Seeking Relevance

Think Before you Persecute: The Mosque near Ground Zero

If you are an American Catholic or American Protestant and you are against an Islamic community center and mosque being built near Ground Zero, then you have absolutely no sense of your own religion or your religion’s history. And that is unfortunate. But if you are either Catholic or Protestant and speaking out against the Islamic Center, then you should be better informed before you persecute another religion or deny someone their constitutionally guaranteed rights.

 

Some history and examples …

 

Their farms were burned down. Crosses were burned at their homes. They were beaten. They were intimidated into joining places of worship not associated with their chosen religion. Rumors were spread through entire communities that they wanted to take over the American government and replace it with the leader of their religion. This was said to them:  “We say firmly to the Popish Bishops and Priests among us, give us your declaration of your relation to our civil government. Renounce your foreign allegiance to a Foreign Sovereign. Let us have your avowal in an official manifesto, that the Democratic Government under which you here live, delights you best. … Americans demand it.”

 

Who were they that were persecuted simply for their religious beliefs? They were Catholics -- persecuted in the United States of America by a group of Protestants that were bound together in the early part of the 1900s under the Ku Klux Klan.  And make no mistake: the Klan had great influence over certain parts of this nation back then. Mainly Protestants, the Klan were religious extremists.

 

Does that phrase sound familiar? Religious extremists.

 

An obscure but important book published in 1936 called ‘The Ku Klux Klan in Pennsylvania: A Study in Nativism” written by a college professor named Emerson H. Loucks, details the persecution and hatred of the Catholics by this extreme arm of the Protestant religion.  (The quote above is from that book.)

 

So, a question for all you Protestants who are against the building of the mosque: What do violent Muslim extremists have to do with Islam? Be careful of your answer – for if you apply the horrible actions of the Muslim extremists on 9/11 to all of Islam, you must brand the entire Protestant religion with the acts of the Ku Klux Klan from their height of power in the 1920s to now. Are you ready to do that?  Because there is no difference.  And if any Protestants wanted to build a place of worship in America, what would you say to protestors that were against it because of the past or present actions of the Ku Klux Klan? Think about that and now you know how peaceful, non-extremist Muslims around the world feel about the Islamic Center near Ground Zero.

 

And if you are Catholic and against the building of the Islamic Center/mosque, you really need to stop talking and start reading.  Start reading about how Catholics were persecuted for their beliefs in America. How false rumors spread through entire rural communities perpetuating that Catholics wanted to take over America and put the Pope as governmental leader.  Read about the oft-reported "danger" of Catholics being elected to office. Read this passage from the Loucks book:

 

“In the words of Grand Dragon H.C. Shaw, ‘the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church are fundamentally hostile to the spirits, ideals, and institutions of our Republic,’ which made it unwise to have persons brought up under this doctrine in public office here in America.”

 

And don’t think that the KKK was just a few people in the early 20th century; in Pennsylvania alone in 1925, there were around 200,000 Klansmen, according to the Loucks book. 200,000!

 

To define an entire religion by the violent acts of sick extremists (be they Muslim terrorists or the KKK) is sad and un-American. And if you can’t seem to understand the difference between terrorists who happen to be Islamic and Islam then look to your own religion and history.  To deny an Islamic group the chance to build a mosque near Ground Zero is a slap in the face of the ideals this country was founded on. But if you are not moved by the First Amendment of the Constitution, look to your own history – and start educating yourself  -- before you condemn another religion’s right to practice.

 

 

 

Hear That Siren? That’s the Sound of Socialism in America

If you are extremely wealthy or even merely rich, you can stop reading – this blog will not concern you. If you are not wealthy and favor robust health care reform in the United States that includes a viable public option – this blog will not concern you either.

 

But, if you are not wealthy but still do not favor robust health care reform that includes a public option because it smacks of socialism or “too much government” in your life then please read on.  This blog is about an America in a parallel “non-socialist” universe. Let’s call it Non-Socialist America (NS America).

 

Burning Down the House

In NS America, fire fighting is privatized. So picture that you can’t afford fire protection insurance from the various private fire fighting companies.  Now, your house goes up in flames but even with several private fire fighting houses nearby, no fire trucks come as your house burns to the ground. Paradoxically, your richer neighbor – who does have fire protection insurance – calls his private fire fighters who show up to ensure the flames from your house don’t jump to his house. So, a full service fire fighting outfit watches your house burn to the ground while they ensure your neighbor doesn’t get his lawn slightly singed.  Far-fetched? Not really. Read about how fire fighting in New York City used to be done by fire insurance companies – complete with full looting of the house or apartment building that was on fire.

 

This is 9-1-1: What is your emergency and account number?

Imagine your house is being robbed and when you call 9-1-1 they ask if you are a paying member of the private police force.  In NS America they say: “I’m sorry, sir, but you are not a paying member of our police department. Good luck.” If you sleep better at night knowing the police will respond if you need them to protect your family, welcome to socialism.

 

Tuition for Kindergarten

In this country, it is not uncommon for the hard-working and smart kids of poor folks to excel in public schools and then go on to attend top-tier colleges – many on scholarship. Money for college is out there for students who get solid grades in schools that are primarily supported by the property taxes and – gasp -- funds from the government.  In NS America, what do you think would happen? What do you think would happen if we didn’t have a strong public education program in the United States? You know exactly what would happen: the rich kids would go to the best schools and the lower or even middle-class students would go to low quality schools, if they went to school at all.  For all those that can’t afford to send your kid to private schools from K-12, why would you be against a public option for health care? Doesn’t that smack of at least a tiny bit of hypocrisy?

 

The lower and middle classes and even upper middle class should never take the fire department, police department and public schools -- all government-financed institutions – for granted.  Make no mistake: the rich do not care about you at all. And if these three critical institutions were all privatized in NS America, the rich would continue to sleep comfortably knowing they can afford all three.  But what would happen to you? What would you do?

 

So, if you buy into the security and benefits of publically financed police protection, fire fighting and K-12 education, why is a publically financed health care option such a stretch or so verboten? And you can take it even further – isn’t affordable health care as essential as police, fire and public education to a stable society that gives all of its citizens the chance to flourish.

 

We’ve tried a mostly private health care system in this country for decades and it flat out doesn’t work. Too many people are left behind. Just how many more children have to be without health care before someone steps in?

 

How to Fix Presidential Elections: A Six-Point Plan

You would have thought -- hoped even – that with a self-described “maverick” and a self-described “Washington outsider” running for president that this most recent campaign would have been different. But it wasn’t. Not even close.

When Barack Obama and John McCain emerged from the bruising primary season they could have seized the moment. They could have grabbed at the chance to show the nation a new way of running a campaign for higher office.  The two candidates could have sat down alone in June – no advisers, no party elders – and mapped out a plan to alter the strategies and tactics that have governed the last few elections.  They could have shown immediate leadership to transform the face of campaigns, maybe for a long time.  They could have really put ‘country first.’ (If you are counting that is five ‘could haves’ already.)

And the time was right.  McCain is indeed a guy who has reached across the aisle to help transform “politics as usual.”  The McCain—Feingold Act was a smart piece of legislation that attempted to put some constraint on the outrageous spending on elections and to actually decrease the influence of money in politics.  The legislation wasn’t perfect, but just the fact that it was written and passed was the first necessary step in the right direction on this issue.  (And you know the legislation was particularly good because George Will didn’t like it at all; Will thought it was infringing on his right to free speech. If George Will doesn’t think politics is drunk on cash-for-influence, he needs to spend some time outside of Washington.)

Then we have Senator Obama.  Without cynicism or jadedness, he says he can transform how things are done in Washington. And his message is intoxicating to some. He’s got fresh ideas, fresh perspective and a genuine feel for living in the “real world.”

The two men had a chance to start out atop their parties by transforming and teaching others that politics as usual doesn’t have to continue. It was their first chance to show the citizens of this country that they meant business. Of course both candidates had to appeal to their party bases amid a group of challengers for the nomination – primary season is a bit too complicated and has too many players to generate a coherent message, never mind actually get that group to work together. But for the general election, these two men had a small window of opportunity to force their parties to go along with them.

So what should they have done? Here is a 6-point plan that McCain and Obama should have agreed upon. Some of this would have been simple; some of this would have been difficult. So, in the hope that the next presidential election might benefit from a new course, here is a prescription for how to do it differently:

1.       Both candidates must accept public financing. But, they should take the money equation one level higher. They should agree to adhere to a monthly spending budget – spending the same exact money each month.  The candidates would be free to choose where they spent that money, but they would have to stay on budget. (Hey, an early look to see if the candidates can balance a budget.)

2.       They should agree to limit or eliminate the presence of lobbyists or those people around them that buy into the cash-for-influence strategy.

3.       Both candidates should not directly participate in, nor authorize, any attack ads. They should agree that all advertisements must only be about their own record of accomplishment and not have any mention of the other candidate in their ads.  Moreover, both candidates should agree to denounce any outside group loyal to their party for putting out attack ads.  They should actively denounce any swift-boating rhetoric or advertising.

4.       In addition to debates, both candidates should agree to appear once per month in town-hall style gatherings to discuss their plans and even update the nation on how this new style of running a presidential campaign is going.  At the end of the gatherings, each candidate should hold a joint news conference.

5.       For the debates, along with the moderator, there should be a panel of experts loaded with information, statistics and knowledge of areas such as health care, tax burdens, congressional voting records and economic figures.  Then, the experts can engage in first-hand, on-the-spot fact checking of candidates’ facts. Is anyone tired of having to read the myriad facts that each candidate got wrong the morning after a debate – it makes the debates almost useless knowing that 50% or more of the facts being spewed are most likely wrong or being used out of context.  If you had even one debate where the candidates were called out on national TV for not having their facts straight by independent experts, I bet the amount of factual mistakes would drop dramatically at the next debate.  No offense, but as much as I like Bob Schieffer, he can’t possibly know all the details about voting records, tax plans, the effect of a health care idea, etc.

6.       At the beginning of the campaign, each candidate should agree to put the losing candidate in their cabinet in a suitable post. For instance, McCain as Secretary of State in an Obama administration or Obama as Secretary of Health and Human Services on McCain’s team.  Each candidate talks about wanting an inner circle of advisers that come at topics from all sides; this would be walking the talk.  And, sure, Obama could not enact his ideal of a universal health care plan from within a McCain administration but he would have major influence and gain a ton of experience for when/if he runs for president again.

To some, these ideas may sound naïve, idealistic or even unrealistic. But to achieve a major shift in how campaigns are performed and to eliminate the nastiness and the bad taste in your mouth, simple ideas are how you get started.  The ideas above would take an incredible amount of courage and confidence and two rivals working together in a bipartisan manner. The pressure to resist calls to end any part of the six-point plan would entail fortitude as advisers and party elders beg you to drop out of the plan. Enacting the plan would require integrity, especially as a candidate dropped back in the polls and is told the only way he can win is to go on the attack.  Let’s see: courage, confidence, bipartisanship, fortitude, integrity. Not a bad starting point for your next president.

Many pundits and campaign advisers call presidential politics a “contact sport;” they may even suggest any change like above might even appear weak to some. (I wonder just how many of these Cable TV talking heads actually played a contact sport?) Politics will always be a contact sport, but what we are attempting to remove are the cheap shots and illegal hits just like in football. So when a candidate does put a crushing block or tackle on the other candidate it is clean.

But despite the McCain and Obama rhetoric, and despite the hope these independent-minded lawmakers could have shown us a new way, we were left with the same nasty, irrelevant and partisan back-and-forth as the last few elections. But this time it felt worse because some of us had hope that Maverick McCain and Outsider Obama could actually pull it off.

But, alas, Obama opted for the big money and McCain opted for the Rovian tactics that defined the last two elections. What a shame.

(So, do you have any ideas about how to change a presidential election strategy? Or do you feel that elections are being run basically in a good manner.  Send comments below.)