On Aug. 11, presumptive GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney unveiled Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan as his pick for vice presidential running mate. While some have hailed the pick as "excellent," including the predictably conservative Wall Street Journal, the truth is, Ryan's positions make him wholly unsuitable for the job. In fact, I predict what seemed a safe pick at the time may ultimately sink Romney in the general election.
Who is Paul Ryan? He's a seven-term Congressman from Wisconsin, first elected in 1998. At one time, he was a follower of the writings of Ayn Rand, even going so far as to give her books as Christmas presents, though he has since disavowed her influence. He has risen quickly through the Republican heirarchy, and currently serves as the chairman of the House Budget Committee. From that position, he has proposed several controversial budgets, which among other things, would partially privatize Social Security and would turn Medicaid into a block grant for the states. Ryan also wants to replace Medicare with a voucher program for seniors to allow them to purchase private insurance. The problem? The amount of the vouchers would be fixed, and would not increase as medical costs increased (as people age). That means eventually, seniors would end up at least partially uninsured.
Ryan has made his name as the ultimate fiscal conservative. But look at his ideas, and you'll see that he's hardly in favor of helping the middle class or the poor. At the beginning of his tenure in Congress, he voted to extend unemployment benefits. He has not done so since 2009 (read, since Obama has been in the White House). Ryan voted against the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act for Women. He also voted against the Credit Card Consumer Bill of Rights and against the Frank-Dodd Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. As far as tax policy, he, among other things, favors the creation of an 8.5 percent "consumption tax." Often billed as the fairest form of taxation, since you essentially "pay as you go," this is, in reality, a regressive tax that hits the middle class and the poor the hardest, since it would take a bigger portion of these people's income to pay it.
Ryan's fiscal ideas are scary. What's even scarier are his ideas on social policy.
As a Republican, Ryan is virulently pro-life. That's no surprise. What's scary is the degree to which he takes this stance. Ryan opposes all abortions, even those being performed as a result of rape or incest. But he wants to give states the right to prosecute women who have abortions. He voted for the "Sanctity of Life" Act, which would have given personhood, as well as Constitutional rights and privileges, to fertilized eggs. He has consistently voted to cut funding for Planned Parenthood and Title X family planning programs. And he has resisted efforts to give over-the-counter status to emergency contraception. In short, in his pro-life stance alone, Paul Ryan seeks to set women back 100 years. He wants to bring women back to a time of being "barefoot and pregnant." He wants to deny them vital information which could help them make an informed choice about when or if to start a family. And he wants to deny them easy access to reliable contraception. That's scary.
And then there's Ryan's apparent dislike of gays and transgender people. He voted against the Matthew Shepard Act, which extends the definition of "hate crime" to include crimes committed against people because of their sexual orientation or sexual identity. He is opposed to same-sex marriage (he favors a constitutional ban), opposed the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" and he is opposed to allowing gay couples to adopt.
Finally, there's Ryan's questionable stance on free-speech issues. He favors cutting funding for National Public Radio and passing a Constitutional amendment banning flag burning. That issue was settled in 1989, when the U.S. Supreme Court declared it an act of free speech. So, the question is, does Ryan oppose free speech? Or does he only oppose speech that conflicts with his own, narrow view of the world?
In some ways, Romney's choice of Ryan is smart, just like everything else he's done during this campaign. Ryan is young (he's 42). He's photogenic. He's certainly got the conservative "bonafides" to please just about everyone in his party. And his home state doesn't hurt matters, either. Wisconsin is a largely Democratic state. By picking Ryan, I'm sure Romney is hoping to make inroads there for the GOP.
So why will Romney ultimately regret choosing Ryan? Because Ryan's views are far outside the mainstream of the vast majority of Americans, who tend to gravitate toward the political middle. Ryan's views appeal to the most hardcore segments of his party, the "Tea Party Republicans," is you will. But I don't think they represent the views of the vast majority of the electorate. I don't think they appeal even to the majority of his own party. And being such an extremist on so many issues will only serve to alienate the all-important "swing voter."
Romney has spent a large portion of this election trying to paint himself as a more moderate Republican, someone who can govern successfully across party lines. Romney's record as governor of Massachussetts would seem to indicate that he's capable of governing from the middle.
That's why the choice of Ryan is such a mystery. Paul Ryan is an extremist. No doubt about it. I would hesitate to put him one step away from the presidency. and I think (at least I hope) the majority of voters would feel the same way. I believe, in the end, that this might be a case of Mitt Romney, "the smart candidate," finally outsmarting himself.
Thursday, August 23, 2012
Tuesday, August 7, 2012
What has happened to freedom of religion?
Several news stories in the past few weeks have led me to wonder if we still cherish the idea of freedom of religion in this country. Do we still believe that every person, no matter where they come from, has a right to practice their religion as they see fit, as a matter of conscience (or to not practice religion at all)? Or have we bought into the false idea that America was founded as a "Christian nation," where only Christians are allowed to practice openly and freely?
Of course, what started all this was the now-infamous interview with the Dan Cathy, the president of Chick-Fil-A, in which he dared to state that his company supported the "biblical view of marriage." (translation: His company is against gay marriage.) Faster than you could say "waffle fries," the interview had gone viral, thanks to social media, and had become a cause celebre for people on both sides, those who support gay rights, including the right to marry, and those who don't. Lost in all the shouting was what Cathy actually said.
Cathy said his company supports the "biblical view" of marriage. He did not say that his company discriminates against employees because of their orientation. He did not say that he would fire an otherwise exemplary employee if he found out he or she was gay. Only that his company supported what is becoming an increasingly unpopular view. And really, is Chick-Fil-A's stance really that much of a shock to ANYONE? The company has always presented itself as being run according to Christian principles. They've always been closed on Sunday, in observation of the Sabbath, for instance. So why are people now outraged that they actually took a stand based on those principles?
To be clear, I am a supporter of equality for gays, including the right to marry. I detest discrimination in any form. But as long as Chick-Fil-A isn't engaging in discrimination of any kind against gays or anyone else, they have a right to run their business as they see fit, and according to whatever principles they choose. Don't like it? You have the right not to go there.
What I find even more disturbing than the overblown hype over Chick-Fil-A is the outright hypocrisy and false piety of its supporters. Thousands turned out for a recent "Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day" organized by former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee. But as someone rightly pointed out, where are these same people when volunteers are needed for the local soup kitchen or the homeless shelter? I'll tell you where. Safely tucked into their nice homes in their nice neighborhoods pretending the bad stuff doesn't exist. These "fair-weather" Christians don't actually want to get down in the trenches, as Jesus frequently did when he ate with sinners and tax collectors. They're happy to flaunt their faith when it's easiest, when all it takes is buying a chicken sandwich. Sad.
Another story that makes me question our commitment to freedom of religion falls a little closer to home for me, since it takes place in Tennessee, just a couple of hours from my old hometown of Jackson.
It was reported last week that Grace Baptist Church of Murfreesboro had erected a display of 13 white crosses in a field across from the church and next door to the new Islamic Center of Murfreesboro. Mack Richards, a member of Middle Tennessee Baptist Church who built the crosses for his friend, Bobby Francis, a member at Grace, said the display was conducted to "make a statement to the Muslims about how we felt about our religion, our Christianity."
"We wanted them to see the crosses and know how we felt about things," Richards said.
The Islamic Center of Murfreesboro has been beset by controversy since it was first proposed in 2010. Among other problems, the construction site has been vandalized several times, there was an arson attempt involving the construction equipment and it was the subject of a bomb threat called in on the anniversary of Sept. 11. It has also been embroiled in a court hearing in which opponents tried to claim that Islam wasn't a religion.
Fortunately, the center is set to open some time this week pending final inspections and the issuing of a certificate of occupancy. But all the hullabaloo over the center only confirms for me what I have believed for years: Some Christians can be bullies. Some are downright scary.
Americans like to brag that we are the most free nation on earth. That's a lie. The truth is, we want freedom only for ourselves and for those who think like us. The first time we encounter someone who challenges our nice, safe view of the world, whether they be gay, Muslim, whatever, we want to shut them down. We want to shut them up so they don't challenge our predetermined view of the world.
This isn't how freedom is supposed to work. Freedom of speech doesn't just mean that we have a right to say what we please. Nor does freedom of speech mean only those who agree with us have a right to be heard. True freedom of speech means that everyone has a right to be heard, even those whose thoughts and opinions make our blood boil. You can react any way you want to those you disagree with (within the law). You can yell. You can argue. You can walk away. What you can't do under the First Amendment is shut them up.
Likewise, freedom of religion doesn't just guarantee freedom for Christians. Freedom of religion means we have the right to worship any way we choose and in accordance with our own conscience. We can be Christian. We can be Muslim. We can be Jewish or pagan or Sikh. Heck, even Satanists are protected under freedom of religion. We even have the right to not believe or not worship at all, if that's what we choose.
Opponents of the mosque say the cross display is meant to show their new Muslim neighbors "how we feel about our Christianity, how we feel about things." The irony of it all is that through their actions, they are showing that they have little, if any, understanding of what Jesus taught.
Jesus didn't teach hate. He didn't teach intolerance. And he certainly didn't teach violence against others. Jesus preached love. He practiced forgiveness. Look at his actions, and you'll see that he spent most of his time communing with those others considered sinners and outcasts. Jesus didn't preach that he or his followers were above, or even any better than, others. Instead, he taught that to be first, you must be last. That to be great, you must serve others. I daresay if Jesus were here right now and saw what his "followers" in Murfreesboro were doing, he would be appalled, ashamed at how his message of love and forgiveness had been corrupted.
Members of Grace Baptist won't voice it. But they've bought into the idea that all Muslims are extremists, that Islam is a religion of terrorists. What they're forgetting is that every religion has its extremists, even Christianity. Look at our history, and you'll see that Christianity has plenty of blood on its hands. From the Crusades to the Inquisition, from those who shoot abortion doctors to Westboro Baptist Church today, each of these is an example of Christian extremism. Most Christians would rightly argue that these examples are far removed from the norm, that they represent just a tiny portion of Christians today. They would rightly argue that it's unfair to judge an entire religion based on the acts of a few. Well, the same thing is true of Islam. The vast majority of Muslims today are peaceful people. They're not out to "kill the infidel," and those who are represent the tiniest possible portion of Islam's 1 billion followers worldwide. Yet, members of Grace Baptist stand ready to pass judgment on an entire faith based on the acts of a few? They want to judge Muslims in the harshest possible light, in a way they themselves would not want to be judged?
This is wrong. It is bigotry based on misguided fear and ignorance. It goes against Jesus' teachings on "Loving thy neighbor." And it violates the spirit and the intent of the First Amendment's guarantee to freedom of religion. These people want to say they are standing up for their faith. The reality is, their actions show they are anything but Christian.
Of course, what started all this was the now-infamous interview with the Dan Cathy, the president of Chick-Fil-A, in which he dared to state that his company supported the "biblical view of marriage." (translation: His company is against gay marriage.) Faster than you could say "waffle fries," the interview had gone viral, thanks to social media, and had become a cause celebre for people on both sides, those who support gay rights, including the right to marry, and those who don't. Lost in all the shouting was what Cathy actually said.
Cathy said his company supports the "biblical view" of marriage. He did not say that his company discriminates against employees because of their orientation. He did not say that he would fire an otherwise exemplary employee if he found out he or she was gay. Only that his company supported what is becoming an increasingly unpopular view. And really, is Chick-Fil-A's stance really that much of a shock to ANYONE? The company has always presented itself as being run according to Christian principles. They've always been closed on Sunday, in observation of the Sabbath, for instance. So why are people now outraged that they actually took a stand based on those principles?
To be clear, I am a supporter of equality for gays, including the right to marry. I detest discrimination in any form. But as long as Chick-Fil-A isn't engaging in discrimination of any kind against gays or anyone else, they have a right to run their business as they see fit, and according to whatever principles they choose. Don't like it? You have the right not to go there.
What I find even more disturbing than the overblown hype over Chick-Fil-A is the outright hypocrisy and false piety of its supporters. Thousands turned out for a recent "Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day" organized by former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee. But as someone rightly pointed out, where are these same people when volunteers are needed for the local soup kitchen or the homeless shelter? I'll tell you where. Safely tucked into their nice homes in their nice neighborhoods pretending the bad stuff doesn't exist. These "fair-weather" Christians don't actually want to get down in the trenches, as Jesus frequently did when he ate with sinners and tax collectors. They're happy to flaunt their faith when it's easiest, when all it takes is buying a chicken sandwich. Sad.
Another story that makes me question our commitment to freedom of religion falls a little closer to home for me, since it takes place in Tennessee, just a couple of hours from my old hometown of Jackson.
It was reported last week that Grace Baptist Church of Murfreesboro had erected a display of 13 white crosses in a field across from the church and next door to the new Islamic Center of Murfreesboro. Mack Richards, a member of Middle Tennessee Baptist Church who built the crosses for his friend, Bobby Francis, a member at Grace, said the display was conducted to "make a statement to the Muslims about how we felt about our religion, our Christianity."
"We wanted them to see the crosses and know how we felt about things," Richards said.
The Islamic Center of Murfreesboro has been beset by controversy since it was first proposed in 2010. Among other problems, the construction site has been vandalized several times, there was an arson attempt involving the construction equipment and it was the subject of a bomb threat called in on the anniversary of Sept. 11. It has also been embroiled in a court hearing in which opponents tried to claim that Islam wasn't a religion.
Fortunately, the center is set to open some time this week pending final inspections and the issuing of a certificate of occupancy. But all the hullabaloo over the center only confirms for me what I have believed for years: Some Christians can be bullies. Some are downright scary.
Americans like to brag that we are the most free nation on earth. That's a lie. The truth is, we want freedom only for ourselves and for those who think like us. The first time we encounter someone who challenges our nice, safe view of the world, whether they be gay, Muslim, whatever, we want to shut them down. We want to shut them up so they don't challenge our predetermined view of the world.
This isn't how freedom is supposed to work. Freedom of speech doesn't just mean that we have a right to say what we please. Nor does freedom of speech mean only those who agree with us have a right to be heard. True freedom of speech means that everyone has a right to be heard, even those whose thoughts and opinions make our blood boil. You can react any way you want to those you disagree with (within the law). You can yell. You can argue. You can walk away. What you can't do under the First Amendment is shut them up.
Likewise, freedom of religion doesn't just guarantee freedom for Christians. Freedom of religion means we have the right to worship any way we choose and in accordance with our own conscience. We can be Christian. We can be Muslim. We can be Jewish or pagan or Sikh. Heck, even Satanists are protected under freedom of religion. We even have the right to not believe or not worship at all, if that's what we choose.
Opponents of the mosque say the cross display is meant to show their new Muslim neighbors "how we feel about our Christianity, how we feel about things." The irony of it all is that through their actions, they are showing that they have little, if any, understanding of what Jesus taught.
Jesus didn't teach hate. He didn't teach intolerance. And he certainly didn't teach violence against others. Jesus preached love. He practiced forgiveness. Look at his actions, and you'll see that he spent most of his time communing with those others considered sinners and outcasts. Jesus didn't preach that he or his followers were above, or even any better than, others. Instead, he taught that to be first, you must be last. That to be great, you must serve others. I daresay if Jesus were here right now and saw what his "followers" in Murfreesboro were doing, he would be appalled, ashamed at how his message of love and forgiveness had been corrupted.
Members of Grace Baptist won't voice it. But they've bought into the idea that all Muslims are extremists, that Islam is a religion of terrorists. What they're forgetting is that every religion has its extremists, even Christianity. Look at our history, and you'll see that Christianity has plenty of blood on its hands. From the Crusades to the Inquisition, from those who shoot abortion doctors to Westboro Baptist Church today, each of these is an example of Christian extremism. Most Christians would rightly argue that these examples are far removed from the norm, that they represent just a tiny portion of Christians today. They would rightly argue that it's unfair to judge an entire religion based on the acts of a few. Well, the same thing is true of Islam. The vast majority of Muslims today are peaceful people. They're not out to "kill the infidel," and those who are represent the tiniest possible portion of Islam's 1 billion followers worldwide. Yet, members of Grace Baptist stand ready to pass judgment on an entire faith based on the acts of a few? They want to judge Muslims in the harshest possible light, in a way they themselves would not want to be judged?
This is wrong. It is bigotry based on misguided fear and ignorance. It goes against Jesus' teachings on "Loving thy neighbor." And it violates the spirit and the intent of the First Amendment's guarantee to freedom of religion. These people want to say they are standing up for their faith. The reality is, their actions show they are anything but Christian.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)