The Christian Humanist When the political-religious right wants to have the government subsidize some religiously-based project or entity, or promote prayer or Bible-reading in schools or other public places, or undermine science with creationist theories, or put up religious symbols in public places, or legislate morality for our citizenry, they insist that they are justified because the United States is a Christian nation. But is the United States really a Christian nation? If so, what particular version of Christianity (fundamentalist, Catholic, traditional) applies? What are the practical implications of being a Christian nation?
Leave aside for the moment the inconvenient fact (despite uninformed assertions to the contrary) that the United States is not, and from the earliest days of nationhood was never intended by its founders to be, a “Christian” nation. Our national Constitution (in the “Establishment Clause”) expressly forbids any federal government support of, or involvement in, religion. The claim that the United States was founded to be a Christian nation is based on ignorance from misreading (or simply not reading) our nation’s history and the writings of our brilliant and wise founding fathers.
Thomas Jefferson, who probably had more influence on our founding principles than any other single individual, was adamant about the necessity of the separation of government from religion. He was not a Christian. Like many of the intelligentsia who guided our nation in its formative days, he was a Deist [Deism is the belief in an impersonal designer-creator god of the universe discovered by reason rather than revelation]. Our founding principles as written into the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution largely reflected European philosophical thinking of the time, particularly the French revolutionary ideas of liberte, fraternite, and egalite, roughly translated as the freedom of the individual, the brotherhood of man and the equality of all citizens, ideas that are consistent with Christian principles and may have been partly derived from them as well as from some of the philosophy of the time that was fairly widespread in Europe as well as in the Colonies during that period. The fact that some the principles underlying our democracy may have been derived from Christianity does not make us a “Christian nation.”
Many of our original 13 colonies were founded by religious immigrants from Europe (Puritans, Pilgrims, Quakers, Huguenots, Calvinists, Ana-Baptists, Roman Catholics) who wanted to escape from the tyrannical domination and oppression by the state Christian churches of Europe. During the 1600s and early 1700s these small American colonies were founded based on the particular beliefs of groups of settlers and the settlers did not distinguish between political and religious rules. They were not interested in religious freedom as a general principle; they were only interested in religious freedom for themselves and they could be as intolerant of those who did not share those beliefs as were the state churches in the countries from which they had come.
The colonists punished dissent sometimes by various corporal punishments or by public humiliation and sometimes by expulsion from their churches or their colonies. [While researching my family history I found that a distant relative and his family had been expelled from their Massachusetts town for inappropriate behavior for which they refused to accept church punishment.] Some religious dissenters voluntarily or forcibly left their communities to relocate elsewhere, a prominent example of which is Roger Williams, a Baptist made unwelcome in the Massachusetts Bay Colony, who famously emigrated to Rhode Island to found a new colony.
By the latter half of the 1700s intolerance of differences gave way to religious freedom as it became increasingly obvious that diversity of religious belief was not going to end, the various colonies and their citizens had widely different views about religion, and these local religious squabbles and differences inhibited cooperation with their neighbors. Tolerance of differences and mutual respect were necessary for getting along with their neighbors and therefore essential qualities in cooperation to displace their colonial masters, the English. The nation’s leaders wisely recognized that the young nation would not survive unless its government stayed out of religion with its continuing disagreements and controversies.
The founders of our nation established the principle, based on the earlier religious freedom clause in the Virginia constitution, that the Federal government would be neutral with respect to religion and would have no role in religious matters. The Constitution expressly prohibited the “establishment” of any religion, by which it intended no state religion, no state support for religion, no state prohibition against any religion, no state position in religious controversy. There would be a clear line of separation of the State from any religious role, support or function. Clearly some of our early leaders were practicing Christians from diverse traditions, but many others were not, and their unhappy experience with state-sponsored religion in Europe led them to the decision that the best course of action was for the government to be neutral on religion.
[This is the first of three articles on the subject of the United States as a Christian Nation. The complete article can be read on my website or on my electronic newsletter Perspectives at http://thechristianhumanist.blogspot.com/2010/04/is-united-states-christian-nation-since.html ]
The Christian Humanist The AP reports: “The Vatican No. 2 official, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, rebuffed questions about the pontiff’s silence on the topic [of Pedophilia], indicating that Benedict was standing firm.”
Someone with sense and access needs to take the top Vatican officials into the woodshed for a “tough love” conversation and beat some common sense into their hard heads. Apparently the Vatican is not used to serious persistent criticism and it continues to blunder. Even a novice in public life knows that if you do not have a defense you attack the accuser to change the subject. Unfortunately for the Pope and the Vatican the public is not easily fooled by this tactic. So when the Vatican says that “accusations that he [the Pope] helped cover up the actions of pedophile priests are part of an anti-Catholic ‘hate’ campaign targeting the pope for his opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage” we are left perplexed and in dis-belief at both the audacity and the incompetence of the spokesman.
I see no need to review the evidence that top Vatican officials (including with all probability the Pope) were complicit in the cover-up of widespread serial pedophilia, ephebephilia and sexual molestation by priests against young victims. There is no need to repeat the argument that this is a serious violation of priestly duty that was made worse by trying to tamp down publicity, muzzling victims, and transferring priests to other dioceses where they continued their molestation. This whole horrid story is a black eye for the Church, which continues to defend, deny and deflect accusations and charges. Obviously the guys in the long robes don’t get it, or rather don’t want to get it, because the implications for the Church and the priesthood are almost too serious for them to contemplate.
To suggest that this is not a real problem, that there are not real victims, that the criticism of the Church is because the victims and their supporters are part of an anti-Church hate campaign, that there is no need for the church to get on its collective knees and beg forgiveness from their god, simply compounds this evil.
If they don’t wake up pretty soon and begin to change the mentality that allows this sort of evil to fester under the long robes, their fast declining moral authority will be squandered and they might as well close their doors because they will have no one’s respect.
The Rev. Arthur G Broadhurst
The Christian Humanist Maybe it is just because I live in a conservative community in Florida where besides the mosquitos and the alligators we also have more than our share of fundamentalist Christians, extremist Republicans and tax-bashing adherents of the Tea Party, but it sure seems to me that the anger and hostility of the public has gotten to such a white hot temperature that civil conversation in public with strangers and casual acquaintances is almost impossible and words have to be guarded lest they bring forth angry comments about brain-dead liberals, politics in general and progressives in particular. Apparently fundamentalist churches play a large activist role in fomenting this anger and provoking culture clashes, not just because the far right in religion has made common cause with the far right in politics, but (in my opinion, at least) because both the religious right and the political right feel powerless against cultural forces they do not really understand and have no way to influence or control.
In our area, the religious and political right dominate the airways on talk radio and the blogs and commentary pages of the local newspapers, often writing letters about how Obama has destroyed the country and how we need to get back to the fundamentals of Christianity with its story of salvation for people and nations and that “bible-believing Christians” need to promote the bible and god’s plan for man—which does not include the President.
I was amused today by a letter to the editor which provoked a sharp response from a bright and literate blogger and a militant atheist who goes under the avatar DUCKPHUP. Below I quote (with only minor editing), his amusing and irreverent commentary on the letter. It is too good not to share!
Clair wrote: “Time and time again, I have read critiques of the Holy Bible based on quotations taken out of context. The full story related in the Bible begins with creation and then the separation of people from God.”
Right. So IN context, we have ‘God the father’… this wonderful, loving, capricious, vengeful, murderous, genocidal, caring, compassionate, mass-murdering, forgiving, jealous, evil, invisible, magical, all-powerful, supernatural sky-fairy, poofing the universe, the world, plants and critters into existence, fabricating humans from a dust bunny and a rib, for the express purpose of having them, their progeny and their descendants love Him, praise Him, and kiss His holy butt… so He could love them, too, and not be forced to torture and torment them for eternity, instead… while back here in the REAL world, just outside the ‘gates’ of the magical Garden where all this ‘creating’ was going on, the Mesopotamians were making beer.
Clair wrote: “Clearly, the depravity of men caused by their choosing to follow worldly ways of self-pleasure without regard to the will of the Creator is told in the cyclic stories of failure, judgment, captivity, pleas for help, and turning to God for the good life.”
Funny, huh?… how in all those ‘cyclic stories of failure, judgment, captivity, pleas for help, and turning to God for the good life’, God is DIRECTLY responsible for the murder of about 2.5 million (explicit) people, and another 2.5 million (estimated) where cities were destroyed and whole peoples wiped out, without a precise body count being given? (Add the [imaginary] Noahic flood into the mix, and you get about 60 million.)
Satan? The evil one? Satan killed the 7 sons and 3 daughters of Job… WITH god’s permission… essentially, in order to settle a bet.
OK… so… the ‘good guy’ (God) slaughtered (or ordered the slaughter of) well over 60,000,000… mostly innocents… and the BAD guy… the EVIL guy… is PARTLY responsible for TEN deaths… and the GOOD guy was the enabler… the aider… the abettor… the instigator… the accomplice. Add in the hundreds of millions who were subsequently killed in ‘the name of Jesus’, or in fulfilling ‘the will of God’… and that makes your beloved all-good and all-loving Lord and savior the biggest mass-murdering psychopath of all time. That INCLUDES God’s crude form of abortion… having His homies slash open the bellies of young pregnant maidens with swords; and remember… those were the days when females were married and bearing children at the age of 12 or 13.
I’m not defending Satan. There’s no point. Neither Satan nor Jehovah exists, anyway. I’m just focusing on the (alleged) thought processes of Christ-cult delusionist God-bots… the bizarre, irrational double-think by which they can turn what is obviously ‘evil’ into ‘good’… WITHOUT experiencing even the slightest twinge of ‘cognitive dissonance’… and WITHOUT having their heads explode.
Clair wrote: “As every cycle plays itself out, men have attempted to solve their personal and political problems through human-generated wisdom and logic. Failure is always the eventual outcome.”
That’s hilarious. Hey, Clair… there’s a phrase that describes the time-period when “men have attempted to solve their personal and political problems” through God-given (biblical) wisdom and logic. It’s called the ‘Dark Ages’, which started when the Christ-cult completed its takeover of the Roman Empire… AFTER destroying most of the accumulated knowledge of 1,000 years of human accomplishment.
Clair wrote: “There is a huge gap between the best men can muster via their own works and obedience and the pure righteousness of God. No bridge can be built by the efforts of men. ‘For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believeth on Him shall not perish but have eternal life’.”
Right. The further adventures of this magical sky-fairy… the deity of the Abrahamic death-cults of desert monotheism… plainly show that was often ‘appeased’ by blood sacrifice. It is well documented (in the Wholly Babble) that he thoroughly enjoyed the aroma of a good barbecue… and that a generous serving of blood COULD get him to change his mind… or, at least temporarily desist from slaughtering people by the thousands in one of his frequent piques of annoyance, or paroxysms of holy snits, hissy-fits and divine apoplexy. Heck… he often specified exactly how to butcher the critters and set up the barbecue… the ultimate ‘executive chef’… and specified that these sacrifices should take place in ‘high places’, because He lives above us, up there in heaven… just on the ‘other side’ of the (solid) firmament (sky)… and he wanted to make sure that the ’sweet savor unto the Lord’ didn’t dissipate too much, before arriving in the holy, divine snot-locker.
Anyway… when he set up His own son/self to be cruelly tortured and suffer a gruesome and agonizing FAKE death (remember, God is ‘immortal’… He/She/It CAN’T die), in a perverse public spectacle of torture and blood sacrifice, He sacrificed HIMSELF… TO Himself… in order to APPEASE Himself. After all… He’s the one-and-only true God… right? So who ELSE might this sacrifice be meant to appease? Huh? This sacrifice to end all sacrifices? Who else COULD it be meant to appease, other than The One to whom all the PREVIOUS sacrifices had been made? So… He has now supposedly APPEASED HIMSELF, by FAKING his own death… and created a loophole by way of which He is now in a position to DEFY Himself, and give people a way to circumvent the consequences of HIS OWN rules and punishments… the products of HIS OWN evil and capricious whims…
Clair wrote: “God gave us Jesus Christ to bridge the abyss with His self-giving love, and by believing in Him, we, at the time of our passing, are clad in His righteousness. ‘For by Grace are ye saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God’.”
Yeah… so… this brings you to the point where you ‘believe’ that a cosmic Jewish zombie, who is His own father, can make you live forever if you submit to a magical soul-douching ceremony (complete with magical water, incantations and waving of hands), symbolically eat His flesh (in the form of a cracker) and telepathically tell Him that you accept Him as your master so He can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was tricked by a malevolent entity (disguised a talking snake… with legs) into eating a piece of magical fruit from an enchanted tree… (etc.)… and that there is something horribly wrong with people who ARE NOT so stupid, gullible and/or cowardly that they can be bullied, cajoled, threatened, deceived, coerced, frightened, tricked, manipulated or bamboozled to the point where they can be made to believe that such outrageously ridiculous codswallop is ‘true’.
You DO know that’s insane… right?
Point to ponder: In the context of religion, ‘belief’ is the ILLUSION of knowledge. There’s a word that means the same thing: delusion.
Clair wrote: “If we carefully and spiritually study all 66 books of the Bible, our minds will be opened to their true meaning and to the way, the truth, and the life.”
Rubbish…
“A thorough reading and understanding of the Bible is the surest path to atheism” – Donald Morgan
Clair wrote: “It really is quite simple. Have the faith of a little child, and God will work within you and through you to make the world a better place for everyone.”
Ah, yes.. the ‘faith of a little child’. Brilliant. It’s really quite a lot simpler than you intimate, though. You don’t ”… make the world a better place for everyone.” Rather, you make the world a place where gullibility, self-deception, self-delusion, irrationality, willful ignorance, intellectual dishonesty, lies, deception, hypocrisy, and toxic, drooling stupidity are elevated to the status of divine virtues. THAT only makes the world a better place for the devious charlatans and scam artists… the clergy and professional LFJs™ (Liars For Jesus) that PROFIT from those ‘virtues.’
The Christian Humanist How should we treat child molesters? Harshly, even brutally, according to our Christian neighbors, as evidenced by the public outcry in the aftermath of a particularly troublesome incident in my local community, but which I am sure is typical of attitudes throughout the country.
A local story: A fireman—churchgoer, family man, pillar of the community—called 911 recently in obvious despair, telling the operator he was sitting at home with a gun in his hand and was about to kill himself. As the operator talked to him the man confessed that he had been molesting his now 14-year old stepdaughter for a number of months, was remorseful, and wanted the nightmare (his and hers) to end.
The newspaper allowed feedback comments on this story on its website (many responsible papers do not permit comments on stories likely to inflame passions. The comments were ugly but predictable—hang him without benefit of trial, put him in a cell with others and let the other prisoners know what he had done so they would “take care of the problem,” castrate him, etc. There were also several condemnatory comments to the effect that the 911 operator should be ashamed of herself for trying to talk the pervert out of committing suicide, even suggesting she should be fired for not letting the molester kill himself to save the state money.
Appalled by the community reaction, one citizen wrote a letter to the editor, which I have included below in its entirety (Press Journal, March 12, 2010):
To the editor:
I listened to the tape of a 911 operator speaking a man down from hurting himself as he had just confessed to molesting a 14-year-old girl, and there in the midst of my judging I found myself praying for this man.
It was very moving and I couldn’t help but remember that the Lord forgives us from even the most vile acts. I pray that he and his family can overcome all that has happened and that we remember that we are all worthy of forgiveness.
It’s a lot easier when you can look at people as being ill. And who among us wouldn’t pray for someone who was sick
Laura Hernandez
As we have come to expect, the ugly comments began anew, even after Ms. Hernandez’ plea for compassion. Here is a sampling of the comments:
I do pray for the man. I pray that he drops dead, but not until he gets abused in jail. Feel sorry for the piece-of-crap? I don’t think so!
He is not “sick” he is evil. I’ll save my prayer for the little girl he injured. She is the one carrying around the true burden. Children are fragile and should be cared for with love not sexual abuse. This step father is supposed to shield her from the world! This pig should have expressed his repentance by sticking that gun into his mouth and pulling the trigger. Only then would I agree that he has expressed true remorse. Laura, why do you identify with the oppressor and not the afflicted? Is that what you gain out of the scriptures?
The 911 operator should have encouraged the man to kill himself to save the taxpayers money.
Many of the writers expressed the view that they were Christians, but nevertheless believed that such acts against children were unforgivable and that Christianity could not tolerate such behavior, that such evil people were beyond hope and redemption and should be destroyed on earth and suffer in hell for eternity. One cynical self-described atheist laughed at the notion that prayer was anything but a waste of time.
I wrote a comment in response both in defense of the original letter writer and to counter the viciousness of the comments being made by purported Christians who denied that forgiveness was possible for child molesters.
The letter writer has expressed the appropriate Christian sentiments—forgiveness after true confession and repentance. Isn’t that response an accurate reflection of “what would Jesus do?” Isn’t that the model of appropriate conduct to which we aspire?
I agree with those who believe that prayer is futile if prayer means expecting a conversational partner at the other end. That is not the point—prayer is also an attitude of reverence and introspection that reminds us that we all fall short in our behavior and that “falling short” includes expressing the hateful and non-Christian attitudes of the preceding posts.
Consider this—if forgiveness is not possible for you, then being a Christian is not possible for you. Christianity is all about forgiving.
Of course nothing that I said about the Christian value of forgiveness means that those who commit crimes such as molestation should not be reported to the police and face judicial punishment.
Remember that forgiveness comes after the penitent has confessed, is truly sorry, and accepts the consequences of his actions. It does not mean that consequences of serious criminal or immoral actions are ignored.
Contrary to the mean-spirited comments, Ms. Hernandez is courageous to be able to express her views of Christian compassion in a community of vengeful hatemongers who do not grasp the fundamentals of what it means to be a Christian.
I write under the avatar Christian Humanist and that phrase annoys fundamentalist Christians who take particular delight in attacking the impossibility implied by the avatar, and I must admit that I get some pleasure out of reminding conventional Christians of their sins and their duties.
However the question at hand is whether it is reasonable to talk about “forgiveness” of child molesters, and if it is, under what circumstances is forgiveness reasonable, and what in practical terms does forgiveness mean? Does “forgiveness” mean that child molesters should be allowed back into society after their sentence is over? [This molestation was not of strangers, it was an opportunistic molestation within the family, so we probably do not need to conclude that there is a danger to society by this perpetrator.] Should we continue to keep molesters out of society by virtual life in prison? Or prohibit where they can live? Post their names and addresses on websites so they cannot get jobs?
The Roman Catholic Church is facing a serious crisis with the priest sexual abuse and molestation scandal that has erupted into public view once again. We have instances of widespread sexual abuse in Ireland, Germany, Spain, Italy, the United States, Canada, Australia, and throughout the world. The Church’s response to the crisis and to the victims of molestation and pedophilia has been odd, slow, belligerent, denial, secretive, abysmal, appalling, unbelievable, and inexcusable. Almost any negative adjective will do.
We have seen credible evidence that Vatican officials have known about this problem for years and have chosen to protect the church from scandal rather than protect the victims from abuse. We have seen credible evidence that the Pope had a direct role in returning pedophiles to parishes in Germany when he was Archbishop of Munich. We have seen credible evidence that as head of the office in the Vatican responsible for disciplining priests for 21 years that Cardinal Joseph Rattinger issued orders to be secretive about handling charges of sexual misconduct. We have seen evidence that the Vatican ignored the problem until it could no longer be ignored. We saw on Easter Sunday that the Pope ignored the crisis and the Pope’s spokesman blamed the Press for unwarranted attacks on the Church based on “gossip.”
So how do we respond to the Catholic Church over this institutional problem that seems to have infected the Church? It is apparent that there are many sexual abusers in the Church still functioning as priests. It is apparent that the Church is still in denial about the extent and seriousness of the problem and apparently believes that it will go away if they keep stalling any inquiries, deny requests for information, refuse to acknowledge and confess their guilt except in a very vague and general way. They are still insistent that the Pope saw nothing and heard nothing and was in no way responsible for the current problem.
The Church wants forgiveness. In the Christian sense of what forgiveness means, it is only possible if there is genuine acknowledgement, confession and repentance and if the perpetrator accepts responsibility for his actions and the consequences (financial and legal) of what he has done. In the case of the Catholic Church there are some very specific implications: not only must individual priests acknowledge their guilt and accept the legal consequences of their actions in courts of law, the Church itself and its hierarchy must accept responsibility right at the top of the organization—and that means that the Pope himself must acknowledge his role in covering up immoral and illegal acts by priests and take responsibility for the Church’s moral failure in its effort to protect itself at the expense of those it was charged to care for. It must also act to protect its members from abusive priests by turning over to law enforcement whatever it knows about molesters and abusers, and then defrock and excommunicate priests who have betrayed their office and the public trust.
As a society, and regardless of our particular religious persuasion, it seems to me that we need a serious rethinking of how we handle perpetrators of sexual offenses against children, and how, and on what terms, we forgive perpetrators of sexual abuse and molestation.
The Christian Humanist We are fast approaching that horrific day each spring when our annual accounting with the IRS takes place, so I guess it is time once again for our occasional rant about taxes. Hear me out. Notice that I did not say “rant against taxes,” just about taxes. That’s because I believe that taxes are a good thing, necessary to our lives, our convenience, our health, our security, our education. My rant is against the rants of the tax complainers, the tax cutters, the tax cheats, the flat taxers, the tax avoiders—all those uninformed ideologically-driven anti-tax fanatics holding up signs at Tea Party rallies.
Don’t get me wrong. No one likes to pay taxes, including me. No one wants to see tax money wasted. No one (except in the minds of the loonies, fanatics and extremists) really wants government to be any bigger than it needs to be. Most people I know want to see serious efforts to deal with mismanagement and waste wherever it is found regardless of party or ideology.
That said, I accept what ought to be obvious to all, that if we want the services that go with modern civilization we have to pay for them and taxes are how we pay for them. Taxes are what makes civilized society possible—taxes fund roads, libraries, schools, street lights, fire and rescue services, child protection agencies, parks and playgrounds, airports and train stations, commuter rail and bus services, boat launches and all the other things we take for granted each day that make our life more pleasant.
Griping about taxes is almost a national pastime. Nevertheless I was surprised to read that Americans complain about taxes more than citizens of most other countries, while our tax burden is considerably less than in most other countries. The complaining does not seem justified by the reality. The U.S. ranks 27 out of 30 in overall tax burden in OECD countries, and has a comparable rank in what Forbes calls the “misery index,” which ranks taxes at the highest marginal rate, a rate which only the wealthy pay and then only on the portion of their income that exceeds $370,000. That is not a heavy burden.
I come at the question of taxes from the perspective of a Christian Humanist. I take quite seriously the teachings of Jesus that we have a duty to our neighbor, that compassion is a primary ethical value, that we are all in this sea of life together and must do our part to shoulder the burdens of life. I also take my commitment as a humanist quite seriously. We share a common humanity and a common commitment to the social compact theory of government that implies that we empower the government on our behalf and on behalf of each other to look out for our common welfare, and that requires a source of common funds to make it happen.
Some years ago when I got my annual bonus check [which was performance-based for meeting specific goals!] I made a comment to the CEO that he perceived as griping about the amount of money that was taken out of that check for Federal and State taxes, and he observed drily that I should be grateful because the amount of taxes taken out reflected a pretty significant income and that I should consider it a privilege and a duty to have the income that could pay taxes at that level—and he was right, and it was an important lesson that has stayed with me through the years.
Massachusetts (where I spend my summers) is considered a high tax state and is sometimes derisively called “Taxachusetts” by its residents. Taxes were on the minds of unhappy Massachusetts residents who, apparently influenced partly by the drumbeat of anti-tax ads attacking “big government,” elected Scott Brown to the Senate a few months ago. So the Boston Globe, mindful that taxes were on the minds of citizens, published an article recently about the attitudes and the realities of taxes in Massachusetts. It was an interesting and instructive read about the way people think about taxes. Some of their observations and conclusions are relevant to this article:
[a] Many people believe that government is too big and wasteful and that some programs need to be cut, but they were unable to name which programs they actually want to cut.
[b] When the sales tax was raised recently from 5% to 6.25% many residents flooded over the border to New Hampshire, which has no sales tax, to buy groceries and clothing, despite the fact that those items are not subject to sales tax in Massachusetts, an obviously funny and irrational response.
[c] Restrictions on real estate tax levies by towns require voter approval to bypass, yet most levies that go to voters are approved, apparently indicating that while voters are against taxes in general, they do not oppose taxes for something the value of which is obvious to them.
I live most of the year in Florida. We have no income tax, a sales tax rate of 7%, and property taxes (for residents with homestead exemption) that are below the median of the other states. We read complaining letters in our newspapers and hear rants about taxes on talk radio. The State budget, as is true in most states, has been cut for the past several years and is still in deficit. The public demanded drastic cuts and no new taxes. The legislature reiterated the public demand for cuts and the mantra of no new taxes. We have a Republican governor and Republicans control the legislature by a significant margin, so it should be easy for the Republicans to make the cuts they say they want. However, the legislature has run into the reality that most everyone says they want cuts but they don’t want programs cut that matter to them.
I see the same “cut our taxes but don’t cut our favorite programs” dilemma at the local level. Our county commissioners, all Republicans, complain loudly about foolish government waste and overspending on government programs (of course, at the Federal and State level) and promise that they will keep tax rates low with no new taxes. They cannot agree on what to cut—do we cut police and fire budgets, do we reduce teacher pay or lay off teachers or increase class size, do we cut athletics from the schools, do we reduce all county employees pay or just employees making over $100,000, do we cut the health department or ignore our sewage system repair needs? Is rebuilding the boat launching ramp at a city park an extravagance or a necessity?
The stated objective of the tax cutting movement (at the Federal level) is to lower the “marginal” income tax rates to benefit the wealthiest Americans. The essence of the argument supporting lower marginal income tax rates is “fairness” and the tactic is a proposal to eliminate differential income tax rates in favor of a “flat tax” that everyone would pay at the same rate that would have the added benefit of simplifying the tax code. Simplifying the tax code is long overdue, but that is a different issue. The question of tax “fairness” is a complicated one and could be answered in different ways depending on what values and assumptions are considered in the discussion but, regardless, the practical effect of lowering taxes on the wealthy inevitably involves shifting more of the burden onto the middle class and the poor. That is not an opinion, it is just a mathematical fact.
It is reasonable to argue that “fairness” of the tax burden means fairness in terms of ability to pay and that those who are wealthy have profited more from society and should pay more for its support. It is also obvious that requiring a wage earner with a middle class income to pay 10% of his income as tax, which cuts into the amounts required for food, clothing and shelter, creates a much greater burden on the middle class than a 10% tax on the income of a millionaire creates on the lifestyle of the wealthy. Arguing otherwise involves an “Alice in Wonderland” view of reality. Contrary to the argument made by the wealthy, lowering taxes on the wealthy and shifting the burden onto the middle class involves a wealth transfer (redistribution of wealth, anathema to the right) from the lower and middle class to the wealthy, and that cannot be fair in any reasonable sense of what “fairness” means.
Then there is the inconsistency in thinking by our political leaders. The same politicians who complain loudly and regularly that government bailouts of the financial industry or the auto industry lead the country toward socialism had no problem giving a local aircraft manufacturer $35 million in tax reductions, incentives and grants on the basis of his promise to stay in the area and hire more employees (a mixture of State and local funds were granted); the manufacturer took the money, laid off a good portion of the remaining employees, then sold the company to a Brunei corporation that may move the company out of the United States to Asia. When some locals objected to this expenditure of tax money to subsidize private enterprise, the same right wing blue collar types who protest Obama’s waste of money for bankrupting the country and believe that subsidizing private industry is socialism when the Federal government does it, said that this situation was different, it involved keeping local jobs so it was not really a waste of money and it was unfair to call it socialism. It was important and necessary.
So what do we make of this muddle-headed and inconsistent thinking, both from politicians and from the general public? We note with some amusement that:
[a] People do not like taxes in general but they do not object to taxes if they agree with the program the taxes will pay for. If I benefit from a tax-supported program, it’s ok; if my neighbor benefits, it is a waste of tax dollars.
[b] The more distant the taxing authority, the less people like paying the taxes. Federal taxes are worse, State next, local taxes are grudgingly acceptable.
[c] Earmarks (Federal money that pays for local projects) are always a waste of money unless they are in your local district. Then the money is “free” and doesn’t really cost taxpayers anything.
[d] State money is also “free.” An example: County Commissioners are spending $10 million on a beach re-nourishment project to spread new sand on beaches in the northern part of the county in front of ocean front mansions where the sand is annually washed away during storms. One commissioner said in response to complaints this project was wasting taxpayers money by throwing sand into the sea, “this is costing the taxpayers practically nothing, so it’s a no brainer”—but the commissioner was the one with no brain, because 90% of the funds were from the State and Federal government and was tax money.
Why do we have such ambiguous, inconsistent and ultimately selfish attitudes toward taxes? I think there are three reasons:
[a] Right wing anti-tax activists have been very vocal in print and in various media including talk radio in insisting that our tax system is not fair, that we pay too much of our “hard-earned income” in taxes, that government is bad and wastes our money, and that the purpose of taxation is to take from those who earned their money in order to give it to deadbeats—so they have created mistrust among the populace.
[b] The public is increasingly uneducated, intellectually lazy and ill-informed so they are uncritical in their thinking, inclined to believe what they are told on talk radio, and unable to form independent judgments based on evidence and common sense.
[c] Our elected leaders have been negligent and provocative by encouraging the anti-tax revolt as part of their continual drive to get re-elected and by their failure to lead and educate the public—to explain the role taxes play in a democratic society, to explain that taxes are for the benefit of everyone and are not just for those things that one personally agrees with, that taxes are necessary to support the community and the nation.
We need a new national conversation on the role of taxes in a democracy, that paying taxes is both a necessity and a privilege—but don’t count on that happening in our divisive and self-interested political climate.
The Christian Humanist
The Associated Press is reporting the story (carried by MSNBC) that in a Good Friday sermon in front of the Pope, the Pope’s own preacher, Fr. Raniero Cantalamessa, compared the attacks on the Catholic Church over the priest abuse scandal to attacks on the Jews during the Holocaust, thereby drawing outrage from around the world for a strained comparison in victimization that seems more concerned about defending and protecting the hierarchy than dealing with the widespread problem of sexual abuse and molestation by priests and attempts to conceal the problem by Bishops. It appears that Good Friday in 2010 will be seen as the church crucifying itself before the world.
Fr. Cantalamessa’s comments leave me almost speechless—almost! When an individual or a corporation has a public relations nightmare, the wisest voices always suggest that the resolution of the crisis will only come when and if: (a) there is immediate ownership of the problem; (b) get the news out quickly, don’t let it come out piecemeal so that the story drags out; (c) say you’re sorry you screwed up; (d) make amends as quickly as possible.
The Roman Catholic Church has a major crisis on its hands and it is doing everything wrong. Every principle of crisis management is being ignored. We see denials of responsibility. We see attacks on the press for reporting the problem. We have priests like Fr. Cantalamessa making really stupid and unbelievable statements, implying that the church is the victim in this crisis as were the Jews in the holocaust, a “victim of collective violence,” with “violent and concentric attacks against the church, the pope and all the faithful of the whole world.” That is chutzpah!
No wonder there is outrage. They seem not to be aware of who the real victims are in this crisis. These “attacks” as Fr. Catalamessa refers to them are reports of priest abuse and molestation that are coming forth daily in a never ending stream, along with the release of documents that show that the church hierarchy very clearly knew about the abuse and tried in very amateurish fashion to conceal what was going on in the church and to protect the priests from having to accept any responsibility or pay any price. This is not an attack on the faithful of the whole world, it is an attack on the unfaithful in the hierarchy and in the Vatican. It is too bad if Vatican officials don’t like the crop that they sowed, but it is their problem.
Is it an attack on the Pope? If so, it has been a pretty muted attack. What is reported (and denied, but not convincingly) is that this problem has been going on and been known to be a problem for decades, the church did not deal with the problem, the church moved offending priests to other dioceses where they continued to abuse, that Archbishop of Munich Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger knew (or should have known) what was going on in his diocese. As head of the office in the Vatican charged with dealing with sexual abuse, for Joseph Ratzinger to say he did not know about abuse is simply not believable, particularly because he was the author of instructions to dioceses around the world to keep such matters secret.
Attacking the messengers, and trying to play the victim in this sad story, will not play well on the world’s or history’s stage.
The Christian Humanist Abortion doctor murderer Scott Roeder admitted on the witness stand that he killed Dr. Tiller who engaged in lawful medical procedures that he objects to. He also said that only god can give or take life. So, in order to prevent what he (wrongly) believes is the taking of human life, he asserts the right to take a human life, in effect putting himself in the place of god and thereby nullifying his argument.
The law has spoken. Roeder was sentenced yesterday to life in prison and won’t be eligible for parole for 50 years — the maximum allowed by law. Under the circumstances, that is the proper result and the best we could hope for. Regrettably this decision is unlikely to have much deterrent effect, given the convoluted and absurd views of extreme anti-abortionists, who seem to be able to convince themselves that murder is the appropriate response for them to take in what they believe is the greater evil of abortion.
Leave aside for another discussion whether aborting a fetus is “killing a child,” an assertion that is specious on both Christian religious grounds and on common sense (an argument that I made in an earlier posting). Also leave aside for another discussion whether it is morally acceptable to take any life or any reason, or what circumstances would make it appropriate to take the life when a third person is in imminent danger of harm or death. In the case of Roeder we are left with his argument that murdering an individual person can be justified if the perpetrator (Roeder) believes (rightly or wrongly) that his action will prevent the future speculative but lawful killing of other persons who do not yet exist. Fortunately the court did not buy into this argument.
I can think of a number of instances in which the absurdity of Mr. Roeder’s argument becomes apparent. Soldiers are engaged in lawful killing. Is a pacifist justified in killing a soldier on his way to Iraq because killing him/her may prevent the lawful killing of enemy combatants? Criminal court judges sentence some persons convicted of serious crimes to be executed by hanging or lethal injection. Is an opponent of capital punishment justified in killing judges who have lawfully sentenced criminals to death in order to prevent the judge from sentencing more criminals to die? I could go on, but I think the point is so obvious as to not need any further elucidation.
Here is an article in The Guardian that points out the fear that terrorists like Scott Roeder create in the medical community. Scott Roeder and others like him are domestic terrorists. If we are serious about getting rid of terrorists and terrorism we have to start with convicting our domestic terrorists as well as Islamic jihadists. Both operate with the same twisted logic that justifies killing and terrorizing others for reasons arising out of their fundamentalist religious views.
The Christian Humanist I don’t usually write on environmental topics not because I do not care about the environment, but because it is not an intellectual or emotional issue for me, and I do not write about topics that I do not feel passionately about. However this story, while not dramatic, shows in a very common sense way what can be done to make a real difference when someone has a good idea and is persistent and passionate about taking that idea and convincing others that it is workable and desirable.
Long before it was stylish to be considered “Green” Grove Isle was in the forefront in conserving energy resources. Grove Isle is a large condominium complex for seniors, a 55+ gated community located along the Indian River in Vero Beach, Florida. There are 440 residential condominium units, mostly in 2-story buildings interspersed among several lakes, but with quite a few villas and patio homes as well. There are extensive recreational facilities, including an olympic-sized swimming pool and a generously proportioned spa (or hot tub, as they are sometimes called).
I moved there in 2004, so I was unaware of a very innovative, energy-saving and cost-saving project to install a geothermal heating and cooling system to heat and cool the very large main club house, and the swimming pool and spa, that had been completed in 2002.
An article in the April newsletter reminded me about this project, and with all the recent concern about electric costs, the need to save energy, and encouragement to think “out of the box”—it occurred to me that this was a story worth sharing because geothermal is now practical and our 8 years of experience with geothermal shows that it is reliable and cost-effective as well.
I quote from the newsletter article, but I have edited it to remove extraneous references and to clarify some things that would not be clear to those who do not know the complex.
“In 2002 under the visionary Frank Iaccarino we took giant strides by converting the heating and cooling of our Main Club House pool to a geothermal system. Frank was volunteering his time to the Gifford community when they installed a geothermal system on a new Olympic size pool. He thought that if the Town of Gifford could do this on such a large scale, why not Grove Isle where we had a much smaller pool.
“A heat source existed in the Florida aquifer deep below our pool area. All we had to do was tap into this aquifer and we could heat and cool our pool, significantly avoiding expensive energy sources. At the time we were spending about $16,000 a year for gas and electricity to control the temperature in the pool. Even that expense did not assure consistent water temperatures. The pool was too cold in January, too hot in July.
“Frank did a cost evaluation and determined that if we spent about $40,000 for installation we could save a large part of that $16,000 annual heating and cooling expense and recover our investment in 3 to 4 years. He convinced the Board of the practicality of this. It took some doing.
“In the summer of 2002 trucks, drills and excavators descended on the pool area. What a mess! One well shaft went down 200 feet another 100 feet. Ground temperatures of 74 degrees were tapped. Technically the subterranean ground temperature is warmer than the air above in the winter and cooler in the summer. The geothermal heat and cooling pump takes advantage of this by utilizing a heat exchanger process that uses thermal units to either heat or cool the pool, depending on the season. No more air conditioners and gas heaters.
“After some fine tuning, the system worked perfectly. A side benefit is that the hot tub could also be heated to 104 degrees from this same source. The system is noiseless. Today we maintain the pool at 84 degrees year-round. Of course some like it warmer, some cooler. However, most are pleased the way it is now controlled.
“The smaller Riveredge pool at the far end of the complex is not part of this geothermal heating and cooling system. Solar panels are used for heating that pool during the winter months.
“When you are enjoying your time in the pool think of all that hot water that the aquifer is providing us as a welcome energy source for both cooling and heating. We have saved close to $100,000 in pool costs since the system was installed.”
This is something that many should consider—for apartment buildings, schools, churches, swim and tennis clubs, recreational departments, etc. Think about what could be done in your community if this model were utilized elsewhere.
Main Pool at Grove Isle Condominium
The Christian Humanist Pundits have been discussing Barack Obama’s sporadic attendance at church services in the nation’s capital city and his failure to settle on membership in a particular church. Seriously, though, do Obama’s religious views matter to anyone but him? Does it matter whether the President exhibits his religious faith publicly or attends church regularly? Should we care?
The Boston Globe carried a front page article a month or so ago that discussed the President’s religious views but Mr. Obama was immediately trashed by the usual knee-jerk anti-Obama hysterical critics for all manner of specious reasons. I concluded from the article that the President believes his faith is a private matter and that joining any particular church in Washington would be disruptive to that church and its members, a distraction from his agenda, divisive since he is president of all the people, and grounds for more attempts by the religious and political right to attack him. He has stated that he believes faith should be lived, that he should walk the walk, and not have to talk the talk in public.
I am quite used to seeing illiterate, hateful and nonsensical posts in my local paper [I live in very conservative Florida] but I was shocked at the comments made in the Globe because I had assumed that because Boston was a more cultured area that the tone of the posts would be more respectful and literate. Was I wrong! Some of the posters must have immediately consulted their Glen Beck handbook for hateful irrelevancies to assist them in their silly comments. Many of the comments were just excuses to trash the President and to repeat the same astonishing lies that have been debunked many times over and are not worth responding to.
It was obvious from the tone of the comments on that article that the President can never please the fear mongers and the haters and may just as well ignore them. It is not important to our national governance that he be seen as a religious leader. It is important that he be seen as leader of all the people and leader of the free world. It is important that he bring back respect for the U.S. and its traditional values—democracy, dignity and peace. It is important that he lives the values of Jesus – feeding the hungry (food stamps, unemployment benefits), sheltering the homeless (housing programs, mortgage relief, heating oil subsidy), clothing the naked (welfare benefits), standing with the poor against the powerful (voter registration, electoral reform, campaign reform, term limits).
Many who posted hateful comments showed that they do not have a clue what Christianity is all about. They need to be reminded regularly that it is not about what they say they believe, surely it is not about “being saved,” it is about the content of one’s life, of “walking the walk” in the vernacular of our times. We had enough of that false public religion from the fundamentalist “I talk to god” hypocrite George Bush, whose religious faith led him to start wars that were unnecessary, take away civil rights in the name of presumptive war powers, hide the cost of the war by putting it “off budget,” and put the economy into recession by letting the bankers and corporate chiefs run amuck in a perversion of free enterprise.
We conclude that it matters what Obama’s faith is, because it results in the sort of person he is and the values he holds. We conclude that it is important that he “walk the walk.” We conclude that he is wise to keep a low profile about his religion, because public display is simply another opportunity for the right wing “religious” radicals to attack him.
Thank god (for those of you who believe there is a god) for President Obama.
The Christian Humanist The sense of entitlement by the wealthy never ceases to amaze me. The wealthy are no smarter, nor do they work harder, than anyone else in society [and for those that think so, I can point to examples of wealthy and poor who are dumber than rocks and who don't work hard]. The continued right wing claim that a robber baron whose company purchased another with borrowed funds, fired a bunch of people to show “profit” at the end of the quarter, then bankrupted both companies by strategic errors is “smarter” or that he “worked harder” than other people and therefore deserves his $100 million bonus is so blinded by ideology that he cannot see the facts.
So here is a fun fact, from the IRS, about the super wealthy–they paid an effective tax rate of 16.6% on their average income of $344.8 MILLION, a tax rate slightly lower than my tax rate, because of loopholes, capital gains and other tax gimmicks that favor the wealthy.
Here’s another fun fact about how the tax system transfers wealth from lower income people to the wealthy—Social Security tax is paid on wage income up to $106,000 at a rate of 7.65%. An individual making $50,000 per year has $3825 taken out of his wages. An individual making $2.5 million has $8109 taken out of his wages, for a net tax rate of .00325%. The lower paid person pays a rate 2,354 times HIGHER than the millionaire.*
All the screaming by the wealthy that they pay too much serves to disguise the fact that they pay too little and benefit from a tax code that is riddled with special favors and tax breaks for the wealthy that the rest of us do not get.
If we really want to fix the structural deficit and our national debt we could start by removing all those tax breaks for the wealthy and for corporations from the tax code so that they pay their fair share.
We have all heard the protest of the “Tea Party” movement that taxes are too high, but the facts seem to suggest otherwise. The objective of the tax cutting movement is to lower the “marginal” income tax rates to benefit the wealthiest Americans and the essence of the argument supporting lower marginal income tax is “fairness” and the tactic is a proposed “flat tax” that everyone would pay at the same rate that would have the added benefit of simplifying the tax code.
The question of “fairness” is a complicated one and could be answered in different ways depending on what values and assumptions are considered, but regardless the practical effect of lowering taxes on the wealthy inevitably involves shifting more of the burden onto the middle class and the poor.
It is reasonable to argue that “fairness” of the tax burden means fairness in terms of ability to pay and that those who are wealthy have profited more from society and should pay more for its support. It is also obvious that requiring a wage earner with a middle class income to pay 10% of their income as tax, which cuts into the amounts required for food, clothing and shelter, creates a much greater burden on the middle class than 10% tax on the income of a millionaire creates on the lifestyle of the wealthy.
Contrary to the argument made by the wealthy, lowering taxes on the wealthy and shifting the burden onto the middle class involves a wealth transfer (redistribution of wealth) from the lower and middle class to the wealthy, and that cannot be fair in any reasonable sense of what “fairness” means.
It’s time to end the entitlements for the wealthiest American taxpayers that are built into our archaic tax code.
_________________
* In a recent email I was asked the source for that data. There is no link to an external source. I did those calculations myself. Here are the actual calculations:
$50,000 x 7.65% = $3825 total social security tax on the individual.
$2,500,000 income is taxed only on the first $106,000. $106,000 x 7.65% = $8109 total tax on the individual.
$8109 divided by $2,500,000 is a rate of 0.0032436%.
The person making $50,000 pays 7.65% of their income ($3825) to social security.
The person making $2,500,000 pays 0.0032436% ($8109) of their income to social security.
7.65% (the rate paid by the lower income) divided by 0.0032436% (the rate paid by high income) is 2,358 times higher.
This is not fair or reasonable by any measure of fairness. Even advocates of a flat tax (same tax rate for everyone) would have to concede the inherent bias in favor of the wealthy of this particular tax.
