There doesn’t seem to be much that the Responsible Community and Senator Lindsay Graham from South Carolina have in common. But, just this week, Senator Graham voted to support the nomination of Elena Kagen to the Supreme Court of the United States. In a statement released later, the senator said that he has a constitutional obligation to honor President Obama’s choice, so long as she is qualified.
"I could give you 100 reasons on why I could vote 'no.' No one spent more time trying to beat President Obama than I did, except maybe Sen. McCain," Graham said. "But I understood we lost."
For as long as there is a Supreme Court, the country will debate what makes a good supreme court justice. But the fundamentals are simple, under our constitution the president nominates the candidate, the senate provides advise and consent if they know the law. The senator admitted in the statement that President Obama won fair and square and that he could find no fault in her knowledge of the law.
This is clearly a politician that is supporting appropriate policy that the Responsible Community wrote about in a previous blog post. (Voters should make choices based on policy not personalities or parties) Politicians and other public officials should be supported for the policies that they propose or support. Personalities and parties often fail or have it wrong. But, if the specific policy they support will do good, it doesn’t matter who proposes it. In this case, the Constitution is clear and Senator Graham did the right thing.
Responsible Community Working Together in Shared Responsibility.
Friday, July 23, 2010
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
It is time to rewrite the First Amendment
It is time to rewrite the First Amendment.
Sarah Palin, ex-governor of Alaska and former running mate to John McCain during the last presidential election, has entered the fight over the Mosque that is being built near Ground Zero in New York City. Palin, in an attempt to gain support from those that oppose the construction twitted that building the mosque was an “unnecessary provocation.”
Apparently, Sarah Palin doesn’t think that the founders got it right. So, based on what she and others have said, here is the rewrite to the First Amendment.
Here is the current amendment:
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.
Here is the amendment to the amendment to be inserted just after “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”:
Unless it is inconvenient for politicians and it is an unnecessary provocation to worship the way you want. We can then suspend the first part and throw out the entire idea of freedom of religion.
This would work well. As a politician you could condemn China for not allowing Christians to worship when and where they want but you could prevent Muslims here in this country from doing the same.
The Responsible Community agrees with the Federal Council of Churches of Christ with their position statement on religious issues. The position was adopted in conjunction with the Foreign Missions Conference of North America, who have a stake in assuring that religious houses can be established anywhere in the world. It reads:
“Religious Liberty shall be interpreted to include freedom to worship according to conscience and to bring up children in the faith of their parents; freedom for the individual to change his religion; freedom to preach, educate, publish and carry on missionary activities; and freedom to [organize] with others, and to acquire and hold property, for these purposes.” (1)
Michael Bloomberg, the mayor of New York, likes the First Amendment just the way it is. (and so does the Responsible Community.) He takes strong issue with Sarah Palin interfering with New York City policy. He wants the mosque to be built, perhaps no matter where the congregation want it built. He said so in a news conference after Palin had started twitting about the issue.
Mayor Bloomberg is doing everything he can to heal the wounds caused by the 9/11 tragedy. It doesn’t mean he is covering it all up and making nice. It means that he is fully aware that the tragedy was caused by people that rationalized their actions with their perverse understanding of a religion, not the other way around.
By keeping the unfocused anger alive as Sarah Palin seems to be suggesting, we risk furthering the violence. But by being rationally focused on the people that caused the tragedy instead of their religion, we can seek out specifically those that we need to and not bring more violence to innocent people all over the world.
That is where the healing begins.
(1) Religious institutions In 1944, a joint committee of the Federal Council of Churches of Christ in America and the Foreign Missions Conference of North America, formulated a “Statement on Religious Liberty” “Religious Liberty shall be interpreted to include freedom to worship according to conscience and to bring up children in the faith of their parents; freedom for the individual to change his religion; freedom to preach, educate, publish and carry on missionary activities; and freedom to organise with others, and to acquire and hold property, for these purposes.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_in_the_United_States
-----
Sarah Palin, ex-governor of Alaska and former running mate to John McCain during the last presidential election, has entered the fight over the Mosque that is being built near Ground Zero in New York City. Palin, in an attempt to gain support from those that oppose the construction twitted that building the mosque was an “unnecessary provocation.”
Apparently, Sarah Palin doesn’t think that the founders got it right. So, based on what she and others have said, here is the rewrite to the First Amendment.
Here is the current amendment:
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.
Here is the amendment to the amendment to be inserted just after “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”:
Unless it is inconvenient for politicians and it is an unnecessary provocation to worship the way you want. We can then suspend the first part and throw out the entire idea of freedom of religion.
This would work well. As a politician you could condemn China for not allowing Christians to worship when and where they want but you could prevent Muslims here in this country from doing the same.
The Responsible Community agrees with the Federal Council of Churches of Christ with their position statement on religious issues. The position was adopted in conjunction with the Foreign Missions Conference of North America, who have a stake in assuring that religious houses can be established anywhere in the world. It reads:
“Religious Liberty shall be interpreted to include freedom to worship according to conscience and to bring up children in the faith of their parents; freedom for the individual to change his religion; freedom to preach, educate, publish and carry on missionary activities; and freedom to [organize] with others, and to acquire and hold property, for these purposes.” (1)
Michael Bloomberg, the mayor of New York, likes the First Amendment just the way it is. (and so does the Responsible Community.) He takes strong issue with Sarah Palin interfering with New York City policy. He wants the mosque to be built, perhaps no matter where the congregation want it built. He said so in a news conference after Palin had started twitting about the issue.
Mayor Bloomberg is doing everything he can to heal the wounds caused by the 9/11 tragedy. It doesn’t mean he is covering it all up and making nice. It means that he is fully aware that the tragedy was caused by people that rationalized their actions with their perverse understanding of a religion, not the other way around.
By keeping the unfocused anger alive as Sarah Palin seems to be suggesting, we risk furthering the violence. But by being rationally focused on the people that caused the tragedy instead of their religion, we can seek out specifically those that we need to and not bring more violence to innocent people all over the world.
That is where the healing begins.
(1) Religious institutions In 1944, a joint committee of the Federal Council of Churches of Christ in America and the Foreign Missions Conference of North America, formulated a “Statement on Religious Liberty” “Religious Liberty shall be interpreted to include freedom to worship according to conscience and to bring up children in the faith of their parents; freedom for the individual to change his religion; freedom to preach, educate, publish and carry on missionary activities; and freedom to organise with others, and to acquire and hold property, for these purposes.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_in_the_United_States
-----
Monday, July 19, 2010
Hate and anger by the Tea Party Express we don't need
There is room under the big tent that we call democracy for all sides of the issue. Every challenge to any issue needs to have an airing.
But there is no room for hate and anger.
Over the weekend, Mark Williams leader of the Tea Party Express, posted a fictional letter from what he called “Colored People” during the presidency of Abraham Lincoln. The letter, which he said was satirical, stated that those that were going to be freed by Lincoln didn’t want to be. Why would they not want to be? Read for yourself:
"We Coloreds have taken a vote and decided that we don't cotton to that whole emancipation thing. Freedom means having to work for real, think for ourselves, and take consequences along with the rewards. That is just far too much to ask of us Colored People and we demand that it stop!"
The national Tea Party organization, ask the Tea Party Express to order Williams to retract the blog post. When the group didn’t and Williams refused to, the national organization expelled the Tea Party Express. This action by the national Tea Party Organization was the right thing to do. Since they did it immediately, it indicates that the party had the good sense that it was clearly wrong instead of waiting to see how all sides came out on the issue. (As a side bar on the issue, Mark Williams later did take down the post. If he was so certain of his ideas and so comfortable with the way he expressed them, why did he eventually pull down the post?)
The Tea Party Express is the organization that traveled around the country visiting town hall meetings of politicians that they thought were supporting Health Care Reform. The group’s members, supported by the organization, disrupted plenty of what would have been useful and healthy debates about the issue. Instead, the issues could not be thoroughly discussed because of the hateful attitude from many members of the Tea Party Express.
Open and healthy debate on all issues is important to a democracy. Yes, even the ideas that the Tea Party Express has should be heard. But, when hate and anger is used by the proponents of an idea, they became blind to legitimate responses to their ideas. They then drive their followers well beyond a respectful and meaningful dialogue to one that dominates the discussion and borders on totalitarianism.
-----
But there is no room for hate and anger.
Over the weekend, Mark Williams leader of the Tea Party Express, posted a fictional letter from what he called “Colored People” during the presidency of Abraham Lincoln. The letter, which he said was satirical, stated that those that were going to be freed by Lincoln didn’t want to be. Why would they not want to be? Read for yourself:
"We Coloreds have taken a vote and decided that we don't cotton to that whole emancipation thing. Freedom means having to work for real, think for ourselves, and take consequences along with the rewards. That is just far too much to ask of us Colored People and we demand that it stop!"
The national Tea Party organization, ask the Tea Party Express to order Williams to retract the blog post. When the group didn’t and Williams refused to, the national organization expelled the Tea Party Express. This action by the national Tea Party Organization was the right thing to do. Since they did it immediately, it indicates that the party had the good sense that it was clearly wrong instead of waiting to see how all sides came out on the issue. (As a side bar on the issue, Mark Williams later did take down the post. If he was so certain of his ideas and so comfortable with the way he expressed them, why did he eventually pull down the post?)
The Tea Party Express is the organization that traveled around the country visiting town hall meetings of politicians that they thought were supporting Health Care Reform. The group’s members, supported by the organization, disrupted plenty of what would have been useful and healthy debates about the issue. Instead, the issues could not be thoroughly discussed because of the hateful attitude from many members of the Tea Party Express.
Open and healthy debate on all issues is important to a democracy. Yes, even the ideas that the Tea Party Express has should be heard. But, when hate and anger is used by the proponents of an idea, they became blind to legitimate responses to their ideas. They then drive their followers well beyond a respectful and meaningful dialogue to one that dominates the discussion and borders on totalitarianism.
-----
Friday, July 16, 2010
Let the Mosque be built near Ground Zero
There are few things more important to the American experience than the freedom of religion.
Post New World England fought for hundreds of years about religion. It didn’t seem to matter that opposing sides were just a degree or two different in their religious view point. Suppression by one side or the other lead to violence and carnage. When the power shifted to the other side, they then visited the same on the other.
What kept that unrest from the New World shores was tolerance of each other’s religious point of view. In fact, it was so important that religion became an issue in the newly formed Republic, the authors of the constitution wrote into the document, “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” Of all the things the authors were vague about in the constitution, the words “no religious test shall ever be required” are as clear as it can get. It is clear the authors want no person in any position of authority in the country to make decisions based on a religious point of view.
Through the years, that belief in freedom of religion has been tested over and over. While we may not argue about some of the outcomes, in the long run, it came out right. We are still here, religion flourishes and people can feel free to worship just as they please, or not, depending on their point of view.
But, as a community of believers and non-believers we are now being tested. Our clear vision about the freedom of religion has be clouded by the violence the nation experienced on 9/11. The near complete collective thinking is that the violence was authorized by Islam. This is because a few powerful personalities have adopted Islam as their justification for all the violence they advocate. Responding to the call, a few hundred, arguable, a few thousand have taken up arms against the West in the name of Islam. But, there are millions of others that have taken no violent action against the West.
Near the now hallowed ground that we call Ground Zero, Muslims would like to build a mosque. It is a simple act of constructing a building were people of a like view point can gather to worship in the manner that is constitutionally protected. It would be right to allow it because it is just place that the Muslim community felt was right. It would be right to allow it because of the Muslims that also died in the attack. But, it would also be right to allow it because of the violence that happen there. That a visitor may find a place of their faith to pray that that it will never happen again, no matter that it be Christian, Hindu, Jewish, Islam or any other faith.
The building of the mosque near ground zero should be allowed.
-----
Post New World England fought for hundreds of years about religion. It didn’t seem to matter that opposing sides were just a degree or two different in their religious view point. Suppression by one side or the other lead to violence and carnage. When the power shifted to the other side, they then visited the same on the other.
What kept that unrest from the New World shores was tolerance of each other’s religious point of view. In fact, it was so important that religion became an issue in the newly formed Republic, the authors of the constitution wrote into the document, “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” Of all the things the authors were vague about in the constitution, the words “no religious test shall ever be required” are as clear as it can get. It is clear the authors want no person in any position of authority in the country to make decisions based on a religious point of view.
Through the years, that belief in freedom of religion has been tested over and over. While we may not argue about some of the outcomes, in the long run, it came out right. We are still here, religion flourishes and people can feel free to worship just as they please, or not, depending on their point of view.
But, as a community of believers and non-believers we are now being tested. Our clear vision about the freedom of religion has be clouded by the violence the nation experienced on 9/11. The near complete collective thinking is that the violence was authorized by Islam. This is because a few powerful personalities have adopted Islam as their justification for all the violence they advocate. Responding to the call, a few hundred, arguable, a few thousand have taken up arms against the West in the name of Islam. But, there are millions of others that have taken no violent action against the West.
Near the now hallowed ground that we call Ground Zero, Muslims would like to build a mosque. It is a simple act of constructing a building were people of a like view point can gather to worship in the manner that is constitutionally protected. It would be right to allow it because it is just place that the Muslim community felt was right. It would be right to allow it because of the Muslims that also died in the attack. But, it would also be right to allow it because of the violence that happen there. That a visitor may find a place of their faith to pray that that it will never happen again, no matter that it be Christian, Hindu, Jewish, Islam or any other faith.
The building of the mosque near ground zero should be allowed.
-----
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
All Politics is local
All politics is local. We have all heard that and it is attributed to so many politicians. It is only partially true today and in the future it may become even less… unless we all do something about it.
In the past, it was the community that was the center of the political world. With the exceptions of world wars, most of the issues were about what was happening on main street in your own home town. The high school curriculum, roads, the mayor’s affair with the local call girl and if the old abandon church should come down to make room for the expansion of the lumber yard were the big issues.
Yes, that is a little simplistic view of the issues but what wasn’t simplistic were the solutions. The solutions weren’t based on the left or right or some extreme agenda on either side. Solutions had to make sense to the community and the people that lived in them. Extreme ideas didn’t get tried because people at ground zero could see that it wouldn’t work in their situation. Solutions also didn’t come out of a vague philosophy that preached a point of view that may work in the macro but not on main street.
If someone was about to lose their job but politicians tried to convince them that to help them out would not let the market work like it should, they were voted out. If the local banker lost the community’s money in risky instruments that if they paid off would have only benefited the banker, he would have been run out of town. (after his house was taken and sold)
Then came centralized politics with solutions that sounded good in abstract thinking but made no sense to those living the problems. Then came big money spent on marketing and advertising campaigns that convinced people that what was bad for them was really good.
Along with all of this came the centralization of economic power. This point of view believes that the only purpose of big business is to accumulate wealth. If the local community must suffer layoffs and plant closings to maximize profits, then that is what the CEO has to do. (I guess making ten billion in profit isn’t as good as 12 billion)
But the Responsible Community takes another view. It must view solutions from ground zero of the world, the place where people and families live. Government should be run by political parties that understand they are to help people live in a safe and secure environment. Business has a fiduciary responsibility to the community, it is there to provide jobs and support the community.
This is not a naive view, it is a practical view. It is a view that means people will do the responsible thing and expect government to be responsible to them not to political ideology or big business.
There will be problems but the solutions must keep real people in mind.
-----
In the past, it was the community that was the center of the political world. With the exceptions of world wars, most of the issues were about what was happening on main street in your own home town. The high school curriculum, roads, the mayor’s affair with the local call girl and if the old abandon church should come down to make room for the expansion of the lumber yard were the big issues.
Yes, that is a little simplistic view of the issues but what wasn’t simplistic were the solutions. The solutions weren’t based on the left or right or some extreme agenda on either side. Solutions had to make sense to the community and the people that lived in them. Extreme ideas didn’t get tried because people at ground zero could see that it wouldn’t work in their situation. Solutions also didn’t come out of a vague philosophy that preached a point of view that may work in the macro but not on main street.
If someone was about to lose their job but politicians tried to convince them that to help them out would not let the market work like it should, they were voted out. If the local banker lost the community’s money in risky instruments that if they paid off would have only benefited the banker, he would have been run out of town. (after his house was taken and sold)
Then came centralized politics with solutions that sounded good in abstract thinking but made no sense to those living the problems. Then came big money spent on marketing and advertising campaigns that convinced people that what was bad for them was really good.
Along with all of this came the centralization of economic power. This point of view believes that the only purpose of big business is to accumulate wealth. If the local community must suffer layoffs and plant closings to maximize profits, then that is what the CEO has to do. (I guess making ten billion in profit isn’t as good as 12 billion)
But the Responsible Community takes another view. It must view solutions from ground zero of the world, the place where people and families live. Government should be run by political parties that understand they are to help people live in a safe and secure environment. Business has a fiduciary responsibility to the community, it is there to provide jobs and support the community.
This is not a naive view, it is a practical view. It is a view that means people will do the responsible thing and expect government to be responsible to them not to political ideology or big business.
There will be problems but the solutions must keep real people in mind.
-----
Friday, July 9, 2010
Voters should make choices based on policy not on personalities or party
There is the republican that was once accused of stealing cars, not once, but twice. There is the democrat that is a felon that just got out of jail and wants to run for congress. There is a republican commissioner that is a felon and still holding office. There is a democrat that had sex with a campaigner worker – who wasn’t his wife.
When they say things, they will retract or apologize; depending on the response. They will change positions; sometimes it is for the better, sometimes for the worse. Sometimes they outright lie and when caught will say they forgot.
There are parties that think they have all the answers and trip over themselves to point out what is wrong with the other side while their side does the same thing. Parties take positions on the issues for election, but many members of the party don’t adhere to them (of course, not that they really should, but it seems odd that many times we vote for parties when the one we are voting for doesn’t support the positions).
Most of the time there are some just plain good people doing a great job for the community. But, we don’t hear about them because they don’t make news. They labor away in a faint obscurity working to improve the conditions of the people, places and environment in the community.
Do any of them sound familiar? They should because they are the stories we read every day about politicians and political parties from the pages of the news, real people. All of them have supporters and detractors, people that are out after them and others that think they walk on water and really didn’t do those things; good or bad things.
That is why no one should support parties or personalities. When we get mesmerized by a personality, it becomes too easy to take advantage of the believers. Or when we think a party has the answer, the answer is usually much too structured and doesn’t fit into everyday life in every community.
We should all support policy. Personalities and parties create policy to help solve problems that individuals and communities have. If we examine the policy based on the problem and the outcome, then we have a better chance of making the right decision. If we support personalities we run the risk of watching them fail. If we support parties outcomes could be so highly structured that they are inflexible to the wide variety of communities it is suppose to help.
During the day to day activity of government and during this next election cycle, examine the policies that are being discussed. Make a decision based on how those policies will solve a problem.
We will all make better decision.
-----
When they say things, they will retract or apologize; depending on the response. They will change positions; sometimes it is for the better, sometimes for the worse. Sometimes they outright lie and when caught will say they forgot.
There are parties that think they have all the answers and trip over themselves to point out what is wrong with the other side while their side does the same thing. Parties take positions on the issues for election, but many members of the party don’t adhere to them (of course, not that they really should, but it seems odd that many times we vote for parties when the one we are voting for doesn’t support the positions).
Most of the time there are some just plain good people doing a great job for the community. But, we don’t hear about them because they don’t make news. They labor away in a faint obscurity working to improve the conditions of the people, places and environment in the community.
Do any of them sound familiar? They should because they are the stories we read every day about politicians and political parties from the pages of the news, real people. All of them have supporters and detractors, people that are out after them and others that think they walk on water and really didn’t do those things; good or bad things.
That is why no one should support parties or personalities. When we get mesmerized by a personality, it becomes too easy to take advantage of the believers. Or when we think a party has the answer, the answer is usually much too structured and doesn’t fit into everyday life in every community.
We should all support policy. Personalities and parties create policy to help solve problems that individuals and communities have. If we examine the policy based on the problem and the outcome, then we have a better chance of making the right decision. If we support personalities we run the risk of watching them fail. If we support parties outcomes could be so highly structured that they are inflexible to the wide variety of communities it is suppose to help.
During the day to day activity of government and during this next election cycle, examine the policies that are being discussed. Make a decision based on how those policies will solve a problem.
We will all make better decision.
-----
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
No second chances for Lewand
Lewand has issued a statement where he apologies for his action and accepts full responsibility. Team owner, William Clay Ford, has issued a statement that supports Lewand as an important asset to the team. The Lions head coach says that one of the reasons he came to the team was because of the outstanding job that Lewand is doing for the Lion’s organizations. Unless there are things publicly stated that didn’t get press coverage, the statements made where of full open support with no conditions attached. As of Monday, June 28, 2010 there is no mention of the incident on the team web site.
There are much less people driving while drunk in America then there was a generation ago. All of this thanks to Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), the organization that works hard to change the laws and behavior of Americans. (It should be disclosed here that drunk drivers have taken two members of my extended family. I have no sympathy for those that drive while impaired.) Culturally, it has changed from being something we laugh at to something that we view with disgrace.
But, we have a ways to go yet.
One thing that we can do to continue the fight, especially with high profile cases like Lewand’s is to openly illustrate the negative outcome of his actions. It is certain that there will be conversations between the owners and Lewand on this situation. Hopefully, as a result of those conversations, disciplinary action will be taken. This action should be made public. This will make it clear that driving while drunk or any other similar action does come with a down side.
Additionally, any support from family, friends and professional colleagues should come with conditions. It is good that those around Lewand came to his support. He will need it to take responsibility for his actions, not just publicly as he has, but also personally to learn how to prevent himself from making the bad decision to drive in the condition he was in. But, that support should come with conditions. Also, no support like he is currently receiving should ever come with a second chance. The support should come from this one chance and there should be no other chance. Period.
-----
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)