Trump vs Biden

 The Iowa Caucuses are held today, with results to be published tomorrow or so.  Expectations are that Trump will win handily and that DeSantis and Haley will be distant seconds & thirds.  Most polls expect the November election will be Trump vs Biden, and most polls indicate that most voters would prefer that candidates other than Trump and Biden.  

But there is a case to be made that this matchup is needed.  I can't imagine Trump winning.  He lost by millions of votes and a significant margin in the electoral college.  There is a growing vanguard of conservatives who are dead set against Trump.  He will be convicted in one or more cases against him.  His behavior is increasingly erratic, and only the MAGA base believes Biden is directing his prosecution.  His financial empire in New York is being dismantled, and there is little he can do about it.  Coupled with his history of failed ventures, it will be difficult for anyone other than the MAGA faithful to deny his long streak of losing.  

Strategists will say negative ads work, and Democrats have much more material to use.  Much negative advertising will come out of the mouths of committed Republicans, including candidates running against him in the primaries.  If the documents case results in conviction, there will be some Republicans who will consider Trump unacceptable as a security risk. There will be a major faction of voters for whom the abortion issue is the main factor for voting against Trump.  Negative ads should help persuade Latinos and Blacks to either support Biden or at least not support Trump.  The same should hold, even for Muslims, despite Biden's strong support for Israel.

Voters convinced that Democrats are evil no matter what are not to be persuaded.  But if Biden wins reelection and Democrats win the House, the Senate, or both, there will be a reckoning about Trump's leadership.  

Meditation of Immigration

 A NY Times article today Europe May Be Headed for Something Unthinkable stimulated thoughts about the immigration problem.  I present as a given that human instinct for survival is perhaps the strongest of psychological motivations.  Unless your culture requires you to accept the fate as dictated by your surrounding conditions, people will seek first to survive and then to thrive.  As basic resources diminish and threaten existence, people will move or seek to move.

In the U.S., border policy changes have forced dangerous and often fatal treks across the southern border.  One can only shudder about the immigration challenges as climate change shrinks livable locations on the planet.  

In my utopia, immigration challenges would be actively monitored, something like the monitoring that occurred in the Covid pandemic.  Changes in the 'supply' of immigrants and in the 'capacity to host immigrants' would be tracked.  Ministries of immigration in all countries would meet regularly to discuss actions to address the dynamics.  The reality of immigration and emigration pressures would be acknowledged and addressed in the context of the rest of the political and sociological considerations.  Rather like the climate change crisis, immigration would be recognized as a global issue needing analysis and action everywhere.  

Thinking somewhat locally on the immigration crisis at the U.S. southern border, we observe millions of refugees and other displaced people seeking asylum in the U.S.  Most who are fleeing for their safety or for wont of a means of support are willing to abandon the home of their birthplace, relatives, and their culture to have even a chance to survive.  If given the choice, many would be happy to join others of their kind wherever they are in the U.S., but many others would be happy to assimilate into a culture that asks nothing of them except a willingness to work and to respect the rights of others.  

Like many other crises, immigration is an issue of distribution of limited resources.  The pressure on global resources will be high no matter how immigration is handled in any particular area, but the risks of war will depend on whether immigration is treated as a shared problem or a problem for others to solve.

No Labels?

 A comment made by comedian Steven Colbert made an impression on me today.  

If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn't help the poor, either we have to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we've got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy without condition and then admit that we just don't want to do it.

I made an immediate connection with the use of the American flag by the MAGA crowd.  I believe people are hungry for identity, and so they crave for readily recognized labels.  Christian and American are used as labels to define a certain tribe, irrespective of the tenets and meaning that others would use to define the group.  For Colbert, a devout Catholic, Christianity is a faith for people who follow Christ's teachings.  The quote is not quite direct enough.  Many Christians do not even admit the basic teachings usually associated with Jesus.  In my experience growing up in the Southern Baptist community, the main definition of Christianity is that a person believes Jesus is the son of God who died for our sins and through this declaration, the believer will not perish but have everlasting life.  

The tears of the converted are not about understanding Jesus's teachings.  They are the emotions of someone who believes they have escaped the fate of the unbeliever, eternal damnation in hell after death.  Some may cry because they believe they have found a constant companion and guide, no less than the Son of God.  They cry because they believe whatever befalls them in the future, whatever sins they have committed in the past, their lives have been changed.  The past sins are forgiven, and whatever happens in the future, they are saved.  

The act of baptism is supposed to be representative of burying the person pre-confession and the rising of a new person, imbued with Christ's love and righteousness.  Personal responsibility is secondary.  Studying the Bible is encouraged but not required.  Most Christians I know act comfortable and confident in their claim to be Christians.  

 God's Word says that we are saved by grace through faith in Christ Jesus and not by our own efforts or works (Ephesians 2:8-9). Grace Alone. Faith Alone. Grace alone means that God loves, forgives, and saves us not because of who we are or what we do, but because of the work of Christ.

Many Christians treat their "conversion" as a task done once and for all time.  There is no need for thought about behavior or for any other consequence.  Now, the Catholic might think attending to the sacraments regularly is important.  And to be fair, many Catholics I know are like Colbert: they at least believe that their Christianity demands something of them and their behavior.  Yes, they will fall short of the standard, for that is the state of being human.  But the standard is nonetheless there.  Colbert is actually telling us that he, like most Christians, understand much about Christ's teachings, like attending to the needy without condition, but we don't make it the center of our lives.  Only saintly people do that.

In analogy, being American only means being born in the country or achieving citizenship.  Here the bar is perhaps even lower than faith,  Being American does not obligate recognition of any set of values.  The Constitution even seems to give safe harbor to the most abhorrent ideologies, and it even protects free speech to advocate without limits.  Here, then, is the eternal challenge in American culture: the definition of America and what it means to be an American.  It seems 'freedom of religion,' while being protected by the First Amendment, is no longer accepted as a feature of being American in many circles.  

Unapologetic bigotry is now the central plank of the Republican Party, and the 2024 election's main choice is between this bigotry and liberalism.  The MAGA Republican is ready to trade in the Constitution, including civil rights protections, for Trump autocracy, because MAGA Republicans believe white Christian nationalism will best preserve their values and culture.  They believe accommodations to non-believers have marginalized them and even threaten their survival.  Their movement has freed them from the burdens of inclusion and accommodation.  The only people who should fear the MAGA movement are infidels, damned to hell anyway.  

It is ironic that the Colbert quote aptly defines logic that has taken the American experiment in democracy, pluralism, and multiculturalism to the brink of extinction.  Let's look at Colbert's quote and substitute appropriately. 

If this is going to be a nation under the Constitution, either we have to pretend that the laws are meant to be followed only as is convenient for the powerful, or we've got to acknowledge that that the Constitution requires the law to apply for all citizens without condition and then admit that we just don't want to do it.

The Right's Definition of "Religious Liberty"

 Civil discord often involves terms taken for granted by all sides of an argument.  Liberty is apparently such a term.  An abstract of an article "The Liberty of the Church: Source, Scope and Scandal" is below.

Patrick McKinley Brennan, 1567Follow

Abstract

This article was presented at a conference, and is part of a symposium, on "The Freedom of the Church in the Modern Era." The article argues that the liberty of the Church, libertas Ecclesiae, is not a mere metaphor, pace the views of some other contributions to the conference and symposium and of the mentality mostly prevailing over the last five hundred years. The argument is that the Church and her directly God-given rights are ontologically irreducible in a way that the rights of, say, the state of California or even of the United States are not. Based on a careful reading of, among other sources, the Second Vatican Council's Declaration on Religious Liberty, Dignitatis Humanae (1965), the article articulates and defends the Church's self-understanding as a divine institution possessed of supernatural authority that has rightful consequences for the ordering of society and polity. Catholic doctrine upholds a rich concept of individual freedom of conscience and defends a regime of broad toleration, but it does so respectful of the demands of the common goods, natural and supernatural, both of which the Church serves in the exercise of her liberty. The Church anticipates that her claims on her own behalf will be a scandal to the world.

It is shocking to learn that 'liberty' could mean the domination of the Church over civil authority.  But this appears to be the case.  When the phrase "Liberty of the Church" is used in an internet search, there are many links to organizations defending the rights of the individual in religious belief.  I would guess that most people understand the separation of church and state and especially the First 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.

It is cowardice of the religious right to obfuscate their meaning of Religious Liberty, but it clearly mirrors their violent attempts to defeat democracy, corrupt the courts and dictate behavior.  Religious liberty means the right to obligate society to its supernatural authority.  When one learns of this perversion, it is easy to understand how Catholics have aligned with evangelicals.  In their view, allowing gay marriage, indeed even non-binary sexuality, is against their religion and therefore subject to their supernatural authority to obligate society against such behavior.  Likewise, abortion, birth control, and other related topics are to be adjudicated according to church doctrine, with society and democracy to be subservient.  

Now we have three rabid Catholics on the Supreme Court, disingenuously swearing an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.  It is apparently within their religious liberty rights to allocate church authority over their sworn oath.  They see no inconsistency in this subterfuge.  As an example, Justice Alito claimed he could not even pronounce the name of the chemical in the FDA-approved abortion drug, mifepristone.  He does not need to understand anything about it.  His faith tells him what medicines should not be available, and an abortion pill is one of them.  Likewise, Justice Thomas, not a Catholic perhaps, but aligned with those who would subjugate the Constitution to religious authority, believes past decisions on the Constitutionality of Griswold v. Connecticut, Lawrence v. Texas, and Obergefell v. Hodges should be reconsidered.  These cases respectively settled the right of couples to have contraception, the right of gay couples to sexual activity, and the right for gay couples to marry.  Clearly, these threats to individual liberty are aggressive acts to elevate religious law over civil law.

The more widely recognized meaning of the term 'liberty' is the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views.  Americans who agree with this definition need to ask of their political candidates how they see such liberty in light of their faith.  Any equivocation from the state of the individual being free of oppressive restrictions, including decisions as to sexuality, healthcare decisions, including abortion, is a statement of their allegiance not to the United States and civil law, but to their religious dogma.

More School Shooting Gun Deaths

 This week's news has been dominated by the Nashville Convent School shooting deaths of three nine year old children and three adults.  The 28-year-old shooter was killed by police at the site fourteen minutes after receiving the 911 call about the active shooter.

There are no signs today that the incident will spur changes in laws or enforcement to address mass shootings.  There have been over 100 such mass shootings in 2023 to date.  There were reported to be 648 shootings in 2022.  More than 44,000 gun deaths in the U.S. in 2022.

President Biden claimed he could not do anything more than what he has done about gun violence.

Is it a cop-out to say that the problem cannot be solved without cooperation from gun owners?  This is what I believe.  There are millions of gun owners in the country.  It seems they are in such numbers that members are from all walks of life and political persuasions, even if the majority are of some category.  For the sake of argument, assume the vast majority of gun owners are white, male, and conservative.  Does this assumption help in making progress on this issue.  No.  

Implicit in asking about the gun owning community is my belief that meaningful progress on gun violence can only come with a drastic change in the availability of guns.  Statistics on gun violence around the world clearly show the correlation of gun deaths with gun ownership.  Americans want to believe that our country can change to address challenges because most people accept the rule of law, and laws are created through majority rule legislative action.  But in this case, gun ownership has taken on the status of being sacrosanct and inviolate.  Court interpretations of the Constitution have reinforced the notion that the state cannot restrict gun ownership.  

Groups dedicated to reducing gun violence have taken various approaches to enact meaningful change.  Perhaps each step brings a change closer.  The country has made big changes in other areas of injustice, so I suppose there is always hope.  I believe that change can come only with a drastic change in the electorate that delivers the following:

1. A judicial system that rejects the assertion that gun ownership is a Constitutionally guaranteed right.

2. An electorate that holds in strong contempt the idea of wide-spread gun ownership.

3. A cultural realization that gun violence is among the most evil and anti-American activity imaginable.

4. A cultural understanding that gun ownership puts the gun owner at higher risk of gun violence rather than lower risk.

5. Shaming and ostracizing of gun advocates on the level of other strong taboos (i.e., incest, child pornography).

If my sense about the above is close to accurate, I will not expect to see change in my life time.

Irrationality on the Rise?

 Today's NY Times column Global Transformation of Christianity there are depressing facts about a world trend that should not have surprised me: there is a significant part of the non-western "majority world" turning to Evangelical Christianity.  "Statistics vary but even conservative estimates guess there were around 98 million evangelical Christians globally in 1970. Now, there are over 342 million."  World population in 1970 was 3.7 billion, and it is about 7.8 billion today.  So while total population doubled, Christianity increased 3.5 fold.  True, the percentage of Christians can be computed to have been 2.6% in 1970 and now is 4.4%, only a small minority.  

Globally, the Muslim population is forecast to grow at about twice the rate of the non-Muslim population over the next two decades – an average annual growth rate of 1.5% for Muslims, compared with 0.7% for non-Muslims. If current trends continue, Muslims will make up 26.4% of the world’s total projected population of 8.3 billion in 2030, up from 23.4% of the estimated 2010 world population of 6.9 billion.

Initially, the numbers made me feel anxious about the future.  I see the growth of people searching for an answer to their 'spiritual longing', and I can hear the pastors of my childhood filling that need with the nonsense of Christianity.  Even more horrifying in a way are the legions of people deciding the Quran is the true path.  To my way of thinking, the religious person prefers simple, empty mantras to both their own direction and the world's direction.  Those of us who believe in rational thought as a guiding principle rather than a mystical superhuman deity fear we will need to placate fanatics and suppress our disdain for directives that originate in thousands year old ignorance.  For the religious, trust is placed among those who have professed the same faith.  

Will we have a world turning more and more to prayer as the answer to problems?  Will the grifters of the evangelical movement rule?  Allowing for both Evangelicals and Muslims to be 90% sincere (that is, the vast majority of the members are sincere believers), why should the trend of growth concern me?

Truly, what do I care if anyone prays five times a day or believes angels help them?  Why should I judge anyone for any reason?  If I object to proselytization, am I not a tad hypocritical because I want people to conclude, like me, that prayers are futile, the afterlife is a falsehood, and religious beliefs are stupid?  

I need to think hard on this topic.  It does not take much imagination to project the futility of my present attitude.  It seems certain that much of my misery or dissatisfaction is self-inflicted.  If true, there are no changes in the world that would relieve my frustrations.  It could be a thought akin to the philosophy of Buddhism.  Suffering is an internal rather than an external force.  Nothing in the external can address the internal cause.  Self awareness is key to limiting suffering, and insofar as suffering diminishes happiness, effort should be directed towards the internal suffering.  

Terrorism from Within

 Ex-President Trump absconded with 'Top Secret' and other 'Classified' documents in clear violation of law and his oath of office.  The only authority to be able to call out the crimes are Federal institutions.  Thus, Trump ends up in the cross-hairs of multiple investigations about the scope and nature of his crimes.  As the FBI, the NSA, and Congress pursue him, Trump is raising money and regaining strength by tapping into anti-authoritarian sentiment held by conservative anti-government sects.

In an NY Times op-ed, Michelle Cottle links Trump's tactics with the anti-federal government politics of recent American history. Ruby Ridge is the short-hand reference to a 1992 confrontation between U.S. Marshall Services and a family in Idaho who defied Federal authorities, resulting in a shoot-out and killing of a U.S. Marshall and several members of the family. The incident was cited as the inspiration for the Oklahoma City bombing of a Federal building in 1995 by Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols. Cottle's piece links other incidents of defying Federal authority,

    
    Going back still farther, federal troops played a prominent role in dismantling the segregated South. In his 1963 inaugural address, Gov. George Wallace of Alabama delivered his infamous pro-segregation rallying cry and whined that after the Civil War, the South was “set upon by the vulturous carpetbagger and federal troops, all loyal Southerners were denied the vote at the point of bayonet, so that the infamous illegal 14th Amendment might be passed.” Even now, plenty of white Southerners — the aggrieved heart of today’s Republican Party — cling to their sense of being oppressed by highhanded federal meddlers.

I share a distaste for government over-reach, intrusion, and interference.  And it should be natural for people to feel most comfortable and least fearful of authority closest to home, and thus, most untrusting and fearful of authority at the level of a federal government.  My general belief is that corruption is most enabled at the local level.  An important role of the Federal government and the Constitution is protection of an individual's 'inalienable rights' , including protection against infringement by state and local government.  In my life, this is the general role of the Federal authorities.  Their reach stops local industry from fouling the water I drink and the air I breathe.  It has failed to act against the abuse of power by local police.