Monthly Archives: May 2014

Uncategorized

Talking past each other on religion

1 Comment

One of the frustrations I encounter occasionally when I debate the issue of our country’s founding is that my friends and I talk past each other when we disagree on this particular matter.

The recent Supreme Court ruling that sanctions sectarian prayer at public meetings provided that example.

I agree with the court’s ruling on constitutional grounds. I would prefer, though, that public meetings would begin with ecumenical prayers — and not prayers lifted directly to those of specific faith, notably Christian.

I make that point as a practicing Christian, OK?

Recently, I took note of the founders’ desire to create what I’ve called a “secular nation.” My point is that the Constitution contains an amendment that prohibits the establishment of a state religion, but also ensures that Americans shall be free to worship as they please.

Several of my friends out there in Blogger Land took issue with that view. They contend that the founders were men of faith and that they intended the nation to be based on “Judeo-Christian principles.”

Well, I don’t disbelieve any of that. It’s debatable, of course, that some of the key founders were devout Christians. Many historians have debated whether, say, Thomas Jefferson was a “deist,” or someone who believed in a more universal God. It’s been speculated that he believed in a holy deity, but did not necessarily believe that Jesus Christ died on the cross to win our forgiveness for our sins.

I only can rely on what I know to be contained within the Constitution.

It does not contain the words “Christian,” or “Christianity,” or “Jesus.” The founders wrote the First Amendment and contained the religious freedom clause in its very first provision. Did they debate whether to establish a state religion? Surely they did. They settled, though, on a government framework that is decidedly non-religious.

What’s more, the founders also wrote in one of its constitutional articles that there should be no religious test for those seeking any public office. What does that mean? It means that you cannot require candidates to be of any particular faith, nor can you even demand candidates to believe in any faith at all.

Thus, by my definition of the term, the United States is a secular nation. We are governed by laws written my mortal, fallible and flawed human beings.

Despite their flaws, the founders created a nation that — absent any requirement to worship a particular faith — has emerged as among the most religious of any nation on Planet Earth.

It is because we are granted us the freedom to worship as we please, or not worship at all.

May I have an “amen”?

Uncategorized

Democratic U.S. Senate runoff on tap

David Alameel is running against Keesha Rogers in the May 27 primary runoff for the Democratic nomination for U.S. Senate.

I’ll admit that this one has gotten past me.

http://www.texastribune.org/2014/05/05/democrats-rally-around-alameel-sideline-obama-crit/

It appears Democrats actually could nominate a wacky pretender to run this fall against Republican Sen. John Cornyn.

Let’s hope it doesn’t happen.

The wack job happens to be Rogers, who finished with 22 percent of the primary vote in March, enough to deny Alameel the outright majority needed to be nominated to run against Cornyn.

“There must be people who don’t know what she stands for,” Alameel told the Texas Tribune.

And she stands for? Well, she wants President Obama to be impeached. That’s right, a Democrat is calling for the impeachment of a fellow Democrat, the guy in the White House, the 44th president of the United States.

Rogers reportedly makes the point about impeachment at the rare public appearances she makes as she, um, campaigns for the Senate.

Alameel was supposed to win the Democratic primary outright. He has the backing of the party apparatus. He has been endorsed by the Democratic nominee for governor, Wendy Davis. He is independently wealthy and is ready to spend a lot of his own money to get elected.

First, though, he has to fight off a goofball candidate for his party’s nomination.

Rogers suggested recently that the president is a closet Republican. That’s right. He’s one of them.

“Obama is right in line with the Republicans as he’s supporting Wall Street financial interests, as he’s supporting this drive toward thermonuclear war, and as he’s destroying the physical economy of this nation,” Rogers said in a Houston speech, according to the Tribune.

Earth to Rogers: The economy is improving; and thermonuclear war isn’t on anyone’s horizon except your own.

Rogers’s surprising success just might say something about the still-dismal state of the Texas Democratic Party. Yes, Democrats are nominally hopeful that Davis might be able to upset Republican nominee Greg Abbott in the governor’s race; they also have hopes for Leticia Van de Putte’s chances in the race for lieutenant governor.

But boy, howdy. If they nominate someone like Keesha Rogers to run against John Cornyn, well, the party’s in more trouble than many of us ever imagined.

Uncategorized

More on prayer decision …

Accuse me if you will of suffering from some form of ideological schizophrenia, but I want to make one more comment on this week’s U.S. Supreme Court decision on public prayer.

I don’t object to the ruling on constitutional grounds. The court ruled 5-4 that sectarian prayers that open government meetings are allowed under the Constitution, in that they don’t force people to adhere to certain religious tenets. I’m fine with that.

What is objectionable, though, are government bodies’ insistence on reciting Christian prayers in front of citizens who might not worship Jesus Christ. What is so wrong with making the prayers more ecumenical?

A Christian pastor friend of mine recently opened a service club meeting I attended with a prayer. He didn’t end it with the usual “in Christ’s name.” He offered the prayer in “God’s name.” I told him later how much I enjoyed the message of his invocation, but he took it to mean I appreciated the ecumenical nature of the blessing. “I realize that not everyone here believes in Jesus,” he said. I nodded in agreement, although that wasn’t the intent of my compliment.

This ruling also reminds me a bit of what is billed in Amarillo as a “Community Prayer Breakfast,” which takes place every November around the time of Thanksgiving. If the city, which sponsors this event, is going to call it a “community” gathering, then it needs to be far more inclusive in its message of fellowship.

I’ve attended my share of these prayer breakfasts, which take place in the Civic Center. They resemble Christian tent revival meetings in their zeal to proclaim people’s faith in Jesus Christ. If you’re Jewish or — heaven forbid — Muslim and you’re passing through Amarillo and want to attend the Community Prayer Breakfast, which often is advertised on billboards along Interstate 40, you’ll learn right away that the event isn’t precisely what you think it is.

The Supreme Court decided correctly on constitutional grounds on the case it heard. However, the lesson likely won’t stick in the minds of government officials who keep insisting on opening their meetings with prayers that extol a certain religious faith at the exclusion of others.

By all means, let’s pray at these public meetings — but let’s try to include everyone who gather to seek God’s blessings.

Uncategorized

Amen to High Court ruling

2 Comments

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that it’s all right for governing bodies to begin their meetings with a prayer.

Good. I’m glad the court honored the First Amendment’s provision that disallows laws that establish a state religion but also prohibits any restriction on religion.

What’s a bit troubling, though, is that the court was so split on this one. It voted 5-4 — conservatives on the majority side and liberals on the other side — to allow “sectarian” prayer at town council, school board and county commissioners meetings.

I’ve never quite understood the strenuous objection to these prayers. They are, as Justice Anthony Kennedy noted in his majority opinion, meant to call attention to the solemn nature of an event, not to indoctrinate anyone.

The court heard a case out of Greece, N.Y., where a Jewish resident had complained that the city’s governing council opened its meetings with Christian prayers. He felt excluded from the blessings sought at the beginning of the meeting. So he took it to court and it ended up in front of the highest court in the land.

This would seem like a no-brainer decision.

Congress starts its sessions with daily prayers. They aren’t Christian prayers, or non-Christian prayers. They are all-encompassing. Indeed, Congress has members of many faiths, Christian and non-Christian alike. It even has non-believers in its ranks. Are the non-believing members of Congress going to protest? Surely they know better, given the constituencies they represent.

The court ruling doesn’t place any restriction what’s long been a tradition in many communities across the land. Amarillo’s City Council meetings begin with prayers. They’re usually given by Christian clerics and they often invoke Jesus’s name.

Still, no one should feel threatened by prayer. As Justice Kennedy wrote, “Adults often encounter speech they find disagreeable. Legislative bodies do not engage in impermissible coercion merely by exposing constituents to prayer they would rather not hear and in which they need not participate.”

Uncategorized

Where's the 'Welcome' sign?

1 Comment

In the grand scheme of life, this isn’t a big deal to most folks.

But I am wondering: Why doesn’t Amarillo post a “Welcome” sign on either side of the city along Interstate 40?

We just returned from a quick weekend trip to the Metroplex and we noticed something we hadn’t noticed before on all the hundreds of trips we’ve made between here and there — and back again. It is that several of the smaller towns along U.S. 287 have erected scenic gateway entrances. Quanah comes to mind; Wichita Falls does too; same with Childress.

Heck, drive into Canyon from the north and you see a gorgeous gateway featuring a large Old Glory blowing in the breeze.

You drive into Amarillo from the west as you connect from 287 to I-40 and you see a simple sign that reads “Amarillo.” What’s more, it sits on a dirt-and-weed median.

It made me wonder on Sunday as we came back home about why the city doesn’t erect something a bit more, um, welcoming. Why not boast that Amarillo is, “The Gateway to Palo Duro Canyon,” or is the “Capital of the Caprock,” or is the “Hometown of … ” oh, Rick Husband, Syd Charisse, Carolyn “Morticia Addams” Jones, or Ron “TV Tarzan” Ely.

None of it is out there.

Just “Amarillo.”

It reminds me of a similar pet peeve, which is the shabby “landscaping” done at the I-20/I-27 interchange. Thousands of motorists pass through that interchange daily, many of whom are just passing through. Is this the best we can do to show these folks we know how to dress up a major section of interstate highway?

I believe we can do better.

Uncategorized

Benghazi explodes once again

The Sunday news talk shows were all over the Benghazi story this past weekend.

Big surprise, huh?

I didn’t catch all of them, but I did see what I think was one of the better debates on the subject. It occurred on ABC’s “This Week” segment and featured some fiery partisans on both sides arguing their respective cases over what the Obama administration knew about the September 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/05/04/this_week_roundtable_heated_benghazi_investigation_debate.html

It’s pretty good stuff.

Former GOP U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum and radio talk-show host Laura Ingraham argued for the right wing’s version of the story, which is that the White House and/or the State Department knew in advance that the attack on the compound was a terrorist deed and did little or nothing to protect the people inside. Former Obama campaign guru and senior policy wonk David Plouffe and former Obama administration adviser Van Jones argued the opposite view, which is that the administration erred in issuing its initial talking points, but didn’t conspire to keep the truth from the public.

ABC News correspondent Cokie Roberts also was present and while she tended to favor the Plouffe-Jones view, she sought to bring some balance to the discussion.

The U.S. House of Representatives is going to convene a special committee to determine whether the administration deceived the public on purpose. It’ll be led by a tea party guy, Rep. Trey Gowdy, who no doubt has an agenda of his own. He said something over the weekend about having “evidence” of a cover-up. Congressional Democrats are weighing the possibility of sitting this one out, letting Republicans make fools of themselves.

The debate Sunday was lively and often angry — and it provided an apt metaphor for the tone of debate in Washington regarding the Benghazi attack. Republicans want to keep hammering at an old story. Democrats want to refocus on some other things, such as, oh, the improving economy. Neither side is willing to give the other side any leeway.

The talkers on “This Week” followed that script to the letter.

Uncategorized

Some critics are unfair, but not all of them

Peter Beinert, writing for Atlantic Monthly, makes a fascinating case in defense of those who are highly critical of President Obama.

Yes, some of the criticism is race-based … but not all of it, not by a long shot. The article attached here is worth reading.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/05/radical-republican-opposition-is-not-new/361536/

He takes U.S. Rep. Bennie Thompson to task for making some outrageous claims about how Barack Obama has been singled out merely because of his race. Here’s what Beinert writes: “I never saw George Bush treated like this. I never saw Bill Clinton treated like this with such disrespect,” Thompson told a radio show. “That Mitch McConnell would have the audacity to tell the president of the United States … that ‘I don’t care what you come up with we’re going to be against it.’ Now if that’s not a racist statement I don’t know what is.”

Beinert notes that Thompson then said that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas doesn’t like being black, which on its face is a preposterous notion.

Obama’s critics have been harsh. Have they been any more strident than those who went after, say, Preident Bill Clinton? Hardly.

Beinert makes some interesting comparisons between the two presidents’ critics. My all-time “favorite” criticism of Bill Clinton came from the late preacher Jerry Falwell, who sponsored a video called “The Clinton Chronicles” that suggested — no, it actually accused — that Bill and Hillary Clinton orchestrated the murder of long-time friend and adviser Vince Foster, who committed suicide early in the Clinton presidency.

Let’s also point out here that Beinert is a left-leaning journalist who generally is friendly toward policies advocated by progressive politicians.

He is right to calm down those who suggest things such as those brought forward by Rep. Thompson that all criticism of President Obama is race-based and is uniquely harsh.

Bill Clinton surely would disagree.

Uncategorized

75 mph? Hey, no big deal

1 Comment

My good friend Paige Carruth is going to flip when he gets wind of what I’m about to write next.

I’ve gotten used to driving 75 mph on our highways.

There. It’s off my chest. I feel cleansed already.

Why the change of heart?

Flash back to the mid-1990s. I was writing editorials for the Amarillo Globe-News. Congress had just been taken over by Republicans in that historic Contract With America election. The federal government had enacted since the 1970s a federally mandated 55 mph speed limit on interstate highways. We took the position then that lifting the limit was dangerous on a couple of levels.

The feds had enacted the speed limit to reduce fuel consumption; the Arab oil embargoes of 1973 and 1979 frightened us, remember? Reducing the speed in fact reduced our consumption of fossil fuels. What’s more, it reduced the number of traffic fatalities, according to the U.S. Department of Transportation.

Congress didn’t listen to us. The 1995 Congress removed the federal mandate and gave states the authority to jack up the speed limits. Texas jumped all over it and the 1995 Legislature bumped the speeds up to 70 mph on interstate highways. I was mortified. I said so at the time publicly, in my column; the newspaper editorial policy suggested it was a mistake as well.

Paige — a retired West Texas State University administrator — has never let me forget that I am a slow-poke by nature.

Well, that was true then. It’s not so true now.

I’ve gotten used to the 75 mph speed limit. The state has since boosted its speed to 75 on many highways — interstate freeways and state-run highways.

Allow me this tiny boast: My wife and I today returned from a weekend in the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex, where we visited our granddaughter — and her parents. We left their home in Allen this afternoon at 1:40; we pulled into our driveway in Amarillo at 7:37 p.m. That’s less than six hours in what usually takes us a lot longer.

The 75 mph speed limit helped us set what we believe is a personal land-speed record.

It helps that one of our two vehicles is a Toyota Prius hybrid that gets stupendously good fuel mileage, which enables us to justify our willingness to press the pedal to the metal. It also helps that the little car — to borrow a phrase used by the late great Hall of Fame baseball pitcher-turned announcer Dizzy Dean — can really “pick ’em up and lay ’em down.”

I feel better already having acknowledged that driving a little faster doesn’t give me the nervous jerks the way it once did.

Let’s not talk about driving 80 mph, which is allowed on some sections of Interstate 10 downstate. And Texas 130, where they allow you to goose it to 85? I’ll leave that stretch of roadway to the fools.

Uncategorized

Dingell the Dinosaur calling it quits

John Dingell is a congressional dinosaur and even might admit it himself.

The longest-serving member of Congress is leaving office at the end of this year and he doesn’t sound like someone who’s going to miss the place it has become.

Instead, he seems to be missing the place it used to be.

Dingell, a Michigan Democrat, is now 87 and has seen lots of change over many decades of service. He has led powerful House of Representatives committees and has put his name on key legislation. He worked to enact laws with the help of Republicans — and it’s that bipartisanship that appears to have taken leave of Capitol Hill.

Dingell expressed understandable frustration with the new climate in an interview with USA Today.

“We’ve accomplished very little,” Dingell said of recent Congresses. “We’ve been engaged in all manner of small, spiteful fights. We have failed to carry out our responsibilities in addressing the big issues the day.”

The culprit? It’s the tea party wing of the “other” party, the Republicans who share power with Democrats on Capitol Hill, according to Dingell.

“A lot of these new ones,” he said of his junior colleagues, “have no awareness … of the need to work together, no awareness of the need for members to be friends off the congressional campus, no need they see in their lives to be responsible in terms of building trust and relationships to let us work together.”

Dingell is far from being alone in wishing for the good old days. But, indeed, it’s the “good old days” that have become the target of the tea party members’ own anger and frustration.

Have they made Congress a better place to serve the people who sent them there? John Dingell doesn’t believe so.

The old curmudgeon is glad to be leaving and will leave the partisan bickering to others.

Uncategorized

Visiting urban oasis

FORT WORTH, Texas — This is what downtown living should look like.

We’re here for a quick visit and are enjoying the sights, sounds and smells of an urban environment that other cities should emulate.

Indeed, Amarillo — where we live — is seeking to do precisely that. On a smaller scale, of course.

Fort Worth has the Bass family to underwrite a lot of projects. Amarillo doesn’t that kind of resource available. Our city is seeking to use Fort Worth’s urban revival as a model. It cannot have picked a better one.

The Trinity River walking/jogging paths are a lovely attraction. Amarillo doesn’t have that kind of natural wonder running through it. We enjoyed a quiet walk this morning before the heat settled in. It was quiet and serene.

Downtown proper has its famous Sundance Square, which is a hopping and happening place at night. Can little old Amarillo replicate that? I have no clue at this point.

City planners are seeking to do what they can with what they have. Fort Worth’s success has become something of a legend among urban planners.

The downtown district bustles once the sun sets. Amarillo’s is busy enough during daylight hours. At night? It’s not happening, at least not yet.

I remain hopeful. We love coming to Fort Worth whenever we can … if only to dream about what our city one day hopes to become.