Update from the
Heartland
No.649
19.5.14 – 25.5.14
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- In our continuing discussion regarding the relationship
between church and state, this time blooming from the Supremes’ recent ruling
in Town of Greece v. Galloway [570 U.S. ___ (2014); No.
12-696] {review not complete} [647],
a friend and long-time contributor to this humble forum sent along the link to
this article:
“Virginia county board says no followers of ‘pre-Christian
deities’ allowed to deliver prayers”
by Travis Gettys
The Raw Story
Published: Friday, May 23, 2014; 12:13 EDT
The Chesterfield County (Virginia) Board of Supervisors
selected and invited clergy from their “approved” list to render the invocation
for Board meetings. Virtually all
of the clergy on the approved list were Christian denomination ministers. The Board specifically rejected those
religions that do not fall within the “Judeo-Christian tradition and ‘invoke
polytheistic, pre-Christian deities,’” or non-theistic faiths outside the
accepted Christian faith of the majority in Chesterfield County, Virginia. The American Civil Liberties Union
challenged the Board’s action. The
case is working its way through the judicial system.
As
much as I have attempted to rationalize and defend prayer in the public and
governance domains, cases like this in Chesterfield suggest I am naïve,
simplistic and otherwise not connected with reality. If we cannot tolerate other religions in delivering
non-denominational prayer, then I am afraid there must be none. The founding principles of this Grand
Republic are inclusive, NOT exclusive, of all, not just the chosen some or even
many. If we cannot embrace those
principles, then we must eliminate the implied favoritism from the public
domain. This Grand Republic is NOT
a Christian nation; it is a country of all religions and no state religion –
one Nation under God (not the Christian faith). I expect the courts will affirm those founding principles.
More
opinions and perspectives on this topic are offered in the Comment Section
below.
The New York City Twin Towers 9/11
Memorial and Museum opened for dedication and preview by survivors, families,
first-responders and anointed VIPs.
The memorial will open to the public next month. Most reviews are quite good, especially
regarding the solemnity, breadth, and quality of the complex. Yet, no matter how long and hard the
developers tried, nothing could be perfect. The big controversy came in the form of a gift shop
associated with the Memorial/Museum – a gift shop! The facility is NOT just for those directly touched by our
Second Day of Infamy. It is a
public facility. Like it or not,
some folks want to walk away from their experience with a souvenir or memento
of the visit. I surely hope and
expect the managers of the facility stand up for the public as a whole rather
than a small minority who were probably looking for at least one reason to
object. This whole gift shop
kerfuffle is another example of political correctness gone insane. The facility must support itself. Further, some Muslims objected to a
short video clip used in the display that refers to the attackers as
“fundamentalist Muslims” and “violent jihadists.” If I was a believer in the Islamic faith, I can understand
why I might be a bit sensitive to being lumped in with those (and other)
attackers. Americans of Japanese
heritage had to endure the abuse produced by the same kind of generalization at
the beginning of World War II.
Yet, at the end of the day, the 9/11 attackers were indeed as they were
labeled, just as the 1941 attackers were Japanese – nothing else.
Credit Suisse pleaded guilty in U.S.
federal court to aiding tax evasion and agreed to pay US$2.6B to settle the
case. The culmination of the case
was decades in the making.
Congratulations to the legal, banking and diplomatic team that brought the
case to a close. As understand the
public information, the potential for individual prosecutions remains
open. A friend and long-time
contributor to this humble forum sent along the following article:
“Is Credit Suisse Really in Jail?”
by James Kwak
The Baseline Scenario
Posted on May 20, 2014
. . . to which
I replied:
Prima
facie, yes, I would agree.
However, this particular banking conduct issue has a history spanning
generations, especially the Swiss banking secrecy feature. For generations, a mark of wealth was a
“Swiss bank account” to hide cash and other assets from the taxman. U.S. and British banks were moving Nazi
funds until nearly the end of the war.
Banks have historically taken a neutral, it’s-just-about-the-money
attitude toward their operations.
It was not until the so-called war on drugs that legislatures and
countries began to tighten laws to deal with massive money laundering
activities. As national laws and
international agreements progressively focused on the policies that enabled hiding
money from tax collectors or other public interests, the noose tightened. I see this settlement deal seems to
signal the perseverance of governments to bring the wealthy under the law. Time shall tell whether this judgment
is the watershed moment we expect with respect to tax evasion prosecution.
From
a collateral perspective, Credit Suisse is one of the LIBOR big 16
international banks. So far, they
have only faced sanctions from Singapore.
I certainly expect the LIBOR investigation to yield more prosecutions
and monetary fines.
Let
us not forget that a goodly portion of culpability rests with legislatures who
made laws with loopholes for their wealthy buddies and contributors. Those gaps have begun to close for a
variety of reasons, but they still exist.
The House of Representatives passed H.R.
3361, provisionally titled the USA FREEDOM Act, “To reform the authorities of
the Federal Government to require the production of certain business
records, conduct electronic surveillance, use pen registers and trap and trace
devices, and use other forms of information gathering for foreign intelligence,
counterterrorism, and criminal purposes, and for other purposes.” The vote was truly bipartisan [303-121-0-7(4)]. The bill goes to the Senate and
probably a conference committee to reconcile any differences between the House
and Senate versions, before it goes to the President.
The
language of the House bill makes another attempt at further reform of the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) [PL 95-511; 92 Stat.
1783; 25.10.1978] {and its subsequent amendments}, and moves the domestic
intelligence collection apparatus closer to criminal justice procedures. The text of the H.R. 3361 bill focuses
on the FBI and the authority of the FISA Court, but does not even mention the
NSA or other intelligence agencies.
The bill also tightens the definitions of key terms like “tangible
things,” which has been prone to expansive interpretation in past operations. Significantly, the bill amends the USA PATRIOT
Improvement and Reauthorization Act [PL
109-177; 120 Stat. 192, 194; 9.3.2006] and
requires the Justice Department Inspector General to audit FISA authorizations
of “tangible things” between 2012 and 2014. The bill also extends the operative law to 31.December.2017.
My opinion and advocacy remain concentrated on every citizen’s Fundamental Right
to Privacy and Fourth
Amendment protections, as we continue to enable the available tools
for the Intelligence Community, while separating, filtering and enforcing the
barrier between the IC, and Law Enforcement and political operatives. H.R. 3361
appears to be reasonable and appropriate, but does not go as far as it should –
a half-step forward, so to speak – better than nothing, but not good enough.
Comments
and contributions from Update no.648:
“I really have a seemingly different opinion than most of
your bloggers and you on the issue of prayer in government and our lives.
I agree religion and faith is personal between you and your God period.
If you don't believe in God, I will defend your right to have that belief
and have done so in the past. However our society is so divided because
we try to boil things down to their LEAST COMMON DENOMINATOR which would be no
God in this situation. That line of thought effectively eliminates what this
country should value the most - our diversity and common acceptance of the
differences, yet a nation founded under God.
“I think that instead of stopping all prayer to God in
public or multicultural events, we should encourage prayer but with opportunity
for any to offer their prayers in their normal form for the common good of the
event, guidance, and for each other. Lest we forget - we were a nation
founded under GOD, but not under any particular religious order or definition.
“We are a nation based on democratic principles as well, and
that means the majority rules in the interest of the majority of its citizens
for the common good, such as mutual defense or commerce across boundaries.
“Since the majority of the US citizens say they believe in
God, we should include God and prayer in our public schools and government where
the majority (not the minority) serve as leaders, teachers, and participants.
If a minority wants to have their own religious or non religious based
school or gathering and follow other religious or non religious order, they
should also be able to do that, but not as a minority stop the majority from
following the principles that our great nation was founded upon.
“As a Christian I have never been offended by sincerely
offered prayers to other deities and I have been a part of events and
ceremonies with both Abrahamic and non-Abrahamic based religions.
Extremes within the various religions have resorted to killing each other
over the centuries for lack of a common respect for the views of other God
fearing people of their own "religion". Various religions and
sects have killed each other for centuries over differences. Our nation
has been unique in its history of not having religious wars because we were
founded as a nation under God and by persons who were a melting pot of the
various ideas. We need to preserve that common belief and not fall victim
to our least common denominator which is no belief at all.”
My reply:
I’m
not quite sure why you think we disagree regarding public prayer? I agree absolutely that the “lowest
common denominator,” i.e., no God, does not reflect our history, our heritage
or the principles of this Grand Republic.
There are a broad myriad of examples to support that assessment. Jefferson’s “wall of separation between
church and state” was not separation between God and the People, or even God
and the state. This is precisely
why my opinion remains that non-denominational prayer is appropriate, and
sectarian prayer is not.
To
put a sharp point on this topic, I see clerics as flawed men, who are driven by
the same detractor emotions as all the rest of us. I could also argue clerics are more driven, not particularly
different from those who seek power over groups of human beings, e.g.,
political, military, and corporate leaders. There are simply too many examples in history, across all
religions; and unfortunately, in my life, I have too many first-hand
examples. Clerics are a human
manifestation and advocates/representatives for the idiosyncrasies of their
particular religious sect, which in turn has been the primary reason for far
too many wars and death in human history.
This is the core of my argument that public prayer must be devoid of religious
affiliation. I may not reflect the
majority or any group of citizens beyond myself; yet, as I stated previously,
God is as we hold Him (the generic pronoun, rather than the gender specific
version) in our hearts, consciousness and souls. Religion certainly helps us form that image and belief in
each of us. I will also content
that atheists believe in a higher authority . . . even if it is only the law
that stops them from resorting to Darwinian conduct.
Re:
“the majority rules in the interest of the majority of its citizens.” This is where I will disagree to a
minor extent. In our form of
governance, as I understand it, the majority can only impose its will upon a
minority after clearly demonstrating a compelling public interest and through due
process of the law. For the
majority to impose Christianity on non-believer minorities, they fail at the
first gate, and should never reach the second gate. The Supreme Court has repeatedly sustained that
precept. Further, I would be
opposed to any effort to do so.
Yes, this Grand Republic is indeed one nation under God . . . as all
nations are whether they recognize or accept that reality or not. Lastly, I would see any effort to
impose Christianity on the minorities of this Grand Republic as being NO
DIFFERENT from what has happened in the Islamic Republic of Iran – a theocracy
with all of its destructive potential.
We are an inclusive nation for all those who wish to live in peace and
freedom; all religious affiliations are welcome, as long as they abide the
rules.
Let
us not forget that our history has not been particularly pure in this regard,
either. Flawed men sought their
own egocentric or megalomaniacal purposes for their discrimination and
exclusion. We, the People, have
ultimately stood against such men and prevailed. And so it goes.
Comment to the Blog:
“I imagine most of us agree that General Motors' (GM) $35
million fine was not enough, given GM's size and the gravity of the offense. A
report on CBS Morning News stated that the fine amounts to one day's income for
GM. That amount is the maximum allowed by law. Perhaps when that law is
revised, the fine should be set as the company's income for a stated period.
For example, a relatively minor infraction might cost them a day's income, a
more serious offense two weeks or a month, and a harmful and deliberate violation
such as this one several months' income. We should use income rather than
profit because corporations routinely shelter or hide profits for tax reasons
and because money-losing companies cannot be exempt.
“Perhaps seeing the EU struggle despite their own momentary
prosperity will help Germany realize that their economy is tied to the rest of
the world's prosperity or poverty. The nationalistic approach to economics that
is still seen worldwide has become outdated. I remain uncertain what will or should
replace it.
“Perhaps something like a statement of purpose and unity
would serve government units better than a prayer. First I reiterate the
difficulty of finding anything not objectionable to someone. Also, not everyone
agrees with religion as a concept or with making it public. My religion matters
to me; I am clergy. All the same, religion is to me a private matter. While I
am not a Christian, I agree with the Biblical injunction (Matthew Chapter 5)
not to pray in public ‘as the hypocrites do.’”
My response to the
Blog:
Re:
corporate penalties. I like your
suggestion. Even better, I would
like to see those executives who made, approved, or sanctioned the decisions
that are injurious to public safety or health, or broader public interests,
prosecuted and punished, i.e., prison time.
Re:
international economics model. I
understand the reasoning for a more global approach to economic decisions and
actions. However, as with law
enforcement or peace-keeping, or any other sovereign action, who is going to
make those decisions and enforce the process?
Re:
public prayer. I am seeking
compromise. To me, the issue is
not prayer but rather religion in the hands of flawed men. We do agree, religion is a private
matter.
. . . follow-up comment:
“You added an important point to the corporate crime issue.
Corporations are not people, and people must be held accountable for crimes.
Penalties directed at the corporation have a poor history and need much
development before they have any real use to society. Penalties directed at
people, on the other hand, could be raised to appropriate levels for these
white-collar crimes with relative ease.
“I do not know either how the world's nations need to adapt
to the advances in transportation and communication that have led to their
interdependency. However, this issue needs attention so that nations,
companies, and people adapt voluntarily rather than being forced into
last-second jury-rigging.
“I believe all humans are imperfect. Adding religion to
politics just broadens the field of flaws that can come into play. The more I
think about it, the more I think a statement of purpose for the particular
government unit sponsoring the meeting or event and a commitment to
"the
greatest good for the greatest number" (or something similar) by the key
participants would better serve society's interests than any prayer.”
. . . my follow-up response:
Re:
corporate misdeeds. We are
agreed. Trying to punish
corporations is almost a wasted effort.
Yet, I suspect the government favors negotiated settlements because it
is the path of least resistance to a public token of “punishment.” Trying to take individuals to court for
a trial before a jury of citizens is rarely a sure thing . . . so, apparently,
they think something is better than nothing. Yes, at least, we are seeing some individuals tried,
convicted and punished; simply, we have no where near enough decision-makers
punished, given the Great Recession, LIBOR, the GM notification/recall failure,
et al. Being an eternal optimist,
I hope someday Congress will grow the balls necessary to do what must be done.
Re:
world economics. Good point. I do not know how it should be done
either. The LIBOR investigation
and very limited prosecutions so far is a prime example of why the current
international process is barely functional.
Re:
prayer. I think non-denominational
prayer, if done properly and well, does just that . . . expresses a statement
of purpose. The “wall of
separation” exists and must exist between religion and governance. Yet, an inspirational,
non-denominational prayer serves many purposes to reach individuals, some will
ignore it, and others will take the message to heart. Those who do not find any value in such inspirational
statements can and will ignore it.
It will only mean what each individual chooses to take from the words.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
2 comments:
I am still considering the issue of prayers at meetings of public bodies. As a member of a non-Abrahamic religion and as a person who believes that religion is a private matter, I still object to prayers in that setting, and I believe that the systematic exclusion of non-Christians aggravates that issue tenfold. I, by the way, fit your term “cleric” and I want to note that a significant number of exceptions exist to your description of us as power-seekers.
Beyond that, I am seeing a requirement of officials to make a public, personal commitment to the unity and well-being of the people they govern as a more desirable outcome. Imagine what could happen if a person in a city council meeting, for one example, could call attention to a council member's self-serving position differing from his statement of an hour earlier.
Your other commenter and his kind need to study the early history of this Republic. Many of the Founders were Deists, which most modern-day Christians would not see as Christian. Deism thrived as part of the Age of Reason. Clearly, the Age of Reason is long over. Also, searching the phrase “tyranny of the majority” and reading the results with as much of an open mind as they can summon would enrich this person's view. The Bill of Rights belongs in the Constitution to cover that set of issues.
Anything like a gift shop at the 9-11 memorial was bound to be tacky. However, current American outlook permits nothing to be truly non-commercial.
I understand that the Credit Suisse conviction can be seen as progress in prosecuting large-scale financial wrongdoing. However, at this pace effective change cannot occur before at least one more worldwide economic crisis brought on by exactly the same group of people and the corporations they control. “Someday” is not an appropriate goal for jailing criminals, be they teenagers stealing electronics from unattended cars or financiers removing billions of dollars from the pockets of people worldwide. Certainly legislators have much to account for in this. That, to me, is part of a progressive outlook. I expect government to be more than a hand-wringing spectator to large-scale criminality.
As you have pointed out, the intelligence reform bill is extremely watered down. Any such bill that covers only two agencies cannot be considered useful. I'd be interested in knowing who did what to whom behind the scenes, but those stories will never be available.
Calvin,
Re: public prayer. Systematic exclusion of non-Christian religious dominations from rendering an opening, non-denominational, legislative session invocation makes the whole process suspect and thus unacceptable. Conversely, inclusion of non-Christian clerics does not offer license for them to proselytize for their particular sect or theology.
Re: power-seekers. My representation was not intended to be all-inclusive or even definitive.
Re: “unity and well-being of the people.” Spot on, brother! Unfortunately, contemporary politicians are far more driven to impose their particular ideology on We, the People, rather than seek compromise and moderation for the common good. There is far too much meddling in private affairs and conduct rather than addressing the common good in the public domain.
Re: history. There were many forces at play during those years of the founding of this Grand Republic that we would not recognize today and certainly would not tolerate or support, e.g., “men” in those days meant something fundamentally different from what it means today.
Re: “tyranny of the majority.” The term and principles to avoid that tyranny remain just as valid today as they were at the founding; yet, we all too often forget that important history.
Re: gift shop. I have not seen the gift shop at issue, but from the Press reports, it sounds like it was respectfully and tastefully done. I simply sought to remind folks that the memorial and gift shop are intended for the general public as a whole, not just a special fraction.
Re: Credit Suisse. Good points, all! This particular issue had more to do with the governmental disagreements and sovereignty than it did violations of the law. Swiss banks have a long and storied history of secrecy and insulating their clients from governmental intrusion. Credit Suisse deserves some credit in that they are one of the very few corporate entities to admit their guilt in violating the evolved law. The Swiss government no longer protected the banks that chose to do business outside the country, e.g., in the United States and thus subject to our laws.
Re: intelligence reform. The H.R. 3361 deals more with the symptoms rather than the root cause. Like banking reform, half steps are better than no steps. I imagine Congress is attempting to do the minimum possible to affect sufficient change to placate public apprehension. I doubt H.R. 3361 does even that minimum amount.
“That’s just my opinion, but I could be wrong.”
Cheers,
Cap
Post a Comment