Tuesday, September 20, 2016

Colin Kaepernick, Cliven Bundy and The Man who Refused to Salute

by Nomad

The Colin Kaepernick controversy has highlighted America's divide over paying respect to symbols and the right to dissent, as a form of free speech.
In this post, we look at the historical reasons why our views changed following the rise of fascism and perhaps why they are presently called into question again. 



"False Rogues, Boring from Within"

Back in March 1944, The California Law Review published an interesting article called "Conscience v. The State" by Chester Charlton McCown.
Despatches from Switzerland a few months ago told of the execution of some and the arrest of many more of these sectaries. They were accused of teaching children to pray for peace and for the return of their fathers and brothers from the battle front; of putting Germans in the dilemma of choosing between the Fuehrer and a heavenly leader; of interpreting their visions as warnings of impending doom upon the German people.
These "false rogues, boring from within," who were chiefly working people, exhibited admirable courage and tenacity of faith. When, recently, seven were executed, their wives begged them not to sign a recantation in order to obtain a possible pardon. Repression seems to have had no deterrent effect upon the spread of the movement.
McCown, as a Professor of New Testament Literature, inevitably saw parallels between this act of defiance in the face of a fascist state and the early Christian martyrs who refused to pay their not only their taxes but their absolute submission to Caesar. 

That ethic has remained a long part of the faith. The writer cited the formal protestant attitude to nationalistic symbolism:
They believe that they "must obey God rather than man." If a national majority should decide upon policies which they thought wrong and they should be ordered to take part in the resulting actions, many would refuse to comply, accepting without resistance whatever punishment resulted.
This is, incidentally, the basis for Kim Davis' and her position on religious liberty. 
Generally speaking, religious convictions (and, in more secularist form, the moral conscience of the citizen) have found safe haven in any nation that dares to call itself free.  

Sunday, September 18, 2016

Forethought and Consequences: Trump, Rove and the Unimaginable Dangers of an Impulsive President

by Nomad



Rove's Rant

Raw Story recently ran a piece about American Republican political consultant and policy advisor Karl Rove's take on Donald Trump. On Friday afternoon's Fox Business News, Rove had a lot of bitter whiny things to say. The term used was an "epic rant." 

He dared to ask the question whether Trump actually wants to win. If so, how can anybody explain the daily gaffes and the misjudgments and, well, the nonsense? What the hell is going on? In particular, the former George W. Bush chief-of-staff deplored how easily Trump could be distracted and baited.

Rove cited example after example in which the GOP nominee could (plausibly) have turned his campaign around. Visibly angry, Rove pointed out that Trump squandered those opportunities, picking an unwinnable fight with Gold Star families, and making outrageous and ignorant claims about Obama and ISIS. 
 As Rove once wrote:
“The most precious asset any presidential candidate has is time.” 
Trump has been wasting much time on petty spats that more intelligent candidates would have avoided like the plague. Not only has he wasted time with unimportant squabbles, Trump has also wasted even more time making ridiculous remarks that he must spend further time walking back from. Either he has later blamed it on the unfairness of the media for exaggerating or, even more ridiculously, taking his too seriously. 

None of this should be happening. Yet it is.
Rove then said much more important about the deficiencies of Trump:
“And why? He felt compelled to do it. He ought to get control of his impulses and keep focused on the main target. Otherwise, you’re going to have more of these Republicans saying ‘why do we want to stand by this guy when he just keeps going after the wrong target.'”