Japan is a free country, officially a constitutional monarchy with an elected parliament. There is freedom of speech and religion there.
Japan has one of the most powerful economies on the planet as well as some of the brightest minds. Ninety-nine percent of its population is literate. And they live a very long time, on average, with a life expectancy of more than 80 years.
Violent crime there is almost non-existent. People get along well with each other, for the most part. And its citizens have a high degree of morality, which is reflected in the way they carry on their personal affairs with each other.
The Netherlands, like Japan, has a very high literacy rate – 99 percent. It, too, is a constitutional monarchy and like most other democratic nations, it has all the requisite freedoms, including freedom of religion.
The serious crime rate in the Netherlands is less than half that in the U.S. And, like Japan, people there usually live to be a ripe old age, with a life expectancy of almost 79 years.
The economy of the Netherlands is also quite strong for a small country. Generally, people there are happy and healthy.
So why did I provide summaries for two seemingly unrelated countries?
From the data, these two nations are doing quite well. Their people are peace-loving, happy, long-living, and moral.
But they also have one more thing in common. Christianity generally plays a minor role in the lives of the majority of the population in both these countries.
In Japan, less than one percent of the population claim to be Christian, although Christians are certainly tolerated there. In the Netherlands, the percent who call themselves Christian is a bit higher, about 50 percent. But most of those are not fundamentalists. And a large minority of the population, some 40 percent, claim they are not affiliated with any religion at all.
The common cry from those who put our president in office is that we need to let God play a vital role in the affairs of this nation. They say they voted for morality instead of prosperity.
There is the ubiquitous, though entirely false, claim that our country was founded on Christianity and that in order to become a great nation again, we need to follow the path of righteousness.
But as the statistics show, a nation doesn’t have to follow God or have a national religion to be proud, moral, prosperous and free.
In the 1500s, while Holland was basking in freedom, the rest of Europe was cloaking scientific discoveries and arresting their purveyors for blasphemy. Christian countries were engaging in witch hunts and holding trials for heresy during the Inquisition.
During colonial days in this country, the fundamentalist Puritans were burning innocent women at the stake, claiming them to be witches. This was done in the name of the Lord.
Throughout history, Christian nations have been the most ruthless, barbaric, and lawless nations on record. But, of course, they excuse themselves for killing heathens because, well, heathens don’t believe in God.
Those who say this country needs to get back to God don’t necessarily mean we should follow a religion in general. They want us to follow the right-wing evangelical fundamentalist brand of Christianity. Those liberal, freethinking, open-minded religions don’t count, even if they do call themselves Christian.
I used to call myself a Christian because I believed in the teachings of Jesus Christ. I no longer call myself that, not because I’ve turned against Christ’s teachings, but because I’m embarrassed to associate myself with the fundamentalist right. They have done more harm to Christianity than any other force in modern times.
Even some of the more moderate Christian leaders agree. I received an e-mail last week from a religious leader who said in part, “I'm an Episcopal priest living in a hotbed of evangelical fundamentalists, and I often feel horrendously outnumbered.”
What we need is to adopt a national sense of ethical logic and religious moderation. We need to run our affairs based on what is best for the majority while still protecting the minority. We need to worship the way we want, but to allow others to do the same without judgment or interference.
Most of all, we must not allow the fanatics of the religious right to take control of this country, despite the fact that our president is one of them.
Tuesday, August 16, 2005
Wednesday, August 10, 2005
Lawmakers Shouldn't Limit Eminent Domain Decision
Can government entities, such as towns, cities, or states take your private property from you and use it for public purposes?
The Fifth Amendment says in part, “nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.” So as long as you are paid a fair price, the Constitution gives the government the right to forcibly take your property for public use. It's called eminent domain.
Before its recess in June the U.S. Supreme Court interpreted “public use” to also include use by private companies as long as it is part of an economic development initiative by a local government. “Promoting economic development is a traditional and long-accepted function of government,” Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority.
The court ruling has sparked an almost unprecedented backlash from politicians and private citizens alike, across the entire political spectrum. Republicans hate the ruling because they say it endangers property rights. Democrats don’t like it because they say it makes homeowners in poor neighborhoods vulnerable to government land grabs.
Shortly after the ruling, bills were introduced in both the House of Representatives and the Senate that would withhold federal dollars from local development projects if cities use eminent domain to acquire property for economic development purposes. The House passed its version by a wide margin.
Hoosier lawmakers are also considering ways to limit the impact of the ruling. A study committee has been formed, chaired by Rep. Dave Wolkins, R-Winona Lake. “We're gonna try and nip it, nip it early,” said Wolkins.
But while property owners and legislators have blasted the high court’s decision, some mayors and private developers are hailing it. Mishawaka Mayor Jeff Rea praised it as an economic development tool, saying it would help cities to eliminate blighted areas.
Cities generally use eminent domain only as a last resort, even for public projects such as roads and airports. It is unlikely that any mayor would employ the tool with reckless abandon.
In fact, some experts say the Supreme Court ruling actually protects property owners because of the narrow reach of the decision. Others aren’t buying it, however, including former Justice Sandra Day O’Conner who voted in the minority in the 5-4 decision.
In Indiana, projects such as the I-69 extension project and the new Colts stadium could be affected by any change in the eminent domain law. Wolkins wants to go beyond prohibiting local governments from using eminent domain for private economic development projects; he also wants local authorities to pay 150 percent or more of the appraised value of any property acquired through eminent domain.
Such a requirement would, of course, add substantially to the cost of public works projects and may cause some to be canceled entirely.
Eminent domain was used much more frequently in the 1960s, especially in inner city areas to help wipe out urban blight. Ironically, there hasn’t been any widespread abuse of the procedure since then.
If used properly and with due caution, eminent domain can be an invaluable tool for economic progress. It is constitutional, and it’s absolutely essential for certain types of public projects such as roads and highways.
Local governments have a vested interest in economic development projects. They are for the public good. Cities must weigh what is best for the public in general against what is best for the individual and make decisions accordingly.
But it is also incumbent upon local officials not to yield to temptation to abuse their power. Forcing the transfer of private property from an individual to a commercial developer should only be done when there is a proven public need. But that option should not be taken completely off the table by lawmakers.
The Fifth Amendment says in part, “nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.” So as long as you are paid a fair price, the Constitution gives the government the right to forcibly take your property for public use. It's called eminent domain.
Before its recess in June the U.S. Supreme Court interpreted “public use” to also include use by private companies as long as it is part of an economic development initiative by a local government. “Promoting economic development is a traditional and long-accepted function of government,” Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority.
The court ruling has sparked an almost unprecedented backlash from politicians and private citizens alike, across the entire political spectrum. Republicans hate the ruling because they say it endangers property rights. Democrats don’t like it because they say it makes homeowners in poor neighborhoods vulnerable to government land grabs.
Shortly after the ruling, bills were introduced in both the House of Representatives and the Senate that would withhold federal dollars from local development projects if cities use eminent domain to acquire property for economic development purposes. The House passed its version by a wide margin.
Hoosier lawmakers are also considering ways to limit the impact of the ruling. A study committee has been formed, chaired by Rep. Dave Wolkins, R-Winona Lake. “We're gonna try and nip it, nip it early,” said Wolkins.
But while property owners and legislators have blasted the high court’s decision, some mayors and private developers are hailing it. Mishawaka Mayor Jeff Rea praised it as an economic development tool, saying it would help cities to eliminate blighted areas.
Cities generally use eminent domain only as a last resort, even for public projects such as roads and airports. It is unlikely that any mayor would employ the tool with reckless abandon.
In fact, some experts say the Supreme Court ruling actually protects property owners because of the narrow reach of the decision. Others aren’t buying it, however, including former Justice Sandra Day O’Conner who voted in the minority in the 5-4 decision.
In Indiana, projects such as the I-69 extension project and the new Colts stadium could be affected by any change in the eminent domain law. Wolkins wants to go beyond prohibiting local governments from using eminent domain for private economic development projects; he also wants local authorities to pay 150 percent or more of the appraised value of any property acquired through eminent domain.
Such a requirement would, of course, add substantially to the cost of public works projects and may cause some to be canceled entirely.
Eminent domain was used much more frequently in the 1960s, especially in inner city areas to help wipe out urban blight. Ironically, there hasn’t been any widespread abuse of the procedure since then.
If used properly and with due caution, eminent domain can be an invaluable tool for economic progress. It is constitutional, and it’s absolutely essential for certain types of public projects such as roads and highways.
Local governments have a vested interest in economic development projects. They are for the public good. Cities must weigh what is best for the public in general against what is best for the individual and make decisions accordingly.
But it is also incumbent upon local officials not to yield to temptation to abuse their power. Forcing the transfer of private property from an individual to a commercial developer should only be done when there is a proven public need. But that option should not be taken completely off the table by lawmakers.
Tuesday, August 09, 2005
Evolution Gets Hammered on Two Fronts
I have written before about the debate between the scientific theory of evolution and the religious theory of intelligent design, so I won’t rehash the details here.
But recently two news stories have been published that have muddied the already-mucky waters on the subject. It’s a new development that may need clarifying.
First of all, Pres. Bush has chimed in on the debate. During a question-and-answer session that took place prior to the start of his long vacation, Bush took the position that intelligent design should probably be taught along side evolution in biology classes.
He declined to give his personal belief about intelligent design and said that it should be up to local school districts to decide whether or not to teach it. But when asked if he thought it should be taught in school he said, “I felt like both sides ought to be properly taught.” And that is, “so people can understand what the debate is about.”
It sounds reasonable, doesn’t it? And, although I disagree with Bush on just about every important issue, I agree with him on this, up to a point.
He left out one very important factor, however.
The debate that continues to rage between religious fundamentalists and science associations is indeed a current event that young people should not only be exposed to, but invited to participate in. But in what class do students usually study and debate current events?
Most schools offer courses in social studies that cover current events. Some schools may also offer courses in philosophy and religion, in which different religious and philosophical views are discussed.
But Bush apparently meant that he favors teaching intelligent design as an alternative theory to evolution in science classes. Almost all scientists, and the vast majority of religious leaders, feel that would be a grave mistake, since intelligent design isn’t science.
Bush’s science advisor, Joseph H. Marburger III, tried to clear things up a bit, stating that intelligent design is not a scientific concept. Perhaps he should have informed his boss first.
Even some right-wing organizations are worried about Bush’s statement. Among them are conservatives who want the Republican Party to be something other than a political arm of the religious right.
Unlike Calvin Coolidge, a conservative who was president during the Scopes Monkey Trial of 1925, Bush never hesitates to introduce his views on controversial issues.
Coolidge clearly understood the separation of powers in the federal government and that, although he would have had the constitutional right to voice his opinion, it would have been improper for him to take sides in the trial.
Bush could learn something from history.
The second attack on evolution came from Cardinal Christoph Schönborn in an op-ed piece in the New York Times last month. In the editorial, he claimed that certain aspects of the theory of evolution cannot be reconciled with Catholicism.
He said that there was “purpose and design” in nature that was incompatible with evolution. That seems to throw support to the intelligent design concept.
Officially, the Catholic Church’s position on evolution was last stated in 2004 by the International Theological Commission. In a document entitled “Communion and Stewardship,” it states that Catholic theology does not commit the church to one side or the other in the dispute. It stated that even if evolution appears “random” and “undirected” from an empirical point of view it could still be part of God’s plan.
Schönborn’s editorial does not represent an official shift in the Vatican’s position. The appearance of his editorial was orchestrated by a conservative think tank that supports intelligent design. The new pope has yet to state a position on evolution.
But, together with Bush’s apparent endorsement of intelligent design, the cardinal’s remarks may embolden conservative Christians to take their struggle even further as they try to inoculate the science curriculums in state after state with their bogus “theory.”
That would be a mistake, according to aerospace engineer and science consultant Rand Simberg. A political conservative, Simberg wrote on his Web site that intelligent design “doesn't belong in a science classroom, except as an example of what's not science.”
No matter what one’s faith tells them about the development of life, it should be exceedingly apparent that Simberg is correct. If it isn’t science, keep it out of the science classroom.
But recently two news stories have been published that have muddied the already-mucky waters on the subject. It’s a new development that may need clarifying.
First of all, Pres. Bush has chimed in on the debate. During a question-and-answer session that took place prior to the start of his long vacation, Bush took the position that intelligent design should probably be taught along side evolution in biology classes.
He declined to give his personal belief about intelligent design and said that it should be up to local school districts to decide whether or not to teach it. But when asked if he thought it should be taught in school he said, “I felt like both sides ought to be properly taught.” And that is, “so people can understand what the debate is about.”
It sounds reasonable, doesn’t it? And, although I disagree with Bush on just about every important issue, I agree with him on this, up to a point.
He left out one very important factor, however.
The debate that continues to rage between religious fundamentalists and science associations is indeed a current event that young people should not only be exposed to, but invited to participate in. But in what class do students usually study and debate current events?
Most schools offer courses in social studies that cover current events. Some schools may also offer courses in philosophy and religion, in which different religious and philosophical views are discussed.
But Bush apparently meant that he favors teaching intelligent design as an alternative theory to evolution in science classes. Almost all scientists, and the vast majority of religious leaders, feel that would be a grave mistake, since intelligent design isn’t science.
Bush’s science advisor, Joseph H. Marburger III, tried to clear things up a bit, stating that intelligent design is not a scientific concept. Perhaps he should have informed his boss first.
Even some right-wing organizations are worried about Bush’s statement. Among them are conservatives who want the Republican Party to be something other than a political arm of the religious right.
Unlike Calvin Coolidge, a conservative who was president during the Scopes Monkey Trial of 1925, Bush never hesitates to introduce his views on controversial issues.
Coolidge clearly understood the separation of powers in the federal government and that, although he would have had the constitutional right to voice his opinion, it would have been improper for him to take sides in the trial.
Bush could learn something from history.
The second attack on evolution came from Cardinal Christoph Schönborn in an op-ed piece in the New York Times last month. In the editorial, he claimed that certain aspects of the theory of evolution cannot be reconciled with Catholicism.
He said that there was “purpose and design” in nature that was incompatible with evolution. That seems to throw support to the intelligent design concept.
Officially, the Catholic Church’s position on evolution was last stated in 2004 by the International Theological Commission. In a document entitled “Communion and Stewardship,” it states that Catholic theology does not commit the church to one side or the other in the dispute. It stated that even if evolution appears “random” and “undirected” from an empirical point of view it could still be part of God’s plan.
Schönborn’s editorial does not represent an official shift in the Vatican’s position. The appearance of his editorial was orchestrated by a conservative think tank that supports intelligent design. The new pope has yet to state a position on evolution.
But, together with Bush’s apparent endorsement of intelligent design, the cardinal’s remarks may embolden conservative Christians to take their struggle even further as they try to inoculate the science curriculums in state after state with their bogus “theory.”
That would be a mistake, according to aerospace engineer and science consultant Rand Simberg. A political conservative, Simberg wrote on his Web site that intelligent design “doesn't belong in a science classroom, except as an example of what's not science.”
No matter what one’s faith tells them about the development of life, it should be exceedingly apparent that Simberg is correct. If it isn’t science, keep it out of the science classroom.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)