Better Late Than Never

The President stated, "The Time for Peace is Now", as he opened the Middle East Peace Summit currently being held at Camp David.

I certainly agree with that sentiment, but I can't help believing that the time for Peace in the Middle East was last week, last month and the last seven years too. While some would say, "Better late than never"....my reply would be "Better never late!"

Still, I'm happy the President seems to have finally recognized the need for fuitful negotiations, and I pray that this summit represents more than simply a half-hearted attempt by the Administration to garner publicity points.

Real negotiations involve a give-and-take process that demands flexibility on the part of all concerned and the courage and willingness to move from ideological positions that are set in stone, a stance heretofore not exhibited by the Bush Administration.

Here's to hoping for some genuine success!

Immigrant Hearts Challenges the Demonic Label

It's become the favorite pastime of many in this country to demonize undocumented immigrants and other foreign nationals who try to enter this country without permission. The "illegal immigrant" label is more popular today than "The Scarlet Letter" was in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, and it unfairly fosters the notion that those entering this country without permission are, at best, common criminals and, at worst, subhuman beings.

The recent act of Jesus Manuel Cordova puts that notion to the test.

Mr. Cordova was entering the United States without permission by treking through the Southern Arizona desert when he came upon a 9-year old American boy who, with his mother, had been involved in a car accident. The mother died at the scene. Mr. Cordova tossed his own self-interest aside, stayed with the boy and comforted the youngster throughout the night until help arrived the next morning.

It behooves this society to recognize that those who seek a better life here have hearts too...and very often they are filled with the greatest of human kindness. Instead of dehumanizing them, perhaps it's time we return the favor!

SOMETHING TO CONSIDER

A friend recently shared the following story with me. It's a piece worth considering by everyone. The author is unknown.

The Two Wolves

One evening an old Cherokee told his grandson about a battle that goes on inside people. He said, "My son, the battle is between two 'wolves' inside all of us. One is Evil. It is anger, envy, jealousy, sorrow, regret, greed, arrogance, self-pity, guilt, resentment, inferiority, lies, false pride, superiority, and ego. The other is Good. It is joy, peace, love, hope, serenity, humility, kindness, benevolence, empathy, generosity, truth, compassion and faith."

The grandson thought about it for a moment and then asked his grandfather: "Which wolf wins?"

The old Cherokee simply replied, "The one you feed."

FALLEN EVANGELICAL HUCKSTERS

Two noted evangelical hucksters fall in one week. It’s probably not a record, especially given the plethora of hucksters out there masquerading as preachers, but it’s worth noting in difficult economic times such as these that the lure for money and power knows no bounds.

Last week, Archbishop Earl Paulk of the Atlanta mega-church, the Cathedral of the Holy Spirit at Chapel Hill Harvester Church, was exposed as an adulterer…not necessarily big news in this age…but the man he fathered is now the pastor of the same mega-church Archbishop Faulk founded.

Folks thought D.E. Paulk was Archbishop Paulk’s nephew. Turns out he was the Arcbishop’s son…the product of an affair between the Archbishop and his brother’s wife.

The church and the Archbishop are being sued for other instances of alleged sexual-related conduct on the part of the Archbishop as well and the Archbishop faces possible perjury criminal charges for lying about the affair.

And then, there’s Richard Roberts, the son of note televangelist, Oral Roberts. Richard Roberts, the President of Oral Roberts University – until today when he resigned – has been accused of converting millions of dollars from the Oral Roberts University’s endowment to line his own pocket and support his lavish lifestyle. The evidence against him is overwhelming.

The shame in both stories is not just the fall of two powerful men, but the missed opportunities for good work both men left in their wake.

People give millions of hard-earned dollars to charities expecting those funds to be used to better the lives of others in need of assistance. Unfortunately, too often those funds simply enrich the hucksters.

It’s time for the government to be more aggressive in their investigation of charities to insure compliance with tax regulations that require charitable donations to be used for charitable purposes. This is not a freedom of religion issue. This is a tax issue.

Churches and Charitable Foundations that properly used donated funds have no reason to fear. Those who don’t use donations properly should. If the fear of God doesn’t work, perhaps fear of the IRS will.

Bearing Arms

Now that the United States Supreme Court has agreed to resolve the question of whether the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees an individual citizen the right bear arms, there is little suspense in my mind as to the outcome of said decision. Rather, the question in my mind is what logic will be employed to arrive at the Court’s conclusion.

The 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution, passed in 1791, provides as follows: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Gun Rights advocates maintain that the final two clauses of the Second Amendment should be deemed controlling in the debate. Such a finding would obviously require the elimination of gun-banning statutes, since those laws infringe on an individual’s ability to own firearms.

The flaw with that argument is that it calls on the Supreme Court to totally disregard the meaning of the first two clauses of the Second Amendment, clauses that provide the context for the people’s right to bear arms and, in 18th century grammar, were used as modifying clauses. If the Second Amendment is to be interpreted as an 18th century writer, using then proper grammar, intended it, then there is no other conclusion but that the right to own firearms only extends to those individuals who are members of the State’s militias.

A 21st century interpretation, using modern day grammar, would reach an opposite conclusion. A modernist interpretation would find the final two clauses of the Second Amendment controlling, noting in the process that while the justification for the Amendment – the ability to overthrow the government - might no longer be a relevant consideration, the crux of the constitutional protection is the individual's right to gun ownership.

The dilemma facing the Supreme Court at this juncture is choosing which line of reasoning to follow.

It is my belief that the United States Supreme Court will rule that the District of Columbia’s ban on handguns violates the Second Amendment, despite the fact that the District possesses no militia. Given the Court’s ultra-conservative make-up, there is little doubt in my mind that it will interpret the Second Amendment as conferring on all individuals the right to possess firearms. However, that conclusion will assuredly require individual justices to depart from their normal ideological positions.

The conservative wing of the Supreme Court, and their supporters around the country, have heretofore argued for a literal, strict-constructionists reading of the Constitution that requires strict adherence to 18th Century interpretations of the document, and have mocked in the process those who view interpreting the Constitution as a ‘living document’ that is capable of changing, modern-day interpretations. Ironically, those same conservatives represent the core constituency of gun rights advocates. To uphold an individual’s right to gun ownership, a cause they hold near and dear to their hearts, conservatives will be required to abandon the strict constructionist approach of constitutional interpretation in favor of a living, breathing constitution, a view many conservatives consider to be an anathema. A victory for gun rights advocates will require Supreme Court justices to engage in the very reasoning they and their conservative supporters have previously labeled a "fraud".

Therein lies the rub!

MUSHARRAF COURT PRACTICES LIKE THOSE IN U.S.

It should come as no surprise to anyone that the new Supreme Court of Pakistan, hand-picked by President Musharraf himself after he ousted the former justices, would rule that President Musharraf’s continued hold on power was legal. If you can’t trust your buddies to rule as you wish, whom can you trust?

Of course, the United States envoy in the region, Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte, conveyed this Country’s displeasure at Musharraf’s move away from a transparent democratic process, but the Administration’s bark regarding the replacement of Supreme Court Justices was dampened, in part, because Musharraf’s Supreme Court shenanigans reflects similar ideological shenanigans practiced here in the United States.

It’s not whether the justice will be fair that counts. It’s whether the justice will follow the nominating President’s ideology. Unfortunately, there’s a huge difference between the two!

WESTBORO BAPTIST CHURCH OF HATE…AND DISHONESTY

The hate-mongers of the Westboro Baptist Church from Kansas, the group that recently lost a federal civil trial brought by the father of a fallen Marine whose funeral they targeted for protest in March 2006, submitted financial papers last week to the Federal Court judge who oversaw the trial. Since jurors returned a verdict of nearly $11 million dollars against the Westboro Church and several of its members, the Court ordered that financial statements be filed in order to ascertain just how much of the judgment the church itself should be forced to pay.

Unfortunately, the financial disclosure papers filed by the Westboro Church failed to reveal how the Church was paying for its members to travel around the country to conduct their hateful protests. The glaring nature of said omissions caused the attorneys of the deceased Marine’s father to assert that the Church was outright lying to the Court.

What? A church lying?

I find the message of hate being spread by members of the Westboro Church to be of the loathsome variety, and I have no sympathy for the plight of any of its members for seeking to shower hate and psychological anguish on grieving military families, but I’m also concerned about what affect the Westboro suit will have on the exercise of First Amendment Rights by groups who do not follow the opinions and sensibilities of the public-at-large. Whether the Westboro protests have crossed the constitutional boundary of protected free speech, given the facts of that case, is an issue the federal appellate Courts will have to decide. Nevertheless, the Westboro Church has done an huge disservice by not being forthright in their court-ordered financial disclosure statements. The First Amendment does not protect them from such dishonesty!

Come to think about it…neither does their God!