Donald Andrew Henson II

Posts Tagged ‘Politics’

, , , ,

8 Ways to Fix America

In American Economy, American Society on August 19, 2012 at 2:50 am

I just ran across an article from a year ago entitled Eight Ways to Fix Our Politics, which was posted in Newsweek and the Daily Beast. There are some excellent ideas that would get rid of the gridlock we currently have, namely -

  1. Stop letting the political parties determine how congressional districts are divided.
  2. Change the way elections are funded.
  3. Eliminate party primaries in favor of open primaries.
  4. Let the popular vote determine the outcome of elections.
  5. Change the way congressional committees are put together.
  6. Eliminate secret holds on appointees.
  7. Change or eliminate the filibuster.
  8. Eliminate the debt ceiling.

Most of these have something to do with weakening the present two-party political system, something that I am very much in favor of. Did you know that political parties are not even mentioned in our constitution? Why do they play such a big role today in our politics? It seems that the GOP and Demos are locked into an endless cycle of fighting and one-upmanship, where the goal is for the party to win – the country itself be damned. The others have to do with money arguments – and that got me thinking about some of the larger problems in politics and in the country in general.

Our capitalist economic system – when working well – is the best system the world has ever seen.  However, it does have its flaws, which have been on display the last 2-3 years. Democracy is the best political system in the world. When these two systems are working as they should, operating in a check-and-balance sort of competition, America is hard to beat. The problem is that over the last decade or more, the two systems have been involved in a destructive, incestuous make-out session, a Wall Street / Washington love-fest, in which the interests of anyone who doesn’t have power or money haven’t mattered very much.

Because of this neglect, there are a lot of things that are broken in this country, not just our politics. This got me thinking about how to fix some of the other ills we are facing as a country as well. I agree with the fixes in the Newsweek article, but I think we can do even better.

Get the money out of our political system – all of it. CNN’s Jack Cafferty reports that Congress’s wealth has increased by more than 25% during the height of our current recession. Peter Schweizer’s recent book Throw Them All Out  details how almost everyone in the legislative branch is using insider trading, cronyism, and land deals to enrich themselves at our expense. We can’t really have a democracy – and we can’t really accomplish any of the other things we need to accomplish – as long as our government servants are not looking our for our interests. Federal elections should all be federally funded – all donations or use of personal wealth should be illegal. PACs should be transparently funded. We all need to realize that a dollar and a vote are not the same thing – everyone, no matter how rich they are – has only one voice in our political forums; no one should be allowed to have thousands.

Congressional Elections are Fixed in America

(Photo credit: davemakkar)

Require that everyone vote. Australia, Belgium, Singapore, and at least two dozen other countries around the world make voting mandatory. It’s ridiculous that a country with as much international power as ours often elects its leaders without even a majority in this country participating. Both political parties are constantly trying to disqualify certain voters, or qualify certain others to their political advantage. If everyone voted, these kinds of shenanigans would come to an end, and the politicians would have to promote ideas that appeal to everyone, not just partisan wingnuts.

Do everything possible to weaken the two-party system. The Newsweek article sort of beats around the bush on this point – it’s time someone came out and said it. George Washington was very unhappy that the nation began to develop two very strong parties right from the beginning. We either need more viable political parties – or none at all. Our country is locked into a perpetual Yankees-vs-Red Sox rivalry that is destroying us. The future of our country is too important to leave it up to political gamesmanship. We’ve got to end the polarization that the parties are encouraging and figure out how to work together again to solve some of our biggest problems.

Fix our ailing infrastructure. Living in Beijing for 3 years before coming back to the US, I got used to roads with no potholes, modern bridges and superhighways, state-of-the-art trains and airports, clean, bright, modern buses that run on natural gas – and a host of other conveniences that make life in an American city downright medieval by comparison. Our business can’t compete in the coming century when our grandparents were the last ones who bothered to pay to build a new runway or port. I think it’s Thomas Friedman who said that if a person who knew nothing of history were asked to look at the infrastructures of Germany, Japan, and the US, and, based only on those observations, ascertain which country won WWII – he’d come up with the wrong answer every time.

Stop empire building / financing expansion of big oil. Many Americans may be unaware of how India became part of the British Empire. There was a joint stock company called the British East India Company that began investing in spices, tea, and other commodities in India and in other places in the Far East. The success of this company made its investors – including many members of Parliament – fabulously wealthy, and provided cheap raw materials to England’s factories. Every time there was a skirmish of some kind between the Company and the locals, the British Army would arrive to pacify the area, and turn it into a ‘protectorate’. The British government ended up colonizing all of India this way – not because there was a public discussion and decisions were made that empire would be best for the country – but because big business decided that’s the way it should be.

Our situation is the same – big oil and other industries make investments abroad that bring enormous wealth to a select few investors – and to countries like Saudi Arabia, Russia, China, and Venezuela, countries that do not share our democratic vision – and then tax dollars are spent to protect our ‘national interest’ in these areas. Why do we stick our military noses into Iraq and Afghanistan, yet ignore similarly belligerent regimes elsewhere? Oil, money, the interests of big business. It’s time we do a bit of nation building here in our own country, if you ask me.

I’ve got a few more ideas that are much more controversial, including making everyone go to public school. But it’s 3am and I have to work tomorrow, so I’ll save those for my next post later this week.

, , ,

What’s Wrong With North Carolina?

In Current events, Religion and Society on May 26, 2012 at 3:25 am

I wouldn’t own up to enjoying Broadway plays, Cher, Madonna, or Judy Garland if I lived in North Carolina. (Actually, out of the four, I’m pretty keen on Broadway plays, myself.) I certainly wouldn’t admit to enjoying Will and Grace or Queer Eye for the Straight Guy.

The past few weeks have been a heyday for the anti-gay in that state. First it was Pastor Ron Baity who suggested that laws criminalizing homosexuality when our nation was founded should still be in force – and enforced. Then Pastor Tim Rabon explained how allowing homosexuals to be married would lead to laws that permitted bestiality. Not to be outdone, Pastor Sean Harris instructed any father who saw his son with a ‘limp wrist’ should, as he put it, ‘crack that wrist’. In another sermon, he seemed to think a punch in the face would be effective as well.

This week we have the Rev. Charles Worley, who wants a piece of the anti-gay action too, suggesting that gays and lesbians be placed in what sounds like concentration camps surrounded by electric fences. If you haven’t seen this snippet of his ‘sermon’, have a look.

These four men (I want to call them the Four Horsemen of the No-cock-or-lisp  - is that too irreverent?) are only saying what many in their churches already think – that homosexuality is a sin against God. And, I suppose, they have a right to say that – but not a right to suggest beating and imprisoning people who don’t conform to their religious beliefs.

 

I said once before that the gay marriage issue was not one that I felt strongly about one way or another; but every time a Charles Worley speaks, I tend to become more in favor of letting people do what they want as long as they’re not bothering anyone else. I don’t think guys like Harris and Worley should win the day.

But I don’t have to be in support of gay marriage or alternative lifestyles in general to be offended by Mr. Worley; he offends me on a number of levels.

I’m offended by his obvious pride in his good-old-boy brand of ignorance. He’s not ‘against’ homosexuality, he’s ‘agin’ it. Now he certainly knows how to pronounce the word correctly – perhaps in his day, a North Carolina school teacher cracked his wrist for mispronunciations such as these, or at least made him stand in a corner. I attended public schools in the South, and I can assure you that English teachers there, like anywhere else, teach people what’s correct and what isn’t. But Mr. Worley is making a statement with this kind of speech. He’s identifying himself with the anti-education strain that threads its way through religious circles. To sound educated is to be suspect in his group – everyone knows that real knowledge comes from God. You may think I’m making to big of a deal out of this, but I’ve lived in the South, and I grew up in Southern Pentecostal churches. And I know preachers who pander to the uneducated when they know better.

I’m offended that he called the President of the United States a ‘baby-killer’. Where’s the proof of this? I know he’s referring to the abortion issue, but there’s no logic to follow here. When did President Obama – his wife or previous girlfriends – ever have an abortion? I thought to be guilty of something, there had to be some evidence of a willful act. (Don’t get me started about children being killed by our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan – if you want to call a POTUS a baby-killer for initiating military conflicts – well, you’d have to put a lot of names on that list.) Wouldn’t you have to somehow personally be involved in aborting a fetus before you can be called a baby-killer?

Are we talking the sin of omission here? Because the President doesn’t overturn Roe v Wade, he’s guilty by omission – that must be the point. But if that were true, then we’d all be guilty of infanticide. If you have never been a war protester, you would be, by proxy, a baby-killer. If you have never sent Sally Struthers a check to feed those poor kids on the late night TV ads, you are a baby-killer by omission.

I’m offended that he calls the President a ‘homosexual lover’ – whatever that is. President Obama has made it clear that he has struggled with the idea of gay marriage, torn between the teaching of his Christian upbringing and his belief in the rights of the individual. To attempt to slander a person because they are working through a complex issue is insulting; because he doesn’t agree with Mr. Worley’s narrow-minded point of view, he’s subjected to taunting epithets.

I’m offended that Mr. Worley gets to promote his political views – whom he thinks we should vote for, what legislation we should oppose – yet continues to enjoy his tax-exempt status. If he uses his pulpit as the mouthpiece of a specific political group, his church should pay tax. I’m beginning to think that all churches should be taxed on any non-charitable income.

I’m offended from a Christian point of view that Mr. Worley offers no scriptural references to support his doctrine. If he really follows the Bible and believes it is God’s word, why doesn’t he share with us what the Bible has to say about homosexuality? In truth, because it doesn’t say very much. In the few places where it does condemn homosexuality, it also says a lot of other things that most Christians just wouldn’t agree with, like bans on eating all shellfish or killing children by stoning when they disrespect their parents. It’s difficult as a pastor to open up the book of Leviticus and tell people to follow this scripture to the letter – but don’t pay any attention to those other verses in the same book. Wouldn’t want to look hypocritical.

One reader took offense when I said I hadn’t heard a sermon on gluttony in a long time – and it was obvious that churchfolk were struggling with this sin at least as much as they were with latent homosexual feelings. Mr. Worley and the other pastors may or may not be struggling with the fear of their own homosexual tendencies – a la Ted Haggard – but it’s not too hard to see the results of over-eating. I read today that one-third of American are obese – including homeless people! Wouldn’t anti-gluttony make for a good sermon as well? Or how about one of the six other deadly sin? Why is it that fat, lazy, vain-glorious people (all three in the deadly category) want to point a finger at others who are struggling with only one deadly sin, lust, if that?

I’m offended that Mr. Worley and others get to preach in the luxurious surroundings I see on the video, subsidized by you and I, while the buildings in which we hope to educate the next generation of Americans are falling apart. He gets a cathedral from which to spew his nonsense for a few hours a week, while elementary school teachers toil away 50-60 hours a week in rundown buildings.

Finally, I’m offended by the lack of Christian love. What ever happened to ‘love the sinner but hate the sin’. Would Mr. Worley suggest than any other kind of sinner be put behind electrified wire and allowed to die out? Newt Gingrich is a serial adulterer – yet many conservatives hoped he might be the next president. Even if you believe that homosexuality is a sin – seriously, concentration camps? And aren’t we supposed to pray for our political leaders instead of calling them names?

Homophobia isn’t the only problem with North Carolina’s brand of Christianity.

, ,

150 Million Non-Adherents Can’t Be Wrong

In Religion and Government on May 6, 2012 at 2:32 am

Well, the numbers are in. This week, the results of the 2010 Religious Census were released to the public – and there are a few interesting surprises. Catholics are still the number one group, followed by the Baptists – no surprises here. But, for the very first time, the census has included ‘non-denominational evangelical’  congregations in the count, and taken together, this is the third largest group in America.

Anyone who’s familiar with American life wouldn’t find this too surprising at all – pretty much every preacher on television belongs to this group, and almost all of those super huge castles you see from the main highways have signs that boast their non-denominational credentials. In fact, I would suggest that suburban life – outside of the former Confederate states – revolves around one of these kinds of churches. When you think of the soccer mom, NASCAR dad, Jerry Falwell, Tea Party, love Jesus, hate Obama crowd, I think you have to also think mega-church in the suburbs preaching the prosperity gospel, the Republican party, and American exceptionalism.

All of this holds true in the South as well, but the Southern Baptist convention holds sway there – think less speaking in tongues, a little more guilt – but with the benefit of eternal security. The Mormons are the fastest growing group in the US. This is intriguing to me, since most everything Mormons believe is based on the only decades-old teachings of Joseph Smith – clearly an Elmer Gantry before his time. At least the non-denominational evangelicals can boast roots going back to the Great Awakening.

The Census recognizes that some of the numbers could be skewed, as the information comes from the churches themselves, not from individuals. The thinking is that if you ask an individual if they belong to a church, they might say ‘yes’ even if they haven’t been in years. Churches were asked to estimate the number of ‘adherents’ they counted – and I’m not sure if any guidelines were placed on them, such as if said adherents were regular attendees or if they contributed financial support to the organization.

Growing up in the Assemblies of God, we paid a lot of attention to the average attendance – in fact, many AG churches have the attendance board posted prominently near the front of the church, with numbers updated weekly. If other evangelical churches are similarly fixated on attendance, then I’d say the numbers from non-denominational evangelical groups are a reasonably fair assessment of who ‘belongs’ to the church. This doesn’t even take into consideration the folks who agree with the ideas of Joel Osteen, Benny Hinn, Robert Schuller, and other evangelicals – but have chosen for one reason or another to stay with their denomination. (Schuller is Dutch Reformed, a Calvinist belief with roots going back to Revolutionary times – Martin Van Buren and Teddy Roosevelt were both members; but many evangelicals proscribe to Schuller’s positive-thinking doctrine).

From my limited knowledge of how Catholics and Baptists count their membership, I’d think those numbers might be overestimated; Catholics tend to put your name down when you’re christened as a little baby, and don’t take it off the record until you die and have your funeral in a Catholic church, even if you don’t show up much in between. Baptists tend to do the same thing – once you join, you’re counted in the membership until you ‘move your letter’ or die. I’m not sure about Mormons – but I know there’s a big controversy about them baptizing people posthumously – don’t know if this pads their numbers or not.

Bread of Life Central Church's Worship Gatheri...

I say all this to get to the number that I think is really important – the 150 million ‘non-adherents’ in American society. These are the people who either don’t believe in God, or don’t think he’s important enough to show up for any kind of Sunday (or Saturday) service or to offer any kind of financial support to a religious institution. How is it, then, that we are supposed to be a Christian nation?

Out of our 300 million citizens, fully one-half adhere to nothing. Out of the 150 million remaining, one has to subtract those of the Jewish faith, the Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Jain, Daoists, etc., etc., etc. Then, take into account that many denominations may be giving us over-blown numbers – someone may have been christened, but never darkened the door of a church since then. And speaking of christening – how many children are included in those numbers? Is it really fair to call toddlers and pre-schoolers ‘Catholic’ or ‘Evangelical’? If a church has a thousand people attending a Sunday morning service, how many of those would not be old enough to make decisions about eternity for themselves?

Could we only be looking at perhaps 75 million adult Christians in America? And perhaps only a third of them actively anti-secular? This would mean that a group comprising less than ten percent of the country are wielding enormous power when it comes to trying to inject religion into our schools and into our laws.

It’s time to stand up and be counted.  Are you non-Christian? Your senator, congressman, school superintendent, and others need to hear your views – the fundamentalists have had their ear for too long – and their political power is disproportionate to their true numbers. It’s exciting to think that – given the right information and the opportunity to use it – four or five out of six Americans could  be persuaded to a secularist approach to education and government.

, , , ,

Render Unto Caesar

In Religion and Government, Religion and Money on April 29, 2012 at 11:31 pm

Augustus of Prima Porta, statue of the emperor...

Before we get too far down the secularist road together, I think I should take the time to clarify the BIG IDEA that I hope will drive this blog for some time. It comes from what is probably one of the better known stories of the New Testament gospels. It seems there were some folks in the religious establishment that didn’t like Jesus very much, and they were always trying to get him to say something that might cause him to lose followers – or maybe even his head. One day they decided it would be a pretty nifty ploy to ask him what he thought about the very unpopular Roman tax Judeans were required to pay.  If Jesus supported the tax, he’d have an angry mob to contend with, and would for sure lose most of his followers.  If, on the other hand, he replied that those of the Jewish faith shouldn’t be required to pay it – his enemies would certainly be able to bring a case against him with the Roman authorities.

Mark 12:13-17 American Standard Version of the Bible tells it this way:

And they send unto him certain of the Pharisees and of the Herodians, that they might catch him in talk. And when they were come, they say unto him, Teacher, we know that thou art true, and carest not for any one; for thou regardest not the person of men, but of a truth teachest the way of God: Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not? Shall we give, or shall we not give? But he, knowing their hypocrisy, said unto them, Why make ye trial of me? bring me a denarius, that I may see it. And they brought it. And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? And they said unto him, Caesar’s. And Jesus said unto them, Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s. And they marvelled greatly at him

Now there have been a lot of attempts to make this say something it doesn’t, but I think it’s clear to even the casual reader that Jesus wasn’t interested in making any political statements. If your government requires you to do something, you should do it.  If your god requires you to do something, you should do that as well.  I suppose there might be times when these requirements might be at odds with one another – and I’ll be talking about those kind of situations at length – but it seems that Jesus doesn’t seem to have a problem with paying taxes. (Funny that American conservatives – many of whom are fundamentalist believers – do.)

However, I think there’s more at work here than just a simple discourse about taxation – and this is where my BIG IDEA comes in.  Jesus himself seems to be saying here that religion and civic duty are two different realms, and in a sense require different kinds of commitments. It is possible to be a good Christian and a good citizen at the same time - even if your government is not God-centered. We separate church and state so that everyone can enjoy the rights and liberties in common that are given us by our democratic from of government, while continuing to enjoy the benefits of whatever religion we choose.

It is my hope that Americans would begin to see this separation not as simply institutional, but at the personal level as well, to embrace the dichotomy, as it were.  Unlike many secularist organizations, I ask no one to abandon their faith for the sake of democracy. I simply ask that they use their faith to guide them in their quest for God – but use the powers of reason, observation, and intelligence when they make decisions about our government. I believe a person can be a Christian and still vote for candidates that do not share their religious beliefs – but they vote for those candidates because they are capable of making decisions that are good for all Americans.

Perhaps George Holyoake, the British lecturer who coined the term ‘secularism’, said it best:

“Secularism is not an argument against Christianity, it is one independent of it. It does not question the pretensions of Christianity; it advances others. Secularism does not say there is no light or guidance elsewhere, but maintains that there is light and guidance in secular truth, whose conditions and sanctions exist independently, and act forever. Secular knowledge is manifestly that kind of knowledge which is founded in this life, which relates to the conduct of this life, conduces to the welfare of this life, and is capable of being tested by the experience of this life.”

Global climate change. Terrorism. Inequality. Poverty. These are problems that can perhaps be better solved by scientists, economists, and diplomats than by searching two-thousand-year-old texts. If I may re-phrase the words of Jesus – Americans should begin to give to their country the very best of their intelligence, reason, and rational thought, and continue to love their God with all of their hearts.  If we can do this, the rest of the world will marvel greatly.

, , ,

The Inspirational Rick Santorum

In Religion and Government on April 29, 2012 at 11:14 pm

You might find it hard to believe, but Rick Santorum is responsible for the existence of this blog. I could say that, like Sarah Palin, he inspires me; both have caused me to make positive choices in my life. In Sarah Palin’s case, I was inspired to vote in a presidential election for the first time in years. I had always been a big fan of John McCain – his straight-from-the-hip style, his willingness to vote on principle instead of by party line – and this new guy Barack Obama seemed to have quite a bit of charisma too. I was pretty sure that America would be taking a big step up from the George W. Bush years, no matter who won. Going to all the trouble to cast an absentee ballot from Beijing, where I lived at the time, didn’t seem really all that important, since I’d be happy enough with either outcome.

Enter Sarah Palin. I only had to see a couple of interviews to be terrified of the idea that this person might be a heart attack away from the Oval Office. Just when I thought President Dumb was leaving the White House, here was the specter that President Even Dumber might take his place. I made the necessary phone calls, got my ballot, and cast my vote. In that time-honored American tradition, I didn’t so much vote for one guy as I voted against the other.  (This is closely related to another tradition known as vote the bastards out – for which a Google search turns up over 27 million hits.)

Rick Santorum’s surge in the polls this past winter meant that more of what he had to say was turning up in the news – and the more I heard, the less I liked. I never really thought he had a chance to win the nomination, but his campaign musings revealed a poisonous strain of political thinking in America, one that could only be called the desire for a theocracy. Don’t get me wrong – I am not opposed to a person of faith voting according to his conscience. Everyone has the right in this country to vote for whomever they choose. What I am opposed to is the idea that a democracy should be run according to – and is grounded in – the ideas of the Bible. Preachers and pundits are busily proclaiming such nonsense – but never offer one shred of proof from either history or their own sacred texts.

speaking at CPAC in Washington D.C. on Februar...

“Where do you think this concept of equality comes from?” said Santorum, according to ABC News. “It doesn’t come from Islam. It doesn’t come from the East and Eastern religions, where does it come from? It comes from the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, that’s where it comes from. Don’t claim his rights, don’t claim equality as that gift from God and then go around and say, ‘Well, we don’t have to pay attention to what God wants us to do,’” Santorum continued to the enthusiastic crowd. “‘We don’t have to pay attention to God’s moral laws.’ If your rights come from God, then you have an obligation to live responsibly in conforming with God’s laws, and our founders said so, right?”

ABC News link . Quotes from Rick Santorum at a town hall in South Carolina, January 2012.

Wrong, Rick. Exactly what part of the Bible served as the inspiration for Thomas Jefferson to write “all men are created equal” in the Declaration of Independence? And where might I find examples of God’s moral laws or his establishment of our American rights? I see many examples in the Old Testament of Jehovah encouraging genocide for those who were not of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. I can read Paul’s letters where he tells slaves to be obedient to their masters.  I can even read how Jesus called a Canaanite woman a dog, and informed her that all the wonderful things he promised were for Israel alone. In fact, there are hundreds of examples in the Bible that would seem to refute the idea that concept of equality is part of our Judeo-Christian heritage. How can Christians be so ill-informed about the very book upon which they claim to base their beliefs – indeed, the future of their eternal souls? If you’re going to run around telling everyone that they need to do what the Bible says if they know what’s good for them – shouldn’t you take the time to read it first?

Mr. Santorum and others like him have inspired me to do something positive – write this blog. Christians aren’t reading their Bibles – they are content to let patriarchs and pedagogues do their thinking for them.  In the process, what Jesus, Paul and others had to say is being grossly misrepresented.  Perhaps more importantly, too many Americans are completely ignorant of Enlightenment writings – which is where ideas of equality and democracy truly come from. I’m convinced that we desperately need a greater awareness of these ideas if our country is to continue to prosper.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 52 other followers