On America's Love Train

     Last week, after finishing my tax return, I sat down to relieve my mind of the stress of having waited until the last minute, again.  The O'Jays' recording of "Love Train" came to my mind as I sought some music to relax.  And before I was  stopped, I had replayed it four times or five times.  Those who are familiar with the song will remember that it calls out for the countries of the world to board the "Love train."  

     It starts out with an invitation extended to the people of England.  It invites the people in Russia and China, too.  Then, it invites the brothers in Africa, and those in Egypt and Israel, too.  The song was written and recorded at a time in the 1970s when the United States was commonly believed to already be on board.

     It is, indeed, sorrowful that within 40 years, the appeal is now for the United States to get on board.  And if the writers were to rewrite the lyrics today, they might be appealing to the people of Florida.  They might be appealing to those in Texas and Kansan, too.  The second verse might appeal to the people in Tennessee, and also invite those in Virginia and Georgia.  

     We were aboard then, but there are those committed to our nor riding that train again..  The problem?  We're singing a new song, inviting the world to board a new train: the greed train.  Accumulate all of the wealth you can has become the new gospel, proclaiming that God wants you to be rich, no matter by what means wealth in obtained or who is hurt while getting it.  It's a greed train that everybody wishes to board, but there is limited seating.  Some folk are able to force themselves aboard, but others are being pushed out on the other end as a consequence.

     President and Democrats want to make the train longer, add more passenger cars.  Wealthy Americans don't mind more wealth cars.  But they want them filled with their own children, grandchildren, great-grand children, siblings, aunts and uncles, nieces and nephews, cousins, even, friends and others who will not have earned a seat on board.  This is what most people would be doing if they have the wealth to do it.  But Americans are supposed to be a team, a family, and, as Christians, all brothers and sisters.  We should, at least, want the least among us to have the means to afford a comfortable--if not extravacant-- quality of life.

     What would be happening on an American "Love Train"?  Would the wealthy on board be helping the poor get on board, or using any means at their disposal to keep them off?  There is quality education on a real "Love Train."  There are good jobs and housing, too.  And there is no shortage of quality health care on board.

     But the most important quality aboard the "Love Train" is love.  Love does not refuse help to those in need, those whom we are able to help.  Love cannot ignore the condition of the poor as if neither they nor their condition exists.  On the "Love Train," people aren't comfortable having plates and platters of food, while seeing others aboard starve or be threaten with starvation.  Wealthy people, therefore, are not so distant from the poor that they can pretend they don't know they exist.  They cannot say what they would have done had they known the limitations that poor people have to endure to survive, often even each other.   But love on the "Love Train" makes the wealthy want to know badly enough to find out where and how to help.  Why?  It's because of the love thing, the will and the ability to help.

     But there is another problem.  Conservatives are not completely wrong about conditions aboard the American train.  Newt Gingrich talked about schools giving poor kids work to do around school, and paying them for their work so children whose parents who don't bring in pay checks can experience and develop an appreciation for the pay-for-work ethic.  He talked about the poor needing not only to be provided a safety net but a trampoline to elevate their hopes, expectations, preparation and opportunities for economic success.

     You see, there is work to be done on a "Love Train."  There are floors to sweep, dishes to wash, food to cook and serve, tables to cleared and cleaned, windows to wash, linen to laundry, luggage to be carried on and off the train, locomotives to be driven, electrical equipment and appliances to be fixed, sick people needing tending, diesel engines to service, maybe even rail lines to be constructed and repaired.  That means there are opportunities for even the poor to earn a living on board the train.  

     But there must also be quality opportunities that guarantee all aboard learning  to earn.  And there must be enough jobs on board for every person who wants to work to earn a living.  

     And should, as many conservatives contend, those who are unwilling to work be thrown off the train at the next stop?  Republicans are suggesting that, if you throw enough poor people who don't want work off the train at the next stop, there will be fewer--and eventually none, including those who cannot help themselves--needing to be thrown off at future stops.  They're saying that sometimes the love required to get people on their feet and keep them there, even on a love train, is tough love.   

     Finally, another question, though, Is there a place on the "Love Train" for tough love? And how would we distinguish between actions reflecting tough love and those reflecting just not caring about certain other people?

     Let's, first, try to distinguish between two types of poor people on board the "Love Train" who need help finding or keeping jobs.  There are lazy riders who just don't want to work, and there are those who haven't been able to keep a job because they don't know how to work; that is, they don't know how to give quality work performance because they don't know what quality performance means.  There, of course, are those who only want high-paying jobs for which they are not qualified, but there are among them those who have had no quality opportunities to prepare themselves for these jobs.

     There are many reasons why people's attitudes toward work are different, and  most of them grow out of conditions and circumstances that were beyond the ability their control.  Children grow up in the hands of parents and teachers.   Their preparations for the future are in the hands of others.  

     But they can be motivated to control how they will react to present realities.  Someone said--and I paraphrase--we can't control where we came from, but we have considerable influence on where we will go.  And I might add, that is especially true on a real "Love Train."

Ronald

E-Mail:  rcspoon@earthlink.net

Blog:     ronaldcspooner.blogspot.com

Twitter.com/@ronaldspooner     

  

Preventing Legislative Voter Fraud

     Is the legislative requirement of a photograph to vote fair law just because the stated intent is to prevent voter fraud?  Such laws may be fair law if they prevent more incidents of fraud than is the number of eligible voters they disqualify.  But denying 5 million, otherwise legitimate voters, the privilege of voting in order to possibly prevent 5 instances of fraud sends a loud message about the kinds of politicians Republican leaders and conservative voters are selecting and electing to govern their states.  And it may speak even more loudly about the people who continue to send and keep these politicians in office.  

     This kind of legislative "fraud" is wide open for the public to see, forcing otherwise fair-minded Christian people to rationalize its existence by somehow attributing political motives to President Obama, rather than to elected officials who are making the laws.  These lawmakers certainly can make no claim that the laws were intended to increase the likelihood that the politicians elected will represent as many of "We the people" as possible.  These laws trouble consciences of good people.

     These laws are better examples of both voter and election "fraud" than the fraud they claim they are trying to prevent.  Their intent is not to increase but to decrease voter participation.  If the purpose of these new photo identifications were as innocent and well-intended as some people would like to believe, providing voters with photos could be easily achieved by having a photo made of everyone who votes in the November election.  That way everyone one voting would have a photo for the next elections.  It would provide an incentive for more of "We the people" to come out to vote.  But that would defeat the Republican intention to disqualify as many likely Democratic voters as possible for the presidential and congressional elections.  This should lay to rest any attempts by good Americans to attribute good intentions to these political shenanigans.

     "We the people" are a strange--and for many--disturbing mix of people.  We are of different races, colors, creeds, religions, and levels of intelligence, integrity, wealth, education, morality, political sophistication, and compassion among others.  Like it or not, that's what and who "We" are.  Unfortunately, state legislatures apparently have a constitutional right to make laws that legalize such fraud to prevent other fraud.  Many of these legislators and governors feel they are doing their Christian duties, probably even after a word of prayer.

      But that is not all.  If politicians lying about opponents can be considered free speech, money to be speech, corporations to be people and now states passing legislation that deny large segments of the pollution of their rights to vote in the name of preventing voter fraud, then the legislatures, supported by the Supreme Court, can manufacture any reasons they choose to deny segments of the population of any rights they choose or declare constitutional rights to whomever or for whatever purposes legislatures and the Supreme Count choose.  Supreme Court majorities can become the dictators of national policies through state and national legislation.  One reason the word "socialism" is thrown out so much in reference to the agenda of President Obama very likely is the attempt to turn the people's attention away from the threat of judicial-legislative rule in America.  Those who are aware feel that the attempts being made to disenfranchise others will not happen to them. 

      But totalitarianism is not a respecter of color, race or religion.  Worldwide, there have been dictators who have persecuted people like themselves.  Dictators--and people with those intentions--do not announce their presence like wolves howling at night.  Rather, they are like wolves in sheep clothing.  Everybody has wished, at some time, that they had the authority to impose their will on others and fix what they perceive to need fixing with a plan which they believe would be a fix.   But for a few individuals, that wish becomes an obsession, and eventually that obsession a compulsion.

     "We the people" are changing.  A group of citizens representing several of America's ethnic groups have marched in opposition to these laws intended to deny the voting rights of people who might vote for Democrats in November.  But this is neither the Congress, the Supreme Court nor the economic state of America of the sixties.  People who had jobs and homes in the sixties are looking for reasons why that is no longer the case in 2012.  

     It is easy--and perhaps natural--for many of "We the people" who are without jobs to blame their unemployment on people who don't look like themselves or don't share their beliefs.  Adversities which once bound "We the people" together to somehow overcome and become more than before have become fertile ground for a  "divide and conquer" strategy by the politically and economically powerful to conquer and control everything and everybody.  The problem is that many Americans who have been conquered don't realize it, yet.

     It is naive to believe that with the moral fabric of the nation breaking down in all aspects of human endeavor and thought that even racism would not now safe to "come out of the closet."  If our once judiciously constrained society is freed of the shackles of civility and released from the imprisonment of ethical restraint, then a complete unraveling of the nation's perception of right and wrong cannot be far behind.  Money becoming speech and corporations becoming people were the beginning of "might makes right."   

     The American ruling class which feeds this transition needs a lead ruler,  and the Republican presidential candidates all seem to be worthy prospects for the position.  They say what they are going to do, as if they expect to be elected absolute monarch.       

     Legislation requiring photos and limiting days to vote restrict voting privileges of otherwise qualified Americans and injects greater voter fraud than it prevents, and gives authors of the scheme to rule more reasons to cheer--and the rest of us more reasons to fear.

     This year's presidential and legislative elections likely will be the most important since America's founding.  The people will either vote for more gridlock and solve none of the nation's serious problems, or they will turn the government over to either Democrats or Republicans.  Whatever the decision, the choice can be no better than the consciences of those voters whom these states will permit to make that decision, and no wiser than their realization of the consequences of their choice. 

     

Ronald

Email:  rcspoon@earthlink.net

Blog:  ronaldcspooner.blogspot.com

Twitter.com/@ronaldspooner

On Mandates and the Constitution

      One question that has speculators concluding that the Supreme Court will strike down Obamacare is seemingly the Democrates inability to answer the question: If the Congress and president can implement a mandate about health care, what kind of mandates can't they implement?  But that seems to be a question that the Justices would have to decide at such time that other requests for mandates are litigated before the Supreme Court.

      This particular instance of having a mandate should not imply that all legislative mandates would have equal merit.  Requiring all Americans to eat broccoli or exercise because each is good for the health of the nation does not rise to the same level of importance as every American's having access to affordable health care and allowing the nation to control the fastest growing component of its debt liabilities.   

     No one can make a creditable estimate of the effects that requiring everyone to eat broccoli or exercise would have on the national debt.  What cost would be incurred in trying to assure that every American ate broccoli and excise, while necessarily determining when and how often as they should?  How would these activities be monitored?  So the answer to conservative request for other mandates that the Congress and President would not be able to implement with constitutional justification should have been: mandates such as requiring Americans to exercise or eat broccoli.

      The fact that the Solicitor General often appeared not to have adequate answers to the justices questions did not mean that the justices did not have their own individual answers to their own questions--and questions of other Justices.  They presumably will not make decisions based either on the Solicitor Generals answers or on their own constitutional interpretations.  The Solicitor General's role, therefore, is to persuade the justices who may have already formed opinions that their thinking on the matter is somehow flawed, or that their opinions are not the only reasonable interpretation of the Constitution's position on an issue--in this case, of the health-care individual mandate.

      All Supreme Court Justices have been trained in the law, including Constitutional law.  They are not like a jury which a prosecutor and defense attorney are attempting to persuade with evidence and interpretations of evidence to which juries have not been exposed.  A jury also presumably has not made up its mind about a case for the very reason that they have not heard and studied the evidence in the context of opposing arguments.  

          The Supreme Court Justices have the results of attorney arguments and lower court rulings to augment and help shape their own deliberations and conclusions considering the pros and cons of the issue.   Arguments before the Supreme Court only provides further options to consider in shaping their final decisions.  Finally, there are the final ideas that the Justices will bounce off each other.  

     This may an occasion in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kennedy will lead the Court to a 6 to 3 decision, upholding the health-care individual mandate.  It is also possible that the Court can be deadlocked with one conservative Justice not, in good conscience, being able to make constitutional distinctions between the options.  Obamacare could remain the law by default , because a neutral Justice votes to confirm its constitutionality.  On the other hand, it is hard to believe that a Supreme Court that considers money to be speech and corporations to be people can have the frames of mind to find this health-care mandate Constitutional.  

     I don't understand, though, how this issue of a health-care mandate has anything to do with conservatism or liberalism.  What's conservative or liberal about the individual mandate?  At one time, it was supported by Republican and conservative organizations.  How did the mandate become liberal simply because Democrats decided Republicans and conservatives had the right idea?  Even Republican candidate

     Even issues like "money being speech" and "corporations being people" should have been decided by a mixture of liberal and consecrative Justices.  Because  ideas are introduced by conservative or liberals politicians does not mean that the issue is ideological.  Some ideas reside in what amounts to "common ground."  Consequently, most issues should be decided by a mixture of liberal and conservative Justices

     Some of the lines that politicians draw in the sand should be circles that bind Americans together in recognition of and commitments to common interests, rather than drawing lines of separation that either imply or impose significance to ideological differences where such distinctions are really not factors. The Constitution is America's "common ground."  It is should never be considered an ideological instrument that must always elicit left-right divisions in its interpretation.

     But I have not heard of any questions the conservative justices asked the attorneys challenging the individual mandate.  Did their questions suggest reasons why these mandates should be constitutional, as they challenged attorneys supporting these mandates that they weren't?  It appears that a politically neutral  court would have asked such questions.

     The Constitution is neither conservative nor liberal.  No parts of its original intent can be classified as conservative or liberal such that ideological distinctions can be made between the components of the document.   However, the content, instead of providing "common ground" for political collaboration, has suddenly acquired  ideological labels, depending upon whether conservatives or liberals agree with the provisions or with laws which the provisions seem to support.

     Initially, Supreme Court Justices were selected for life-time terms in order to take political or other kinds of influences from replacing the better judgment of each Supreme Court justice.  Well, "other influences" have replaced that better judgment, as divided court decisions have come to be made, without exception, along ideological lines.  

     "Supreme" not longer mean the highest level of legal prudence but the highest level of ideological authority.

Email: rcspoon@earthlink.net

Blog: ronaldcspooner.blogspot.com

Twitter: Twitter.com/@ronaldspooner

America Needs Education Academy (Final Edit)

     For the past 50 years, Americans have pursued quality education--especially in mathematics and the sciences--for all American children.  Many attempts have been made by some very smart people--and with considerable success.  But while these programs were often successful, the courses often were too difficult for the teachers assigned to teach them.  

     Most of those who developed these courses were either scientists, mathematicians, or university professors.  This was good.  But the efforts were wasted because little attempt was made to recruit teachers, who not only were familiar with and masters of the content, but knew how to teach that content in a manner that allows all student to succeed.  That means enabling students to master content at levels commensurate with their abilities, interest and willingness to devote reasonable time maximizing their learning. 

      Maximizing the learning of every child is the responsibility of every school, teacher, principal and superintendent.  But the job of differentiating instruction in manners that allow students to learn a their rates is not easy.  And because there are too few strategies for doing so that are known to teachers, use of the strategy should not be limited to teachers who take it upon themselves either to develop  strategies that works for them, or use strategies developed by other teachers.

     So let's assume that effective teaching strategies are possible--or better still, exist--which would enable schools to succeed with all children.  How would these strategies be placed in the hands and heads of teachers?  It is a disgrace that in fifty years we still don't have such strategies available.  Is it that teachers who have mastered the strategy of differentiating instruction are compensated too well by becoming consultants?  Or do they earn more attractive salaries by going to school districts--or even colleges and universities--which reward them handsomely for their knowledge?  For some reasons, differentiating instruction is not making it to our many failing schools.  

     Chicago is in the process of closing failing schools.  Parents, students, teacher unions and community leaders are concerned but unsure about the reasons.  Are the concerned about the closing of schools or about the reasons why the schools are being closed?  

     Suggestions are being made that schools are being closed because they are in minority neighborhoods, that somebody does not want minority children to receive an education.   Others suggest that these schools are being closed because of poor academic performances by the students, that the students are being transferred to schools where students are performing well and, hopefully, that students from closed schools might be able do the same.  Some parents believe other schools do better because they have better teachers and resources.  It  appears, though, that strategies that make one district or city school successful  are not shared with other teachers and schools throughout the schools and school systems.  

     Are good teachers reluctant to share good ideas with other teachers?

And are successful teachers justified in that reluctance?  Maybe they are more successful because they have joined more professional organizations, read more professional literature, attended more challenging colleges and universities, continued their college or university training at night or during summers, worked longer hour preparing to be successful and other things to extend their knowledge and teaching skills.  Whatever motivates or equips some teachers to perform better than other teachers should be made available to all teacher.  But how?  

     Adding to the confusion is the fact that there are differences both among students and among educators concerning their abilities to learn; their motivations, interests, backgrounds, ethnicities, colleagues and peers; and concern for students.  Teachers have preferred teaching styles, and students have preferred learning styles.  There are many successful teaching styles and strategies.  The problem is matching teaching and learning styles.  

     Such matches of optimum teaching and learning styles are less likely to be found--or even pursued--in low priority schools.  Identifying teachers instructional needs and students learning needs are time-consuming responsibilities, and are usually beyond both the interest of school boards and the expertise of school administrations.  And both fail to fulfill these responsibilities because school patrons don't know what to expect of either of them.  

     But there is a solution:  America has trained young people to become the best military in the world.  She has landed men on the moon and safely return them to Earth.  That America also can fix her schools.   But how?  

     Just as the government has military academies to train its military leaders, it needs an Education Academy to train educational leaders who can head state departments of education--for states that want them--and provide leadership for and communicate academic and administrative expectations to local school districts.  These educators will have explored all factors that contribute to success in schools serving all kinds and combinations of children.  

     The academy would also develop national curricula--again, for states choosing to use them.  It would train instructors for positions at teacher-training college and universities, teaching them to differentiate instruction (mastery teach) for all students commensurate with students abilities and willingness to learn.  Academy students would graduate within in six-eight years with a cross-discipline PhD.   The goal always would be to produce, through research and experimentation with different kinds of students and diverse circumstances, educators who are much better teachers than their own academy professors.   

     Many believe that education is as important as the military to the future security of America.  If that true, then let's turn our best minds loose in solving the nation's education problems, and spread educational expertise throughout the country.

Ronald

EMail: rcspoon@earthlink.net

Blog:   ronaldcspooner.blogspot.com

Twitter.com/@ronaldspooner

Gradual Routes to Compromise (Edited)

      President Obama needs a comprehensive plan for the economic future of America, including a strategy that achieves a $5-6 trillion debt-reduction package over the next 10 years.  

    The most likely way to achieve that goal and greater confidence might be to set goals that are phased in over a 10-year period.  A phased approach allows everyone who will be impacted to adjust their life styles and budgets to accommodate the changes.  If an effective debt-reduction plan must require sacrifices by everybody, appropriate levels of change and phase-in periods will be necessary.

     Justifications for entitlement revision have not changed over the years: People who have acquired certain level of wealth should have their Social Security and Medicare benefits reduced to reflect that wealth.  Social Security and Medicare are safety-nets designed to serve those who for various reasons may needs for such financial assistance.  They are like buying home, auto, sick and accident, and term-life insurance to protect against occurrences which encumber expenses that the insured might not otherwise be able to afford.

     But if the house is not damaged by fire or wind, if the car is not severely damaged, and if the insured does not get sick or die within the insured period, the insured does not expect to get any money.  Protection was bought.  Economic sanity demands that--at least for the foreseeable future--the same apply to Social Security and Medicare.  Warren Buffet does not need Social Security and Medicare coverage--at this time.  

     And just as people who buy various other types of insurance make every attempt not to receive benefits, the goal of every employee should be to never need Social Security and Medicare.  Just as people are happy when they don't have benefit from the various forms of insurance they have purchased, those who paid into SS and MC should be glad when their wealth makes such benefits unnecessary.

      Social Security and Medicare could be phased out according to such income-benefit schedule as the following:  Income, $50,000--benefits, 100%,  $60,000-96%,  $70,000-92%…….$280,000-4%,  $300,000-0.  Each benefit-income level might be phased in over five years.  Beyond $300,000 of income, people who are 65 years of age will have earned enough--and accumulated sufficient wealth--to insure themselves.    Medicare would still cover catastrophic illnesses. 

     The Bush tax cuts for the wealthy would end on December 31, 2012.  Those for the middle class and working poor would be phased out over a 5-10 year period.    After ending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy,  gradually increase their maximum tax rates to the Clinton rate of 39% over the next ten years.  The Wealthy will have less money to invest, but the middle class will make up the difference by having more of it to invest. 

     Wealthy Americans obviously are in better financial condition to adjust to the changes in taxation than are the middle class and working poor;  hence, there would need to be a phase-in period.  Americans at all income levels would have the remainder of 2012 to begin anticipating--and hopefully making--any adjustments to their budgets that will make the transitions painless or less painful.    

     The contributions of business to the economic recovery is indispensable and must be present with the same vigor that they give to the success of their company.  They have a crucial role to play in providing employment opportunities, but they have perhaps greater responsibility to help better educate America's children so they can qualify for the kinds of jobs businesses say they need. 

     The contributions of business to the recovery of the American economy is indispensable.  Businesses  provide employment opportunities.  But they also should help address the problem of better educating American children so they can qualify for the kinds of jobs businesses say they have.  Businesses must indicate not only the areas of need but the number of openings available.  Then, they must hire and, along with governmental assistance, finance the education that qualifies local students for these positions.  

     Students will not pursue skilled areas if they don't have confidence that there will be job when they become certified.  Therefore, businesses should target interested and qualified students in the eighth grade from which some determined number of students will selected for apprenticeships and employment.   Financial aid would be for students who would not otherwise be financially able to receive such education.  Announcements of such opportunities in the early years would be motivational for all students to perform better--even those not eventually selected.

     If unions and workers are serious about jobs and job security, there would be agreements among union workers to share hours in economic down turns.  No workers should be laid off.  Hours would be shared, allowing worker skill-levels to be retained.  The degree of sharing would depend on business needs to cut back on hours worked.  Workers would save during good times to make up for lost income when they must share hours. 

     All wages and salaries would be tied to the salaries of the CEO of the business, with a fixed rate.  The importance of CEOs relative to that of other executives and workers remains essentially the same: More proficient CEOs produce more proficient employees.

     Finally, there may also be needs to phase pensions out for the wealthy and phase them down for the middle class.  It would be better, especially for the working poor and middle class, to eliminate even the possibility of having to cut salaries, benefits and services by 25% or more all at once as is now the case with Greece.  Where appropriate, benefits would be phased back as dictated by economic conditions and outlook.

     These ideas need be discussed on c-span by a committee from businesses, unions, education, legislatures; all races, all political and religious persuasions: include Allan Simpson and Erskine Bowles; and be chaired by President Obama.  

     Americans and peoples of the world should be able to see an example of how economic and social problems can be resolved--and perhaps, in the future, prevented.

On Doing the Right Things

February 13, 2012

To:  The Editor

     President Obama has extended his religious compromise in order to accommodate those in the Catholic church who feel, much as do fellow Republicans, that, because of their principles, they cannot compromise with Democrats.  These leaders of the Catholic faith feel, similarly, that they should not compromise with the President because of their consciences.  And I agree with sticking with one principles and the dictates of one's conscience.  

     But when principles of people who must work together clash, what's to be done?  You compromise.  One principle cannot be consider superior to another:  Neither church nor state trumps the other.

     The fact that the Catholic faith believes that contraction is wrong does not give it the right to impede those benefits to those who might not believe that.  If those who are using contraceptive means are committing sinful acts and choose to do so, that's  between them and God.   The fact that the Catholic church opposes the use of contraceptions does not justify obstructing contraceptive use by employees who either don't share that belief, or who, while sharing that belief, encounter circumstances which dictate that they act contrary to those beliefs.

     When Catholic institutions, like many other employers, pay for their employees insurance, they pay for insurance in lieu of paying employees higher wages which would enable employees to buy their own insurance.  Catholic institutions, therefore, have no more right to restrict the insurance coverages of contraceptive services when they pay insurance premiums than they would have it they paid employees enough to buy their own insurance.

     The Catholic institutions owe President Obama and all of the policy holders of the insurance who must have their premiums increased to pay for contraceptive services that the Catholic church institutions refuse to cover.  The Church in effect passes over to other policy holders the responsibilities of paying for services which the church believes to be sinful. 

     Which, therefore, should give in when the expectations of the Catholic church conflicts with what its members rights are determined to be under the Constitution?  It is my opinion that the Catholic church has no authority over how the government will operate, except for the right of its members to determine at the ballot boxes who and what will constitute that government.  Only the Constitution and laws passed by the Congress should control the government--not politicians of the Catholic faith.  

     The government, on the other hand, does have authority to impose laws that impact what the Catholic church and its members can and cannot do related to matters outside of the authority and teachings of the church.  The church can teach what it believes to be the will of God.  But it cannot control the behavior of individuals, be they Catholics or non-Catholics, just because what those individuals do conflicts with the consciences of church leaders or some of its members in politics.

     If there is a conflict between the teachings of the church and rights of its members under the federal law, the people rights under the law take precedence--on earth.  Teachers of religious doctrine will have fulfilled their calling when they teach what the behaviors of the followers should be.

     One of the church bishops says that  the President's policy change is "a good first step."  I say it was  one step too far because if a Catholic institution has the right  to deny employees insurance coverage for contraceptive services, they can fire employees who have the services performed regardless of what insurance pays for it. 

     The President has said in the past something to the effect that it is better to do "the right thing" than be reelected by not doing it.  Of course, its easier to say that when election time is not imminent.  The "right thing" was what he decided before he changed his mind.  If that's not satisfactory to Catholic voters and Catholic leaders, and they believe a bette American rest with Republican, let them vote Republican.

     If President Obama's latest concession to the Catholic church was "a good first step,"  The "right thing" would be for Catholic institutions is to take the second good step of increasing wages of employees by an amount that enables them to buy their own  insurance.   The church need not even know which insurance they bought. 

     Certainly the Catholic church and its institutions would not want other policy holders to pay the cost of  insuring their employees.

     And further exploring this matter of the President's changing his mind and doing the "right thing" with respect to Catholic institutions and contraceptions, he should change his mind about establishing  super PACs for receiving hidden campaign contributions from corporations and do the "right thing" by giving the people a chance to vote against there being too much money in politics, especially secret corporate money.  

     While it is understandable that the President would want to "play on a level playing field by the rules of the game and be temped to "fight fire with fire," this may be one of those times when "how you play the game" again is allowed to matter, and fire will be fought--with water.

     If November's elections will indeed be battles for the "soul of America," Americans with genuine religious faith already know which side they're on.

Ronald

Email:  rcspoon@earthlink.net

Blog:   ronaldcspooner.blogspot.com

Twitter.com/@ronaldspooner

Rendering unto Caesar (Edited)

     Concerning the desire of certain Catholic institutions for further exemptions from the new health-care law, the following are ideas that provide other perspectives on this latest controversy. 

     First, having a religious institution send its employees to another insurance company that will pay for contraceptive services at a non-catholic hospital would cause another hospital to do what the Catholic church believe is wrong.  If it is wrong for Catholics, it is wrong for non-Catholics, whether or not these non-Catholics believe it.  Both Catholics and non-Catholics serve and expect to be judged by the same God.

     The conflict might be somewhat analogous to a person thinking that he (or she) has reason to murder someone.  But believing it would be wrong to do so, hires or encourages someone else to do it.  Wouldn't the first person still be wrong for making arrangements for someone else to do something that he (or she) believed to be wrong?

    Catholic universities and hospitals should not encourage non-Catholics to do something they themselves believe is sinful.  And that being the case, the Hawaii plan would not be the answer for Hawaiians either.

    Paying for employee insurance that covers contraceptive services is not the same a performing or condoning whatever contraceptive services may be performed.  Catholic hospitals and universities can pay for the insurance of non-Catholic employees, even as they recommend against their use of the service, but recognize the employee's rights under existing law--a sort of "rendering unto Caesar."

    Also, Catholic universities and hospitals don't generally teach their employees about Catholic dogma or religious doctrine, primarily (I guess) because many of their employees are non-Catholic.  The Catholic Church does the teaching.  So this conflict between conscience and deed, and between whatever minimal Catholic religious teaching these institutions may provide and the contraceptive services the insurance will buy seem not to warrant further exceptions to the health-care law.

    The exemption of the Catholic church and any other Catholic institution which hires and insures only member of the Catholic faith makes sense.  The employees who follow the church's teachings won't want need contraceptive services.  

     But what about those who would?  Again, it would be wrong to help Catholic  members to find other sources of insurance that would cover services which the Catholic church believes is unforgivably sinful.

     Some "wrongs" may be appropriate if they achieve a greater good.   Many people must work on the Sabbath in order to keep their jobs.  Even many religious institutions hire--and require--workers both of the faith and not of the faith to do various kinds of work on the Sabbath.  Many people of faith go to war and kill other people who also would rather not being there, but are there either because they are forced to be there or in order to achieve a greater good.

     A religious institution's buying employee insurance which also permits contraceptive services also achieves a greater good by providing services to both Catholic and non-Catholic employees who much more often than not have medical needs unrelated to contraceptions.

      To the extent that doing something that may be "wrong," It, too,may be "forgivable" when the action achieves a greater good, and President Obama made the right decision.  For the President to have ruled otherwise would mean that all Catholic institutions might have to be exempted from all aspects of the law dealing with insuring contraceptive services.  That would be unfair to Catholic patrons who might want and need the services, and it would open the door to all kinds of requests by others for exemptions, even those unrelated to religion and contraception.

     As for the politics of the matter, the Catholic church--and Catholics members and organizations--must decide whether it wants to be responsible for the failure of Obamacare, and by doing so deny Americans who need universal health care and the benefits the law provides.  The disagreement, therefore, does not seem to warrant those of the Catholic faith who otherwise support his agenda abandoning President Obama in his reelection bid.  The President made the best decision possible, given the circumstances.  He just finds himself in a position of being "damned if you do and damned if you don't."

     Which leads one to wonder, what decision a white Republican president of the Catholic faith would have made concerning this matter, and how the Catholic community would have reacted to that decision.  I have concluded that both the decision and the reactions would have been the same.