So, is the media biased? Well, duh, but here are today's headlines from the websites. I chose the ones that are in regards to the Presidential election and how the parties fared in the House and Senate. You decide.
CNN
"We've Got More Work to Do"
Democrats Keep Control of Senate
GOP to Retain its Grip on the House
Fox
Four More Years
Congress Divided: GOP Wins House but Dems Fend Off Senate Challenges
NBC
Victorious Obama: "Best is Yet to Come"
Dems Keep Senate
GOP Hangs on to House
CBS
Four More Years
House Projected to Remain With Republicans
Senate to Stay With Democrats
ABC
Obama Wins
Dems Hold Senate Majority
GOP Keeps Control of House
I have to admit, that most of these headlines are pretty good and unbiased. I am not going to read all the stories to determine if the content itself is unbiased, but they did a pretty good job with the headlines. Of course, it isn't hard to say "SO AND SO WINS!", but nonetheless. Even regarding the House and Senate outcomes, most of the headlines are pretty generic. However, I do have to take umbrage with two. CNN said "GOP to Retain its grip". Retain its grip? That sounds as if having a divided Congress is somehow a bad thing (I don't think it is) and that somehow the GOP are either digging in their heels or holding on for dear life. Either characterization is a biased one, so this headline didn't work for me. Also, Fox said "Dems Fend Off". Well, this suggests that the Senate races were somehow much closer than they were. In fact, a more appropriate headline would be that GOP shoots selves in foot in many Senate races. So, I have to chalk this one up to the biased category as well.
Based on the headlines alone, the media seems to have announced the results in a pretty unbiased fashion. However, I will also point out the coverage. I watched several stations, but not all of them. Fox News seemed even keeled the whole night, like they were just there to report until the shoe finally dropped. Other news entities seemed to me that they were sitting on eggshells, like they couldn't wait to jump out of their seats to tell us how things were going to turn out. I admit that this is a subjective opinion on my part and that I didn't watch every single news station, but I knew the outcome of the election at 7 p.m. when I turned on the television solely based on the attitude of the media I was watching. That's a pretty sad commentary on the media bias evident in the coverage.
At any rate, the country voted for four more years of the same...a divided Congress and a President that will continue to ignore Congress. So be it...Congress will continue to do nothing and the President will continue to unconstitutionally legislate by executive order and regulations...that's what we've been doing for four years and last night results say that's what Americans want us to continue to do.
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
The Need for FEMA!?
First off, let me say that my prayers go out to all those affected by Hurricane Sandy.
This post is not to diminish their suffering. I actually support having FEMA in order to coordinate relief efforts across state lines. However, my point is to point out the faulty logic being used by "big government" supporters in order to politicize this tragedy. Okay, okay, by responding to them, I am politicizing it as well. Fine, argue that, but I am simply responding to them rather than instigating. At any rate, here goes.
Is FEMA a necessary agency? Is it even a constitutional one? Let's take a look at this and see. FEMA was established by a 1978 law under President Carter. It began operations on April 1, 1979. Since then, it has helped and assisted in several disasters, sometimes with good results and sometimes with not so good results. However, the first and foremost question for me is always: is it constitutional? Well, there is no delegated power in the Constitution that grants the federal government the power to run to the aid of the states in times of emergency. That's why the states have national guards, etc. Additionally, I don't recall any amendments to the constitution that have given the federal government this power and reduced the sovereignty of the states in any way. That is why governors need to invite FEMA in to help, in fact. FEMA's role is supposed to be one or coordinating efforts across state lines, which seems like a logical thing for the federal government to do, not to take over efforts and tell the states what to do. At any rate, it seems that FEMA's constitutionality is questionable, at best.
So, what about the other question. Are they really needed? Well, to listen to people talk in the wake of hurricane Sandy, you'd think this country had never seen a major disaster before without having FEMA in place to "help". That's rather laughable logic on their part since FEMA didn't start operations until 1979. So, what disasters took place where there was no FEMA to help and what has happened since there has been a FEMA? Since FEMA usually does not get involved when only one state is affected, I'll focus on disasters that impacted multiple states. However, I may mention a few major disasters that only impacted a single state as well.
So, the early years in the U.S. had one major interstate disaster and many intrastate ones that could be mentioned. First of all was the year with no summer. This occurred in 1816. A volcanic eruption of Mt. Tambora in modern Indonesia disrupted the climate enough that all of New England and much of the northeast of the U.S. say cold and freezing temperatures and snow during the summer months, which caused massive crop failures and famine. I don't think anyone would claim that the U.S. didn't survive and thrive as a nation because there was no FEMA to help out. Other notable events certainly bring to the light the need for the Coast Guard (which is entirely constitutional under the defense and commerce clauses). This includes three notable shipwrecks where over 100 people lost their lives. The Mexico, the SS Central America and the PS Lady Elgin all sank in coastal waters. There are many other shipwrecks throughout history, but they are more evidence of a need for the coast guard than they are for FEMA.
There are other disasters like the various "great" fires. Ones in New York, Michigan, Chicago, Seattle...in fact, many cities have stories that stem from some great conflagration in their past. All of these cities were rebuilt and still exist today, even in the absence of FEMA. I wonder how that happened since liberals seem to be claiming the states and local jurisdictions can't do it without the federal government. But I digress. The next major disaster killed over 2200 people in 1889. The Johnstown flood in Pennsylvania was the result of a failed dam that flooded the entire town in a matter of minutes. People lost their lives and their homes. A major section of railroad track was destroyed which hampered relief efforts. Yet, when you go to the Johnstown museum of this event, you see that people all over the country sent supplies or travelled there to assist in relief efforts and Johnstown is still there today, the burst dam a national landmark of how Americans can bring assistance to bear when and where it is most needed. Amazingly enough, this was done without FEMA. Go figure.
I'll treat storms separately...they tend to impact multiple states and so I'll look at them in that light. However, some other major events took place before FEMA that were not "acts of God" as some people call storms. There have been many railroad, air, and other transportation disasters over the years. These, by their nature, are single state events most of the time, they are directly related to interstate commerce. Therefore, they certainly are cause to have the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), but FEMA? Other major events that weren't storms include the 1906 San Francisco earthquake that killed 3-6 thousand people. These deaths though were mostly attributed to the resulting fire that followed rather than directly to the earthquake itself. However, I'll point out that there was no FEMA and San Francisco is a living and thriving city today. Then there was the massive flooding of the Ohio river in 1937 that affected 4 different states. This would certainly call for FEMA efforts today, and having spent time growing up in Louisville, Ky., it is well remembered. Yet...all the states impacted and the towns and cities along the river built flood walls and survive and thrive today, without FEMA. Now, once you start getting into the 1930s, you can't say there was no federal response because of the various New Deal programs, etc. I'd have to do a lot of research to see which of these disasters got later support from the Army Corps of Engineers or the Works Projects Administration or the like. However, that isn't the point of this article. Rather, I'm asking whether FEMA is required and necessary. Next, were two more earthquakes. The 1946 Aleutian island earthquake that caused a Tsunami that hit Hawaii. Then again, in 1964, the Good Friday earthquake that again caused a Tsunami that hit Hawaii, Oregon and California. Had you heard of these disasters and how awful they were because there was no FEMA to save us all? Yeah, I hadn't heard that either.
Now the storms. There have been lots of deadly storms over the years that impacted multiple states. 2 hurricanes in 1893, each of which killed over 1000 people. The 1900 Galveston hurricane that killed 6-12,000. The 1919 Florida Keys hurricane that killed 600. The 1925 tornados in Mississippi, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky and Tennessee that killed over 700. The Okeechobee hurricane that killed over 3000 in 1928. The 1935 Labor Day hurricane. The 1938 great New England hurricane that killed 600. Camille in 1969. The 1974 "super outbreak" tornadoes that hit Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, North Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia, and New York that killed 315. And the 1977 and 1978 blizzards in the Great Lakes region and in the Northeast. All of these events had major impacts on the areas they hit and most of them impacted more than a single state. I grew up hearing all sorts of stories about Camille, the 1974 tornado, even the great New England hurricane, as I moved around the country. All of those stories talk about the devastation and loss of life and how the communities came together to rebuild. None of them talk about how they couldn't have made it without FEMA.
So what has happened since FEMA was established? Two things in 1980. A massive heat wave that hit the south and the eruption of Mt. St. Helens. The Loma Prieta earthquake in 1989 as well as hurricane Hugo. The 1993 "storm of the century" blizzards that impacted all of the eastern United States which resulted in the Great Flood of 1993 in the midwest when all that snow melted. While there were a lot of hurricanes in the early 2000s, I'll only mention those that affected more than one state. Hurricane Ivan in 2004, Katrina in 2005, Ike in 2008 and Irene in 2011. In addition, there was the Evansville tornado of 2005, the Super Tuesday tornadoes of 2008 and the massive tornado outbreaks of 2011. Most of the time, when FEMA has been called in, they've done a perfectly fine job is providing aid and support to these areas. Katrina is a notable exception where pretty much everything broke down. However, based on past experience, are we really claiming today that the only way any of these disasters could be recovered from is because FEMA is there to help? I think anyone making that claim needs to seriously reconsider it based on history.
Finally, many events do not impact multiple states, but only one state. Who bears the brunt of the disaster in that case. Sure, the state can and often does ask for assistance, but the brunt of rebuilding is on the states, the brunt of providing security during crises is on the states, the brunt of first response is on the states. Living in Florida, we get hurricanes all the time, and it isn't FEMA I look to, but local fire fighters, local police officers, local power companies, local charities, and national gas companies and grocery store chains to provide what is needed most. The local response is what is most important, not the federal one. Just food for thought for all those who want to believe that FEMA and the feds is the only way to save ourselves in times of need.
This post is not to diminish their suffering. I actually support having FEMA in order to coordinate relief efforts across state lines. However, my point is to point out the faulty logic being used by "big government" supporters in order to politicize this tragedy. Okay, okay, by responding to them, I am politicizing it as well. Fine, argue that, but I am simply responding to them rather than instigating. At any rate, here goes.
Is FEMA a necessary agency? Is it even a constitutional one? Let's take a look at this and see. FEMA was established by a 1978 law under President Carter. It began operations on April 1, 1979. Since then, it has helped and assisted in several disasters, sometimes with good results and sometimes with not so good results. However, the first and foremost question for me is always: is it constitutional? Well, there is no delegated power in the Constitution that grants the federal government the power to run to the aid of the states in times of emergency. That's why the states have national guards, etc. Additionally, I don't recall any amendments to the constitution that have given the federal government this power and reduced the sovereignty of the states in any way. That is why governors need to invite FEMA in to help, in fact. FEMA's role is supposed to be one or coordinating efforts across state lines, which seems like a logical thing for the federal government to do, not to take over efforts and tell the states what to do. At any rate, it seems that FEMA's constitutionality is questionable, at best.
So, what about the other question. Are they really needed? Well, to listen to people talk in the wake of hurricane Sandy, you'd think this country had never seen a major disaster before without having FEMA in place to "help". That's rather laughable logic on their part since FEMA didn't start operations until 1979. So, what disasters took place where there was no FEMA to help and what has happened since there has been a FEMA? Since FEMA usually does not get involved when only one state is affected, I'll focus on disasters that impacted multiple states. However, I may mention a few major disasters that only impacted a single state as well.
So, the early years in the U.S. had one major interstate disaster and many intrastate ones that could be mentioned. First of all was the year with no summer. This occurred in 1816. A volcanic eruption of Mt. Tambora in modern Indonesia disrupted the climate enough that all of New England and much of the northeast of the U.S. say cold and freezing temperatures and snow during the summer months, which caused massive crop failures and famine. I don't think anyone would claim that the U.S. didn't survive and thrive as a nation because there was no FEMA to help out. Other notable events certainly bring to the light the need for the Coast Guard (which is entirely constitutional under the defense and commerce clauses). This includes three notable shipwrecks where over 100 people lost their lives. The Mexico, the SS Central America and the PS Lady Elgin all sank in coastal waters. There are many other shipwrecks throughout history, but they are more evidence of a need for the coast guard than they are for FEMA.
There are other disasters like the various "great" fires. Ones in New York, Michigan, Chicago, Seattle...in fact, many cities have stories that stem from some great conflagration in their past. All of these cities were rebuilt and still exist today, even in the absence of FEMA. I wonder how that happened since liberals seem to be claiming the states and local jurisdictions can't do it without the federal government. But I digress. The next major disaster killed over 2200 people in 1889. The Johnstown flood in Pennsylvania was the result of a failed dam that flooded the entire town in a matter of minutes. People lost their lives and their homes. A major section of railroad track was destroyed which hampered relief efforts. Yet, when you go to the Johnstown museum of this event, you see that people all over the country sent supplies or travelled there to assist in relief efforts and Johnstown is still there today, the burst dam a national landmark of how Americans can bring assistance to bear when and where it is most needed. Amazingly enough, this was done without FEMA. Go figure.
I'll treat storms separately...they tend to impact multiple states and so I'll look at them in that light. However, some other major events took place before FEMA that were not "acts of God" as some people call storms. There have been many railroad, air, and other transportation disasters over the years. These, by their nature, are single state events most of the time, they are directly related to interstate commerce. Therefore, they certainly are cause to have the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), but FEMA? Other major events that weren't storms include the 1906 San Francisco earthquake that killed 3-6 thousand people. These deaths though were mostly attributed to the resulting fire that followed rather than directly to the earthquake itself. However, I'll point out that there was no FEMA and San Francisco is a living and thriving city today. Then there was the massive flooding of the Ohio river in 1937 that affected 4 different states. This would certainly call for FEMA efforts today, and having spent time growing up in Louisville, Ky., it is well remembered. Yet...all the states impacted and the towns and cities along the river built flood walls and survive and thrive today, without FEMA. Now, once you start getting into the 1930s, you can't say there was no federal response because of the various New Deal programs, etc. I'd have to do a lot of research to see which of these disasters got later support from the Army Corps of Engineers or the Works Projects Administration or the like. However, that isn't the point of this article. Rather, I'm asking whether FEMA is required and necessary. Next, were two more earthquakes. The 1946 Aleutian island earthquake that caused a Tsunami that hit Hawaii. Then again, in 1964, the Good Friday earthquake that again caused a Tsunami that hit Hawaii, Oregon and California. Had you heard of these disasters and how awful they were because there was no FEMA to save us all? Yeah, I hadn't heard that either.
Now the storms. There have been lots of deadly storms over the years that impacted multiple states. 2 hurricanes in 1893, each of which killed over 1000 people. The 1900 Galveston hurricane that killed 6-12,000. The 1919 Florida Keys hurricane that killed 600. The 1925 tornados in Mississippi, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky and Tennessee that killed over 700. The Okeechobee hurricane that killed over 3000 in 1928. The 1935 Labor Day hurricane. The 1938 great New England hurricane that killed 600. Camille in 1969. The 1974 "super outbreak" tornadoes that hit Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, North Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia, and New York that killed 315. And the 1977 and 1978 blizzards in the Great Lakes region and in the Northeast. All of these events had major impacts on the areas they hit and most of them impacted more than a single state. I grew up hearing all sorts of stories about Camille, the 1974 tornado, even the great New England hurricane, as I moved around the country. All of those stories talk about the devastation and loss of life and how the communities came together to rebuild. None of them talk about how they couldn't have made it without FEMA.
So what has happened since FEMA was established? Two things in 1980. A massive heat wave that hit the south and the eruption of Mt. St. Helens. The Loma Prieta earthquake in 1989 as well as hurricane Hugo. The 1993 "storm of the century" blizzards that impacted all of the eastern United States which resulted in the Great Flood of 1993 in the midwest when all that snow melted. While there were a lot of hurricanes in the early 2000s, I'll only mention those that affected more than one state. Hurricane Ivan in 2004, Katrina in 2005, Ike in 2008 and Irene in 2011. In addition, there was the Evansville tornado of 2005, the Super Tuesday tornadoes of 2008 and the massive tornado outbreaks of 2011. Most of the time, when FEMA has been called in, they've done a perfectly fine job is providing aid and support to these areas. Katrina is a notable exception where pretty much everything broke down. However, based on past experience, are we really claiming today that the only way any of these disasters could be recovered from is because FEMA is there to help? I think anyone making that claim needs to seriously reconsider it based on history.
Finally, many events do not impact multiple states, but only one state. Who bears the brunt of the disaster in that case. Sure, the state can and often does ask for assistance, but the brunt of rebuilding is on the states, the brunt of providing security during crises is on the states, the brunt of first response is on the states. Living in Florida, we get hurricanes all the time, and it isn't FEMA I look to, but local fire fighters, local police officers, local power companies, local charities, and national gas companies and grocery store chains to provide what is needed most. The local response is what is most important, not the federal one. Just food for thought for all those who want to believe that FEMA and the feds is the only way to save ourselves in times of need.
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
About that social contract!?
So...I was thinking...we are hearing a LOT about the "social contract" these days. It goes by different names such as social safety net, but it is what we are talking about whenever the topic comes up. In my thinking, I started to question. Just what is a social contract?
A contract is "an agreement with specific terms between two or more persons or entities in which there is a promise to do something in return for a valuable benefit known as consideration" (free legal dictionary). Contracts can be written or spoken. In other words, you can sign a document to agree to it or you can give your word, so to speak. This latter one is where we get ideas like "sealed with a handshake" from. In the case of a contract, all involved parties must agree to the terms in order for them to have force. Also, all involved parties expect to receive some sort of benefit in the transaction. This is how contracts work.
Social is defined as "of or relating to society or its organization" (free dictionary). So, social is something that happens within the context of society as a whole. That brings me back to the "social contract".
Just what is it? From the above definitions, you'd think it was a contract that all of society agrees to. After all, for it to be a contract governing all of society, it must be agreed to by all...right? Well, it is defined as "an agreement among the members of an organized society or between the governed and the government defining and limiting the rights and duties of each" (free dictionary). This sounds like an agreement between a governing body and the governed on how they want to be governed. In other words, the U.S. Constitution, for example. But...the Constitution isn't what people are talking about when they say the "social contract". They are talking about things like welfare, Social Security, health care, and other "positive rights". Our Constitution doesn't allow for positive rights. In fact, it is specifically set up to prevent the federal government from doing anything to or for us, contrary to what modern politicians want us to believe.
However, people could easily argue that the Constitution is our social contract. It is the contract that "we the people" agreed to. We agreed that the federal government would be limited to only enumerated powers (amendment 10), that it would be prevented from passing laws that inhibited our inalienable rights (amendment 1: press, religion, speech), (amendment 2: right to bear arms), (amendments 3-4: various forms of property rights), that it would be governed by a specific set of rules regarding how it treated its citizens (amendments 5-8), that it didn't cover every form of right and so the government couldn't do things that violated those not stated either (amendment 9) and it goes on. However, nowhere does it say that the government must do something for you. It doesn't give the federal government the responsibility of helping the poor, the sick, the elderly, the infirm, or anyone for that matter. In fact, it is a contract designed specifically to make the government keep its hands off. Madison said that the powers of the federal government are limited and defined whereas the powers of the states are unlimited and infinite. This means that Madison (who wrote much of the document) had the proper understanding of our federal government. He knew that the federal government could only exercise those powers specifically granted it. The states, on the other hand, had power to do just about anything, as long as it wasn't one of the granted powers in the "contract".
So, the Departments of Education and Homeland Security are clearly not governed by granted powers. The Department of Energy is only allowable under the commerce clause, meaning the federal government can only get involved when interstate commerce is in play. This means they can't tell a state what kind of power plant they can or can not build unless that plant provides power across state lines, but that is for another post. At any rate, there are a lot of departments and agencies in our modern federal government that have no basis or authority in the Constitution. Yes, I know the Supreme Court said so, but since they say so in favor of the federal government 90 percent of the time, they can't be trusted to protect the Constitution and therefore certainly not the citizens who either directly or implicitly agree to the contract. The U.S. Constitution is the ONLY contract that our society has ever formed, as a group, with our government, and it is being violated and ignored on a regular basis by that government.
That brings me back to the social goods that we are really talking about when we say "social contract". Welfare, Social Security, assistance to children, food stamps, unemployment insurance, health care, etc. These are all programs that most people would find to be "good". This "most" is the key term here. This is where we get the idea of a social contract. If "most" of the people think it is good, then we should do it. This is also where the problem lies. Democracy is, simply put, majority rule. It is a system that says that whatever "most" people want, that is what we'll do. However, we don't live in a Democracy. If we did, a lot of things would have been different than they are today. Nonetheless, we live in a Republic. This is a system where we use representative government. Both Democracies and Republics are systems that, left unchecked, eventually deny the rights of the minority in favor of the majority. This is why we have the concepts of division of powers and checks and balances written into our Constitution (not that anyone knows what they mean or pays any attention to them, but I digress). This is also why our founders felt it necessary to say what government couldn't do to us and also to spell out exactly what they thought government could do. Our system is meant to protect us from the whims of the majority, whomever they may be. So, just because most of us think something is good, does that mean the federal government can enact laws to carry it out? This is the essence of the social contract. If the government is not limited and is not designed to protect the rights of everyone from the whims of the majority, then it can do whatever it wants in the way of enacting a "social good" into law under the Constitution. If the government is limited and is designed to protect the rights of everyone from the whims of the majority, then there is no way that any laws for "social good" can be enacted constitutionally.
How do I conclude this? Well, the tenth amendment clearly states that only the granted powers belong to the federal government and all other powers belong to the states and the people. There are no powers in the Constitution granting the federal government any authority to "take care of the people" in any way. So, a limited government with dispersed powers amongst the various states and the people can't help anyone out without specifically amending the charter in order to grant the federal government that power. But we've been doing these things for 80 years now you say. Well, precedent doesn't make it constitutional despite the predilections of the Supreme Court. Yes, for the past 100 years, our federal government has enacted law after law through the Progressive Era, the New Deal, the Great Society, etc. in order to "help" our fellow man. This growth in power in absence of a Constitution basis for it can mean only one thing in the long run. It means that, eventually, the tenth amendment becomes utterly useless and all the power will be concentrated in the federal government while the powers of the states and the people will be placed on the scrap heap of history. In essence, it means we will one day go down the same road as every other democratic project in history. Tyranny.
After all, the only contract that our society can say it has with its government is the Constitution. Properly ratified treaties also count since they are considered constitutional. However, all other laws passed by the government are not inherently part of the contract unless they are governed by a specific clause in the charter document that grants the federal government that power. Therefore, all laws where this is not the case must be agreed to by every generation in order for them to bear any weight. I believe this is partially what Jefferson meant when he said "It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes." He was saying that it is immoral for one generation to pass on to the next the debt it incurred. So, it is also immoral for one generation to make a law that is not part of the actual social contract, the Constitution, that is applicable to the next generation. The principle is the same. Therefore, almost nothing the federal government does is Constitutional and I certainly didn't agree to have money taken from my paycheck to pay for programs I may or may not agree with.
The proper and constitutional role for the programs we call the social contract are to allow each state to enact them individually or choose not to do so. Over time, the programs that work filter up and the programs that don't die off. But no! We have to have the federal government dictate to us now rather than using a proper, yet longer, method. Sure, some states might not pay for their poor or uninsured or disadvantaged as well as other states do, but that is one great thing in this country. If you don't like what your state is doing, you can move to another one. With all these one size fits all cookie cutter federal programs that generally have done more harm than good (yes, that's my opinion, but there are a few studies that I'd argue support it), we have no alternative but to submit to them. I guess we are already at tyranny folks!
A contract is "an agreement with specific terms between two or more persons or entities in which there is a promise to do something in return for a valuable benefit known as consideration" (free legal dictionary). Contracts can be written or spoken. In other words, you can sign a document to agree to it or you can give your word, so to speak. This latter one is where we get ideas like "sealed with a handshake" from. In the case of a contract, all involved parties must agree to the terms in order for them to have force. Also, all involved parties expect to receive some sort of benefit in the transaction. This is how contracts work.
Social is defined as "of or relating to society or its organization" (free dictionary). So, social is something that happens within the context of society as a whole. That brings me back to the "social contract".
Just what is it? From the above definitions, you'd think it was a contract that all of society agrees to. After all, for it to be a contract governing all of society, it must be agreed to by all...right? Well, it is defined as "an agreement among the members of an organized society or between the governed and the government defining and limiting the rights and duties of each" (free dictionary). This sounds like an agreement between a governing body and the governed on how they want to be governed. In other words, the U.S. Constitution, for example. But...the Constitution isn't what people are talking about when they say the "social contract". They are talking about things like welfare, Social Security, health care, and other "positive rights". Our Constitution doesn't allow for positive rights. In fact, it is specifically set up to prevent the federal government from doing anything to or for us, contrary to what modern politicians want us to believe.
However, people could easily argue that the Constitution is our social contract. It is the contract that "we the people" agreed to. We agreed that the federal government would be limited to only enumerated powers (amendment 10), that it would be prevented from passing laws that inhibited our inalienable rights (amendment 1: press, religion, speech), (amendment 2: right to bear arms), (amendments 3-4: various forms of property rights), that it would be governed by a specific set of rules regarding how it treated its citizens (amendments 5-8), that it didn't cover every form of right and so the government couldn't do things that violated those not stated either (amendment 9) and it goes on. However, nowhere does it say that the government must do something for you. It doesn't give the federal government the responsibility of helping the poor, the sick, the elderly, the infirm, or anyone for that matter. In fact, it is a contract designed specifically to make the government keep its hands off. Madison said that the powers of the federal government are limited and defined whereas the powers of the states are unlimited and infinite. This means that Madison (who wrote much of the document) had the proper understanding of our federal government. He knew that the federal government could only exercise those powers specifically granted it. The states, on the other hand, had power to do just about anything, as long as it wasn't one of the granted powers in the "contract".
So, the Departments of Education and Homeland Security are clearly not governed by granted powers. The Department of Energy is only allowable under the commerce clause, meaning the federal government can only get involved when interstate commerce is in play. This means they can't tell a state what kind of power plant they can or can not build unless that plant provides power across state lines, but that is for another post. At any rate, there are a lot of departments and agencies in our modern federal government that have no basis or authority in the Constitution. Yes, I know the Supreme Court said so, but since they say so in favor of the federal government 90 percent of the time, they can't be trusted to protect the Constitution and therefore certainly not the citizens who either directly or implicitly agree to the contract. The U.S. Constitution is the ONLY contract that our society has ever formed, as a group, with our government, and it is being violated and ignored on a regular basis by that government.
That brings me back to the social goods that we are really talking about when we say "social contract". Welfare, Social Security, assistance to children, food stamps, unemployment insurance, health care, etc. These are all programs that most people would find to be "good". This "most" is the key term here. This is where we get the idea of a social contract. If "most" of the people think it is good, then we should do it. This is also where the problem lies. Democracy is, simply put, majority rule. It is a system that says that whatever "most" people want, that is what we'll do. However, we don't live in a Democracy. If we did, a lot of things would have been different than they are today. Nonetheless, we live in a Republic. This is a system where we use representative government. Both Democracies and Republics are systems that, left unchecked, eventually deny the rights of the minority in favor of the majority. This is why we have the concepts of division of powers and checks and balances written into our Constitution (not that anyone knows what they mean or pays any attention to them, but I digress). This is also why our founders felt it necessary to say what government couldn't do to us and also to spell out exactly what they thought government could do. Our system is meant to protect us from the whims of the majority, whomever they may be. So, just because most of us think something is good, does that mean the federal government can enact laws to carry it out? This is the essence of the social contract. If the government is not limited and is not designed to protect the rights of everyone from the whims of the majority, then it can do whatever it wants in the way of enacting a "social good" into law under the Constitution. If the government is limited and is designed to protect the rights of everyone from the whims of the majority, then there is no way that any laws for "social good" can be enacted constitutionally.
How do I conclude this? Well, the tenth amendment clearly states that only the granted powers belong to the federal government and all other powers belong to the states and the people. There are no powers in the Constitution granting the federal government any authority to "take care of the people" in any way. So, a limited government with dispersed powers amongst the various states and the people can't help anyone out without specifically amending the charter in order to grant the federal government that power. But we've been doing these things for 80 years now you say. Well, precedent doesn't make it constitutional despite the predilections of the Supreme Court. Yes, for the past 100 years, our federal government has enacted law after law through the Progressive Era, the New Deal, the Great Society, etc. in order to "help" our fellow man. This growth in power in absence of a Constitution basis for it can mean only one thing in the long run. It means that, eventually, the tenth amendment becomes utterly useless and all the power will be concentrated in the federal government while the powers of the states and the people will be placed on the scrap heap of history. In essence, it means we will one day go down the same road as every other democratic project in history. Tyranny.
After all, the only contract that our society can say it has with its government is the Constitution. Properly ratified treaties also count since they are considered constitutional. However, all other laws passed by the government are not inherently part of the contract unless they are governed by a specific clause in the charter document that grants the federal government that power. Therefore, all laws where this is not the case must be agreed to by every generation in order for them to bear any weight. I believe this is partially what Jefferson meant when he said "It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes." He was saying that it is immoral for one generation to pass on to the next the debt it incurred. So, it is also immoral for one generation to make a law that is not part of the actual social contract, the Constitution, that is applicable to the next generation. The principle is the same. Therefore, almost nothing the federal government does is Constitutional and I certainly didn't agree to have money taken from my paycheck to pay for programs I may or may not agree with.
The proper and constitutional role for the programs we call the social contract are to allow each state to enact them individually or choose not to do so. Over time, the programs that work filter up and the programs that don't die off. But no! We have to have the federal government dictate to us now rather than using a proper, yet longer, method. Sure, some states might not pay for their poor or uninsured or disadvantaged as well as other states do, but that is one great thing in this country. If you don't like what your state is doing, you can move to another one. With all these one size fits all cookie cutter federal programs that generally have done more harm than good (yes, that's my opinion, but there are a few studies that I'd argue support it), we have no alternative but to submit to them. I guess we are already at tyranny folks!
Thursday, October 18, 2012
The news!
Mark Twain is considered one of the great American writers by many. He could even qualify as a journalist, although he might deny that. Therefore, it might be surprising to some how he seemingly felt about the news and journalists in particular. I find his views on this to be rather enlightening. In fact, they speak to an issue that still exists today. Bias and usefulness of the media in general. Now, I support a free press and I'm certain that Mark Twain did also. However, you have a free press in order to ensure that information gets out and to make sure that the government is NOT controlling what is reported. In a free press, you'd have multiple news sources, some of which do choose to spin as the government wants, some who spin as corporations want, some who spin as their individual editors want, etc., but none that can truly claim to be unbiased. To claim they are unbiased is a rather ridiculous statement, but this obviously isn't ridiculous to many since they continue to think that the news is worth reading. Therefore, below are some quotations about the media. This is a grouping of things over time that clearly shows the media doesn't change much in America. Unfortunately, they do still control the conversation. So, I will share a bit about why I think each of these quotes are relevant to what we experience today.
This next quote is often attributed to Mark Twain and sometimes attributed to Thomas Jefferson, but the real author is unknown as far as I could find.
Here's an interesting quote that speaks to this very phenomena:
Mark Twain has further insight into this.
In 2008, Sarah Palin was treated horribly by much of the media. Whether you like Palin or not, you should recognize the double standard for her as a woman (or perhaps it was because she is a conservative woman) and cringe. She was criticized for getting new clothes paid for by the Republican Party before the convention because it didn't fit her "average girl" persona. Yet, our male VP candidate here in 2012, Paul Ryan, is criticized because the Republican Party apparently can't afford to have a tailor make sure his clothes fit. Sorry media, this one stinks of bias. However, Palin was also criticized for her inability to answer a "simple" question. That is, where does she get her news from? Well, here is Thomas Jefferson's answer to that question.
After all, even David Brinkley knows that not everything reported is really worth anything. He's quoted as having said this.
I am personally acquainted with hundreds of journalists, and the opinion of the majority of them would not be worth tuppence in private, but when they speak in print it is the newspaper that is talking (the pygmy scribe is not visible) and then their utterances shake the community like the thunders of prophecy.This is one from Mark Twain and he shows he has a rather low opinion of journalists in general. The real essence of this quote is that journalists are just like you and me. Their opinions and stories have little more weight than yours and mine. However, once they put it in print, somehow it takes on an aura of importance it hasn't earned and doesn't really deserve. I like this quote because the perpetuation of blogs and twitter and everything else brings more of "our" opinions to the forefront and begins to lessen the importance of those things put in the media by "journalists".
- "License of the Press," speech, 31 March 1873
This next quote is often attributed to Mark Twain and sometimes attributed to Thomas Jefferson, but the real author is unknown as far as I could find.
If you don't read the newspaper, you're uninformed. If you read the newspaper, you're mis-informed.This is the essence of the news media after all. They don't care about the truth, they care about selling "papers". These days, they sell tv news, blog sites, websites, newspapers, etc., but it is all the same. In television, they want ratings, in newspapers they want sales, in internet sites they want hits and downloads, etc. In the end, the integrity of the news is entirely dependent on where they get their revenue. This is why MSNBC is a liberal hack network and FoxNews is a conservative hack network. They know their audience. That said, beware of the good sounding person who claims to have the answer to this conundrum. They trumpet the "public" press as the alternative. However, the same trap applies. The publicly funded press is beholden to those who provide it with their budget. Therefore, they are beholden, not to the taxpayer but, to the government. This leads to the "state press" which has worked out oh so well in Soviet Russia, Cuba, China, etc.
Here's an interesting quote that speaks to this very phenomena:
If one morning I walked on top of the water across the Potomac River, the headline that afternoon would read: "President Can't Swim." ~Lyndon B. JohnsonLBJ is recognizing a truth here. That newspapers challenge those in authority. However, he is also pointing out that they spin the truth to suit their purposes, whatever those may be.
Mark Twain has further insight into this.
It has become a sarcastic proverb that a thing must be true if you saw it in a newspaper. That is the opinion intelligent people have of that lying vehicle in a nutshell. But the trouble is that the stupid people -- who constitute the grand overwhelming majority of this and all other nations -- do believe and are moulded and convinced by what they get out of a newspaper, and there is where the harm lies. - "License of the Press," speech, 31 March 1873He is asserting that newspapers (the media) lies and that they knowingly do so in order to mold the masses. Now, you argue, they can't lie as he claims because they'd be hit with a libel suit. Sure, they could be sued, if they ever lied in such a way as to be so blatantly obvious. The LBJ quote above speaks to this as well. The newspaper headline paints the former President in a very negative light while being "technically" truthful, but it is a lie nonetheless. So, Twain is building on this quote from a few years earlier.
I am not the editor of a newspaper and shall always try to do right and be good so that God will not make me one. -- Mark Twain in Galaxy Magazine, Dec. 1870So, what does Twain mean here? Well, as I stated below, the news editor has a great deal of power...just ask William Randolph Hearst. I think Twain is hoping he doesn't fall into the trap of letting his own biases dictate what gets printed.
In 2008, Sarah Palin was treated horribly by much of the media. Whether you like Palin or not, you should recognize the double standard for her as a woman (or perhaps it was because she is a conservative woman) and cringe. She was criticized for getting new clothes paid for by the Republican Party before the convention because it didn't fit her "average girl" persona. Yet, our male VP candidate here in 2012, Paul Ryan, is criticized because the Republican Party apparently can't afford to have a tailor make sure his clothes fit. Sorry media, this one stinks of bias. However, Palin was also criticized for her inability to answer a "simple" question. That is, where does she get her news from? Well, here is Thomas Jefferson's answer to that question.
The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers. ~Thomas JeffersonJefferson is quite clearly stating that it would be better to be the uninformed person quoted about above than be a person who only relies on the media. So, should Palin have been able to answer the question? Certainly, but the big deal made out of her not being able to say "well Katie, I watch your show" instantly was horrendously biased.
After all, even David Brinkley knows that not everything reported is really worth anything. He's quoted as having said this.
The one function that TV news performs very well is that when there is no news we give it to you with the same emphasis as if there were. ~David BrinkleySo, if we give it to you straight with the same emphasis as we'd give "real" news, then you'll buy it and be happy. Thanks David for confirming the above. It also speaks to the next set of quotes, which are not particularly rosy towards the media either.
It seems to me that just in the ratio that our newspapers increase, our morals decay. The more newspapers the worse morals. Where we have one newspaper that does good, I think we have fifty that do harm. We ought to look upon the establishment of a newspaper of the average pattern in a virtuous village as a calamity.
- "License of the Press," speech, 31 March 1873
Twain is saying the the perpetuation of media decreases morals and should be seen as a calamity. He said this in an age where newspapers were pretty much it and news traveled slowly over distances. Today, with our desire for instant gratification and the media's ability to provide it to us, this outlook can only be compounded. Now, whether or not Twain's assessment is truthful is a matter of opinion, but those who argue about the decay of society (right or wrong) could certainly find a correlation with the proliferation of media.
The public have an insatiable curiosity to know everything. Except what is worth knowing. Journalism, conscious of this, and having tradesman-like habits, supplies their demands. ~Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man Under Socialism, 1891
Oscar Wilde speaks here about several aspects already referred to. Brinkley talked about supplying news even when there wasn't any. Twain discussed the proliferation of media and his belief that it negatively impacted society. I've mentioned the motivation of the media being to make money, etc. So, Wilde seems to recognize all these things and sums it up nicely here stating that the public's own insatiable curiosity is to blame. There is demand, so "journalists" provide the supply.
Finally, we come to this warning.
If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. ~Malcolm XMalcolm X is not normally a person I would quote, but he makes a very good point here. The media knows full well that they have the ability to move society in certain directions. Jefferson, Twain and Wilde also clearly understood that and they also believed the media was fully aware of it. Society has to be careful here, because the media does in fact have the power to move us in a direction we might not take in the absence of media. We've seen it before. We saw it in the north-south split of the newspapers during the Civil War era. We saw it with the original split of our founders in the north-south split of federalists and anti-federalists. We saw it when William Randolph Hearst decided we should go to war with Spain and used his media empire to bring about that exact outcome. We see it again now, with Fox supporting conservatives and MSNBC supporting liberals. This is nothing new, but our job is to carefully consider that we will begin to agree with a particular viewpoint if we limit ourselves to only a few sources of media. Our responsibility as good citizens is not to be informed by the New York Times, or the Washington Post, or CNN, or FoxNews, but rather to expose ourselves to multiple media sources expressing multiple viewpoints and biases. Anything less than that makes us all one of the stupid masses led blindly along by the whims of the media, which is my way of summing up what Mark Twain said and agreeing with what Malcolm X said. Now, you liberals, go read more FoxNews and you conservatives, go listen more to MSNBC.
Monday, October 8, 2012
Where we've gone really wrong!
I was thinking about why I will be voting how I've decided to vote and could not really justify it to myself. After all, we don't have any real good choices and the United States is heading very badly in the wrong direction. Do I think Obama can right us? No, he's part of the problem. Do I think Romney can right us? No, but he might slow down our own demise. How do I figure this? Well, the below might help. It is my response to the statement that they couldn't vote for McCain in 2008 because he had a clown for VP and they can't vote for Romney because he has an ideologue. I'm not going to argue with either statement, because they are true. However, I urge you to read the below response and hopefully you'll gain some insight into just how much trouble I think we are in if we don't start stopping some of the stuff we are doing.
I, personally, don't think a VP candidate is relevant when
voting. They shouldn't have any real
power at all. Of course, if we bothered
to follow the Constitution at all, that wouldn't be a problem. In fact, the President should not have anywhere
near the kind of power he exercises if we bothered to follow the
Constitution. I think that being opposed
or afraid to vote for a candidate because their VP is an idiot or an ideologue
shows just how far afield we've gone as a nation from where we are supposed to
be constitutionally speaking. So, I
completely understand your reluctance on that basis. All the more reason you should support true
limited government. I also don't think
being an ideologue is necessarily a bad thing.
We are all ideologues about something.
So, it isn't that he is an ideologue, but about what he is an ideologue
about that bothers you, I suspect.
People told me they wouldn't vote for McCain because Palin had no
experience, which always gave me a chuckle because Obama had 0 years of
executive experience. He was never
mayor, nor governor anywhere. His
biggest experience was 2 years in the U.S. Senate. Palin had at least been mayor of a city and
governor of a state. While one of the
smallest in population, it is the largest in land area, so I’d argue her
experience far outweighed our current President’s at the time of the last election. Also, there isn’t a much truer long serving
idiot member of the Senate than Joe Biden.
We can agree to disagree on his competence, but I’ve questioned it
often, even before he became VP. Now him
as President is also a scary thought for me for probably the same reasons you
disliked Palin. Of course, I also see
Obama as the ideologue of that ticket, so …
What I mean by that is simple. His philosophy and policies are clearly defined
by one statement he made during a radio broadcast back in 2001. I use this statement because nearly every
action he has taken as President shows he truly believes it to be true. Here is the quote: “as radical as I think
people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't
break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding
Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and Warren
Court interpreted it in the same way that, generally, the Constitution is a
charter of negative liberties -- says what the states can't do to you, says
what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the
federal government or the state government must do on your behalf, and that
hasn't shifted.”
So, his entire ideology is based on the belief that the role
of government is to “do something for you on your behalf”. That is clear through Obamacare, through
ignoring the will of Congress on multiple occasions and creating regulations to
carry out parts of his agenda even though Congress specifically voted down the
act. In other words, Congress said no,
but he figured he’s the President so he can just do it anyway. Also, his speeches all sound good, but they
tend to betray this underlying philosophy every time. You can’t be more ideological opposed to me,
but you also can’t be more ideologically opposed to the Constitution. OF COURSE the constitution is a charter of
negative rights that states what the government can’t do to you. That is what the founders believed in. They specifically argued about the need for
the Bill of Rights on the grounds that they were afraid of what the government
would do to, or for, them. This is the
essence of freedom. While we can vote
ourselves a “social contract” all we want, since we are a Republic (not a
Democracy as Democrats love to spout), we technically can’t do it
constitutionally because we never changed the document. We just decided to ignore it. Unfortunately, Obama betrays his own
philosophy that we didn’t ignore it enough.
That we have to move the government into a position where it can do “for
us”. That is not liberty, but,
historically, always results in tyranny of some form or another. And no, I’m not someone who believes it can
never happen here.
After all, we’ve ignored the Constitution to this point. We ignore the 10th amendment
entirely, we ignore part of all of many of the amendments, which make up the
essence of liberty. And how did we
decide what parts we can ignore and what parts we can’t? Well, in the past, it was solely based on the
opinion of 9 judges who, right or wrong, were considered sacrosanct. I now believe that to be bull. A study of Supreme Court decisions showed
that when the court had to decide a case involving the expansion of federal
power, they decided on the side of the government 90 percent of the time. That’s outrageous! The government can’t, statistically speaking,
be right 90 percent of the time. So, in
essence, we allowed a system to grow that relied on the federal government to
police itself. Jefferson and Madison may
have been right, as it turns out. We
further weakened federalism by making the Senate elected by the people. The Senate was supposed to be the house of
the STATES. To represent the interests
of the STATES. The House was the People’s
House, thus how it got its nickname. We
destroyed that and in the process have pretty much destroyed any vestiges of
states rights. In other words, we’ve
flipped it on its head. Instead of the
states establishing a unifying compact, they created a beast that now dictates to the states. This was never meant to be how things worked.
So finally, why does this philosophy annoy me so much that I
call Obama an ideologue? Well, I think
Alexis de Tocqueville said it best.
First, he said this: “The American Republic will endure until the day
Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.” He also said this: “A democracy cannot exist
as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover
that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that
moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most
benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always
collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The
average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.” Well, we are 100 years into voting ourselves
largesse from the public treasury. That
does NOT bode well for our future. This
is what I believe the philosophy the President has leads to. He’s not the only one. In fact, it is a rampant problem throughout
both parties. They both want to destroy
our freedoms, they just have different ways in mind of doing it. So, I will hold my nose and vote for the guy
whose policies will destroy the Constitution slower, because I think it would
be nice for America to continue to exist past 2130 or so…of course at the rate
we are spending money we don’t have, it won’t make it that far.
Tuesday, September 4, 2012
Just what would it take, I wonder?
I was thinking out loud the other day and started wondering about welfare, charity, etc. I have read a lot recently on these topics and have quite a few opinions related to them myself, but this thought process was like an epiphany. I read an article somewhere that stated that the average charitable giving from Americans was 3%. I don't know if this is true, but it sounds reasonable, and the article gave citations. After all, many people don't give anything, so they make up for those who give a lot. At any rate, this led me to wonder what would happen if we all gave like we should. As a Christian, I believe Christians are called to give of their time, talents and blessings (financial and otherwise) in order to help those less fortunate. The common amount cited in church is a tithe, or 10 percent. Now, not everybody is a Christian, but most people claim they believe we should all do our part in "helping" the poor. In fact, this often results in people saying we should support certain politicians, political parties and government policies in order to achieve this result. So, I got to thinking and below is the result of that thought process.
What if we required all Americans to give a certain portion of their income to charity? Well, Americans total income last year was 9.78 trillion dollars according to one source. There are several other sources that show different amounts over time, but this was the most recent number I could find. The total spent by the federal government on Welfare was 452 billion dollars according to usgovernmentspending.com. Taking the average charitable giving of Americans of about 3% as stated above, I started wondering why we weren't helping more Americans? I have nothing to back this up, but I decided that a LOT of Americans support causes overseas. There is nothing wrong with that, but it diminishes the amount of charity available to other Americans. This brought me to this thought. If we do away with Welfare and just require everyone to give a certain percentage of their income to charities HERE IN THE U.S., what would that percentage need to be.
In order to properly calculate this, we have to take something else into account as well. Some studies have shown that federal welfare spending has overhead of 70% on average, whereas private charities have overhead of only about 30% on average. This makes private charities significantly more efficient than government. That must be taken into account when trying to determine the percentage above.
So, for math ease, let us start with 10%. At requiring 10% (I get this from the tithe) from all Americans be given to a charity of our choice (not distributed by the government), we end up with about 978 billion dollars going to charities. Since 30 percent would be overhead based on efficiency studies, that leaves about 684 billion dollars going directly to help people. At 452 billion dollars in welfare funds, with 70 percent overhead, we are currently getting about 136 billion dollars into the hands of the needy. It seems to me that simply requiring some percentage be given to U.S. charities would be significantly more efficient and result in better outcomes than the government's current methods. At any rate, what percentage would be needed just to match the government?
Well, at 2% from EVERY citizen, including the 30% overhead deduction for private charity, we get about 137 billion dollars. So, all we have to do to eliminate welfare for good is to require all Americans to give no less than 2% of their income to U.S. charities directly devoted to helping the needy? I think I could get behind that kind of program, especially and only if it allowed us to choose our charity. People could still give above and beyond that as they see fit, but that simple 2% number dedicated to charities here at home seems to outstrip the federal government in amount and efficiency. Of course, some of the 3% average NOW is given here at home and I do not know how much that is, so probably an amount closer to 5% would really be needed to achieve the goal of doing away with welfare. At any rate, that is significantly better than the constant banging of our heads against a wall that we are doing with government programs right now.
Both of these actions, my idea and government welfare, being carried out by the federal government are unconstitutional, in my opinion. Therefore, when looking at it, which is more constitutional than the other. Well, my idea requires a certain amount of money be spent on charities in the U.S. but doesn't specify which ones. Therefore, I can give to my local church, my local food bank, my local homeless shelter, etc. Therefore, I have a lot of personal choice in the matter and can use my money in places where I think it'll do the most good. The government simply takes money from people in one part of society and gives it to other people in society. Private charities are more efficient at using the money than government as well. Therefore, I submit that since we are already violating the constitution, we might as well do it in a way that supports the tenets of freedom we were founded on much more than the current welfare state achieves.
What if we required all Americans to give a certain portion of their income to charity? Well, Americans total income last year was 9.78 trillion dollars according to one source. There are several other sources that show different amounts over time, but this was the most recent number I could find. The total spent by the federal government on Welfare was 452 billion dollars according to usgovernmentspending.com. Taking the average charitable giving of Americans of about 3% as stated above, I started wondering why we weren't helping more Americans? I have nothing to back this up, but I decided that a LOT of Americans support causes overseas. There is nothing wrong with that, but it diminishes the amount of charity available to other Americans. This brought me to this thought. If we do away with Welfare and just require everyone to give a certain percentage of their income to charities HERE IN THE U.S., what would that percentage need to be.
In order to properly calculate this, we have to take something else into account as well. Some studies have shown that federal welfare spending has overhead of 70% on average, whereas private charities have overhead of only about 30% on average. This makes private charities significantly more efficient than government. That must be taken into account when trying to determine the percentage above.
So, for math ease, let us start with 10%. At requiring 10% (I get this from the tithe) from all Americans be given to a charity of our choice (not distributed by the government), we end up with about 978 billion dollars going to charities. Since 30 percent would be overhead based on efficiency studies, that leaves about 684 billion dollars going directly to help people. At 452 billion dollars in welfare funds, with 70 percent overhead, we are currently getting about 136 billion dollars into the hands of the needy. It seems to me that simply requiring some percentage be given to U.S. charities would be significantly more efficient and result in better outcomes than the government's current methods. At any rate, what percentage would be needed just to match the government?
Well, at 2% from EVERY citizen, including the 30% overhead deduction for private charity, we get about 137 billion dollars. So, all we have to do to eliminate welfare for good is to require all Americans to give no less than 2% of their income to U.S. charities directly devoted to helping the needy? I think I could get behind that kind of program, especially and only if it allowed us to choose our charity. People could still give above and beyond that as they see fit, but that simple 2% number dedicated to charities here at home seems to outstrip the federal government in amount and efficiency. Of course, some of the 3% average NOW is given here at home and I do not know how much that is, so probably an amount closer to 5% would really be needed to achieve the goal of doing away with welfare. At any rate, that is significantly better than the constant banging of our heads against a wall that we are doing with government programs right now.
Both of these actions, my idea and government welfare, being carried out by the federal government are unconstitutional, in my opinion. Therefore, when looking at it, which is more constitutional than the other. Well, my idea requires a certain amount of money be spent on charities in the U.S. but doesn't specify which ones. Therefore, I can give to my local church, my local food bank, my local homeless shelter, etc. Therefore, I have a lot of personal choice in the matter and can use my money in places where I think it'll do the most good. The government simply takes money from people in one part of society and gives it to other people in society. Private charities are more efficient at using the money than government as well. Therefore, I submit that since we are already violating the constitution, we might as well do it in a way that supports the tenets of freedom we were founded on much more than the current welfare state achieves.
Wednesday, August 1, 2012
About Chick-fil-a
Chick-fil-a and its CEO has been accused recently of being anti-gay, participating in hate speech and supporting anti-gay organizations. An interesting perspective on reality, I must admit. However, I'll give people the benefit of the doubt and actually examine it. So, what has the company itself done in relation to homosexuals. Is there any evidence that they have discriminated against them in any way? Have they turned them away from their restaurants? Have they practiced discriminatory hiring? The answer to these questions is clearly no, they have not. So, in practice, Chick-fil-a is a company who doesn't practice discrimination. Yet, this is cause for condemnation according to some.
Well, they are in the wrong in this case you say. Okay. Just what did the CEO, Dan Cathay (nobody seems to be able to spell this name correctly I've noticed) say that was so egregious? Most probably don't even know because they probably only listen to idiot pundits and lazy journalists who can't be bothered to do any real work on the matter. So, I will quote the actual statement here: "Well, guilty as charged. We are very much supportive of the family – the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that. We operate as a family business ... our restaurants are typically led by families – some are single. We want to do anything we possibly can to strengthen families. We are very much committed to that ... We intend to stay the course. We know that it might not be popular with everyone, but thank the Lord, we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on biblical principles." So, other than whatever is meant by guilty as charged, there is absolutely nothing controversial here. In fact, it helps speak to something I'll get to later when he says they want to do anything we possibly can to strengthen families. When using the word we, Cathay is referring to the Cathay family. The business is family owned and operated, except for their franchisees. So, they support the biblical definition of the family unit. Um...last time I checked, so did the overwhelming majority of Christians, Muslims, etc. Religious entities are generally going to say they agree with their holy book's viewpoint. So, what was the question that was asked? This is the interesting part. According to the Baptist Press article that everyone is so keen on quoting without doing any homework of their own, the questions was..."some have opposed the company's support of the traditional family". It was to this statement in the article that Cathay said "guilty as charged". Huh...you'd have thought that the question was are you opposed to gay marriage, based on how it is being reported. I pointed this out to several people and they changed their approach. After all, even the ACLU has sided with Chick-fil-a when it comes to their first amendment rights, even in the face of political pressure from several city officials (mayors, alderman, etc.).
So, since there is nothing to condemn in the words of Cathay, some are choosing to follow another lazy media tactic and condemn the organizations that Chick-fil-a supports. This is rather irrelevant in reality. If someone is going to determine whether or not they will support (or rather, spend money at) a particular organization based on where it makes its charitable contributions, well, I'd argue most people wouldn't have anyplace they could spend their money. As an example, many organizations support Planned Parenthood, whereas many Christians believe abortion is nothing short of murder. Of course, if you want to pursue this tactic, by all means, do your research on the company you are considering spending money on, and on every organization it supports. Or, you can be lazy and do nothing, or you can be lazy and stupid and take the word of lazy reporters and stupid politicians. It is your choice and your right. However, to call for a boycott of said company is a different matter entirely. I think I could make a case that boycotts don't succeed. Sure, you might hurt a local business, but you won't hurt the company's bottom line. In fact, I suspect you'd strengthen their bottom line. This is the general result (from experience, not research) that I've seen whenever a group, left or right, calls for a boycott of something. Only if everybody agrees can this be an effective tactic, and that is a rarity indeed.
Now, the Cathay family has the right to give to whomever and whatever organization they choose. In reality, most Christians who give a tithe to their church can be accused of supporting an organization that is opposed to gay marriage, since a large number of Christian churches (the majority, I'd argue) are. So, apparently, if you've ever given your money to an organization that has spoken out against gay marriage, then you yourself are a bigot. At least, that is the unhelpful argument that is being made, it seems. Some liken this to giving money to the KKK or the Nazis. I'll get to Chick-fil-a's charitable donations in a second, but I must ask, does the opposition in this case really want people delving into the groups they support as I suggested above? I bet they don't, but their hypocrisy notwithstanding, I will point out something else important. In order to say that opposition to gay marriage is akin to supporting the KKK, well, then marriage must be a human right...otherwise, that argument has no leg to stand on. Since marriage is NOT a right for heterosexuals or homosexuals, that pretty much settles that. Right, I can't just make a statement and then not back it up. For my reasoning as to why my statement is true, see my post here.
However, I will still address the issue of who Chick-fil-a supports. Well, let's start here. In 2008, Truett Cathay, the patriarch of this family and company, was named the winner of the William E. Simon Prize for Philanthropic Leadership. This "annual award "honors living philanthropists who have shown exemplary leadership through their charitable giving, highlights the power of philanthropy to achieve positive change, and seeks to inspire others to support charities that achieve genuine results,” according to Philanthropy Roundtable, a national charitable giving association". The Chick-fil-a company was honored for donating over 100 million dollars since 1967 to support education and foster care. He has also established the WinShape Foundation, which has built 11 foster homes to support orphan care and seeks to support foster children and to support education through scholarships. The goal of the organization is to "help shape winners". That's it. According to their website, they have the aforementioned scholarship program and foster care as well as camps and marriage retreats designed to help struggling and failing couples save their marriages. Surely nobody is complaining this isn't a laudable goal. So, who are the egregious organizations Chick-fil-a has associated with? A 2011 article accused Chick-fil-a of being anti-gay for supporting Focus on the Family and the Fellowship of Christian Athletes. Agree or disagree with these organizations, they both are long standing Christian groups that are largely operated by donations. To argue Chick-fil-a is anti-gay for supporting these organizations is to argue all Christians are anti-gay simply because they hold to a certain faith tradition. The group, Equality Matters, that called these organizations anti-gay never gave any evidence to back up their claims regarding these two organizations other than that they support a "biblical definition of marriage" For religious organizations, they ALL support the definition of marriage defined in their respective holy book. This is entirely a religious issue and therefore a first amendment issue. Of course, people claim they are defending themselves against false claims, not attacking Christians. Unfortunately, often, many people have a difficult time telling the two apart. When a false claim is made, you can say, that is untrue because...which would be defending yourself and an entirely appropriate approach. However, when you say instead that an organization or group or individual is bigoted in some way because of their spiritual belief, you are in fact attacking the religion, whether it is in self defense or not. People will often say that opposition to gay marriage is akin to opposition to interracial marriage. Well, Christianity wasn't unique in believing that for a long time, but they are one of the few groups to admit it was an incorrect position and change it. These changes didn't happen because society said it was wrong, they happened because other Christians said it was wrong.
But I digress...back to who Chick-fil-a supports. The Huffington Post recently reported that Chick-fil-a has made donations to anti-gay groups. They cite Equality Matters, the organization I mentioned above, as their source. This organization states on its website that they are "a new media and communications initiative in support of gay equality. Through strategic communications, research, training and media monitoring we strengthen efforts for full LGBT rights and correct anti-gay misinformation. Our goal is to enhance advocacy and activism across all platforms and to leverage our expertise in support of others who are working to make full equality a national imperative." This sounds like a good enough goal. In fact, I've said many times that if they'd drop the use of the word marriage, they'd find that many, if not most, Christians would actually support them in their efforts. It isn't just a matter of simple semantics as many claim, but rather an important distinction of faith and philosophy. Be willing to say that all unions not done in a religious institution are civil unions and not marriages which is a religious institution to many and actually predates nation states, and you'd have many supporters. In fact, I'd be one of those supporters. What the state should do is nothing, but if it is going to give special privileges to people who choose to form a union contract, then it should allow anyone to form a contract as long as all parties are capable of making an adult decision (this eliminates pedophiles and those who'd marry their dog from the equation, but certainly open the door to polygamy). So, do they have anything on Chick-fil-a when it comes to discriminatory practices? No, no evidence of discrimination by the company. What they do have is a report that they've given 2 million dollars in 2010 to anti-gay organizations. Which organizations other than the 2 already listed are we talking about? Here's the list Equality Matters is so upset about along with how much the WinShape Foundation (not Chick-fil-a in reality since one is the family company and the other is the charitable arm of the family, not that any good reporters have actually bothered to make that very important distinction) gave each of these.
Okay then, what have these organizations done to be labelled as anti-gay? We'll start with the Marriage and Family Foundation. It states a belief in the biblical form of marriage of one man and one woman. Yes, I know this definition has changed over the years, let us not harp on irrelevant past definitions and assume that this is an earnest belief. Therefore, their support of helping save and support marriages between one man and one woman is hateful because it isn't inclusive of gay relationships and because they oppose those relationships? Whatever. You see, this is still a first amendment issue. The organization believes it must strengthen the family bonds of biblical families. This is a faith issue and not a rights one, as I've stated earlier. As a religious organization, they have the right to limit their support to those people who are in their faith tradition.
What has the Fellowship of Christian Athletes done? They have publicly stated that they believe homosexuality is a sin. Okay, one can disagree on that, but that doesn't make that group anti-gay...generally, it makes them...biblical. This is again, a first amendment issue.
The National Christian Foundation is accused of being anti-gay because it gives to other anti-gay groups like Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council. Interesting that in two separate articles from Equality Matters, I have yet to read anything actually accusing Focus on the Family of something specific other than that it is anti-gay because it believes in a biblical definition of marriage. Obviously, I could have missed something that the organization considers to be common knowledge.
Next we have the New Mexico Christian Foundation which is apparently anti-gay for no other reason than that it is the New Mexico chapter of the National Christian Foundation.
Then we come to Exodus International. They believe that people can be "made straight" through Christ. At least, that is what they are accused of. In fact, this was what their ministry was about, for a long time. An earnest belief that this is true doesn't necessarily make them anti-gay or hateful. However, I grant that their tactics, in the past, have been based on faulty research and assumptions not in evidence. At any rate, while this organization has made some poor choices and decisions in the past which has understandably earned them a reputation of being anti-gay, recently, they've come out publicly against gay bullying and even against their own former position that gays can be "made straight". At least, I saw the apology in that regard from their President. This repudiation of their own past efforts may not be sincere, I don't know, but they aren't given the benefit of the doubt, it seems. At any rate, they still believe homosexuality to be sinful, so I guess that's enough for Equality Matters.
That brings us to the Family Research Council (FRC) which has been designated an anti-gay hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Finally, one that can actually be called anti-gay. Right? The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) makes a pretty good case that some of the leaders of this organization have made some pretty bad statements and blatantly stated falsehoods regarding the homosexual community. With that in mind, I'd agree that this organization is questionable. However, the SPLC also stated that the organization's "agenda focused on abortion, traditional marriage, religious liberty, parental choice in education and tax relief for families." All of these are good goals as well. The Cathay family has an entire organization dedicated to helping struggling couples in their marriages and strengthening families and helping orphans. You don't think this thousand dollars could possibly be going toward one of these "other" goals? I return to my earlier example of Planned Parenthood. Last year, the Susan G. Komen Foundation tried to cease funding of Planned Parenthood because of its spending on abortion. They opposed one aspect of Planned Parenthood's mission. So, were they applauded for their stance? No, they were lambasted because of all the "other" good work Planned Parenthood does. In other words, they were told they couldn't stop giving because they'd hurt the "other" missions of the organization. Based on the argument being presented so far against Chick-fil-a, apparently, a multi-mission organization can't possibly do any good in one area and do bad in another...right? So, Susan G. Komen was right and Planned Parenthood was wrong under the argument being made right now. I'm not defending the FRC, I'm just saying that the argument being used makes the left atrociously hypocritical in this case.
Finally, there is the Georgia Family Council. Apparently, they were supporters of proposition 8 and are in support of the New Testament form of marriage as well. Um, proposition 8, no matter how much one would like to claim otherwise, passed, even in California. Not all of the people who voted for it are anti-gay, but rather, many of them believe marriage is an institution of the church (or of religions) and that the state should have no say in it whatsoever. Therefore, they vote for these things out of conscience not political philosophy. I understand voting based on conscience, even though my political philosophy would oppose it. This doesn't make someone intentionally hurtful or hateful. Additionally, it is largely over the word marriage. I'll reiterate. CALL IT SOMETHING ELSE AND YOU'D ALREADY HAVE IT!
Finally, we come to the issue of whether or not various politicians can prevent the company from opening new stores in their regions. Well, as I stated above, even the ACLU has come out against that idea. They themselves said that if a mayor could prevent Chick-fil-a from opening a new store because it is opposed to gay marriage, then a mayor in another town could do the same in reverse. The ACLU is absolutely right on this. In the end, this isn't about hate, although it disturbs me that so many Christian charities that support biblical forms of marriage are being called hate groups. In the end, this is about people who want Constitutional protection, but are unwilling to provide it to their opposition. The 1st amendment is about one thing really. It is about the right of someone to stand up in the public square and shout at the top of their lungs a position with which you would adamantly disagree. If you believe someone has the right to do that and that you then have the right to stand up after them and espouse the opposite, then you believe in the first amendment. If, like many in opposition to Chick-fil-a, you take offense at the opposition and label them hate mongers and anti-whatever rather than relying on your right to make your case, then you don't believe in the first amendment, no matter how much you pay lip service to it. Religious convictions have always been in opposition to the viewpoint of the world. If you don't like them, don't attend church...but don't tell a person of faith they are haters solely because they espouse a belief. If you do, that doesn't make them haters, but it does make you one. Call them out and call them haters if they blatantly lie or if they discriminate, as the SPLC has caught the Family Research Council doing. They called out Exodus International for some of its statements and that organization seems to be changing its tune, at least publicly.
The final question I want to put forth is this. Who do you hurt if you choose to boycot Chick-fil-a. Not Chick-fil-a. Christians nationwide will rally to this company because it has been such a good example of leadership and Christian values over the years. Last time I checked, the Cathay family had that right. So, there are 1600 stores nationwide with over 61,000 employees. They led the fast food industry with 2.7 million in sales per restaurant in 2010. So, if you don't like Chick-fil-a, don't eat there. You have that right. But if you choose not to eat there because of the family's supposed anti-gay stance, then you choose to not eat there because you disagree with a protected religious viewpoint, which is also your right. If you choose not to eat there because their charitable organization supports anti-gay organizations, then that is also your right. You should at least bother to research these organizations for yourself rather than rely on other entities such as Equality Matters to do your research for you. If you find you dislike those organizations, then by all means, let the Cathay family know why. You might be surprised that they may choose to give elsewhere. Of course, if you find nothing wrong with the groups, then you've done your own research and made a decision. If you do find these groups offensive, then you may choose not to eat there as well, also your right. If you support keeping them out of your neighborhood because of zoning issues or legitimate business related issues, as recently happened in a neighborhood near me, then I support you in that. If you, like the mayors of Chicago and Boston, think you can keep them out of your neighborhood because you disagree with their supposed stance, then I will again refer you to my statement above. I freely admit that I have no intention of looking into the charitable giving of the companies I patronize. If I chose to look at this in order to decide whether or not I would spend my money there...well...I would never buy anything from anyone. After all, I can't stand the Democrats or the Republicans and almost every organization supports one or both of these each year. I don't care for Planned Parenthood's stance on abortion, but I buy from companies that most assuredly support them. I don't always approve of some of the corporate culture and actions of mega corporations like oil companies either, but I have to buy gas or choose to ride a bike everywhere I go. This is not how I plan to live my life. Show me a company that treats people with respect, goes out of its way for its customers, and doesn't discriminate like Chick-fil-a and I'll gladly support them, regardless of what may happen with their profits in the background. The rest of the time, I really just don't want to know.
Well, they are in the wrong in this case you say. Okay. Just what did the CEO, Dan Cathay (nobody seems to be able to spell this name correctly I've noticed) say that was so egregious? Most probably don't even know because they probably only listen to idiot pundits and lazy journalists who can't be bothered to do any real work on the matter. So, I will quote the actual statement here: "Well, guilty as charged. We are very much supportive of the family – the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that. We operate as a family business ... our restaurants are typically led by families – some are single. We want to do anything we possibly can to strengthen families. We are very much committed to that ... We intend to stay the course. We know that it might not be popular with everyone, but thank the Lord, we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on biblical principles." So, other than whatever is meant by guilty as charged, there is absolutely nothing controversial here. In fact, it helps speak to something I'll get to later when he says they want to do anything we possibly can to strengthen families. When using the word we, Cathay is referring to the Cathay family. The business is family owned and operated, except for their franchisees. So, they support the biblical definition of the family unit. Um...last time I checked, so did the overwhelming majority of Christians, Muslims, etc. Religious entities are generally going to say they agree with their holy book's viewpoint. So, what was the question that was asked? This is the interesting part. According to the Baptist Press article that everyone is so keen on quoting without doing any homework of their own, the questions was..."some have opposed the company's support of the traditional family". It was to this statement in the article that Cathay said "guilty as charged". Huh...you'd have thought that the question was are you opposed to gay marriage, based on how it is being reported. I pointed this out to several people and they changed their approach. After all, even the ACLU has sided with Chick-fil-a when it comes to their first amendment rights, even in the face of political pressure from several city officials (mayors, alderman, etc.).
So, since there is nothing to condemn in the words of Cathay, some are choosing to follow another lazy media tactic and condemn the organizations that Chick-fil-a supports. This is rather irrelevant in reality. If someone is going to determine whether or not they will support (or rather, spend money at) a particular organization based on where it makes its charitable contributions, well, I'd argue most people wouldn't have anyplace they could spend their money. As an example, many organizations support Planned Parenthood, whereas many Christians believe abortion is nothing short of murder. Of course, if you want to pursue this tactic, by all means, do your research on the company you are considering spending money on, and on every organization it supports. Or, you can be lazy and do nothing, or you can be lazy and stupid and take the word of lazy reporters and stupid politicians. It is your choice and your right. However, to call for a boycott of said company is a different matter entirely. I think I could make a case that boycotts don't succeed. Sure, you might hurt a local business, but you won't hurt the company's bottom line. In fact, I suspect you'd strengthen their bottom line. This is the general result (from experience, not research) that I've seen whenever a group, left or right, calls for a boycott of something. Only if everybody agrees can this be an effective tactic, and that is a rarity indeed.
Now, the Cathay family has the right to give to whomever and whatever organization they choose. In reality, most Christians who give a tithe to their church can be accused of supporting an organization that is opposed to gay marriage, since a large number of Christian churches (the majority, I'd argue) are. So, apparently, if you've ever given your money to an organization that has spoken out against gay marriage, then you yourself are a bigot. At least, that is the unhelpful argument that is being made, it seems. Some liken this to giving money to the KKK or the Nazis. I'll get to Chick-fil-a's charitable donations in a second, but I must ask, does the opposition in this case really want people delving into the groups they support as I suggested above? I bet they don't, but their hypocrisy notwithstanding, I will point out something else important. In order to say that opposition to gay marriage is akin to supporting the KKK, well, then marriage must be a human right...otherwise, that argument has no leg to stand on. Since marriage is NOT a right for heterosexuals or homosexuals, that pretty much settles that. Right, I can't just make a statement and then not back it up. For my reasoning as to why my statement is true, see my post here.
However, I will still address the issue of who Chick-fil-a supports. Well, let's start here. In 2008, Truett Cathay, the patriarch of this family and company, was named the winner of the William E. Simon Prize for Philanthropic Leadership. This "annual award "honors living philanthropists who have shown exemplary leadership through their charitable giving, highlights the power of philanthropy to achieve positive change, and seeks to inspire others to support charities that achieve genuine results,” according to Philanthropy Roundtable, a national charitable giving association". The Chick-fil-a company was honored for donating over 100 million dollars since 1967 to support education and foster care. He has also established the WinShape Foundation, which has built 11 foster homes to support orphan care and seeks to support foster children and to support education through scholarships. The goal of the organization is to "help shape winners". That's it. According to their website, they have the aforementioned scholarship program and foster care as well as camps and marriage retreats designed to help struggling and failing couples save their marriages. Surely nobody is complaining this isn't a laudable goal. So, who are the egregious organizations Chick-fil-a has associated with? A 2011 article accused Chick-fil-a of being anti-gay for supporting Focus on the Family and the Fellowship of Christian Athletes. Agree or disagree with these organizations, they both are long standing Christian groups that are largely operated by donations. To argue Chick-fil-a is anti-gay for supporting these organizations is to argue all Christians are anti-gay simply because they hold to a certain faith tradition. The group, Equality Matters, that called these organizations anti-gay never gave any evidence to back up their claims regarding these two organizations other than that they support a "biblical definition of marriage" For religious organizations, they ALL support the definition of marriage defined in their respective holy book. This is entirely a religious issue and therefore a first amendment issue. Of course, people claim they are defending themselves against false claims, not attacking Christians. Unfortunately, often, many people have a difficult time telling the two apart. When a false claim is made, you can say, that is untrue because...which would be defending yourself and an entirely appropriate approach. However, when you say instead that an organization or group or individual is bigoted in some way because of their spiritual belief, you are in fact attacking the religion, whether it is in self defense or not. People will often say that opposition to gay marriage is akin to opposition to interracial marriage. Well, Christianity wasn't unique in believing that for a long time, but they are one of the few groups to admit it was an incorrect position and change it. These changes didn't happen because society said it was wrong, they happened because other Christians said it was wrong.
But I digress...back to who Chick-fil-a supports. The Huffington Post recently reported that Chick-fil-a has made donations to anti-gay groups. They cite Equality Matters, the organization I mentioned above, as their source. This organization states on its website that they are "a new media and communications initiative in support of gay equality. Through strategic communications, research, training and media monitoring we strengthen efforts for full LGBT rights and correct anti-gay misinformation. Our goal is to enhance advocacy and activism across all platforms and to leverage our expertise in support of others who are working to make full equality a national imperative." This sounds like a good enough goal. In fact, I've said many times that if they'd drop the use of the word marriage, they'd find that many, if not most, Christians would actually support them in their efforts. It isn't just a matter of simple semantics as many claim, but rather an important distinction of faith and philosophy. Be willing to say that all unions not done in a religious institution are civil unions and not marriages which is a religious institution to many and actually predates nation states, and you'd have many supporters. In fact, I'd be one of those supporters. What the state should do is nothing, but if it is going to give special privileges to people who choose to form a union contract, then it should allow anyone to form a contract as long as all parties are capable of making an adult decision (this eliminates pedophiles and those who'd marry their dog from the equation, but certainly open the door to polygamy). So, do they have anything on Chick-fil-a when it comes to discriminatory practices? No, no evidence of discrimination by the company. What they do have is a report that they've given 2 million dollars in 2010 to anti-gay organizations. Which organizations other than the 2 already listed are we talking about? Here's the list Equality Matters is so upset about along with how much the WinShape Foundation (not Chick-fil-a in reality since one is the family company and the other is the charitable arm of the family, not that any good reporters have actually bothered to make that very important distinction) gave each of these.
- Marriage & Family Foundation: $1,188,380
- Fellowship Of Christian Athletes: $480,000
- National Christian Foundation: $247,500
- New Mexico Christian Foundation: $54,000
- Exodus International: $1,000
- Family Research Council: $1,000
- Georgia Family Council: $2,500
Okay then, what have these organizations done to be labelled as anti-gay? We'll start with the Marriage and Family Foundation. It states a belief in the biblical form of marriage of one man and one woman. Yes, I know this definition has changed over the years, let us not harp on irrelevant past definitions and assume that this is an earnest belief. Therefore, their support of helping save and support marriages between one man and one woman is hateful because it isn't inclusive of gay relationships and because they oppose those relationships? Whatever. You see, this is still a first amendment issue. The organization believes it must strengthen the family bonds of biblical families. This is a faith issue and not a rights one, as I've stated earlier. As a religious organization, they have the right to limit their support to those people who are in their faith tradition.
What has the Fellowship of Christian Athletes done? They have publicly stated that they believe homosexuality is a sin. Okay, one can disagree on that, but that doesn't make that group anti-gay...generally, it makes them...biblical. This is again, a first amendment issue.
The National Christian Foundation is accused of being anti-gay because it gives to other anti-gay groups like Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council. Interesting that in two separate articles from Equality Matters, I have yet to read anything actually accusing Focus on the Family of something specific other than that it is anti-gay because it believes in a biblical definition of marriage. Obviously, I could have missed something that the organization considers to be common knowledge.
Next we have the New Mexico Christian Foundation which is apparently anti-gay for no other reason than that it is the New Mexico chapter of the National Christian Foundation.
Then we come to Exodus International. They believe that people can be "made straight" through Christ. At least, that is what they are accused of. In fact, this was what their ministry was about, for a long time. An earnest belief that this is true doesn't necessarily make them anti-gay or hateful. However, I grant that their tactics, in the past, have been based on faulty research and assumptions not in evidence. At any rate, while this organization has made some poor choices and decisions in the past which has understandably earned them a reputation of being anti-gay, recently, they've come out publicly against gay bullying and even against their own former position that gays can be "made straight". At least, I saw the apology in that regard from their President. This repudiation of their own past efforts may not be sincere, I don't know, but they aren't given the benefit of the doubt, it seems. At any rate, they still believe homosexuality to be sinful, so I guess that's enough for Equality Matters.
That brings us to the Family Research Council (FRC) which has been designated an anti-gay hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Finally, one that can actually be called anti-gay. Right? The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) makes a pretty good case that some of the leaders of this organization have made some pretty bad statements and blatantly stated falsehoods regarding the homosexual community. With that in mind, I'd agree that this organization is questionable. However, the SPLC also stated that the organization's "agenda focused on abortion, traditional marriage, religious liberty, parental choice in education and tax relief for families." All of these are good goals as well. The Cathay family has an entire organization dedicated to helping struggling couples in their marriages and strengthening families and helping orphans. You don't think this thousand dollars could possibly be going toward one of these "other" goals? I return to my earlier example of Planned Parenthood. Last year, the Susan G. Komen Foundation tried to cease funding of Planned Parenthood because of its spending on abortion. They opposed one aspect of Planned Parenthood's mission. So, were they applauded for their stance? No, they were lambasted because of all the "other" good work Planned Parenthood does. In other words, they were told they couldn't stop giving because they'd hurt the "other" missions of the organization. Based on the argument being presented so far against Chick-fil-a, apparently, a multi-mission organization can't possibly do any good in one area and do bad in another...right? So, Susan G. Komen was right and Planned Parenthood was wrong under the argument being made right now. I'm not defending the FRC, I'm just saying that the argument being used makes the left atrociously hypocritical in this case.
Finally, there is the Georgia Family Council. Apparently, they were supporters of proposition 8 and are in support of the New Testament form of marriage as well. Um, proposition 8, no matter how much one would like to claim otherwise, passed, even in California. Not all of the people who voted for it are anti-gay, but rather, many of them believe marriage is an institution of the church (or of religions) and that the state should have no say in it whatsoever. Therefore, they vote for these things out of conscience not political philosophy. I understand voting based on conscience, even though my political philosophy would oppose it. This doesn't make someone intentionally hurtful or hateful. Additionally, it is largely over the word marriage. I'll reiterate. CALL IT SOMETHING ELSE AND YOU'D ALREADY HAVE IT!
Finally, we come to the issue of whether or not various politicians can prevent the company from opening new stores in their regions. Well, as I stated above, even the ACLU has come out against that idea. They themselves said that if a mayor could prevent Chick-fil-a from opening a new store because it is opposed to gay marriage, then a mayor in another town could do the same in reverse. The ACLU is absolutely right on this. In the end, this isn't about hate, although it disturbs me that so many Christian charities that support biblical forms of marriage are being called hate groups. In the end, this is about people who want Constitutional protection, but are unwilling to provide it to their opposition. The 1st amendment is about one thing really. It is about the right of someone to stand up in the public square and shout at the top of their lungs a position with which you would adamantly disagree. If you believe someone has the right to do that and that you then have the right to stand up after them and espouse the opposite, then you believe in the first amendment. If, like many in opposition to Chick-fil-a, you take offense at the opposition and label them hate mongers and anti-whatever rather than relying on your right to make your case, then you don't believe in the first amendment, no matter how much you pay lip service to it. Religious convictions have always been in opposition to the viewpoint of the world. If you don't like them, don't attend church...but don't tell a person of faith they are haters solely because they espouse a belief. If you do, that doesn't make them haters, but it does make you one. Call them out and call them haters if they blatantly lie or if they discriminate, as the SPLC has caught the Family Research Council doing. They called out Exodus International for some of its statements and that organization seems to be changing its tune, at least publicly.
The final question I want to put forth is this. Who do you hurt if you choose to boycot Chick-fil-a. Not Chick-fil-a. Christians nationwide will rally to this company because it has been such a good example of leadership and Christian values over the years. Last time I checked, the Cathay family had that right. So, there are 1600 stores nationwide with over 61,000 employees. They led the fast food industry with 2.7 million in sales per restaurant in 2010. So, if you don't like Chick-fil-a, don't eat there. You have that right. But if you choose not to eat there because of the family's supposed anti-gay stance, then you choose to not eat there because you disagree with a protected religious viewpoint, which is also your right. If you choose not to eat there because their charitable organization supports anti-gay organizations, then that is also your right. You should at least bother to research these organizations for yourself rather than rely on other entities such as Equality Matters to do your research for you. If you find you dislike those organizations, then by all means, let the Cathay family know why. You might be surprised that they may choose to give elsewhere. Of course, if you find nothing wrong with the groups, then you've done your own research and made a decision. If you do find these groups offensive, then you may choose not to eat there as well, also your right. If you support keeping them out of your neighborhood because of zoning issues or legitimate business related issues, as recently happened in a neighborhood near me, then I support you in that. If you, like the mayors of Chicago and Boston, think you can keep them out of your neighborhood because you disagree with their supposed stance, then I will again refer you to my statement above. I freely admit that I have no intention of looking into the charitable giving of the companies I patronize. If I chose to look at this in order to decide whether or not I would spend my money there...well...I would never buy anything from anyone. After all, I can't stand the Democrats or the Republicans and almost every organization supports one or both of these each year. I don't care for Planned Parenthood's stance on abortion, but I buy from companies that most assuredly support them. I don't always approve of some of the corporate culture and actions of mega corporations like oil companies either, but I have to buy gas or choose to ride a bike everywhere I go. This is not how I plan to live my life. Show me a company that treats people with respect, goes out of its way for its customers, and doesn't discriminate like Chick-fil-a and I'll gladly support them, regardless of what may happen with their profits in the background. The rest of the time, I really just don't want to know.
Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Thoughts on social justice and Christianity
I've recently been thinking about social justice...a lot. The idea is that we should strive to build a better society, not just act charitably. This is a very attractive idea and seems to be supported by many Christians. In fact, it is this idea that seems to be at the core of differences between Christians and what they claim to believe. It seems to me that many on the left believe this means they should vote for and support politicians and policies in government designed to bring about a better world for all in addition to or instead of charity alone. Many on the right believe that it means to be charitable and help all those in need that cross your path as best you can. Both quote the below passage from Matthew as justification for their belief:
Now, that brings me back to the passage. What is it saying...exactly. For me, the Lord is clearly giving us a view of charity. He wants us to know that we are to act when we are able to to help those in need around us. When asked, "When did we see you..." he responds to the two groups present with very different answers. To the righteous he says..."whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me" and to the wicked he says..."whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me." The Lord seems to be stating that each person is responsible for their own actions. If we choose to help the needy, we are rewarded but if we choose to reject them, we are not. This is a personal act for me, not a collective one. He is calling us out, to make righteous choices in our lives. To see a need and fill a need to use an old adage. Is he calling us to society's definition of social justice? Where we must support government actions to bring about certain just outcomes? I don't think that is what this passage is about.
First, in Matthew 26, we see the story where Mary anoints Jesus' feet. Judas tries to rebuke her for her waste when they could use it to help the poor. The stuff she used to pour on Christ's feet was quite expensive after all. Jesus' response in verse 11? "The poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have me." Jesus is telling them that Mary is committing an act of worship here. She is being charitable toward her Lord. Since this oil is quite expensive, she is sacrificing on his behalf, in fact. It also tells us that we will always have the poor with us and so we must always strive to help them. We must act out of faith and obedience and act sacrificially, just as Mary is doing here.
Again in Luke chapter 20, we get insight into what God would have us do. When questioned about taxes and whether it is right to pay them, Jesus responds to his questioners: “Then give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” He knew they wanted to trap Him into saying something that could be considered seditious and this was His response. It provides great insight in my opinion. It clearly states there is a difference between giving money to the government (Caesar) and giving money to God (charity). This helps clarify for me where I should fall on this question.
So, I do not believe the above passage tells us that God intends us to support policies or vote for people that will force good behavior on us all through government taxation and intervention. I believe this passage speaks to each of us as individuals. We are to help the poor, the hungry, the widows, the orphans, etc. With our time, talents, money, etc. If I go out and help one person with my time and money, I believe that has eternal value. If I vote for someone who promises to help hundreds or thousands by forcing others to give up their time and money to others, I don't believe that has eternal value. My reason is quite simple. In the first example, I choose to take the time and I choose to sacrifice my earnings in order to help another person. With the second, the choice is removed, but not only removed, it is forced upon me. The first is an act of faith and obedience to what God has asked of us, the other requires no faith and certainly no act of obedience. I believe it is easy to see this demonstrated. If a person pays their taxes and still gives their time, talents and money to help others above and beyond those taxes, then I'd argue they are making a faithful and obedient choice. However, if a person pays taxes and expects that to bring about positive outcomes and does nothing in addition to help others, then I'd argue they aren't acting in faith or making any choices to follow God's commands. I have no one in particular in mind, I am simply relaying my belief regarding biblical truth and social justice. One is following God's commands while the other is relying on government to solve society's problems. While there may be room for a little bit of both in society, the Christian must act individually.
31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.So, who is right? Well, I won't claim to have sole authority on such matters, but I will share which I agree with and why. First, let's define social justice, shall we? According to the simple dictionary definition, it is "the distribution of advantages and disadvantages within a society." This is a rather simple view of things, is it not? The Christian left website defines it thus: "care for the poor and the oppressed." Their site continues on to compare this act with supporting such things as government welfare, universal healthcare, subsidized education and foreign aid. These are generally viewed as government actions. Another definition, from the International Labour Organization (ILO), is: "Social justice is based on the concepts of human rights and equality and involves a greater degree of economic egalitarianism through progressive taxation, income redistribution, or even property redistribution. These policies aim to achieve what developmental economists refer to as more equality of opportunity than may currently exist in some societies, and to manufacture equality of outcome in cases where incidental inequalities appear in a procedurally just system." Again, this entire definition hinges on the actions of governments, not charity. Therefore, at least in the eyes of society as a whole, social justice is about the government using its power to force certain standards and behaviors on society in order to achieve a certain result. An aside, but...what if one doesn't agree with the goal, the standards, or the behaviors, but I digress.
34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’
41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life. ”
Now, that brings me back to the passage. What is it saying...exactly. For me, the Lord is clearly giving us a view of charity. He wants us to know that we are to act when we are able to to help those in need around us. When asked, "When did we see you..." he responds to the two groups present with very different answers. To the righteous he says..."whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me" and to the wicked he says..."whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me." The Lord seems to be stating that each person is responsible for their own actions. If we choose to help the needy, we are rewarded but if we choose to reject them, we are not. This is a personal act for me, not a collective one. He is calling us out, to make righteous choices in our lives. To see a need and fill a need to use an old adage. Is he calling us to society's definition of social justice? Where we must support government actions to bring about certain just outcomes? I don't think that is what this passage is about.
First, in Matthew 26, we see the story where Mary anoints Jesus' feet. Judas tries to rebuke her for her waste when they could use it to help the poor. The stuff she used to pour on Christ's feet was quite expensive after all. Jesus' response in verse 11? "The poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have me." Jesus is telling them that Mary is committing an act of worship here. She is being charitable toward her Lord. Since this oil is quite expensive, she is sacrificing on his behalf, in fact. It also tells us that we will always have the poor with us and so we must always strive to help them. We must act out of faith and obedience and act sacrificially, just as Mary is doing here.
Again in Luke chapter 20, we get insight into what God would have us do. When questioned about taxes and whether it is right to pay them, Jesus responds to his questioners: “Then give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” He knew they wanted to trap Him into saying something that could be considered seditious and this was His response. It provides great insight in my opinion. It clearly states there is a difference between giving money to the government (Caesar) and giving money to God (charity). This helps clarify for me where I should fall on this question.
So, I do not believe the above passage tells us that God intends us to support policies or vote for people that will force good behavior on us all through government taxation and intervention. I believe this passage speaks to each of us as individuals. We are to help the poor, the hungry, the widows, the orphans, etc. With our time, talents, money, etc. If I go out and help one person with my time and money, I believe that has eternal value. If I vote for someone who promises to help hundreds or thousands by forcing others to give up their time and money to others, I don't believe that has eternal value. My reason is quite simple. In the first example, I choose to take the time and I choose to sacrifice my earnings in order to help another person. With the second, the choice is removed, but not only removed, it is forced upon me. The first is an act of faith and obedience to what God has asked of us, the other requires no faith and certainly no act of obedience. I believe it is easy to see this demonstrated. If a person pays their taxes and still gives their time, talents and money to help others above and beyond those taxes, then I'd argue they are making a faithful and obedient choice. However, if a person pays taxes and expects that to bring about positive outcomes and does nothing in addition to help others, then I'd argue they aren't acting in faith or making any choices to follow God's commands. I have no one in particular in mind, I am simply relaying my belief regarding biblical truth and social justice. One is following God's commands while the other is relying on government to solve society's problems. While there may be room for a little bit of both in society, the Christian must act individually.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)