As I was reading my weekly copy of "The Week Magazine," I happened upon an article that has once again touched upon the ancient, never ending argument over the "Separation of Church and State." Understandably, this conflict is not a new one. The question of the right of the state's power over the church certainly has been long debated in ancient times, through Roman history, during the Medieval period and beyond. The political theorist and philosopher, John Locke was one of the first to suggest the modern view point that is generally accepted among Americans today. His principle of the "social contract" helped to frame the basic belief that the state should have no right to make personal religious decisions on behalf of it's citizens.
It would seem that originally, the chief concern of the early philosopher and even the early American, in regards to the separation of church and state, was to limit the power of the state from presiding over religion. Over the years this concern has progressively grown and evolved, as this week's article appears to show. Concern has come to exist not only for the state's influence over religion, but also for religion's influence over the state.
I have often heard the old phrase told, "Don't make a mountain out of a mole hill." It would seem that a group of itchy preachers just had to do that. They had to push the non-profit envelope in making the daring and unorthodox decision to explicitly endorse a particular political candidate from ther pulpit. Quoting the article from The Week titled "Preaching and Presidential Policies," we find the debate rousing news that:
"A group of 33 ministers in 22 states agreed to endorse a presidential candidate from their Sunday pulpits, said the Las Vegas Sun in an editorial, to challenge a 1954 law that says nonprofits, including churches, lose their federal tax exemptions if they back candidates."
The article goes on to describe how the ministers and their supporters are hoping to gain momentum from their dubbed "Pulpit Freedom Sunday," perhaps enough to overturn the decades old law on the argument that it an unconstitutional violation of the right to free speech. They claim that because pastors are already able to make their political affiliations clearly known without mentioning names, they should be further permitted to make official endorsements.
A scenario like this gives me some cause for worry. Perhaps the first amendment rights of these ministers are being limited by this 1954 law which prohibits the announcement of official political endorsements by non-profit churches. Yes, I would in fact grant that these church leaders are losing some personal freedom in choosing to label their organization as a non profit, even if that freedom may be nothing more than a trifle. However, this is a choice that they have consciously made. It is an explicit agreement if you will. Based on common American principle, there are few instances when an explicit agreement should ever be broken.
Excluding the fact that the churches have agreed to withhold from official endorsements, there is certainly another fact to be considered here. While the possibility stands that the courts may rule in favor of the churches and their right to free speech, a distinct alternate possibility remains. Realistically, the courts could find that the church has indeed over-stepped it's political bounds in this instance and could easily rule their actions to be unjustified and illegal. Let us be reminded that a fairly large representation of Americans is of the opinion that the church should not be involved in politics at all. Drastic actions like this one on behalf of these 33 ministers could potentially ignite a completely contrary governmental and public reaction that was never anticipated.
Throughout the past 50 years the state has been involving itself in a slow but steady process of removing the voice of religion from government and politics. From restricted prayer in school, to the removal of religious icons from public places, the church is indeed being limited in America with each passing year. Even today individuals are challenging the rights of the church to uphold allegedly "offensive" moral standards that have been considered unspoken ethical law for centuries. Undoubtedly the state has been following a definite trend of religious suppression in recent decades that shows no sign of stopping. It is this trend that leads me to question if this recent move on behalf of the church was a wise one. In raising the question, the Church may very well be only speeding their own furthered political limitation.
Is it really worth the risk to fight for the simple right to mention the name of a political candidate from the pulpit? Come on Church, let's think about this now...
This Week's Article Gleaned From: http://www.theweek.com/article/index/89295/3/3/Preaching_and_presidential_politics
Monday, September 29, 2008
Monday, September 22, 2008
Financail Crisis Brings Political Benefits?
Let's play a guessing game...I describe an extremely influential national concern, and you guess which one it could possibly be. Here are the clues:
Clue 1. It is probably the most observed national problem in the nation.
Clue 2. It's outcome will affect everyone.
Clue 3. It influences politics on every level.
Clue 4. It was referenced to in the last blog post (green).
The individual who has not been able to guess it by now may need to venture out from under a certain rock. Yes, it should be obvious that I am referring to our national economic status, which seems to be on a continuing steady spiral. Of course, politicians have taken specific observance of this issue, knowing it's vital importance to each and every voter, and it's effect on how they cast their vote. Although it pervades every level of political contest, I will, for now, just focus on the primary election that seems to be on everyone's mind: the presidential election.
I have just recently read an article from The Week, unsurprisingly titled "Does the economy help Obama?" In this article, the author considers the question of whether or not the declining economy will or will not follow the American tradition of driving voters toward the democratic candidate. American history has certainly illustrated a noticeable trend in which times of economic crisis have caused Americans to give up on the more fiscally conservative republican, and opt to follow a more aggressive agenda. The prime example of this can be seen during the years of the Great Depression, during which the despised Herbert Hoover was completely abandoned for the promising Franklin D. Roosevelt.
Th article offers two separate opinions: the first is that of the supposed "experts." They claim that the rule firmly stands for this election, just as it has in the past; no changes. The second opinion is that of recent polls which suggest that this election may in fact be a trend breaker. Why? Well, Obama's high tax plan is the greatest potential deterrent to worried entrepreneurs.
I happen to be a firm believer in the phrase, "history repeats itself." It is my contention that as long as a culture does not drastically change, the decisions of that culture (in regards to politics) will generally remain the same as well. However, I certainly do not deny the fact that our modern American culture has indeed changed, even within the past few decades. The seemingly age-old American concepts of personal fiscal responsibility, stewardship, and contentment have given way to an age of a desire for bigger and better, flippant spending, and the assumption of truly unrealistic loans. The skyrocketing national debt bears witness to this very unhealthy national "mega-consumer" economy.
Has our culture changed enough to alter deeply entrenched political trends? Only time will tell. What we do know is that our nation needs strong economic leadership that can work toward resolving the national slip-ups of past decades. May the best man truly win!
Article Address: http://www.theweek.com/article/index/89095/3/3/Does_the_economy_help_Obama
Clue 1. It is probably the most observed national problem in the nation.
Clue 2. It's outcome will affect everyone.
Clue 3. It influences politics on every level.
Clue 4. It was referenced to in the last blog post (green).
The individual who has not been able to guess it by now may need to venture out from under a certain rock. Yes, it should be obvious that I am referring to our national economic status, which seems to be on a continuing steady spiral. Of course, politicians have taken specific observance of this issue, knowing it's vital importance to each and every voter, and it's effect on how they cast their vote. Although it pervades every level of political contest, I will, for now, just focus on the primary election that seems to be on everyone's mind: the presidential election.
I have just recently read an article from The Week, unsurprisingly titled "Does the economy help Obama?" In this article, the author considers the question of whether or not the declining economy will or will not follow the American tradition of driving voters toward the democratic candidate. American history has certainly illustrated a noticeable trend in which times of economic crisis have caused Americans to give up on the more fiscally conservative republican, and opt to follow a more aggressive agenda. The prime example of this can be seen during the years of the Great Depression, during which the despised Herbert Hoover was completely abandoned for the promising Franklin D. Roosevelt.
Th article offers two separate opinions: the first is that of the supposed "experts." They claim that the rule firmly stands for this election, just as it has in the past; no changes. The second opinion is that of recent polls which suggest that this election may in fact be a trend breaker. Why? Well, Obama's high tax plan is the greatest potential deterrent to worried entrepreneurs.
I happen to be a firm believer in the phrase, "history repeats itself." It is my contention that as long as a culture does not drastically change, the decisions of that culture (in regards to politics) will generally remain the same as well. However, I certainly do not deny the fact that our modern American culture has indeed changed, even within the past few decades. The seemingly age-old American concepts of personal fiscal responsibility, stewardship, and contentment have given way to an age of a desire for bigger and better, flippant spending, and the assumption of truly unrealistic loans. The skyrocketing national debt bears witness to this very unhealthy national "mega-consumer" economy.
Has our culture changed enough to alter deeply entrenched political trends? Only time will tell. What we do know is that our nation needs strong economic leadership that can work toward resolving the national slip-ups of past decades. May the best man truly win!
Article Address: http://www.theweek.com/article/index/89095/3/3/Does_the_economy_help_Obama
Sunday, September 14, 2008
To Drill or not to Drill
Gas prices continue to rise. Consumers continue to complain. Daily, pressure from all sides mounts in Washington DC, forcing politicians to do something about it. Yet, as the political and economical stakes are steadily rising up, the congressional season is indefinitely winding down. Now with only weeks left before November's climactic elections, Congress has little time to remain productive, before new representatives will soon (once again) alter the political balance indefinitely. Washington has many decisions to make and little time in which to make them.
In the issue of offshore drilling, the lines have been clearly drawn. For Republicans, the majorital consensus is essentially "drill, baby, drill!" Many agree that our nation is faced with a very obvious problem that demands an equally obvious answer. After all, why would you even bother acquiring the black gold from your untrusted enemies, when you have it yourself?
Of course there still is, and ever shall be a staunch and very vocal group of Democrats who continue to hold against offshore drilling. They make many convincing and relevant arguments: harm to the environment, increased national addiction to oil and decreased interest in alternative energy sources. Yet, even with all of these relevent and valid arguments, the democrats appear to be continuing to lose ground with the public opinion. Why? Because one political force has been proven strong enough to conquer even the most enthused and logical of national movements. What force is stong enough to stop even the power of "Going Green" in its tracks. One clue: The answer is also green... money!
In my opinion, both sides of this debate truly hold equally important points. Yes, our environment is changing for the worse, and yes, it appears to be related to human consumption of oil. Yes, we are nationally addicted and dependant on oil that comes from our enemies. This is a problem. Yes, we ultimaltely will need to end this addiction, simply because our supplies are limited and will eventually run out.
No, we cannot continue to afford the ever rising price of oil. No, we should not depend on unstable, anti-American governments to supply it. No, we do not currently have a well enough developed alternative source of energy to replace fossil fuels, and no, we do not have many other options than to drill off shore.
America needs to take both sides of this argument into equal consideration. It is my opinion that we should, for the moment, do everything in our power to keep oil prices reasonable. If that means drilling offshore, than we truly have no other choice for the moment. Yet, faith needs to be maintained in our alternative energy sources, because they are our future, whether we like it or not. America will need to rely on its historically tried and true resource: compromise. This, I feel, is the best and most effective way to deal with this current national pickle.
Information gathered from: http://www.theweek.com/article/index/88721/3/3/The_congressional_oil_drill
In the issue of offshore drilling, the lines have been clearly drawn. For Republicans, the majorital consensus is essentially "drill, baby, drill!" Many agree that our nation is faced with a very obvious problem that demands an equally obvious answer. After all, why would you even bother acquiring the black gold from your untrusted enemies, when you have it yourself?
Of course there still is, and ever shall be a staunch and very vocal group of Democrats who continue to hold against offshore drilling. They make many convincing and relevant arguments: harm to the environment, increased national addiction to oil and decreased interest in alternative energy sources. Yet, even with all of these relevent and valid arguments, the democrats appear to be continuing to lose ground with the public opinion. Why? Because one political force has been proven strong enough to conquer even the most enthused and logical of national movements. What force is stong enough to stop even the power of "Going Green" in its tracks. One clue: The answer is also green... money!
In my opinion, both sides of this debate truly hold equally important points. Yes, our environment is changing for the worse, and yes, it appears to be related to human consumption of oil. Yes, we are nationally addicted and dependant on oil that comes from our enemies. This is a problem. Yes, we ultimaltely will need to end this addiction, simply because our supplies are limited and will eventually run out.
No, we cannot continue to afford the ever rising price of oil. No, we should not depend on unstable, anti-American governments to supply it. No, we do not currently have a well enough developed alternative source of energy to replace fossil fuels, and no, we do not have many other options than to drill off shore.
America needs to take both sides of this argument into equal consideration. It is my opinion that we should, for the moment, do everything in our power to keep oil prices reasonable. If that means drilling offshore, than we truly have no other choice for the moment. Yet, faith needs to be maintained in our alternative energy sources, because they are our future, whether we like it or not. America will need to rely on its historically tried and true resource: compromise. This, I feel, is the best and most effective way to deal with this current national pickle.
Information gathered from: http://www.theweek.com/article/index/88721/3/3/The_congressional_oil_drill
Sunday, September 7, 2008
Is Attacking Palin Sexist?
As the presidential race heats up a few more degrees with the addition of Sarah Palin, McCain's unexpected VP pick, of course the media has felt it necessary to address and re-address the obvious fact of her gender. The word "sexism" has been flying all over newspapers, web pages and television screens seemingly nonstop since McCain's announcement. To no surprise whatsoever, I happened upon this headline article on the web page for The Week Daily, curiously titled "Is Attacking Palin Sexist?" In this brief article, the author explores the two aspects of Palin's person-hood that the American people are currently calling into question: her credentials, and her motherhood. Some appear to feel that neither of those aspects are very conducive to effective national governance.
It is my opinion that feminists tend to often request "special treatment" in the ways that they are observed and criticized by the rest of the world. Even the nature of this article suggests this. It is actually asking whether or not it is right for people to criticize Palin at all. Current American culture has long deemed it perfectly acceptable for male politicians to engage in brutal, endless mudslinging battles from beginning to end of the campaign season. However, now that a female has entered the political arena, the slime throwing must stop. She has been deemed untouchable, simply because she is a female. I feel that our current culture is attempting to compensate for the sexist actions taken against women of past generations. Now, rather than truly placing women on equal status with men, we are in fact placing them on a pedestal; a pedestal that even exempts them of even the most relevant political criticism.
The article seemed to conclude that questioning Palin's credentials was allowed, while questioning her motherhood was not. My conclusion is that criticism of Palin should not be restricted in any way. If women are to truly obtain the equal standing that they so eagerly and verbally long for, they should also have to endure the stresses that come with it. To discourage the criticism of any candidate is to remove the ability of the public to question government and to maintain accountability with leaders. The American people need to be aware of any potential hindrances to Palin's ability to perform the job of Vice President. If her motherhood is one of those perceived hindrances, so be it. The job of the American people in an election, is to seek, and find the best possible candidates for the job of president and vice president. The people need to properly perform their job, before Palin should ever be allowed to perform hers.
Link to Article: http://www.theweekdaily.com/article/index/88670/3/3/Is_attacking_Palin_sexist
It is my opinion that feminists tend to often request "special treatment" in the ways that they are observed and criticized by the rest of the world. Even the nature of this article suggests this. It is actually asking whether or not it is right for people to criticize Palin at all. Current American culture has long deemed it perfectly acceptable for male politicians to engage in brutal, endless mudslinging battles from beginning to end of the campaign season. However, now that a female has entered the political arena, the slime throwing must stop. She has been deemed untouchable, simply because she is a female. I feel that our current culture is attempting to compensate for the sexist actions taken against women of past generations. Now, rather than truly placing women on equal status with men, we are in fact placing them on a pedestal; a pedestal that even exempts them of even the most relevant political criticism.
The article seemed to conclude that questioning Palin's credentials was allowed, while questioning her motherhood was not. My conclusion is that criticism of Palin should not be restricted in any way. If women are to truly obtain the equal standing that they so eagerly and verbally long for, they should also have to endure the stresses that come with it. To discourage the criticism of any candidate is to remove the ability of the public to question government and to maintain accountability with leaders. The American people need to be aware of any potential hindrances to Palin's ability to perform the job of Vice President. If her motherhood is one of those perceived hindrances, so be it. The job of the American people in an election, is to seek, and find the best possible candidates for the job of president and vice president. The people need to properly perform their job, before Palin should ever be allowed to perform hers.
Link to Article: http://www.theweekdaily.com/article/index/88670/3/3/Is_attacking_Palin_sexist
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
