Rand Paul: The 'X Factor' in 2016

   On Tuesday, the second domino fell in the race for the Republican presidential nomination when Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky announced his candidacy for president. This should come as a surprise to no one who has been paying attention, as Paul has been talking about running for at least a year. And while he stands little chance of winning the White House, or even surviving his own party's primaries, don't underestimate him. Win or lose, Paul could exercise a significant influence on who wins the GOP nomination, maybe even the White House.
   Rand Paul is the son of longtime Texas Congressman and perennial presidential candidate Ron Paul. Before being elected to the Senate, he was an opthamalogist. And while he is a libertarian like his father and shares many of the same views, he also has several important differences with the elder Paul. While Ron Paul drew fire four years ago when some seemingly racist writings surfaced, the younger Paul has gone out of his way to speak at historically black colleges and universities and has made an effort to reach out to minority voters. While the elder Paul was a strict isolationist when it came to foreign policy, Rand Paul understands that this is not a position we an afford to take.
   Perhaps Paul's biggest advantage as he joins the race is a high level of name recognition. His father, Ron, enjoyed a great deal of grass-roots support, especially among younger voters hungry for a change from the status-quo. Rand is likely to inherit that support, along with whatever fund-raising network his father had established.
   Rand's biggest disadvantage is the same as his father's: His libertarian views are largely outside the mainstream of his party, and his willingness to speak out, even against his own party line, is likely to alienate his party's leaders. Like his father, Rand is an ideologue who stands on principle. But having the right idea can only take you so far. Unless you have the ability to sell that idea to others, you remain just an ideologue with the right idea and no chance at seeing that idea become a reality. That makes for a largely  ineffective leader, which I fear would be Rand's fate in the unlikely event that he became president.
   That doesn't mean, however, that Paul couldn't have an impact on this election. In fact, I view him as the "X factor" in this election, the same way Ralph Nader was ultimately the deciding factor in the election of 2000. Paul has almost no shot of winning his party's nomination. He knows that, even if he won't admit it publicly. But he does have a loyal, grassroots following, just like his father. Combine that with voters who are fed up with the status-quo, who view the two parties as largely identical, and it's possible that he could draw enough votes off of one candidate to throw the election to the other.
   I have said for years that what this country needs is a viable third party to offer voters a real alternative to the two entrenched parties. But Rand Paul is not that alternative. Hopefully, he will realize that and withdraw quietly before any real, lasting damage is done.
    

Ted Cruz' candidacy bad news for GOP

On Monday, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz ended months of speculation on the worst kept secret in America when he formally declared his candidacy for president. There's been little doubt that the White House was his ultimate goal ever since he came to Washington, but now that the junior senator from Texas has made it official, members of his party should be quaking in their boots. If he somehow manages to pull off a miracle and become the nominee in 2016, it will only help guarantee a Democratic victory in the race for the White House.
   Cruz is the worst possible nominee for the GOP. He is a backbench bomb-thrower cut from the same mold as former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. He is a virulent narcissist who loves to hear himself talk. But while he certainly knows how to draw attention to himself and generate headlines, he has accomplished little during his time in the Senate except to grandstand (see his attempted filibuster in an attempt to kill Obamacare) and damage his party's credibility by leading the charge to shut down government in 2013.
   Make no mistake. Cruz is a formidable candidate. He has been described as "off the charts brilliant" by his former Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz. Thanks to his constant self-promotion, he has wide-spread name recognition and won't have to waste time letting voters know who he is. That's a definite plus when it comes to fundraising. Cruz has worked hard to ingratiate himself with the GOP's Tea Party wing. Today, he is recognized as a leader of the movement. That should help him in the primaries, where the most hardcore party members tend to exert more influence. Should he become the nominee, however, his uncompromising nature could become a liability.
   The problem is that not most voters don't reside on the political extremes. Most reside in what Cruz has derisively labeled "the mushy middle." Cruz has been outspoken in criticizing members of his own party, including former presidential nominees John McCain and Mitt Romney. That has undoubtedly cost him the support of some of the most powerful leaders in the GOP. And since he has shown no interest in moderating his rhetoric or moving even an inch toward the political middle, it calls into question his ability to lead should he somehow win the White House.
   Good government is about more than having the right ideas. To be an effective leader, one has to be able to sell those ideas to others. Being a good leader means being willing to compromise. It means being willing to take baby steps forward instead of trying to get everything you want all at once. If Cruz has shown anything, it's that compromise is a foreign concept to him. Instead of being willing to work patiently toward his goals, he prefers to be a bull in a china shop. He prefers to make noise and go for the juicy soundbite instead of looking toward the final goal. He has shown no concern about alienating members of his own party. That "maverick" spirit may play well with voters, but if he wins, it will ultimately leave him without allies when he needs them most and will lessen his effectiveness as president.
   Ted Cruz candidacy is an exercise in ego. And while it may be hailed in some quarters, we can only hope that cooler, wiser heads prevail and Cruz will ultimately fail. We deserve better than a narcissist stroking his own ego by running for president. We deserve better than a leader who would rather make a point than get results. We deserve better than Ted Cruz.

Looking forward toward 2016

   It's more than a year before our next presidential election, and already, contenders from both parties are lining up. So who has the best chance to replace President Barack Obama? Will historic trends continue and will 2016 be the Republicans' year? Will Hillary finally realize her destiny and win the White House that she has coveted practically since the day she and former President Bill Clinton left in 2000? Or will the Republicans finally field a candidate with a chance to  win the presidency?
   Of course, it's a little early to know for sure who will separate themselves from the crowded field of presidential wannabes, but it's never too early  to begin handicapping the field and trying to determine who we'll still be talking about a year from now. Below, I have broken the field down by party. Only those candidates who I feel have a legitimate shot have been included.

Democrats

   Hillary Clinton: The Democratic nomination appears to be Clinton's to lose at this point. She has been part of the national political scene for almost a quarter century, first as first lady during husband Bill's presidency, then as Democratic senator from New York and most recently as Secretary of State under Barack Obama. In 2008, she very nearly won the nomination outright, becoming the first woman to headline a major party ticket. Clinton has unrivaled name recognition and a resume that few can touch. She enjoys a vast network of donors. And, of course, there's her ace in the hole: her husband, Bill.
   Bill Clinton is, without a doubt, the most gifted politician this nation has seen in the last 50 years. Who else could have survived a sleazy White House sex scandal and impeachment while making his political enemies look bad and coming out the other side more popular than ever? Clinton has maintained his popularity since leaving the White House, and there' s no doubt that his popularity and political genius could benefit his wife.
   Clinton's biggest weakness is, ironically, also one of her strengths. Her long history in the public eye means that she has a record separate from Bill's that she has to defend. And as big an asset as Bill could be, he also could prove a liability. Bill Clinton was only the second president to be impeached. The Monica Lewinsky scandal dragged this nation through the sewer, and not everyone has forgotten that.
   Then, there's Clinton fatigue." Bill and Hillary have been part of our nation's political life since 1992. Many Americans are tired of seeing their name on the ballot every four years, and many would vote for "anyone but Clinton." Still, even with these obstacles to overcome, Hillary has to be considered the odds-on favorite to win the nomination next year.

Joe Biden: Biden is the only other person with a realistic chance to win the nomination, at least so far. Biden's strengths include his vast experience in government and his name recognition. He served in the U.S. Senate from 1973 until 2008, when he became vice president. He is former chairman of both the Senate Judiciary and Foreign Relations Committee. And he has run for president twice before, in 1988 and 2008. That experience should serve him well in what promises to be a wide open race to replace the popular Obama.
   The problem with Biden is that he has not used his time as vice president to his fullest advantage. In fact, he has made several notable public gaffes, so much so that he is regarded as somewhat of an intellectual lightweight in some circles, much like former Vice President Dan Quayle under Bush the Elder. Historically, vice presidents are seen as having a major advantage when they decide to seek the top office. Just ask the elder Bush, who was swept into office thanks to Ronald Reagan's popularity. Biden doesn't appear to have that advantage. Then, there's his age -- he's 72.  Still, so far, he's the only person who can pose a real threat to the Clinton juggernaut.

Jim Webb: The former Virginia senator is a little bit of an enigma. He's a Democrat who managed to win in largely Republican Virginia. That shows he has some cross-over appeal. Still, I don't think he has the name recognition or the bonafides to mount a serious threat to either Clinton or Biden.

John Kerry: Kerry has not expressed a formal interest in running yet, but if he did, he would be formidable. Like Clinton, he has a sterling resume, having served in the U.S. Senate from 1985-2013. He is currently Secretary of State. And he is both a genuine war hero and a former Democratic nominee for president in 2004. He's been there before, and one can only assume that he learned from his past missteps.
   The problem with Kerry is that he's "damaged goods." In 2004, George W. Bush successfully painted him as a stereotypical Massachusetts liberal, an elitist blue-blood -- much as his father had done to Michael Dukakis in 1988. It's an image he is yet to overcome. Add to that the controversy over Kerry's actions upon returning from Vietnam, and it's doubtful that Democrats would take another chance on him in 2016.

Al Gore: Another dark horse who is yet to declare a formal interest. Gore would be an intriguing candidate. He is a former U.S. senator from Tennessee who served as vice president for eight years under Bill Clinton. In 2000, he very nearly rode Clinton's popularity into the White House, losing the election by less than 600 votes.
   Gore brings vast knowledge of government policy to the table. He is the quintessential "policy wonk." But Gore never had Clinton's personal charisma. He wasn't a popular vice president. And his somewhat extreme views on the environment have made him a punchline and alienated him from the more mainstream elements of his own party. He would be a major risk if Democrats hope to hold the White House.

Republicans

Jeb Bush: So far, the odds-on favorite for mainstream Republicans. Jeb is a former Florida governor who is seen as less extreme than his brother, George. As far as assets, perhaps his biggest is his family name and political pedigree. Both his father and older brother are former presidents. That gives him instant name recognition that would be hard to beat, at least in the early going. That pedigree also gives him access to the vast Bush political machine and network of donors. Win or lose, Bush would run an extremely well-financed campaign.
   Bush faces at least two major obstacles as he prepares to step onto the national stage. First, and perhaps most problematic, is the baggage he inherits from his older brother. George W. Bush was seen as an extremist by many, even within his own party. His elective war against Iraq, his support of the use of torture against suspected terrorists and his use of Guantanamo Bay to hold prisoners indefinitely all made him extremely unpopular. Jeb is already seen by many within his party as less extreme than his brother, but he would still have a tall mountain to climb to prove that to the average American. Many of us have not forgotten the nightmare of the George W. Bush years, and it would take a lot to prove that he's really different from his brother.
   The other obstacle facing Bush is the same facing Hillary Clinton: public fatigue with his family. Think about this: Since 1980, a Bush or Clinton has either been president, been within a step of the presidency or occupied some other major government post. We've had two Bushes serve as president so far. To many, Jeb's ascension makes it seem as if he is simply continuing the family dynasty by taking his turn.

Ted Cruz: The Texas senator and Tea Party darling is perhaps the scariest of the possible 2016 contenders. What makes his interest in the White House so ironic is that Cruz led the charge to shut down the government in 2013. And now, he wants to head that government? What an opportunist. Cruz is a virulent narcissist and a bomb-thrower in the grand tradition of Newt Gingrich. While he is undeniably  brilliant and a master at garnering headlines for himself, he also represents the most extreme elements of his party. While that may appeal to the hardcore primary voters, it won't play well during the general election. Most Americans, regardless of party, occupy the political middle, and there's no way for Cruz to ever successfully paint himself as a moderate.

Rand Paul:  The biggest thing Rand Paul has going for him in 2016 is name recognition, thanks to his father, Ron's perennial quest for the White House. Over the years, Ron Paul has built quite a impressive network of  grassroots support, both among Libertarians and among those fed up with the status quo. Rand Paul would automatically inherit that support.
   Rand Paul's biggest liability looking toward 2016 is that he shares many of his father's more extreme positions. While it may sound good to promise to eliminate the Department of Education, for instance, that will never realistically happen. And there's the problem. Paul, like his father before him, is an ideologue. His ideas might sound good, but his chances of actually making them a reality are slim to none. If he were to become president, he would prove to be an extremely ineffective leader. And a presidency cannot survive on ideas alone.

  Bobby Jindal: The Louisiana governor has made no secret of his desire to be president. In fact, if you look at his career in public life, every move he's made has had that as his ultimate goal. Jindal is a former U.S. representative and served as head of the state's public college system before becoming governor. Since becoming governor, he has taken every opportunity to raise his profile nationally, often lecturing the national party on how they can better connect with voters. The problem is, his actions often belie the wisdom of that advice.
   While head of the University of Louisiana system, Jindal spearheaded an effort to change the names of the state's universities, thus stripping them of any of their unique identities. As governor, he led an effort to privatize the state's hospital system, going so far as to push through a contract with 50 blank pages, presumably to be filled in by the company that took over the system. Jindal was originally one of the leading proponents of the Common Core national education standards. Once they gained traction, he promptly changed sides and has been trying to repeal them in Louisiana ever since.
   Jindal is undeniably brilliant. But he has shown that he lacks the ability to lead. He is a "fair weather" politician who will support an idea when it suits his needs, then promptly change his mind when it no longer serves him. While he might make a decent vice presidential pick (and even that's doubtful), he lacks the name recognition among the general public to be considered anything but a dark horse candidate.

   Chris Christie:  Another intriguing candidate. The New Jersey governor has been on the public's radar for awhile. He won widespread praise for his leadership following Superstorm Sandy in 2013. And he has occasionally shown an independent streak by giving praise to Democrats when it's due, and even criticizing members of his own party in public. The question is, how would that translate in a long presidential campaign? Could Christie be seen as "Republican enough" by hardcore primary voters? And if he did win the nomination, would he be able to moderate his positions enough to gain the trust of the average voter in the general election? It's a formula that almost worked to perfection for Arizona Sen. John McCain in 2008. But McCain had years of experience on the national stage and a lengthy record of being a political "maverick." Both of these are things Christie lacks. At best, Christie is a dark horse candidate. He'd make an excellent vice presidential pick, but despite showing flashes of promise, he's not quite ready for prime time, at least not in 2016.

 

MLK's birthday should be more than another day off

On Monday, millions of school children across the country will get a day off to honor Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday. While it is certainly right that we should pause to honor Dr. King, I think his birthday should represent more than just another day off. To truly honor the man, we should use the day to learn more about him and to put his guiding principles of non-violence into practice.
   There can be no denying that what King accomplished in just a dozen years was monumental. In that short time, he rose up and challenged the system of "separate but equal" legal segregation that had been in place for almost a century. Through his advocacy of non-violent civil disobedience, he broke the back of that corrupt system and shepherded through both the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Those two pieces of legislation finally made "Jim Crow" illegal and ushered in a new era of equality that had been unimaginable just a few years before. Clearly, he is a modern-day hero worthy of being celebrated.
   But the King that we celebrate today is far different than the real man. Today, he has become more myth than man. We regard him as some kind of modern saint, someone who spoke beautifully and lived some kind of blameless life. But did you know that King originally didn't even want to lead the Civil Rights movement? He tried to back out of organizing the 1956 Montgomery bus boycott that brought him to national prominence. Did you know that he was a bit of a womanizer who cheated on his wife, Coretta?
   King hardly was a saint. He was a man with his doubts and his human failings. He also was a man with extraordinary gifts of oratory and leadership, someone who stepped into a movement that was hungry  for a leader, who was in the right place at the right time.
    It's easy to raise King to the level of sainthood. What he accomplished was extraordinary, and he did die too young. One can only wonder what might have happened if he had survived. One wonders what he would have thought of everything that has happened since, what message he might have for us today. But to truly honor him, we need to put an end to Martin Luther King Jr. the Myth and learn about Martin Luther King Jr -- the Man. He wasn't a modern-day saint. He was an ordinary  man, one with both extraordinary gifts and ordinary flaws. It's those flaws -- the fact that he was just an ordinary man -- that make what he accomplished so very extraordinary.
   To honor the man, we also should put his principles of non-violent civil disobedience into practice, not just on his birthday, but every day. King accomplished a great deal, but there are many issues today that he could never have imagined. It's those issues -- the continued presence of racism and issues of racial profiling, among others -- that could benefit from King's non-violent philosophy.
    Dr. Martin Luther King was a great American, one worthy of our respect and honor. But we do him a disservice when we ignore the realities of his struggle in favor of perpetuating the modern-day myth.

Catching up on the latest happenings in Washington and elsewhere

   It's been awhile since I've updated this blog, so there's a lot that's happened that bears comment. Let's start with the biggest and most obvious:

Midterm elections: It was with real dismay that I viewed the victory of Republicans in recent midterm elections. Have we forgotten what a disaster it was the last time Republicans controlled both houses of Congress? In 1994, we witnessed the "Republican Revolution" led by Newt Gingrich. What followed was 20 years of incompetence that saw us engage in a two-front war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the passage of the USA Patriot Act, which gave our government unprecedented power, the detainment and torture of hundreds of inmates at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the wiretapping of our own citizens and economic disaster. It was the Republicans who led the last government shutdown. And now, we want to put them in charge again? Oh, brother.
   If Republicans have proven one thing, it's that they don't know how to govern. They are flat out incapable of it. Of course, it's not like the Democrats have done much better while in charge. One thing we can look forward to now, though, is a long two years for President Obama. If he thought he had a hard time passing legislation before, now he's going to find it almost impossible, as Republicans gear up for the presidential election in 2016.
   Personally, it makes me nervous when one party controls Congress. I don't like it when one party runs everything. As painful as it is to watch, it's always better when we have a split Congress. It means that both parties get a voice. It means neither party gets everything it wants. Both parties are forced to compromise, and we get better legislation as a result. It's going to be a long two years.
Hillary Clinton: The former first lady, New York senator and Secretary of State made news again recently, and it wasn't just a possible 2016 presidential candidate. In a speech last month at Georgetown University, Clinton suggested that we should (gasp) try to understand our enemies. The outcry from the Right was predictable, but you know what? She was absolutely right.
   If we are going to continue to wage the doomed "War on Terror," the least we could do is try and understand our enemies. Specifically, we need a reality check on why they hate us so much. And make no mistake. In much of the world, we are not "the White Knight," always on the right side of every issue. In much of the world, we are "the Great Satan."
   Here's a dose of reality. The "War on Terror" is doomed to failure, just like the "War on Drugs" before it and Lyndon Johnson's "War on Poverty." Why? Because we are not fighting a traditional war against a traditional enemy. We are waging war on a philosophy. The people we're fighting are fanatics who are willing to die for their cause. And for every terrorist we kill, for every terrorist leader we capture or take out of commission, there are 10 more ready to take their place.
   Here's another dose of reality: Our foreign policy does not happen in a vacuum. The actions we take on the world stage do have real-world consequences. Does that excuse the terrorists who attacked us on Sept. 11, 2001? Of course not. Nothing can ever excuse that type of violence. But it's high time we stopped holding ourselves blameless for what happened on Sept. 11. The 19 terrorists who attacked us had their reasons. They were twisted and wrong, yes. But they had their reasons.
Mary Landrieu: A little closer to home, Louisiana voters made a big mistake when they voted to send Mary Landrieu home after 18 years in the U.S. Senate. Landrieu wasn't perfect. But she was the victim of a negative campaign that was full of outright falsehoods. "Mary Landrieu is working against us?" Hardly. Did she support her party line most of the time? Of course, as does every politician. But Landrieu was notable for bucking her party on many issues and voting as her constituents would have her vote. She was hardly a "Nancy Pelosi liberal." She was, in fact, a conservative Democrat. And she was a senator who had slowly worked her way up the ranks into some fairly influential positions. If she had been allowed to stay, who knows how far she might have gone? Without a doubt, she could have proven a real boon to our state. And now we have to start over at the bottom of the ladder with a junior senator who has hardly distinguished himself during his time in Congress.
   It's not a surprise that Bill Cassidy won. Louisiana has been trending Republican for years, and it's really more of a surprise that Landrieu was allowed to stay for so long. But in the long run, I think we're going to miss Mary Landrieu. I think we're going to miss the benefits she could have brought home to Louisiana. And we have no one to blame but ourselves.

Have we forgotten 9/11?

   Have we forgotten 9/11? That question occurred to me last night when I suddenly realized that the somber anniversary had sneaked up on me and I had barely given it a thought. That used to never happen. In the years immediately following the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on New York and Washington D.C.,  it was an easy anniversary to remember. With the subsequent invasion of Afghanistan and the start of the Iraq War in 2003, it was on everyone's mind pretty much all the time. Now, most of the troops have come home. We haven't seen anything like 9/11 since that awful Tuesday morning. Osama bin Laden, the fanatical mastermind behind the attacks, has been dead since 2011. Is it any wonder, then, that most Americans have moved on?
   In some ways, our ability to move on from the 9/11 attacks is a positive sign of healing. It shows that we are a resilient people. But in some ways, it also is disturbing. We talk every year about how we should never forget 9/11 and those who died. We talk about how we should always remember the lessons we learned during that awful time. Then, when the anniversary is over, we blithely go on with our lives, never giving it a second thought until the next anniversary rolls around.
   We must do better than that. We owe it to the victims, and we owe it to future generations, never to forget the lessons we learned that day. And what were those lessons?
   First, that America is not an island, isolated and whole unto itself. We are not immune to the terrorist attacks that plague other parts of the world. It can happen here. It did happen here. And it could happen again.
   When I was growing up, I remember hearing about the wars and the tragedies that afflicted other parts of the world. Those "other places" seemed so distant to me. I felt safe, certain that such things could never happen here. After all, we were America, the most powerful nation in the world. No one would dare attack us, or so I thought. Unfortunately, that was a delusion shared by most Americans of my and earlier generations. It was that delusion, that sense of invulnerability, that innocence, that died that day. We cannot afford to ever be that innocent again.
   Second, we learned that our actions on the world stage do have consequences. On Monday, I sat for an hour or two and watched the rebroadcast of the "Today" show that aired on Sept. 11, 2001. Several times during that broadcast, we were reminded that America was widely hated in the Middle East at that time because of our unwavering support of Israel. It was suggested by the show's hosts that this might have been a motive for the attacks.
   As a loyal American, it's hard to hear that not everyone in the world is our friend. We like to think of ourselves as the world's police force, the "white knights," always ready to ride to the rescue of those in need. Above all, we see ourselves as "the good guys." The 9/11 attacks proved that not everyone  in the world see us that way. It also proved that our actions don't take place in a vacuum. Our foreign policy -- indeed every decision we make -- has very real consequences, both for Americans and for those in far-flung countries.
   Finally, the 9/11 attacks showed us the importance of safeguarding our freedoms. It showed us that, we, too, have a dark side, that when threatened, we are capable of doing some awful things.
   In the days immediately following the attacks, we were a nation in shock. We were angry and we were scared. It was that fear that caused us to condone the passage of the USA PATRIOT Act, which gave our government unprecedented power. It was that fear which allowed us to look the other way while our government held hundreds of prisoners indefinitely at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, engaged in torture in order to gain information, and even wiretap its own citizens.
   In some ways, the 9/11 attacks brought us together as only a national tragedy can. For a short while, at least, partisan divisions were forgotten and we all were just Americans. In some ways, it brought out the worst in us
   We have survived the dark times, and today, 13 years after the worst terrorist attack ever on U.S. soil, we are once again thriving. I can only hope that as the memory of those attacks continues to fade into the mists of history. we won't forget the lessons that thousands of innocent Americans died to teach us. If we simply go on, if we allow those lessons to be forgotten, then the blood of those innocents will have been spilled in vain. That can never be allowed to happen.

Supreme Court got it wrong on public prayer ruling

  The U.S. Supreme Court got it wrong on Monday when it ruled that government bodies may open their meetings with prayer. Unless such prayers are open to people of other faiths and a real effort is made to have people of other, non-Christian religions offer those prayers, it is a clear violation of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause and an illegal endorsement of religion.

    In City of Greece, N.Y. v. Galloway, justices ruled 5-4 that offering sectarian prayers before meetings didn’t automatically violate the First Amendment. The key, justices said, is that these prayers don’t attempt to intimidate, coerce or convert non-believers. In a weak attempt to place some limits on this misguided ruling, justices also said that prayers that “denigrate non-believers or religious minorities, threaten damnation or preach conversion” might not pass constitutional muster.

I am a Christian. I believe in God. But when it comes to First Amendment issues – especially freedom of speech and freedom of religion -- I’m an absolutist. If a local government wants to put a copy of the Ten Commandments in the courthouse, I have no issue with that – so long as people from other faiths have an opportunity to post Scripture from their holy books. That means everyone – Christians, Wiccans, Satanists, even atheists. Either everyone is given the same opportunity to post what they want, or to lead prayers before government meetings, or no one should be allowed to do so. It’s that simple.

   The problem with the Court’s ruling is that it is largely unenforceable. Justices said public prayers shouldn’t “attempt to intimidate, coerce or convert non-believers.” They said prayers that “denigrated non-believers or religious minorities, threatened damnation or preached conversion” could be ruled unconstitutional. But who now is to define what counts as intimidation or coercion? Who now is going to define what counts as “denigrating non-believers and religious minorities? With this ruling, the Court has effectively maintained the status quo. Justices have virtually guaranteed that things will remain unchanged, with religious minorities and non-believers being subjected to prayers that might make them uncomfortable. Only this time, those who are offended or made uncomfortable will have little legal recourse.

   With this ruling, justices have opened Pandora’s Box. How long do you think it will be before local governments nationwide use the ruling to begin posting copies of the Ten Commandments in courthouses, or even Bibles on the courthouse lawn? Does anyone think that members of religious minorities and non-believers will be afforded the same opportunity? Right. I wouldn’t hold my breath.
   It’s unfortunate that so many Americans are laboring under the illusion that the United States is a Christian nation that was founded on Christian principles. We are not. We never have been. Look at our early history. Our founders were largely Deists. They believed in God, but not much else. Thomas Jefferson even tore his Bible apart and removed all references to miracles and the supernatural, creating the so-called “Jefferson Bible.” At least two of the earliest states – Maryland and Rhode Island – were founded specifically to protect religious freedom – Maryland to protect Catholics and Rhode Island for Baptists.
   The point is, our founders never intended to create a strictly Christian nation. They understood the dangers of establishing a state religion. And they believed that one’s faith – or lack of faith – was a matter of conscience.
   Today, we are a nation that enjoys a greater degree of religious freedom than any other nation in the world. We may not always agree with each other, but unlike many other countries, we live and work peacefully beside each other.  Our freedom to choose – to believe or not to believe – has resulted in a breathtaking diversity of faiths. It’s that freedom of conscience and that diversity that this ruling is seeking to undermine, and it is that freedom that must be protected.