Equal Rights and Religion in America

"[T]here remains in others a strong bias towards the old error, that without some sort of alliance or coalition between Government & Religion neither can be duly supported... the danger cannot be too carefully guarded against.

Every new & successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance... [R]eligion & Govt. will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together...

We are teaching the world the great truth that Govts. do better without Kings & Nobles than with them. The merit will be doubled by the other lesson that Religion flourishes in greater purity, without then with the aid of Govt."
- James Madison, July 10, 1822, Letter to Edward Livingston

This post may be my most controversial yet, but I think my position is well known. Let's start, as it were, at the beginning. 

The United State's was not founded as a Christian nation. That idea is utterly false and is not supported by any of the historical data. Yes, the colonies enjoyed far greater religious freedom than other parts of the empire, BUT it was by no means a strong hold for Christianity. Many people point to the Pilgrims emigration to Massachusetts as a sign of this "religious founding" but we too often forget one important fact: Massachusetts was not the first colony. Nor were the Pilgrims who came the only inhabitants of Massachusetts. 

The first colony in the New World was Virginia. There, the idea that religion was any fort of factor in colonization is laughable. Colonists came to Virginia (and Roanoke before that) for one simple reason: Money.  The almighty dollar (or pound sterling I suppose) was the god of that colony. The British sought to colonize North America in order to make a profit off its natural bounty. Like spices from Indonesia, tea from China, and silks from India- North America offered its own resources that could be exploited: Timber (which was harder to find in the United Kingdom), Fish, game, and, according to legend, gold. Once colonists were here, they learned about Potatoes, Tobacco, Maize, and other crops which could be sold for a profit back in the old Country. The slave trade from Africa developed in response to this craving for more goods. Money and manufactured goods went to Africa to purchase slaves, which were in turn taken to the Americas as cheap labor, which produced the raw materials and food stuffs, which were in turn taken to Europe for manufacturing and distribution. Notice, not once in that description did you hear about God.

Now, as we all know, the Puritans had fallen out of favor in England. Granted the opportunity, they made their way to the New World, far from the eyes of the King and the Anglican church. While they were the first, they were not the last. Jews, Quakers, Methodists, Baptists, and other religious groups which opposed the Catholic or Anglican church also migrated to the New World for the same reason. The puritans were outsiders. With their strict adherence to dogma and refusal to bow to Rome or to the Anglican Church, they were  ostracized from the rest of society. Think of their dress- this was not a fashion statement. When you think of the Puritans, especially their dress, think of strict Mulsims who wear Burqas. They took their religion seriously, so much so that even in today's society, they would likely STILL be ostracized. 

One hundred and fifty years later, the colonial period had come to an end and North America was in the throes of decolonizatievolution or reformation: we'll cover this in a later post). On the other side of the violence a discussion began about the country. Those who we look to for guidance, even today, stood up and began a debate about what the country should look like.

Vincent Phillip Muñoz, PhD, Assistant Professor of Political Science at Tufts University, wrote in his paper "Religious Liberty and the American Founding" published in the Spring/Summer 2003 issue of Intercollegiate Review:

"...Although the founders agreed on the legitimate ends of government, they disagreed about the means the state could use to secure those ends. Specifically, the founders disagreed on whether the government legitimately could employ religion as a means to secure republican liberty. Two general positions existed. On one side stood the libertarians, who emphasized the need to limit government in order to protect civil and religious liberty. James Madison and Thomas Jefferson most clearly represent this position. On the other side were those of a more conservative disposition, who believed religion supported the good order of society and thus that government should endorse and encourage religion. George Washington most clearly represents this position."

Charles L. Cohen, PhD, Director of the Lubar Institute for the Study of the Abrahamic Religions wrote:

"The Framers did consider religion an important source of social morality - but they also knew that religious broils could destabilize governments, and, more than almost anything else, many of them feared denominational conflict."

These two quotes outline my general point. Yes, during the Constitutional Convention, there was much discussion about what role religion should play in the new country. However, their overarching concerns were a government religion, government interference in religion, and the conflicts of different religions or different sects of a particular religion. Notice, not once did I say Christian above- merely religion. 

At this point, we could have a debate nunc pro tunc of the different quotes of the Founding Fathers, but instead, I will summarize thusly: Most of the founders were religions men. Most of them would identify with the Christian religion (although most were Deists which have a particular flavor of Christianity) however, they took clear steps to assure that the government they created was separate from the religious sects in the nation: for the mutual benefit of both. I think this can be summarized by a single, rather famous, quote from Thomas Jefferson: 
 

"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."

Jan. 1, 1802, Letter to the Connecticut Danbury Baptist Association

So how does this call in to question the issue of equal rights. This, too, should be clear. There are many social issues in America that have a religious overtone or require religion to be part of the conversation. at some point we will address them all, but obviously abortion is a big one. The other one is what I have called equal right, but could just as easily be called civil rights. More aptly, its the treatment of homosexuals by society as a whole. 

I want to go on a brief tangent here to address why this is even a controversial issue. By all accounts, it shouldn't be. However, after the Republicans suffered huge losses in the wake of Watergate and Jimmy Carter won the White House in 1976, the republicans were looking for an in with the voting public. It had been about 15 years since the "Great Switch" when the two major parties had in great part exchanged their electorates, and in many parts of the country, that move hadn't been completed. It was at that point when the Moral Majority reached out to the republican elite and a partnership was formed. The republicans- who at that point were representing the wealthy whites of the Old South and Mid-west realized that they were on the verge of becoming the party of the minority. So, in a miraculous reformation, they became the party of God as well. Ronald Reagan was elected, and they began to make in-roads in Congress and in the local elections as well. Finally, in 1994, for the first time since WWII, Republicans won control of both Houses of Congress. A war of attrition began which reached its pinnacle in the 2000 election and has plateaued since then: the parties swapping control of one house or another, and eventually the White House as well. 

However, you don't win votes by professing religion, loosening corporate restraint and keeping taxes low on the ultra-rich. That doesn't win you votes anywhere, let alone in 'fly-over country'. So they took another route- a deviously smart one. "Keep taxes low on everyone!" They said, "Keep the government out of your pockets!" What they should have said was, we won't raise taxes on you, but inflation and our economic policies will keep you poor and make you poorer. "Keep government small!" they said, but what they didn't say was we don't want the government watching our friends poison you, the environment, and making things unsafe but more profitable. The most devious though, was they said- social issues are the most important thing! Don't worry about the jobs going overseas, don't worry about the crappy economy, don't worry about the trillions we are spending on overseas wars, don't look at how horrible the school system here, or how your dollar buys less and less everyday! NO! There are women making the decision to terminate pregnancies! They are taking God out of schools! The Ten Commandments can't go outside a public building! (and for our purposes here) The gays want to be equal! God says that's a sin and they want to be just like us!

Here's the point: I am, and we all should be, sick of people wrapping hate and fear in the pages of a holy book. More importantly, we should be tired of our politicians telling us that these issues are more important than one's that may affect the survival of the republic. Here's something not everyone knows about me: I am a pastors son. I was once very involved in the church. Given that, I have extensively read the Bible. However, I also know my heart. I have to balance what I know to be right and what my beliefs tell me. For my own knowledge, I have also done historical studies of the bible and every other holy book.

What people so quickly forget is that, neither I nor the state care about your religion. You can worship God any way you see fit- as long as it doesn't affect others. There is even a Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But my view on religion is just like my view on the other parts of the Bill of Rights: that document gives you the right to do anything that you want, right up to the end of your nose, your fingers and your toes. The moment that any right bestowed upon us interferes on a right of another person, our rights need to give way insomuch as they have minimal effect on others.

This argument of religion against civil rights is not a new one. In the middle years of the 19th century, those around the country who supported the continued state of men as property often used the Old Testament to justify that argument. All throughout the Old Testament, there are mentions of the Israelites taking and keeping slaves- the strict rule being that they must be slaves from other lands. Well black africans were certainly from another land. They were just above beasts but much easier to train. Fifty years later, women were moving towards suffrage. White men looked to the Bible to show that women should be subservient and generally they were below men. They shouldn't be equals- an argument they would echo a generation later when feminism and equality in the workplace arose. Another fifty years down the line, the same biblical, religious arguments were used against interracial marriage and voting rights. Now, they are going back to the well, using religious arguments against homosexual equality- more specifically marriage equality. 

When it comes to religion, I have found my own path. Although at some point I wandered away, I never ran from God, I embrace the True God: The God of forgiveness and acceptance. The God whose son didn't judge, and accepted everyone. The Son who would not look at someone and say "I love you, but I can't accept you." Rather, Jesus told them to come unto him and break bread and live as one. It is said that the Bible being a book for yesterday, today, and tomorrow- and they are right about that. Much like Aesop's Tales, it is a book of morality and conduct- using parable to teach lessons, and should not be taken literally. That that is what people do- they point out this verse and that one and use them to justify withholding rights from people. 

I want to be clear- you are entitled to your opinions and beliefs up and until they require that someone else change theirs or that it affects them. When your opinions and beliefs mean that my friends have to fight for years for something that I can drunkenly do as a joke in Vegas and annul the next day. If you ask me, and any logical person, no one has the right to that opinion.

A message that has been popularized in recent week's by the Duck Dynasty debacle is no less harmful. That is the message that "I love them and I accept them- but I don't condone the lifestyle." In and of itself, that argument is not horrible. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, and I would never ask someone to support something they didn't believe in. BUT- once again, when you use that argument as a reason to deny someone their rights, it is unacceptable.

By taking the "I accept it but I don't condone it" perspective, you are making it socially acceptable for other people, more vocal and active ones, to do just that. To abuse people, to hold up signs saying "God Hates Fags" and to drag people who are just living the way God made them 14 miles behind their truck before tying them to a fence and leaving them for dead. And years from now, no matter how small the impact of what you say is- they will feel the way that so many did from the 50s when they said- "I don't condone black integration, but I accept that there are black people and I can't stop them from having lunch here." Its shameful, whether you take part in it directly or indirectly.

Finally, I'd like to leave you with a metaphor:

I like blue shirts. I like blue shirts so much that no one else should be able to wear blue shirts unless they wear the blue shirt I like, in the way I like it. So I'm going to go every where I can and rail about how you shouldn't be able to wear a blue shirt. I'll see you in a blue shirt and I'll scream in your face and turn my children away. I accept that I can't stop you from wearing a blue shirt- but I can do everything I can to make your life hell for wearing it.

THATS this argument! And, decades in the future, once again this country will be left with shameful period where people had to fight for rights given so casually to others. It should be embarrassing for us all and it will be stain that won't wash away easily.

    © Robert Cheek, 2013

Ethics in Government

‘For whom are you working? It doesn’t seem like you’re working for the American people.’

Government ethics may seem like an oxymoron. Certainly today, its meaning is grossly misinterpreted. When President Eisenhower left office, he warned of a looming military-industrial complex and how we must avoid it. Little did Eisenhower know what an underestimate this statement would become in the future. Surely, today, we have a military-industrial complex, but even more we have a government-industrial complex.

I doubt there are any official figures on how many members of the bureaucracy are former industrialists and how many industrialists are former bureaucrats. However, anyone who works inside the beltway knows how prevalent this is in our system. There are only two reasons people take the underpaid, overworked positions: eventually they want the highly paid, elected position OR they want the highly paid industrial jobs as a consultant or lobbyist. The reason that this second class of positions exists is that people work in government just long enough to meet the right people, the right connections, and earn the process so that they can leave for the greener pastures of the private sector.

This begs the question again: for whom do you work, Mr. Corporate Climber, when you are taking a government check? Are you working for the American people or for yourself?

The Government, so concerned about the problem, created an entire Executive Agency to address it. The mission of the U.S. Office of Government Ethics (OGE) is to foster high ethical standards for executive branch employees and strengthen the public’s confidence that the Government’s business is conducted with impartiality and integrity. The OGE was established by the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, It was part of the new Congresses accountability platform following the resignation of Richard Nixon. It is the agency that provides overall direction, oversight, and accountability of Executive Branch policies designed to prevent and resolve conflicts of interest. OGE is also charged with promoting high ethical standards for Executive Branch employees.

While OGE sets policy for the executive branch ethics program, the head of each agency has primary responsibility for the ethics program in that agency. To support the day-to-day activities of the ethics program, each agency head selects an individual to serve as the agency's designated agency ethics official. That's right, although the OGE sets the policies, it is left to the agencies to self-police, with the guidance of the OGE of course.

The OGE created the The Standards of Conduct in 1993. The Standard covers issues such as gifts, conflicting financial interests, impartiality, seeking employment, misuse of position, and outside activities. They are designed to address not only actual conflicts of interest but also activities that give rise to the appearance of such conflicts.

In addition,the financial disclosure program is designed to help agencies spot and prevent conflicts of interest before they occur and to promote confidence in the integrity of Government decision-making. Through regulation, OGE establishes the procedures for administering the executive branch financial disclosure system. In addition, OGE has an important role in certifying the financial disclosure reports for all Presidential appointees confirmed by the Senate and the most senior White House staff members. Finally, through monitoring and oversight, OGE ensures that agencies implement effective financial disclosure processes.

The OGE has no role in the ethics programs of the legislative or judicial branches of the federal government. Similarly, OGE has no jurisdiction over state or local government ethics programs. OGE does not conduct investigations and cannot represent citizens in legal matters.

In the 34 years since the formation of OGE, none of the 5,700 employees working in the 133 executive agencies has found any wrongdoing to be significant enough to trigger enforcement of ethical standards.

What about Congress? How are they policed ethically? Self-policing of course! The Senate Select Committee on Ethics handles ethical reporting on Senators. The Senate sets the rules and the committee "enforces" them. What about the House? Well for the House of Representatives, there is some oversight. The House Committee on Ethics does establish rules conduct of Representatives. But in addition, there is the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE). The Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) was created in March of 2008 as an independent, non-partisan office governed by a Board comprised of private citizens. The OCE reviews allegations of misconduct against Members, officers, and staff of the House and, when appropriate, refers matters to the House Committee on Ethics. The OCE is not authorized to determine if a violation occurred. The OCE is also not authorized to sanction Members, officers, or employees of the House or to recommend any sanctions. The OCE is not able to provide advice or education on the rules and standards of conduct applicable to Members, officers, and employees of the House. A pretty powerful group huh?

The US has hundreds of laws and statutes dealing with ethics and more than 5,000 federal employees at more than 130 federal agencies charged with interpreting them.

The authority of Congress to discipline its members is found in the Constitution, which states, "Each House determine the Rules of its proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member."

By 2004, the House had heard 150 cases of members accused of crimes. 12 of those members were convicted, but not expelled. Although the House is forgiving of its own failings, it has impeached 12 federal judges and two executives.

Finally, there are the lobbyists. Last year, they numbered over 12,000. That's about 20 for every member of Congress. Those are the registered lobbyists. Not all lobbyists register. The rules that control lobbying, totaling a massive 19 pages of statute, can be found here. When it comes to lobbyists, its basically the wild west.

So what do we do? This is a new problem, relatively. It arose most strikingly through a classic conservative plan: deregulation. It was sold as taking the government off the backs of industry. The public was told that industry is basically good and that, through market forces, it could regulate itself. Instead, deregulation brought about the boom in corporate power for which we can thank our current destructive situation. Obviously, with industry regulating itself, the dollar was more important than protections.

Since the source is so clearly identified, the solution is as well. As part of a greater effort I will outline later, deregulation needs to be rolled back and reregulation needs to occur. Further, although there has never been regulation on lobbyists, there needs to be a licensing, registration, and identification system for them. Additionally, there needs to be more, or any, government oversight of the entire lobbying industry.

As part of this effort, there need to be limits on transfers between the public and private sectors. Everyone has a plan for doing this: here is my suggestion. Any person at cabinet-support level or above, appointed position, or elected official; are barred from consulting and direct lobbying in any private position that requires advocacy or the expenditure of funds. This bar is in effect for two years from when the person left the public or elected job. For any lower level official, there should be a bar of one year for a move from any position in the bureaucracy to an advocacy or consulting job in the private sector. I’ll address more of this when I talk about cutting red tape, but as a basic outline, I think this is a start. Taking these steps can help bring some measure of ethics to the government process and cut into the billions of dollars trading hands under the current system of questionable ethics.

© Robert Cheek, 2011, 2013

A New Declaration

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to redistribute the power which has for so long been drained from the majority and given to the oligarchy, and reassume among the powers of the earth, the equal station to which the Laws of this Nation entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of all require that they should declare the causes which impel them to their action.

We hold these truths to be self-evident:

That all people are created equal, that they are endowed by their mere existence with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness;

That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted amongst the people, deriving their just and limited powers from the consent of the governed;

That whenever any form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right and Duty of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to protect their Safety and Happiness. 

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly history has shown that people are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

Such has been the patient sufferance of these United States; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their current Government. The history of the present Oligarghy is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over the People. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

They have refused their Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

They have forbidden their elected officials to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation until their assent can be obtained; and when so suspended, they have utterly neglected to attend to them.

They have obstructed the administration of Justice by refusing to assent to appointments for establishing a working judiciary.

They have erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

They have kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of people.

They have acted to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

For continuing large and unpopular wars on foreign soil, utilizing bodies of armed troops taken from their positions at home.

For establishing ‘Free Trade’ with all parts of the world, causing the removal of millions of jobs and billions in capital.

For imposing Taxes on the majority while removing taxes from the wealthy:

For depriving us, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For abolishing our most valuable and protective Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

They have plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, raped our natural resources, and destroyed the lives of our people.

They are at this time organizing large Armies of police and National Guard to complete the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the heads of a civilized nation.

They have excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and have endeavored to bring on the citizens of our Nation, at home and abroad, merciless terrorists whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. Leaders, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, are unfit to be the representatives of a free people.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the Majority of the American Citizens appealing to the common sense of the Majority for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of this Nation, solemnly publish and declare, that the power of this Nation, Right ought to be returned to the people from which is derives, that we are Absolved from their ursurpation of power.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Law and History, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.