The High Ground

This is the first in a series of entries exploring the connection that should exist between moral reasoning and politics. In order to eliminate any outcry over mixing politics and religion, I am going to discuss the flaws in the contemporary interpretation of the First Amendment.

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 amendment clearly states that the government shall make no law establishing a NATIONAL religion. It furthermore endorses religious thinking by expressly protecting the rights of all people to freely exercise their religious beliefs. This is a significant statement that has been twisted and spun considerably in this secular age. The First Amendment is protecting religion from the government. The common interpretation is ’separation of church and state’. The text does not say that. It does not imply that. It clearly states that there will be no national church. As a resident of Connecticut, I understand the meaning very clearly. Until 1818. Congregationalism was the state endorsed religion. People were expected to pay taxes to support the local congregation. Other religions existed in a quasi-legal limbo. The authors of the Bill of Rights knew this was happening, and determined that freedom demanded that state religions be abolished. And in a Constitutional revision, Connecticut ended its sponsorship of the Congregational church.

I am protected from government interference in practicing my faith. The government is not safe from my practice of faith-based values in the exercise of political sovreignty however. Free exercise is – well, free exercise. It doesn’t say free exercise unless someone disagrees or is offended. It doesn’t say free exercise except in political matters. It is a sweeping and powerful protection given to people of faith. We are free to participate in public life without having to suppress our religious convictions. And it is protected in the Constitution of the United States.

So what does this mean? This means that it is eminently acceptable to use my religion as a sounding board for policy. As a Roman Catholic, I have been taught that life is sacred. This means that I have every right to seek to limit the application of capital punishment. I have every reason to use all the powers at my command to end the state sponsorship of abortion clinics. I have every reason to condemn the General Assembly’s insistence that Catholic hospitals provide abortions and issue the ‘morning after pill’.

When running for office, John Kennedy told a legion of pastors and reporters that would leave his religious views at the gates if elected. His religion would play no role in his decision-making. What a crime. What a lost opportunity. What a tragedy. And still, you see his portrait in so many homes celebrating the only ‘Catholic’ president. I do not consider him to be a Catholic president at all. Peter renounced Christ only to beg for forgiveness when the cock crowed. Kennedy spent his administration proving that religion and moral reasoning played no part in his presidency.

Conversely, when Joseph Lieberman was confronted with the question of religion interfering in his political life, he proudly proclaimed that as he was shaped by his faith, his political decisions would certainly be influenced by moral reasoning and the tenets of his religion.

The application of moral reasoning and using religious values to determine political choices are valid. They are protected under  the Constitution. And they should be.

There is a lot to cover here – please let me know what you are interested in tackling. I am working on the first topic essay this week….

A ‘new-again’ email is making the rounds and was dumped in my mailbox…from yet another person who is using their position to espouse an argument. Like the 1st, this is another case of people who should know better using their freedom of speech in an irresponsible manner.

This email petition does not advocate a boycott on all gas stations – just a couple. According to the message, this plan was engineered by former executives from Halliburton and Coca-Cola. Unlikely, as anyone holding such positions have a better grasp of basic economic theory. Let’s break it down.

Boycotting one or two brands will have no effect on the cost of gasoline. The shunned brands will simply sell their gas to those who are selling gas in retail outlets. This will have no effect on gas – in fact, it may even raise prices as outlets compete for the ’surplus’ gas. This is simple supply and demand economics.

Who would this hurt? It will hurt the business owner. The working poor and convenience store owner who has little control over the costs, makes little on the sale of gasoline, and relies on selling sundries to make their businesses profitable. Morally, any decision that targets – indirectly or no – a subclass of people who have no control over  an issue and will suffer from it is inherently wrong. By following this ‘plan’, convenience stores – not big oil – will suffer. Your neighbors, people.

How to solve this problem? It is a demand issue. Any commodity in great demand will be more desirable to a consumer (forgive me for stating the obvious here). As the demand increases, one of two things occur. Prices rise or supply increases – sometimes both. If there is a finite supply, the demand will drive prices up drastically. An example are the ‘hot’ game platforms and stuffed toys that command astronomical prices in the Christmas consumer feeding frenzy.

It seems that the ‘gas crisis’ is greatly alleviated these past couple of weeks. I have been calling it for quite some time – in economic terms, an imbalance between supply and demand will always seek to return to equilibrium. Consumers modified their behavior and demand decreased. As demand decreased, supply constraints were eased and the prices have gone down. A case of classic supply and demand, correct?

No. Not quite. Another factor influenced this drama – in fact, this factor may be the driving force for this ‘crisis’. Speculation. Speculation is a practice of purchasing ‘futures’ of a commodity. People make millions of dollars buying and selling commodities that they do not store, ship, process, or transfer. Why? Because they don’t exist yet. Is this a morally defensible practice? I would argue it is not. Gambling should be left to the gaming rooms of Atlantic City, Las Vegas, and the Mohegan Sun. Speculation drove prices to astronomical levels and has had a ripple effect whose influence will take months to assess. Already, consumers have drastically modified their behavior. Airlines are booking less – indeed some a grounding hundreds of aircraft. People are conserving more. The sale of SUVs and pick-up trucks is crashing. Ford posted a nearly nine billion dollar loss in the second quarter.

The world certainly faces an increasing crisis of available oil. I say ‘available’ because I believe that the supply is controlled by those who hold the resources. China and India are booming and will drive demand up dramatically. We must all learn to do more with less. And to find means of powering our cars, homes, and communities using other viable energy sources. This will take time, but a job never started never gets closer to being finished.

When we as consumers make decisions, we must contemplate the impact of those choices. We must learn to become responsible stewards of what we have been entrusted. And we must consider the real costs of our actions. Boycotts rarely hurt those that are targeted. A market economy acting without interference will generally find equilibrium. And if you think the big, evil corporations’ are so bad, try living without them. The Amish do for the most part. We cannot be strident in our protests unless we are willing to take meaningful action.