Open Letter to Rick Santorum

Mr. Santorum, you are correct; Judeo-Christian values were central in the founding of the United States. From the Declaration of Independence, to the individual writings of the founding fathers, this is abundantly clear. In his writings, Tocqueville noted that while the formal separation of church was a vital aspect of the new republic, Christian faith and liberty  "were intimately united" and "reigned in common over the same country." He believed that in the United States, "the safeguard of morality is religion, and morality is the best security of laws, as well as the surest pledge of freedom." And those familiar with American History are aware that the crusade to abolition slavery and expand civil rights were primarily driven by people of faith.

But, for various reasons, I am concerned about your highly religious rhetoric. Nowhere in the writings of the founding fathers do we encounter sentiments that politicians and the state must propagate faith and virtue. They must form and flourish in the womb of civil society, in families, churches and charities. Those who seek to nourish religious sentiments and institutions through the state, will foster the corruption and the dependency of the church. Regarding your focus on contentious social issues; the 10th Amendment dictates that issues like gay marriage and abortion are not the concern of the federal government, rather they are under the jurisdiction of states and communities. Thus, you are fostering the centralization of power that most conservatives criticize President Obama for.

Let your faith continue to guide your private and public decisions, because the constitution grants us freedom of, not freedom from religion. But, be aware that the surest defense of religious liberty is not a strong central government that intervenes in social life, but the system of limited government and federalism established by our constitution. And we ask that you have faith that America's rich Judeo-Christian traditions will continue to flourish without the help of the state and without your campaign rhetoric. G-d and good sense be with you.

Merry Winter Relfection by Jack Hunter

Very interesting piece by Jack Hunter in which he observes the contradiction seen in many western liberals who encourage other cultures to celebrate and express their religious traditions and myths, in the name of multiculturalism, yet are deeply disdainful of their fellow Americans who do so with their Christian Culture and Traditions. He ties this in with the belief of Guillermo Bernal, (an expert on the Mayans from The Mexican Autonomous University) that so many Americans are latching on to (their gross misinterpretation of) Mayan Myths and Traditions because their own myths and traditions have been so thoroughly exhausted. Agree or disagree with his beliefs, Mr. Hunter is always thought provoking.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkeNRJe6THs&feature=related

The (Selective) Separation of Church & State

I strongly support the separation of church and state, but not the efforts of some progressives to selectively exclude expression of the Christian Faith. An example of this practice was seen in the court case of Skoros v. City of New York, in which a parent sued a school district for allowing the display of a Jewish Menorah and Islamic Crescent, but not a Christian Nativity Scene. An equitable policy would be to allow the presentation of all, or preferably the presentation of none. I believe that the growth of the "religious right," at least partially emerged as a result of such policies.

Nativity scene is too religious for New York City schools

By Warren Richey, Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

February 22, 2007

The US Supreme Court has declined to enter the fracas over what some conservatives are calling the war on Christmas.

Without elaboration, the court issued a one-line order on Tuesday refusing to take up a potentially important church-state case concerning the use of religious symbols in public school holiday displays.

At issue in Skoros v. City of New York was whether the city's public school system is impermissibly promoting Judaism and Islam while conveying a message of disapproval of Christianity. School rules allow the Jewish menorah and the Muslim star and crescent in multireligious holiday displays but not nativity scenes depicting the birth of Jesus.

The case had been relisted on the high court's private conference calendar seven times in recent months, raising expectations that the justices were taking a close look at the issue.

"We are obviously disappointed," says Brian Rooney of the Thomas More Law Center in Ann Arbor, Mich., which was urging the court to take up the case. "What this says is the [war on Christmas] is ongoing. It is going to continue festering state by state, county by county, and city by city."

While the policy, written with the help of city lawyers, bars nativity scenes, it allows depictions of Christmas trees to represent the Christian celebration of Christmas.

"We are not celebrating the birth of an evergreen tree," Mr. Rooney says. "We are celebrating a historic religious figure's birth that is recognized by the nation and every state in the Union."

The city says its policy treats all religions consistently by excluding "depictions of deities, religious texts, or scenes of worship such as a Christian nativity scene," says Leonard Koerner, a lawyer for the school district, in his brief to the court. "As the Christian nativity scene explicitly depicts the Christian deity [the baby Jesus] as the center of a scene of worship, it falls on the wrong side of the line."

Andrea Skoros, the mother of two sons attending public elementary schools in New York, took exception to what she saw as a slight to the Christian faith. She filed a lawsuit in 2002 claiming the school policy "impermissibly promoted and endorsed the religions of Judaism and Islam, conveyed the impermissible message of disapproval of Christianity, and coerced students to accept the Jewish and Islamic religions."

The suit said the school policy violated the First Amendment's Establishment Clause, which bars government from favoring one religion over any other.

Mrs. Skoros, a Roman Catholic, said the school policy was infringing upon her right to control the religious upbringing and education of her children.

A federal judge disagreed and upheld the school policy. A divided appeals court panel affirmed that decision.

In asking the Supreme Court to take up the issue, Skoros's lawyer, Robert Muise of the Thomas More Law Center, said the school policy disfavors Christianity. "Why is the menorah – a symbol of a miracle that is central to the Jewish faith – any more or less religious than a simple scene of the nativity, which is a historic event?" he asks in his brief.

Mr. Muise urged the court to use the case to add clarity and certainty to its Establishment Clause jurisprudence. He said the justices should jettison their so-called endorsement test in favor of a more workable constitutional standard.

New York City's school policy says in part: "Holiday displays shall not appear to promote or celebrate any single religion or holiday." It says such symbols must be displayed together to reflect the diversity of beliefs and customs among city residents.

There are more than 1 million children in the city's school system. They speak 140 different primary languages, including Spanish, Chinese, Russian, Urdu, Bengali, Haitian-Creole, Arabic, Korean, Albanian, French, Punjabi, and Polish.

"The primary purpose of all displays shall be to promote the goal of fostering understanding and respect for the rights of all individuals regarding their beliefs, values, and customs," the city policy says.

At the same time the policy seeks to avoid the promotion or endorsement of any particular religious faith. "Display of the crèche, as a representation of the birth of a figure central to the Christian religion, and others worshiping Jesus Christ as the son of God, is not permitted by [city] guidelines," Mr. Koerner writes.

Not all Christians identify Jesus as God.



http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/faclibrary/case.aspx?case=Skoros_v_City_of_New_York

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0222/p04s01-ussc.html

On Patrick Henry

As a largely secular, urban Jew, my instinct is to be put off when politicians discuss questions of religion and morality. In no way am I anti-religious, but I have been conditioned to view religion as something that should remain within the confines of the private, not the public sphere. But, the more I read of the founding fathers, the less inclined I am to accept this view. Patrick Henry in particular presents the belief that "private" questions or values, morality and religion do have a great bearing on the public and political spheres of American life. Take a few minutes to contemplate the words of Mr. Henry and if you are atheist or agnostic you can still explore the ways in which the secular virtues and vices of individuals, communities and cultures shape the political, social and even economic life of a nation:

Bad men cannot make good citizens. It is impossible that a nation of infidels or idolaters should be a nation of freemen. It is when a people forget God that tyrants forge their chains. A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, is incompatible with freedom. No free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue; and by a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles."

Those who are knowledgeable about other nations and cultures will agree with Mr. Henry's notion that individual liberty and limited government are only possible when the members of communities and nations have achieved a certain level of ethics, self restraint and respect for others. When they are lacking a nation faces the options of anarchy or authoritarianism. Countless past and present examples exist that demonstrates when (the majority of) a people lack a respect for rule of law and basic civic values, political, social and economic life becomes dysfunctional. Many progressives will respond that crime and corruption are products of poverty, which is problematic, because in nations like Pakistan and Nigeria, some of the worst examples of pilfer are found among the wealthy.

If you look below the surface, you will see that a shift in values and declines in certain virtues helped engender our great recession and on a broader level, our decline from a nation of savers and producers to one of spenders, consumers and unbearable private and public debt. Of course earlier generations were materialistic, however these impulses were moderated by values of frugality, temperance, hard work and a basic distrust of wealth not gained through hard work. I personally witnessed this with older landlords I work with who believed that "mortgages were irresponsible" and accordingly spent years working, scrounging and saving to purchase their property. The idea of using their homes as ATMs in order to live beyond their means was beyond the pale.

Even the fiscal hemorrhaging of entitlement programs is connected to a decline in virtue. During a documentary on the Great Depression, the actor Jerry Stiller spoke of the burning shame his father felt when economic circumstances forced him to seek government assistance. Clearly the values of self reliance and hard work served as "brakes" that moderated the use of the welfare state, whereas the sense of entitlement that pervades modern American life has become the "accelerator" that is helping to drive these programs over a fiscal cliff.

Religious Freedom at Risk? (part III)

Another example of free expression of speech and faith being unduly restricted.


Federal government bans religious references on ornaments for 2009 Capitol Christmas Tree ADF attorneys send letter to federal, state officials after Arizona schoolchildren chosen to decorate D.C. tree, but told to keep religion out

Tuesday, September 29, 2009,

PHOENIX, Ariz. — Alliance Defense Fund attorneys sent a letter to federal and state officials, including Arizona Governor Janice Brewer Monday, calling for them to stop enforcing a requirement prohibiting the state’s schoolchildren from expressing religious viewpoints through Christmas themes while decorating ornaments for the 2009 Capitol Christmas Tree. Arizona was chosen this year to present 4,000 handcrafted ornaments made by elementary, middle-school, and high-school students to decorate Washington, D.C.’s annual Christmas tree.


“Banning Christmas from the Capitol Christmas tree is just absurd. Christian students shouldn’t be discriminated against for expressing their religious beliefs,” said ADF Litigation Staff Counsel Jonathan Scruggs. “The First Amendment does not allow government officials to exclude schoolchildren’s ornaments for the capitol’s Christmas tree merely because they communicate a religious viewpoint.”


On behalf of a mother whose son strongly desires to submit three ornaments for the tree, ADF attorneys sent a letter to state and federal officials demanding that they abandon the prohibition of religious viewpoints so that the child may participate in the unique opportunity. One of the ornaments will read “Merry Christmas,” another will say “Happy Birthday, Jesus,” and the third will portray a manger scene with the baby Jesus. Each of these ornaments will also honor Arizona, using as a theme the state’s history, geography, or motto, “Ditat Deus,” which means “God Enriches.” ADF attorneys indicate in the letter that they will take legal action if officials do not comply by October 4, the day before the deadline to submit ornaments for consideration.

“It is well established that expression of religious beliefs is protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution,” the letter reads. “Religious expression is speech and is entitled to the same level of protection as other kinds of speech... Even expression that comes through symbols, such as ornaments…”

Arizona was given the special privilege this year to provide Washington, D.C., with the 2009 Capitol Christmas Tree. Students from elementary, middle, and high schools were given criteria to construct and decorate 4,000 handcrafted ornaments for the 65-foot tree as a coordinated effort with the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, the Apache Natural Resources Conservation District, the Arizona Public Education Department, students, businesses, and the community.

Guidelines for the ornaments include specifications for their size, weight, composition, and the directive that “Ornaments cannot reflect a religious or political theme… Instead share your interpretation of our theme ‘Arizona’s Gift, from the Grand Canyon State.’” It is also stated that the ornaments “will provide wonderful opportunities for Arizona school children to demonstrate what Arizona means to them… Whether they represent our world-renowned landscapes, our diverse cultures, or other aspects of our state, the ornaments will help convey the particular beauty that is Arizona.” But, if students want to convey that Arizona has a religious significance to them, they are denied the opportunity offered to students with non-religious views.

Religious Freedom at Risk? (part II)

While it's essential to have safeguards that protect individuals and minorities against the tyranny of the majority, it is dangerous to democracy and the free expression of religious faith to allow a sole individual armed with a lawsuit to enforce their will on a community. I label this phenomenon "minoritarian tyranny."



ADF to Ohio town: No need to cancel Christmas parade for fear of lawsuit

ADF attorneys send letter urging Amelia officials to allow annual event, offer legal representation if sued.

November 19, 2009

AMELIA, Ohio — Alliance Defense Fund attorneys sent a letter Thursday to the mayor, solicitor, and council members of the village of Amelia, urging them to reconsider cancelling this year’s 29th annual Christmas parade. After the Amelia Village Council decided to call off the event out of fear of being sued, ADF attorneys offered the governing body legal advice and assistance in the event such frivolous action is taken.

“Government officials shouldn’t deny a town’s residents a public celebration of Christmas because of intimidation and disinformation spread by groups that don’t understand the Constitution,” said ADF Senior Counsel Nate Kellum. “For nearly 30 years, the village of Amelia has held this annual parade, and local officials need not call it off out of fear of a lawsuit that would be both frivolous and meritless. The attacks on Christmas are simply part of a larger war on all things Christian being waged by the secular Left.”

In response to reports that the Amelia Village Council cancelled the town’s traditional Christmas parade--held every year since 1981--ADF attorneys sent a letter encouraging the officials to permit this year’s public observance of the Christmas holiday.

“While we certainly do live in litigious times, when anybody can sue anybody for practically anything, please know that any lawsuit against Amelia for having a Christmas parade--should it ever be filed--would be meritless,” the letter states. “The observance of Christmas is a plainly lawful activity.”

ADF Christmas legal information Web page

ADF is a legal alliance of Christian attorneys and like-minded organizations defending the right of people to freely live out their faith. Launched in 1994, ADF employs a unique combination of strategy, training, funding, and litigation to protect and preserve religious liberty, the sanctity of life, marriage, and the family.

Religious Freedom at Risk? (part I)

Many "progressives" seem genuinely concerned that the "religious right" poses a threat to religious liberty, when in fact the few instances when the free expression of religious faith were impeded involved the left. Here is another example of the anti-Christian spirit and hostility towards intellectual diversity found in some academic institutions.

Religious Freedom at Risk on Tax-funded College Campuses ADF Defends Censored Christian Student

To listen to interview click here:

http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/issues/religiousfreedom/default.aspx?cid=4826

Jonathan Lopez is working toward an associate of arts degree at Los Angeles City College in California. One of his required classes: Public Speaking. The additional lesson in his free speech rights was not something he anticipated.

In that class, Lopez was assigned to deliver an informative speech. Lopez chose the topic of faith and marriage. Mid-way through, his speech professor, John Matteson, interrupted, calling Lopez a "fascist bastard" in front of the class for speaking about his faith, Bible verses quoted by Lopez in his speech which included reading the dictionary definition of marriage and reciting two Bible verses. Instead of allowing Lopez to finish, Matteson told the other students they could leave if they were offended. When no one left, Matteson dismissed the class. Refusing to grade the assigned speech, Matteson wrote on Lopez's evaluation, "Ask God what your grade is."

Click here to see it.

"Christian students shouldn't be penalized or discriminated against for speaking about their beliefs," said ADF Senior Counsel David French. "Public institutions of higher learning cannot selectively censor Christian speech. This student was speaking well within the confines of his professor's assignment when he was censored."

But the harassment did not stop in class. One week later, after seeing Lopez talking to the college's dean of academic affairs, Matteson told Lopez that he would make sure he'd be expelled from school.

Further, Matteson's treatment of Lopez during his speech follows an earlier incident in which the speech professor told his entire class after the November election, "If you voted yes on Proposition 8, you are a fascist bastard."

"Professor Matteson clearly violated Mr. Lopez's free speech rights by engaging in viewpoint discrimination and retaliation because he disagreed with the student's religious beliefs," said French. "When students are given open-ended assignments in a public speaking class, the First Amendment protects their ability to express their views. Moreover, the district has a speech code that has created a culture of censorship on campus. America's public universities and colleges are supposed to be a 'marketplace of ideas,' not a hotbed of intolerance."

Attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund Center for Academic Freedom have filed a lawsuit against officials of the Los Angeles Community College District in regard to this situation.

You can read the complaint filed with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in the lawsuit Lopez v. Candaele by clicking here.

Unfortunately, Jonathan Lopez is not alone. College students across the country are finding it difficult to stand up for their faith, to refuse assignments that contradict their conscience, or to question their instructors. The Alliance Defense Fund is committed to helping Christian students express their beliefs on campus. To date, by God s grace, we have not lost one case litigated to conclusion concerning expression of religious freedom on campus. Learn about more of our cases through the links below.

We offer legal services to Jonathan Lopez and those like him, free of charge. Donate today so we can continue winning and supporting religious liberty on our nation's campuses.

Excerpt from Irving Kristol (part II)

Very interesting excerpts from the writings of social, political and philosophical commentary of the late Irving Kristol. I wish that more politicians on the right and on the left would take heed of his wise words on the merits of federalism in maintaining peace in a culturally diverse nation. Attempts by the religious right and the secular left to impose their visions and values regarding church-and-state, abortion, gay rights, etc. on a national level is a recipe for social conflict and possibly even secession. Allowing communities to work out these very divisive issues and individuals to live in communities that best reflect their values is far from a perfect solution, but it is most likely the best. Also, his writings on the place of Jews in issues of church and state are interesting and before you accuse Mr. Kristol of anti-semitism its worth considering that he was Jewish.

The possibility of reconciling conservative traditions of religion or morality with the freedom of a market economy is not only a matter of speculation. It has formidable historical antecedents, which, even if they are unfamiliar to many today, are nevertheless at the heart of the Anglo-American tradition of free government. In the United States, between the founding of the republic and World War II, approximately 175 years of conflict between the secular market economy and a religious predisposition excited scarcely a tremor in the body politic. One can find proof of this by consulting any major textbook in American history published before 1945. A glance at the index may reveal a few passing references to “church and state” relations, but nothing more. You look up “censorship” and you find no reference at all, although there was a great deal of censorship taking place.

Over the last fifty years, the national issue which we now refer to as “religion in the public square” has engendered an entire library of legal arguments, but prior to 1945, it is clear that the issue could not have been that controversial, for the simple reason that there were hardly any legal rulings on the subject: There were virtually no Supreme Court decisions that addressed this issue. The reason for this is an instructively practical one: Under the American federal system, issues such as school prayer, religious activities on public grounds, censorship of pornography—in short, the great majority of religious and moral issues—were adjudicated by political negotiations at the local level. These negotiations took into account the magnitude and intensity of public opinion on either side of an issue, and after some useful if sometimes painful experience, each community reached a via media that it could live with. In general, minority opinion was always respected, but majority opinion always received the greater deference. To reach such accepted norms in such a way that people could live together did not require a great deal of theorizing about absolute systems of universal rights; but what it did require was a great deal of inherited wisdom and common sense, on the part of the majority and on the part of the minority.

A few examples will suffice to make it clear what this meant in practice. When I went to elementary school in Brooklyn, we had an assembly once a week, which the principal of the school always began with a prayer. Now, the school was about one-half Jewish, with the rest of the students being Irish, Italian or Anglo-Saxon Protestants. The principal was no fool, so he read a Psalm. The nice thing about the Psalms is that they are of Jewish origin, are part of the Christian Bible, but Jesus is not mentioned. So what Jew was going to object? Mind you, Jews these days do object to the reading of Psalms in public schools. But in those days, there were no Jews who would object to reading a Psalm, and no Christians who would object either. It was a common-sense solution to a problem; it worked for many, many decades.

Similarly, when I was young, there were burlesque shows, “topless” shows, we would call them, in New York, and Fiorello La Guardia, a very liberal and progressive mayor, decided that this was not good for the city. He did not want New York City to be known as a center for strip-tease shows, so he prohibited them. Just like that. The issue was taken to court, and the court ruled that La Guardia was the elected representative of the public, and if the public wanted things that way, it was their right. People who didn’t like it could leave New York City and move to Newark, where you could go to a burlesque show. There was no outraged public debate, no crisis, no book written on the subject. In the United States in that era, any community that wanted to order its public life in a certain way was permitted to do so. One’s position had to be “within reason,” but the point is that the range of issues which one could reasonably decide one way or another was considered to be quite broad, and open to a process of political trial and error. If Boston wanted to ban a book that had sex scenes in it, it did so. And then the book sellers in New York put up big signs in their store windows that said “Banned in Boston,” and this would be great for business. This might have been difficult to fit into some great universal system, but it took into account the traditions and feelings of these very different cities, and as a consequence, public life in both Boston and New York was conducted in a way that allowed most people in both cities to be happy.

In general, the political handling of controversial religious and moral issues in the United States prior to World War II was a triumph of reasoned experience over abstract dogmatism. Unfortunately, since around 1950, it is abstract dogmatism that has triumphed over reasoned experience in American public life. As everyone knows, this unwarranted and unfortunate reversal has provoked a constitutional crisis where there had never been one before. And much as I regret to say this, the sad fact is that American Jews have played a very important role—in some ways a crucial role—in creating this crisis.

It is a fairly extraordinary story when one stops to think about it. In the decades after World War II, as anti-Semitism declined precipitously, and as Jews moved massively into the mainstream of American life, the official Jewish organizations took advantage of these new circumstances to prosecute an aggressive campaign against any public recognition, however slight, of the fact that most Americans are Christian. It is not that the leaders of the Jewish organizations were anti-religious. Most of the Jewish advocates of a secularized “public square” were themselves members of Jewish congregations. They believed, in all sincerity, that religion should be the private affair of the individual. Religion belonged in the home, in the church and synagogue, and nowhere else. And they believed in this despite the fact that no society in history has ever acceded to the complete privatization of a religion embraced by the overwhelming majority of its members. The truth, of course, is that there is no way that religion can be obliterated from public life when 95 percent of the population is Christian. There is no way of preventing the Christian holidays, for instance, from spilling over into public life. But again, before World War II, there were practically no Jews who cared about such things. I went to a public school, where the children sang carols at Christmastime. Even among those Jews who sang them, I never knew a single one who was drawn to the practice of Christianity by them. Sometimes, the schools sponsored Nativity plays, and the response of the Jews was simply not to participate in them. There was no public “issue” until the American Civil Liberties Union—which is financed primarily by Jews—arrived on the scene with the discovery that Christmas carols and pageants were a violation of the Constitution. As a matter of fact, our Jewish population in the United States believed in this so passionately that when the Supreme Court, having been prodded by the aclu, ruled it unconstitutional for the Ten Commandments to be displayed in a public school, the Jewish organizations found this ruling unobjectionable. People who wanted their children to know about the Ten Commandments could send their children to heder.

Since there was a powerful secularizing trend among American Christians after World War II, there was far less outrage over all this than one might have anticipated. The Jewish campaign against any suggestion that America was a Christian nation won one battle after another; eventually it made sufficient headway in the media and the legal profession—most importantly on the Supreme Court—that today there is widespread popular acceptance of the belief that this kind of secularism, which is tolerant of religion only so long as it is practiced privately and very discreetly, was indigenously and authoritatively “American,” and had always been so. Of course, it has not always been so, and Americans have always thought of themselves as a Christian nation—one with a secular government, which was equally tolerant of all religions so long as they were congruent with traditional Judeo-Christian morality. But equal toleration under the law never meant perfect equality of status in fact. Christianity is not the legally established religion in the United States, but it is established informally, nevertheless. And in the past forty years, this informal establishment in American society has grown more secure, even as the legal position of religion in public life has been attenuated. In this respect, the United States differs markedly from the democracies of Western Europe, where religion continues steadily to decline and is regarded as an anachronism grudgingly tolerated. In the United States, religion is more popular today than it was in the 1960s, and its influence is growing, so the difference between the United States and Europe becomes more evident with every passing year. Europeans are baffled and a little frightened by the religious revival in America, while Americans take the continuing decline of religion in Europe as just another symptom of European decadence.

And even as the Christian revival in the United States gathers strength, the Jewish community is experiencing a modest religious revival of its own. Alarmed by a rate of intermarriage approaching 50 percent, the money and energy that used to go into fighting anti-Semitism, or Israel Bonds, is now being channeled into Jewish education. Jewish day schools have become more popular, and the ritual in both Reform and Conservative synagogues has become more traditional. But this Jewish revival does not prevent American Jews from being intensely and automatically hostile to the concurrent Christian revival. It is fair to say that American Jews wish to be more Jewish while at the same time being frightened at the prospect of American Christians becoming more Christian. It is also fair to say that American Jews see nothing odd in this attitude. Intoxicated with their economic, political and judicial success over the past half-century, American Jews seem to have no reluctance in expressing their vision of an ideal America: A country where Christians are purely nominal, if that, in their Christianity, while they want the Jews to remain a flourishing religious community. One can easily understand the attractiveness of this vision to Jews. What is less easy to understand is the chutzpah of American Jews in publicly embracing this dual vision. Such arrogance is, I would suggest, a peculiarly Jewish form of political stupidity.For the time being, American Jews are getting away with this arrogance. Indeed, American Christians—and most especially the rising Evangelical movements—are extraordinarily tolerant, if more than a little puzzled, by this novel Jewish posture. And the lack of any negative Christian reaction has only encouraged American Jews in the belief that they have discovered some kind of universally applicable formula for dealing with non-Jews. One can see this in the way many American Jews have taken to speaking about Israeli foreign policy in recent years. After all, why should getting along with believing Moslems be different from getting along with non-believing Christians? Many Jews honestly do not appreciate the difference, and therefore assume that if there is no peace in the Middle East, Israeli Jews must be doing something wrong.

With the exception of a few quotations from the Prophets, there is nothing in the Jewish tradition that prepares Jews to think politically about foreign policy. It is not surprising, therefore, that Europe’s Jews were so vulnerable to the universalist utopianism that characterized the Enlightenment, whose essence is the attempt to make do with abstract theories of universal rights and international laws, in precisely those areas in which a people most desperately needs the practical experience of statesmanship and the political wisdom which at great length grows out of it. This political utopianism has left the Jews intellectually disarmed as they attempt to deal with the intractable foreign policy problems of an independent Jewish state, and charging down a blind alley in their search for constitutional arrangements that serve the Jewish interest in both the United States and Israel.



http://www.jewishagency.org/JewishAgency/English/Jewish+Education/Educational+Resources/More+Educational+Resources/Azure/8/8-kristol.html.htm

Mormons Charged With Terror Plot!

Sorry, I couldn't find any Mormon, Jewish, Buddhist or Hindu terror plots. But, the religion of peace has been quite busy lately with terror plots in Boston, New York Colorado, Texas and our very own Chicago. These upstanding citizens allegedly planned to visit Denmark to kill a blasphemous cartoonist and undertake other terrorist attacks. Of course the majority of Moslem immigrants are good, law abiding citizens, but perhaps it wouldn't hurt to better screen immigrants coming from countries with high rates of terrorism. And (close your eyes champeons of diversity) perhaps we should even seek immigrants from nations and cultures that are better able to assimilate to American cultural norms like: it's not nice to blow up buildings and to behead cartoonists even if you don't like what they write.

Two Chicago Men Charged in Connection With Alleged Roles in Foreign Terror Plot That Focused on Targets in Denmark


CHICAGO, Oct. 27 /PR Newswire-USNewswire/ -- Two Chicago men have been arrested on federal charges for their alleged roles in conspiracies to provide material support and/or to commit terrorist acts against overseas targets, including facilities and employees of a Danish newspaper that published cartoons of theProphet Mohammed in 2005, federal law enforcement officials announced today. There was no imminent danger in the Chicago area, officials said, adding thatthe charges are unrelated to recent terror plot arrests in Boston, New York,Colorado, Texas and central Illinois.

The defendants charged in separate criminal complaints unsealed today in U.S.District Court in Chicago are David Coleman Headley, 49, and Tahawwur HussainRana, 48, also known as Tahawar Rana, announced Patrick J. Fitzgerald, U.S.Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, and Robert D. Grant, SpecialAgent-in-Charge of the Chicago Office of the FBI. The complaints remainedunder seal temporarily after the defendants' arrests, with court approval, soas not to compromise further investigative activity.

Headley, a U.S. citizen who changed his name from Daood Gilani in 2006 andresides primarily in Chicago, was arrested on Oct. 3, 2009, by the ChicagoFBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) at O'Hare International Airport beforeboarding a flight to Philadelphia, intending to travel on to Pakistan. He wascharged with one count of conspiracy to commit terrorist acts involving murderand maiming outside the United States and one count of conspiracy to provide material support to that overseas terrorism conspiracy.

Rana, a native of Pakistan and citizen of Canada who also primarily resides inChicago, was arrested on Oct. 18, 2009, at his home by federal agents. Ranais the owner of several businesses, including First World ImmigrationServices, which has offices on Devon Avenue in Chicago, as well as in New Yorkand Toronto. He was charged with one count of conspiracy to provide materialsupport to a foreign terrorism conspiracy that involved Headley and at leastthree other specific individuals in Pakistan.

Both men have been held in federal custody since each was arrested. Ifconvicted, Headley faces a maximum sentence of life imprisonment forconspiracy to murder or maim persons abroad, while Headley and Rana each facea maximum of 15 years in prison for conspiracy to provide material support to terrorism.

On Oct. 18, 2009, JTTF agents executed search warrants in connection with theinvestigation at four locations: Headley's and Rana's residences on the northside of Chicago, Rana's immigration business in Chicago, and a farm he owns inKinsman, Ill., approximately 80 miles southwest of Chicago, which is used toprovide halal meat for Muslim customers, as well as a grocery store in Chicago.

According to both complaints, since at least late 2008 until Oct. 3, 2009, aspart of the conspiracy to murder and maim persons abroad, Headley allegedlyidentified and conducted surveillance of potential targets of a terroristattack in Denmark on two separate trips to Denmark in January and July 2009,and reported and attempted to report on his efforts to other conspirators inPakistan. As part of the conspiracy to provide material support to terrorism,Rana allegedly helped arrange Headley's travels overseas and conceal theirtrue nature and purpose to surveil potential terror targets overseas, anddiscussed potential targets for attack with Headley.

Headley allegedly reported and attempted to report on his overseassurveillance to other conspirators, according to the affidavits, including:

--Ilyas Kashmiri, identified as the operational chief of the Azad Kashmir section of Harakat-ul Jihad Islami (HUJI), a Pakistani-based terrorist organization with links to al Qaeda. Kashmiri, who is presently believed to be in Waziristan in the Federally Administered Triba Area(FATA)
region in northwestern Pakistan, issued a statement this month that he was alive and working with al Qaeda;

--"Individual A" (who is identified as Individual A in the Headley affidavit and as Individual B in the Rana affidavit), who isassociated with Kashmiri, as well as with Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), another Pakistani-based terrorist organization;

--an individual identified as "Lashkar-e-Taiba Member A" (LeT Member A), who has substantial influence and responsibility within theorganization and whose identity is known to the government.

"The public should be reassured that there was no imminent danger in theChicago area. However, law enforcement has the duty to be vigilant to guardagainst not just those who would carry out attacks here on our soil but thosewho plot on our soil to help carry out violent attacks overseas. I wish toexpress my deep appreciation to the FBI agents and other members of the Joint Terrorism Task Force for their extremely hard work on this matter," said Mr.Fitzgerald.

"The criminal complaints unsealed today have exposed a serious plot againstoverseas targets by two Chicago-based men working with Pakistani-basedterrorist organizations. Information developed during this investigation wasshared with our foreign partners as we worked together to mitigate thesethreats. This case is a reminder that the threat posed by internationalterrorist organizations is global in nature and requires constant vigilance athome and abroad," said David Kris, Assistant Attorney General for National Security.

"This investigation demonstrates the well-established relationships that wehave with our law enforcement partners, both foreign and domestic. We workclosely with state, local and federal law enforcement agencies in the UnitedStates, as well as with our overseas partners, to identify and disrupt threatshere and abroad," said Mr. Grant.

According to the affidavits in both cases, Headley at times has claimed to bea consultant with or representative of Rana's business, First WorldImmigration Services, but appears to perform little if any actual work for thebusiness. In addition, Headley's apartment in Chicago is leased to anindividual who is deceased. Despite his apparent lack of financial resourcesand substantial employment, Headley has traveled extensively since the secondhalf of 2008, including multiple trips to Pakistan and various countries inEurope. Postings to an internet group for graduates of a military school inthe Pakistani town of Hasan Abdal (a group that refers to itself as"abdalians"), reflect that both Rana and Headley have participated in thegroup and referred to their attendance at that school.

The Denmark ProjectBeginning in late 2008, Headley corresponded extensively with Individual A andLeT Member A regarding what they referred to in coded communications as the"Mickey Mouse Project," "mmp," and "the northern project," according to theaffidavit. The Mickey Mouse Project allegedly involved planning for one ormore attacks at facilities and employees of Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten, a Danish newspaper that in 2005 published cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed, to which many Muslims took great offense. In October 2008, Headleyallegedly posted a message to the "abdalians" internet discussion groupstating that "I feel disposed towards violence for the offending parties,"referring to the Danish cartoonists and others who he identified "as making fun of Islam."

Using coded language, Rana, Headley, Individual A and LeT Member A allegedlyhave referred to this plot, as well as discussions of other targets, as"investments," "projects," "business," and "action," and have described theirhopes for success both in terms of receiving religious awards, as well asgetting "rich," "richer," and making "profit." Between August 2008 and Dec.7, 2008, Headley sent multiple email messages from internet addresses locatedin Karachi and Lahore in Pakistan, the charges allege. On Dec. 7, 2008, justbefore traveling from Pakistan to the United States that same day, Headleyallegedly used one of multiple email accounts to store a detailed list ofitems for himself, which he titled "Mickey Mouse." Included on the list(contained in the affidavits) were the following items:

-- Route Design (train, bus, air)
-- Cross (Cover Authenticator)
-- Trade? Immigration?
-- Ad? (Lost Luggage) (Business) (Entry?)
-- Kings Square (French Embassy)
-- Counter surveillance (magic eye)
-- Security (armed)?

In January 2009, Headley traveled to Copenhagen, Denmark, and Rana allegedlyarranged portions of his travel. During the trip, Headley allegedly visitedtwo different offices of the Jyllands-Posten -- in Copenhagen and Arhus,Denmark. The Copenhagen office is located in Kings Square near the FrenchEmbassy. Headley falsely told Jyllands-Posten employees that he was visitingon behalf of First World Immigration Services, which he said was consideringopening offices in Denmark and might be interested in advertising the businessin the newspaper. While in Denmark, Headley instructed Rana to be alert foran email from a Jyllands-Posten sales representative, and to ask First World'sToronto and New York offices to "remember me," in case a newspaperrepresentative called. According to the complaints, Rana corresponded fromChicago with a representative of the Jyllands-Posten by email in which hepretended to be Headley.

After visiting Denmark, Headley traveled to Pakistan to meet with IndividualA. During this visit, Headley traveled with Individual A to Pakistan's FATAregion and met with Kashmiri. Before returning to Chicago in June 2009,Headley sent his will to Rana and Rana responded by sending a coded messageestablishing a new email account, the complaint alleges.

In July and August 2009, Headley exchanged a series of emails with LeT MemberA, including an exchange in which Headley asked if the Denmark project was onhold, and whether a visit to India that LeT Member A had asked him toundertake was for the purpose of surveilling targets for a new terroristattack. These emails reflect that LeT Member A was placing a higher priorityon using Headley to assist in planning a new attack in India than oncompleting the planned attack in Denmark. After this time, Headley andIndividual A allegedly continued focusing on the plan with Kashmiri to attackthe newspaper, rather than working with LeT, the complaint alleges.

In late July 2009, Headley traveled again to Copenhagen and to other locationsin Europe, and Rana again arranged portions of his travel. When Headleyreturned to the United States, he falsely told border inspectors that he wastraveling on business as a representative of First World Immigration, althoughhis luggage contained no papers or other documents relating to First World.

After returning to Chicago in August 2009, Headley allegedly used codedlanguage to repeatedly inquire if Individual A had been in touch with Kashmiriregarding planning for the attack, and expressing concern that Individual A'scommunications with Kashmiri had been cut off. In early September 2009,Headley and Rana took a lengthy car ride during which they discussed theactivities of the other individuals, including past terrorist acts, andHeadley discussed with Rana five actions involving targets that expresslyincluded "Denmark." In conversations with Rana and Individual A in August andSeptember 2009, Headley indicated that if the "doctor" (alleged to be areference to Kashmiri) and his people were unable to assist, then Headleywould perform the planned operation himself.

In September 2009, after initial press reports indicated that Kashmiri hadbeen killed in a drone attack in Pakistan, Headley and Individual A allegedlyhad a series of coded conversations in which they discussed the reports ofKashmiri's death and what it meant for the projects they were planning. Individual A sought to reassure and encourage Headley, telling him, amongother things, that "[t]his is business sir; these types of things happen." OnSept. 20, 2009, Headley allegedly told a family member words to the effectthat he had spoken to Rana and they agreed that "business must go on."

In a Sept. 21, 2009, telephone conversation, Individual A indicated to Headleythat Kashmiri was alive and "doing well." In a subsequent conversation onSept. 30, 2009, Individual A again assured Headley that Kashmiri, whom hereferred to as "Pir Sahib," was "absolutely all right" and had not gotten"married," which was code for being killed. Headley asked Individual A if itwas possible to now have a meeting with Kashmiri and Individual A respondedthat Kashmiri "just today, was asking about you" (Headley).

According to the affidavit, Headley stated in conversations last month that heintended to travel to Pakistan in early October to meet with Individual A andKashmiri, and he was arrested on Oct. 3 as he prepared to board a flight fromChicago to Philadelphia, intending to travel on to Pakistan. During a searchof Headley's luggage, a memory stick was recovered that containedapproximately 10 short videos of Copenhagen, including video focused on theJyllands-Posten building in King's Square taken both during the day and night,as well as a nearby Danish military barracks and the exterior and interior ofCopenhagen's central train station, consistent with the checklist he storedwhich mentioned "route design." In addition, Headley had an airlinereservation, allegedly made by Rana, to fly from Atlanta to Copenhagen on Oct.29, 2009.

The investigation is continuing and is being conducted by the Chicago FBIJoint Terrorism Task Force, with particular assistance from the Chicago PoliceDepartment, the Illinois State Police and the Department of Homeland Security.

The prosecution is being handled by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Daniel Collinsand Vicki Peters from the Northern District of Illinois, with assistance fromthe Counterterrorism Section of the Justice Department's National SecurityDivision.

The public is reminded that a criminal complaint contains mere allegationsthat are not evidence of guilt. The defendants are presumed innocent and areentitled to a fair trial at which the government has the burden of provingguilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS184911+27-Oct-2009+PRN20091027

Avert Thy Glance! (part II)

I acknowledge that this is not a simple black-and-white issue and both sides have legitimate points, but Mr. Buono and other individuals who initiate cases to remove religious symbols from public spaces strike me far less as being defenders of liberty and more as bullies seeking to impose their will on others.

Mr. Buono should have considered the federal government's transference of a small strip of land to the veteran's group as a reasonable compromise and pursued two commandments that are essential in a republic: whenever possible, thou shalt live and let live and when conflicts arise, ye shall seek compromise.

The continued presence of the cross in a distant desert should be less traumatic to Mr. Buono that its removal would be to the veteran's who have care for it for over half a century.

If Mr. Buono does win this be a Pyrrhic victory for the forces of aggressive secularism; they will achieve their immediate end, but they will energize and perhaps even radicalize segments of America's largely religious population. Laws should not simply conform to the public's every whim, but if they become too distant from the general values of the society at large, they risk undermining respect and allegiance to the law.

Avert Thy Glance!

Avery Thy Glance Lest Ye Be Offended By This Pernicious Cross!

Interesting Supreme Court case that reveals many underlying tensions within the United States. Frank Buono with the assistance of the ACLU is suing to have a veteran's memorial cross removed from federal land in the Mojave Desert.

One seemingly small, but very important detail is that Mr. Buono went to court to block a reasonable compromise - the federal government would transfer the tiny strip of land to the veteran's organization, so that technically the cross wasn't on federal land. Mr. Buono's and the ACLU's rejection of this compromise leads to believe that beneath the legal arguments lies a larger, underlying issue - the clash between a relatively small minority who are hostile to America's Judeo-Christian foundation and the majority who seek to uphold it. Interestingly many "progressives" in the field of education who are hostile to any expression of Christianity, yet they actively encourage the expression of islam and other faiths in the name of multi-culturalism, which further support my suspicions about the real intentions of these individuals.

Perhaps I would have more respect for them if they removed the facade of legal discourse and openly openly present their anti-religion agenda in the marketplace of ideas. Those familiar with the beliefs and behaviors of the founding fathers will be aware that the purpose of the establishment clause was not the removal of expressions of faith from public life, rather they sought to prevent the state from establishing an official church and from preventing Americans from the free exercise of their faith. The vacuous legal arguments of the ACLU in this case and many others do not represent honest attempts to interpret and apply the law, rather they seek to circumvent the marketplace of ideas and the court of public opinion, two arenas that they know that they will never win in.

Another interesting issue that this raises is the role of the individual and community in public life. In certain ways the power of the individual has decreased, while simultaneously being exalted and expanded far beyond anything that the founding father's envisioned. A lone, offended individual armed with a good lawyer can use the legal system to enforce their will against the majority of a community. The idea that an individual's right to not feel offended trumps a communities right of self expression is the worst example of the aggrandized sense of entitlement that is plaguing public life in the United States.

In one case LA County removed a cross from its official seal, against the wishes of 94% of its residents because of a fear of a lawsuit. Such actions further exacerbate the growing divide between America's increasingly secular elite and a largely religious populace. Regardless of where our sympathies lie, having a small minority aggressively impose policies that go against the will of the majority does not bode well for domestic peace and unity in our republic.

The ACLU’s Real Agenda in the Mojave Desert

by Robert Knight

Where is Art Carney when you need him?

The straight man for the classic Honeymooners TV show could deliver a line sorely needed at today's Supreme Court hearing on the fate of the Mojave Desert war memorial cross: “Simmer down, Ralphie boy!”

In this case, Ralphie is Frank Buono, a man who has gone to absurd lengths to find offense. In fact, it’s reminiscent of the false knock on the Puritans that they above all else feared that someone, somewhere was having a good time. In Frankie's case, he apparently fears that someone, somewhere might take comfort in a cross erected to honor America’s fallen heroes.

Where is Art Carney when you need him?

The straight man for the classic Honeymooners TV show could deliver a line sorely needed at today's Supreme Court hearing on the fate of the Mojave Desert war memorial cross: “Simmer down, Ralphie boy!”

In this case, Ralphie is Frank Buono, a man who has gone to absurd lengths to find offense. In fact, it’s reminiscent of the false knock on the Puritans that they above all else feared that someone, somewhere was having a good time. In Frankie's case, he apparently fears that someone, somewhere might take comfort in a cross erected to honor America’s fallen heroes.
At issue in Salazar v. Buono is the five-foot-tall (estimates vary) cross that is the latest in a series of crosses erected on Sunrise Rock since 1934 in California’s Mojave National Preserve. The original was built by World War I veterans with the Veterans of Foreign Wars who had gone to the desert for their health and decided to honor their fallen comrades and the rest of America’s war dead by erecting a wooden cross. The current one, made of pipe, was built in 1998 by a local resident, Henry Sandoz. The cross is in a remote region seen by few. But one of those is Buono, a former Park Service employee and ACLU member who told the ACLU that although he moved to Oregon, he comes down and sees the cross “two to four times a year.” That was enough for the ACLU to file a lawsuit in 2001 demanding that the National Park Service tear down the cross.

A quick comparison. In Berlin, Ronald Reagan thrilled millions by saying “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” The ACLU, on the other hand, squeals loudly, “Courts, tear down this cross!” Whose country would you rather live in?

In 2004, Congress passed laws designating the site as a national war memorial and swapping the land on which the cross stands for some privately owned acreage. But Mr. Buono, whose complaint was that a cross on taxpayer-owned federal land violated his First Amendment right against establishment of religion, filed an injunction halting the transfer. He claims that he’s an injured party although the government gave him relief on his original request: “Stop saying ‘yes’ to my demands, or I’ll sue!” Naturally, the wacky Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco found merit in his argument, bringing us to the Oct. 7 hearing before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Park officials years ago covered the cross in canvas lest the sight of it burn Mr. Buono’s eyes on one of his strolls. After some patriot tore off the canvas, the cross was covered in a plywood box. Could there be a more apt symbol of what the ACLU wants to do to religion in this country?

C.S. Lewis once remarked that the agenda of the Left is to make pornography public and religion private, a goal clearly reflected in the ACLU’s endless string of nuisance cases. They’ve gained a lot of ground. While America is awash in Internet porn and ever-more coarse trash on TV, an obscure cross honoring our war dead gets hammered into a box.

In June, the American Civil Rights Union (ACRU), an antidote to the ACLU, filed an amicus brief that says Mr. Buono has no standing in this case because he is claiming injury based on his own injunction that has foiled the relief that he had sought.

The brief by ACRU attorneys Peter Ferrara and Ken Klukowski observes that,

“It is therefore not an end to taxpayer support for the cross that Mr. Buono seeks, but rather to employ judicial power to compel the executive branch to destroy this war memorial. Standing doctrine should not be construed to empower plaintiffs to use the courts to convert the executive branch into a demolition crew that levels crosses to the ground.”

The VFW and many other groups also have submitted briefs in defense of the cross. There is much at stake. An ACLU victory could imperil crosses and Stars of David on the graves of soldiers in 22 war memorial cemeteries and encourage the ACLU to look for yet more targets. They are still trying to tear down the 29-foot Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial Cross near San Diego. In recent years, they’ve sued to have religious symbols removed from the seals of Stow, Ohio; Redlands, California; Duluth, Minnesota; Plattsmouth, Nebraska, and Republic, Missouri. In Los Angeles, the mere threat of an ACLU lawsuit motivated the County Board of Supervisors to vote to remove a cross from the county seal in 2004 despite the wishes of 94 percent of the residents.

This past week, the Pentagon reported that eight more American soldiers were killed in Afghanistan. They paid the ultimate price defending freedom and America’s security.

What do you think their fathers, mothers, wives and children would say if they came upon that cross covered up in a box?

http://townhall.com/columnists/RobertKnight/2009/10/07/the_aclu%E2%80%99s_real_agenda_in_the_mojave_desert?page=1

Separation of Church & State...

Does it constitute a violation of Separation of Church & State when public school students worship the anointed one?

All joking aside, I am hoping my "progressive" compatriots will find this a disturbing example of indoctrination in public schools.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zrsl8o4ZPo

The Great Dilemma (part III)

The leftists who have mercilessly hammered away at religion and tradition in Europe and the United States are correct that the said phenomena have had some negative consequences. But, they have failed to ask some very important questions:

1. Does man and society have the need for beliefs and traditions that transcend the individual?

2. Can a society optimally function without shared values and beliefs and conversely, what are the prospects of a society driven by moral relativism and individual philosophies?

3. Perhaps educated elevated individuals can function in the vacuum of cultural relativism, but how does the absence of shared values and traditions effect the mass of people who lack the education or desire to create their own viable, individual moral philosophy?

4. If you doubt the importance of values in determining behavior, tell us - why do some poor and hungry people maintain high levels of conduct, while some wealthy individuals continue to steal from their fellow man?

5. Shared values, traditions and institutions have served to govern the behavior of many individuals and communities. Tocqueville believe that the unique combination of domestic tranquility and limited government found in the United States was a distinct product of the power of religious values and institutions in America.

So, could it be said that the price we are paying for our "liberation" from less coercive traditional values and institutions is the growth of coercive state authority?

6. Is it by coincidence that the most horrific violence of the last century was propagated by regimes (communist & nazis) that sought to overturn the Judeo-Christian foundation of their societies?

7. The manner in which many individuals have pursued communism, anti-racism, environmentalism, consumerism etc. have had a distinct religious impulse. Does this imply that perhaps man is born with a religious impulse? If not expressed through traditional religion, will it will be channeled through any number of

The Great Dilemma

For those who slavishly adhere to a single good and completely disregard other goods, the world is a simple place with few dilemmas. But, for those who acknowledge that life involves a painful compromise between competing values, clear cut answers are few and tough dilemmas are many. For me, no other issue poses such a great dilemma as gay marriage.

I have some very wonderful gay friends who are involved in loving, long-term monogamous relationships, so I am sympathetic towards gay marriage. These sentiments are strengthened by the tremendous value I place on individual freedom.

The right of self governance is an essential good in a democratic society. In other words, even when we do not necessarily agree with the positions of a community, we should respect their right to govern themselves according to their values and visions and resolve their own internal disputes. And in a democracy having a federal government or a court system that is too quick to impose its will on local communities is not healthy. Although we may be happy when the federal government imposes our values on others, we surely will not be happy when the values of others are imposed on our community, hence the need for a government that treads cautiously when intervening in local affairs.

My well informed critics will correctly point out that the rights of self governance stop when a community usurps the constitutionally guaranteed rights of an individual. The best example being the illegitimate suppression of voting rights of African-Americans in many southern communities.

So, the question we must ask is if not allowing gay marriage is a violating of constitutional rights? I would start by making a careful distinction between individual sphere and the communal sphere. That which lies in the private, individual sphere and does not infringe on the rights of other members of the community, constitute inalienable personal rights. For example, any law that limited the rights of gays to pursue their relationship would be grossly unjust and unconstitutional. And in my opinion, it would also be unconstitutional to deny gay couples the right to have the same tax, insurance and inheritance benefits that straight couples enjoy. Although this would be abhorrent to religious communities, it would in no way infringe on their rights.

On the other hand, marriage goes beyond the private realm. When a community or state permits a certain form of marriage, it implies that it officially sanctions and supports it. It implies that the relationship is in accordance with the fundamental values and beliefs of that community. For example, I have never met anyone would consider it a crime for a man to share the same house with and engage in a polygamous relationship with 3 women. But, few if any "progressives"or conservatives would legalize polygamous marriage. Why? Because although they can permit behavior that they find pathological or immoral, they will not sanction or support that relationship by enshrining it in marriage. To do so would negate the existence of the shared values and visions that bind that community.

The most reasonably position is to allow each community decide. A federal government that prevents communities from exercising their right to accept or to decline gay marriage will surely result in greater social tension and a further erosion of civic and community involvement. If the majority of a community is not permitted to form laws and institutions that reflect their values and beliefs, that community will either become passive and withdrawn or highly defiant. Some will complain that this will divide the nation. I say that for good or for bad, we are already seeing the accelerated growth of two social spheres in America: the secular-relativist and the religious-traditionalist. Allowing for local communities to determine their policies on gay marriage is far from a perfect solution, but it is one that will ensure a peaceful co-existence between the two Americas. Rather than call on courts to impose values that go against the beliefs and values of the majority of their fellow community members, "intolerant rednecks" and "G-dless liberals" can move to communities that better reflect their values. This may sound radical, but it is already happening. I have met many secular liberals have moved from traditional regions of the south and Midwest to large, liberal cities like Chicago and LA. And equally, I have met many traditional families that have moved from large cities to suburbs or ever exurbs where their values predominate.

Closing thoughts: One important underlying element in the debate on gay marriage is that its acceptance would be a cause or perhaps more accurately, a symptom of the final divorce of western values and laws from their Judeo-Christian foundation. Regardless of your opinion of Judaism or Christianity, it is a fact that they have been a core element of western civilization for nearly 2,000 years. And more importantly, for all the flaws that they may have, I do not see any viable alternatives.

I am extremely skeptical about the chances for success of a society with no shared, transcendental values other than tolerance, relativism and radical individualism. I am skeptical of the power of reason and individual philosophy to fill the moral and spiritual vacuum that "enlightened" individuals experience when shared religion and traditions disappear. Prosperous, educated individuals and communities may be able to use reason to forge a semblance of peace in this vacuum. But, the destination for the most individuals and communities who have left St. Peter (tradition), but do not have the means or desire to find Plato (reason) is disaster.

Vampires of America Thank Obama...

Damien Dracul, Chairman of the National Association for the Advancement of Vampire People thanked President Obama for covering up Christian symbols during his recent speech at Georgetown University. "We are glad that we find common ground in our rejection of Christian symbols. The beauty of diversity is that even in different traditions you can find shared values; whereas we suck the blood from living beings, the interventionist state sucks the blood from the productive economy..."

Georgetown University Hid Religious Symbols at White House Request
Georgetown University, a Catholic institution, covered up religious insignia symbolizing the name of Jesus during President Obama's address there Tuesday after the White House requested the change.

Georgetown University hid a religious inscription representing the name of Jesus during President Obama's address there Tuesday, FOXNews.com has confirmed, because White House staff asked the school to cover up all religious symbols and signs while the president was on stage.

The monogram IHS, whose letters spell out the name of Jesus, and which normally perches above the stage in Gaston Hall where the president spoke, was covered over with what appeared to be black wood during the address.

"In coordinating the logistical arrangements for the event, Georgetown honored the White House staff's request to cover all of the Georgetown University signage and symbols behind the Gaston Hall stage," university spokesman Andy Pino told FOXNews.com.

The White House said that the backdrop, which included blue drapes and a host of American flags, was standard during policy speeches and other events.

"Decisions made about the backdrop for the speech were made to have a consistent background of American flags, which is standard for many presidential events," said White House spokesman Shin Inouye in a statement released Thursday.

Georgetown is a private Catholic institution founded by Jesuits in 1789. The auditorium where the president spoke Tuesday is adorned with religious imagery, but only the symbols directly on the stage -- those likely to be picked up by a television camera -- were obscured.

Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League, accused the university of "cowardice" for acceding to the White House, and criticized Obama's team for asking a religious school to "neuter itself" before the president made his address.

"No bishop who might speak at the White House would ever request that a crucifix be displayed behind him," he said.

The White House insisted that the move was made only to provide a proper setting for the speech -- and said that "any suggestions to the contrary are simply false."

Though his advance team asked that the religious signs be veiled, the president himself took up religious discourse and discussed a passage from Jesus' Sermon on the Mount as he outlined his plans for an economic recovery.

"We cannot rebuild this economy on the same pile of sand," he said during his remarks, which came two days after Easter. "We must build our house upon a rock."

It was Obama's first visit to Georgetown since being elected president, but he also spoke at the school on Sept. 20, 2006 about the need for energy independence. A photograph of the event does not seem to indicate that parts of the stage were hidden during that address, which Obama made while still a U.S. senator



Another Catholic university, Notre Dame, came under fire in late March for inviting the president to speak at its May 17 commencement. Obama supports abortion rights, which are considered anathema by the Catholic Church.

Happy Pesach & Happy Easter!

I would like to wish my Jewish readers a Happy Pesach and my Christian readers a Happy Easter. The themes of freedom and rebirth are more relevant than ever to our great nation.

Buy this man some Tocqueville! (Part II)

If after reading the works of Alexis De Tocqueville Mr. Obama refused to acknowledge the essential role that Judeo-Christian values and civilization played in the foundation and success of our great American Republic, I recommend that he read up on the founding fathers and the tremendous role that Christianity played in their vision:

The great American patriot and revolutionary Patrick Henry wrote: It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.

In 1772 Samuel Adams stated: The right to freedom being the gift of the Almighty...The rights of the colonists as Christians...may be best understood by reading and carefully studying the institutions of The Great Law Giver and Head of the Christian Church, which are to be found clearly written and promulgated in the New Testament

James Madison wrote: Religion is the basis and foundation of government...We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government; upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.


In 1778 Benjamin Franklin wrote: A Bible and a newspaper in every house, a good school in every district -- all studied and appreciated as they merit -- are the principal support of virtue, morality, and civil liberty.

Benjamin Franklin explicitly tied America's prosperity to divine blessings in the following statement: And the Divine Being seems to have manifested his approbation of the mutual forbearance and kindness with which the different sects treat each other; by the remarkable prosperity with which he has been pleased to favor the whole country.

Alexander Hamilton wrote: I now offer you the outline of the plan they have suggested. Let an association be formed to be denominated 'The Christian Constitutional Society,' its object to be First: The support of the Christian religion. Second: The support of the United States.


Thomas Jefferson possessed strong reservations about organized religion, but professed a strong attraction to Christianity, as seen in the following statement: My views...are the result of a life of inquiry and reflection, and very different from the anti-Christian system imputed to me by those who know nothing of my opinions. To the corruptions of Christianity I am, indeed, opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian in the only sense in which He wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines in preference to all others...

Later presidents such as Abraham Lincoln were strong proponents of Christianity's role in the American Republic, as seen from this excerpt from a speech delivered on March 30, 1863: Whereas, the Senate of the United States devoutly recognizing the Supreme Authority and just Government of Almighty God in all the affairs of men and of nations, has, by a resolution, requested the President to designate and set apart a day for national prayer and humiliation:

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/cdf/onug/index.html

Buy this man some Tocqueville! (Part I)

During a recent visit to Turkey, Obama stated "One of the great strengths of the United States is that while we have a very large Christian population, we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or or a Jewish Nation or a Muslim Nation, we consider a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values..."

Yes, Mr. Obama was correct in his assertion that we are a diverse nation of many faiths, in which there is a separation of church and state, but the subtext of his statement was to downplay the essential Judeo-Christian foundation of the United States as most "progressives" do.

Evidently Mr. Obama has not read up the works of the great French writer Alexis De Tocqueville. If he had, he would have stated something along the lines of "yes, we are a diverse nation of many faiths, but the core values that bind us and ensure the success of our great republic are distinct products of Judeo-Christian values and culture. Although many individual Moslems, Hindus and atheists have greatly contributed to our country, it is self evident that if the United States would not have achieved its unparalleled level of freedom, peace and prosperity if it had been founded on Moslem, Hindu or Atheist values. Only in the context of Western, Judeo-Christian culture were these individual Moslems, Hindus and atheists able to achieve and enjoy life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness..."

After spending several years exploring the United States, Tocqueville wrote about the essential role that Judeo-Christian values played in the American Republic. Not only did Tocqueville believe that Republican values were intimately connected to Christianity , but also that a key element in the unparalleled success of the American Republic was the strong Christian mores that permeated private and public life alike.

Here are but a few quotes in which Tocqueville expresses these sentiments:

Upon my arrival in the United States the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention; and the longer I stayed there, the more I perceived the great political consequences resulting from this new state of things.

In France I had almost always seen the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom marching in opposite directions. But in America I found they were intimately united and that they reigned in common over the same country.

Religion in America...must be regarded as the foremost of the political institutions of that country; for if it does not impart a taste for freedom, it facilitates the use of it. Indeed, it is in this same point of view that the inhabitants of the United States themselves look upon religious belief.

I do not know whether all Americans have a sincere faith in their religion -- for who can search the human heart? But I am certain that they hold it to be indispensable to the maintenance of republican institutions. This opinion is not peculiar to a class of citizens or a party, but it belongs to the whole nation and to every rank of society.

In the United States, the sovereign authority is religious...there is no country in the world where the Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in America, and there can be no greater proof of its utility and of its conformity to human nature than that its influence is powerfully felt over the most enlightened and free nation of the earth.
In the United States, the influence of religion is not confined to the manners, but it extends to the intelligence of the people...

Christianity, therefore, reigns without obstacle, by universal consent...
I sought for the key to the greatness and genius of America in her harbors...; in her fertile fields and boundless forests; in her rich mines and vast world commerce; in her public school system and institutions of learning. I sought for it in her democratic Congress and in her matchless Constitution.

Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits flame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power.

America is great because America is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.

The safeguard of morality is religion, and morality is the best security of law as well as the surest pledge of freedom.

The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and of liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other

Christianity is the companion of liberty in all its conflicts -- the cradle of its infancy, and the divine source of its claims.

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/cdf/onug/detocq.html

The Problem of Traditions by Russell Kirk

In 1956, the great conservative thinker Russell Kirk wrote an interesting essay that explored the vital importance the traditions holds, especially in a democratic society. Enclosed are some excerpts; if you would like to view the whole article, click on the link at the bottom of this post.

The Problem of Tradition by Russell Kirk*

In the following verse Kirk quotes from Christopher Dawson's book "Understanding Europe," in which he discusses the catastrophic violence that the swept Europe via nazism and communism, two movements that were rabidly hostile to Europe's Judeo-Christian spiritual traditions.

Indeed the catastrophes of the last thirty years are not only a sign of the bankruptcy of secular humanism, they also go to show that a completely secularized civilization is inhuman in the absolute sense-hostile to human life and irreconcilable with human nature itself. For ... the forces of violence and aggressiveness that threaten to destroy our world are the direct result of the starvation and frustration of man's spiritual nature. For a time Western civilization managed to live on the normal tradition of the past, maintained by a kind of sublimated humanitarian idealism. But this was essentially a transitional phenomenon, and as humanism and humanitarianism fade away, we see societies more and more animated by the blind will to power which drives them on to destroy one another and ultimately themselves. Civilization can only be creative and life-giving in the proportion that it is spiritualized. Otherwise the increase of power inevitably increases its power for evil and its destructiveness.

I do not want our traditions to run out, because I do not believe that formal indoctrination, or pure rationality, or simple mutation of our contemporaries, can replace traditions. Traditions are the wisdom of the race; they are the only sure instruments of moral instruction; they have about them a solemnity and a mystery that Dr. Dryasdust the cultural anthropologist never can compensate for; and they teach us the solemn veneration of the eternal contract which cannot be imparted by pure reason. Even our political institutions are sustained principally by tradition, rather than by utilitarian expediency. A people who have exhausted their traditions are starved for imagination and devoid of any general assumptions to give coherence to their life.

Yet I do not say that tradition ought to be our only guide, nor that tradition is always beneficent. There have been ages and societies in which tradition, stifling the creative faculty among men, put an end to variety and change, and so oppressed mankind with the boredom of everlasting worship of the past. In a healthy nation, tradition must be balanced by some strong element of curiosity and individual dissent. Some people who today are conservatives because they protest against the tyranny of neoterism, in another age or nation would be radicals, because they could not endure the tyranny of tradition. It is a question of degree and balance. But I am writing of modern society, especially in the United States; and among us there is not the slightest danger that we shall be crushed beneath the dead weight of tradition; the danger is altogether on the other side. Our modern affliction is the flux of ceaseless change, the repudiation of all enduring values, the agonies of indecision and the social neuroses that come with a questioning of everything in heaven and earth. We are not in the plight of the old Egyptians or Peruvians; it is not prescription which enslaves us, but the lust for innovation. A young novelist, visiting George Santayana in his Roman convent in the last year of the philosopher's life, remarked that he could not endure to live in America, where everything was forever changing and shifting. Santayana replied, with urbane irony, that he supposed if it were not for kaleidoscopic change in America, life there would be unbearable. A people infatuated with novelty presently cannot bear to amble along; but the trouble with this is that the pace becomes vertiginous, and the laws of centifugal force begin to operate.

When tradition is dissipated, men do not respond to the old moral injunctions satisfactorily; and our circumstances and national character differing from Sweden's, I do not think we would experience the comparative good fortune to slip into an equalitarian boredom. The contract of eternal society forgotten, soon every lesser form of contract would lose its sanction. I say, then, that we need to shake out of their complacency the liberals who are smug in their conviction of the immortality of Liberal Democratic Folkways in the United States, and the conservatives who are smug in their conviction of the abiding superiority of the American Standard of Living. Political arrangements, and economic systems, rest upon the foundation of moral prejudices which find their expression in tradition.

Wherever human dignity is found, it is the product of a conviction that we are part of some great continuity and essence, which elevates us above the brutes; and wherever popular government is just and free, it is in consequence of a belief that there are standards superior to the interest of the hour and the will of a temporary majority. If these things are forgotten, then indeed the people will become despicable. The conservative, in endeavoring to restore a consciousness among men of the worth of tradition, is not acting in contempt of the masses; he is acting, instead, out of love for them, as human persons, and he is trying to preserve for them such a life as men should lead.

*As appeared in A Program for Conservatives (Washington, D.C.: Regnery, 1956).

http://www.acuf.org/principles/p_tradition.asp