There is a story running in the recent news about a certain County Clerk in Kentucky who has categorically refused to grant marriage licenses to gay couples. This clerk, whose past record regarding marriage is checkered at best, tells everyone that she was “ born again “ and it is “…. by God’s authority..” that she is taking this position. The local court ruled against her, the State court ruled against her, the federal district court ruled against her and the U S Supreme Court refused to rule in her favor. The law firm which represents her – The Liberty Counsel, a spin off of Liberty University of Jerry Falwell fame – continues to support her claim, saying that she has the right to practice her religious beliefs according to her conscience, regardless of the code of law
Not to long ago, in Arizona, a bill found its way through the state legislature which had a similar bent . In effect, S B 1062 would allow ANY business owner to refuse to provide his or her service to anyone who offended their religious beliefs. A key element here was that merchants were refusing to allow gay and lesbian persons to do business with them, e.g. buy a wedding cake. The major push for this came from one Cathi Herrod, President of the Center for Arizona Policy. Her on the record position was that we cannot allow gay and lesbian people access to our schools and our children. A far right wing so called Christian, Ms Herrod continues to plead that her agenda is misunderstood – in spite of her highly vocal statements – and this Bill was all about personal freedom. Shortly thereafter this Bill was vetoed by then Governor Brewer, a similar Bill – SB 101 – was introduced in Indiana and signed in to law by Governor Mike Pence. Again, he asserts that the legislation is not to be construed as anti – gay but rather the confirmation of allowing citizens to exercise their right to freedom of religion.

The primary basis for these actions lies in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The Act was passed and signed in to law in 1993 by then President Clinton., Despite being declared unconstitutional in 1997, it continues to be used as a basis for legal actions involving the “ compelling interest of the federal government “, a element yet to be clearly defined. This use was deemed constitutional by the Roberts Court in 2006, forming the basis for the Burwell v Hobby Lobby case.
One has to be a serious legal scholar to negotiate the legal maze created by these actions. It is highly problematic to determine how a public law which was deemed unconstitutional can have only portions of it used as a basis for widespread legal proceedings, highly qualified and conditioned by that less than defined phrase”…. compelling interests..”. One can be clear of one thing though, the provisions put forth here very much lend to, shall we say, the legalization of discrimination.
One of the principal spokespersons for the far far religious right, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, has taken up the cause of the county clerk mentioned above and, in a statement which reveals a significant degree of lunacy, noted that one only has to obey the law if the law is right. He has failed to mention who it is that determines that but, based on his long record in the realm of religious fanaticism, he seems to hold that the Courts including the Supreme Court, do not have that prerogative but rather the individual. Back in the days of studying matters like this, this position was referred to as a convenient conscience. Today, one should call it license to instigate chaos headed toward anarchy.
One of those parts of the P.L. 103-141 held that actions should not “…substantially burden a person’s right to exercise religion…”. The law is a bit vague on some points but it seems clear that it does not allow for an individual to impose their religious beliefs on others. I submit that, while one can stretch the point for private business owners – still wondering about the discrimination element – one must not allow this position to be taken in the context of an employee of a public agency. Policy and statute, unless they are changed, are to be followed , not ignored because of an individual’s personal beliefs. If one cannot abide by the law of the land, one should find another role to play, or be told to find it.

We can go back to the very founding of this nation to chronicle the striving for religious freedom – or the imposing of a belief system on a society. Our system allows for and strongly supports an individual’s right to subscribe to any religious practice. It can mean belonging to a religious denomination, following a religious sect or ascribing to a philosophical school of thought. It does not, however,privilege an individual to impose those beliefs on others, especially when it goes contrary to civil law. This whole wave of fundamentalist extremism is at best, annoying and at worst, dangerous. It fosters blatant discrimination, breeds hatred and thrusts many into a limelight they would prefer to avoid.

In the mid eighteenth century, during what was titled as the “Age of Enlightenment” Thomas Paine wrote: “…. Of all the tyrannies that affect mankind, tyranny in religion is the worst..”. It is important to understand this statement, particularly in these times of overt fanaticism. There has been much in the way of villainous deed committed in the name of religion, some of it horrid and down right evil. Though somewhat more subtle , are we treading on a similar path ? Are we following a dangerous agenda by following a candidate for president who believes that ones conscience, no matter how erroneous, shall hold sway over law ? Be aware and be careful. The legal scholar who stands by the law of the land and the religious fanatic who holds the individual above all don’t play well together !

Anyone who lives in the West or Southwest is well aware of the frightening dangers of forest fires. They spread fast and wreak destruction of almost biblical proportions. In June of 2013 there was a devastating fire in the Granite Mountain area around the town of Yarnell southwest of Prescott. It was called the Yarnell Hill fire. While it may not have been the most destructive overall, it was particularly devastating because nineteen hot shots, those elite firefighters who are on the front lines of these fires, were caught and could not escape a sort of flame over and all perished.  During the weeks that followed, many individuals and organizations including the Arizona Diamondbacks, solicited funds to help the area rebuild, to help defray the expenses incurred by rescue organizations such as the Red Cross and the Salvation Army, and especially for support for the families who lost everything and for those families who lost members. In a story line posted on NPR, the fund raising was discussed and how much had been contributed to date. Now decades ago, I learned that to get a pulse on communities, read the Letters to the Editor” section of local press or now, in this electronic age, read the stories on line and read the  posted comments shown below it. On this story, one comment stood out like an M-14 at a Quaker Meeting. The comment said, and I quote, “…what a  waste of money..”.                              In recent deliberations on the floor of the U S House of Representatives, Texas Congressman Pete Sessions referred  to the SNAP program and the low income people it supports  as being extraneous and Congress voted to kill it as part of the  Farm Bill.

In February 2012, Sandra Fluke, then a  third year law student at Georgetown University , testified before a panel convened in Washington to discuss insurance coverage for, among things, contraception. She held that is should be  viewed as a legitimate  medical cost. The panel was all male and included two  members of conservative religious congregations. Ms Fluke testified about the issues around a women’s need for contraception medications, particularly those  not specifically being used as a birth control measure – something to which most of the panel could not even relate. Subsequent to that testimony, the loud mindless mouth of the GOP, Rush Limbaugh referred to Ms Fluke as a slut and a prostitute, stating that she was demanding ” to be paid for having sex”. His cohort in stupidity, Foster Friess, a Tea Party mogul and self proclaimed standard bearer of the religious far right  who preaches mass intolerance of anything the least bit to the left of his extreme right wing posture ( Cf. his commencement address at Pepperdine that same year ) vowed to supply Georgetown University with all the aspirin they needed so “… coeds could keep their knees together..”.  At the Missouri State Fair in Sedalia, Missouri, the ring announcer, after a rodeo clown appeared dressed in a President Obama mask, proclaiming that the President was a clown, asked how many wanted to see the President run over by a bull. The response was a thunderous applause

In a recent visit to Arizona to promote fair housing policies, President Obama was greeted by people singing “bye bye black sheep”, with obvious connotations  and with a sign held by one Deanne Bartram saying “Impeach the half white muslim” !  For the record, Deanne Bartram is a seventeen year old University of Arizona student from Black Canyon City  and,  sadly, I suspect her parents are probably very proud of her.

There is almost too much to debate about the colossal mess inside the beltway and even more so about what is to be found in the states, especially those dark red states. In some ways, that remains unchanged. In many ways, though, it has. The venom mentioned in an earlier post has intensified exponentially over the past five years and the hate mongers on  extreme far right radio  have been drinking “haterade” by the gallon.  The question, though, has to be raised – where did it all come from. Is this a new phenomenon or has it been always there ?  What catalyst sprung it to the surface ? When did  we cease to care about the community around us and the nation in which we live. When did tolerance become a bad thing and xenophobia become a virtue instead of a disorder ?  When was it deemed OK to loudly call the President a liar in the middle of his State of the Union Address – and by the way, receive NO flack for that pathetic outburst ? What ever happened to statesmanship and the art of compromise while still maintaining some level of propriety and dignity ? Is it only coincidence that the Tea Party -with all its misinformation, out and out lies and its obsession with eliminating government as we know it – burst on the scene directly after Mr Obama was first elected president ?

During the sixties and seventies there was much  that divided the country, particularly when it came  to foreign policy and the war in Viet Nam.  Neighborhoods were split in to camps – pro the war and very anti the war. Families were cleft along similar lines. And then there were the university communities – a whole different den of rancor.  Admittedly, it got pretty intense and in some areas, totally out of hand. But one could see the primary target and most of the harsh interaction centered around the war. But in the halls of congress, at least there was some forward movement in terms of  government , policy and legislation. The Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, the Model Cities Program, Job training programs, economic aid to struggling communities – all enacted during those unsettled years. Why – because, as I saw it, inside the beltway still governed to some degree, those governing listened to an almost reasonable degree and the nation as a whole was never used as a hostage for an unreasonable aqenda.  Today is quite another story – a nightmarish slide into near anarchy – that road to perdition as one writer called it, borrowing from a movie of the same title.  What are usually the forces of government are no longer formulated from within the halls of the legislature but from without with special interest groups dictating the how, when and the scope of  legislation and whether or not governing does in fact take place at all. Time and time again we see the Tea Party hold the country hostage. Time and time again, the vinegar flies and what used to be relegated to back room brawls is now a procedural course played out on the floors of the House and the Senate every day.

No argument this poses far more questions than answers. Indeed, answers will  be a long time in coming. As long as facts are deemed irrelevant, “haterade” is the drink of choice, blatant racism rises unchallenged, profiteering to the destruction of the middle class remains unchecked and power politics without regard to consequences are the accepted norm, any progress toward a better life for all our countrymen will be completely off the table. As long as there is a frightening lack of leadership, we are doomed to repeat and regress.  It is the recipe for total  chaos and I fear the end result.

”  We the people, in order to from a more perfect union ……. ” , For those of you who don’t know – and I suspect you are myriad – these are the opening words to the Preamble of our Constitution. I fear most have not actually read this revered document and I likewise fear, that the many who have – particularly lawyers  with an agenda –  have sufficiently twisted its meaning to suit their own causes that its true  force of meaning has been diluted almost beyond repair. There are a number of provisions, aka Amendments, which are fairly straight forward. The Thirteenth Amendment banned slavery ;  the Sixteenth provides for collecting income tax ; the  Nineteenth Amendment was about Suffrage and the right to vote regardless of gender ; the Twenty-sixth Amendment grants the right to vote to those eighteen years of age. Pretty clear in their content. On the other hand, the Second Amendment has been debated to death for decades regarding what it does and does not allow and in spite of several Supreme Court rulings, the debate continues. The Fourth Amendment was a guarantee against unlawful search and seizure, demanding probable cause and requiring warrants.  Between Joe McCarthy and his paranoia and George Bush’s lunacy and total disregard for the rights of citizens, this Amendment has pretty much gone to hell. There is ongoing debate, discussion and the usual gross misapplication of some of these provisions and this will continue, for sure. But, in my opinion, one of the most hotly debated and commensurately misinterpreted Amendment is the First Amendment and specifically, the so called “Establishment Clause” regarding the federal government and religion. Case in point.

Recently, in Encinitas, California, a group of parents have brought a law suit against the EUSD contending that the District  is “..clearly in violation of the First Amendment and the separation of church and state ..”. Their contention is that classes in Ashtanga Yoga is violating their religious freedom ! Yes, folks, Yoga !!! One family holds that  Yoga “.. moves the mind, taking it on a religious journey. If prayer in schools is unconstitutional, yoga should be too..”.  Another parent wanted his children to be removed from the classes rather than allow them “… to be indoctrinated by this Hindu religious program..”. The suit is being brought on behalf of these parents – described by a staff writer for the U T San Diego News as probably not knowing the difference between yoga and yogurt – by the National Center for Law and Policy, a far right, ultra conservative policy law group headed by Dean Broyles. A word here, if I may. Dean Broyles is a graduate of the Regent University School of  Law – a fourth tier law school founded by televangelist Pat Robertson with a clearly stated agenda to teach law in biblical context. Two of its biggest promoters are Karl Rove and Rush Limbaugh. Just making the point. So, back to Encinitas. The whole thrust of this pathetic attempt at constitutional manipulation is based on the premise that yoga is a religion. OK, one MIGHT debate that but it really is a  philosophy based on a combination of many eastern philosophies. By the way, an on line petition to end the classes was signed by 250 parents. Likewise, an on line petition to maintain the classes was signed by 2,700 parents But there is another side to this. In several studies, including a  2003 study by Cal State Los Angeles, children who participated in yoga programs improved in health, behavior and academic performance. This improvement was also noted in children with special needs. Researchers also found that over 75% of children in these programs stated they wished to continue the practice after  they graduated.

So, what’s the problem. The allegation is that yoga  somehow violates the First Amendment provision for religious freedom. REALLY ????  The plaintiff’s “expert witness” is one Candy Gunther Brown, a religion professor at Indiana University.  Her position is that one cannot, in  the context of yoga, separate bodily practices from spiritual purposes. In effect, striking a yoga pose is the same as reciting the Lord’s Prayer.  And there you have it – that whole church and state debate rising again. How curious indeed that the plaintiffs in this case have gone to these lengths to keep their children from advancing physically and mentally. One has to ask the question whether or not these same parents would have the same objections to a martial arts program. Martial arts – that broad based set of skills designed to promote self defense AND self confidence along with mental discipline –   is similar to the tenets of  many of the world’s religions. You cannot get away from the basic truth that  the principles of religion and philosophy are linked and in turn, are linked to social mores and codes of conduct.  Even Dean Broyles must agree on that point. So does this all come down to that usual misinterpretation of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause ?  Vincent Phillip Munoz, in an extensive article in the University of Pennsylvania Law Journal, discusses in detail what he terms fatal misconceptions  of the thrust of the Establishment Clause and seems to favor the “Virginia Way”, though I  confess the article will take several readings to digest. What  the debate does bring to the forefront is the difference between establishment and separation. The famous letters of Thomas Jefferson to the Baptists pastors of Danbury appear to form the basis for arguing the “separation” doctrine. Accepting that Mr Jefferson did hold to that, I still contend that there is, in the strict sense, nothing in the wording of the Amendment which requires this separation. It, if taken literally, which lawyers never do, states that the federal government cannot force the establishment of a state religion on the people. However, there might be, again, another side to this coin. As we talking about church versus state or politics versus religion. Kenneth Cauthen, professor emeritus at Colgate Rochester Divinity School, makes this very valid distinction. In his article, he argues that  unless one makes this distinction, one is doomed to perpetual frustration. Church and State is a rather easy argument. Government does not appoint bishops and churches do not appoint governors. The State is neutral and permits citizens to engage or not engage  as they see fit and appropriate.   Religion and politics, well that’s a whole other Pandora’s box as we have seen time and time again and this will continue pretty much forever. And I contend this mess in Encinitas is more the latter, regardless of the stance taken by Dean Broyles and his group of parents.It is now become almost fashionable for individuals, usually self proclaimed atheists, or groups, usually parent groups, to engage the services of one of these so called policy centers to bring what can only be described as a frivolous law suit against organizations such as school districts for, in my opinion, trivial matters. Now in the account of this action, I found no mention of these classes being mandatory. SO, parents, take your children out of them but DO NOT deny other children the access to  a well respected form of exercise – physical and mental.  After an half hour class, one eight year old said he felt energized. Better than fries and a coke, yes ? Superintendent Tim Baird says this program is but one element of an overall agenda of the EUSD to improve the health of its students. There is also a nutrition program and a life skills program where children learn perseverance and responsibility. All a far far cry from infringing upon one’s religious freedoms, let alone a violation of the so called separation of church and state. It teaches the children to be thankful for the sun and its warmth. Violation of religious freedom ! Please ! I gather that, in spite of the facts and the evidence, these parents would rather see their children be denied what is truly beneficial on many levels just so they can spout their less than informed religious freedom nonsense. That’s  not religious freedom and that’s not an issue of Church versus State. It is simply egotism brought to the absurd at the expense of kids. Healthy choices for the kids or lame grandstanding for the parents. You choose. I choose the kids !

Ambled on in to a Denny’s for breakfast a while back and, while I much prefer a table, the wait was going to be beyond worth it so I decided to just sit at the counter. Cuts down on the space for a newspaper but I needed that toast and coffee. I asked the fellow sitting next to the last seat in the row if he minded if I took that last seat – like maybe he was to be joined by someone. He replied in what is one of those usual off hand replies – it’s a free country !  I was going to reply to his response with the question, “Is it really ?” but my gut said that would just not be a good idea. So, I just let it go. That phrase, though, got me to thinking.

Some time ago, a close associate of mine was house hunting. He came across a marvelous set up in a recently opened planned community. The property included a 1950 square foot house with a split open floor plan and a casita across the walkway. The casita was one large room  with a kitchenette – probably about 500 square feet, give or take. The price was equally enticing. So, off to the sales agent. After some of the usual small talk, the agent asked my associate how old he was. Taken back by that, he asked her why the question. Her response floored him. She said unless you were over fifty-five years old, you were not permitted to purchase a house in that community. His response was – REALLY, since when ?? Things got a bit testy after that and,as she was explaining that the  Fair Housing Act had been amended to allow for basic age discrimination, he was escorted from the office. BTW – the proverbial “rest of the story ” – that the FHA was amended was  indeed true however, it’s effect date was not until the following year so the sales agent was not exactly correct. Too bad my associate didn’t check the fine print on the amendment. Anyhow, this episode is a prime example of the question I was going to raise in the diner – is this indeed a free country and just what does a “free country” really mean.

Freedom has been defined in a variety of ways from the rather strict, limited generalist edition to the more philosophical posture and, while I don’t purport to be a philosopher, I believe that John Locke’s is closer to reality.  Miriam-Webster defines “freedom” as the absence of constraint in choice or action. While I figure the local chapter of anarchy international might like this one, it has little bearing on everyday life and living.  Decarte defines it as liberty of choice, choosing to do and not to do. Kristofferson calls it ” nothing left to lose ..”. Aristotle sees it as a voluntary choice in relation to moral responsibility. I think now we are getting somewhere. And John Locke, who considers freedom in terms of government,  refers to it as government based on a social contract among people of a society who exchange natural rights for civil rights with the purpose of protecting the well being of all members of that society. Here is where I sense the real thinkers and the village idiots we call the radical right vastly differ.  If you, as I do, see this position as viable, take it out of the realm of philosophical discourse and apply it to every day living. One can see the depth of this meaning and also see how, in many ways, it figured in to the founding of this nation.

We all expect a certain level of “freedom” as we move through our respective worlds. However, there is a caveat, as there always is. Freedom is not about, as Miram Webster would hold, totally unrestrained  living. It is more about the ability to interact in an orderly fashion. We have rules and laws  which come in to play and there is good reason for them. Take something simple as the significant reduction in speed limits in a school zone. There is a reason for this – it is  for the protection of school children as they meander  out of school, these days preoccupied with smart phones and iPods. Many many tragedies have been avoided because of this simple rule. And the breach of that rule has caused some horrible tragedies,evidencing its necessity. By law, we cannot do many things and ignoring those rules has consequences, hence law enforcement, courts, etc. But  the issue here is not law but rather freedom and, as members of the  society we call America, we do enjoy the freedom to change laws, add new ones, repeal those out of date or out of sync and this is where a free society differs from those not. We accept, to one degree or another depending one’s political posturing, government  and our system of government.  Every four years we can make changes in who runs it or choose not to. It is a system to which we ascribe – or at least most of us and those who work tirelessly to destroy it – the extreme Libertarian factions and this Tea Party movement as examples- are generally out of touch with reality – but that’s for another time.

The basic element of freedom and being free remains – it being the ability to choose within reason and to change, likewise within reason. As Locke put it, freedom is all about the protection of the well being of our society – all of our society. There is order to a free society and that freedom revolves around the ability to make changes in an orderly fashion. Without some level or order, real freedom fails and anarchy prevails. It would be the concept of individualism carried to the absurd and, in my opinion,to the insane. And so, while we may not like many of the rules, remember there is the freedom to change and while that process may not be perfect, the alternatives are frightening at best. So, when one hears that phrase ..” the land of the free ..”, take stock of its real meaning and understand that it is not about the one but about the all, not a selected few but ALL.

LET’S TAKE A STEP BACK, OK

This site is purposed to stimulate discussion and debate on the social and political issues of  our world. It is an Op Ed site. However, every now and then one experiences an event which is totally worth sharing and I would like to do just that here.

We are all, each and every one of us, caught up in the every day matters that often engulf us to the point of distraction.  We form “compartments ” in our every day living so we can achieve things, get things done. In short, , cope.       We take a break on weekends, sometimes, or we manage to get away on vacations, sometimes ! Hobbies and side lines – those wonderful endeavors which allow us to focus on things we really like without feeling guilty – provide some level of respite. They lend to the prospect of not letting the rats actually win this race. And while I accept that many pursue professional efforts  where much satisfaction can be found, some relief from those stresses is more than necessary. There is a price to pay for the old ” all work and no play” routine, yes ?

So, every once in a  while  a truly special opportunity arises and, in the spirit of taking a break from the main vein of my posts, I would like to share something about one of those “special opportunities”.

Ya Atay !

As many of you know, I came to the desert Southwest  decades ago. What many may not know is that for two of those decades, my by far better half, Nancy, has been teaching at a MIssion School on the Gila River Indian Reservation. The tribal medicine man calls her “Two Feathers”, as I often do.

The tribal community is primarily Pima or Pee Posh but there are some families which have ties, by marriage,  to other tribal communities such as the San Carlos Apache. It is because of  the regard some of those children and their families have for their teacher that we were invited to join in what is ordinarily a very closed, private family ceremony – The  Apache Sunrise ceremony.

The ceremony was held at Gopher Springs, where a ceremonial ground on the San Carlos Apache Reservation in Arizona is located. The ceremony is the rite of passage to womanhood for Apache girls. It is from the Apache legend of White Painted Woman ( Changing Woman ) and it begins her journey as a woman with spiritual strength and healing powers. It entails detailed preparation, five days and four nights of tests of endurance, blessings, dance and ritual. The young girl is, for instance,  not permitted water except through a special wooden straw, must engage in numerous ceremonies during both day and night. It is indeed a most intense celebration of passage. There are stages – the Dressing, the Sunrise, the Massaging, the Crown Dance and the Painting.What was so powerful for me, among other things, was the contrast of life. Imagine a circle of about sixty-five meters across composed of Fords, Chevys, Hondas and the like. But within that circle is conducted this intense and compelling ceremony which has survived for hundreds and hundreds of years.

There was one night when the rains throughout the day were particularly heavy and the mud ran fast on toward the ceremony circle which is a clearing downhill from the roadside. We watched as the traditional bon fire was built and fired even in the pouring rain. It burned large and bright against the dark skies. In the beginning of the evening, I was concerned that we might not be able to reach high ground in time as the rain and lightning continued. Then, as the young girl, her sponsor, her attendant and her family came from the dark into the light of the fire, the rains completely ceased. The brilliant lightning stayed and you could watch it careen off the rock faces of the surrounding mountains while a certain dryness came to the circle. When the Crown Dancers emerged out of the night, they were framed by lightning – dancing shadows in the dark.

Think what you might. For me, it was no less than magical !

During the morning of the fourth day, the young girl participates in more ritual, holding a crook , all the while dancing to a pounding chant. The crook symbolizes health in old age.

We then listened to what can only be described as a homily. We did not understand the words as they were in old Apache, delivered by a tribal medicine man. It probably was true that most of the younger set likewise did not understand, though like the Dine ( Navajo ) , the tribal community is working on recapturing that language. It was apparent to me, though,  that the elder generations did understand. While I did  not understand  the words, the spirit was more than communicated. That spirit of respect for life, for mother earth, for tradition, for family – a spirit held sacred by not only the Apache but  the other tribal communities of the Southwest. A spirit and lesson  to which we should all subscribe.

We exited the grounds  still in awe of it all.

We thank the Owl Clan and the Hooke family for allowing us to join them and share in this most sacred tradition.

Ya Dalanh !