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.

Hate in the Name of God?

"And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love."
I Corinthians 13:13

In Topeka, Kansas there is a church known as Westboro Baptist Church. It is led by the allegedly Rev. Fred Phelps. Their theology seems intent on spreading a message which which teaches that, among other things, the US Troop deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan are allegedly due to God's condemnation of the US because of our tolerance of homosexuality. They take their message to the point of protesting at funerals, (holding up signs which would normally violate obscenity laws if they were not cloaked as "political protest"), demonstrating at churches which "harbor" homosexuals, and in general, spreading the message that God allegedly "hates fags". Their message of hate, cloaked as being in the Name of God, is the ultimate blasphemy and heresy.

We were warned of people such as this in the second letter of St. Peter. "But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves. Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping." II Peter 2: 1-4. Peter here warns of those who will reinterpret the words of God, and will call the people away from Christ's message of love for all man. Christ died for the world to redeem all sinners. All have sin; no one but Christ is without sin, for only a Holy Sacrifice, pure, blameless, was an acceptable redemption for the sins of the world.

Christ hated sin, but He loved the sinner. We, as Christians, are compelled to follow in His footsteps, even if it is haltingly and with missteps every pace of the way. When we see persons such as Mr. Phelps and his group who are spreading their message that God "hates fags", we must take care to remember the words of the Gospel: "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life" John 3:16. (Emphasis added)

Freedom of Religion or Freedom from Religion?

Amendment I of the Constitution of the United States begins with some famous words: "Congress shall make no laws respecting the establishment of a religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." This simple phrase has created storms of controversy, but oddly enough, very little controversy until the middle of the 20th century. In Engel vs Vitale, 370 US 421, the US Supreme Court declared unconstitutional a practice which had taken place in many US schools for years. This practice was the beginning of each day with a prayer that had been composed by the state and ordered to be recited by all students. While the prayer was faith neutral, the prayer nonetheless was a religious exercise. The Supreme Court held that the practice was unconstitutional and overturned the practice.

This decision has been decried by many churches, but none so much as the religious right. They have generally portrayed this decision as "banning prayer in schools", and "banning religion in schools". In this they are either deliberatly ignorant or are deliberatly misreading the opinion of the Court. The Court said nothing of the sort. The Supreme Court, in fact, has ruled over and over that religion is not banned in schools, nor is prayer. However, state-sponsored religion is not allowed because this violates the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment.

Most religious organizations, including churches, are organized as tax exempt entities under Section 501(c) of the Internatl Revenue Code. However, it should be noted that religious institutions are not the only types of organizations that are so organized. Schools and charities of many different types also hold 501(c) status. This is because, like a church or other religious institution, their income is tax exempt, and donations to those orgnizations is usually tax deductible. The income is tax exempt and (usually) deductible because the government has decided it is in the best interest of the state that those organizations be allowed to devote more of their resources to their stated goal: religious, educational or charitable. With this important exemption, comes a special caveat: Holders of a 501(c) tax status may not endorse any particular candidate without risking the revocation of their 501(c) status.

Many of the religious right see this as a violation of the 1st amendment in that it somehow infringes upon their exercise of their faith. On the contrary, this provision was placed in the code to protect churches and other organizations from being distracted in their mission. Their mission, if a church, is to spread the word of their religion. If they are advocating one particular political candidate, they are not spreading their faith, but the message of another. For instance, Jesus Christ is not running for office. To advocate the word of Christ is the duty of Christians everywhere, of any denomination. To advocate for any particular candidate (in the pulpit, etc) is a violation of the trust and special privileges granted to religious institutions.

In closing, let me point out one more thing: There is no "right" to be exempt from taxation for religious institutions written in the Constitution. The government has chosen, as a matterof public policy, that it is in the interest of society to do so. However, Congress could, if it so chooses, remove religious institutions from the 501(c) list, and as long as they were taxed the same as any other business, it would most likely survive constitutional muster. I am NOT saying that they would or could do so, but it would be constitutional.

As we listen to the leaders of our house of worship in this election time, let us remember that they should preach the beliefs of the faith, and then allow their congregants to decide how to vote on their own.

One Man in a Thousand

One Man in a Thousand, Solomon says,
Will stick more close than a brother...

So begin the words of a famous poem by Rudyard Kipling. For the full text, please go and look up http://www.kipling.org.uk/poems_thousandth.htm.

This poem is important due to its capture of the nature of human relationships. Many people, and this is especially true in our fluid society of the 21st century, are interested in the money a person has, or in their looks, or their great deeds or power. The degree of shallowness that is exhibited, and in some cases, even celebrated, by our culture is unheard of in the annals of history.

What Kipling's poem recognizes is that a person's spirit is the essence of what they are. It is this spirit that encompases good or evil, kindness or pettyness. Unfortunately, our society has seen more politicians with a spirit of pettyness, childishness, and outright evil. There are some politicians in our society today who not only would find Kipling's poem outdated, but would be mystified by the concepts of love, loyalty and brotherhood that it discusses.

As we start the run-up to our national elections, look at the politicians running. Look at their public statements, both about the other and about other people. Are they the persons you want making decisions which affect not only the economy of this nation, but the overall well-being of our people? Don't decide on this issue alone, but I urge you, consider this factor among the other facts as you make your decisions.