Is it 'Faith' or 'Religious Crack?'

The time was September 12, 1960, and then presidential hopeful, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, was making a speech at the Rice Hotel in Huston, TX, that would set the stage clarifying the separation of church and state as it applied to a Catholic parishioner-himself. Today, in a speech decidedly opposite leaning, Mitt Romney told a gathering at the George (H.W.) Bush presidential library that heralded the melding of church and state as necessary and inseparable. As we approach the 2008 election, I think we need to ponder on the wisdom of the former, rather than the insanity of the latter.

Kennedy started his famous speech with this paragraph:

"While the so-called religious issue is necessarily and properly the chief topic here tonight, I want to emphasize from the outset that we have far more critical issues to face in the 1960 election; the spread of Communist influence, until it now festers 90 miles off the coast of Florida--the humiliating treatment of our President and Vice President by those who no longer respect our power--the hungry children I saw in West Virginia, the old people who cannot pay their doctor bills, the families forced to give up their farms--an America with too many slums, with too few schools, and too late to the moon and outer space."

This historical perspective, gives us a glimpse-albeit harsh-at the progress or rather lack of progress with issues that still haunt us today. Yes, We've been to the moon and the spread of Communism is mostly abated. The cold war is over. There are still hungry children, homeless adults and children, elderly and others that cannot afford the spiraling cost of our inept and over-bloated health care system. Families are still forced to give up their farms, and fewer and fewer farm children choose the family profession to come back to when they leave for college. America still has too many slums, and the gap between the richest Americans and the poorest ones widens daily. We still have problems that reach well beyond the issue of Religion.

Mitt Romney, having not nearly as good a speech writer as Kennedy, took a full five paragraphs to come to the point. Since the first paragraph is essentially a nod to the former president, in attendance at the speech, I've included paragraphs 2 - 5 here:

"Mr. President, your generation rose to the occasion, first to defeat Fascism and then to vanquish the Soviet Union. You left us, your children, a free and strong America. It is why we call yours the greatest generation. It is now my generation's turn. How we respond to today's challenges will define our generation. And it will determine what kind of America we will leave our children, and theirs.

America faces a new generation of challenges. Radical violent Islam seeks to destroy us. An emerging China endeavors to surpass our economic leadership. And we are troubled at home by government overspending, overuse of foreign oil, and the breakdown of the family.

Over the last year, we have embarked on a national debate on how best to preserve American leadership. Today, I wish to address a topic which I believe is fundamental to America's greatness: our religious liberty. I will also offer perspectives on how my own faith would inform my Presidency, if I were elected.

There are some who may feel that religion is not a matter to be seriously considered in the context of the weighty threats that face us. If so, they are at odds with the nation's founders, for they, when our nation faced its greatest peril, sought the blessings of the Creator. And further, they discovered the essential connection between the survival of a free land and the protection of religious freedom. In John Adams’ words: 'We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion... Our constitution was made for a moral and religious people."

As with any political speech, there are elements of truth. Certain, elements of radical Islam have targeted America, we are in fact troubled at home by government overspending and there is no question that we are addicted to the prostitute "foreign oil" and need a 12 step program. It's odd that our botching of the arrogantly conceived Iraq war, has either caused or fanned the flames of the first two-the threat of radical Islam and government overspending-and was plotted, planned, schemed and executed by our current Republican president and his then minions in both houses of congress.

It is also true that our fore-fathers saw the wisdom of protecting religious freedoms and I'm sure that John Adams words as quoted by Romney are correct. That does not, however, mean that religion or more appropriately, faith, is any less personal a matter than to lend credence to the fundamentalist cries for their brand of politics, their brand of religious freedom.

Over the past few years we've seen a push by fundamentalist Christians to forward their faith into the politics of America. George W. Bush was a candidate, largely picked by fundamentalist Christians, and just look at what a disaster that choice was! He wears his religion on his sleeve alright; That hasn't stopped him from incorrectly assessing the threat of a sovereign nation, Iraq, while allowing the perpetrator of one of the largest, most successful, peace-time terrorist attacks, Osama Bin Laden, to escape through Afghanistan. He's twisted the truth and out-right lied about the events leading up to the Iraq war, and he did so while holding his bible. In the process, men and innocent Iraqis have died. While the one perpetrator we know is guilty, continues to live.

I'd much rather have a president who recognizes the separate nature of his "faith" and have that faith guide his actual activities, than to have a president who touts his "religion" and then avoid faiths guidance at all costs. What Romney promises is more of the same. The final statement in the paragraphs above seals this issue:

"Our constitution was made for a moral and religious people."

No, Mr. Romney, our constitution was made for all Americans, whether they choose to be religious or not. Romney's views, however, are not unlike those of other Republican candidates who have promised to let their religious convictions, rather than their faith, guide them.

When it gets right down to it we are talking on one hand about a drug; "Religious Crack," which is represented by the rabid believer who listens only to his religious leader, whether the leader is the Pope, Pat Robertson or Louis Farrakhan; and on the other hand about "faith;" the ability of a thinking man to absorb the thoughts and feelings of others, the teachings of his god and the words and deeds of people he admires, allowing these to guide his conscience in all things. Frankly, I'd much rather have a leader who is a thinker than one who is a drug addict.

Tough issues still face our nation. We need a leader who is tough enough to face these challenges, has faith enough to guide him morally in his duties and decisions and is wise enough to make choices that work for all Americans.

You can read John F. Kennedy's original speech about religion here: JFK Speech

You can read the full context of Mitt Romney's speech here: Romney Speech

Is there still a chance for the chewy political center?

A person has to wonder, given the latest "benefits" of the carefully orchestrated group meetings surrounding senator Clinton's campaign, if the nation is slowly warming to the chewy center of the democratic party. We can't continue down the road of Rove/Bush, carefully orchestrating the crowds to serve our own agenda. This is a failed and flawed political policy, and one that deserves a sound trouncing-whether the party is Democrat or Republican.

So the polls show that Democrats are a lot more disgusted and troubled by the use of these tactics by Clinton than I'm sure she would have hoped. A solid lead in the polls is now tightening and 2nd place challenger Barack Obama seems poised to gain much of the lost percentiles. And why not? Barack may not have the experience of Clinton in some respects, but he exudes a quality that has been missing far too long in this country and in the political scene, a mannerism of calm, a pragmatic application of warmth and even handedness. Would we, should we, even consider replacing the corporate behemoth of Bush with yet another corporate behemoth in Clinton? I say no.

You can be tempted to deal it to the Republicans as they have dealt unto us for the last 7 years, but what does that gain the country? Not one thing. That is what we are buying into if we allow our hearts and votes to be lured into the Clinton camp. We can go for revenge, and likely lose the battle altogether; Or we can go for the center, where 90% of America is anyway, and try to bring this country back together through inclusion. I believe that this is the type of president that Barack Obama would be, and I believe that his soft-spoken yet firm nature will allow him to win against any of the Republican front-runners.

Unfortunately, the Republican hopefuls are shaping up to be more of the same-all cut out of some corporate or moral institutional model, that would give us another four years, minimum, of separatist hell in our nation. We can't afford more of the same. There is too much at stake.

Americans have an opportunity to end the extremist views of one party and replace them with either more extremism on the opposite poll, or moderation that heals. My vote is to heal the nation and bring Republicans and Democrats back together as they were meant to be. There is a soft and chewy political center, and he is Barack Obama.

Independent Climate Change Editorial Ignores Facts

The following post was sent to my local paper, "The Grand Island Daily Independent," In response to a recent editorial that painted Bush's climate change policy in a much too favorable light. While it is a response to that article, I believe that the content and facts stand alone in supporting my argument and therefore, I'm including them here for view.

**************

In its Tuesday, October 2nd, Op-ed column titled “Climate change debate centers on emerging nations,” The Independent paints a rosy picture of President Bush as someone who has had a long standing and consistent view of climate change, has promoted sane policy and engaged in honest discourse. Nothing could be further from the truth.

From the outset of the Bush presidency, he has gone out of his way to ignore, deny, and ridicule, the scientific community’s assessment that climate change has been brought about and accelerated by human activity; most notably carbon emissions from petroleum burning vehicles, and until recently (in other words this year) he has denied that the phenomenon exists at all.

One of the reasons that Bush stated for not authorizing Kyoto was the fact that it would not go far enough to curb green house gas emissions in developing countries. Yet, in July 2001, the Bush administration cut funding to developing countries designed to do just that. In the “Federal Climate Change Expenditures Report to Congress” the administration indicated that it had cut funding for this program by 25%. The report, however, ignores several key programs designed to transfer energy efficiency technology to developing countries that if included, would have brought the total reduction closer to 32%.

If Bush had been serious about trimming greenhouse gasses, he could have used human innovation, such as that used 2 years ago by Japan. Japanese work places were traditionally formal places. Places where suits and ties were not only welcomed but also expected. In 2005, then Japanese environment minister Yuriko Koike, came up with the “Cool Biz Initiative” that discouraged Japanese businessmen from wearing suits and ties, and thus allowed Japanese air conditioning units to be raised a few degrees. This initiative has trimmed two million tons of green house emissions from Japan’s output, a phenomenal number, with a very simple change in attitude. The example was set by the government ministries themselves and then caught fire through other businesses.

Other facts on the Bush administrations failed support of climate change initiatives:

· July 2001, President Bush announced through then EPA director, Christine Todd Whitman, that the US was no longer interested in reopening international discussions on global warming.
· April 2002, the Bush administration moves to boot America’s top climatologists from continuing to serve on an international panel that assesses global warming
· July 2002, despite a report from the EPA stating what most scientists have believed for some time, that human activity is the major cause of global warming; The Bush administration tells congress that it needs more time to develop climate forecasting before addressing the climate change problem
· July 2003, citing the “uncertainty of the science” behind global warming, the Bush administration states that it plans to spend several more years and millions of dollars “studying,” rather than proposing solutions for, man-made climate change.
· September 2003, investigative reporting reveals that the Bush administration conspired with oil company lobbyists to undermine global warming research.
· June 2004, The Bush administration slashes funding for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, effectively destroying research being done on abrupt climate change

These facts clearly show that the Bush administration, has never, and likely will never, provide any meaningful discourse on global climate change. In the meantime, cataclysmic weather scenarios, rapidly melting glaciers, the release of methane plumes below melting glaciers, etc., will make dealing with global warming more and more difficult. Action, not rhetoric, is required.