We have known for months that masks reduce the spread of COVID-19. That theoretical knowledge is supported by empirical evidence from nations like South Korea, where masks in public are almost universal.Yet here in the United States, we have some people with some aversion to masks, with some laughable reasons to not wear them. Here is a sampling:
- "Masks are hot." Yes, they do make a person feel warmer. But think about that the next time you want to tell a mother to put a blanket over her baby's head while breastfeeding.
- "Masks make it hard to breathe." Yes, imagine how difficult breathing is in the surgical suite for all the doctors, nurses, and techs when you get wheeled in for your knee replacement or heart bypass or hernia repair. They wear masks for hours at a time in order to protect you, all the while performing intricate tasks, often under extreme pressure.
- "Masks interfere with God's Breath of Life." My theology speaks of a God who can give life even when we do everything to reject that gift, can be present everywhere even when we "kick God out of schools," whose Grace is present even before we are aware of it. If God gave us the intellect to figure out how to protect ourselves and those around us from a virus, then I'm sure God can deal with the Breath of Life concern.
- "Freedom." Well, there's much to be said about this attitude. But let's focus on the notions of freedom held by the Founders of our nation, especially as they are documented in the Declaration of Independence. Many think of the Declaration of Independence as some libertarian catechism. But the first specification in the indictment against King George III is this: "He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good." That's not exactly a cry for individual freedom! That several of our states (Pennsylvania, Virginia, and others) are called "Commonwealth" is the acknowledgement that there are circumstances where the "public good" outweighs the desires of the individual.
So, just wear a mask. Yes it's hot, inconvenient, slightly uncomfortable. But don't do it for yourself, do it for those you encounter in public.
Coffee Time
Monday, June 29, 2020
Monday, June 15, 2020
Policing and the Bill of Rights
The Preamble of the Constitution says that we the people created the United States of America in part to establish justice and ensure domestic tranquility. At least four of the ten articles in the Bill of Rights specifically limit the power of the government in policing and administration of justice.
The Fourth Amendment's protection of the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures is at the heart of law enforcement activity. In my opinion, any seizure of a person that results in that person's serious injury or death at the hands of police is unreasonable, except in the most extreme circumstances.
That is why, in my opinion, we need strict Federal use of force standards for police and the end of qualified immunity. We need to move investigation and prosecution of alleged police misconduct, including the death of any person in police custody, out of the hands of local investigators and prosecutors. We need to end cash bail, as in my opinion cash bail violates the Eighth Amendment.
The Congress must act now to impose far-reaching, aggressive controls on policing and the operation of our criminal justice system in order to secure the rights of the people.
The Fourth Amendment's protection of the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures is at the heart of law enforcement activity. In my opinion, any seizure of a person that results in that person's serious injury or death at the hands of police is unreasonable, except in the most extreme circumstances.
That is why, in my opinion, we need strict Federal use of force standards for police and the end of qualified immunity. We need to move investigation and prosecution of alleged police misconduct, including the death of any person in police custody, out of the hands of local investigators and prosecutors. We need to end cash bail, as in my opinion cash bail violates the Eighth Amendment.
The Congress must act now to impose far-reaching, aggressive controls on policing and the operation of our criminal justice system in order to secure the rights of the people.
Monday, November 25, 2019
Good Order and Discipline
In his resignation letter, former Navy Secretary Richard Spencer cited the well-worn phrase "good order and discipline" as being central to his decision to resign. What exactly is "good order and discipline," and why is it important to the military mission?
Good order and discipline suggests that there are well-established, understood rules and principles that govern conduct in the military organization. It goes beyond mere regulation, to a deeper commitment to honesty in carrying out and reporting on one's duties. It speaks to not only the letter of the law, but the spirit of the law as well, recognizing a deeper need to do the right thing for the right reasons. In the specific case of the Navy SEAL, the regulation that prohibits posing with an enemy corpse, as if it were a hunting trophy, codifies a deeper moral statement about the value of human life.
The military professional sees "good order and discipline" as essential to mission success. The armchair soldier, on the other hand, learns about the military from bad movies or bad books or politicians with bad ideology, The civilian "expert," often described by the epithet "chickenhawk," sees rules as impediments to the soldier doing his job, which is simplified as "killing people."
And what happens when the inexperienced commander-in-chief, with his distorted view of the military, decides to "have this sailor's back"? How does this undermine good order and discipline? Well, it's quite simple. Now the rogue military member's unlawful behavior is excused, because the commander-in-chief says the rules don't matter, treaties are meaningless, and the law of war is just some bleeding heart liberal construct.
Good order and discipline suggests that there are well-established, understood rules and principles that govern conduct in the military organization. It goes beyond mere regulation, to a deeper commitment to honesty in carrying out and reporting on one's duties. It speaks to not only the letter of the law, but the spirit of the law as well, recognizing a deeper need to do the right thing for the right reasons. In the specific case of the Navy SEAL, the regulation that prohibits posing with an enemy corpse, as if it were a hunting trophy, codifies a deeper moral statement about the value of human life.
The military professional sees "good order and discipline" as essential to mission success. The armchair soldier, on the other hand, learns about the military from bad movies or bad books or politicians with bad ideology, The civilian "expert," often described by the epithet "chickenhawk," sees rules as impediments to the soldier doing his job, which is simplified as "killing people."
And what happens when the inexperienced commander-in-chief, with his distorted view of the military, decides to "have this sailor's back"? How does this undermine good order and discipline? Well, it's quite simple. Now the rogue military member's unlawful behavior is excused, because the commander-in-chief says the rules don't matter, treaties are meaningless, and the law of war is just some bleeding heart liberal construct.
Tuesday, November 19, 2019
The Corrupted Nature of our Republic
I am continuing to enjoy Bill Everett's gem of a book, God's Federal Republic: Reconstructing Our Governing Symbol. The overall premise of the book is that the Christian imagery of the Kingdom of God is anachronistic to the Constitutional democratic republic of 21st-century America.
But Everett points out in stark terms that representative democracy is not a panacea for what might be a primary goal of government, which he posits as protecting and advancing the common good, or at least mitigating the tragedy of the commons. In his view, representative democracy devolved very quickly from a group of honorable representatives seeking consensus on the common good (at least in the ideal) to a forum in which competing interests seek to advance their own goals. In this 21st-century republic, outcomes are driven by poll results, or more insidiously, by money. The "government of laws, not of men" described by John Adams in the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has become public policy by campaign contributions.
And so politics is not an appeal to the better angels of our nature to face with unity of purpose the challenges that confront us. Instead, politics is ruthlessly calculating in finding those particular special interests that drive wedges between families, neighbors, and friends. No means is too vile to advance the end of the special interest. Truth is blurred, morality transactional, and facts debatable. The law becomes a minor annoyance, to be countered by stacking the courts with judges friendly to one's interests.
Yet in our nation's history, we have had very few idyllic moments, where calls for the common good prevailed against the siege from the special interests. Lincoln's 2nd inaugural address, "with malice toward none, with charity for all," FDR's "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself," and JFK's "we will send a man to the moon and return him to the earth" come to mind. In fact, NASA in the 1960's demonstrated the heights we can achieve when we harness the imagination and technical superiority of the American people, relying on science rather than myth.
Today cries out for another call to national unity, to setting big goals, to achieving big things, to continue to press for the more perfect Union. In the words of the Apostle Paul, we must throw off all the weights that hold us back, the weights of cynicism, of science denial, of false religion, of greed -- and press on to the goal of liberty and justice for all.
But Everett points out in stark terms that representative democracy is not a panacea for what might be a primary goal of government, which he posits as protecting and advancing the common good, or at least mitigating the tragedy of the commons. In his view, representative democracy devolved very quickly from a group of honorable representatives seeking consensus on the common good (at least in the ideal) to a forum in which competing interests seek to advance their own goals. In this 21st-century republic, outcomes are driven by poll results, or more insidiously, by money. The "government of laws, not of men" described by John Adams in the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has become public policy by campaign contributions.
And so politics is not an appeal to the better angels of our nature to face with unity of purpose the challenges that confront us. Instead, politics is ruthlessly calculating in finding those particular special interests that drive wedges between families, neighbors, and friends. No means is too vile to advance the end of the special interest. Truth is blurred, morality transactional, and facts debatable. The law becomes a minor annoyance, to be countered by stacking the courts with judges friendly to one's interests.
Yet in our nation's history, we have had very few idyllic moments, where calls for the common good prevailed against the siege from the special interests. Lincoln's 2nd inaugural address, "with malice toward none, with charity for all," FDR's "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself," and JFK's "we will send a man to the moon and return him to the earth" come to mind. In fact, NASA in the 1960's demonstrated the heights we can achieve when we harness the imagination and technical superiority of the American people, relying on science rather than myth.
Today cries out for another call to national unity, to setting big goals, to achieving big things, to continue to press for the more perfect Union. In the words of the Apostle Paul, we must throw off all the weights that hold us back, the weights of cynicism, of science denial, of false religion, of greed -- and press on to the goal of liberty and justice for all.
Thursday, November 14, 2019
Secession Questions for Mike Clampitt
Mike Clampitt of Bryson City is running again for NC House District 119, a seat currently held by Democrat Joe Sam Queen of Waynesville. Mr. Clampitt occupied the seat after the 2016 election, but lost the seat last year.
During his time in the legislature (as a Member of the NC House, not as the House doorman) Mr. Clampitt was a primary sponsor of a bill that would remove the provision in the North Carolina Constitution preventing the state from seceding from the United States of America. So I have a few questions for Mr. Clampitt, so we citizens of House District 119 might better understand his view of an independent Republic of North Carolina, or whatever he might want to call this new sovereign nation.
1. How long would it take, and how much would it cost, to erect and man border checkpoints at every highway, road, rail crossing, and other point of entry into this new nation?
2. How long would it take, and how much would it cost, to issue passports to every citizen of the new nation? And in a related matter, exactly who would be citizens of the new nation?
3. How should the new nation deal with property of the United States of America that exists within this new nation? I imagine that the people of the United States would be intent on keeping Fort Bragg, Marine Corps installations along the coast, Seymour Johnson AFB, the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, the Blue Ridge Parkway, and other such property.
4. In the likelihood that the United States of America would use its military power to enforce its property rights, how should the new nation raise an army and other armed forces to deal with that?
5. Would foreigners from the United States of America entering the Republic of North Carolina require visas? Who would issue those visas? Would we have normal diplomatic relations with the United States of America?
6. Should the new nation enter into some kind of free trade agreement with the United States of America?
7. How much would a wall cost along the border with the United States, to keep illegal aliens out of the new nation?
I'm sure Mr. Clampitt and other proponents of secession have thought about these, and many other questions.
During his time in the legislature (as a Member of the NC House, not as the House doorman) Mr. Clampitt was a primary sponsor of a bill that would remove the provision in the North Carolina Constitution preventing the state from seceding from the United States of America. So I have a few questions for Mr. Clampitt, so we citizens of House District 119 might better understand his view of an independent Republic of North Carolina, or whatever he might want to call this new sovereign nation.
1. How long would it take, and how much would it cost, to erect and man border checkpoints at every highway, road, rail crossing, and other point of entry into this new nation?
2. How long would it take, and how much would it cost, to issue passports to every citizen of the new nation? And in a related matter, exactly who would be citizens of the new nation?
3. How should the new nation deal with property of the United States of America that exists within this new nation? I imagine that the people of the United States would be intent on keeping Fort Bragg, Marine Corps installations along the coast, Seymour Johnson AFB, the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, the Blue Ridge Parkway, and other such property.
4. In the likelihood that the United States of America would use its military power to enforce its property rights, how should the new nation raise an army and other armed forces to deal with that?
5. Would foreigners from the United States of America entering the Republic of North Carolina require visas? Who would issue those visas? Would we have normal diplomatic relations with the United States of America?
6. Should the new nation enter into some kind of free trade agreement with the United States of America?
7. How much would a wall cost along the border with the United States, to keep illegal aliens out of the new nation?
I'm sure Mr. Clampitt and other proponents of secession have thought about these, and many other questions.
Friday, November 8, 2019
The Right of Representation in the Legislature
In the stifling summer humidity of Philadelphia a couple
of centuries ago, a group of men put their John Hancock’s (one of them
literally) on a document that many Americans claim to hold dear. Those brave
and principled men pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor
when they declared war against King George III.
The Declaration of Independence lists charges and
specifications against the King’s government. In one of those counts of the
indictment, the Declaration enumerates the right of the people to
representation in the legislature. They described that right to be “inestimable
to the people and formidable to tyrants only.” They charged the King
specifically with denying that right to large groups of colonists by doing
things like not notifying delegates of times and places for meetings and votes
on important issues.
Fast forward to September 2019. The North Carolina General Assembly, which
should have come home in early July from their 2019 work, remained in session,
as Republicans in the House and the Senate did not have the votes to override Governor
Cooper’s veto of the state budget. The leadership (Phil Berger and Tim Moore)
had rejected overtures from the governor to negotiate on Medicaid expansion,
teacher and state employee pay raises, and other items important to the people
of our state.
But House Speaker Moore had a clever plan. He told his
Democrat counterparts in the House there would be no vote on the morning of
September 11, allowing Members to attend 9/11 commemoration events. Then the House
Republicans met anyway, called for the vote, and overrode the Governor’s veto.
What does that have to do with the Declaration of
Independence? Well, Rep. Kevin Corbin (R-Macon) was an eager participant in the
shenanigans on September 11 that denied the citizens of the 119th
House district (Haywood, Jackson, and Swain) our right of representation in the
legislature. And now Mr. Corbin is seeking to represent the 50th
Senate District, which includes all of House District 119.
Mr. Corbin, please explain why you want to be our Senator,
after denying us our right to be represented in the NC House on September 11,
2019. I’m sure you’ll say that what you and Speaker Moore did on September 11 was
perfectly legal within the rules of the House. But We the People see your house
rules the same way those delegates in Philadelphia saw King George III’s house
rules. And we know exactly what you think of the residents of House District
119.
Monday, September 4, 2017
Who do you say that I am?
Yesterday's sermon text on Matthew 16, when Jesus asked the disciples, "Who do you say that I am?," took on a new meaning for me as our pastor, Rev. Keith Turman, expounded on the Word. He brought the text down to two separate questions for the Church.
First, who do we say that Jesus is? For the Christian, and for the Church, is Jesus who He says He is, in word and deed? Is He good news to the poor, comfort to the afflicted, welcome to the stranger, reconciliation to the world? Is He turn the other cheek, go the extra mile, give your coat and your shirt, love to the neighbor (as Jesus defines neighbor), prayer for our enemies?
And who does the world say that we (the Christian and the Church) are? Are we good news to the poor, or are we some perverted "prosperity gospel"? Are we comfort to the afflicted, or are we rubbing salt in the wounds? Are we welcome to the stranger, or do we reject "those people"? Are we part of God's reconciliation of all things, or are we the leading edge of the wedge of division?
If we are the hands and feet of Christ in the world, the answer to those questions should be crystal clear.
First, who do we say that Jesus is? For the Christian, and for the Church, is Jesus who He says He is, in word and deed? Is He good news to the poor, comfort to the afflicted, welcome to the stranger, reconciliation to the world? Is He turn the other cheek, go the extra mile, give your coat and your shirt, love to the neighbor (as Jesus defines neighbor), prayer for our enemies?
And who does the world say that we (the Christian and the Church) are? Are we good news to the poor, or are we some perverted "prosperity gospel"? Are we comfort to the afflicted, or are we rubbing salt in the wounds? Are we welcome to the stranger, or do we reject "those people"? Are we part of God's reconciliation of all things, or are we the leading edge of the wedge of division?
If we are the hands and feet of Christ in the world, the answer to those questions should be crystal clear.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)