Friday, November 27, 2009

Looking back at change

This is now 5 years old how much do you think things have changed?

this was taken form http://www.gwu.edu/~ccps/etzioni/B471.html

471. “Red State, Blue State, Light Meat, Dark Meat.” Forward (November 26, 2004).


As my students were packing to go home for Thanksgiving, I asked them what effect "Post-Election Stress Syndrome" was going to have on their holidays. Only two expected any troubles.

One explained that his parents were dyed-in-the-wool Republicans and that they would tease him mercilessly for having worked his tail off as a volunteer for the Kerry campaign in Pennsylvania. He, in turn, would resent their support of a president who was making him consider moving to Canada for the next four years, if not longer. "It's going to be a rough Thanksgiving," he concluded.

Another student said that his parents were even more liberal than he was and that the whole family was sure to spend the holiday despondent, bemoaning the fate of the nation and wondering — in the inimical words of the British tabloid The Daily Mirror — "How can 59,054,087 people be so DUMB?" Above all, he both resented and was more than a bit envious of the few Republican students he knew who were oozing a deep sense of satisfaction as they prepared to go home and sit down to a meal of profound and all-around thanksgiving.

The other students demurred. One scoffed at the notion that politics were that important: "This holiday season isn't going to be any different from any other. We'll stuff our faces and watch football games until we're bleary-eyed. Stupid little lights will appear all over the place, mixed with plastic Santa Clauses, as we start the shop-till-you-drop Christmas season. The malls will be as full as they were last year, and the elevators will play the same tired tunes all over again. It all will be as familiar and comfortable as a well-worn pair of shoes."

No wonder, I said to myself, she is the best sociology student I have had in years.

I, too, believe that the holiday season will allow the healing to begin, to remind most Americans — all but the diehard liberals, of which there are surprisingly few outside of Manhattan, San Francisco and elite college campuses — that we are one nation, after all, and that we have much for which to be thankful. Most Americans will have an ample meal to sit down to, a roof over their head and the warmth of a properly heated home and of family members assembled from near and far — even if there are going to be the inevitable squabbles that mark such relationships.

Some families will avoid discussing politics altogether. Others will count it as a blessing that the elections were, by and large, fair and clean, recalling how concerned they were just a few weeks ago that the nation would face the trials of weeks of contested decisions, lawsuits, "Six Floridas," a loss of legitimacy of the democratic process and the possibility of becoming the world's laughingstock — all of which we were spared, for which much thanksgiving is due.

Indeed, the holiday season will serve well the partial reconciliation that has already begun. I say "partial" because not all Americans will be reconciled to four more years of President Bush or to the idea that they will have to share the same nation with 50 million people they consider religious bigots. Nor will the reconciliation of those who will calm down be complete. And Bush's next moves, both foreign and domestic, are likely to feed their remaining resentment.

However, despite all the rhetoric to the contrary, nobody I know is packing. Most are pondering where the Democrats should go next, rather than giving up on politics or talking about supporting some kind of Ralph Nader next time around. The very fact that for the weeks to come, most Americans will be absorbed in doing the same things they having been doing for years during the Thanksgiving/Christmas season should remind us that the American society is a resilient one and that there is a full and rich life — even after an important election loss.

Reconciliation will be greatly eased by the fact that the divisions, the often repeated claims of polarization, were overblown to begin with. The notion that liberals occupy the two coasts and that the rest of nation is GOP land, or that there are states whose citizens hold to blue or red views, is a media artifact. Most blue states have many red citizens, and vice versa. True, in a winner-takes-all election, it looks as if New York has no upstate; as if New York City has no Staten Island; as if Orange County is not in California, or as if there are only Republicans in the Midwest and Mountain states.

However, a closer look shows that although many states were eventually called red or blue, Bush and John Kerry actually ran neck and neck in them, within a few percentage points of each other. Take Ohio, for example, which was called red with roughly 51% of the votes going to Bush and around 48.5%to Kerry; or New Hampshire, hailed blue with Kerry receiving about 50% of the votes and Bush 49%.

Moreover, most "red" people have some blue views and beliefs, and most "blue" people are far from fully blue. Elections, which force them to reduce all subtleties and nuances to one vote, make them look like one-dimensional creatures. A quick read of Morris Fiorina's "Culture War? The Myth of a Polarized America" or of Alan Wolfe's "One Nation, After All," however, makes it clear that Americans are much more complex. It turns out that there are gay conservatives, pro-life Democrats, and so on and so on.

I do not seek to make light of the bitterness of the last election, fueled by, among other things, the injection of religious absolutes into politics. It is much easier to reach compromises on tax rates and expenditures for various social programs than on abortion, school prayer and litmus tests for Supreme Court judges. However, one should not make light either of the resiliency of the American society or of the legitimacy of its democratic polity — nor of the healing power of holidays we all share.

The Communitarian Network
2130 H Street, NW, Suite 703
Washington, DC 20052
202.994.6118
comnet@gwu.edu

Tuesday, September 29, 2009

Christian Democrats vowed to rule with the Free Democrats

Sept. 28 (Bloomberg) -- "German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Christian Democrats vowed to rule with the Free Democrats in Schleswig-Holstein, potentially giving the two parties a majority in both the upper and lower houses of parliament."

for more info on Christian Democrats
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Democratic_Union_(Germany)

for more info on Free Democrats
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Democratic_Party_(Germany)

Look at the party platforms and let me know how you think these two parties will influence each other.

Saturday, September 12, 2009

Work Worth Doing???

Is there any body out there? I have not been looking for material to post here because I'm not sure what it's accomplishing. If you like what you see here and at least it provokes you to think let me know.

Tuesday, July 28, 2009

Speech by CDI President Casini addressed to His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI (IT)

taken from http://www.cdi-idc.com/dbimages/pdf/casini_discorso_papa_en.pdf

Your Holiness,
In the name of the Centrist Democrat International, I should like to
express my deepest gratitude for the extraordinary opportunity that you
have bestowed by receiving us here today in Castel Gandolfo.
We are imbued with a sincere yearning for freedom, and deeply
committed to defending the dignity of man, the right to life, and the rights
of the weak, be they women, children or ethnic and religious minorities, in
the face of all forms of repression and violence.
The more than one hundred political parties that we represent are
conscious that the times we live in are replete with incongruities.
In difficult areas of the world such as Asia, we are battling religious
fundamentalism in defence of the right of each and everyone to profess
their religious affiliations and beliefs, while fully respecting an effective
dialogue between religions.
In Africa, we are engaged in building a just society based on a
commitment to combating poverty and misery.
In Latin America, we fight a daily battle of resistance against
populist politics that offer facile and misleading solutions to the
exploitation of the weakest members of society.
Meanwhile, here in Europe, the most industrialised and advanced
area of the world, we seek to counter the insidious threat of relativism,
which, by equally subtle methods, seeks to subjugate the dignity of the
human person. The weakening of our sense of conscience, the absence of powerful
motivating ideals, the crisis of fundamental institutions such as the family,
the permanent threat to the right to life for all, from the moment of
conception to advanced old age, and the ascendancy of a science that
knows no ethics or boundaries and manipulates and humiliates man, are all
pieces in a mosaic that, were it ever completed, would spell out the
destruction of western civilisation.
As you reminded us in your writings, a misguided conception of
freedom currently prevails whereby people no longer accept moral
considerations that do not tally with their own calculations, with the result
that the unrestrained expansion of freedom ends up by destroying freedom
itself.
Holy Father, your living magisterium is a simple, yet also an intense
and clear reminder of the centrality of mankind and of the ethic of
responsibility, as well as the ultimate reference point for the Christian
identity.
In espousing these values, we today confirm our pledge to opposing
all policies that threaten mankind.
We know that the secularism of public institutions and States cannot
suppress the innate longing in humans for that which is religious. There is
no such thing as healthy secularism without God and religion!
In carrying out our actions, we find comfort and encouragement in
the testimony of the Catholic Church and, above all, in your teachings.
Your Holiness, through simplicity and powerful acts, you enjoin us
to be courageous.
This is a commitment we shall not forsake, and we ask you for your
support and look to your words to guide us in our political action.

Thursday, June 25, 2009

Be Courageous, President Barack Obama

Monday, June 8, 2009

The Westminster Confession of Faith

Of the Civil Magistrate

I. God, the supreme Lord and King of all the world, has ordained civil magistrates, to be, under Him, over the people, for His own glory, and the public good: and, to this end, has armed them with the power of the sword, for the defence and encouragement of them that are good, and for the punishment of evil doers.[1]

II. It is lawful for Christians to accept and execute the office of a magistrate, when called thereunto:[2] in the managing whereof, as they ought especially to maintain piety, justice, and peace, according to the wholesome laws of each commonwealth;[3] so, for that end, they may lawfully, now under the New Testament, wage war, upon just and necessary occasion.[4]

III. Civil magistrates may not assume to themselves the administration of the Word and sacraments; or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven;[5] yet he has authority, and it is his duty, to take order that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire, that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed, all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed, and all the ordainances of God duly settled, administrated, and observed.[6] For the better effecting whereof, he has power to call synods, to be present at them and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God.[7]

IV. It is the duty of people to pray for magistrates,[8] to honor their persons,[9] to pay them tribute or other dues,[10] to obey their lawful commands, and to be subject to their authority, for conscience' sake.[11] Infidelity, or difference in religion, does not make void the magistrates' just and legal authority, nor free the people from their due obedience to them:[12] from which ecclesiastical persons are not exempted,[13] much less has the Pope any power and jurisdiction over them in their dominions, or over any of their people; and, least of all, to deprive them of their dominions, or lives, if he shall judge them to be heretics, or upon any other pretence whatsoever.[14]

Monday, May 18, 2009

Delivery of Social Services through Faith-Based Organizations

Excerpt taken from http://www.gwu.edu/~icps/faithb.html

The growing interest in the provision of public social services via faith-based organizations stems from several factors. First, some faith-based organizations have demonstrated dramatic success in curbing or alleviating social problems in particularly distressed communities. For example, the efforts of Reverend Eugene Rivers of the Azusa Christian Community in the Dorchester section of Boston have been credited with reducing the juvenile murder rate in that community to almost zero. Second, social science data has increasingly documented a strong inverse correlation between religious commitment and social pathologies. Beginning with Harvard economist Richard Freeman’s work on church attendance and juvenile delinquency, numerous studies have shown that religious commitment tends to lessen the tendency of both children and adults to engage in counterproductive behaviors, ranging from delinquency to addiction and violence. Third, dissatisfaction with the outcome of government programs has led both to reduction in federal welfare spending and increased pressure to enlist the help of faith- and community-based organizations in caring for the poor. The 1996 Welfare Reform Act included a "charitable choice" provision that permitted states to direct funds to faith-based organizations for childcare and other services aimed at helping welfare recipients return to work. Several states are taking advantage of these provisions.


The Debate

Advocates of enlisting faith-based organizations in the provision of public services point to anecdotal evidence of the success of faith-based programs. They argue that the dangers posed by the social problems such as drug addiction or teen homicide outweigh any threat to the separation of church and state posed by the use of faith-based organizations. They often argue that faith-based or religiously oriented approaches are inherently more effective than secular approaches in changing behavior.

Opponents argue that directing government funds, at either the federal or state level, to sectarian organizations raises serious separation issues. While organizations such as Catholic Charities and Lutheran Charities have long received large subsidies from the federal government, such traditional charities have pursued their efforts in a self-consciously nonsectarian manner. Critics argue that newer faith-based approaches, such as that embodied by Eugene Rivers program in Boston or Charles Colson’s Prison Fellowship, rely explicitly on proselytization as the means of effecting behavioral change. Subsidies to such organizations, according to critics, can amount to violations of the Constitution’s establishment clause because they involve the state directly in supporting the spread of particular religious views.


The Communitarian View

Communitarians emphasize the role of the community as a potent "third force" in shaping the conduct and quality of both individual and collective life. Communitarians argue that a healthy and strong community can frequently exert a deeper and more lasting influence on individual behavior than the state acting via law and law enforcement. The restoration of vitality and safety to beleaguered neighborhoods and cities usually requires a revitalization of the organic community institutions that enrich and order community life. Healthy families and churches and neighborhood communities and like institutions are the key to shaping the conduct of children in such a way that they will become productive adults.

For this reason, communitarians generally support a creative division of labor, which permits the state to channel resources to community organizations, including faith-based organizations, for the provision of services within a community. Community-based organizations, including church organizations, have a comparative advantage in dealing "close-up" with community members. Communitarians believe that safeguards need to be in place to protect the individual’s free exercise of religious rights under the Constitution. Social service should not be provided as a quid pro quo for religious adherence; secular alternatives should also be available. But for those individuals who choose them, faith-based alternatives have been shown to accomplish dramatic improvements in the quality of both individual and community life..

A division of labor that permits faith-based organizations to act as service providers observes the key communitarian principle of subsidiarity--which posits that no unit of society should perform functions more appropriately performed by a smaller entity. The neighborhood should not usurp the normal function of the family; the city the function of the neighborhood; the state the function of the city; or the federal government the function of the state. Similarly, the bureaucratic government should not usurp the immediate functions of the family and the church. Use of faith-based organizations as service providers--with proper Constitutional safeguards--permits common resources to be directed toward strengthening the community rather than enhancing the power of the state, often at the expense of community institutions.

Tuesday, April 21, 2009

Marriage and the Separation of Church and State

Will you have this woman/man to be your wife/husband to live together according to God’s decree in the holy estate of marriage? Will you love her/him, comfort her/him, honor and keep her/him, in sickness and in health, and forsaking all others, faithfully keep to her/him alone, so long as you both shall live?

If you have answered I will to the question above in front of witnesses and you are a Christian, then you are married.

If you have said or have had said to you in front of witnesses "Behold, you are consecrated to me with this ring according to the laws of Moses and Israel" and you are Jewish, then you are married.

I could go on but the point is that there is no need for government to be in marriage. If a persons vows to the other are not enough we have contracts that can lend legal binding to an agreement. Marriage is for the couple their families their community and frequently their church not the state.

by Matthew Bartko

Government should stay out of any marriage

Marshfield News Herald (Marshfield, Wisconsin)

Published Opinion.

August 9, 2003.

Editor:

Lately, homosexual marriages have been a subject of much unnecessary controversy. The simple solution to the gay marriage conflict is to privatize marriage. This would put gay relationships on the same footing as straight ones, without implying official government sanction. No one's private life would have official government sanction - exactly as it should be.

In the last century government intruded upon the marriage contract, among much else. The modern mistake is to think that important things must be planned, sponsored, reviewed, or licensed by the government. Let's get the government out of marriage and allow individuals to make their own marriage contracts.

Marriage is an important institution. But it's only because marriage is wedded to the state that it causes a political debate and social friction. Should the state force employers to provide "benefits" to gay spouses? No, but neither should the state force employers to provide benefits to heterosexual spouses.

Both taxes and adoption are state-related activities. If there were no income tax, the issue of filing taxes jointly would be moot. Given that we have an income tax, there's no reason why the government can't treat all kinds of families the same, without resorting to legally sanctioning "marriage." Similarly, there's no reason why state-controlled adoptions can't treat gay partners the same as heterosexual ones.

The institutions of marriage and family are actually made stronger in an environment of freedom where each marriage or family decides for themselves the parameters of their relationships.

Aaron Biterman
Brookfield

Wednesday, April 15, 2009

The Role of Government Chart

Ideal

Very little government responsibility.

A lot of personal responsibility. Responsibility for themselves, their communities, and their nation. (this would require lots of charity and voluntarism)

How We Are

Some government responsibility.

Some personal responsibility.

Where We Are Heading

A lot of government responsibility. Responsibility for individuals, communities, and the nation. (this would require lots of taxes and bureaucracy)

Very little personal responsibility.