Donald Trump and maga Republicans created political polarization fueled by hate

Wow, this essay is not classic David French, but in my opinion this exactly the kind of straight talk free speech expression our nation needs.  Of course, the problem is, the people who Mr. French describes do not trust anything they disagree with. 

Does anyone think a healthy nation with a healthy political culture would elect a man like Donald Trump not once, but twice❓

We Have Reached End-Stage Political Polarization.

Echo essay by by David French published in the New York Times.

The eternal return of Donald Trump is a sign of our national sickness 🤒🤢, and a recent Pew Research Center study shows us exactly what that sickness is. We despise each other, and demagogues rise when hatred increases. It’s as predictable as night following day.

In a 25-country survey, which included a cross section of European, Asian, African and American nations, the United States was the only country in which a majority of adults surveyed said that the morality and ethics of their fellow citizens were either bad or somewhat bad. Even countries torn apart by violence and civil strife — countries such as Nigeria and Mexico — had higher views of their fellow citizens.

We’ve known for a long time that America is deeply polarized, and we’ve known the problem is only getting worse. For example, in a 2022, survey, Pew found that large shares of Democrats and Republicans thought of each other as close-minded, dishonest, immoral and unintelligent, and the measurements were getting worse every year.

Both sides hate each other so much that it’s almost meaningless to ask who hates whom the most. In the morality and ethics survey I mentioned at the start of the column, Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents were more likely to believe that other Americans were unethical or immoral than Republicans. 

But, in the 2022, survey, Republicans were more likely to believe that Democrats were dishonest, immoral and lazy.

If you’re a Republican or a Democrat, the best way to imagine the other side’s view of you is to simply mirror your own attitude. They despise you with the same intensity that you despise them. They view you with the same sense of threat and alarm that you view them.

To say that both sides view each other with equivalent disdain is not to say that both sides are equally dangerous. When a hateful, vengeful man is in the Oval Office, wielding the awesome power of the presidency beyond its constitutional limits, then he immediately becomes the most dangerous person in America.

But the urgent necessity of defending our republic from his assaults on the Constitution, from his intense cruelty, and from his profound corruption shouldn’t blind us to the divisions that helped bring him to power.

American hatred is growing so great that partisans, perversely enough, often view kindness and tolerance from political opponents as a threat. The only good people are people who agree with them. The supposedly decent person on the other side❓ 

We have a name for him or her, a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

This reality came home to me once again after the column I published last week. My argument was simple: I very much disagree with James Talarico, the Democratic nominee for Senate in Texas on many important issues, most notably his stance on abortion.

At the same time, however, I very much appreciate his condemnation of the politics of hatred and vitriol, and his appeal to the better angels of our nature is giving voters hope that this miserable political moment may one day come to an end.

In a CBS interview days after his primary victory, Mr. Talarico said: “My faith teaches me to love my neighbor as myself. Not just my neighbor who looks like me, or prays like me, or votes like me.”

“I’m tired of being pitted against my neighbor, he continued, “I’m tired of being told to hate my neighbor. And I think in Texas across the political spectrum, there is a deep hunger for a different kind of politics.” One that’s “rooted in love.”

“That old politics that we’ve been suffering under for the last ten years — politics as blood sport, as trolling and owning, as total war, that politics is dying.” 😕 (I can only hope Mr. Talarico is correct.)

That isn’t just a virtuous approach to political differences; it’s a deeply Christian approach to political differences. After all, what does it mean to love our enemies if we do not demonstrate patience and kindness toward them❓(IMO, But not in a condescending way.)

The online response to my argument, however, was volcanic. I was accused of legitimizing heresy. 

Another writer said that I’d suffered an apparent “brain injury.” My appreciation of Talarico’s approach even put the soul of evangelicalism at risk. 

Once again, I was written entirely out of the Christian faith by angry (hypocritical❗) Trumpist evangelicals.

(I did have to laugh at the Babylon Bee’s joke headline: “David French Praises Satan as ‘Most Christian Person in History.’”)

In their minds, I was elevating “niceness” over justice and righteousness. To this way of thinking, Talarico’s manner makes him more dangerous, not less, and it was my responsibility to warn Christian America away from this dreadful man. (IMO Mr. French does not speak for me in this assessment. I admire Mr. Talarico.)

In their anger and vitriol, I saw the mirror image of the far-left intolerance I’ve encountered through much of my career. There are people who can’t conceive of the idea that a pro-life Christian can be a decent person, or that a person who, for example, opposes surgical and medical interventions for youth gender transition, or trans women’s participation in female sports can have any redeeming qualities at all.

I’m fully aware that to them, I’m the wolf in sheep’s clothing because I hide what they see as religious and political extremism behind a veneer of civility and pluralism. 

Civility itself is a questionable value. It’s a version of “respectability politics” when the times call for direct, aggressive action against your evil political opponents.

This approach is profoundly dangerous to our republic. The American constitutional system is, at its heart, a dispute-resolution mechanism. It takes all the differences and divisions inherent in a continent-sized multiethnic, multifaith democracy and channels them into a political system marked by checks and balances and firewalls against tyranny.

In the United States, there should never be any such thing as a winner-takes-all electoral result. Even the worst losers and everyone else in American politics enjoy the protections of the Bill of Rights and the opportunity to try to win again, very soon, in election cycles that arrive with clockwork regularity, every two years.

But hatred puts this system to its most severe test — a test we’ve faced over and over again. It is relatively easy to support the civil rights of people you like (even if you disagree with them). It is profoundly difficult to support the civil rights of people you hate.

Or, as John Adams wrote in his 1798 letter to the Massachusetts Militia: “We have no Government armed with Power capable of contending with human Passions unbridled by morality and Religion. Avarice, Ambition, Revenge or Galantry, would break the strongest Cords of our Constitution as a Whale goes through a Net.”

Restrain those vices and we preserve our republic. Indulge them, and we risk its dissolution.

A federal appellate judge, Lawrence VanDyke, issued a truly remarkable dissent — a textbook example of how not to handle disagreement on profoundly important constitutional issues.

The Ninth Circuit had denied a petition to rehear, en banc, an opinion upholding the State of Washington’s Law Against Discrimination against a challenge brought by two Washington spas that banned men and preoperative transgender women “who have not yet received gender confirmation surgery affecting their genitalia.” The spas are Korean spas, where customers are typically nude in communal bathhouses.

Under the current interpretation of Washington’s law, which the Ninth Circuit sided with, women (and some girls) could be exposed to the sight of male genitalia without their consent — an act that, in different circumstances, could constitute indecent exposure or sexual harassment.

I disagree with the Ninth Circuit’s conclusion that the First Amendment does not grant the spa the right to exclude customers with penises from receiving the spa’s services. But I also know that the interaction between nondiscrimination statutes and the First Amendment is complex. There will always be competing and overlapping interests in play, and line-drawing can be difficult.

But this is how Judge VanDyke began his dissent: “This is a case about swinging dicks.”

Yes, you read that correctly. And then he doubled down. “The fact that so many on our court want to pretend that this case is about anything other than swinging dicks,” he wrote, “is the very reason the shocking language is necessary.”

No, the shocking language was wholly unnecessary. It’s worse than unnecessary. It’s further damaging our political culture. It’s a court opinion as a 4chan post — an “own the libs” statement that brings thunderous applause from the angry right but communicates nothing but scorn and contempt for the opposition.

To call for decency doesn’t deny the depth of our disagreements. It does, however, acknowledge the essential humanity of our opponents. I keep thinking about the commitment card that Martin Luther King, Jr. asked his followers to sign before they joined the 1963 Birmingham campaign.

The 10 directives included these admonitions — “Meditate daily on the teachings and life of Jesus,” “Remember always that the nonviolent movement seeks justice and reconciliation — not victory,” “Walk and talk in the manner of love, for God is love,” and “Refrain from the violence of fist, tongue, or heart.”

Does anyone believe Dr. King was not dedicated enough to justice? Or that he was ineffective in his quest to transform American culture and politics? His love and regard for others — even as he fought desperately for civil and economic and political rights — were indispensable to his success. They’re what makes reconciliation possible, even if we’re still far from perfect.

I disagree with James Talarico on many things. But I also agree with his desire to reject politics as a blood sport. And unless we can remember — as Dr. King did, with his life perpetually on the line — to seek both justice and mercy, then we’ll be left with neither.

Separation of church and state is rooted in colonial America before the U.S. Constitution was ratified

Echo opinion published in the Manchester New Hampshire Ink Link blog: Christian Nationalism is a right wing movement that is not consistent with the Establishment Clause in the U.S. Constitution. In fact, the intention of Freedom of Religion includes the absolute right for Americans to either (a) practice their choice of religious faith, or (b) to not practice any religion at all.  Chrisian Nationalists create a false interpretation about the intention of the writers who created our First Amendment. 

1. 

Early Colonial Influences

The idea of separating church and state emerged well before the founding of the United States, influenced by the religious experiences of early colonists. Many settlers came to America seeking freedom from religious persecution experienced in Europe, where state-endorsed churches often oppressed dissenting religious groups. For example, the Puritans in Massachusetts sought to create a community based on their religious beliefs, yet they did not tolerate other religious practices, leading to conflicts and eventual calls for religious freedom.

Roger Williams ( c. 1603 – March 1683) was an English-born New England Puritan minister, theologian, and author who founded Providence Plantations, which became the Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations and later the State of Rhode Island.

One notable advocate for religious freedom was Roger Williams, who founded the Rhode Island colony in 1636. Williams, a Puritan minister, was banished from Massachusetts for his beliefs in religious tolerance and the Separation of Church and State. In Rhode Island, he established a haven for religious dissenters, emphasizing that civil authorities should not enforce religious doctrine. Williams’ ideas laid early groundwork for the concept of religious freedom in America.

The Enlightenment and Revolutionary Thought

The Enlightenment of the 17th and 18th centuries profoundly influenced American revolutionary thought, emphasizing reason, individual rights, and the separation of religious and governmental powers. Enlightenment thinkers like John Locke argued for religious tolerance and the idea that government should be a secular institution, serving the interests of all citizens regardless of their religious beliefs.

Keeping the wall between church and state

Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were particularly instrumental in incorporating these ideas into American political philosophy. Jefferson’s “Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom,” drafted in 1777, and enacted in 1786, declared that individuals should be free to choose their faith without coercion. Madison, a key architect of the The Constitution, championed the principle that the government should neither establish a religion nor prohibit its free exercise, ensuring a secular state that respects diverse religious practices.

The U.S. Constitution, adopted in 1787, reflects the intent to create a government free from religious entanglement. 

While the original text of the Constitution does not explicitly mention religion, the prohibition of religious tests for public office in Article VI, (Clause 3), underscores the commitment to religious neutrality. This provision was a significant step toward ensuring that government positions were accessible to individuals of all faiths or none, promoting a pluralistic society.

The First Amendment, ratified in 1791, as part of the Bill of Rights, explicitly addressed the issue of religion. It states: “prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” This clause known as the Establishment Clause, alongside the Free Exercise Clause, forms the constitutional basis for the separation of church and state. The framers intended to prevent the government from favoring any religion and to protect individuals’ rights to practice their faith freely.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prnt Clause, alongside the Free Exercise Clause, forms the constitutional basis for the separation of church and state. The framers intended to prevent the government from favoring any religion and to protect individuals’ rights to practice their faith freely.

Republicans are dismantling our Republic

An echo letter opinion writer is describing a political process going on in Montana to replace the experienced Justice Gustafson, appointed to the Montana Supreme Court, with an inexperienced lobbyist!  Is this trend indicating a trend to destroy our Republic? Letter published in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle:

No one can argue democracy is perfect. Those who study history argue it is better than dictatorships like Putin’s and Hungary’s Orban.

For two hundred years Americans have expanded democracy. Now we have a #Republican political party working to limit voting by passing laws making it harder to vote and by putting extremists in charge of state and local elections who are not committed to fair elections.

These same extremists are even working to subvert Montana’s Supreme Court by supporting an industry lobbyist, James Brown. The fact he has no judicial experience is unimportant. 

What matters is he’s willing to ignore the Constitution and do the bidding of special interests in making judicial rulings and who could care less about hard working Montanans. 

Their target is Ingrid Gustafson an intelligent and hardworking incumbent justice who has a record of deciding cases without bias or a political agenda.

From Sue Beland in Bozeman Montana

Mandating COVID-19 vaccinations is justified

Maine Writer- Opinion prefaced by a short lesson about American history and civics! 

Freedom to choose life, rather than risk death by COVID. 

"Vaccination should be a requisite of classroom attendance, close contact employment, mass transportation, public gatherings, and events." Echo opinion published in  the Longmont Daily Times-Call by Ralph Josephsohn:

Freedom of stupidity!

Americans cherish personal freedom. 

Lady Liberty’s majestic crown is the Bill of Rights, set forth in the first 10 amendments to the United States Constitution. 

It is a watchtower guarding personal liberties, including the core freedoms of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition. 

On her tablet is inscribed July 4, 1776, commemorating the Declaration of Independence. 

It professes self-evident truths that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Her torch radiates the Golden Rule. 

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Her pedestal rests on rock solid self-determination, not regimented conformity. Individuals have the right to make personal choices affecting their personal lives, be they wise or stupid. Freedom would be illusory if choices deviating from officially prescribed criteria of propriety were prohibited.

Examples of choices to act stupidly include smoking tobacco, alcohol and substance abuse, subsisting on junk food, and random unprotected sex. Possibly, the most dimwitted example of daftness is voting for a politico who wants to give away the farm to feed the nation; or a narcissistic, vainglorious, madder-than-March-hare yahoo!

Stupid choices are not without consequences!  #vaccineswork

Nevertheless, the freedom to make stupid choices is not without outer limits- there are consequences- like, for example, risk of preventable death caused by COVID. 

Lines are drawn marking off a threshold where your freedom to act ends and my nose begins. Lady Liberty is the mother of Pinocchio. Her nose keeps on growing. The stretch of our freedoms is getting shorter and shorter as her nose is getting longer and longer, progressively extending the scope of civil rights and political correctness. This is nothing to sneeze at. 

Lady Liberty’s elongating proboscis* has a face mask. It filters out viruses causing infectious societal maladies, whether afflicting race, ethnicity, creed, culture, sex, or accommodatable physical and mental challenges. Denying equal, nondiscriminatory opportunities in education, employment, housing, as free access to the electoral process, too is taboo. Such discriminatory choices once were shielded by the freedom of stupidity.

The reader may now pierce the funny bone of this writing and get to the nitty-gritty marrow. 

Notwithstanding, overwhelming scientific and statistical evidence establishing the COVID-19 vaccine to be safe and effective, an appreciable number of Americans make a personal decision to not get vaccinated. 

Moreover, the risks associated with the vaccination are extremely low, the countervailing benefits disproportionately enormous. The right to make improvident decisions affecting one’s personal health arguably requires Lady Liberty to keep her long nose out, however ill-advised and uninformed the choice may be. Is not the decision to reject injection a constitutionally protected exercise of the freedom of stupidity?

The delta variant of the novel coronavirus is “hypertransmissible,” 60% more contagious than the formerly dominant alpha variant.

Clinical evidence indicates that readily available vaccines are exceedingly effective in thwarting or mitigating currently spreading this hypertransmissible variant. 

Other mutant variants of the virus are now incubating throughout the world in the fertile petri dishes of myriads of unvaccinated individuals. A vaccine resistant pathogen doubtless is brewing in this viral stew. Such a rogue virus could spread globally like wildfire, infecting millions of people in a heartbeat, whether vaccinated or not. If herd immunity is achieved by vaccinating a minimum percentage of the population, factoring in both relevant demographic factors and the hyper-contagiousness of the variant, a more devastating neo-pandemic caused by a vaccine resistant variant could be avoided, or at least delayed. This would permit additional time for research, development and the distribution of an effective reformulated vaccine. 

If nothing is done, it is inevitable that, sooner rather than later, such a scourge will emerge. Is it not a matter of personal choice to reject inoculation, however ill advised? 

Isn’t the freedom of stupidity beyond Lady Liberty’s legitimate reach? This logic is deceptively appealing.

The decision not to be vaccinated clearly impacts Lady Liberty’s extended nose. Mandating COVID-19 vaccinations is justified because it directly affects the critical health and welfare of the nation, as the world. Vaccination should be a requisite of classroom attendance, close contact employment, mass transportation, public gatherings, and events. The stakes attending the failure to get vaccinated are too high, the consequences too broad, the nose too long.

Ralph Josephsohn is a longtime resident of Longmont and a semi-retired attorney.

*nose of a mammal

Protect history and culture - Bill of Rights and pride in democracy

"...public outcry caught them off guard."

"If Silver Spring Township  (Pennsylvania) officials and a local real estate developer didn’t know that an old stone house on Route 11 is the reputed birthplace of the U.S. Bill of Rights before they started demolition there last week, they definitely know now."

A small stone early colonial house in Silver Spring Township (Pennsylvania) is a symbol of how protecting history is symptomatic of preserving cultural pride. Although a municipal accident caused the partial destruction of a simple stone house, the reality of how the sructure represented America's Bill of Rights, finally overcame the zeal of razing the structure. (Wait! Didn't the Taliban in Afghanistan first capture rabid international attention when they began to dismantle cultural icons and institutions?  
In fact, the Taliban was as notorious for destroying the magnificent Buddhas of Bamiyan, as much as for the group's Islamic terrorism tactics.)

Here's the report about the Bell Tavern, a Maine Writer blog reader sent from Pennsylvania newspapers:

Historic mistake for Silver Spring stone house

Phyllis Zimmerman The Sentinel

Bell Tavern building in Silver Spring Township was nearly destroyed before demolition was halted

CARLISLE, Pa. (WHTM) – The debate over the Bell Tavern continues in Silver Spring Township. The partially demolished building is still standing in the 7000 block of the Carlisle Pike. Many want to know what the future holds for it.

According to the Cumberland County Historical Society, the Bell Tavern is not on any historical registry. However, they say the building was written about frequently for its ties to the Bill of Rights and also was a part of a tour given by the Cumberland County Historical society. That’s why residents raised concerns when they noticed the building was being demolished.

The property is owned by Triple Crown Corporation, which has halted the demolition. In a new release, the company said the public outcry caught them off guard.

“Prior to application for a demolition permit, Triple Crown Corporation examined the federal, state, county and township records for any historical registration. This review was required by the demolition permit itself. There is no indication of any historical significance of the property on any of the above sites,” said Karen Jordan, marketing manager of Triple Crown Corporation. “During a 40-year ownership time frame, Triple Crown Corporation has submitted at least four separate industrial land development and subdivision plans. At no time during these publicly advertised and open to the public meetings was there any mention as to the potential historical significance of this property.

ABC 27 tried to contact Silver Spring Township to inquire why the permit for demolition was approved. They did not return calls. They previously released a statement to our media partners at The Sentinel which read in part:

“Whether intentional or by error in 1995, the Bell Tavern was not listed as an historic, protected building on the township’s cultural features map and historic buildings list referred to in our zoning ordinance. Based on that, the township had to lift the stop-work order. Despite the lifting of the order, the developer has continued to suspend demolition, affording us the opportunity to engage in discussions about the preservation of the building.”

The company is currently in talks with the township about how to move forward.

“Although we are in sincere dialogue with the Silver Spring Township, we must emphasize that this is private property. Over the decades, the state, county and township all have had multiple opportunities to acquire and protect this asset. This could have been done for the benefit of the citizens at the expense of the citizens. Demanding that ownership repair and give this property to a governmental or historical preservation group at the sole cost of an individual owner is in direct opposition of what the Bill of Rights stands for,” Jordan said.

And the local newspaer, The Sentinel reported:

If Silver Spring Township officials and a local real estate developer didn’t know that an old stone house on Route 11 is the reputed birthplace of the U.S. Bill of Rights before they started demolition there last week, they definitely know now.

On Jan. 6, workers began demolishing a two-story stone house at 7086 Carlisle Pike in Silver Spring Township that most recently was the site of Stone House Auto Sales.

This just isn’t any stone house, however. Built in 1780 as the James Bell Tavern, the structure hosted the Stony Ridge Convention on July 3, 1788, a meeting of Anti-Federalists opposed to ratification of U.S. Constitution, which led to amending the document with the Bill of Rights.

Triple Crown Corporation, the property’s owner, legally obtained a permit from the township for the demolition, according to Christine Musser, a member of the township’s Conservation and Preservation Committee.

Musser said she was informed about the stone house’s history by an “outside source.” After “doing some digging” about the matter at the Cumberland County Historical Society, she alerted township officials about the matter.

Demolition of the historic structure was “put on hold” and discontinued on Jan. 7, Musser said. To her estimation, about a third of the building was demolished during the initial process.

“Triple Crown apparently had no clue of the building’s historical significance. It was an oversight,” Musser stated.

“Late Wednesday, January 6, township staff became aware that demolition of a building later identified as the Bell Tavern had begun by Triple Crown Corporation,” Silver Spring Township officials said in a news release issued Thursday. “Township staff issued a stop-work order on the demolition, and the developer complied. By that time, a portion of the building had been demolished. The stop-work order allowed us to assess the situation and whether the developer was in compliance with our ordinances.”

“Currently, the law requires building and demolition permits to be issued within tight timeframes,” the news release read. “The onus is then upon applicants to ensure that they are in compliance with other laws and ordinances, including the section of our zoning ordinance that serves as some protection for historic buildings.

“Whether intentional or by error in 1995, the Bell Tavern was not listed as an historic, protected building on the Township’s Cultural Features Map and Historic Buildings List, referred to in our zoning ordinance. Based on that, the Township had to lift the stop-work order. Despite the lifting of the order, the developer has continued to suspend demolition, affording us the opportunity to engage in discussions about the preservation of the building.”

The history: 

Musser is no stranger to Cumberland County’s history. Her pictorial history book about Silver Spring Township was published in 2014 as part of the Arcadia Press’ “Images of America” series.

According to meeting minutes obtained by Musser, the 1788, Stony Ridge Convention held at the former James Bell Tavern was attended by Benjamin Blythe, one of Shippensburg’s first settlers, and Robert Whitehill of Cumberland County. 

Whitehill is noted as the “Father of the Bill of Rights,” according to ExplorePAHistory.com, with its conception reportedly happening at that meeting at the Bell Tavern.

Before that, Whitehill had led an anti-federalist minority at the 1787 convention to ratify the U.S. Constitution. 

Anti-federalists opposed a strong central government as proposed in the Constitution. The Bill of Rights, which amended the Constitution with individual rights and limitations of federal and state government limitations, was adopted in 1791, according to Britanica.com.

Whitehill went on to serve in the state House of Representatives from 1797-1800; the state Senate from 1801-1804; and the ninth Congress and four succeeding Congresses until his death in 1813. In the 1990s, a historic marker was designated at the site of Whitehill’s home, Lauther Manor, at 1903 Market St., Camp Hill. The homestead of Benjamin Blythe at 217 Means Hollow Road, Shippensburg, is listed on the National Register of Historic Places.
What to do?

For now, the fate of the Bell Tavern stone house remains undecided. Triple Crown representatives did not respond to requests for comments for this story.

“Those of us, Township staff and elected officials, who work on behalf of the people of Silver Spring Township, were upset by the circumstance. To further protect historic buildings and sites within the township, we have taken steps to update the historic building map and list,” the township’s news release reads.

“We have put in place an interim administrative measure to ensure that future demolition permit applications are screened for historic site compliance by the township prior to the issuance of demolition permits, rather than leaving the responsibility on the applicant. Additionally, we will be considering further preservation measures in the coming days and months to provide greater protection for our invaluable historic architecture in the township.”

Maine Writer summary- Americans can't allow the symbols of our democracy, regardless of how seemingly structurally benign, to become the victims of municipal redevelopment. Otherwise, to remain silent or to pretend the significance of symbolisms are unimportant, will reduce our national pride to the low level of ignorant anti-culturalism. 

In other words, we can't ignore symbolism.  In fact, to ignore the symbolism of the very place where the Bill of Rights was conceptualized, written for the purpose of protecting individual rights, is to deny the essential importance of the basic tenets of the soul of our democracy. Considerable discusssion about this issue is posted by readers on The Sentinel news site, check out this link:

http://cumberlink.com/news/local/communities/mechanicsburg/historic-mistake-for-silver-spring-stone-house/article_45931055-9a18-5da0-981e-9828fc6eff77.html

In God We Trust and the Congressional Prayer Caucus

In our nation, our laws are rooted in the Ten Commandments, as written in the Old Testament. A marble relief of Moses adorns a portico into the House Chamber. President Eisenhower included the words "under God" in our Pledge of Allegience to the American Flag. "In God We Trust" is embedded in our currency.  US Presidents put their hands on a Bible when they're sworn in by the Chief Justice of the Surpeme Court. Therefore, it makes perfectly good sense for the Congress to host a prayer caucus.

Moreover, President George Washington attended Episcopal church services at St. Paul's Trinity Chapel in New York City. This lovely historic landmark is a National Historic Site. It's located at the end of Wall Street. It's especially sacred since it survived the collapse of the World Trade Center, on September 11, 2001.

St. Paul's Church Trinity Chapel in New York City

President George Washington attended services here.

In fact, it makes sense for Congress to host a prayer caucus. When the President of the United States ends nearly every speech with the words, "God Bless America", those words must be supported by actions.  Even Pope Francis invoked this blessing during his September 2015 visit to the US.  

Just because taxpayers fund the cost of the Prayer Caucus is no excuse to criticize the intention. Our Bill of Rights guarantees freedom of religion for everyone. This freedom certainly includes the members of the US Congress. 

Rep. Randy Forbes, R-Va., established the caucus in 2005 and it now includes about 90 members of the House, nearly all Republicans, one U.S. senator and one paid staff member.

In addition to putting aside their political differences and uniting in prayer for our nation, members of the Congressional Prayer Caucus work together engaging the legislative process to protect free exercise for Americans of every faith or no faith, reports USA Today. Some recent issues Prayer Caucus Members engaged in include reinforcing religious freedom for all faiths in the military, supporting and protecting the autonomy of churches and faith based organizations, and working to ensure every American is free to live according to their beliefs, without fear of punishment by the government.

An outside non-profit organization supports the Prayer Caucus efforts, just like many other caucuses. The Congressional Prayer Caucus Foundation operates out of a Chesapeake, Va., building owned by Rep. Randy Forbes, R-Va., founder of the caucus.

Thank God the Congress has a prayer caucus. 

As a nation, we need a moral compass and a spiritual political soul. It's invaluable and well worth paying for.

Sony allowed censure of it's right to free speech

It's just unbelievable how Fox News Fiction Network (FNFN) hasn't leaped on Sony's kowtow to North Korea's hacking of Sony Pictures Entertainment, when the corporation decided not to release the movie "The Interview".

In a year-end press conference, Obama said that he wishes Sony had spoken to him before deciding to back down on the "The Interview" release. In the movie, a plot to assassinate North Korean leader Kim Jong-un is the story.

"I would have told them 'Do not get into a pattern in which you're intimidated by these kinds of criminal attacks,'" said President Obama, at today's news conference.

"That's not who we are. That's not what America's about," he said. ..."I think they (Sony) made a mistake."

Media should be all over Sony Pictures Entertainment. Not releasing "The Interview" is a wrong minded decision by Sony to respond to censorship by the puny tyrant dictator of the despicable North Korean government. North Korea suppresses it's people and there's evidence that he starves them to death. 

Given the over reaction to a cynical movie, it's frightening to imagine what the North Korean dictator Jong-un does to his own people, without due process. 

As a matter of fact, Kim Jong-un murdered his own uncle who apparently wound up on the wrong side of a power struggle.

Obviously, Jong-un finds this cyber attack to be a real time computer game.  Un has the joy stick and now holds up control of the release of "The Interview". What's next? Will the evil despot also put his joy stick on the mark of releasing some rogue weapon of mass destruction? It's possible because,frankly, Jong-un is crazy.

Regardless of who launched the Sony cyber attack, the fact is, the corporation responded to censorship from a rogue nation. They acquiesced in a way the decision making executives would never have accepted and repelled if it came from our own government.

Sony has a lot of explaining to do and learning how to stand tall for freedom of speech  should be part of the corporation's education.

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights.

Sony violated their corporate responsibility to uphold this basic tenet of the US democracy. Sony is super sensitive to threats from weird and crazy despots like Jong-un, so maybe it's time for the company to live in a place where censorship is acceptable....like North Korea.