North Carolina Bill for a State Religion

Two GOP representatives in North Carolina introduced a bill Monday (Appropriately April 1^st) to establish a state religion based on the idea that each state is sovereign and can do so. This is their argument.

“The Constitution of the United States does not grant the federal government and does not grant the federal courts the power to determine what is or is not constitutional; therefore, by virtue of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the power to determine constitutionality and the proper interpretation and proper application of the Constitution is reserved to the states and to the people,” says the bill. “Each state in the union is sovereign and may independently determine how that state may make laws respecting an establishment of religion.”

These law makers are Ford and Warren supported by Burr, Collin, Conrad, Jones, Jordan, McNeill, Pittman, Presnell, Starnes and Whitmire. What they want is public prayer at government meetings.

The text of the 1^st amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Now I am a big believer in states rights including the right to grant power to the central government, which binds their state. A think there was a significant war found in our country about this.

Too weird. My guess it that the state religion they are proposing is the teaching of the Pharisees. 

Now to be fair here are some laws we have here in Wisconsin:

It is illegal to kiss on a train.

It is illegal to cut a woman’s hair.

Margarine may not be substituted for butter in restaurants unless it is requested by the customer.

Butter substitutes are not allowed to be served in state prisons.

The government may not prohibit manual flushed urinals.

Whenever two trains meet at an intersection of said tracks, neither shall proceed until the other has.

It is illegal to serve apple pie in public restaurants without cheese.

Livestock have the right-of-way on any public highway or rish fine of up to ten dollars.

In Brookfield tattooing is illegal unless it is done for medical purposes.

In Iowa it is illegal for a man with a moustache to kiss a woman in public. (Why do you think I moved?)

Kisses may last no more than five minutes.

One armed piano players must perform for free.

Ministers must obtain a permit to carry their liquor across state lines.

What Are We Doing Here?

We all know to live well we need a good diet, exercise, low stress, a sense of purpose and the like. One list I came across as the healthiest places to live included: New Zealand; Panama; Costa Rica; Sardinia; Vilcabamba, and Ecuador. One of those places doesn’t even show up on my auto spell checker. Things they said they had included high-fiber foods, hard water full of calcium, family focus and strong family ties, light meals in the evening, dry air to keep food longer, sunny weather for vitamin D, social interaction, enjoyable work that is physical, and they feel they contribute to the greater good.

Now I want you to give special notice that all of these places are in warm climate zones not unlike the Fertile Crescent where we think life began.

I’m depressed. Today I drove by our local golf course, which was 80 to 90% snow and ice covered. It’s spring! The vernal equinox has taken place. Easter finery has been worn (often under heavy winter coats and long underwear underneath.)

What’s wrong with us, are we stupid or what, why are we living in these inhospitable unhealthy climes? No wonder I’m depressed; what normal sane human being wouldn’t be?

Oh yeah, I know you weirdoes that think skiing down steep hills risking life and limb and freezing your tooches off. Or want to run and jump in freezing water or skate on frozen water in tutus – you are all nuts – stark raving lunatics.

Oh I am aware the Sweden is the happiest country in the world to live but that because the have a sane government and economy, which balances, out their dumb climate.

Do we have fur? No, we are hairless, vulnerable beings that need to be warm and comfortable.

Now we human beings are perfectly capable of screwing up good places to live with our behavior. Here is another list of the worst places to live and why: Urumqui, China – pollution; Somalia – corruption; North Korea – dictatorship; Iraq – person security; El Salvador – homicide rate; Zimbabwe – inflation; Yemen – gender gap; Swaziland – life expectancy; Mali – literacy; and Ertrea –freedom of speech – called a vast open prison.

And before we get all egotistical about our country on Time’s list of the worst and best places to live we are on none of the lists.

So, I got that off my chest but it still 32 degrees – freezing, my golf clubs sit idle, and I’m still depressed. Guess I’ll pet a cat, then sneeze.

The Times They Are a Changin’

When I began seminary the Methodist Seminarians were required to sign a pledge of abstinence from alcohol. While I was in seminary the requirement was lifted with a party of celebration as some of the Methodists may remember.

Now I read about St. Paul’s Episcopal Church in Willington, North Carolina which sponsors a home brewing contest as a fund raiser. And then there is the Valley Church (Methodist) in Allendale, Michigan has reached out to young adults by holding occasionally meetings of beer enthusiasts and home brewers. Their events are titled, “What would Jesus brew?”

What Did They Preach About in the Early Church?

Easter Sunday we attended a Roman Catholic Mass. The priest talked in his homily that in the early 3 centuries of the church they only preached about the resurrection. Now I’m not sure just how accurate that is but it got me to thinking, just what did they preach about?

First, they didn’t have any preachers, as we know them today. There were no ordained clergy that spent years of study on history, traditions, theology, scripture, applied theology and the like. They just had some eyewitnesses at first, and then those who told others what they heard the eye witnesses told. So, the resurrection was a big deal, but I suspect they did get into some implications of the eye witness talks and the meaning of being Jesus’ disciples.

Secondly, preachers today, if they are worthy their salt, preach on the scriptures. What does a passage say, what are its main points and ideas, and how does that related to how we live our faith as disciples of Jesus? Well, they had the Hebrew scriptures, the Old Testament as we talk about it and I’m sure they used them in their talks. And they had the rabbinical teaching traditions. But as for the New Testament, it wasn’t written yet. The first gospel, Mark was written about 55 to 70 A.D., Matthew around 70- to 100 A.D., Luke 80 to 100 A.D. and John the philosophical one that the priest used for his text that Sunday, 85 to 100 A.D.

Meanwhile Paul along with some others are writing letters which were shared among those early churches and he writes basically in the 50’s A.D.

If you read Acts you get a descent idea of what was going on in the early church.

So, what did they preach about in the early church? They didn’t preach they basically witnessed at least from a modern viewpoint. Not a bad idea. I like it when the so-called laity (the unordained) “preach” on a Sunday. Some try to imitate pastors with varying results. But often the most powerful messages are when they just witness to their faith and share how it has affected their lives.

Perhaps that is part of the problem of the modern church; too much preaching and not enough witnessing. Rather a difficult thing to say for one who made their living by preaching. But I think Christianity ought to be a participatory activity rather than a passive one. “Professional Christians”, clergy types, can’t do your religion, you have to. I think a lot of other folk feel the same way and see themselves as religious or spiritual and believe in a deity but or turned off by organized religion. I also believe we need experts, those who have time to study more deeply into scripture and theology, but the primary work of the church should take place by the people of the church.

The idea of one pastor per congregation is a historical fluke and I don’t think it has worked all that well. I wonder what God has in mind for the church (the body of believers) for the future?

The Decade Beginning “Winner Take All Politics”

The more I read the Hacker and Pierson Winner Take All book the more impressed I am with it and the depth of their analysis. Following is some further thoughts as I get about half way through their book.

I think they see the 1990’s as the decade of this movement as the Democrats enter the same mentality. For example it is seen in the actions of Joe Lieberman, Diane Feinstein, Robert Rubin, Bill Clinton, and Charles Schumer (author of Positivity American: Winning Back the Middle Class Majority One Family at a Time.) They seem to counter the Phil Gram method by doing the same thing. Remember that Gram-Leach-Billey bill repealed the glass Steagall Act.

Also at this point they note the Bill Clinton said “we’ve become Eisenhower Republicans” which I think is pretty accurate.

The author’s note that the data shows that our economy has typically faired better under Democratic administration than Republican administrations and yet the Republicans with the simple rant of “tax cuts” generally are perceived as the more effective party on economic issues. Their anti-Washington rhetoric is effective thought they are in it.

They also talk about the Republican power shifts in the Senate where there used to be a 20 to 1 difference in representation between population and state it has now grown to a 70 to 1 ratio. The Republicans have been effective in concentrating on these states to gain power. Of course, now it is a 60 member needed for passage of bills vs. the 51 previously.

It is also interesting to follow the work of Max Baucus (Dem, Montana) stands with the pharmaceutical companies over the years. Check him out.

The writers also get specific about who the .01% are: CEO’s, managers, lawyers, medicine and real estate folk. I had rather than of trust babies sitting on the predecessors millions making them billions. But if you look at the outrageous salaries and benefits of these folk it is astounding; mainly since 1980. For a good breakdown of this they cite “Income Inequality inthe U.S. 1913-1998 Quarterly Journal on Economics vol. 118, no. 1 of 2003 andupdate in 2007”. [You have to click to get the Excel spreadsheet.] 

Then they do a twist on Reagan’s statement, “are you better off than you were four years ago?” with “Are you better off than you were a generation ago?” with the obvious answer of “No.” Trickle Down theory didn’t work but Trickle Up does.

The author’s have given me a much clearer insight into the Obama administration, which I have consistently wondered why they don’t go for a more progressive agenda. They believe they have bought into the Winner-Take-All idea of necessity. They point out that unlike Clinton who surrounded himself with out of towners from Arkansas in his cabinet or Bush II; Obama made a good deal of outreach to the GOP congress in a more Lincoln style cabinet of keeping political foes close at hand to work out compromises that congress would be more open to. The problem of that being that the Republican Party had moved so far to the right and were intractable in the stances (such as the no new tax pledge.) They show of the 26 moderate GOP reps of2006 on 10 remain by 2008 with similar movements in the Senate. So at least half of the moderates in congress by gone bye bye and thus more gridlock than ever.

They also show that Bush II’s tax cuts cost about 3.1 trillion over a decade, which is triple the Obama Stimulus Plan. Plus not a single Republican supported the stimulus plan even though they had backed it under Bush. The GOP had become the “NO” party. Also zero GOP representatives support the health act plan.

Even though Democrats get higher ratings than the GOP by the populace they can still block whatever they want.

Another fascinating observation the authors have made is that the ever-stronger lobbyists in Washington now have Red and Blue teams. They are pouring money into whoever they can get the biggest bang for the buck, so they are now giving large amounts to the Democrats always feeding on legislative workers on ex-congress representatives to fill their lobby ranks. All this makes the Winner-Take-All process stronger and stronger.

I guess that is enough for now but stayed tuned.