Ok, he "got" me again. I try to just ignore the mush which eminates from his mouth, but someone pointed this video clip out to me and I "bit." Glenn Beck is now attempting to convince his audience that the idea of separation of church and state in the United States is somehow linked to the "USSR Constitution." By this he probably means the 1936 Constitution of the USSR, adopted in December of that year, since their 1977 Constitution re-sections their fundamental law into different Articles. Here's what Beck said on air, on July 19 of this year:
"Freedom of worship. Do not confuse the freedom of religion with the freedom of worship. Barack Obama has said in his Cairo speech freedom of worship, and he has been taking to the use of that phrase over freedom of religion. There is a huge difference. Freedom of religion is what we have here, but let me show you Article 124 from the USSR Constitution, Soviet. In order to --remember how free the Soviet Union was, right? We know how, "Oh, Christians, do anything you want to. Jews, Jews, they love you!" Article 124: In order to ensure citizens freedom of conscience, the church in the USSR is separated from the state. Separation of church and state. And the school from the church. So the church and the state are separate and the school from the church, article 124. Now, we don't have that in any of our documents, but it's weird how the progressives insist that there is a separation of church and state, exactly the way there was in the Soviet Union, and a separation of God in all of our schools, just like there was in the Soviet Union." Glenn Beck, July 19, 2010
First, the entire text of the Cairo speech is available here. Not once did the President say "freedom of worship" as Beck claims. You can read the entire text (it was a very good speech) or you can use the shortcut of searching the text by using "Edit" and "Find on this page" on the menu. Mr. Obama discusses freedom of religion in the "fifth" issue. Among the things he said was "People in every country should be free to choose and live their faith based upon the persuasion of the mind and the heart and the soul" and "Freedom of religion is central to the ability of peoples to live together."
However, beyond Beck's completely made up claim that there was some nefarious linguistic trick at work here, (another lie to enrage his followers) his underlying argument is also outlandish. First, we should read the relevant portions of the two Constitutions.
Here is a translation of that portion of the Constitution of the USSR of 1936: "ARTICLE 124. In order to ensure to citizens freedom of conscience, the church in the U.S.S.R. is separated from the state, and the school from the church. Freedom of religious worship and freedom of antireligious propaganda is recognized for all citizens." Interesting...it specifies that antireligious propaganda is protected as well.
And here is the relevant portion of the U.S. Constitution, Amendment I, (1791): "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."
I agree that the language of our Consitution is not as simple and straightforward as the USSR's--perhaps because ours is considerably older. But isn't that first phrase a statement that there can't be any laws which serve to establish a religion? The Congress (the "state" in general terms) is not permitted to establish or endorse a religion. A state religion or church is forbidden; athesim is just as acceptable as Christianity or Islam. It's sometimes called the "establishment clause."
The very next clause forbids the congress from making any law which prohibits the people from freely "exercising" their chosen religion. (The "free exercise" clause.) Exercise of religion can mean worship services, prayer, foods or fasting, clothing or attire, or refraining from certain activities. Of course limits do apply, like we don't allow human sacrifice or illegal substance use in the practices of religions. With those exceptions, in the first two clauses of the First Amendment, the Constitution ensures freedom of religion for U.S. citizens. Should be familiar stuff for citizens.
But Beck, in insisting that there is no separation between church and state, completely misses (or ignores) several basic concepts.
He makes a point about the schools. First, we must keep in mind that compulsory attendance at school is a much more recent concept than our Constitution. Some states had some weak compulsory attendance laws as early as 1864, but the legal authority to mandate school attendance was not recognized until 1901. Some states did not require schooling until as late as 1915.
Then consider who runs the schools, in a country where children are required by law to exercise their right to an education. Lots of people run schools. There are private schools, home schools, religious schools, schools for the arts...but most kids end up going to PUBLIC schools. The non-public schools can teach religion until they are blue in the face.
But public schools are run by the government. Requirements of children in public schools are requirements of the state--for example, consider the age requirements, the immunization requirements, physical examinations....or certain infractions of rules which result in expulsion. These rules have the force of law, as do most rules enforced by public schools. So, if we were to allow our public schools, which our children are required to attend, to lead our children in Christian prayer, that would be the state establishing religion. It would also be preventing the freedom of exercise (or to not exercise) religion to those who are not Christian. What's so hard to get about that?
Ok, I feel better now.
Anyone else want to weigh in?
Have a comment? Advice? Random observation? I'd love to hear it. Click "COMMENTS" just below.
Showing posts with label Public Policy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Public Policy. Show all posts
Friday, October 8, 2010
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Booming School Anyone?
I've been "off" for a while for a variety of reasons, some of which I might get into in the future. Today, however, I've been home sick with what seems to be a sinus "thing" (although it was hard to diagnose myself at first). So, having slept most of the day, I have a bit of time and marginal energy to bring up something I've wanted to publicize.
Sometime last week on a public radio program, I heard a monologue about "Booming" oil. Booming is what they are supposed to be doing in the Gulf of Mexico to gather the oil from the spill/blowout. Unfortunately, it seems that booming oil is a skill never acquired by the BP crew who are supposed to be doing it. Please take a few minutes to listen to this monologue that (while editorializing quite a bit) tells about the problem. The intro is about the spill, but the "meat" begins at 1:55, (feel free to skip the intro).
So, if this is true, how can we believe that BP is actually doing its best to clean up this mess?
Sometime last week on a public radio program, I heard a monologue about "Booming" oil. Booming is what they are supposed to be doing in the Gulf of Mexico to gather the oil from the spill/blowout. Unfortunately, it seems that booming oil is a skill never acquired by the BP crew who are supposed to be doing it. Please take a few minutes to listen to this monologue that (while editorializing quite a bit) tells about the problem. The intro is about the spill, but the "meat" begins at 1:55, (feel free to skip the intro).
So, if this is true, how can we believe that BP is actually doing its best to clean up this mess?
Friday, February 26, 2010
What the Beck?
I'm not a political commentator (for the most part) but in the same spirit of "Rant" from last post, I ask: what in the world has come over the "conservatives" who watch Glenn Beck? Beck's 5 p.m. (Eastern) show garners up to 3.4 million viewers at times. You know who you are. Among you are likely many of the nearly 9000 who paid from $250 to $750 to attend the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) last week, where he gave the closing speech.
I think seeing an excerpt from that speech was the proverbial "straw that broke the camel's back" for me where he is concerned. Put briefly, in the speech Beck rails against and maligns the "progressive" movement at length, complains about government taking taxes to fund what it decides the people need (of course without mentioning that the people themselves elect persons from among themselves to become our government)....Beck continues by commending himself on never feeling entitled to a free education...and then announces that he educated himself--at the library, where the books are FREE. I guess he does feel entitled to read the books that magically appear in the free buildings that sprout up solely through the will of God around the country.
That gaffe spurred me to the internet to find out who this idiot was. He readily calls himself a recovering alcoholic...which is much more socially acceptable than mentioning the fact that he also admits getting "high" (using marajuana and cocaine) every day for 15 years. I'm sensing a source of brain damage there.
He's written books. In his 2009 "A?guing With Idiots" he ranks the "Top Ten Bastards of All Time." Remember, "Number 1" is his pick for worst bastard of all time...
10. Pol Pot (leader of the Khmer Rouge, responsible for ~1.7 million deaths)
9. Robert Mugabe (dictator of the failing African state of Zimbabwe)
8. Teddy Roosevelt (our 26th president)
7. Bernie Madoff (ponzi scheme swindler of 2009)
6. Adolf Hitler (murdered ~6 million Jews and others)
5. Keith Olbermann (apparently for his penchant for pointing out Beck's errors and self-contradictions on his own show)
4. Pontius Pilate (for washing his hands, I imagine, as though it weren't the will of God)
3. FDR (our 32nd president)
2. Tiger Woods (the pro golfer) ...and, drum roll please:
1. Woodrow Wilson (our 28th president)
And what did Wilson and FDR do that was worse than killing millions of innocent people? FDR was "progressive." Wilson stepped on the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution's grant of the right of freedom of speech. Hmmm. (Immediately I wonder, why isn't Founding Father and 2nd president John Adams at the top of that list? Remember the Alien and Sedition Acts? Even Adams regretted signing them soon after he did it, according to his correspondence.) Interesting list. If I were going to make up such a list, it would look a lot different.
So then I came across this quote from Beck: "you have Barack Obama going in and spending the money on embryonic stem cell research, and then some, fundamentally changing – remember, those great progressive doctors are the ones who brought us Eugenics. It was the progressive movement and it [sic] science. Let’s put science truly in her place. If evolution is right, why don’t we just help out evolution? That was the idea. And sane people agreed with it! And it was from America. Progressive movement in America. Eugenics. In case you don’t know what Eugenics led us to: the Final Solution. A master race! A perfect person. The stuff that we are facing is absolutely frightening." (aired March 9, 2009)
If he weren't on national TV equating stem cell research with eradication of the Jewish race, I'd think his stupidity was funny. (I'm ignoring his lack of knowledge about the origin and basis of the theory of eugenics as well. Funny thing is, the basis of eugenics would agree with Beck, since the original British theory began with the idea that social welfare programs that encourage the empoverished and "less able" to reproduce were counterproductive to society as a whole. Sounds to me like another portion of Beck's CPAC speech. But I digress.)
Stem cells provide promise for vast innovations in medical treatments for severe ilness and injuries. To promote fear of such advances will only further hinder the development of promising therapies. (if you are interested in what stem cells really are, I recommend the National Institutes of Health basic primer on the subject.) I literally cheered when I heard that the federal ban on funding for embryonic stem cell research was lifted.
So my opening question remains: how is it possible that Glenn Beck has become the superstar of the conservative movement? Why would anyone with any intelligence watch him? (As a footnote, I heard no press reports about George F. Will's CPAC speech, which is available online and was quite good (except for the 2 or 3 sentences wherein he equates auto insurance with health insurance, ignoring the obvious differences). I'd listen to an Oxford and Princeton educated PhD anytime...especially over someone like Beck who barely passed high school.)
If anyone out there can explain this Glenn Beck thing to me...please do. End of Rant.
I think seeing an excerpt from that speech was the proverbial "straw that broke the camel's back" for me where he is concerned. Put briefly, in the speech Beck rails against and maligns the "progressive" movement at length, complains about government taking taxes to fund what it decides the people need (of course without mentioning that the people themselves elect persons from among themselves to become our government)....Beck continues by commending himself on never feeling entitled to a free education...and then announces that he educated himself--at the library, where the books are FREE. I guess he does feel entitled to read the books that magically appear in the free buildings that sprout up solely through the will of God around the country.
That gaffe spurred me to the internet to find out who this idiot was. He readily calls himself a recovering alcoholic...which is much more socially acceptable than mentioning the fact that he also admits getting "high" (using marajuana and cocaine) every day for 15 years. I'm sensing a source of brain damage there.
He's written books. In his 2009 "A?guing With Idiots" he ranks the "Top Ten Bastards of All Time." Remember, "Number 1" is his pick for worst bastard of all time...
10. Pol Pot (leader of the Khmer Rouge, responsible for ~1.7 million deaths)
9. Robert Mugabe (dictator of the failing African state of Zimbabwe)
8. Teddy Roosevelt (our 26th president)
7. Bernie Madoff (ponzi scheme swindler of 2009)
6. Adolf Hitler (murdered ~6 million Jews and others)
5. Keith Olbermann (apparently for his penchant for pointing out Beck's errors and self-contradictions on his own show)
4. Pontius Pilate (for washing his hands, I imagine, as though it weren't the will of God)
3. FDR (our 32nd president)
2. Tiger Woods (the pro golfer) ...and, drum roll please:
1. Woodrow Wilson (our 28th president)
And what did Wilson and FDR do that was worse than killing millions of innocent people? FDR was "progressive." Wilson stepped on the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution's grant of the right of freedom of speech. Hmmm. (Immediately I wonder, why isn't Founding Father and 2nd president John Adams at the top of that list? Remember the Alien and Sedition Acts? Even Adams regretted signing them soon after he did it, according to his correspondence.) Interesting list. If I were going to make up such a list, it would look a lot different.
So then I came across this quote from Beck: "you have Barack Obama going in and spending the money on embryonic stem cell research, and then some, fundamentally changing – remember, those great progressive doctors are the ones who brought us Eugenics. It was the progressive movement and it [sic] science. Let’s put science truly in her place. If evolution is right, why don’t we just help out evolution? That was the idea. And sane people agreed with it! And it was from America. Progressive movement in America. Eugenics. In case you don’t know what Eugenics led us to: the Final Solution. A master race! A perfect person. The stuff that we are facing is absolutely frightening." (aired March 9, 2009)
If he weren't on national TV equating stem cell research with eradication of the Jewish race, I'd think his stupidity was funny. (I'm ignoring his lack of knowledge about the origin and basis of the theory of eugenics as well. Funny thing is, the basis of eugenics would agree with Beck, since the original British theory began with the idea that social welfare programs that encourage the empoverished and "less able" to reproduce were counterproductive to society as a whole. Sounds to me like another portion of Beck's CPAC speech. But I digress.)
Stem cells provide promise for vast innovations in medical treatments for severe ilness and injuries. To promote fear of such advances will only further hinder the development of promising therapies. (if you are interested in what stem cells really are, I recommend the National Institutes of Health basic primer on the subject.) I literally cheered when I heard that the federal ban on funding for embryonic stem cell research was lifted.
So my opening question remains: how is it possible that Glenn Beck has become the superstar of the conservative movement? Why would anyone with any intelligence watch him? (As a footnote, I heard no press reports about George F. Will's CPAC speech, which is available online and was quite good (except for the 2 or 3 sentences wherein he equates auto insurance with health insurance, ignoring the obvious differences). I'd listen to an Oxford and Princeton educated PhD anytime...especially over someone like Beck who barely passed high school.)
If anyone out there can explain this Glenn Beck thing to me...please do. End of Rant.
Monday, November 23, 2009
Our Special Girl
Over Halloween weekend hubby and I visited his daughter and granddaughter, who used to live nearby until a year ago--now they're six hours away. We had a delightful time! Hubby's granddaughter, Alexis, turned 3 years old earlier in October, so this was also our chance to celebrate her birthday with her.
Alexis was born in Guatemala and her adoption was finalized when she was almost 8 months old. Since then, she has grown physically, like all kids, but she has also grown to fill our hearts! It's so wonderful when we see her, she's like a little jumping bean! She bounces up, up, UP, UP!--until we catch her in a big hug. She just goes wild when she sees us, which feels incredible, and is even more heartwarming for me, a "step-grandparent."
During this last trip, the entirety of the extended families went to see one nephew play in a college football game not too far away. If you're a follower of this blog, you probably already know I'm not a huge sports fan--although I happen to know the game, in part because my ex was a coach. So, being the most distant "relative" of our player (and not a big fan anyway), I spent nearly the entire game entertaining Alexis while they cheered him on. I taught her how to use my digital camera--with me holding onto it, of course. You would never guess how delighted she was when she realized she could take pictures, and then go back and look through them, stored in the camera. We took the football players (focusing on her cousin), then it was the cheerleaders making a tower, then the play clock and endposts. Then she focused on taking grandpop, mama, mommy, auntie, grandma, grampy...every member of her extended family! She called to each by name, we held the camera, and she snapped the shot. She was fascinated and enthralled as we reviewed her pictures! I think I'm going to make an album for her so she can see her pictures, and later will have something to remember.
Alexis is the reason I'm involved in Kiva (their banner is just above my quick profile, in the margin). Kiva is a micro-lending website clearinghouse. On Kiva, anyone can make a small loan to an individual entrepeneur from the developing world. Kiva aggregates the money (as little as $25 from any individual) to loan moderate amounts (my reading of the website has shown loans are generally $500-1200). Each lender has a repayment schedule, and as long as all goes well, each loan is repaid over about a year. (There are defaults; more in certain locations and market sectors than others.) The repayment is returned to one's Kiva account, when the lender can either withdraw the money or loan it again to another entrepeneur.
Kiva operates in third world countries throughout the world to help alleviate poverty. Guatemala is an impoverished country, and Kiva has an agent there who lends to individuals. Recently, Alexis' mother forwarded a specific loan request she found on Kiva to us--from a young woman trying to establish a local grocery store in the tiny town where Alexis was born. That's when I got involved. Maybe, helping one woman and her family out of poverty in one small town might just give a little boost to our Alexis' original family. I hope so.
In fact, I intend to keep loaning specifically to Guatemalans (on a quarterly basis, I think) as there are 1-2 new requests every few weeks from there. Hopefully, helping to provide small loans to small business persons (many of whom are women) in Guatemala can, in some way, help the people who cared for Alexis and gave us the opportunity to love this wonderful little girl. I hope so.
Alexis was born in Guatemala and her adoption was finalized when she was almost 8 months old. Since then, she has grown physically, like all kids, but she has also grown to fill our hearts! It's so wonderful when we see her, she's like a little jumping bean! She bounces up, up, UP, UP!--until we catch her in a big hug. She just goes wild when she sees us, which feels incredible, and is even more heartwarming for me, a "step-grandparent."
During this last trip, the entirety of the extended families went to see one nephew play in a college football game not too far away. If you're a follower of this blog, you probably already know I'm not a huge sports fan--although I happen to know the game, in part because my ex was a coach. So, being the most distant "relative" of our player (and not a big fan anyway), I spent nearly the entire game entertaining Alexis while they cheered him on. I taught her how to use my digital camera--with me holding onto it, of course. You would never guess how delighted she was when she realized she could take pictures, and then go back and look through them, stored in the camera. We took the football players (focusing on her cousin), then it was the cheerleaders making a tower, then the play clock and endposts. Then she focused on taking grandpop, mama, mommy, auntie, grandma, grampy...every member of her extended family! She called to each by name, we held the camera, and she snapped the shot. She was fascinated and enthralled as we reviewed her pictures! I think I'm going to make an album for her so she can see her pictures, and later will have something to remember.
Alexis is the reason I'm involved in Kiva (their banner is just above my quick profile, in the margin). Kiva is a micro-lending website clearinghouse. On Kiva, anyone can make a small loan to an individual entrepeneur from the developing world. Kiva aggregates the money (as little as $25 from any individual) to loan moderate amounts (my reading of the website has shown loans are generally $500-1200). Each lender has a repayment schedule, and as long as all goes well, each loan is repaid over about a year. (There are defaults; more in certain locations and market sectors than others.) The repayment is returned to one's Kiva account, when the lender can either withdraw the money or loan it again to another entrepeneur.
Kiva operates in third world countries throughout the world to help alleviate poverty. Guatemala is an impoverished country, and Kiva has an agent there who lends to individuals. Recently, Alexis' mother forwarded a specific loan request she found on Kiva to us--from a young woman trying to establish a local grocery store in the tiny town where Alexis was born. That's when I got involved. Maybe, helping one woman and her family out of poverty in one small town might just give a little boost to our Alexis' original family. I hope so.
In fact, I intend to keep loaning specifically to Guatemalans (on a quarterly basis, I think) as there are 1-2 new requests every few weeks from there. Hopefully, helping to provide small loans to small business persons (many of whom are women) in Guatemala can, in some way, help the people who cared for Alexis and gave us the opportunity to love this wonderful little girl. I hope so.
Monday, August 24, 2009
Healthcare "Debate"
The "healthcare debate" in the U.S. is unbelievable to me. Having worked with sick and injured people for a good portion of my adult life, I've seen so many who have suffered needlessly and foregone appropriate, necessary medical care because they simply didn't have access to care. They respected the "system" and understood that, without "cash money," (or any realistic ability to obtain money to pay for care), they were not entitled to healthcare under our system.
This evening I heard an interview on Fresh Air with T. R. Reid, an international correspondent for the Washington Post, who has researched and personally experienced the heathcare systems of numerous countries. I would highly recommend everyone listen to this interview, from August 24, 2009, to learn a bit about how other developed countries provide healthcare coverage for everyone, while actually spending a much smaller percentage of their GDP on healthcare than the U.S.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112172939
If you can't listen to the interview, here is one of his recent articles from the Washington Post on the subject: (you may need to "sign up" with WP to view it, but it's quick, simple, and FREE, so why not?) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/21/AR2009082101778.html
There are SO many problems with the health care system in the U.S.! I think the first, and biggest, problem is that we do not believe a basic ethical principle that nearly all developed nations believe: every human being has the right to basic health care, and that rich countries have a moral obligation to provide healthcare for everyone.
This nation was founded on principles of equality (laying aside the women and slavery issues), and it seems to fly in the face of this principle that only those of means, or noble birth, or certain positions, get to have access to necessary health care to lead decent lives!! This is not what our founding fathers would have seen as equality, I dare to venture.
I really hope that we get past whatever this supposed "debate" is really about, and get on with programs that move in the direction of eliminating the health care access gap among U.S. citizens--and that the people of this country recognize that access to basic health care is a fundamental human right.
This evening I heard an interview on Fresh Air with T. R. Reid, an international correspondent for the Washington Post, who has researched and personally experienced the heathcare systems of numerous countries. I would highly recommend everyone listen to this interview, from August 24, 2009, to learn a bit about how other developed countries provide healthcare coverage for everyone, while actually spending a much smaller percentage of their GDP on healthcare than the U.S.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112172939
If you can't listen to the interview, here is one of his recent articles from the Washington Post on the subject: (you may need to "sign up" with WP to view it, but it's quick, simple, and FREE, so why not?) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/21/AR2009082101778.html
There are SO many problems with the health care system in the U.S.! I think the first, and biggest, problem is that we do not believe a basic ethical principle that nearly all developed nations believe: every human being has the right to basic health care, and that rich countries have a moral obligation to provide healthcare for everyone.
This nation was founded on principles of equality (laying aside the women and slavery issues), and it seems to fly in the face of this principle that only those of means, or noble birth, or certain positions, get to have access to necessary health care to lead decent lives!! This is not what our founding fathers would have seen as equality, I dare to venture.
I really hope that we get past whatever this supposed "debate" is really about, and get on with programs that move in the direction of eliminating the health care access gap among U.S. citizens--and that the people of this country recognize that access to basic health care is a fundamental human right.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)