that comes with that worship.  The conditions of Christ’s day were in many ways, analogous to today’s.  Let’s examine the political, social and economic conditions in Roman Palestine during the time of Christ.

             Roman Palestine had no middle class.  There were the very poor, (about 99% of the people) and there were the very wealthy (1%).  This is similar to what is happening in the United States today.  1% of the United States has a disproportionate amount of the wealth, and the middle class is steadily shrinking.  This is the impetus of the Occupy movement.

             Recently, the head of the Family Research Council, a far right-wing religious group, stated that Christ would not have approved of the Occupy movement, and he was “pro business”.  This is misreading the Gospel, at best, but more likely, it is an attempt to pander to the religious right, who are more like the Pharisees that Christ regularly called out for their hipocracy.

             The problems that the Occupy movement has been calling to our attention are not imaginary.  They are real problems, that require solution.  Its true that the Occupy movement is short on solutions.  However, the lesson in the Parable of the Talents, (Luke 19: 11-28), is not that we are to support corporate greed, but that God does not expect us to be indifferent.  To see the sins that corporate America, and our politicians inflict upon the people of the US and do nothing is in itself a sin, and Christ would have spoken out against it.

             Indeed, in the Gospel according to Matthew, quoted above, He did just that.  He pointed out that those who worship wealth, and who are wealthy simply for the sake of money, will find it difficult if not impossible to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.  Those who oppose the Occupy movement in their non-violent opposition to corporate greed, corruption, and the unholy marriage of corporate America to our politicians are opposing the will of the people for change.  Let them look carefully to their souls as they contemplate how much profit they will make this Christmas.

Censorship in High School - Political Correctness Gone Mad

Kansas Governor Sam Brownback apparently has a thin skin.  He can't apparently stand the idea that a high school senior in Kansas thinks that "he sucked".

On November 21, 2011, during a field trip to the Kansas State Capitol Building in Topeka, Shawnee Mission East High School student Emma Sullivan, age 18, tweeted to a friend "just made mean comments at gov brownback and told him he sucked, in person #heblowsalot".  This tweet was apparently picked up by Gov. Brownback's staff, who then tracked it (how?) to Ms. Sullivan, and notified her principal.  The principal has demanded that she write a note to Gov. Brownback apologizing.

The more immediate question is, what for?  For saying she thinks he sucks?  It might surprise His Excellency, but not all Kansans think he is the second coming.  Governor Brownback's policies have led to a decline in Kansas schools, less opportunity for Kansas youth, all that the expense of making sure that his corporate buddies don't have their taxes raised.  His religious ideologies are somewhere out of the 15th century, and he has consistently tried to force his beliefs down the throats of the Kansas people.

Now, apparently his staffers think they need to protect him from what a high school student thinks.  Governor Brownback has shown his true colors as a fascist, who is not interested in freedom of speech unless he approves of the speech, and is interested only in what is good for Brownback, not for the people of Kansas.

Emma Sullivan should be given a medal, not punished.

UPDATE:  Shortly after noon on Monday, November 28, Governor Brownback's office released a statement indicating that his staff had "over-reacted" to the tweet.  Apparently, Fuhrer Brownback has decided to back off given all the negative publicity this incident has given to him and to Kansas.  He should also think long and hard about educating his staff on the basics of civil liberties, including the right to disagree publically with a public official, and including the right to say that a public official "sucks".

Unintended Consequences

This past week, a Republican led attempt to change the US Constitution with the Balanced Budget Amendment failed when it received only 261 votes, well short of the 290 needed to send the amendment to the Senate.  Senate approval of the amendment was virtually a non-starter, and the entire Balanced Budget Amendment was largely a political gesture, intended to attempt to embarrass President Obama and congressional Democrats.  However, neither Republicans nor Democrats should be interested in an amendment such as this; Republicans should consider it especially anathema.

A balanced budget amendment would virtually guarantee judicial involvement in the political budget process.  In a time when ranting and raving about "Judicial Activism" is the political mantra for Republicans, especially for Republican presidential candidates, the idea that our judiciary should be involved in the budget process seems to be especially galling.  Judges, whether elected or appointed, are not intended to be involved in budget processes.  Their jobs, as defined in our system, is to resolve legal disputes brought before them by interpreting the laws and applying them to disputes.  This does not extend to determining budgets and whether or not they are appropriate.

If this amendment were to pass Congress, and were enacted by the states, anyone who disagreed with a budget, passed by congress, would sue to block the budget, and/or to have a part or parts of the law declared unconstitutional.  Judges would, of necessity, have to resolve those problems, and would then have to determine whether the law in question passed the test and/or was creating an unbalanced budget.  This puts judges in an untenable position, as they are being called upon to exercise judicial function to approve or disapprove a law, but are instead involving themselves in the political process.

If congress does not have the intestinal fortitude to balance our budget, that is a problem the voters need to resolve:  they can do it at the ballot box by refusing to re-elect those congresspersons or senators who are unwilling to put politics aside and to do what is needed to truly resolve the budgetary problems of the United States.

Osama Bin Laden - Good Riddance

     On Sunday, May 1, 2011, US Navy Seals presented the world with a wonderful May Day present.  Traditionally an old holiday celebrating spring and new life, this time they presented the world with the death of the most wanted terrorist on the planet, Osama bin Laden.  Although all the facts have not yet been reported, and some probably never will be, its now known that Osama bin Laden lived in luxury in a $1 million compound, just a few miles from a Pakistani military academy.  This raises interesting questions, which the Obama administration must make a point to have answered, credibly, in the coming days.  How much did the Pakastani government know about Bin Laden?  How could it be credibly possible for the Pakistani government NOT to have known about his present, apparently for years, just outside their capital?

      The answer, of course, is that it isn't credibly possible.  No reasonable person can believe that the Pakistani intelligence service,  reputed to be competent, albeit brutal and infested with sympathizers to militant Islamist causes, did not know about Osama bin Laden's presence on their soil.  This unfortunately bodes ill for the US-Pakistani relationship, and we call upon President Obama to demand answers to these questions in the days to come.  If the US does not get adequate answers to its questions about Pakistani involvement, then it is time that the US reassess our commitment to continue to send billions of dollars to the Pakistani government.  While Pakistan may have acquiesced in US forces going into Pakistani airspace to capture or kill Osama bin Laden, Pakistan's assistance in the war on terror at best has been grudging, and at times, outright hostile.

        I will admit, this is a bit of a surprise operation, considering that I feel that President Obama has largely abdicated any pretense of leadership ability both in our foreign policy and domestically.  Indeed, many of the Democratic party's problems in the 2010 elections were self-inflicted.  A party which has no unity, which allows its members to ignore the wishes of party leadership, and to cooperate so openly with the republicans that some can be called republicans in all but name, deserved the trouncing they received at the polls.  One of the reasons for this is the absence of party leadership by Mr. Obama.

     Let us hope that this incident will show us a renewed leadership ability by Mr. Obama as he demands explanations from Pakistani officials, and the intestinal fortitude to follow it up with tough actions, including the suspension or restriction of US aid to Pakistan, if we do not receive the answers and guarantees that are needed.

Amend our Constitution

Either the People of the United States, acting through their state legislatures, or Congress itself have the power to amend the Constitution of the United States.  The process is complex, but not impossible.  There are two ways to propose an amendment:  two thirds of both houses must concur on the proposed amendment, and then three-fourths of the states must ratify the amendment, or, in the alternative, two-thirds of the legislatures of the several states may call for a Constitutional Convention, which will then propose amendments to the Constitution.  Three fourths of the states would then be required to enact those amendments into law.  For the purposes of this article, we will have to assume that these proposed amendments would have to be made by Constitutional Convention.  Its clear that Congress itself would never agree to these amendments to limit their own power and terms.

Amendment:
Section A. (To the provisions for the House of Representatives)
      1) Members of the House of Representatives shall be elected every 4 years, commencing with the first general election following the approval of this amendment and its enactment.
      2)  No person shall serve more than 1 term in the House of Representatives.
      3)  Congress may stagger the application of this provision to provide that one-half of the members of the House of Representatives shall be elected every two years.
      4)  This amendment shall be in force and in effect upon ratification by three-fourths of the conventions to be held in every state within two years of the passage of this amendment.

Section B.  (To the provisions for the Senate of the United States)
      1)  Members of the Senate of the United States shall be elected every 6 years, commencing with the first general election following the approval of this amendment and its enactment. 
      2)  No person shall serve more than 1 term in the Senate of the United States.
      3)  Congress may stagger the application of this provision to provide that one-third of the member of the Senate of the United States shall be elected every two years.
      4)  This amendment shall be in force and in effect upon ratification by three-fourths of the  conventions to be held in every state within 2 years of the passage of this amendment.

Section C. (To the Recall of Members of Congress)
       1)  A member of the House of Representatives or of the Senate may be recalled from his or her office upon the certification by the Secretary of State of that state that at least ten percent of the persons who voted in the past general election have signed a petition to that effect.  Upon such certification, a special election shall be held which shall ask the question "Shall _______ be retained as a member of the appropriate house?".  If the answer of a simple majority of the voters of the district or state shall be no, then the member of the House of Representatives or of the United States Senate shall be removed from office, and shall not be eligible to again serve as a member of the Congress of the United States.
       2)  The complete membership of Congress, both House and Senate, may be recalled from his or her office upon the certification by the Secretary of State of the United States that a petition has been presented signed by at least fifteen percent of the persons who voted in the last general election for congress.  Upon such certification, a special election shall be held throughout the United States asking "Shall the Congress of the United States be recalled from office?"  If the answer of a simple majority of the votes cast is in the affirmative, then all members of Congress, both House and Senate, shall be removed from office, and shall never again be eligible to serve in the United States Congress.

Section D.  Compensation and Pension.
       1) Congress shall not have the authority to grant to itself or its members any privileges not specifically granted in this Constitution, and specifically, shall not have the authority to grant to themselves a pension for service in the Congress of the United States.


These are somewhat drastic.  However, given that neither party is interested in the welfare of the people of the United States any more, isn't it time that we throw them all out, make sure that the people in Washington are people like you and me, and that we are truly a representative democracy rather than a nation governed by business interests?

St. Valentine - Not the Saint of Love?

          Whomever St. Valentine was, its fairly certain that St. Valentine was not the Saint of Love.  There are at least 14 saints whom are named Valentine.  The one whose feast day is February 14 is something of an enigma.  It is known that he was buried at the Via Flaminia, north of Rome, but nothing more is really known about him.  He is said to have been a martyr, but nothing is known about the circumstances of his martyrdom.  Various lists of martyrs include him as a priest in Rome, a Bishop in what is modern Terni, or a faithful martyr in Roman Africa.
          In 1493, the Nuremburg Chronicle included a story about a priest of Rome who was martyred during the reign of Claudius II.  If this is true, it would put the date of his martyrdom between A.D. 268-270, as Claudius II was not in power for long. According to the Chronicle, he was a Roman priest who was marrying Christians, despite Roman edicts forbidding the practice.  After being arrested, he refused to recant, and was eventually beaten, stoned, and beheaded.  However, there is no evidence on where the Chronicle obtained its information, and again, this story, while a possible source of the legend of St. Valentine being a patron saint of lovers, has no verification and cannot be seriously considered.
          The earliest mention in historical records of February 14 being connected with lovers comes in Chaucer's Parliament of Foules, published in the late 1300's.  This is the first mention of romantic traditions being associated with February 14, and/or with the commemoration of the feast of St. Valentine.  It has even been argued by some that this feast was coopted as a Christian holiday from the pagan holiday of Lupercalia, a springtime cleaning and purging festival that happened about this time of year.  While this is certainly possible, and the early Church was not above such things, (i.e. Christmas conveniently being held about the same time as the Roman Saturnalia), there isn't any direct evidence of this either.
           The long and short of it, we don't know how the romantic link to February 14 started, and while we don't know where it started, we celebrate it to this day. Millions of dollars are spent on cards, candy, gifts and other things in the name of "love"., and many seem to believe that St. Valentine is actually behind the holiday as we know it.  More likely, Hallmark and the jewelry and chocolate merchants are behind it as we have it now, but it does nothing wrong to be kind to someone you love on the feast of St. Valentine.

End of an Era - The Tyrant is Gone

          After 18 days of largely peaceful protest, with his people nearly universal in their demand that he leave, President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt resigned on February 11, 2011.  Thus ends 30 years of autocratic rule in a nation which has been, during that time, a friend of the United States.  The people of Egypt deserve and deserved better.
          Alas, this is another case of the United States putting its national interest ahead of the interests of world peace, and indeed, that of ultimately the United States, by aligning itself with a despot who showed little interest in true democratic reform, despite years of interest by the people of Egypt.  The United States, more specifically,  in the current matter, has been especially spineless.  The "leadership" of President Obama has not helped the situation, and indeed, it may come back to haunt us.  Mr. Obama apparently would not or could not see the writing on the walls, that as clearly as a hieroglyph, said that Mubarak would be leaving.  The question was not if, but when.
          Fortunately, Egypt is not Iran.  The demonstrators were not led by religious fanatics, but by largely secular individuals who wanted an end to the corruption, economic malaise, and the brutal treatment by Egyptian security forces.   Although the Muslim Brotherhood has taken a tangential role in the protests, they are not a majority, and their influence has been heavily discredited by their willingness to engage in negotiations with the Mubarak regime.  Other parties will form coalitions, but none of the major parties in Egypt are driven by the same religious fervor which was prevalent in Iran in 1978.
          Part of this is the religious difference.  The majority of Egyptians are Sunni.  The majority of Iranians are Shi'ite.  The these two sects of Islam have different views, and more importantly, different leadership structures.  The Sunni sect tends to have religious councils and meetings, and lacks a hierarchical system which would be inclined to cause the problems that have happened under Shi'ite revoluations.  The Shii'a, on the other hand, have a hierarchical system where their Grand Ayatollah governs and as we can see in Iran, governs with an iron fist.  It is unlikely that this will take place in Egypt.
          The United States should not waste this opportunity to offer our help to the people of Egypt, as they remake their government in a way which will benefit them all.  However, our help should not be to tell them how to do it, but rather, to help them build consensus and learn of the options, so that the people of Egypt decide how they will be governed.  For too many years, the United States has imposed its view of democracy on other countries, and we should have learned to regret it.  Let's hope that this time, the United States learns and stands in solidarity with the people of Egypt as they embark on the great adventure of rebuilding their grand and glorious nation.

Hypocrisy All Around

This post is addressing the hypocrisy of both the extreme liberals and extreme conservatives in American politics when it comes to the issues of abortion and the death penalty. It will not address whether abortion or the death penalty should become public policy, simply the fallacies in both these groups ideology.

Many conservatives, especially the most active, pride themselves on supporting the right to life. Whether they believe life should be protected for religious or legal reasons is irrelevant. Their fundamental belief that all life should be protected is what matters. Now, for the vast majority of conservatives the right to life extends to unborn children. Because of this belief abortion should be illegal so life is ensured, and anyone who does this act is committing murder. However these very same people who believe unborn children have the right to live disregard those values when it comes to the issue of the death penalty.

When conservative activists who support the death penalty were asked the question, “[w]hy do you favor the death penalty for persons convicted of murder, the top answers included punishment fits the crime, they deserve it, and saves tax payers money. Only four percent picked to serve justice. The fact is the death penalty is murder; something most conservatives do not seem to understand. A life is being taken when the act is not necessary. Convicted murders can and are thrown in prison for the rest of their lives each and every day. They are no longer a threat to society behind bars. If one’s belief is that all life is sacred or should be protected by law it should not only be when it suits their best interests. The fact is a life is a life, whether they are convicted of murder or not. This reason is why extreme conservatives are hypocrites.

Conservatives are not the only ones who have contradictions in their beliefs when it comes to pro-choice and the death penalty. Liberals do as well. Most liberals are pro-choice. This does not mean they are for killing unborn children, simply that they believe it is a personal choice. Their hypocrisy exists because a majority of liberals also believe the death penalty is wrong. One of the most profound answers as to why liberals are against it is the death penalty is murder. The fact is they are right. Whether the death penalty is carried out for retribution, justice, or financial reasons, it still is taking a life needlessly. Following this logic neither people nor the government should take a life. Yet, many liberals support the right for individuals to make such a decision every day when they support pro-choice. The fact is life exists prior to birth in the eye of the law. If a pregnant woman who is three month pregnant is murdered by a robber, that person will be charged not with one murder but two, in most states. Ergo, life exists before birth in the eyes of the law. Roe vs. Wade (citation needed) established that life began before birth, although the actual time when it began is still subject to legal interpretation. Politics is not perfect and every belief and decision is not always correct, moral, or legal, but this article shows the inconsistencies in many people’s beliefs when it comes to the issues of abortion and the death penalty.

The Truth about the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act

          Several different blogs have recently gone into hysterics over HR 3, which was introduced into the US House of Representatives with 173 sponsors.  Let's discuss several of its provisions which have been the subject of debate, and compare them with what is actually meant.  To see the full text of the bill, (it is actually fairly short), click HERE

           I might note that this bill violates one of the Republican and Tea Partiers' first rules, in that  there is nothing in the bill indicating where in the constitution that Congress is authorized to pass this legislation . Of course, Congress IS authorized to do this by the powers vested in Article I, Section 8.  But, at the beginning of this term of Congress, the Republicans and Tea Partiers made it clear that they were going to require every bill to have a clause which establishes its "constitutional legitimacy", and this bill does not do so.  Perhaps that requirement only applies to bills that are sponsored by Democrats?

           Sections 301, 302 and 303 of the bill speak about prohibiting the use of federal or public funds, including trust funds, to fund abortions.  Simply put, this means that no government subsidized program, including any program such as medicaid or medicare, can fund an abortion.  If a woman wishes to have an elective abortion, she must pay for it out of her own pocket.  It also states that the woman cannot have a tax benefit for self-funding an abortion. 

          Section 305 and 306 allow for insurance companies to offer separate plans to women that will cover abortions, and I presume that an insurance company could also offer a separate abortion policy if it so desired.  It also states that taxpayer funds are not to be used to buy such insurance.  Again, this is in keeping with the desire that if a woman chooses to have an abortion, that she pay for it out of her pocket, and not have the taxpayer pay for it in any way.

          Section 309 is the section which seems to bring certain people almost to the point of hysteria.  This section has two parts.  One part states that Section 301, 302 and 303 shall not apply when there is a case of forcible rape.  This has been seized upon by some, perhaps with agendas of their own, to imply that force would be necessary to be proven, and that somehow, the Republicans are "redefining" the crime of rape.  That is complete hogwash.  Rape, at the common law, had 5 elements to make it a crime.  Those were: penetration, force or resistance, non-consent, absence of a marital relationship, and mens rea.  Modern statutes have evolved considerably from that.  A handful of states allow for a prosecution without proof of force, but this is not the prevailing view in the United States.  However, what counts as force has changed considerably, to include intimidation, psychological force, and other non-violent means of forcing the act.  A review of state statutes reveals that in all states under this law, no changes will need to be made to the rape classifications in order for a woman to seek an abortion after being raped.

          Section 309 also has a provision for incest where the victim is a minor.  Incest is a completely separate  crime versus rape.  In the case of a minor, there may be an underlying rape charge, especially if it is shown that the victim was coerced into sex with someone prohibited by family relationship.  An adult, however, is presumed to be able to give consent.  If the woman did not give consent, or was coerced into the sexual act, then again, it may be rape, and the statement above about Section 309(a) would apply.  An incestuous relationship where the woman is of legal age, and freely consents to the sexual act,  should not be treated any differently than any other case of a sexual relationship where the woman finds she is pregnant and then has second thoughts.  I realize that abortion up to a certain point is legal in the US, whether I like it or not, and if it is going to remain legal, the government has a right to refuse to pay for it.

          In short, HR3 is a bill which seeks to make sure that taxpayer funds are not used to pay for abortions.  If a woman chooses this drastic end to a human life, she should pay for it out of her pocket, and the taxpayers should not be complicit in assisting her in doing so.

Dictatorships, Oligarchies, and Theocracies Beware

“The answer is that one would like to be both the one and the other; but because it is difficult to combine them, it is far safer to be feared than loved if you cannot be both.” - Machiavelli

Beginning in January, 2011 the Islamic world has witnessed grassroots movements calling for more political and economic freedoms in the states of the Republic of Tunisia, the Arab Republic of Egypt, and Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. It first started in Tunisia when protestors, hard hit by the economy, began protesting in the streets. This phenomenon has become known as the Jasmine Revolution. This largely unexpected and sudden movement resulted in the resignation of the authoritarian president, Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali, and a new interim government consisting of oppositionist leaders.

Only days after this shocking event rang through the Islamic world protesters took the street in the Arab Republic of Egypt calling for the resignation of President Mubarak and new political elections to be held. President Mubarak, known as an authoritarian leader in the Middle Eastern world and violator of political freedoms for almost thirty years, attempted to use once again heavy handed measures to stop the protests. His order to send police and military forces to stop the massive protests were futile and only seemed to encourage them even more. On February 1, CNN reported that President Mubarak would not run for reelection in the next scheduled election in September. But such a statement is too little too late for the vast majority of Egyptians. They want him out of power and most likely he will be within a matter of weeks.
The Kingdom of Jordan too is seeing civil unrest. Jordan, a relatively modern Islamic country and important ally to the United States is experiencing massive protests largely due to economic reasons. On February 1, 2011, King Abdullah II of Jordan fired his government after a demand from protesters in the country for more democratic government and accountability. New Jordanian Prime Minister Marouf al-Bakhit has been given the task to implement “real political reform in the king’s vision of comprehensive reform, modernization, and development.” Other countries in the region are witnessing talk of civil unrest – Syria, and Yemen.

Let these recent phenomenons in the Middle East be a warning to dictatorships, oligarchies, and theocracies around the world. The famous saying from Machiavelli’s The Prince,” it is far safer to be feared than loved...,” does not necessarily hold true. If these events in the Tunisia, Egypt, and Jordan, teach us anything it is that repressive regimes are not immune to revolutions.
Suddam Hussein, the former evil dictator of Iraq, was able to hold onto power due to his practical nature. He knew the importance of keeping enough of Iraqi people happy. That is why Iraq boasted a strong economy and a decent size middle class. Members of important families including those in the middle-class were even allowed to leave the country for vacation.

The technocrat oligarchy that rules the People’s Republic of China have given many economic freedoms to its’ citizens; they understand the importance the economy has on peoples’ opinion about the government in power. China’s pragmatic economic policies for the last 30 years have allowed the communist party to stay in power and kept many Chinese’ minds off political freedoms.

These examples of authoritarian leaders understand the limits of their authoritarian power over their people; something many leaders in the Middle Eastern world seem to forget. Whether a country is a democracy or an authoritarian regime, it ultimately stays in power at the will of the people. The leaders of Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Syria continue to repress their citizens at their own peril.

The Prestigious Doctorate of Jurisprudence: Horrible Career Prospects & Financial Ruin

Attorneys, Judges, and holders of the Doctorate of Jurisprudence (law degree) have it made. Once you get this degree you are set for life. Sit back and enjoy your $100,000 plus job, bonuses, and your brand new sports car. Wrong. That’s the view many Americans have about the legal community and the one many law schools are trying to convey. The truth is that in reality the legal market is saturated with law degrees and licensed attorneys, and in recent years the market is falling out from under them. It is all about supply and demand.

According to the American Bar Association there are currently 1,180,386 practicing attorneys in the United States. This is a huge number and to make matters worse from 2007-2008 a whooping 141,719 students enrolled in law school. These numbers are fairly constituent year to year meaning 45,000 new law degree holders enter the job market each and every year. (American Bar Association) Just think in three years time the legal profession will witness an additional 10% of the current level of practicing attorneys entering the field. Typically, according to the Department of Labor most occupations only grow 10-15 percent every ten years NOT 10-15 percent every three years.

Not only is the supply and demand of a law degree causing problems but so is the financial burden students much endure in able to obtain such a degree. Tuition even at mediocre law schools can cost anywhere from $38,000 to $45,000 a year. Then figure in cost of living, books, and extra loans while they study for the bar exam, students can easily leave school with debt ranging from $157,000 to $178,000. (Northwestern Law) Now if students think they will be just fine since they are going to land that “Big Law” job right out of law school think again. Unless they are going to a law school ranked in the top 20 and graduate in the top ten percent of their class or plan on graduating in the top three percent of their class from a lower ranked school they are dreaming. The truth is the vast majority of law students do not ever practice big law.

The American Bar Association estimates that with the increasing burden of financial debt on most law school graduates they must find jobs that pay at least $65,000 or more a year just in order to make the minimum payments on their debt. However, finding a job paying this much is no small feat either. Many firms, small, medium, and large sized are cutting back on hiring due to the recession, and many are not even hiring students who interned with them. The reality is many lawyers their first year out of school get paid $45,000-$60,000 a year. That is very hard to pay off those loans when they make that much. Law students might be committing themselves to a life of indentured servitude at least through their twenties and thirties.

That being said hope is not all lost if people know they want to be an attorney. Students don’t have to go to the best law school they can get into in order to be successful and such a decision is not necessarily wise given the current economic situation for the legal market. Several options are available that make legal education more affordable. 1. Go to a law school that has lower tuition, many state schools have relatively low tuition costs. For example, the University of South Dakota, total cost of attendance is only $24,502 for state residents and $34,907 for out of state residents a year. Other state schools that have cheaper costs of attendance include University of North Dakota, University of New Mexico, University of Nebraska, and the University of Kansas.

Another option is instead of attending law schools where they meet the average GPA and LSAT scores attend a lower ranked school where their scores are in the 75th percentile. There are a few benefits of doing this. First of all, many schools give merit-based scholarships to law students in the 75th percentile of the entering class, some of these scholarships are very generous. For example, the Hamline University Law School located in St. Paul Minnesota offers half tuition and full tuition scholarships to well qualified applicants. This allows students to leave law school with little to no debt. Another benefit of choosing this option is since students are attending a school they are more qualified for it might give them the edge over the other students making them more likely to graduate in the top part of their class enhancing career prospects.

The last option that will be mentioned is apply to schools that provide full-rides to public interest students or loan repayment programs. To students who are dedicated to public interest law this is the way to go. Many students who choose this option leave law school with little to no debt allowing them to practice in an area of law they really love and one that will really make a difference. Northeastern School of Law, Boston, Northwestern School of Law: Lewis & Clark, Portland, and American University School of Law, Washington D.C., are some of the best law schools for public interest law.

Warning: Students who want to practice public interest law, or for the government strongly consider these options! Many jobs in these areas of the law pay very little starting out so limiting the amount of debt is key when leaving law school.

Christmas Thoughts - Hark the Herald Angels Sang

And the angel said to them, "Fear not: for, I bring you great tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the City of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.  And this shall be a sign unto you: you shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger."
And suddenly there was with the Angel a multitude of the heavenly host, praising God and saying, "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth, peace and good will toward men".  Luke 2:10-14


Let's think about the events that happened that wonderful night.  God decided that he was going to go to earth.  But, not with an army of Angels.  Not with an earthly army to defend him.  God was born, in the same way that babies have been born for thousands, even millions of years.  He wasn't born into luxury.  He was born in a stable, with the animals of the stable around him.  This meant, horses, some goats, perhaps some sheep, chickens, (probably no pigs), and other animals and certainly insects.  It was undoubtedly smelly, dirty and by modern standards outright disgusting.  Hardly the way one would want to bring a newborn into the world.  The danger to both mother and baby is frightening when one thinks of it.  Yet, God did it.

Once born, the baby was wrapped in crude cloth strips, and laid in a manger, a trough normally used to hold animal food (straw).  Yes, its true that God announced the birth to shepherds who were out tending their flock.  But, this was not the same thing as announcing to the High Priests and other important church leaders.  Shepherds were considered the lowest of the low.  They were not even laborers, they had no fixed address, and followed their flocks from place to place.  It wasn't exactly the occupation that every mother desired for her daughter's husband.  Yet, these shepherds came, and worshiped the new born king.  God accepted them, by making them among the first to know about the birth.  

The magi, long a source of controversy, then arrived, although not at the same time as the shepherds.  They brought gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh. These were traditional gifts relating to royalty.  Gold's value goes without question.  Frankincense and myrrh, both powerful, fragrant incenses, were held in especially high esteem due to the general lack of bathing at the time, resulting in personal stench (combined with the squalor of a stable) that must have been nearly unbearable.  These gifts were accepted as well.  


The moral of the story presented in Luke is not just that Christ was born.  It is that Christ was born into horrible conditions, without armies of angels or earthly armies to protect him.  He thrived and lived, only to give His life for mankind's sins.  If God can love us so much that He was willing to accept all of this, shouldn't we accept not only each other, but God's gift of Grace and Love to us?  God accepts everyone.  The rich. The poor.  Those without hope.  Those who society rejects.  God came not into the world to treat with kings and the movers and shakers of the time.  If that was His wish, he wouldn't have been born in a manger, to a abjectly poor family.  He came for all of mankind, and the only way to know, truly KNOW all of mankind, is to start at the bottom, the least of the His peaple. 

The gift of God is Grace in accepting ourselves and others as being God's children, even if imperfect ones, whom He loves dearly.  When we accept God's gift of His Son at Christmas, we remember the gift to the world, and accept God into our hearts.  This Christmas, let's remember that wonderful gift, and how fortunate we are that God came to Earth, was born, lived, and died for us and for our sins.  Then, let us join the angelic voices in proclaiming, "Gloria in Excelsis Deo!"

May the the Love, Joy and Peace of the Christmas Season be to all!

 Amen

Burning the Qu'ran Costs Money

It appears that the cult-like "church" in Florida is about to learn another consequences of following the heretic that lead it.  Authorities in Gainsville, Florida plan to bill Dove World Outreach Church approximately $180,000 for the costs of providing the massive security efforts around Mr. Jones' threats to burn multiple copies of the Qu'ran.

Mr. Jones, after incredible grandstanding on the national and international media, called off his plans to burn copies of the  Qu'ran shortly before September 11.  As I said in other posts, Mr. Jones, whose knowledge of the Christian faith is sketchy at best, and more closely resembles heresy, is an acute embarrassment to the the Christian faith through his message of hate and intolerance.  His plan to burn the Qu'ran, a book holy to over 1 billion adherents to Islam, showed how little Mr. Jones had read of the book he claims to rever, the Holy Bible. 

"If someone strikes  you on one cheek, turn to him the other also.  If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic." Luke 6:29.  Mr. Jones at one point was asked in a CNN interview about this principle.  He replied, "I think in deed that most of the time, we as Christians are indeed call to turn the other cheek.  I believe that most of the time, talk and diplomacy is the correct way.  But I always think that once in a while, I think you see that in the Bible, there are incidents where enough is enough and you stand up." (Emphasis added) Oh, really?  I wish I had been there to ask Mr. Jones to show me where Christ said that Christianity was a "part-time" faith, or that we could pick and choose those parts that we don't like.  I have looked, and I can't find any such passage.  Instead, Christ ordered us, in Luke 6: 27-28, to "But I tell you who hear me, Love your enemies, Do good to those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you."  This is the fundamental lesson of love and tolerance by which Christians are known.

As the circus down in Florida was winding to a close, the emphasis of Mr. Jones suddenly shifted to a interest in the location of the Islamic Center in New York.  Whether this had been an interest of his in the past, and was just suddenly announced to the world when he found  himself of the attention that he so cravenly desired, or whether this was a sudden revelation that he could make brownie points with the right wing who oppose the Islamic Center but who had condemned his plans is unknown.  But the timing is suspicious.

Now, that the security concerns are apparently done, and Mr. Jones no longer claims to be interested in burning the Qu'ran, let us hope that the God that Mr. Jones claims is on his side will help him pay the $180,000 bill for the security on the circus that he caused with his heresy and self-aggrandizement.

War Crimes - The Obama Administration's Embarrassing Lie

President Barak Obama campaigned on a promise of change.  When he was elected in November, 2008, many of us were justifiably elated, because the administration of George Bush, who will be known throughout history as one of our most stupid presidents, would be shortly leaving office and hopefully, replaced with more intelligent and persons more interested in civil liberties.  Unfortunately, the sad truth is that this has not happened.

Torture of prisoners is a violation of not only the Geneva Conventions but a violation of US law.  Yet, under the Bush Administration, the CIA and others routinely engaged in torture, including but not limited to waterboarding.  The famous "torture memos" that were authorized by senior lawyers of the Ashcroft and Gonzales Justice Department were later released in connection with various litigation.  These document revealed that as early as 2002, the Bush administration, seemingly ignoring both federal law and international agreements, began torturing prisoners to extract "high value" information.

Despite the fact that torture doesn't work.. a person tortured will tend to provide the torturer information that the torturer wants, not necessarily correct, easily verifiable information, torture is legally and morally wrong.  A president who stands for such morally correct opinions that abortion is murder and that homosexuality is wrong should know that torture of a prisoner is morally wrong as well.  Obviously, this was an administration which preferred that people do what they say, and not what they do.

Now, two years after the administration is over, we come to a point where we do not have anyone standing indicted for their involvement in torture.  Rather, the Obama administration has indicated that it is not interested in prosecuting Bush era officials for ordering acts of torture, nor for war crimes or other committed under the Bush administration.  Some of those possible  charges would include: Levying a war of aggression... (note that this was a charge on which multiple Nazi leaders were convicted and executed after World War II), torture of prisoners in violation of the Geneva Conventions, (the US Supreme Court made it clear that the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay could not be held indefinitely without charge), and last, but not least, the most serious war crime of all, (which really isn't a war crime, but a crime of stupidity), is that of starting a war with no plan to win it, and of repeatedly lying to the American people.

I don't believe for a minute that George W. Bush is truly evil.  I think he's too stupid to form the requisite evil intent.  However, he willingly let himself be led by truly evil, rapacious men such as George Chaney and Donald Rumsfeld into a war in which the US should have never found itself. In doing so, they bankrupted the US, ruined our economy, are directly responsible for over 4,000 US service personnel dying, and may have lost us the opportunity to truly deal effectively with Afghanistan.  For this and their other crimes listed above, I am  truly sorry that the Obama administration is unwilling to prosecute these evil men.

The "Poverty" of the Wealthy

"Jesus answered, 'If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

 When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.

 Then Jesus said to his disciples, "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God'" Gospel of St. Matthew, 19:21-24

This passage has often been touted as indicating that Christ thought money to be evil in some way.  However, examining the words closely, Christ did not say that.  Christ used this parable to teach us about the evils of having money for the sake of having it.  The young man in this case was unwilling to part with his riches, even at the cost of his soul, hence his riches were more important to him than acceptance into the Kingdom of God. We see some of the same forces at work in the US today. 

President Obama has suggested that the Bush tax cuts, scheduled to expire at the end of 2010, be extended for all except individuals earning over $200,000 per year and couples earning over $250,000 per year.  The result would be that taxes for this bracket would increase by about 3%, to a maximum of 39%.  This is still lower than taxes were during the Reagan administration, when taxes for this bracket were 50%, or even during the Kennedy administration, when taxes for the top bracket was 91%.  At the time, various tax cuts were put into place, and they seemed to have positive effects on our economy.  Yet, the same trick-down economics is being proposed today, in spite of the US economy being vastly different than it was in 1962 or even 1980.

Globalization was just in its infancy during the Kennedy administration, and still was not in full force during the Reagan administration.  Therefore, most goods consumed in America were made in America by American companies.  That is no longer true today.  American companies can and do continue to outsource everything that can possibly be outsourced,  unless somehow prohibited by law.  (Banking laws still limit some outsourcing by banks, although I am sure this is under attack also).  

If a tax decrease for the wealthiest Americans is continued, then it should be followed with legislation designed to counteract the effects of globalization, and to encourage investment and hiring in the US, not in China, India, or anywhere else in the world.  Such legislation should be in the form of a tax which would state that for every company which outsources a job to any other country, that company owes in the form of a tax the difference in the wage between what they are paying in that other country and what they would pay a comparable American worker in the US.  This removes the economic incentive to offshore American jobs, simply in to save salaries and working conditions. 

Unfortunately, we can look for the Republicans in Congress to block any such a progressive scheme, because the Republican party is, unfortunately, tightly tied to business concerns which would oppose any regulation of their right to make unlimited profits.  In that way, they are like the  young rich man, with the appropriate potential for problems of the soul.

September 11, 2011

"Blessed are the poor in spirit,
      for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
 Blessed are those who mourn,
      for they will be comforted.
 Blessed are the meek,
      for they will inherit the earth.
 Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
      for they will be filled.
 Blessed are the merciful,
      for they will be shown mercy.
 Blessed are the pure in heart,
      for they will see God.
 Blessed are the peacemakers,
      for they will be called sons of God.
 Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
      for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."  Gospel of St. Matthew, 5:2-10

     September 11, 2001 is another day which will live in infamy in the memory of Americans.  It was on that fateful morning that airplanes, hijacked by Islamic extremists caused unspeakable carnage at the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Washington, D.C.  In doing so they violated the tenants of their faith, they dishonored their families through their acts of hate, and they cast an aspersion on the millions of peace loving people all over the world who adhere to Islam.

     Recently, there have been a number of controversies about the Islamic Center that is planned in the general vicinity of the former World Trade Center.  Let's be perfectly clear here: Islam did not attack America.  Terrorists, blinded by the words of a madman, did.  Islam, like the other great religions of mankind, is a faith of peace.  Yes, its true that in the past, there have been those who have killed in the name of Allah.  However, the history of Christianity is not without incredible acts of savagery done in the name of God, (the Crusades come to mind), and the acts of Jewish armies in the Old Testament cannot be easily reconciled with what we consider civilized behaviour today. The point is, no modern faith is without skeletons in its closet, and yet all still stand for for fundamental principles: Peace, Love of God, and that we, as the Children of God, should honor His commandments and not kill.

     America is a nation founded on freedom.  Our rule of law, our record of tolerance is held as a shining standard that most of the world looks to with envy.  Yet, there have recently been some who would tarnish that standard.  The leader of the cult-like Dove World Outreach Church, in Florida, with his message of hate and intolerance toward Islam, is an embarrassment to not only the Christian faith, but to America.  Yet, he has a constitutional right to be both.  Those who have protested against the Islamic Center proposed several blocks away from the World Trade Center site are another example of bigotry, intolerance and a tarnish on America's tradition of tolerance.  Again, they have a constitutional right to their opinion, but so do also the adherents of Islam have a right to practice their faith.

      On September 11, 2010, we should not be dealing with these devisive issues.  We should be remembering those who died that day, the thousands of men and women from not only the United States, but from many other nations also, whose only crime was to be in the wrong place.  We should remember that until those who wish to commit these acts of unspeakable evil, in the name of their faith (or for any other reason), are hunted down and brought to justice, that the battle against this evil is not over.

      Let us all, of whatever nationality, of whatever faith, stand together on September 11 and remember in silent prayer those who died that fateful day.  let us also pray for the souls of those who commited this act of violence and hate, remembering that God is their ultimate judge.  Finally, let us pray for peace, a peace in which all persons, of whatever faith, can worship their God in whatever fashion they feel right, without worry of reprisal, ridicule or harm.

Arizona Madness - The Totalitarians Continue

Unless a US District Judge issues an injunction prohibiting it from going into effect, Arizona law permitting law enforcement in Arizona to make inquiry about a person's citizenship status when they are otherwise stopped by law enforcement goes into effect on July 29, 2010. This bill is facially unconstitutional in that it oversteps and infringes on Federal supremacy in regulation of immigration. A person who regularly comments on this blog and I were discussing this law recently, and he brought to my attention a US Supreme Court case which he believed to be controlling. The case is De Canas v. Bica 424 US 351 (1976). However, the case, while discussing immigration, is not on point. There are several ways to distinguish De Canas from the case before us here.

In De Canas, supra, the Court held that a California law which made it a crime to hire an undocumented worker was not a regulation of immigration, and was not therefore preempted by the Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA). However, the Arizona law, in its most insidious parts, has nothing to do with the hiring of undocumented workers. It purports to empower Arizona law enforcement to enforce immigration laws. The enforcement of such laws are specifically enforced by the Immigrations and Customs Enforcement arm of the Department of Homeland Security (ICE). Although Section 287(g) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 does allow for ICE to partner with state and local authorities, it also requires that ICE supervise and train those officers who are going to be enforcing immigration law, and it requires a Memorandum of Understanding with the local or state law enforcement department which must state with specificity, among other things, the scope of authority and the limitations on what procedures or functions that the properly trained individuals in that department are able to perform. Arizona's law seeks to grant blanket authority for immigration investigations and determinations to all law enforcement officers in the State of Arizona, without any such training requirement or certification. This is clearly a case of where federal supremacy over a state's laws would apply, and federal law dictates that ICE agents are the primary enforcers of US immigration law. While it is true that ICE can and does delegate some of its responsibility to local law enforcement on occasion, under its partnership with local law enforcement, this delegation is also subject to federal oversight.

The proponents of the Arizona legislation say that because the US Government has failed to curb illegal immigration, they must take this action. However, the proponents of this legislation are all Republicans. It is also republicans who have thwarted any real movement on immigration reform by their mean-spirited and laughable attempts to repatriate all those who are in the United States illegally. At an estimated 11 to 12 million people, where do they think they are going to get all the buses necessary?

The proponents of the legislation also forget that US Law already makes it illegal for an employer to hire someone without the proper documentation of the right to work in the US, but that the business community has for years, (largely with the help of Republicans) fought any attempt to seriously stop the practice. Hugely punitive measures that would cause real pain to companies who routinely hire undocumented workers are unpopular with the business community, because these workers can be underpaid and have little recourse to demand better working conditions and higher pay. This results in higher profits which is pleasing to the stockholders and to their board of directors.

Hopefully, the Hon. Susan Bolton, the US District Court judge hearing this case, will issue a preliminary injunction blocking the law from going into effect, followed by a permanent injunction shoving this law into the dust pan of history. The Republicans who voted for this law should also be held to account by the registered Hispanic voters and other fair-minded citizens of Arizona who should recognize the heavy-handed police state tactics as being counter to the traditions of American fair play and democracy.

Tolerance, Palin Style

Former Alaska Governor and Republican vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin has continued to delight her followers by recent remarks over the proposed building of an Islamic community center near Ground Zero in New York City. Her remarks, sent as a tweet to her followers were "Peace-seeking Muslims, pls understand, Ground Zero mosque is UNNECESSARY provocation; it stabs hearts, Pls reject it in interest of healing." The developers of the site say that the site will contain only a prayer room were an Imam may conduct services from time to time. A mosque is generally defined as a place where Muslims worship.

People are free to conduct their religion in any place that they so choose. Our general tolerance of a variety of faiths is part of what makes this country as strong as it is today. While the Supreme Court of the United States has made it perfectly clear that any state (or government) sponsorship of religion is impermissible under the Constitution. Lemon v. Kurtzman 403 US 602 (1971) The Court in Lemon established a three prong test, namely: 1) The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose; 2) The government's action must neither advance nor inhibit the free exercise of religion and 3) The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion. By even considering religious use as a reason not to grant the use of this property to an Islamic group, New York City imperils itself in violation of the 1st Amendment.

In the case in question, an application is before the New York City Landmark Preservation Commission on permission to demolish a 154 year old building or to place the building on the historical register. Even if the commission gives landmark status to the bu ilding, it will probably not halt construction of the Islamic center.

People opposed to this building have made a variety of statements about this, including an unnamed woman who commented on CNN.com "It would be a terrible mistake to destroy a 154-year-old building in order to build a monument to terrorism". It is truly sad that such bigotry still exists in the United States, but it unfortunately isn't shocking.

Ms. Palin, through her comments on this and other subjects, has fanned the fires of this. This, of course, is the same Ms. Palin who during her campaign for vice-president of the US, was unable to point out Afghanistan on a map, and in general was completely unfamiliar with world geography, the basics of US Civics, (including the role of the Vice President under the US Constitution).

Let us hope that as time goes on, that calmer heads will prevail in New York. It was not Islam that attacked the US on September 11, 2001. Islam is a faith of peace, like the other two great Abrahamic religions of mankind. (Judaism and Christianity) The attackers on September 11, 2001 were fanatics, deluded by a madman, who in his delusions and evil, decided the US was responsible for his plight. Of the thousands who lost their lives on September 11, 2001, at least 40 were Muslims, not counting the 19 hijackers. Islan doesn't promise those who slaughter innocents a place in paradise, not by any stretch of their holy writings.

As we contemplate this matter, let us remember that we should respect all faiths, even those with which we disagree. We should allow them to practice their faith without interference, and we should, both as Americans and Christians, provide an example of tolerance and charity. I don't see that example of tolerance or charity in Ms. Palin or her supporters.