B"H

Tuesday, September 29, 2009

Bibliography


O'Connor, Karen and Larry J. Sabato, American Government: Roots and Reform, 2009 Edition (New York: Pearson Education, Inc., 2009)
JK276.A5475 2009
320.473—dc22
Library of Congress Number: 2008 046830
ISBN: 978-0-205-65219-8 (softcover)
ISBN: 978-0-205-65222-8 (hardcover)

Hennessey, Jonathan, illustrated by Aaron McConnell, The United States Constitution: a Graphic Adaptation (New York: Hill and Wang, 2008)
E303.H46 2009
320.973—dc22
Library of Congress Number: 2008 017927
ISBN: 978-0-8090-9470-7 (paperback)

Ginsberg, Benjamin, Theodore J.Lowi and Margaret Weir, We the People: an Introduction to American Politics, Seventh Edition (New York: W. W. Norton and Company, 2009)
JK276.G55 2008
320.473—dc22
ISBN: 978-0-393-93214-0

Lehrman, Lewis E., Lincoln at Peoria: the Turning Point (Getting Right with the Declaration of Independence) (Mechanicsburg, PA: Stackpole Books, 2008)
E457.4.L44 2008
973.7092—dc22
Library of Congress Number: 2007 050200
ISBN: 978-0-8117-0361-1

Monday, September 28, 2009

Amendment IV


"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Ginsberg et al. (page 140) quote the Supreme Court's summary of their understanding of the Fourth Amendment from the case Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (1990):

A search compromises the individual interest in privacy;
a seizure deprives the individual of dominion over his or her person or property.

Comments by Nate Segal

At first glance, I had trouble seeing why the Framers of our Constitution wrote this amendment. I've lived my life oblivious of any of these issues.

I've never had a run in with the police. I can't remember that law enforcement officials ever entered anywhere I lived until recently (by invitation). I was born in 1951, so my memory covers a broad swath of American life, not without turmoil and strife.

I grew up as a privileged white male in a privileged suburb of Chicago. Of course these issues never affected me.

What were the Framers thinking?

As I wrote before regarding the Second Amendment, it seems to me that the Framers of our Constitution and this Amendment wanted to prevent the government abuses that they suffered from the King of Great Britain.

THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE


". . . the present King of Great-Britain . . ."

  • "HE has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
  • "HE has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the Tenure of their Offices, and the Amount and Payment of their Salaries.
  • "HE has erected a Multitude of new Offices . . ."

Now, I'm seeing the Fourth Amendment with a deeper understanding from current events. Providentially, life in Iran has been in the news. I want to call attention to how the present Iranian regime maintains its hold on power. The enforcement of the will of the clerics is by Iran's Revolutionary Guard. The Associated Press calls the Revolutionary Guard,

an elite force that was created after the 1979 Islamic Revolution to defend Iran's clerical rule.

The Revolutionary Guard's forces have been accused of violently suppressing protests following the disputed June elections.

(The Kansas City Star, "Guard Has Telecom Stake", Monday, September 28, 2009, page A10)

Iran's Revolutionary Guard intrudes anywhere and anytime it decides to.

There has never been a "Revolutionary Guard" in the United States. The Founders gave the federal government limited law enforcement power. Based on Article II of the Constitution, the President (Executive Branch) and Congress have struggled to remain coequals appointing and regulating the powers of officers of the United States.

The Fourth Amendment vividly clarifies the limited degree that law enforcement may intrude in our lives so that there can never legally be a secret or special police in America.


Sunday, September 27, 2009

Speech Is Costly, but Worthwhile


"The Privilege of The Grave"

by Mark Twain

as published in The New Yorker, December 22 & 29, 2008

Comments by Nate Segal

. . . there is hardly one of us but would dearly like to reveal these secrets of ours [certain views not suspected by his little world]; we know we cannot do it in life . . .

Mark Twain

I learned from our late parents to speak my mind freely, but I also learned some prices they paid.

Dad argued out loud, even with those who weren't interested, that the Cuban Revolution was good for the Cuban people. Overall, Cuba's elites – and American elites – exploited ordinary Cubans to the point of grinding poverty, he argued.

Our father was not afraid of Marxism in the third world. He seems to have not anticipated that Fidel Castro’s Cuba would support and promote unrest in Central America and in Southwest Africa (today's Namibia). And Dad spoke about this freely in a solidly Republican Congressional district.

Did our parents pay a price? He and Mom heard from neighbors that a man (or men) in suits visited neighbors and asked questions about our father. He believed that these were FBI men and that the FBI was conducting a low key investigation of our father for their files. Our father, however, only stopped talking about the Cuban Revolution within a few years when it became known that Castro was a vicious dictator.

I think that, overall, our parents didn’t pay much of a price for being outspoken. Mom and Dad grew up in Chicago, and we continued to live in Metropolitan Chicago. Unlike most people in Mark Twain’s time, Dad and our family could cultivate friends some miles away in various communities. Dad didn’t depend on serving only nearby people as their accountant either. America was also changing. Debates about Civil Rights and the Vietnam War were reaching us over the television and the less stuffy newspapers. By stuffy, I mean newspapers that espoused Twain’s idea of policy:

When an entirely new and untried political project is sprung upon the people, they are startled, anxious, timid, . . . they are waiting to see which is going to be the popular side.

Our father really paid very little attention to any price he paid by revealing his secret views. Neighbors rolled their eyes and generally considered Dad to be a harmless eccentric.

I believe that when I was growing up I came to believe, as Mark Twain notes, “Murder is sometimes punished, free speech always – when committed.” For a while, I was cautious about voicing opinions about politics and religion – two topics which Mark Twain mentioned in his article. But no longer. I also was and generally remain silent on the subject of money, but not because of what I learned from Dad. I believe that talking about my finances is liable to become embarrassing, either to the other person or to myself.

More or less, Dad let people know how well (or not well) he was doing. I chalk this up to our parents’ having grown up during the Great Depression. It was an expression of tranquility that any of their money concerns paled in the face of their privations during the Depression. It also seems to me that they were saying, to themselves as much as to anyone else, “We survived then; we’ll do fine now.”

Mom and Dad weren’t bashful to say, “We can afford to trade our starter house up to a larger and more expensive one, except that we might find ourselves ‘house poor,’” a hint of suspicion about how our former neighbors were living. Also, Mom and Dad said that they didn’t want to give up our yearly auto trip vacations. Eventually we visited most of the lower forty-eight states from the time I was nine years old until I graduated high school.

Keep in mind that our parents paid cash for everything. Credit cards (not revolving charge cards) were rare and unknown in our circles. Dad went to the bank once a year before the vacation and bought travelers checks, a sum that was immediately withdrawn from their personal bank account – and not a confidential amount, within the family.

So they courageously expressed what Mark Twain called “. . . unpopular convictions which common wisdom forbids . . . to utter.”

However, concerning political parties, Dad and Mom joined the Democrat Party with virtually no ongoing thought. Having lived through the Depression and benefitted from FDR’s New Deal, they expressed undying loyalty to President Roosevelt’s Democrat Party, no matter what policies the party adopted from the time of World War II through the time of Dad’s death in 2006.

In fact, Mom and Dad felt that I betrayed them when I voted for Republican candidates. (We had no sense of a “secret ballot” within or outside the family.) “Republican policies only benefit the rich. Republicans are selfish.” Mom and Dad certainly asserted their privilege of free speech, despite Twain’s maintaining that “[one] possesses it merely as an empty formality, and knows better than to make use of it . . .”

It was worth it to my sisters and me to hear our parents speak freely and frankly. I believe that it has served us well so we can engage in civil discourse and “agree to disagree.”


Friday, September 25, 2009

A Bumper Sticker


"Legalize the Constitution"
— heard from Ken Chaney
Radio Station KCXL 1140 Liberty, MO

Thursday, September 24, 2009

Amendment III


"No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."

Comments by Nate Segal

Again, it seems to me that the Framers of our Constitution and this Amendment wanted to prevent the government abuses that they suffered from before 1776.

See Amendment II.

Some want to say that this amendment was never violated in American history. However, others – including myself – believe that President Abraham Lincoln did indeed violate the right enbodied in this amendment. President Lincoln also censored what had been a free press, although he was not the first. President John Adams had earlier enacted and enforced the Alien and Sedition Acts which curtailed free speech and freedom of the press.

Politicians Can't Hide Their Lying Eyes - Or Can They?


Sometimes politicians lie.

Sometimes they tell us what we want to hear although what we want is unrealistic and won't happen. Is this called lying?

It seems to me that lying is in the heart and mind of the speaker. President Obama would like to close down the facilities at Guantanamo Bay. He seems sincere in saying so. He also knows that he has had to work with Congress on this issue. Congressmen, reckoning with their constituencies back home, are refusing to relocate "enemy combatants" into their districts. NIMBY. Not in my back yard.

President George W. Bush told us that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction that they would share with terrorists to attack us on the home front. Let's say he knew that none of these weapons existed in Iraq.* Was he lying, or was he using an idea of a threat to mobilize us for war — regime change in Iraq? Was the idea of weapons of mass destruction a pretext to go to war? Will history exonerate this pretext when (and if) the Middle East settles into stable governments that rule with the consent of the governed?

If I remember correctly, President George W. Bush told us that the United States would not be involved in nation building. Instead, our military forces have primarily been dedicated to promoting civil society in Afghanistan and Iraq. The terrorist attack of 9/11 created a new reality, and any president would have reviewed and revised foreign policy considering the unprecedented event.

* Many will assert that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq because we didn't find any. This assertion is based on faulty logic. It is impossible to prove a negative. All we can say is that so far we have not found these weapons. We might find them tomorrow or the next day. Granted that finding weapons of mass destruction is less likely day by day to the point where we say, "There are and have not been weapons of mass destruction in Iraq."


Remember the Lyrics of the Eagles' Song?


"Honey, you can't hide your lying eyes." How about substituting the word 'Politicians' — "you can't hide your lying eyes."

Try the karaoke by FALCON BBS in Thailand.


Tuesday, September 22, 2009

Amendment II - Gun Control in American History, part 1

Councilmen Prohibit Firearms in Cheyenne

Dateline — Cheyenne, Wyoming, August 1867 [from: Robert G. Athearn, Union Pacific Country (Chicago: Rand McNally & Company, 1971) pp. 63-65.]

In the interest of community safety, Cheyenne councilmen passed an ordinance that prohibits the carrying of firearms in the newly formed town.

In August 1867, just weeks after platting Cheyenne, 350 residents voted for a mayor and councilmen. They appointed a chief of police even before they had time to build a jail.

The city fathers expressed their intention to achieve order by hiring 14 police officers, and even special officers, in anticipation of increased commotion brought by the new Union Pacific railroad.

(rewritten by Nate Segal to resemble a newspaper article of the time)

Amendment II - Gun Control in American History, part 2

Ogalla Authorities Ask Cowboys to Leave Revolvers with Police

Western Nebraskian, North Platte, Nebraska, July 26, 1879 [from: Robert G. Athearn, Union Pacific Country (Chicago: Rand McNally & Company, 1971) pp. 292-294.]

Ogalla has become quite lively, bringing quarrels and bloodshed along with the town's rapid growth.

Authorities believe that the boom period of the "cowboy capital" will last now that the Union Pacific railroad has improved the cattle yard and lengthened the siding.

The railroad anticipates shipping a record 8,500 cars of livestock eastward to its railheads in Omaha and Council Bluffs this year.

(rewritten by Nate Segal to resemble a newspaper article of the time)

Thursday, September 17, 2009

Gun Rights and the Supreme Court - Libertarian David Boaz

For someone with about 5 1/2 minutes to spend:

Attack of the Second Amendment


"Bear Arms"


The Official Congressionally Authorized U.S. Constitution


Government Printing Office

WASHINGTON -- Each September 17, the Nation celebrates the day the United States Constitution was signed back in 1787.

The U.S. Government Printing Office is helping commemorate this important date in our country’s history by making available to the public the official Congressionally authorized U.S. Constitution . . . May 4, 2009

Declaration of Independence. Painting by John Trumbull (1756-1843) photographed by Theodor Horydczak ca.1920-1950. Theodor Horydczak Collection.


Printing of a Pocket Version of the U. S. Constitution


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE, July 26, 2008, p. 7537

AUTHORIZING PRINTING OF POCKET VERSION OF U.S. CONSTITUTION

Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of H. Con. Res. 395.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the concurrent resolution by title.

The bill clerk read as follows:
A concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 395) authorizing the printing of an additional number of copies of the 23rd edition of the United States Constitution.

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the concurrent resolution.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and there be no intervening action or debate.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

The concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 395) was agreed to.


United States Constitution Day


"Celebrate the United States Constitution Day Act"- Establishes as an annual legal public holiday Constitution Day, September 17, the date of the signing of the United States Constitution.

S.2808 [Senate Bill 2808, 108th CONGRESS, 2nd Session]
Referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee 9/15/2004.


Amendment II

Part 1

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Copyright © Jim Morin, The Miami Herald, August 25, 2009 Printed in The Kansas City Star

Comments by Nate Segal

It seems to me that the Framers of our Constitution and this Amendment wanted to prevent the government abuses that they suffered from before 1776. So I'll start by listing the abuses committed by the King of Great Britain as written in the Declaration of Independence. In this way, I'm presenting some situations that the Second Amendment is probably meant to prevent.

THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE


". . . the present King of Great-Britain . . ."

  • "HE has kept among us, in Times of Peace Standing Armies, without the consent of our Legislatures.
  • "HE has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power."
  • "HE has combined with others . . . giving his Assent . . . :
  • "FOR quartering large Bodies of Armed Troops among us . . ."
  • "HE is, at this Time, transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries . . ."
  • "HE has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the Executioners of their Friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
  • "HE has excited domestic Insurrections amongst us . . ."

My thoughts:

Federal Civil Power, Congress and the President, will be superior to any Army or Navy.

Neither the Army nor the Navy will have power to act independently of Congress and the President.

Members of both the Army and Navy will be citizens — not Mercenaries.

The Standing Army of the Union will be raised and supported — housed and fed — by Congressional Appropriation of Money. Armed troops will not need to be quartered on civilian premises.

Citizens need not fear that soldiers will be spying in private houses. (This idea was raised in class.)

It seems to me, though, that the Second Amendment gives leeway to State Legislatures to house and feed their Militias by quartering them with their fellow Citizens of that State (unless employed in the Service of the United States). See Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution concerning Congress: "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States . . ."

The Federal government may not conscript — constrain — Citizens to bear Arms against other Citizens.

At some point, I intend to argue that the Civil War was illegal. Also, I believe that President Lincoln could and should have been tried for High Crimes and Misdemeanors — "Executing Friends and Brethren" and having "excited domestic Insurrections."

However, this doesn't imply that I ever would have approved of slavery.

A well regulated State Militia will prevent domestic Insurrections.

Monday, September 14, 2009

Legislating English as the Official Language of the U. S. A.


A thought to consider -

I believe that our Constitution prohibits Congress from establishing English as the official language of our nation.

People have the right to assemble as a group and speak their minds even in a way that is not comprehensible to many or even most other Americans.

There are so many precedents. At one time, there were a large number of "foreign language" newspapers published in New York City (and other cities). [need citation]

The Old Order Amish of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, refrain from teaching and speaking English as much as possible. The State of Pennsylvania has come to terms, sometimes with difficulty, with the Amish lifestyle.

On the other hand, those who wish to refrain from learning to speak English cannot expect to receive public funds to teach their children in their language or to have public documents translated at taxpayer expense, for example.

We use our liberties at our own peril.

Amendment I - A Question


Is there a synergy between the clauses of the First Amendment? After all, the framers could have specified each as a separate amendment.

I believe that there is a synergy. Our political parties have been considered "peaceable assemblies" which "speak freely" and "petition our Government" by supporting candidates for election to public office. See Ginsberg, Benjamin, Theodore J. Lowi and Margaret Weir, We the People: an Introduction to American Politics (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, seventh edition, 2009).

France's Problem with Religious Expression in Public


I wrote:

"In general, rights in European nations resemble the rights of our First Amendment although there are significant exceptions."

France is an exception. It has serious issues about public displays of religious observance. The primary target today is France's Muslim citizens, of whom there are a rather large number.

An article by Steven Erlanger concerning French confusion about organized religion. "Burqa Furor Scrambles the Political Debate in France," The New York Times, Tuesday, September 1, 2009 — PARIS.

According to the article,

In France, the principle of citizens' rights, equality, and secularism has run up against the right of Muslim women to wear in public what is being called the burqa.

Actually, these Muslim women are wearing what is really a niqab. The niqab is a head scarf that also covers a girl's or woman's neck. Her face is completely visible.

Two women in this photo from Iraq are wearing a hijab.
Photo Copyright © 2009 USA Today, Wednesday, September 23, 2009

[According to a Muslim woman from Saudi Arabia studying at the UMKC campus, the New York Times has made a mistake. The photo which accompanies the Times article shows Muslim women marching together on a French street, and they are wearing hijabs, not niqabs. We see Muslim women on the UMKC campus wear the hijab.

[A niqab (according to this student) is a hijab with the lower part lifted to cover the mouth and nose. We might wear a winter scarf in this way to protect our breathing in the most frigid weather.]

The French are uncomfortable with organized religion since the 1789 revolution and the disestablishment of the Roman Catholic Church as the national religion.

Also, the French associate the niqab with the repression, servitude, and degradation of women.

France took from the philosopher Jean Jacques Rousseau the principle that no immediate group or affiliation should stand between the citizen and the state which represents the general interest.

In fact, it was not until 1901 that the French state allowed some unions or associations.

It seems that there is permanent demand for legislating against Muslims in France.


Switzerland and the Minaret


I wrote:

In general, rights in European nations resemble the rights of our First Amendment although there are significant exceptions.

An event in Switzerland has come to my attention. I doubt that this issue would arise in America.

A minaret of a mosque and a steeple of a church are pictured in Wangen bei Olten. In Switzerland, groups are at odds over whether minarets should be banned.

Friday, September 11, 2009

Amendment I

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The first ten Amendments (Bill of Rights) were ratified effective December 15, 1791.

In my own words:

Congress:
  • must not establish a national religion by any law, and
  • must allow us to freely worship according to the beliefs of any religion, and
  • must allow us to speak our minds freely and in public, and
  • must allow all the media - including using the Internet - to publish and broadcast without censorship, as well as give us all free access to all the media - even foreign media, and
  • must allow us to assemble peaceably, and
  • must allow us to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

This amendment broadly covers issues that have made the United States different from virtually all nations in 1791 and many nations even today.

In general, rights in European nations resemble the rights of our First Amendment although there are significant exceptions.

I've posted an item of how the Queen (or King) of England is the 'Supreme Governor of the Church of England.'

No president of ours would be the legal head of any religion or denomination. On the other hand, our presidents and all government officials may worship as they please, or not worship at all.

I've also posted an item showing the effort that our armed forces make to have chaplains for every religion, even when few of our service people belong to these religions.

I feel that both of these items demonstrate that: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Wedding of Charles, Prince of Wales and Camilla Parker Bowles


Members of the royal family of England must profess the Church of England's beliefs and be in good standing with the Church. Anglican precepts do not allow divorce. A member of the royal family may not marry someone who was divorced by civil law since they are still married according to Anglican precepts. Prince Charles, Prince of Wales, and Camilla Parker Bowles married April 9, 2005, in a controversial civil ceremony because Camilla had already been married but divorced according to civil law.

The groom's parents, Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Phillip, did not attend the disapproved civil wedding ceremony.

from Wikipedia, "Wedding of Charles, Prince of Wales and Camilla Parker Bowles", retrieved September 11, 2009.


* * *

Queen Denies 'Snub' over Wedding [by not attending]

The Queen's decision not to attend the civil marriage ceremony of Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles is not a snub, Buckingham Palace insists

Lord St John of Fawsley, a constitutional expert who knows Prince Charles, said the Queen had made a "good decision" not to attend the civil ceremony. . . .

He said she had clearly shown her approval of the wedding but as Supreme Governor of the Church of England "does not want to go to a wedding at a register office."

BBC News, "Queen denies 'snub' over wedding", retrieved September 11, 2009.


Former Marine is First Buddhist Army Chaplain




By Bob Smietana - The (Nashville) Tennessean

Posted to the Air Force Times - online edition:  Thursday Sep 10, 2009 21:17:47 EDT

When Thomas Dyer heads to Afghanistan in December, the former Marine and one-time Southern Baptist pastor won’t take a rifle with him. He won’t take a Bible, either.

Instead, Dyer, a Tennessee National Guardsman from Memphis and the first Buddhist chaplain in the history of the Army, hopes to bring serenity and calm, honed by months of intensive meditation.

That preparation, he says, will help him bring spiritual care amid a war zone.

“We’re going to put it to the test,” Dyer said.

Dyer’s deployment is another step in the U.S. military’s attempt to meet the diverse spiritual needs of America’s fighting forces. It’s no easy task.

For one thing, the military chaplaincy is facing all the complications that have affected American religion over the past 40 years. The decline of mainline Protestants and their aging clergy. The ongoing Catholic priest shortage. The explosion of religious diversity. The emergence of people with no faith. The ease with which people move from one faith to another.

The military is trying to adapt to these changes, while trying to find ministers willing to serve in a war zone, and who can minister to American troops without offending Muslim allies.

Chaplains say they are up to it, saying their “cooperate without compromise” approach allows them to serve soldiers of any faith. But critics wonder if the whole enterprise is doomed to fail.

Military chaplains have cared for the souls of American troops since at least the 1700s. In 1775, the Continental Congress agreed to pay chaplains $20 a month. Gen. George Washington told his commanders to find chaplains of good character and exemplary lives to care for the souls of their troops.

The first chaplains served a mostly Protestant military. Chaplains today serve in a remarkably diverse environment.

The latest report from the Defense Department tracks 101 faiths for active-duty personnel, from 285,763 Roman Catholics to the one member of the Tioga River Christian conference. In between are Baptists, Jews, Buddhists, Bahai’s, Mormons and Wiccans. About a half a million active personnel are evangelicals. Almost 281,710 claim no religion.

No military has ever tried to meet such diverse spiritual needs, says Doris Bergen, a history professor at the University of Toronto. In World War II, the British army had thousands of Hindus and Muslims in its ranks, but only Christian and Jewish chaplains. “To build a military chaplaincy that reflects the incredible religious diversity of Americans, and that supports that diversity in a meaningful way — it’s uncharted

terrain,” Bergen said. “It’s completely brand new. You don’t really have any models to look to.” t really have any models to look to.”

That means chaplains such as Maj. Darin Olson at Fort Campbell maintain a delicate balance.

In chapel services, he’s a Nazarene minister. That means preaching about Jesus. Once services are over, he becomes an advocate for every faith group.

“I am here to guarantee the religious freedom of every soldier,” Olson said.

NO EVANGELIZING ALLOWED

To help meet with the religious needs at Fort Campbell, which straddles the Kentucky-Tennessee border, a new multi-faith chapel is under construction, to be used by smaller groups such as Jews and Wiccans. Funding is pending for another $15 million, 1,200-seat chapel also in the works. There are now seven chapels at the base — six at least 50 years old, the other built in 1990.

Staff Sgt. Clayton Wilhelm works as a chaplain assistant at Fort Campbell. A reservist, he spent parts of 2007 and 2008 in Iraq, and is now doing another year of active duty. He and other chaplain assistants set the chapels for worship services and order equipment for a variety of groups on base. Those include Catholics, Lutherans, Jews, Muslim, pagans, Greek Orthodox and other Protestants.

Wilhelm, a Southern Baptist, says he’s just doing his job. “There are some things I don’t agree with, but in my position, I am not allowed to not support someone because of my own beliefs,” he said.

Chaplains and their assistants also serve as a listening ear for soldiers, as they deal with stress.

Sometimes soldiers’ concerns are spiritual; other times they are more mundane.

Those small concerns become heavier to bear when soldiers are in war zones. If they are distracted by worries about their family back home or by religious concerns, then they can’t keep focused on their mission, Olson said.

“A soldier’s soul in combat is important,” he said. “A soldier who is not right with the Lord, or maybe the soldier is having marriage troubles back home, a soldier who feels that they are not able to talk to anyone — if they can talk to a chaplain, they are going to be a better soldier.”

Chaplain Steve Blackwell, a Tennessee native who now serves as an Army chaplain recruiter in Los Angeles, said a chaplain’s job is not to evangelize.

“The doctrine of the chaplain corps is to nurture the living, care for the wounded and honor the dead,” he said.

While they can share their faith with the willing, they are not allowed to push their faith on those who are not interested.

That’s important because the military can’t always match the denominations of chaplains with those of the troops they serve.

DIVERSITY IS A CHALLENGE

For example, Catholics make up 20 percent of the Army, but there is a shortage of Catholic chaplains. Only 7 percent of chaplains are priests.

So Catholic chaplains are constantly being deployed overseas, with little downtime. And servicemen and women don’t always have access to a priest when they need one. chaplains are constantly being deployed overseas, with little downtime. And servicemen and women don’t always have access to a priest when they need one.

“They come face to face with who they are and what they believe,” said Lt. Col. Carleton Birch, spokesman for the Army Chief of Chaplains Office. “And sometimes, often, they choose to become very serious about their faith. And if there is not a priest to service them, then a priest won’t be there at a critical time in their lives.”

By contrast, some faith groups are overrepresented among chaplains. For

example, there are 54 members of the Independent Fundamental Churches of America in the military, and 22 chaplains from the denomination. That’s one chaplain for every 2.5 church members. By contrast, there’s one imam per 353.5 Muslims, and one priest for every 1,086 Catholics. And there are no chaplains to serve the 3,214 Wiccans in the military.

Recruiting chaplains from diverse faiths is a challenge, in part because the recruiting system favors Christians and Jews.

A potential chaplain must have a master’s degree in religion. But some faiths, such as Buddhism and Wicca, don’t have seminaries, so they struggle to find chaplain candidates. Dyer qualified as a chaplain because already he had earned a master’s degree as a Baptist pastor before converting to Buddhism.

Chaplains also need to be endorsed by a civilian religious group. The Department of Defense has approved few non-Christian endorsement groups.

In the end, Bergen, the Toronto professor, wonders if creating a diverse chaplain corps is possible

“You need to have chaplains who can minister to everyone who is under their care,” she said. “So if you are injured or dying and you need counseling or you want to pray, there has got to be someone there. And whether they are Jewish or Buddhist or Catholic, or Wiccan, you have got to feel comfortable with them.”

Then there’s the E-word. Military regulations place strict limits on evangelism. Chaplains can’t try to persuade people to change their faith. But they can try to convert the unchurched, provided that a soldier lends them a willing ear.

Things get tricky when chaplains push their faith. Blackwell, the Army chaplain recruiter in Los Angeles, said a chaplain who pushes his faith too hard will eventually fail.

“I am as evangelical as they come,” he said. “And I am not going to shy away from the chance to lead someone to Jesus. But if someone comes in and they see every soldier as a potential convert, they are not going to last long as a chaplain.”

COMPASSION IS THE KEY

Back in Memphis, Dyer meditates and prepares to be deployed.

He’s already been in contact with soldiers overseas. Once word got out about the new Buddhist chaplain, he was bombarded with e-mails. He’s already done one wedding for a Buddhist soldier who has returned home, and offered spiritual direction over the phone with an overseas soldier.

Dyer said he’s ready for whatever comes. And he believes being knowledgeable about Christianity and Buddhism will make him a better chaplain. Most of all, he wants to be there.

“If I have a Church of Christ or more conservative soldier, he certainly does not need to know about dharma or things like that,” he said. “But if he is in pain, or his child back home is sick, I need to be compassionate and help him through that moment. We both need to forget at that moment that I am a Buddhist.” Church of Christ or more conservative soldier, he certainly does not need to know about dharma or things like that,” he said. “But if he is in pain, or his child back home is sick, I need to be compassionate and help him through that moment. We both need to forget at that moment that I am a Buddhist.”

Air Force Times, "Former Marine is First Buddhist Army Chaplain", retrieved September 11, 2009.

Tuesday, September 8, 2009

Mr. President

by Nate Segal

Out of respect for the officers of our country and the Constitution, I am trying to refer to the president, for example, as President Obama or Mr. Obama.

I am trying to do this in speaking also.

Please don't be bashful to call my attention to any lapses.

Monday, September 7, 2009

Change the National Anthem to "This Land Is Your Land"

by Nate Segal

"This Land Is Your Land" by Woodie Guthrie is my first preference for replacing "The Star-Spangled Banner" as the national anthem of our country.

  • The tune is catchy and easy to sing, while "The Star-Spangled Banner" can only be sung properly by the rare person who has a broad vocal range.
  • Young people can easily master the lyrics. When we learned "America the Beautiful" in grade school, I didn't catch on to the opening words "for spacious skies." I thought that there was an English adjective "forspacious."
  • Woodie Guthrie, the song's composer, knew a "down home" America. He was born in Oklahoma's Indian Country. I thought that he was a descendant of Indians, although I haven't found any support for this idea. See Guthrie's biography in Wikipedia.
  • Some call the song a "folk tune" and say that the melody comes from an American gospel hymn (Wikipedia, "This Land Is Your Land").

The down side of the song is that "Guthrie varied the lyrics over time, sometimes including more overtly political verses than appear in recordings or publications" (Wikipedia, "Woodie Guthrie"). Also, Guthrie "was [allegedly] associated with United States communist groups" (Wikipedia, ibid.).

Listen to Guthrie sing this song >>

Photo from Wikipedia, "Woody Guthrie"

Also, see an article "Only in Oklahoma: This man was our man" by Gene Curtis of the Tulsa World from 3/17/2007.


Or - Change the National Anthem to "G-d Bless America"

by Nate Segal

"G-d Bless America" by Irving Berlin is my second preference for replacing "The Star-Spangled Banner" as the national anthem of our country.

  • The tune is also catchy and easy to sing like "This Land Is Your Land."
  • Irving Berlin, the song's composer, was a first-generation European Jewish immigrant, having been born in what was then Russia.  See Berlin's biography in Wikipedia. Most Americans * are descendants of immigrants, and the face of America again today is increasingly the face of an immigrant.
  • Like "This Land Is Your Land", the number of renditions seems almost endless.

The down side of the song is that the expression "G-d Bless America" is often misunderstood as meaning that G-d always blesses America no matter what the nation does. Actually, this expression is a form of prayer or petition asking, "May G-d bless America." I distinctly remember that President Obama said this phrase — May G-d bless America — at the time of his inauguration. Knowing how well educated our president is, I felt at the time that President Obama was using the phrase in a way that would not be misunderstood.

Listen to Berlin sing this song >>

Photo of Irving Berlin from " Project GBA: The collected recordings of Irving Berlin’s, “God Bless America”

* Most Americans – I'm well aware that 1) many Americans are descendants of Indians, the first Americans; 2) the ancestors of Blacks were kidnaped in Africa and came here against their will; and 3) so many of us have no sense that our antecedents arrived here from faraway lands.



Our National Anthem

O say, can you sing it?

by:  DAVID HARPER, World Staff Writer
Tulsa World
Saturday, September 15, 2007

Most adults don't know the words, but a Monte Cassino teacher makes sure a new generation can belt it out.

Oh, say can you sing the lyrics to "The Star-Spangled Banner?"

A recent poll showed that less than 40 percent of Americans know all the words to their national anthem.

However, the first- through eighth-grade students at Monte Cassino School know the lyrics, and they proved it by the dawn's early light Friday, the 193rd anniversary of the day that Francis Scott Key wrote the song that would make him famous.

Key died in 1843, but he has his own unofficial Web site, www.tulsaworld.com/francisscottkey.

It says the song reflects Key's feelings on the morning of Sept. 14, 1814, when he saw the American flag had survived a night of intense fighting with the British during the War of 1812.

However, Monte Cassino second-grader Kale Keeling already knew all that. The 8-year-old can tell you about the factors that led to the war ("they were stealing our sailors") and how the Brits burned part of Washington, D.C., as part of the hostilities.

Kale and fellow Monte Cassino second-grader Rebecca Franklin said they like the song, although the words are a little hard to understand.

Befittingly for a song written by an attorney who practiced almost 200 years ago, the lyrics are about as easy to navigate as Chesapeake Bay on the night of the battle that Key immortalized.

Let's face it, "what so proudly we hailed" rarely comes up in conversation anymore.

The same Harris Poll showed only 39 percent of those who described themselves as knowing the words to the anthem answered correctly when asked what comes after "whose broad stripes and bright stars."

Correct answer: "through the perilous fight," not night.

Of those with a firm handle on the song, 58 percent had at least five years of musical training in school. That's where Monte Cassino instructor Joanne Pearson enters the picture. Friday's event, which featured about 600 students belting out the song, was her idea. In her 24th year at Monte Cassino, Pearson teaches music to the elementary school-aged students there ("I don't teach anyone taller than me," she says.).

Pearson said she was in Washington, D.C., in June for the National Anthem Project Grand Finale in which more than 1,200 school children stood in the formation of the United States and sang the song.

She said she told her students to notice how many adults don't actually sing when the anthem is played at public gatherings. Pearson said she challenged them to be part of a generation that will sing along with the song, which became the national anthem in 1931.

Of course, "The Star-Spangled Banner" has its detractors. Some say that it is no match musically for "Oh, Canada"and many other national anthems.

Also, many will tell you that "God Bless America" is easier to sing. Of course, "God Bless America" was written by noted composer Irving Berlin. Key, on the other hand, was a onehit wonder.

An amateur poet, his "Defence of Fort McHenry" was hastily written on the back of a letter and was later set to the music of a popular British drinking tune, "The Anacreontic Song," according to Key's Web site. Still, like the flag he wrote about in 1814, it survives and, thanks to the students at Monte Cassino – and others like them, thrives.

david.harper@tulsaworld.com

Francis Scott Key's Unofficial Website: www.tulsaworld.com/francisscottkey

Copyright © 2009, World Publishing Co. All rights reserved


Sunday, September 6, 2009

Online Texts of the Constitution

a) I have found the Congressionally authorized text of the Constitution of the United States, SENATE DOCUMENT 105-11, with an Index and the Declaration of Independence.

b) The text of the Constitution of the United States from the U.S. Government Printing Office is available with supplements.

c) Steve Mount has developed USConstitution.net – the U.S. Constitution Online.

Wednesday, September 2, 2009

We The People

Senator John Edwards for President '08 -
We The People will stand with you [Congress] The voices we hear saying "We the people" didn't speak for me.
Am I not one of the American people?
I also stood with Congress, but Congress did not speak with only one voice.
Surely some Senators and Representatives voted against "ending the war." *
May I stand with them?
* I think that these Congresspersons also wanted to end the war and bring the troops home, although with a different plan.
because stopping a President who believes he can do no wrong Whoa!
When did President George W. Bush claim that he could do no wrong?
I recall him saying that he had been praying to do what's right. I understood that as "soul-searching."
His religious language may have been honest.
At the same time, Mr. Bush may have understood that he would be making mistakes despite having implored the Almighty for guidance.
takes people with courage to do what's right. I voted. That's doing what's right, although it doesn't take much courage to vote.
So, "We the people" are only those with courage?

Tuesday, September 1, 2009

President Barack Obama & the Constitution

Professor Dan Stroud brought to class an audio of President Barack Obama discussing the U. S. Constitution. We heard President Obama remind us listeners that he had taught Constitutional Law. Two of Mr. Obama's words resonated in my mind:
  • Trust, and
  • Empathy.
My cynicism about the American political process — "Tweedlism" — derives from my sense that both trust and empathy are in short supply. I've often felt that both these qualities are also in short supply among us Americans. If so, then maybe we have a government that reflects our shortcomings and that we truly deserve.
I was pleased to hear Mr. Obama portray our Constitution as,
". . . a conversation to be had. How we organize the way we engage each other — by persuasion rather than coercion."

My Amblin' before the Preamble

  • Graduated from a top public high school in suburban Chicago - Class of '69.
  • Stopped trimming my beard at age 20, so I look like Dusty Hill of the band ZZ Top. *
  • Admitted in 2009 to UMKC as a junior year "transfer student" from the University of Illinois and the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel.
    (After helping to raise a family, helping to support them by working as a Computer Programmer/Analyst, after a divorce, and now after becoming a grandfather.)
  • Enrolled in Professor Dan Stroud's section of PoliSci 210:  American Government.
* I'm an Orthodox Jew who follows the Hasidic school of observance.  On the Jewish Sabbath, we dress in black from hat to toe, so then I'm known as one of the "Men in Black."  ZZ and Dusty are older than me, but not by so much.