Friday, February 7, 2025

The Price of Liberty is Eternal Vigilance #10: Can a church discriminate against gluttons?

I read an interesting article today from the best religious liberty magazine in the world. The article is about the tension between religious organizations that want to hire only people who adhere to their religious beliefs and government entities that want to prohibit discrimination.

Let’s make up a religion as an example of some of the issues mentioned in the article. This religion will be called Skin ’n’ Bones. Skin ’n’ Bones believes that gluttony is the most terrible sin and so this religion’s primary mission is to condemn and combat gluttony.

This church will say they should not be required to hire gluttons to work as officials at their church or to accept gluttons as members of their church. They may or may not allow gluttons to attend their church services depending on whether a particular congregation is orthodox Skin ’n’ Bones or liberal Skin ’n’ Bones.

In terms of hiring, I think this church is within its rights. They have a private religious organization and they can make whatever rules they want, unless they are deliberately harming people, like having human sacrifices or something…. Even a religion can’t have human sacrifices!

[Check out this book about how Jefferson and Madison
ensured freedom of religion in America.
If you buy it from this link Anything Smart
will earn a small commission. Thanks!]
The Grand Collaboration

What if the church wants to hire people to do some work on the property, carpenters maybe, or groundskeepers? Can they refuse to hire gluttons, or would that be unacceptable discrimination?

This is a little more complicated, but I think I would still let the church hire who they want without accusing them of illegal discrimination.

The article doesn’t go into the more complicated issue of private businesses owned by Skin ’n’ Bones members.

Suppose a Skin ’n’ Bones member starts a restaurant and refuses to serve gluttons or hire gluttons. Obviously, this would be really bad for business, but this member thinks it is wrong for him to participate in the sin of gluttony by serving gluttons at his restaurant or even hiring gluttons who will just use their pay to indulge in more gluttony.

NOW I think the government is right to step in and call this illegal discrimination.

To have a free country, that does not become a dictatorial theocracy, we have to distinguish between the religious sphere and the public sphere. In the religious sphere, organizations can treat people unequally and discriminate against people they don’t approve of. In the public sphere, organizations CANNOT treat people unequally and discriminate against people they disapprove of.

Churches are in the religious sphere and restaurants are in the public sphere and there need to be different rules for those two spheres. The religious sphere is always going to try to creep into the public sphere and the public sphere is always going to try to creep into the religious sphere, but we really need to keep them separate if we want to have a free society…. Which I do!

Within a church (in the religious sphere) people are allowed to prevent women from holding certain jobs, for example, because they believe women are supposed to be subordinate to men. But in a business (in the public sphere) you are not allowed to keep women subordinate to men, and prevent them from holding certain jobs just because they are women, because in our free society we believe that all people are created equal and need to be treated equally.

That’s what I believe anyway!

Here is a link to the article I mentioned above: https://www.libertymagazine.org/article/tightening-the-screws-on-religious-hiring

***

[If you want to support "Anything Smart" just click on book links on my blog to buy your books or anything else at Amazon. "Anything Smart" will receive a commission. Thanks!]

***

Copyright © 2025 by Joseph Wayne Gadway

Wednesday, February 5, 2025

The Price of Liberty is Eternal Vigilance #9: Is Identity Politics Good or Bad?

This morning I read a good article by David Remnick in The New Yorker. There were many thought-provoking paragraphs in the article – kind of what you would expect in an article by one of our great current events writers who is also the editor of one of the smartest magazines in the world….

One of the interesting and alarming paragraphs in this article was this one: “Shortly before the end of Obama’s second term, the President was in Lima, Peru, being driven to an event with some of his aides. Along the way, he confided that he’d just read an opinion column implying that, in electing Trump, tens of millions had rejected liberal identity politics. “What if we were wrong?” Obama said. “Maybe we pushed too far,” he went on, according to a memoir by one of his advisers, Benjamin Rhodes. “Maybe people just want to fall back into their tribe.” “

This made me think about “identity politics.” “Identity politics” is one of those things we hear people argue about and fight about and get angry about and yet, I almost never hear anybody explain what they MEAN by “identity politics.”

When I think about “identity politics” I am thinking about the process of looking at each group in our society SEPARATELY so we can see how they are doing. We do this to make sure that each group in our society, even groups we don’t belong to, and hardly ever think about, is sharing in the equality, and opportunity, and legal protections that EVERYBODY in America is supposed to have. To me that seems like a good thing to do….

[Check out this book great book about the growth of freedom in America.
If you buy it from this link Anything Smart
will earn a small commission. Thanks!]
The Bill of Rights: Creation and Reconstruction

To see why that is a good thing to do let’s imagine a white American man in 1850. If we asked him, “Is America a free country?” he would probably say, “Of course America is a free country!”

But then we could ask him, “So the Indians are free?” (They didn’t say Native Americans back then….) He would have to admit that Native Americans were not free in 1850. In fact, they were being systematically driven off their ancestral lands by force, and those who resisted were killed….

And then we could ask him, “So the black people are free?” (I don’t know if they said “black people” back then. Maybe they used more scurrilous words that I don’t want to use now….) He would have to admit that black people were not free in 1850. In fact, millions of them were being bought and sold and OWNED as slaves….

And then we could ask him, “So women are free?” This one might shock him, but if he thought about it for a minute he would realize that women were not allowed to vote and had all sorts of legal restrictions on their activities that men did not have so no; in 1850 women were not free either.

After our conversation this man might say, “OK. So now I see that SOME people in America are free, but we still have a lot of work to do if we want EVERYBODY to be free and equal.” But this man never would have noticed the problem unless he looked at each group separately. If we want true freedom in a country, we have to make sure EVERBODY has it. And looking at each group separately to make sure they are free, is exactly what I mean by “identity politics.”

People who HATE identity politics… I don’t know what they mean by it. We will have to ask them….

I’ve seen lots of movies or TV shows where there is a car crash or some other kind of accident and someone will shout out, “Is everybody OK?” To me, identity politics is just how our society shouts out, “Is everybody OK?”

And that is a very good thing to do!

Here is a link to the article I mentioned above: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2024/11/18/it-can-happen-here

***

[If you want to support "Anything Smart" just click on book links on my blog to buy your books or anything else at Amazon. "Anything Smart" will receive a commission. Thanks!]

***

Copyright © 2025 by Joseph Wayne Gadway

Thursday, December 12, 2024

The Price of Liberty is Eternal Vigilance #8: How much government power is too much?

Governments have to have SOME power, but not too MUCH power. A government with too little power cannot govern at all and so we don’t get the benefits a government is supposed to provide. A government with too much power can become tyrannical and infringe on the freedom of the people beyond what is proper and necessary to protect citizens and maintain an orderly society.

One of the endless struggles in the modern history of representative governments is to find the right balance between too little power and too much, between a government that is helpless and a government that is dangerous.

One of the attendees at the US Constitutional Convention in 1787 said the delegates gave the president strong powers, and sometimes not-well-defined powers, because they trusted George Washington, and they knew he was likely going to be the first president of the new country.

In a similar way, I think Americans should look around now, at the current crop of political leaders, and realize that it would be better for us to REDUCE presidential powers.

.

It is hard for me to understand why, but there was actually just a bill in the House to INCREASE the president’s power!

[Check out this great book about modern authoritarianism.
If you buy it from this link Anything Smart
will earn a small commission. Thanks!]
Autocracy, Inc.: The Dictators Who Want to Run the World

HR 9495 would allow a president to take away a non-profit organization’s tax-exempt status if that organization “supports” terrorism. The problem with the bill is that it doesn’t require the government to tell an affected organization why the decision is being made or what the evidence is that supports the decision.

How could an organization defend itself against an accusation without knowing exactly what the accusation is?

Today this bill was blocked in the House. 204 Republicans voted for this bill and 1 voted against. 52 Democrats voted for this bill and 144 voted against.

Notice that 256 people voted for this bill and only 145 voted against, so, why was it blocked? Due to the rules of the House this particular bill needed a 2/3 vote of 270 to pass and it did not reach 270…. But it came close!

More than 130 tax-exempt organizations, including the ACLU opposed this bill and I think they were right. We shouldn’t want the government to be able to penalize people, or groups of people, or organizations, based on shady and secret accusations and without due process of law.

Sadly, a majority of House members DO want the government to have this power, so I’m afraid we might see some form of this bill revived.

One of the things that should make us suspicious of this bill is that it would give the government power to penalize organizations that are "supporting terrorism," but we should wonder: if the government believes a group is supporting terrorism, why aren’t they bringing criminal charges against it? It almost looks like the government wants power to harass organizations even if they don’t have evidence the organizations committed any crimes at all….

That kind of power would certainly make a great tool for a tyrant.

I believe we are in a time when presidential powers should be reduced and, yes, I did write about this years ago, when a Democrat was moving into the White House.

I am certainly happy this effort to increase presidential power has failed, at least for now. If we want to defend liberty, we should not give the government MORE powers, especially not UNECCESSARY powers, and most especially not SECRET unnecessary powers.

***

[If you want to support "Anything Smart" just click on book links on my blog to buy your books or anything else at Amazon. "Anything Smart" will receive a commission. Thanks!]

***

Copyright © 2024 by Joseph Wayne Gadway

Sunday, December 8, 2024

The Price of Liberty is Eternal Vigilance #7: Terminating the Constitution. Piece by Piece.

Trump is not even in office yet and he is already busily trying to terminate rules in the Constitution.

We sure were warned! Trump’s own Vice President four years ago said Trump tried to put himself above the Constitution. Trump’s own Chief of Staff and his Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman BOTH told us he was a fascist. In 2022 Trump himself said the rules of the Constitution should have been terminated to keep him in power after he lost the 2020 election.

Now Trump is at it again.

One of the rules in the Constitution is this one, from the 14th Amendment: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

Trump doesn’t like this rule that anyone born in the United States is a citizen. He says he is going to end this Constitutional right with an executive order.

[Check out this great book about the U.S. Constitution.
If you buy it from this link Anything Smart
will earn a small commission. Thanks!]
America’s Constitution: A Biography

Can presidents just eliminate Constitutional rights with executive orders? Can presidents just decide who is a citizen and who isn’t, regardless of what the Constitution says? I don’t think so! But Trump says he will do it anyway.

And that’s just the beginning.

Here is another rule in the Constitution: “He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law….” Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2

This important clause puts a limit on presidential power by requiring him to get the “Advice and Consent” of the Senate for the appointment of high government officials.

There is an exception to this rule as follows: “The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.” Article 2, Section 2, Clause 3

By reading the two clauses above we can see that the normal procedure is for the president to make appointments with the advice and consent of the Senate. If a vacancy occurs when the Senate is in recess the president can make temporary appointments without advice and consent.

Trump has now demanded that the Senate treat ALL of his appointments as recess appointments. This would simply terminate the Constitutional rule requiring the advice and consent of the Senate for presidential appointments and vastly increase the power of presidents to rule like autocrats.

So, Trump wanted to terminate the Constitutional rules that prevented him from staying in office after losing an election. Now he wants to terminate the Constitutional rule that everyone born in the United States is a citizen. Now he also wants to terminate the Constitutional rule that requires presidents to get the advice and consent of the Senate for high level appointments….

I wonder which Constitutional rules he will want to terminate next. Something in the Bill of Rights, maybe?

Let’s keep our eyes open!

***

[If you want to support "Anything Smart" just click on book links on my blog to buy your books or anything else at Amazon. "Anything Smart" will receive a commission. Thanks!]

***

Copyright © 2024 by Joseph Wayne Gadway

Tuesday, November 26, 2024

The Price of Liberty is Eternal Vigilance #6: Will Trump’s Administration Support Freedom in Ukraine?

I am sure Trump will give us plenty to worry about once he takes office, but in the meantime let’s keep our eyes and ears open for signs of what is coming.

During the campaign Trump promised that if he was elected, he would end the war in Ukraine within 24 hours. That would happen even before he took office, he said. It hasn’t happened yet, which is actually a good thing because many people suspect Trump wants to let his hero Putin keep his conquests in Ukraine.

During the campaign Trump said the President of Ukraine was a great salesman for getting aid from the United States, which sure sounds like a hint that aid might stop once Trump is president.

Recently Don Jr. posted a video saying that Ukraine’s allowance is about to be cut off, which also sounds like there is a plan to cut off aid from that country which is currently fighting for its freedom against the Russian dictatorship.

[Check out this book about Ukraine’s fight against Russian imperialism.
If you buy it from this link Anything Smart
will earn a small commission. Thanks!]
Our Enemies Will Vanish

One of Trump’s campaign advisers recently said that Ukraine will have to accept that the Crimea is gone, meaning Putin will get to keep this territory he invaded back in 2014.

Trump people say this adviser does not speak for the new administration, but they did not contradict his statement that the Crimea is gone, so maybe that campaign adviser speaks the truth.

I would like American presidents to support freedom around the world. Especially when a country like Ukraine is willing to do the fighting for itself if we just supply them with the tools they need to do the job.

If the new president will not support freedom in Ukraine, where else will he not support it?

We should be vigilant and pay attention to this issue.

***

[If you want to support "Anything Smart" just click on book links on my blog to buy your books or anything else at Amazon. "Anything Smart" will receive a commission. Thanks!]

***

Copyright © 2024 by Joseph Wayne Gadway