Tag Archives: government

Religious Bigotry?

Posted on by
Reply

North Dakota wants to let its high schools teach a Bible studies class, and the ACLU (among others) has gotten its institutional panties in a twist over it. State Congressman Aaron McWilliams (R) has a bill moving through the State’s legislature that would achieve that.  He said

The intention of this bill is to provide an option to schools to teach a class on the bible from a historical perspective.  My position is that no religious text should be excluded from being taught as it relates to the historical or philosophical influences in our history or on our society today.

The class would be an elective amounting to 1/6 of the total social studies requirement for graduating from a North Dakota high school.

The ACLU thinks that teaching a religious document even from a historical or philosophical perspective, even when it’s not a required course, is somehow the State establishing or supporting a particular religion.  That plainly isn’t the case; even the august personages of the ACLU know that—or American history wasn’t a safe space for them and they were triggered to unconsciousness by their grade school lessons and their junior high civics lessons.

Heather Smith, Executive Director of the North Dakota chapter of the ACLU does have a point, though.  Sort of.

A school could teach comparative religious classes, or you could talk about the Bible’s relationship to literature, art, or music[.]

But not its relationship with our history or culture, or with western civilization’s history or culture generally?  Not its relationship with our national philosophy, such as it is, or with philosophy generally?  Apparently, Smith was triggered by her high school logic class, too.

On the other hand, the comparative religion concern has some validity.  Perhaps McWilliams’ bill could include an option to teach an additional elective course, also worth 1/6 of the total social studies requirement, that teaches the Torah and the Talmud “from a historical perspective.”  After all, we are a Judeo-Christian nation, with a staunch Judeo-Christian history and underpinning.

Such a broadened perspective on who we are, how we began, and how we came to be where we are now—including these incessant attacks on our Christianity and Judaism—would strengthen our American culture, and it might inform even the members of the ACLU.

Side tidbit: the first Georgian patriot to die in combat in our Revolutionary War was a Jew.

Center of the Political Spectrum

Posted on by
Reply

Where is it?  The German news outlet Deutsche Welle seems to typify Europe’s view of it, and its view is illustrated in this article about the inauguration of Brazil’s new President, Jair Bolsonaro.

DW labeled Bolsonaro a right-wing politician.  Why? Because he’s “pro-gun, anti-corruption,” as though wanting a safe population living and working in an honest market with an honest government is somehow not what everyone wants.  Oh, wait—here it is: Bolsonaro said on his assuming Brazil’s presidency that Brazil has been

“liberated from socialism and political correctness.”

And in his separate inauguration speech, Bolsonaro had promised to

unite the people, value the family, respect religion and our Judeo-Christian tradition, combat the ideology of gender, and preserve our values.

These run contrary to modern Liberal, Progressive goals.  Instead, they’re today’s Conservative goals, entirely consistent with the Classical Liberal views of our own Founders.

There’s more.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was among the foreign leaders present for the inauguration; he’s also labeled “right-wing”.  US’ Secretary of State Michael Pompeo also was present; DW made no characterization here (Pompeo was mentioned only in passing), but the outlet has made no bones about its view of the right-wing and irrational nature of the Trump administration in other writings.

On the other side of the political spectrum’s center were national leaders that were not invited to the inauguration: Venezuela’s Nicolas Maduro, Nicaragua’s Daniel Ortega, and Cuba’s Miguel Diaz-Canel.  These are only “Leftist” in DW‘s view.

Hmm….

Of Course They Can

Posted on by
Reply

President Xi Jinping of the People’s Republic of China increased pressure on the Republic of China to surrender and be “unified” with the PRC.

Mr Xi said differences in political systems can’t be used as an excuse to resist unification.

Of course they can. Those differences are what makes the two nations separate from each other.  Never mind that the two have been independent of each other ever since the mainland under Mao Tse-tung won then-China’s civil war and drove the Kuomintang off the mainland onto the island of Taiwan, with Mao then creating the PRC.  The reason for the civil war was precisely those differences, differences over which the Communists were willing to kill those who opposed them.

Xi went on.

He promised Taiwanese people a peaceful and prosperous future with the mainland….

Right.  Just ask the folks on Hong Kong, who were the victims of the same promise and who now see their freedoms eroded and in many cases outright eliminated.  They’re not even allowed to elect their own political leaders; they must choose from a list the Communist Party of China provides them.

Xi’s word is worthless, and the citizens of the RoC, along with their government, know that full well.  RoC President Tsai Ing-wen: Xi’s

framework would place the island under China’s rule with limited autonomy, as has been done in Hong Kong.
…
“Taiwan will never accept ‘one country, two systems,'” Ms Tsai said. “The vast majority of Taiwanese public opinion also firmly opposes ‘one country, two systems.'”
…
“China must face the reality of the existence of the Republic of China, Taiwan,” she said…. She said [that] Beijing must “not reject the democratic system that the Taiwanese people have built.”

We need to stand loudly, overtly, and practically with the RoC.  We need to increase naval patrols of the Taiwan Strait, set up a naval basing right agreement for Kaohsiung City along with an Air Force basing agreement for Ching Chuan Kang and Tainan Air Bases.  We need to increase sales of modern air and naval weapons systems to the RoC.  We need to increase our trade ties with the nation, and we need to more actively support it diplomatically.

That’s just a start.

Side Note

Posted on by
Reply

Much has been made of the Republican Party’s “control” of a unified Federal government these past two years, with Republicans “controlling” the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the Presidency.  Much is made, also, of the Republican Party’s continued “control” of the Senate, indeed its increased “control” following the mid-terms, as a result of which Republicans extended their majority from 51 to 53.

The latest is Matthew Continetti’s claim on last Friday’s Special Report (hosted by Bret Baier on Fox News): in discussing the Schumer Shutdown Redux (my term, not Continetti’s), Continetti insisted that this shutdown began in that unified government—repeating particularly the claim that Republicans “controlled” the Senate.

After all this time, the claim of Senate control cannot be simply a misspeak or a one-time bit of sloppy journalism; I have to ask.

In what fantasy world do Continetti and his fellows live where 60 is less than 51?  Less even than 53?

Foolish Misunderstanding

Posted on by
Reply

CNN‘s Fareed Zakaria is dismayed with our Constitution and the concept of a republican democracy.

[T]he Constitutional concept of equal representation in the U.S. Senate [is] a “structural problem.”

And

…”new dividing line in Western politics,” which [Zakaria] describes is the “less-educated rural populations” he calls “Outsiders” who “feel ignored or looked down upon” and “feel deep resentment towards metropolitan elites.”

And

…30% of America is now electing 70% of the Senate.  All those states with—you think of Wyoming. It has roughly a million people. It has two senators. California with 70 million people has two senators as well. So we have a kind of structural problem here where the land is being overrepresented. The people are being underrepresented. So both sides feel deeply wronged.

However.

That alleged imbalance is a designed-in feature, not a problem; it’s what makes us a republican democracy of some durability, not a popular democracy doomed to the failure of tyranny at the hands of a few—Zakaria’s metro elites, for instance.

The need to balance the large- and small-population States in one house of our Congress is just as important today as it was those 230 years ago.  For the same reason and for another: the political divide between the populous coastal States and less populous flyover country—illustrated by that very term of the Left’s and by Zakaria’s plain contempt for the less-educated (as we must be, because rural)—is even deeper than the political divide between the populous and rural States of those original thirteen.

Wyoming needs to be able to defend itself from an overweening California.

It’s sad that Zakaria slept through his 8th grade civics class.