Government – Purpose: Do They Have One?


We think of ourselves as living in a time when people are questioning the purpose of government; and we are right, we do live in such a time. The reason is that if you are alive, you live in a time when people are questioning the purpose and the role of government.

Now there are many answers to this question which explains why it never goes away. But more importantly, you can’t answer it with any useful value until you recognize that this is a question that cannot stand alone. When you answer the purpose question as the starting point, you have left the starting line before the pistol went off and without realizing what distance race your about to run. In other words, it’s an incomplete question.

So let’s answer it anyway. What is the purpose of government?

The purpose of some governments is to maintain the social order and maintains the power structure of those that are entitled, deserving and anointed to guide their society. Other governments are intended to maximize the equitable socio-economic condition of their citizens. And some governments have defined their purpose as systems of laws to ensure and guarantee their citizens a set of rights that are universal. The purpose of government then is dependent upon how the government is established, organized and controlled.

I am going to go out on a limb and assume that when an American asks: “what is the purpose of government”, that they mean “what is the purpose of our American government?”

Now, even here this is probably too simple a statement of the question and of the potential contextual space that should be considered when trying to answer it; but I suspect it will be unlikely that most people will have the patience to explore the question of the question. So I will go farther out on the limb.

Side One of the purpose of American government is simple. It is a system which is structured to organize our social life around a public space and a private space, between a commercial arena and a civic arena, and between the interests of the majority and that of the minority. And the purpose of this system is to deliver the opportunity for each citizen to live their lives according to their own design, direction and desires without intruding upon the same rights of every other citizen. That is a terse statement of our government’s fundamental purpose. It is also completely inadequate to insure that Americans would agree on what this purpose means in almost any area or on any issue that confounds, angers, frightens, inspires, or unites Americans today.

Personally I consider the purpose of our government to be the agent that is responsible for enforcing the principle: Everything that you believe you have the right to expect and demand of everyone one else in our society, you agree that they have the right to require of you.

You may think you like that principle, but I should warn you that you haven’t thought it through. I can guarantee that you will not like what it requires of you, even though it is a basic tenet of our democratic system.

I guess this will have to continue in future entries.

Where Is Divine Guidance? The Mosque Controversy at Ground-Zero

What we have here is a failure to find divine guidance, heavenly inspiration or spiritual revelation. You would think that with all the different religious groups contributing to the controversy over the proposed Ground-Zero mosque that someone amongst the rabble would have seen the opportunity rather than the conflict. Surely somewhere in the tenets of their numerous faiths that, at least in one, there is some authoritative source that provides them with instructions on how to approach problems in their lives. Some principles to apply when there is a conflict that they need to deal with.

Wait! Perhaps it is not reasonable to expect the faithful of any of these religious groups to be knowledgeable practitioners of their faith’s orthodoxy or understand the practical application of their beliefs to real world situations. If only we had some recognized leaders or teachers of these faiths, or individuals that hold some authoritative position or standing within their respective communities involved in discussions and negotiations of the issues then we might hope for wise and sage guidance. I am not sure, but I do believe I have seen one or two acknowledged religious leaders attempting to weigh in on this issue. And thus with such knowledgeable spiritual leaders, particularly with their prayers and meditations on the dilemma confronting them, certainly we will see the wisdom of their faith illuminated in their comprehensive solution to the conflict.

After all, I would expect something much better than the trite and hackneyed positions offered by every media outlet, news anchor and politician salivating over the attention that they can glean from this strife-ridden conflict. The defense of religious freedom is a salient argument and position, but not exactly inspired. Most American’s of any religious or non-religious orientation know about the principle of freedom of religion; even if a surprisingly large number of them don’t seem to be able to apply the principle to anyone but themselves.

Religious tolerance is yet another argument put forth by some among the chosen, but clearly sprouting more from our traditional American values than a illuminating blessed vision from above. Not exactly the making of a new parable teaching the multitude or the faithful about the wisdom of the Almighty.

We even have the business moguls, diplomatic gurus and political luminaries offering to arrange for an exchange of site locations to alleviate the ire of the self-righteous hate and fear-mongers and to assuage the affront to the Islamic community of being ostracized. There is no indication whatsoever in the different versions of these proposals of a divine revelation toward a solution to the problem.

I just can’t believe that none of the leaders and representatives of the religious communities have even received a glimps of inspired insight about the opportunity presented by this conflict. That they are allowing the moment to slip away to demonstrate the bounteous rewards and blessings that their spiritual beliefs and principles gain for them, if only followed in the here and now.

Well there is still time. Perhaps a favored one will open themselves to the power of their God and hear the small gentle whisper that forces open the gate obstructing the way to paradise. Just make that simple choice to ask, “What can we do here to turn this turmoil of anger into a triumph of understanding?” With just a little thought, a little thinking out-side the box, a little opening of their own hearts, and a little faith in their Faiths; someone will surely find at least the mustard seed from which a powerful solution can grow. I suppose I could offer a hint, but then I think I have.

Burning Quran is to American Values, as Protesting Building a Mosque is to ___?

“As you sow, so shall you reap.” One of those often quoted sage insights into life that we rarely attend to because it is clearly too simple to be actually valid. Of course the same sages who would offer that advise would also council you that “to fail to learn the lessons of history will doom you to repeat them.” It makes you wonder what one can and should learn from our cultural legacies whether religious, political or societal.

Consider the Florida minister that plans to burn copies of the Quran on the anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attack. What lessons has he learned from his religious background? Does his proposed action of burning another religion’s authoritative text spring forth from any particular biblical text or Christian principle? Surely burning a religious text is what we would expect from the teaching to “do unto others as you would have them do unto you”, or to “judge not, least you be judge”. But I am having difficulty reconciling his logic in connecting the “What would Jesus do?” test to assessing the righteousness of his position. And you have to wonder, even if the minister forgot to ask himself this question, did every member of his congregation also fail to see a lapse in the Christian values judgment that his decision suggests? Not clear that the minister has learned from his Christian faith much about how to treat others with humanity, charity or kindness.

But perhaps the minister is reacting from the teachings of his political milieu, from an American values tradition. Burning the Qurans would be protected by our American value in defending our freedom of speech or expression; however, while this value grants us the right to do such things the burning of books is certainly not viewed as an action that in any sense defends this right. And burning a religious text because you don’t approve of the religion yourself is not an action that supports or defends our right to religious freedom and tolerance. I suppose that here again members of his congregation can clearly explain how this event will bring honor or pride to their group even while they will have failed to live up to those American values that are so connected to preserving the freedoms our nation was founded to insure.

This leaves the minister with acting according to current social mores where hate and fear are common motivations for engaging in any number of behaviors. Now here we have a justification for his approach. In his narrow and primitive view that anyone who does not belong to his clan is a threat he is lead to take some offensive action that will cause them to be driven off. This reaction of hate and fear for anyone outside their own group is not uncommon in our country today. It resonates with the our political parties’ inability to work together, to find common cause, to compromise to achieve something of value for the public good, or to place country before party.

If the minister is wrong to burn the Quran based on any Christian, American or humanitarian value even though he lives in a society that recognizes his right to do so and will defend that right; then what do we conclude from efforts to stop a mosque being built ‘too near’ to the 9/11 Ground Zero site? Which American value is not betrayed in the case of the mosque that we see as being besmirched by burning Qurans?

Americans Don’t Give-Up The Fight and Don’t Give-In To Fear, Why Would We Succumb To Hatred?

We take pride in America in our American Spirit, our Yankee ingenuity, and our can-do attitude. Americans rejoice in our commitment to freedom and its defense throughout the world. We acknowledge that “There is nothing to fear, but fear itself.” This is the country of immigrants, where you can pull yourself up by your bootstraps and attain anything; the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Why then do Americans seem to lose the perspective these beliefs should give us on issues involving the Islamic religion? I suppose it could be that political leaders and operatives are always willing to latch onto any issue or message that provides them with the opportunity to get money. Just as we honor the Americans who have given their lives for our country, we generally despise our politicians who generally trade in lies, deceit, graft, and fraud; and we cultishly vote for which ever politician is running under the banner of the political party that we are devotedly aligned with regardless of their consistent and unrelenting failure to serve the public interest.

The conclusion from this philosophical dissonance between our allegiance to freedom and our disregard for supporting the rights that are defined by that freedom is that far to many Americans are willing to trade-in their principles, to abandon their responsibilities and run with the mob rather than stand up and be counted in defense of America. A defense of America by demanding that our laws are applied equally to everyone; that our liberty is preserved for all citizens; and that the rights of the minority are not sacrificed to the interests of the majority with disregard for justice.

Are we really willing to accept politicians who mislead us, who cultivate hate as a means of garnering political power, and who demean the very principles of America in which we take so much pride?

When A Separate Church And State Both Advocate A Common Principle

During this morning’s church service I had a serendipitous insight into a commonality of principle between a teaching of my faith and one of the tenets of our democracy. On the faith side, the homily emphasized the principle that discipline is a salient aspect of life. This insight relates to how that discipline carries not only to my faith but equally to my political philosophy.

Discipline is a normal part of growing up; and then if successfully acquired becomes a life-long lifestyle requirement if we are to endeavor to live righteously (or democratically in a narrower context). The discipline that God brings into one’s life is intended to provide instruction to guide and to strengthen the mind and the body to be able to endure and even flourish in our lives. If we are not taught the principles that we should live by, learn and understand them, and then be held responsible to adhere to those principles even when they are difficult, unpleasant or unpopular then we will suffer the consequences from our lack of discipline. It must cause us to expect that we will not be rewarded with the benefits and blessings that following those very principles provide. Many of us understand later in life that the discipline that our parents imposed upon us in our youth was beneficial to us; some I am sure never come to that realization. But we grew stronger and more prepared to deal with life because of that discipline.

Many people who believe in God also believe that He places trials and burdens into our lives that are also intended to strengthen us. It is often cited that “God does not place any burden on us that we cannot carry”. The take-away from this is that you cannot know what is righteous and gain the rewards that come from it unless you actually lead a righteous life. And that requires the discipline to follow what you believe in; including the fundamental principles that Americans have regarding our democratic system.

The same disciplinary perspective is demanded of a people that are dedicated to being free. The democratic nature of our nation is dependent upon our ability to follow the principles that define our freedom. This includes the principle that we are a nation of laws and not of men. It may be difficult to accept that principle when you see someone or a group doing something that you disagree with, and it may require you to accept the rights of those individuals to choose to act as they have despite your views. And while this may be especially hard where there are emotional, religious or political issues at the point of contention between groups that you don’t approve of or accept into your own view of being American; it is explicitly in these circumstances that your need for discipline is the greatest. It may only be through discipline that we can retain and preserve our freedom. We must as surely have the discipline to hold fast to the principles that we are a nation of laws and that we must uphold the freedom of each and every citizen to their rights guaranteed by those laws.

Thus both the principles of my faith and of my country demand that I have the discipline to live in accordance with those principles. If I do not have the strength or the wisdom to follow those principles than I cannot hope to gain the advantages that they offer. If we do not do what is right according to our laws then how can we expect justice for ourselves? It does not matter if that right is based upon my faith or my politics. To expect a democracy to protect your freedom, it must be a democracy that protects everyone’s freedom in exactly the same way. If our desire to be a free nation is a righteous principle to live by and to live for, then we have to exercise the discipline of insuring that that same freedom is given to all citizens and is protected by our laws and our efforts.

Another American Freedom – Freedom From Hatred

American ideals sprout from our fundamental principles of being a fee people. And spurred by these principles, our founding fathers strove to establish a system of government that would serve and protect our freedoms in perpetuity. The ideals and the freedoms that Americans hold to today are embedded throughout the historic records of our nation. America presents its absolute right to freedom in our Declaration of Independence. We structured the form of our governing bodies to focus their powers to the service of the people and limited their power over the people in our Constitution. We extended the supremacy of the people over the government through the adoption of our Bill of Rights to expressly state particular freedoms upon which the government is forbidden to tread. And in accordance with these seminal seeds of a free nation, the United States has established the American societal contract of a free and democratic people who are bound together by their mutual interest in being a nation that follows our ‘rule of law’ in pursuit of those freedoms and principles.

We hear about any number of our freedoms everyday from ever increasing sources: the news media offering coverage of people exercising or espousing their freedoms, political parties jockeying for public opinion, campaign ads alerting us about the eminent threat to our freedoms, decisions from courts (Supreme or otherwise) that cite said freedoms, and even in the artistic medias where we seek our amusements of the day. If you have not heard about freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the right to bear arms, or freedom of religion recently then you have not been paying attention.

What then do we make of the current ‘ground-zero’ mosque issue and the torrent of opinions, positions, charges, and rants regarding the mosque in the context of our American ideals? We could say that this is nothing more than a healthy debate on the issue. But ‘healthy’, really! is what you see and hear an open, rational and intelligent discussion of the question? Does your heart swell with pride when you hear the reasons offered for someone’s side of the debate, is your American spirit lifted by the moral virtue being presented, and is your sense of justice and equality satisfied by the way the debate is conducted?

Oh, by the way; what do you think the actual question surrounding the ground-zero mosque is? It is not whether they have the right to build the mosque, or community center or both. There are any number of legal rights guaranteed by our laws that make it clear that building the mosque is perfectly legal. The question is not whether they should build the mosque. Presumably they have already determined that this is a course of action that they believe is appropriate and advisable for whatever reasons they have considered. Their right to choose is no less endowed then another’s right to choose to state that they are against it. But not liking their decision in no way diminishes nor restricts their right to choose to do it. So again what is the question?

I think the question is whether in America we collectively hold that like Rockwell’s Freedom from Fear and Freedom from Want that there is a right to a Freedom from Hatred. Do we believe that under our democracy that hatred is a valid reason for our citizens, even if it were to be a majority of our citizens, to restrict the rights and freedoms of other citizens? Is this what the founders of our country fought a revolution for; is it what America fought two World Wars, the Korean conflict, the Vietnam war, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraqi, and a plethora of other conflicts around the globe for? Did Americans die so that even any single one of our freedoms could be limited for some but not all? You all know the answers to these questions. There is not even a question of what our American ideals are in this matter.

Americans always have and always will have to struggle with the difficulty and troubling demands placed upon a free people who strive to fulfill the blessings that freedom bestows upon us and our posterity. I do not expect or require others to do what I would do, but I do expect and require them to allow me to choose as freely as any other free citizen has a right to choose. I expect that in America I have a right to my liberties not being overshadowed by hate; that I have right to a Freedom from Hatred.

The Supremes Hit A Sour Note

The US Supreme Court made a major ruling today on campaign financing law. They restored the rights of corporations and labor unions to contribute funds on par with any other private citizen. The limitations that had been in-effect that restricted their contributions was deemed a violation of their free-speech rights. This decision reverses a century of Supreme Court established rules that was viewed as protecting the private citizens against the undue influence that corporations and labor unions could leverage against individuals with no-where near their resources. That interpretative view had persisted under Supreme Courts that favored Republican and Democratic appointed members.

So I want to join in with all the rest of you in celebrating this grand victory for the corporations. I have fretted for years at their lack of influence in Washington. Finally, they will be able to choose your legislators and leaders, I mean join with you in helping your choose them. No longer will they be excluded from the back-rooms and closed door meetings that you and I are allowed to attend and that they are not. Wait! I don’t remember any Administration task-force or any Congressional committee letting average citizens into their deliberations (or inequitable distribution of funding). Well at least, they have never let corporate and labor union leaders participate in such meeting either. We have never had to worry about nor heard about the improper influence that Congressmen or Administration officials have allowed corporations or labor unions.

I am sure that this day will be remembered and celebrated in coming years as a re-affirmation of free-speech and basic American rights just like we celebrate the 4th of July. That is if the corporations and labor unions what us to, otherwise they will have their personally selected politicians entertain us with some other critical and essential issue that is of no importance or impact to their interests. Of course, we free citizens can also contribute to the political campaigns of our preferred candidates, who will no doubt pay as much attention to our views as they will to the super-huge donors that are now free to express their views on what is important and what needs to be addressed in legislation and administration of our government.

I would like to have one thing changed in the system however. Since corporations and labor unions have equal status as individuals under the law that given the absence of a corporeal entity who is treated according to the same legal consequences that you or I would, that the CEO or President of these entities be held accountable to the same legal consequences that you or I would. So if the corporation or union was found guilty of a criminal action that would have you or I put to death then as the stand-in individual for these non-living citizens that they would be executed on the corporations’/unions’ behalf.

If this one rule were put in place then I suspect that corporate executives and union leaders would be vigorously advocating that they should not be treated as citizen-equals who can spend money that is not even their own to influence the politics of the country. I suspect that corporations and unions would be willing to trust in the wisdom and judgment of the citizenry and the electorate.

And now that I think of it, why aren’t corporations and labor unions already properly and adequately represented by the citizenry and electorate that well own and constitute these entities. Don’t these individuals already have the right to fund political campaigns and to exercise their right to free-speech?

Isn’t letting corporations and unions participate in politics given some people extra rights, above and beyond those of most other citizens? Is this really protecting my freedoms? Well, as long as I am one of the people benefiting from the advantage and getting more rights than the rest of you, it will be ok with me. Otherwise, no, I don’t approve.

Americans Selecting The Cave - Losing International Perspective

Are Americans increasingly thinking that the best approach to life is to retreat from international affairs? A newspaper item about a recently released Pew Research Center poll provides some indication that a sizeable portion of the current generation (30 and under) is of the opinion that America should “mind its own business internationally” and leave others to their own interests, and that we “should go our own way” without consideration of other nations’ agreement.

While this boiled-down and grossly over-simplified assessment of American opinion regarding how the US should deal with other nations is a broad brush view, it is undoubtedly a telling perspective of how the latest generation sees our place and responsibilities in the world. This generation has grown up in an era where the highly media-covered American efforts and actions abroad have for the most part been very unsuccessful. We get engaged in wars and conflicts that we can quickly bring to a military end, but are then unable to extract ourselves from ever extending follow-on situations where success not only evades us, but we begin to lose ground on the very victory that we thought we had attained. I am not just speaking of the wars in Iran and Afghanistan, but the general conflicts throughout the Middle-East, Africa and Southeast Asia. We have tried and failed to win our wars on Poverty, on Drugs, and on Crime. The current generation has lost ground in education, health care, job security and earning potential relative to the previous generation. And as a nation we are more dependent on foreign entities for oil & other resources, consumer and business goods, and economic stability (foreign investment). We are the greatest nation in the world, a true super-power that is suffering from a debilitating degenerative disease that is sapping our strength and will.

So given all these troubles and astonishing lack of successes, it is no wonder that people are starting to think that America could solve most of its problems if we stayed out of international affairs to the greatest extent possible and if we focused on going it alone doing it our way. This may be an attractive and easily understood approach to want to pursue; but it neither will nor could work out for us. It violates the basic reality that we do not live in an isolatable system.

First to be left alone and to leave others alone requires that the ‘others’ agree to allow you to be left alone. Now while this ‘just leave me alone’ approach has always worked out extremely well for everyone who previously used it, like the Aztecs, the native American Indians, the opening of Japan to the West in 1853, the Roman Empire to the Mongal horde just to mention a few. When someone else has an interest in what they view you as having, they rarely just leave you alone.

Next, the very greatness of America to a large extent is derived from the fact that people came to America to make a better life for themselves. They came to a place where the ‘rules that everyone lived by’ were not rigid and age-old traditions that you could not violate. People found new and better ways to do things and America prospered. We kept taking the next step, seizing the opportunities, enriching ourselves from our creativity, and opening doors that others did not even see as doors. To choose to close ourselves off from the ‘outside’ only limits our access to more opportunities to advance and prosper.

And then there is the most important reason of all to live in the real world. America was created and grew from a spirit that looked outward, that sought the distant horizon, and that truly reached for the stars. Shrinking back from what is hard and difficult, what everyone thinks cannot be done is not the American way. We may have lost focus and have gotten lazy, but to live we must choose to move forward or we accept that we are not the future and let other overtake us. Either we believe in ourselves and our affirmation that freedom and democracy are the only way that we will live; or we crawl away to our caves and leave the world to the fitter survivors to come. You can hide and die, or do and live. It’s your choice.