"Before you pluck the speck from your brother's eye..."

"Remove the plank from your own..." - Jesus Christ

Difficult words to live by, especially in today's world. Christ's call to look to our own faults first is a real conundrum, especially for those of us who are easily fired up by real or perceived injustices, societal immorality, and all manner of illogical thought. I understand where Christ wants us to go with these words: if we truly desire the good of our brother (fellow humankind) then we must remove those things in our lives that keep us from our own goodness.

The issue, though is that Jesus didn't just use this little parable to point out that we can't look past our own glaring faults when seeing the faults of others...He also mentions in the gospels that we're supposed to "turn the other cheek" when someone wrongs us, essentially saying that we must not retaliate, but should show real love by forgiving the trespass of another without personal recompense. This can be especially difficult when people or groups we might count as our "enemies" throw insult after insult toward people with beliefs similar to ours, and the temptation to go blow for blow with those folks is strong.

So the Lord really threw out a difficult pill to swallow. For those of us who were raised with a keen eye for morality and ethics, we probably tend to see a lot more "specks", because our eyes are trained to. The problem is that this can easily result in the growth of a large "plank" in our own eye that we hardly see as we become too focused on the faults of others and not on growing our own capacity for love. Of course, love does not mean license and if we truly want the best for another we must at times speak up. The challenge Christ gave us is to balance love, justice, and humility as we seek the good of all. And that's a challenge worth accepting.

Obama, States' Rights, and the Constitution

[Editors note: This post is a collaborate effort between me and my brother-in-law, Erich. I look forward to writing future articles with him.]

During a December interview on "60 Minutes", Obama was asked how he would rate his presidency. The president said: “I would put our legislative and foreign policy accomplishments in our first two years against any president — with the possible exceptions of Johnson, F.D.R., and Lincoln — just in terms of what we’ve gotten done in modern history." I'm not going to attempt to define exactly what he meant by "modern history", but for the sake of argument let's look at modern history as 1776 to the present, shall we? With that in mind, we'll review the significance of Obama's comments as they pertain to the United States of America; particularly to "the Republic, for which [the flag] stands, one nation, under God, indivisible; with liberty and justice for all".

I recently had a conversation with a brother-in-law of mine, recounting a story that scares me more than a little. Not too long ago in the history of civilization there was a country that broke into factions and began to war with itself. One side wanted to split off and create their own independent nation while the other side wanted to keep unity for the sake of power. Rather than look to the law of the land, the bigger, more powerful side declared war on the smaller, weaker side that wanted to create their own country. Many men fought, suffered and died and in the end the side desiring to keep their little country together won. Sound familiar? It should, it was the Civil War...known to some people as the war to end slavery but to others as the war for state's rights. This was the point at which the power of the national government began to take precedence over the power of the states. Subsidiarity, for a large part, was gone. [I want to clarify that I don't think states' rights are more important than granting individual liberty to all people. Slavery is evil no matter what. The Emancipation Proclamation was necessary to guarantee freedom for slaves, but it did not require a war.]

So, let's tie this back to the flag and its pledge. The true reason for allegiance to the flag is obviously not allegiance to a physical starred and striped item, but to the "republic for which it stands" ...so what does "the republic" mean? It is the concise political word for the nation - the One Nation for which the North fought the Civil War to prove. To make that One Nation idea clear, the Pledge specifies that it is indivisible, as Webster and Lincoln used to repeat in their great speeches. We generally take indivisibility for granted, probably not giving our 50-state union a second thought. The fact is, our constitution specifically provides for national solubility, should one or more states desire independence. Practically speaking, states speak first for its citizens, not the federal government. Our current president has little respect for state's rights (or citizens rights, for that matter) that don't align with his agenda; he inflicts his presumed power on all citizens without regard for their voice. Would this still be the case had the Civil War gone differently, or not occurred at all?

No respectable historian would argue that Lincoln invaded the South to free the slaves. In truth, even his Emancipation Proclamation was only a "war measure" that would have become defunct if the war ended the next day – and it was written so as to avoid actually freeing any slaves since it only applied to "rebel territory." Both Lincoln and Congress announced publicly that their purpose was not to disturb slavery but to "save the union"; as a union is not compulsory, but voluntary, they actually destroyed that union philosophically by destroying its voluntary nature that was established by the founders. All states, North and South, became wards or appendages of the central government in the post-1865 era.

The Civil War was really fought over the issue of self-governance and state autonomy that our federation of states, our "United States of America" was founded on. Does this mean that I think the South should have seceded? No, I don't think they should have, but I agree with them on constitutional principle. As Erich stated during our conversation, "The Civil War is the point at which we went from being a constitutional federation to a national government." In the current system the federal government's rules trump everything else.

So how does this relate to Obama and his self-placement as 4th bestest behind FDR, Johnson, and Lincoln? Those of you that follow history will remember that these three presidents are some of the most prominent champions of national government's authority over the country's citizens that our country's highest office has ever seen. Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus and dismissal of the southern states' right to secede, FDR's New Deal, and Johnson's Great Society were progressive steps toward centralization of government power that has continued to build throughout the last 150 years and is currently being manifest in diktat by our current executive. Obama makes no secret of his willingness to impose laws, mandates, and sanctions upon the people that he was elected to lead. Abroad he has been both hawkish at times and sheepish at others, simultaneously throwing our troops under the bus and aiding wars or potential conflicts in Libya, Syria and Iran. We're still in Afghanistan and Iraq, contrary to his election promises. Our economy is stagnant at best and permanently weakened at worst, and for all his blaming of others Obama is the president and he has done nothing tangible to improve our global economic leadership. While promising to use a "scalpel" on the budget, he racks up more and more debt onto our shoulders and those of our children, with national debt significantly higher than ever before. Our constitutional rights as citizens are looked at by Obama as executive-defined, as he picks and chooses who qualifies for what rights. If you take his list and turn it upside down, Obama would certainly be closer to the number of 4th worst, but he didn't do this by himself. We have given our federal government and its "leaders" unprecedented and undeserved power. If our states, as constitutionally independent and self-governed units, began to exercise their rights and power, we would see a day in which the federal government's willingness to impose mandates at will upon we the people would greatly decrease. For all our sakes, I hope that day comes swiftly.

Faith and Public Life

After I wrote my last post in which I went through my opinions regarding the use of contraception, specifically hormonal contraceptives, I took quite a bit of heat from a variety of individuals. First, those who critiqued me as being "medieval" in my views, sexist, and trying to control women. Second, those who thought that my post tipped the scales on the border of arrogant and irreverent, since I wrote with a heavy dose of sarcasm and with a shortage of respect for the sensitivity of the subject. To all those comments I have this to say: I am passionate about furthering the respect for all persons and the unique dignity that they possess. While I stand to everything I said, I admit that it did come off with a self-righteous tone and for that I am sorry. In light of all this I went through the post and made some adjustments to ensure that my message and sincerity was clear. My meaning is the same, my delivery...less brash. For the entire post, click here.

As much as I mentioned early in that last post that I would try to leave doctrine out of the argument, the fact remains that I cannot entirely remove my faith from any debate which I undertake. Nor should I. In today's secular-driven world we are told be believe that our faith should be private, that we shouldn't "force our views on anyone else". If this is true, where should our faith be manifest? I, like many others, desire to live my life in a way that mirrors my beliefs in a God-centered worldview. How can I be expected to believe something, then leave that belief behind completely in my public life? Furthermore, why would I? If faith really exists in our life, it's because we truly believe it and desire to draw closer to the will of our God.

This doesn't mean that we intend to shove our beliefs down the throats of anyone within earshot. Those who argue that, by allowing faith to influence our public life we are somehow forcing our beliefs on others, insult the intelligence of everyone. By asserting that individuals cannot determine whether or not they agree with the beliefs of someone else, detractors of faith in public life are basically saying that anyone with genuine faith does not belong in the public sphere or they will subvert the vulnerable masses. There has been particular rancor directed at Catholic and Mormon politicians by those who claim these men would try to force their faith into policy. This narrow view would only have any base in reality if politicians began drafting laws that directly benefited their religion, the faithful of their church, or made a particular religion directly tied to the government. In contrast, people of faith typically realize that faith and the American Constitution share common principles: the welfare and betterment of all peoples, a just society in which all persons live as equals, and where respect for all humans from conception until natural death exists. In this light we see that faith may indeed foster a worldview that benefits all of society, not seek theocratic power for a particular church.

This broad understanding of faith and public life applies to all denominations in America. As a Catholic, I can only offer my own experience of how my faith is misunderstood from the perspective of secular society. For example, many people today view Catholicism as an out of touch, sexist, and controlling institution that seeks to somehow overtake the world. From a practical standpoint, I think that the Catholic hierarchy, and the pope in particular, have a pretty limited ability to actually enforce Church doctrine. I mean, compare them to every elected official. If a Catholic ignores a teaching of the Church, no church official comes knocking on their door to drag them to confession or demand higher weekly donations. Then we have our government officials who are more than willing to fine me, tax me, or even jail me for disobeying their civil decrees. Faith is not a compulsory affiliation; no one's forcing you to agree with doctrine. The common and condemning narrative of "you can't tell me that what I'm doing is wrong" is actually an intentional replacement of the more accurate "don't make me question or feel guilty about my choices". Since many people today have an issue with any kind of authority figure telling them the difference between right and wrong, they begin saying that people of faith are trying to strip them of their free will. I'm tempted to pull out a big "PLEASE..." here, but I won't. Instead, I'll reiterate what my picture above is trying to convey - that faith is voluntary, no matter what religion you ascribe to. Hearing the beliefs of a person of faith can neither coerce you to do something or make you believe. It's time society stopped fearing religion and embraced the positive aspects that faith brings to the public sphere.