Thank you   I needed that—my patriotism kinda slipped below my knees this year.

Les, I hope you don’t mind if I paste here the following piece I posted to http://www.struggle.hibernation9.com. I am including a response it received, as well. I was inspired in part by much of what I read here. Thanks, and please excuse my imperfect writing style. I’m not as good at this as you or some of your post-ers are. While there are many other sites out there which allow feedback, you often combine pertinent information with a healthy dose of ironic humor. If you feel moved to visit the site and weigh in, that would be great. Or I could transfer any comments over to that site in relation to this post. I would of course do so only on a comment by comment transfer with permission basis. What do you, or your readers think?

07.05.2003

Celebrating the Fourth of July this year just didn’t feel right. While I’m generally proud of my country, lately I’ve had little confidence in some of it’s more outspoken leaders. To put it more exactly, I am shamed and angered at their vitriolic statements and inconsiderate attempts to strip this country of its proudest accomplishments of the last two hundred plus years. I have always based my beliefs on the importance of open-mindedness and consideration of contrary viewpoints; I learn better how to cooperate as I live and assume others do as well. I have lately seen examples of quite the opposite in too many lawmakers.

Our president often ignores the constitutionally mandated separation of church and state, with one example being his faith-based initiatives. His time and tax payer money consuming efforts to line up a Supreme Court applicant have included for possible nomination Alabama Attorney General William Pryor, who has successfully fought against federal protections of the disabled and elderly, against civil rights legislation enforcement, against the family medical leave act and against consumer and worker’s rights. He too, has opposed the separation of church and state: At a public rally on behalf of a judge who was sued for praying and displaying the 10 commandments in court, Pryor announced “God has chosen, through his son Jesus Christ, this time and this place for all Christians…to save our country and save our courts.” Again, this man is the Attorney General of Alabama and he is only one of the extremely conservative or sadly under-qualified considerations Bush has come up with, despite the fact that no current judge has expressed intent to retire or has died. This says more about Bush than I wanted to know. How can we believe he has the good of the nation in mind when he backs such individuals for the highest court?

The recent ruling by the FCC to lessen restrictions controlling ownership of the nation’s newspapers, television and radio stations is anything but protection of our right to know. If a few special interest individuals can control the major conduits of communication, how much trust can we place in the information we receive? Not surprisingly, the head of the FCC is Michael Powell, son of Colin Powell.

The Supreme Court recently voted 6-3 to reverse a ruling that allowed courts to punish people for what they do in the privacy of their own homes; It was a just and long-overdue decision. The ruling focused on two gay men who were arrested in Texas, but the Court was broad in it’s consideration. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority “The state cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime.” Justice Antonin Scalia, one of the opposing judges said the ruling could lead to legal gay marriages in the US. Big effing deal! Since over 50 percent of current marriages end in divorce, how can anyone guess who’s union might ultimately be worthy of legal or moral justification!

With 9-11 fresh in our memories, the current administration is actively working to implement the most invasive and restrictive laws this country has ever adopted or even considered. Agreed, terrorism has to be defeated, but what’s the point of enacting laws that go as far, or farther, to destroy our basic rights?

While I stated earlier in a post here that I did not know for certain how to feel about an invasion of Iraq, I was in favor of stopping the murder of Iraqi citizens by their dictator. I still feel that was a justifiable reason for the US to go there, though perhaps minus the promised shock and awe. Since then I regret having been on the fence. It was about oil. Bush and certain others in his administration will personally profit from America’s subsequent control of this source. Apparently, the administration did lie concerning proof of weapons of mass destruction. Over 70 percent of Americans polled now believe we have found W of MD in Iraq. We haven’t, but with the news reporting every other night of new (possible) proof found, it’s easy to imagine that many could have lost track and moved from indecision to conviction. I blame the news agencies for rushing stories to broadcast, but I should blame myself if I’ve failed to gather all the facts before deciding. Finally, the conflict was so poorly planned that we may soon see ourselves in a post war situation far from our liking, further from world-wide approval, all alone in our belief that America is a benevolent and just power.

Though the author makes few contributions to this page anymore, I still find myself visiting. If he allows it, and if someone reads this and understands, to some degree, what motivated me to post it, I’ll feel it was worth the time to speak up. I’ve never felt as helpless and worried as I do now. Believe it or not I’m not one of those who enjoys pushing his views where they aren’t welcome, yet I’m at the point where I’m considering backing the following movement: http://www.votetoimpeach.org

Please visit and consider what you feel or might do. It isn’t an easy decision for anyone, but I now believe injustices are afoot which could, by comparison, make those which challenged democracy in the last president’s impeachment proceedings seem frivolous. I hesitate to consider this a Republican vs. Democrat struggle. I think you could say everyone’s constitutional liberties are at stake. I couldn’t even light a sparkler last night. Did you? If so did you, at any point, stop and recall the reason for the holiday? Did you feel even the slightest bit like a hypocrite? Is there anybody out there?

Brock


(The following is a response given there, in it’s original form.)

07.06.03

Yes, Brock, there is someone out here. Someone who, unlike you, still feels that this country, in spite of its flaws, flawed politicians, and concerned citizens, is without a doubt, the greatest country on the face of the earth. I did not light any sparklers but I watched the fireworks and yes, I did think about what the day meant. It means you can say the things you said in this post and not have to worry if the government will be harassing you for it. It means you can live and work wherever you please as long as it is legal. It means we live in a country of much who gives to almost every other country on the face of the earth but never goes to them with a hand out. One of the things that makes this country great is that we have people who are willing to go fight the battles around the globe that the people of other countries can’t. We are great because of Iraq, Bosnia, Kuwait, and others. As for our leaders being outspoken about their beliefs, when did we become a country where the conservative side, pushing their beliefs, is wrong but all things liberal are ok? Has not every president who ever sat in office considered who he would appoint to the Supreme Court if the need arose? Why do we castigate a man who is looking for someone who holds the same beliefs as he does if and when it becomes necessary? Is this not why the Supreme Court swings left and right over time? It is done by those of both liberal and conservative persuasions. Why come down on this president? And, have you done any homework on faith-based initiatives? Statistics have proven on all fronts that social based programs, IE support for unwed mothers, homeless assistance, substance abuse programs and the like are much more successful when done by faith-based institutions than are the ones run by government buracracies. (sp?) Government, while in ideaology, may have an interest in helping in these situations, unfortunatly can’t instill the same level of commitment or concern that those who help because they want to through their local church, synagog, temple or other place of worship. Oh, by the way, did you notice that I didn’t just say “Christian” church? Faith-based is all inclusive. And, while I’m at it, our constitution does not contain the phrase or idea of “separation of church and state”. It says that congress shall pass no law establishing….. That was put there to prevent the “church of England” situation that many of our forfathers and mothers left Europe to escape. It does not say that congress or therefore government can’t support religions either by law or financial support. Why can’t some of our tax dollars go to support religious schools or programs that are successful? Don’t we de-list contractors from consideration on government contracts if they have proven that they cannot perform up to expectations? Why don’t we do it with programs and schools that are much more effective? Yes, there are things about the conservative wing of government I totally disagree with. For one, I am an environmentalist and I am always concerned about the Republican lack of effort to support conservation. I have to learn to deal with that because I realize I can’t have everything I want. I have much. That’s because I live in the United States of America. What a great country.
Someone who’s out here.

Brock, I think you’ve done an excellent job of writing in this small essay and I’m glad that you decided to post it here. I can’t promise that I’ll have time to stop by the original site and chime in, but it seems to me you’re doing a pretty good job of holding your own. While the respondent is correct that the phrase “Separation of Church and State” does not appear in the Constitution that doesn’t mean that it wasn’t the intent of the Founding Fathers. In fact, the concept itself was outlined by President Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury (Conn.) Baptist Association in 1802 in trying to explain the purpose of the First Amendment. The man considered to be the Father of the Constitution, James Madison, wrote in a letter in 1819 “[T]he number, the industry and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church and state.“ Furthermore:

As eminent church-state scholar Leo Pfeffer notes in his book, Church, State and Freedom, “It is true, of course, that the phrase ‘separation of church and state’ does not appear in the Constitution. But it was inevitable that some convenient term should come into existence to verbalize a principle so clearly and widely held by the American people….[T]he right to a fair trial is generally accepted to be a constitutional principle; yet the term ‘fair trial’ is not found in the Constitution. To bring the point even closer home, who would deny that ‘religious liberty’ is a constitutional principle? Yet that phrase too is not in the Constitution. The universal acceptance which all these terms, including ‘separation of church and state,‘ have received in America would seem to confirm rather than disparage their reality as basic American democratic principles.“—11 Myths About Church and State.

There are other points in the response you received that I would take issue with, but I’m out of time at the moment. Perhaps I will swing by that site and check in after all.

Heh heh! I hope so. I’m kinda hoping for your talent and intelligence to show up there. (Please feel free to) go get ‘em Les. Eric or anyone else, too. Thanks Les, for the kind words.