We are not a "Christian" Nation

Recently there has been quite the discussion and controversy regarding President Obama's recent speech in Turkey, where he said:

"I’ve said before that one of the great strengths of the United States is – although as I mentioned we have a very large Christian population – we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation, or a Jewish nation, or a Muslim nation. We consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values."

This is just reiteration of what he said while running for President:

"Whatever we once were, we're no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers. We should acknowledge this and realize that when we're formulating policies from the state house to the Senate floor to the White House, we've got to work to translate our reasoning into values that are accessible to every one of our citizens, not just members of our own faith community."

Now, many Christians are in an uproar about this, saying "but we are the majority!"

This is like saying "We are a caucasian nation because caucasians are the majority."

Wouldn't make it true. We are a nation that contains caucasians, and african americans, and native americans, and hispanics... Just because a majority is present doesn't make it the definition of the country.

Further, an article at Sojourners own Jim Wallis' blog puts this into perspective. I'll repost an abridged version of the article:

Monday, in his address to the Turkish Parlaiment, President Obama made a statement guaranteed to spark controversy. “America is not a Christian nation.” Like clockwork, conservatives voiced their complaint. Though it is clear that people have vastly different interpretations of what the founding fathers intended for the religiosity of America, from a theological standpoint, we cannot assert that America is a Christian nation.

How much more offended should we have been if President Obama did declare America to be a Christian nation? Would we really want our faith and our savior associated with a country that gave birth to a trashy restaurant that objectifies women {Hooters}, or worse, a country that legalized slavery for 200 years and now has a wide gap between the rich and the poor? No. But at the same time we cannot deny that our country has done many great things under the influence of Christianity, such as the abolition of slavery, the passage of civil rights legislation, and the creation of PEPFAR.
America is not a Christian nation, but there are followers of Christ within the country pushing the government and the nation to do the will of God. The only state, nation, principality, or country that can call itself a Christian “nation” is the kingdom of God fully ushered in by the second coming of Christ.

America is not a Christian nation because no nation is a Christian nation.

Further, from a political standpoint, we aren't a Christian nation either.

Here's what I mean:

Saudi Arabia is a Muslim State. From wikipedia:

The central institution of the Saudi Arabian government is the Saudi monarchy. The Basic Law of Government adopted in 1992 declared that Saudi Arabia is a monarchy ruled by the sons and grandsons of the first king, Abd Al Aziz Al Saud. It also claims that the Qur'an is the constitution of the country, which is governed on the basis of the Sharia (Islamic Law).

In the US, the Constitution is not based on the Bible. If it were, we would have some major problems if we were to go with the prevailing interpretations of the New Testament. Women not able to lead (or speak in church), having to wear head coverings, be required by law to submit to their husbands. Being illegal to swear. I could go on. The point is, we are not a Christian State.

But our Constitution is based on freedom to choose. In fact, from the First Amendment:

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.

We are not a "Christian" nation. We are a nation that contains Christians, but we also contain Muslims, Buddhists, Atheists, and Deists.

Pro-Life

So here's where I show my conservative roots.

I'm Pro-Life.

Yes, that's right, I'm anti-choice. Anti-abortion.

I believe life begins at conception, and should be protected at implantation as much as possible.

Women have a choice. To not have sex. To try something called birth control.

To say, "its not fair that men don't have to carry the baby..." blah blah blah. Its not fair. Its nature. Tough. There's always adoption.

But Pro-Life goes beyond just abortion.

The consistent life ethic, or seamless garment, or even total pro-life standpoint is about supporting life from birth to death.

That's why I'm also against torture and rendition. And unjust wars.

From wikipedia's consistent life ethic entry:

This viewpoint was especially emphasized by Pope John Paul II in his encyclical, 'Evangelicum Vitae' (1995). In it he emphasized the value and inviolability of human life. In the United States, several organizations have promoted the "consistent ethic of life" approach, including both Catholic groups (e.g., the National Conference of Catholic Bishops), and broader coalitions, such as Consistent Life, founded in 1987 as the Seamless Garment Network. The ethic and its organizational expressions are difficult to define in terms of the conventional U.S. political spectrum, since those who subscribe to the ethic are often at odds with both the right wing over capital punishment, war, and economic issues, as well as the left wing over abortion, embryo-destructive research, and euthanasia.

More of the Constitution trampled upon by Bush's Legacy.

This is taken from a truthdig article. You can read the entire thing here.

Here are the highlights:

U.S. federal agents were preparing to arrest Youssef Megahed in Tampa, Fla. Just three days earlier, on Friday, a jury in a U.S. federal district court had acquitted him of charges of illegally transporting explosives and possession of an explosive device.

Megahed, acquitted by a jury of his peers, thought he was secure, back with his family. He was enrolled in his final course at the University of South Florida that would allow him to receive his college degree. Then the nightmare he had just escaped returned. His father told me: “Yesterday around noon, I took my son to buy something from Wal-Mart ... when we received a call from our lawyer that we must meet him immediately ... when we got to the parking lot, we found ourselves surrounded by more than seven people. They dress in normal clothes without any badges, without any IDs, surrounded us and give me a paper.

“And they told me, ‘Sign this.’ ‘Sign this for what?’ I ask him. They told me, ‘We are going to take your son ... to deport him.’”

Megahed is being held by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement for a deportation proceeding. The charges are the same ones from which he was completely acquitted. In August 2007, Megahed and a fellow USF student took a road trip to see the Carolinas. When pulled over for speeding, police found something in the trunk that they described as explosives. Megahed’s co-defendant, Ahmed Mohamed, said they were homemade fireworks.

Prosecutors pointed to an online video by Mohamed, said to show how to convert a toy into an explosives detonator. Facing 30 years behind bars, Mohamed took a plea agreement and is now serving 15 years. Megahed pled not guilty, and the federal jury in his trial agreed with his defense: He was an unwitting passenger and completely innocent of any wrongdoing.
That’s where ICE comes in. Despite being cleared of the charges in the federal criminal case, it turns out that people can still be arrested and deported based on the same charges. The U.S. Constitution protects people from “double jeopardy,” being charged twice with the same offense. But in the murky world of immigrant detention, it turns out that double jeopardy is perfectly legal.

Ahmed Bedier, the president of the Tampa Human Rights Council and co-host of “True Talk,” a global-affairs show focusing on Muslims and Muslim Americans on Tampa community radio station WMNF, criticizes the pervasive and persistent attacks on the U.S. Muslim community by the federal government, singling out the Joint Terrorism Task Forces, or JTTFs. The JTTFs, Bedier says, “include not only federal FBI agents, but also postal inspectors, IRS agents, deputized local police officers and sheriff’s deputies, any type of law enforcement,” and when one agency fails to take down an individual, another agency steps in. “It’s like an octopus,” he says.

Wow. I'm floored. This is entirely ridiculous. First the wiretapping and PATRIOT act. Guantanamo Bay. Then the John Yoo Memos. Now this? C'mon!! Wake up, people! This is George W. Bush's legacy. This is the Republicans' legacy. While they whine about the first lady returning the Queen of England's hug, they silently take away all that we hold dear.

Double Jeopardy. Habeas Corpus. Free Speech. Warrants. Due Process. All sacrificed to the "war on terror." We sure won that.

The Republican's Budget.

The GOP finally released their full alternative budget proposal yesterday.

If you want to download the entire thing, click here.

I'll admit, some of the budget points make some sense. They talk about ending the bailouts. I can live with that.

They shows graphs showing that both their budget deficits and the national public debt would go way down with this budget as compared to Obama's. But how?????

By freezing all government spending. (except for defense spending, this they would increase by $50 billion).

Gutting medicare.

Repealing all stimulus bills.

They then give all these impressive figures about how the deficit spending is $100 billion less than Obama's, and how the Public Debt will be less in 10 years with their budget than with Obama's. How will this be done?

By going into they go into Fantasy Land.

They want to make Bush's tax cuts on those that make over $150,000 a year permanent. A cut from 39% to 35%.

They continue.

They would add to the Bush tax cuts.

The wealthy (those that make over $150,000 a year) would get an additional 10% off, to 25%.

Corporation's tax rates would go down to 25% instead of 35% (current) and 39% (Obama's).

Suspends capital gains taxes.

The middle classes taxes? Stays the same.

But how does this bring down the deficit spending and public debt????

It doesn't.

Oh wait, I forgot a crucial part of their budget.

The tax cuts down to 25% are optional. Yes. They assume that the wealthy and corporations won't take them up on the 10% decrease in the taxes, that they'll voluntarily pay taxes at 35%. All of their figures assume the 35% rate. If they gave those tax cuts to those that carry the tax burden, their deficit spending should SKYROCKET, followed closely by a skyrocketting public debt, much higher than Obama's.

Looks like the Republicans fail again.

*UPDATE*

This budget was so ridiculous that, although no house republican voted for the Dems' budget, the Repubs lost this battle in the house 293-137, with 38 of their own voting against it.

The Republican's April Fool's Joke On Us...

...the GOP gives us a budget with no numbers. Just more criticisms of President Obama.

If you want to read it, click here. You'll have to change the downloaded 10 page document to a .pdf to read it. I did. Its ridiculous. Yet again, we're waiting for a real proposal and some real ideas from the GOP. Yet again, they haven't delivered.

Here are some highlights (thanks to politiFact for giving this synopsis):

• Spending: The Republican plan says the Obama budget spends too much and is "reckless." The Republicans say they would undo wasteful spending from recent legislation such as the economic stimulus bill and the omnibus spending bill for this year. But they don't specify what programs or how much. The Republican plan also says it would "cut overall nondefense spending by reforming or eliminating a host of wasteful programs deemed ineffective by various government entities." So what programs and how much? The plan doesn't say.

• Lowering taxes and creating jobs: In a rare moment of specificity, the Republican plan says it would rewrite the tax code so that people making up to $100,000 would be taxed at a marginal rate of 10 percent and everyone above that would be taxed 25 percent. Fair enough. So how much would that cost? The plan doesn't say. It offers a few other tax-cutting ideas — tax deductions for businesses and an overall vow to keep the Bush tax cuts — but again there are no estimates about the impact on revenues.

• Controlling debt: The Republican plan says it will control debt by ending spending on bailouts for Wall Street. For a savings of ... hmm, doesn't say. The plan also opposes runaway inflation and promotes keeping the cost of living low for families and entrepreneurs. Sounds great! What that means for the federal budget, we couldn't tell you.

Now, we should note that the Republican document has some numbers in it. But they're numbers about Obama's budget, used to illustrate the party's complaints, under labels like "Future Debt Burden" and "Expanding the Size of Government."
What the Republican plan lacks is the numbers that really matter, numbers that would show how much the Republicans propose to spend on various parts of government.
There are many pressing questions in the public debate that an alternative budget could answer. For example, if we're going want to cut wasteful spending, what programs should be cut? Also, what will cutting taxes do to deficit projections in years to come? But the Republican plan doesn't provide any answers.

*UPDATE*

The Republicans have released the actual budget today. Guess what it rides on: tax cuts for the rich. Again. Because that sure worked for the last eight years.

I'll post some more after I finish reading the actual budget. I'm guessing I'll have more than enough material to make fun of for my next post.