Marriage Equality - Another Right Recognized

I think it's important that everyone take a moment to reflect upon what the Supreme Court did a few days ago - it recognized a right. It did not create a right or grant a right. The right already existed; it has always existed.  Thomas Paine said it best in 1795:

            “It is at all times necessary, and more particularly so during the progress of a revolution, and until right ideas confirm themselves by habit, that we frequently refresh our patriotism by reference to first principles. It is by tracing things to their origin that we learn to understand them; and it is by keeping that line and that origin always in view that we never forget them. An inquiry into the origin of rights will demonstrate to us that rights are not gifts from one man to another, nor from one class of men to another; for who is he who could be the first giver? Or by what principle, or on what authority, could he possess the right of giving?
            “A declaration of rights is not a creation of them, nor a donation of them. It is a manifest of the principle by which they exist, followed by a detail of what the rights are; for every civil right has a natural right for its foundation, and it includes the principle of a reciprocal guarantee of those rights from man to man. As, therefore, it is impossible to discover any origin of rights otherwise than in the origin of man, it consequently follows that rights appertain to man in right of his existence only and must, therefore, be equal to every man.”

Good civil government recognizes individual liberty apart from the dictates of tradition or religion. We are awakening to this, though at a snail's pace. Slowly, but surely.

Our government is nowhere near perfect, but, like the bullying videos that came out a couple years ago, "it gets better." That is, if we make it better.

In Other News...

So, I have a book out through Amazon's CreateSpace.  If you have any connection to musical theatre (musician, actor, producer, patron) I think you will find it interesting - you don't have to be a music director to enjoy it (at least, that's the hope).

Here's a link to the book.  Write back with your feedback, or review it on Amazon!  :)

https://www.createspace.com/5314157

Confusion On The Christian Right

From the middle of my college career and for 14 years thereafter, I was a devout Christian, part of a fundamentalist, Bible-thumping church in Chicago.  During that whole time, my understanding of the Christian faith compelled me to remain largely apolitical.  I considered politics to be one of those “civilian affairs” of which the apostle Paul warned Christians to steer clear.  Could I vote and have opinions on politics as a Christian?  Sure.  Should I have been a political activist based on my religious beliefs, trying to push my religion into civil legislation?  I believed that to be a line I should not cross.  Having left the Christian religion 15 years ago, I still believe that.

It seems that not a day goes by anymore that we don’t see a dangerous mix of politics and religion being presented by the Christian right in America.  I would like to present some ideas to my friends who are presently members of the Christian right, some food for thought that I hope may be influential in obliterating the “war hawk” stance that has strangely found a foothold among those who should be among the most peaceful and peace-loving groups in this country.

First of all, my friends, I think you would do well to consider that the men who lived during the Crusades were utterly wrong to take Paul’s “soldier of Christ” metaphor and use it as justification to actually militarize, and then to go among the nations causing death, mutilation, and general destruction in the name of God.  These men were the jihadists of their day.  Their beliefs about Christianity were twisted and extremely harmful.

I noticed during my Christian days a distinct tendency among fundamentalist Christians (especially the men) to emphasize and celebrate the maleness of Jesus.  “He was a man.  He was a carpenter – there was a lot of hard, physical labor in those days for your average carpenter.  He must have been pretty well cut [this is where we picture a shirtless, sweaty Jesus with a nice six-pack, chiseled pecs, and big biceps].  He walked through an angry crowd and no one dared touch him.  He must have had an intimidating physical presence.  He drove the money changers out of the temple with a whip he made himself.  Jesus was no wimp!”

These are things I heard discussed by Christians (who seemed almost on the verge of touching themselves) as if there were a deep desire for Jesus to be Rambo, as if the Great Commission were for the disciples to go into all nations to intimidate (and yet attract) others with their macho physique.  Take literally the “soldier” in “soldier of Christ” and add Rambo-Jesus and what do you get?  A Christian war hawk, a Christian who has lost all perspective on the purpose and mission of his Savior.  Congratulations!  You get to beat the crap out of the rest of the world and go to Heaven!  (Sound familiar?)

My friends, how can you possibly reconcile your joy at watching missiles being fired at ISIS militants with your commission by Jesus himself to go and share the gospel with all nations?  You’re actually watching footage of missile launches that will kill and, according to your beliefs, send unbelieving Islamic militants to Hell for eternity.  And you’re cheering??

“I take no pleasure in the death of anyone.”  -God

And you’re cheering.

I don’t think I will ever understand those Christians who look at pictures of aircraft carriers and American flags and all but start masturbating.  Read the Gospels a little more closely.  Jesus was not a political activist.  He was not a politician.  He was not a general.  He was not a literal soldier.  He was male, but he was not macho.  He wasn’t juvenile in his thinking or his actions.  “As a sheep before its shearers is silent, so he pulled out his awesome .57 mag and let it do the talking!”

My friends, if there is any shooting going on, it is you shooting your cause (Jesus’ cause) in the foot by aligning yourselves with America’s military-industrial complex, and your fervent wish to have America known as a “Christian nation.”  How do you expect to go out and make disciples of all nations when the great Christian nation of the world has been killing militants and civilians in those nations and sealing their fate – separation from God for eternity – before they’ve had a chance to hear the “good news” proclaimed from our holy shores?  The great Christian nation is killing your potential converts before you have a chance to invite them to Thursday night Bible study!  And those who are left, who have lost family members or have themselves been maimed – how open to the message will they be?  “Prince of Peace, my ass!” they’ll say, and who could blame them?  More like “Prince of Piece” (where piece = pistol).

If you, as you claim, really have something better to offer this lost world than bullets and bombs and so-called patriotism, then you would do well to distance yourself as much as you can from American politics, especially when it comes to current foreign policy.  Jesus has already given you a foreign policy to which I have alluded, a policy which should make you doves, not hawks.  If you want to honor your Savior and stop sullying his name, cut your ties to militarism and false patriotism.

Proclaiming Jesus as Lord and being a war hawk has to be one of the biggest oxymorons out there.  I think the Christian right could learn a lot from the example of the Quakers and the Amish, as opposed to Patton, MacArthur, and the high-profile right-wing politicians of our day.  And, I have to say, it bothers me a little that I have put more time here into defending the character, reputation, and mission of Jesus Christ than any member of the Christian right that I know today, and I’m no longer even a believer.  Let that sink in, brothers and sisters.

The More Things Change, The More They Stay The Same

"In these descriptions of the relation between business and Government in the United States, I have not tried to draw any sharp distinctions between the Republican and the Democratic parties.  Indeed, such an effort would be quite futile, since no real distinction between them exists.  Historically, the two parties represent varying points of view as to the best method of robbing the workers.  The Democrats favored slavery as a method.  The Republicans preferred the wage system.  But those differences were ironed out during the Civil War.  During more than half a century both parties have accepted the system of wage labor as the most practical and remunerative system of exploitation.  Today Republicans and Democrats are alike the spokesmen of big business.  This assertion I can make without the slightest fear of contradiction, as I have known the leaders of both parties for fifty years and have worked in the inner circles of both party machines."

This is another quote from Pettigrew's book, "Triumphant Plutocracy," published in 1922.

"Triumphant Plutocracy"

The title of this post comes from the title of a book published in 1921, by Richard Pettigrew.  He was a U.S. Senator from South Dakota. 

I find the title of his book disturbing because it suggests from the get-go that the triumph has already occurred - it's a done deal.  And it is also suggestive of the sad fact that where there are winners, there are also losers.

For those who haven't already Googled the term: plutocracy - 1. the rule or power of wealth or of the wealthy.  2. a government or state in which the wealthy class rules.  3. a class or group ruling, or exercising power or influence, by virtue of its wealth.

There have been many articles recently pertaining to the Princeton/Northwestern study which concludes that America is an oligarchy (the rule by a few).  One article I read recently made the case that "plutocracy" is the more accurate term, and I agree.

These articles reminded me of Pettigrew's book, which has been sitting on my shelf waiting for me to pick it up and read it.  Actually, I did start reading it a few years ago before putting it down to focus on some other books.  Here are a few items I highlighted at the time which I think are very relevant for today.  Keep in mind that this was published in 1921, with observations on the preceding 50 years.

"The American people should know the truth about American public life.  They have been lied to so much and hoodwinked so often that it would seem only fair for them to have at least one straight-from-the-shoulder statement concerning this government 'of the people, by the people and for the people,' about whose inner workings the people know almost nothing.

"The common people of the United States, like the same class of people in every other country, mean well, but they are ill-informed.  Floundering about in their ignorance, they are tricked and robbed by those who have the inside information and who therefore know how to take advantage of every turn in the wheel of fortune."

"Again, bankers, lawyers, manufacturers and business men are going to save the country - not by keeping us out of war, but by getting ready for the next war.  It is these men who dominate the life and thought as well as the industries of these United States, and it is just such men that have been in control of the United States ever since I entered the Senate thirty years ago."

"I witnessed the momentous changes [as the United States became "probably the richest and most influential among the great nations"] and participated in them.  While they were occurring I saw something else that filled me with dread.  I saw the government of the United States enter into a struggle with the trusts, the railroads and the banks, and I watched while the business forces won the contest.  I saw the forms of republican government decay through disuse, and I saw them betrayed by the very men who were sworn to preserve and uphold them.  I saw the empire of business, with its innumerable ramifications, grow up around and above the structure of government.  I watched the power over public affairs shift from the weakened structure of republican political machinery to the vigorous new business empire.  Strong men who saw what was occurring no longer went into politics.  Instead, they entered the field of industry, and with them the seat of the government of the United States was shifted from Washington to Wall Street.  With this shift, there disappeared from active public life those principles of republican government that I had learned to believe were the means of safeguarding liberty.  After the authority over public affairs had been transferred to the men of business, I saw the machinery of business pass from the hands of individuals into the hands of corporations - artificial persons - created in the imagination of lawyers, and given efficacy by the sanction of the courts and of the law."


I could go on and on with quotes, but eventually I'd end up replicating the book right here.  The point is, America has been a plutocracy virtually from its inception, and the members of the Club became pretty brazen about it during the Gilded Age, and seem to be recapturing that brazen spirit in our time.  The question is always the same: what are we going to do about it?

What About Snowden?

Hero or traitor?  In the end, I hope history will record him as a hero.

Read the "Comments" section after a news article on Edward Snowden.  He tends to get a really bad rap, especially from those who identify themselves as veterans - not a lot of love coming to Snowden from that quarter.

But, I would urge my fellow veterans: before you condemn Snowden as a traitor, read the Constitution and do a little research that sheds some light on why we have a Bill of Rights.  Do you understand some of the things that had been happening in Europe that compelled the enumeration of those rights?  Do you understand the very real abuses that our founders were seeking to avoid in this new country?  The Bill of Rights is more than just a list of "good ideas."  It was included in our Constitution as a response, a reaction, to recent history.

As a veteran, what good is my oath to protect the Constitution if we don't have one to protect?  If our government has made it a habit to act outside the limits of the Constitution, and does so with impunity, then we don't really have one, do we?  Our Constitution exists to keep the government of a free nation in check.  If it takes someone like Snowden to expose the wrongdoings of the government, if it takes someone violating their oath of secrecy to help preserve (or restore) the integrity of our Constitution, then that's what it takes.

It isn't Snowden who should be in the hot seat - it's our government.

Surveillance State Does Not Belong In A "Free" Country

Here are some recent status updates from my facebook page.  I thought they should be seen here.  (And, yeah, I use hashtags sometimes in a non-Twitter setting.)

-Privacy matters. Yes, it matters. As a group of authors recently calling for a "Bill of Digital Rights" put it: a person under surveillance is not free. Think about that, and let the truth of it sink in.

-Your indifference to living in a surveillance state is proportional to your willingness to be manipulated by those who are watching you. #BraveNewWorld #1984 #ItCan'tHappenHere #WhyHaveStalkerLaws?

-Imagine a prison or jail without any surveillance of its population whatsoever. What would that mean for the prisoners? Given time and opportunity, their freedom. Get it? People who are under surveillance are not free. #SovietUnion #EasternBlocCountries #ItIsABigDeal

-If you support "stalker laws" but are indifferent to living in a surveillance state, you're missing something. #privacymatters #yourprivacymatters #IHaveNothingToHideIsNotThePoint

-If an individual doesn't have the right to stalk people, then how does a GROUP of people get the right to stalk everyone? Stalker laws are unconstitutional if what the NSA has been doing is not. #CannotHaveItBothWays #NoSurveillanceState