Can Government Change Physical Reality

The physical union of a man and a woman that can naturally results in the conception of children has existed for thousands of years. Over those same years those man, woman and children units that have hung together fared better in the evolutionary journey that has brought us to our own time. The reality of this unit is  described here in its biological and evolutionary dimensions. 

As languages developed and diversified, words were coined to represent real things of importance to human communication.  I would speculate that the most dramatic  events would give rise to the need for words that are descriptive of the components of the event. An example might be be the physical experience of childbirth giving rise to words like "mother" and "child" to describe the two persons involved in the physical reality of birth. As the child matures he wants to have a word for the other member of the unit and like "father" (or "ojciec" in polish), "brother" or "sister" to designate the elements of the reality. To refer to one such unit collectively words like "perhe" (in Finnish) or "Family' were coined. 

In most language groups there are also words designating the components of the biological reality we are considering,  thus the English words like "husband, "wife" and "marriage" to refer to the male, the female and the procreative activity involved.

Since I have based this analysis on physical or scientific reality I have not mentioned words of philosophical, existential, or religious origin/meaning like "friendship", "loyalty" or "love".

However, for words that designate objective physical (scientific) realities we need to ask, can a state change the meaning of a word by law or decree? Since it is currently politically correct to answer yes to this question it is appropriate to ask some follow up questions.

If a government changes the meaning of the word "marriage" (at least with in it's boundaries) does that action eliminate the physical reality that it formerly referred to? Most assuredly it won't.

 Since the definition of marriage currently being championed removes the procreative biology and the evolutionary strength  designated by the traditional definition of marriage it will have the effect of expanding the set of types of relationships that can be designated as "marriage". The very real thing previously designated by that word will continue to exist, perhaps as a subset of the new meaning, but will those that still value and want to talk about such procreative relationships be allowed to coin a new term to designate them?

Catholic Identity and Politics

I caught a portion of Sunday Night Live on EWTN this past weekend. The presentation seemed to be making a case that many Catholics have a corrupted or defective identity as Catholics when it comes to making politics decisions. Since I was unable to stay with the program until a punchline or summary my comments are those triggered by this brief snapshot and not a comment on the show or its conclusions.

As a 'more than weekly' Mass participant and in a vocation engaged in teaching and preaching the Church's beliefs I have no major doubts about my Catholic identity. My perception is that the bigger problem for Catholic citizens is that the neither major party has an identity consistent with Catholic teaching and neither candidate for President espouses a program consistent with Catholic teaching.

Two Sundays  ago I reviewed the bishop's document, "Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship" at all masses including the Bishop's statement,

"In the Catholic Tradition, responsible citizenship is a virtue, and participation in political life is a moral obligation." (Intro:12)

I have voted in thirteen Presidential elections since being old enough to vote. In nine of these elections I felt that my choice was basically a 'best of two bad choices' vote. Over the years my votes has gone about equally to candidates of both major parties. I believe it has been 36 years since I enthusiastically supported a nominated candidate for President.

Then today my copy of "Columbia" arrived and Carl Anderson, Supreme Knight of the KCs, has an essay entitled "What Every Catholic Can Do to Transcend Partisanship". He calls upon Catholic voters to "refuse to support candidates that support policies that are intrinsically evil" going so far as to "withhold their vote from both candidates for a particular office."  ("Columbia", Nov 2012, pg.11)

That presents a bit of a conflict. It's my moral obligation to vote (Bishops) but maybe I should withhold my vote (KCs). Since in nine of thirteen presidential elections I found that neither major candidate measured up to my Catholic view of social justice and human rights yet I formed a prudential judgment as to which candidate would do the least harm to persons globally and domestically, to make that private decision.

Sadly several of the 'best of worst', from both major parties, were winners that fell far short of my modest prudential (and Catholic) expectations during their terms. Would the world be better had I abstained in 70% of the presidential elections of my lifetime?

Cardinal Hosts Politicians' Dinner

Here is a good example of how we Catholics speak about our concerns in a democratic country, Cardinal Dolan giving the closing talk and benediction at last night’s Al Smith Dinner in New York.

You can see the Candidates talks at these links:

Governor Romney - http://youtu.be/NIHbe-aO6oI

President Obama - http://youtu.be/jtzKXw-aZ7M

Marriage Amendment Angst

I share the experience of serving in elected office at the municipal level with a relative of a younger generation. Neither he nor I are currently in office but both of us comment on politics on our blogs. I always appreciated his ability to represent both sides of an argument as well as justify why he held or came to the position that he did. His recent review of a vote in his municipal council, however, is a striking reversal of that reputation.

At the same time this failure to communicate both sides of the argument captures perfectly the sad state of public discourse on the Marriage Amendment / Marriage Equality issue. Here is how he describes the debate and vote.

"Based on past votes and comments, I'm going to guess that (*) and (*) were the anti-gay, anti-equality votes against this resolution.  But I'm very glad that the progressive majority that remains on the council did the right thing and spoke up for human rights and decency and against this bigoted and discriminatory ballot measure."

I have  removed the names that the original posting specified. as I have no knowledge of those persons. I do know that I get classified with the same libel for even raising questions about the issue, about one side or the other or come to a different conclusion on some point different than some other citizen. To read the entire posting that stimulated by concern click here. 

I read daily, posting from marriage equality proponents as well as fellow DFLers who oppose the amendment so am quite quite familiar with the arguments against the amendment. The libelous generalization of all who would have a question or a different opinion seems absolute from this side, however. It reminds me of the strange stone wall thrown up by opponents of health care reform two years ago. My effort to have a rational discussion with my opponents in that issue were universally met with endless responses that were from a small set of talking points that communicated no helpful information at all.

Since I currently come down on the other side of this issue I am also familiar with many of the arguments that lead citizens to support the amendment. These arguments are diverse. My questions and conclusions have led me to a largely political or civil argument in support of the amendment. I suspect that such an argument is not typical on either side of this issue. I can report that unlike the anti amendment posting I receive every day that no categorical classifications of those on the other side are made. In fact all those I have talked or corresponded with on this side have friends and family, that that they love, who oppose the amendment. In fact most of us have family, friends and fellow minsters that are gay who we love and support in their lives, loves and vocations. Sorry to say, the polarity in our current political climate has infected this issue also.

I do know persons who speak hatefully about gays but usually they also do not know or love any gay persons. Such bigots are (a) unlikely to vote or (b) if voting should be a know and small component of the vote. This anti-gay bigotry does seem to have a significant role in the ongoing bulling crisis in our schools and communities, however. 

Click here is a link to my relative's Blog which is usually very rational and informative.

SCOTUS and Healthcare reform

It should not be a surprise that a conservative court found a conservative healthcare reform law to be constitutional. It is still incredible that supposedly conservative politicians, including those that crafted the mandate approach, implemented and proved its effectiveness in a state are daily calling for its repeal.

This strikes me as sour grapes, that the first serious attempt to controls and reduce healthcare cost used their concepts but was championed by a Democratic President.

The SCOTUS ruling  apparently takes pains to clarify that it was ruling on the constitutionality of the law not it wisdom or popularity. We now have the added confusion of administrative rules, not specified by the legislature, that redefine what is and is not a religious institution. I suspect that another SCOTUS issue will have to deal with this affront to the first Amendment.

Who Wants Control of Personal Relationships?

A recent letter to the editor in our regional daily newspaper made it quite clear that anyone holding an opinion on the subject of Marriage different than that of the author was clearly a bigoted and hate-filled individual and should not be allowed any input into the public discussion now underway in Minnesota about the upcoming vote on a constitutional amendment stating that Marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Since even raising a question about the issue will fail the letter writer’s criteria I will grit my teeth and raise a few points despite his disapproval.

 Every day my email inbox features numerous emails from fellow members of my political party (DFL) making arguments against the amendment including:

       -          Is a conservative plot

-          Its a Republican idea

-          Its an attempt to prevent homosexual individuals from having a loving relationship

-          It’s a religious issue that has no place in politics

-          Its not fair that homosexual individuals be denied the benefits of marriage

The middle point in the above list seems the strangest. It claims that the historic definition of marriage, restated in the amendment, will prevent all other persons from entering or having loving relationships. Since, in history, the current definition of marriage was universally held yet other loving relationships existed, even thrived, why would it suppress them now?

 I am old enough to remember that it was not too long ago (as late as the 1990s) that portions of the various States marriage regulation laws were used to harass homosexual couples. At that time this gave rise to the “get the government out of my bedroom” complaint. What is strange here is a campaign of opposite intent, to get the government deeper into the private relationship control bussiness . The thrust of the marriage equality movement seems to be that government should extend its regulatory muscle to other relationships, particularly to same sex relationships by allowing the courts or the legislature to define marriage as any personal relationship.

Among my friends are same sex couples who have freely chosen to make long term commitments to each other, purchased homes together, given each other healthcare and/or financial power of attorney without seeking government license to do so (such license is requirement of heterosexual couples under current State marriage regulation). Likewise those that have decided to end their relationship have been able to do so without government approval (getting government approval of a divorce is required of heterosexual couples, however). The benefits referred to in the fifth item on the list must be so attractive that government control of your personal relationship is a price you are willing to pay.

Rick Santorum and The Women

Candidate Rick Santorum met with five woman, all mothers but not all Santorum supporters, last week during his visit to a nearby city in North Dakota. A fellow blogger, Roxane Solonen, a reporter for the Fargo Forum, was sent by her paper to cover the session. One of the questions raised was:

'(Susan) Noah said her biggest concern is the challenge of trying to raise children with integrity, a strong work ethic and other virtues. “What can you do to change the culture as president?” she asked. Santorum began by saying that because politics often reflects the culture, it can’t always shape the culture in profound ways, but that a president can make some impact, including personal example. Being a good husband and father is the first place to start, he said. “At the same time, it’s also what you say and what your policies are; what you choose to talk about.'

Read her entire Forum news report here .  Roxanes' stories appear regularily in the She Says" section of the Fargo Forum. Her blogs can be found here and here.

His answer to Susan's question reveals a more realistic assessment of how a President can impact much of American life than the typical candidate is likely to reveal.

What's Really Important to President Obama?

Micheal Sean Winter, writing in the National Catholic Reporter captures exactly the frustration of classic liberals with President Obama. As I have written in earlier posts the liberals shunned in the move of the Democratic party far to the right in the 80s and 90s are now spread over Democratic, Republican and Independent categories but they do vote with a conscience. 

"I confess I no longer understand Obama. He did not go to the mat to end the Bush tax cuts for the super-rich. He did not go to the mat for comprehensive immigration reform. He did not go to the mat to close Guantanamo Bay. He did not go to the mat for Card Check. He did not go to the mat for a public option in the health care reform. But, he went to the mat over the principle that a Catholic college or charity or hospital is not really religious.

The president not only is the chief magistrate of the land, he is the leader of the Democratic Party. I know I am something of an odd duck by being what I call an “Ella Grasso Democrat.” Grasso was the first woman to be elected a governor of her state in her own right, not succeeding her husband. She was pro-labor. She was pro-Israel. She was pro-higher taxes on rich folk. She stood up for the little guy. Unlike other male Democrats – Kennedy and Gore and Gephardt and Muskie – she remained pro-life. I believe that it is the historic calling of the Democratic Party to stand up to the moneyed interest and say that the common good, not just the individual pursuit of profit, is a moral obligation and a necessity in a free and just society. I am simply not interested in a Democratic Party that is so beholden to the fundraisers at Emily’s List, so consumed with lifestyle politics, that it is willing to thumb its nose at those working class voters who really do care about social justice and for whom that care is a part of their religious beliefs. And, if liberals no longer care about a robust defense of the First Amendment, well, then, we do not deserve the presidency. "  (Michael Sean Winters in National Catholic Reporter)

Read the rest of his article here. He is a Catholic, a liberal and a blogger who understands how the conservative Democrats forced liberal Catholics, Labor Unionists and human rights activists out of the party or essentially silenced them starting in the 80s.

Yes I know that Deacon Greg posted this same quote but my minuscule audience most likely has little overlap with his huge audience and mine needs to read this also.

Where Does Political Liberalism Stand On Religious Liberty?

I am frequently told that my political views are not liberal. I reject that judgement based on my own education in philosophy, politics and my life experiences. Even as a grade scholar in a conservative farming community I was taken by the grand idea proposed and undertaken by the American people and represented in the founding documents, in the Constitution and in the Bill of Rights. I clearly understood that the phrase "liberal democracy" referred to the ideal set summarized in the Declaration of Independence as:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, '. . . "   (US Declaration ...)

I know from years of history classes that over time this ideal became, step by step, more real and less just a dream.

     (1) Voting rights were expanded from just land owners to all men.

           (Our democracy became more liberal)

     (2) The election of senators was vested in citizen's votes rather than a political appointment.

            (Our democracy became more liberal)

     (3) Persons held in slavery were set free and made citizens and eventually voters.

             (Our democracy became more liberal)

     (4) Woman were empowered to vote and hold office.

               (Our democracy became more liberal)

And this list only deals with voting rights and a similar list can be made for other unalienable rights.

This dimension of liberal progress is based upon moving towards the ideal expressed by:

       - "All men (persons) are created equal"

       - "Government . . . . derives it just powers from the consent of the governed."

Are we there yet? NO and our present political environment threatens to move us in a less liberal direction.

I know from life experience that if you try and live these American  ideals and/or the ideals of Christianity that the world will classify you as a liberal. In a sense my Christian idealism and my American idealism got me assigned the label of liberal. Since the American ideal set forth in the founding document is Liberal Democracy I have accepted that political label willingly.

The current issues regarding Religious Freedom on one side and The Right to Health Care on the other side threaten a definite move away from liberal democracy. Here is Robert Barron, theologian and documentarian, writing about this very issue of the meaning of "liberal" in connection with the first of these issues.

"There is a modality of secular liberalism that is not aggressive toward religion, but rather recognizes that religion makes an indispensable contribution to civil society. This more tolerant liberalism allows, not only for freedom of worship, but also for real freedom of religion, which is to say, the expression of religious values in the public square and the free play of religious ideas in the public conversation.

 

Most of our founding fathers advocated just this type of liberalism. But there is another modality of secularism—sadly on display in the current administration—that is actively aggressive toward religion, precisely because it sees religion as its primary rival in the public arena. Appreciating certain moral convictions as disvalues—think here especially of Catholic teachings concerning sexuality—it seeks to eliminate religion or at the very least to privatize and hence marginalize it. In doing so, it indeed reveals itself as totalitarian, for it allows no room in the public space for anything but itself.

The reason that the Bill of Rights—the first ten amendments to the Constitution—is so important is that it holds off the tendency, inherent in any government, toward totalitarianism, even if that means the totalitarianism of the majority.

The very first amendment, of course, guarantees the free exercise of religion in our country. Our founders obviously feared that even a democratic system, predicated upon a repudiation of tyranny, could become so tyrannical itself that it would seek to intrude upon the sacred realm of the religious conscience. As Jefferson, Toqueville, Lincoln and many others have seen, our democracy is especially healthy when it disallows a concentration of power—political, economic, or cultural—in any one place."

Read his entire essay here. 

While he is willing to create a new category to facilitate calling the present national administration liberal I am not willing to make that distortion in the language. The now documented efforts of certain Democratic Party leaders to marginalize liberals (Catholics and other religious voices, labor unions and human rights activists) in the party starting in the late 70's was a move to the right away from liberalism and should not be labeled 'liberal' because such a usage is a corruption of our language making our present political shouting match sound like mass confusion to many of our ears and certainly the ears of the ears of people all around the world that yearn for liberal democracy in their countries.

The Spin Goes On

Upon getting home from work today I sat down to read the paper and scan through the news and talk shows I frequent. In 20 minutes all the spin tactic I described below were on full display. One of these was demonstrated by 'expert' guests, moderators and even news persons stating with certainty that polls show that over half of Catholics agree with the HHS policy. The the polls they are referring to are then shown with appropriate acknowledgement of the polling organization and the question asked.

Right then you can see the proof of the 'bait and switch' in action. I have seen polls from several organizations offered on the media in the last day to demonstrate "Catholic" approval. In every case, that I have seen, the question asked was, "Do you agree with the policy of including contraceptives in the list of items to be covered in the insurance requirements of HHS?" 

The Bishops, via Archbishop Dolan, did not ask the President or HHS to change their opinions about contraception, they asked that Religious Institutions not be forced to pay for coverage of actions that the Church considers immoral. Until the polls refer to that question they do not seem relevant to the issue raised by Democratic,Independent and Republican critics of the HHS policy defining what organizations are religious.

Despite the fact that CBS labels the clip as "The Contraception Issue" here is Archbishop Dolan talking the "Religious Freedom Issue" with Charley Rose and  Erica Hill. I am providing a link rather than an embedded video because CBS has retracted their permission to embed this video.

http://youtu.be/HZ75snNhliE

Now if a polling organization actually asks citizens, including Catholics, about whether  "religious organizations should be forced by the government to fund actions considered immoral by their faith"  then we would have a poll about this issue. Suppose such a poll shows that a over half of Catholics are OK with the government forcing the Church to pay for contraception coverage would I then agree the government should do it?  I would not agree and here is why.

In light if the founders intention, in the first article of the Bill of Rights, it make no sense that  the government can force religious organizations violate their ethics based upon the findings of statistical polls. Imagine that a poll discovers that over half of Lutherans would rather go fishing on Sunday morning than attend services.  The government then could issue a regulation requiring all religiously based social,  health and insurance services with religious ties including Lutheran Social Services, Lutheran hospitals and and Lutheran Fraternal Insurance Coops, pay for their employees fishing trips if they occur on Sunday morning. Trivial, yes, but if the the courts approve the governments right to  do it in the insurance case the precedent will have been establish and the government could do it even in this trivial case. Not a good way to resolve a Religious Freedom Case, in my opinion.

Caution! Political Spin on the Road

My credulity flag goes up as soon as I hear a politician in defensive mode explain away serious criticism, what is called  'political spin'. When I was that politician I tried to keep my mouth shut until I could get the facts and my humility in place before speaking or writing when under attack. I suspect my success in this was no where close to 100%.

We have been suffering under a heavy plague of political spin due to the Republican primary. Meanwhile we Democrats have been sitting around with a smile on our face as the other party self destructs. Now we have our own political spin embarrassment concerning the HHS limits on religious freedom. I'm not sure of the sequence but here are some of the spin grenades the that we have been handed. We need to chuck them in the nearest pond so no one is hurt.

"THIS IS THE SAME OLD CONTRACEPTION ISSUE"

This is the old bait and switch spin tactic. The essence of this spin is to claim that the new criticism is just another version of an old issue. There are issues concerning contraception but this is not one of them yet the bait has been widely taken by our media. I have waited or waded through hours and pages of discussion about contraception to hear any discussion about the issue raised by the HHS rules defining who will and will not be recognized as religious or the constitutional challenge embodied therein. There are some some serious issues on the margins of the subject of contraception almost all of which were never mentioned in the discussions I heard.

"THIS IS JUST ANOTHER ATTACK ON WOMEN"

This is also in same category but the bait is a lot less likely to be so widely taken seriously due to the fact that the most of the organizations being ruled as non-religious are headed by women and among the critics are powerful non-political American women. The implication that institutions headed by woman cannot possible be religious is a handicap on this one. Of course it totally ignores the fact that contraception is relevant only if men are in the picture also.

"NOT A BIG DEAL, IT ONLY AFFECTS SOME CATHOLIC INSTITUTIONS"

This is an attempt to convince the public that the group effected by the ruling is small and certainly doesn't affect most Americans. This one can be very effective with those not paying much attention. The fact is that the institutions that will be classified as non-religious would be widespread.

Schools are a major group under the HHS rules and in our rural area one near by small city has four schools systems at the grade school level of which 50% are religious, three at the high school level of which 33% are religious and three at the college level of which 67% are religious. Of the these religiously provided schools only 20% are Catholic. While non Catholic religious institutions may may not have teachings opposed to most contraception drugs you can be sure they will not be happy to be told they must pay for abortions or abortion insurance. Of course the ruling also deals with hospitals, clinics, woman's health centers, adoption programs, social service agencies and counselling services. This fact will de facto lead to many larger  churches and parishes being 'declassifed' as religious since they incorporate one or more of these services in their mission and collocated with their church.

"BLAME THE CRITIC OR THE MESSENGER"

In the current primary campaign this one has been on eloquent display. Every debate has featured the tactic of not answering a question or critique by launching an attack on the critic or even the messenger. The messenger attacked is  often 'The Media' but sometimes its the person reading the question from an audience member or asking a question raised but not answered in public discourse during the preceding week.

This has been the most interesting of the fuzz options I have addressed in this posting since it really accentuates the the point I made last week about the issue of religious freedom being non partisan. The use of the 'attack on the critic' tactic on this issue has come from both self proclaimed Democrats and self proclaimed Republicans alike. I summarize two of those that I have read or heard as follows.

"The bishops are to blame for this:"

             (1) since they teach that abortion (or abortive drugs or contraception or...)

                  is wrong they  should have no say in who pays for insurance that pays for

                  abortions (or abortive drugs or ...).

Its mostly voices from the Democratic side I hear saying this one (1) but I have heard it from several Republican voices in some of the discussions on TV over the last week.

             (2) since they teach that it is wrong to deny health care to anyone

                   this whole thing is their fault since that led them to support efforts

                   to get health care for everyone ("obamacare' in Republican fuzz).

                   If they had not done that we wouldn't  be facing this constitutional

                   challenge right now. 

Now I fully expected that Republicans would blame Democrats for this one but am truly surprised that the this (2) diversion arose so blatantly and quickly from the Republican side. I was even more amazed by the fact that Rick Santorum (my personal favorite among the Republican Candidates) was proactive in giving this one voice. (See my posting on Senator Santorum's use of this argument here.)

On the other hand I am not surprised that many Democratic voices have spoken in opposition to the HHS regulations that severely limit conscience protections. Yet many friends are surprised, I think due to the strange doctrine of polarization that has gripped our political climate on all sides these days.

Senator Santorum Wins Big - Then another Stumper

By the time most of you read this you will know that Senator Santorum, my favorite Republican presidential candidate, won two and maybe three of today's caucus states. I just listened to his victory speech and he again restated his belief that the government created our right  to health care and even claims that President Obama agrees with him! If he is right then President Obama is in fact well to the right of the Senator on this issue (which I suspect is the case).

See my research and reading on Senator's position on human rights in the previous posting. I have probably bored you with the story of the courting I received from Republicans following my departure from the Democratic party in the early 1990s. The first issue relates to abortion and the fact that most republicans that approached me were pro abortion. The second most impressive position came from Republicans that claimed to be 'conservative' and their marketing talking point was that government created rights. Sometimes it was couched in terms a strange 'American Exceptionalism' that says that only Americans have human rights because only the America's government has created them.

I think I was always classified as a liberal because I believed that human rights accrue to all human person because they are human and I adhere to a matching religious world view that human are 'endowed by their creator' with such rights. Thus as in the first issue I found it incompatible with my liberal ideals to join with a party that argues against the idea of inherent  or as our founders said, unalienable Rights that preceded any action by government.

Now Senator Santorum did allude to the Declaration and did state that he believes that human rights are from God, a view I share, but then makes a case by attacking the health care reform that we humans in fact have no right to health care. POW! Take that you poor people, here, one more for all the former middle class who who have been denied or lost their health insurance. I suspect that he is only the most articulate of the field which probably holds the same view.

The strangest aspect of the argument he made is that President Obama agrees  with him about creating a right which has the effect of placing the President in a more 'conservative' position than Rick himself since he believes that rights are God given, a clearly more liberal view in my experience. In addition I  suspect his 'conservatism' bars believing in the the phase,  "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."  from the founding document.

If you are getting the idea that I'm really not impressed by the fuzz generated by our politicians this week (read  my last several political postings critical of both Republican and Democratic candidates) you got it right.

Senator Santorum vs Human Rights

If you have been following my commentary on the Republican Primary you are probably right in concluding that Rick Santorum is my favorite. Then the other day I came upon a TV clip of Rick Santorum being interviewed by someone. I couldn’t believe what I heard him say. Before I could determine the full context of the video it was gone. What I found so unsettling was that he appeared to say  that human rights are created by government and that no one has a right to health care.

I spent significant time over the last few days trying to confirm the context of the video or determine what Mr. Santorum’s position was regarding the source of human rights. I read through all likely position papers on his web site and could not determine the answer. I have heard him and other ‘conservatives’ quote from the declaration of Independence the clause that is the core credo of the liberal view of democracy (see footnote).”He even titles one of his issue sections “We hold these truths…”  where he does support some of positions that I do he seems convinced that human rights can be terminated or created by government,. This is not quite what the founders had in mind! 

I Did not find the video but I did come across a written discussion between Rick and Hugh Hewitt (talk show host and Law professor) that did lay it out pretty clearly. Sadly my first impression was right! Here is Rick Santorum scolding the Catholic Bishops and in the process confirming his rejection of the founding idea that “’…to secure these rights government is instituted..”:

“I hate to say it, but you know, you (the bishops) had it coming. And it’s time to wake up and realize that government isn’t the answer to the social ills. It’s people of faith, and it’s families, and it’s communities, and it’s charities that need to do this as it has in America so successfully for so long.”   (Click here for the whole interview.)  

Whew! The need of humans for health care is a social ill? I think the bishops are closer to the truth, everyone should be able to get health care. I think it’s a violation of human dignity to deny anyone health care. That is the language of human rights, unalienable rights if you like .An economic and governmental environment that denies health care to any one is a violation of human rights. The resulting suffering is a social ill. Our government was instituted to ‘secure’ such rights and yes then persons, families, churches, charities, communities and businesses can better provide health care to all. 

Footnotes-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Liberal Credo: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,  that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, ... (http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/)

Religious Freedom - Not A partisan Issue

Tomorrow is caucus night in Minnesota. We usually see DFL (Democratic), Republican and 'Independent' caucuses here. For several days I have been speaking to and emailing groups about the importance of being involved in the political process. In my party we most likely will hear arguments that say nobody really cares about religious freedom. In the other major party they will likely  be told not to worry about this issue because they are going to win. Independents, as usual are seeking some sense of where to throw their votes or whether to throw their own candidate into the void. (They have been successful in the latter choice in Minnesota)

Among my friends and relatives are persons of all political persuasions and many different religious views but all of them value the religious freedom aspect of our US culture and government (yes it also protects the rights of atheists). We must not let this issue be thrown into the strange intractable polarization that our political process has become over the last decade. Thus I am asking that my fellow Americans act to be sure that all political organizations act to protect this first of the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution from being be put into that context.

Conscience Protection for Religious Institutions

Today I sent the following email to my US Congressman:

I request that you urgently communicate to the President the displeasure of many Minnesotans with the unreasonable narrow criteria for conscience protections by the HHS regulations concerning the provision of insurance for employees under the health care reform law. That criterion is so narrow that many churches, most religiously run schools and all religiously run hospitals in our mostly rural area will be forced to fund insurance coverage of actions abhorrent to their ethical standards.

I urge you to support in congress a measure that would restore conscience protection for religious institutions that many voters feel the president had promised during the health care reform discussions. The first article of the Bill of Rights (Religious liberty) has been held in high regard by Democratic, Republican and independent citizens for over 200 years. Do not let this become a partisan issue now.

I urge my fellow citizens to contact his or her Congressman on this matter as soon as possible. Here in Minnesota political caucuses  will be held this week. Please attend your party's caucus and bring this issue to your fellow citizens attention. If you are religious I urge you to pray, starting now, that wisdom visit our civil leaders on this matter.

Santorum - Better Campaign Practices Displayed

The Republican presidential contest is down to a scrappy few. It's not been pretty and the ugliness is mounting rapidly as the unaccounted millions of dollars pour into the primary states, thanks to the recent Supreme Court ruling. Not having been in a primary state we have been spared the trudge through the manure yard of modern media campaigning.

While the leading candidates make every more incredible claims about each other and President Obama there is one candidate that leaves a different impression, Rick Santorum. Even some commentators on MSNBC have expressed admiration of his genuinely candid and personal campaigning style. Last week he was interviewed by  Piers Morgan on CNN. I think we got a little of what the political commentator saw out on the stump. Very respectful and calm responses to all questions.

Later his family joined in the interview and I was again impressed. His kids were asked how they dealt with the the tough aspects of political campaigning. One of his daughters said that when someone unfairly attacks her father she always prays for the attacker. Now, there is a Catholic answer from the real world.

His answers to questions about abortion were uncharacteristic of a Republican politician in that they were clearly about the value of life for all humans. His retelling of bringing his son's body home for a family funeral was a moving example of honoring life even at the time of death.

Disappointing were his unsure answers about the death penalty, his support of torture and his eagerness to use war as an easy tool of international policy. All three of these are also life issues but his answers were not Catholic answers.

Newt, "North Dakota Doesn't Count"

 It's highly unlikely that Newt Gingrich reads the posts of a small town Catholic blogger but in the last Republican debate he sounded like he had read my last posting about his clearly incorrect comments on domestic oil production over the last three years. It seemed that his new comments were spin to obscure the issue. Probably staff or friends pointed out to him the patently incorrect nature of his earlier claim and this was his effort spin away from it.

 In the process he made a rather strange excuse for his position. He began by pointing out North Dakotas' oil boom and low unemployment ratio (almost quoting , it seemed, my postings) and then made the amazing claim that North Dakota did not count on the domestic energy production issue because, "all those oil wells are on private property."  DUH, Newt, that how it's done.

The very next morning, in a story filed before the debate, there was a front page article in the Fargo Forum about North Dakota's Governor arranging to lease State owned property for oil drilling. Now, North Dakota's state budget has been running a surplus for several years, unlike the US and most states, due to tax revenues from oil production and does not need the revenue. Thus it's a little strange that a Republican Governor felt the need to get the state into the oil business. Even stranger that a candidate for President implies that a president can get credit for an improved domestic energy situation only if Government were to go into the oil business itself.

Earlier posting on Oil/Energy Issue:
http://vftl.blogspot.com/2012/01/media-confirms-newts-error.html
http://vftl.blogspot.com/2012/01/newt-steps-in-it-again.html
http://vftl.blogspot.com/2011/09/strange-republican-claims-concerning.html

Earlier posts praising Newt:
http://vftl.blogspot.com/2012/01/newt-bucks-republican-tradition-again.html
http://vftl.blogspot.com/2011/11/newts-immigration-stand.html

Something to Consider from Thomas Merton

The pomposity of the  current political campaign language has been overwhelming. While rereading one of  Thomas Merton's books I came across this insight.

"... Christian humility is first of all a matter of supernatural common sense. It teaches us to take ourselves as we are, instead of pretending (as pride would have us imagine) that we are something better than we are. If we really know ourselves we quietly take our proper place in the order designed by God. And so supernatural humility adds much to our human dignity by integrating us in the society of other men and place us in right relation to them and to God. Pride makes us artificial and humility makes us real." (1)

(1)Thomas Merton, No  Man Is An Island, 1955, Harcourt Brace, page 113

Constitutional Confusion

Today I saw an interview with the Daughter of Lee Atwater  (Chairman of Republican Party in late 80s)  who is backing Newt Gingrich. She gives all credit for the 'balanced budget' during the Clinton years to Newt Gingrich. She gives all blame for the unbalances budget and debt created by the during the bush and Obama years on President Obama. The interviewer could not shake her from the strange dicotomy of her claims.

As I suspected one of her claims does not conform to the powers specified in the US Constitution. Here, from Article One, Section 8 is the assignment of responsibility for budget and debt issues directly on the Congress.

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties,Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;"

To attribute the current unbalanced budget and debt to the current President does not conform to the constitutional powers assinged to that office. It is also clear that the Congress is not required to produce a balanced budget, yet is not prohibited from doing so. The current poor opinion of the Congress by citizens seems quite justified due to it failure to perform its duties.

Looking at the 90s we should likewise conclude that the balanced budgets and debit reduction during the Clinton Administration was largely due to Congres adopting a budget that produced more revenue (taxes) than expense. The problem I have with her position is the attributing of this accomplishment fully to the credit of Newt. Unlike the current Congress, the Congresses of the 90s proceeded in a much more bipartisan fashion to address the nation's problems and needs. Newt was a member of some of these Congresses and for time was an important leader. He can share in the credit but must share it with many others of all parties.

"The Media" confirms Newt's Error

I just opened today's issue of the "FARGO FORUM", North Dakota's major daily. A huge headline introduces an article about that state's growing contribution to our domestic oil production. That growth is not without problems and concerns as well as opportunities. Unemployment is practically non existent in the state and workers are being imported by the droves by the industry.

This huge influx of workers has become a major challenge to housing and roads in the 'oil patch'. Not far behind is schools and law enforcement. 'Fracking" technology has everyone on edge but  but the families of the workers greatly appreciate the good pay and complain about the long hours involved in the industry.

Some one should shove this headline under Newt's chin and see if he can't come around to his senses on how to honestly take a position on this important issue. I know some are saying, "well what do do you expect him to say?"

I would be very impressed if he said something like:
"I know that President Obama has turned around the domestic energy loss but I think that I can do even better!"

IF he had done this I wouldn't be asking why he lied about about such easily verifiable facts but would be asking, instead,  how he planned to do better.