TWO STORIES

 I was probably around 11 years old the first time I went to a birthday party where I received a prize without winning any of the games.  This was a new experience for someone in the late 1950s/early 1960s.  It was the first time everyone got a prize whether they did anything or not.  On the way home with my mother I tried to explain that the prize I had received was not because I had won, but just something for taking part in the game.  She didn’t understand. I remember my overwhelming emotion was one of shame for getting something for nothing.

Recently I heard a successful minority artist being interviewed on the radio.  The interviewer kept stressing the fact that he had worked several jobs during his time at college in order to pay his tuition.  My thinking was “so what – a lot of people I know as well as my own self did the same, some were minorities, some were not.  All were both thankful for and proud of their work and what it had allowed them to accomplish.”   But the interviewer, and to some extent the artist himself, seemed to stress the victim factor of having to work to attend college.  This was such a contrast to the view that such work to improve oneself and/or achieve a goal is something to be proud of.  It does not make someone a victim, but rather a success.

What do these two stories have in common and what do they tell us about society both in years past and today?

To what is one entitled?

Both stories consider a relationship between some personal effort and a reward.  The first story reflects a principle that one does not get something for nothing – one must “win” it by their own hard work.

The second story reflects the idea that if you have to work for something then you are experiencing some sort of victimhood/disentitlement and that the focus of your eventual success should be on the victim experience rather than the personal initiative that led to your success or even the ultimate success itself.

If we consider that these two core principles reflect a more general societal view far beyond the specifics of each story, then one has to wonder: 1) how has such a core value changed so greatly in little over 50 years; and (2) is the change a good one?

A change in message

It was in the 1960s that our society began to seriously question competition, especially for children.  We began to be concerned that hurt feelings of losing were unhealthy and must be eliminated.  Hence the emergence of the “participation trophy” for everyone.

The hidden message of such “trophies” is that really all one has to do is show up.  No effort required beyond mere presence.  A second message is that one has a right to always feel good – no hurt feelings due to losing a competition or otherwise.

The “entitlement” to always feeling good broadened beyond childhood games.  Parents hesitated to say “no” to children for fear of hurt feelings.  Grade inflation was in part motivated by a similar goal.  “Safe spaces” began to appear on college campuses and in the workplace as the children who learned that they had a right to demand happiness grew up and became adults.

This change in attitude continued to explode.  Not only were you entitled to never have a hurt feeling – everyone was entitled to have it all.  Personal choices that may have led to a negative personal consequence became no longer relevant as well as personal characteristics and talents that make each of us the individual we are.  Scientific advances helped in this regard, doing such things as outfitting physically limited bodies with artificial replacements.  Yes, people began to believe that they can and that they are entitled to any and everything they want, including the current idea that they can change their sex at will and that men can be pregnant and give birth to a child.  Questioning any personal desire or gratification is met with an accusation of insensitivity if not bigotry.

Is the new message a good one?

A message of entitlement growing out of a desire to protect from pain at first may sound harmless or perhaps even laudable, but once one reflects on it one can see the broad and changeful effect that it can have. 

It creates a major change in societal values.  Where personal responsibility and pride in one’s work were once lauded, now the responsibility falls upon society as a whole to create a happy environment for all.  (We will save for another time how and who defines “happiness” for all the people.)  A recent television ad advertising a free housing program announced that people should have time to play and do what they want rather than have to work hard to pay for housing; the visuals showed happy individuals riding bikes, playing in parks, etc.

For many today, the concept of “equity” for all as opposed to “equality of opportunity” has become paramount.  If one will have the same result regardless of how much or little effort one puts in, the work ethic becomes meaningless and with it pride in one’s work becomes an archaic concept.

A path to Socialism

With the loss of those concepts a path is cleared toward socialism.  This country has been testing that path for some time, and now it seems that a good half of the country would choose Socialism over Capitalism.

Both systems can be enticing, and neither is perfect.  I will be the first to admit that in America today it is much harder to achieve one’s dreams simply through one’s own hard work and that the promise of utopia that Socialism presents (though ultimately never delivers) sounds lovely.  But at the same time I believe that to give up that individual fulfillment that comes from the sometimes difficult burdens of personal responsibility and hard work would be a hugely wrong step for our society. 

If you only had fun, do you really win?

It is only through the struggles that one faces when allowed to experience hardships and sadness that one can feel the true joys of success.  And it is often those hard times that provide one with the motivation to strive to become truly the best they can be and not just one of the many swimming in the mediocre sea of equity. 

Nowadays of course, everyone expects to get the prize/trophy/reward whether they worked for it or not.  If not provided, they become victims with a claim for an even bigger and better prize.  I think our society was in a better place in the first story - when one felt a bit ashamed of getting something for nothing.

 

The Power of WHY

 We all know that Biden repeatedly tells the country that we must vote Democratic as he repeatedly vilifies all Republicans.  Down the ballot most Democrats do the same.

But it is not only Democrats who demand unwavering and indeed unthinking party loyalty.  In my state the voters can vote to retain or not retain state judges who are already sitting on the bench.  The state judges are identified by party affiliation.   The Republican party recently posted an ad telling voters to vote no on every single judge who is up for retention simply because they are Democrats. 

It is not just political parties that demand unthinking decision making.  My state’s major newspaper apparently based its endorsements on the answer to one question – whether the candidate agreed with Trump that the 2020 election was stolen.  A clear No got you the endorsement but a Yes or even an answer that tried to explain the complexities of that question meant you would not be endorsed.  The paper itself noted that despite the Republican governor candidate coming out on top on nearly all the issues, he would not have received the endorsement had he not answered a clear No to that one question, while it failed to endorse a Republican candidate for House because that candidate failed to give an unexplained yes or no  (that was the only negative noted in the paper’s discussion of that candidate and her opponent who answered no and whom they endorsed).   

These demands that one decide a vote simply on one question or merely a party label are wrong on so many levels.  Let me suggest three.

First, candidates are individuals.  Voters need to look at each candidate as a full person, not as simply a cardboard cutout representing one label or one yes or no answer.  For example, in the judicial retention elections in my state voters have access to in-depth studies done by our Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission.  These include surveys of litigants, attorneys, and others appearing in that judge’s courtroom as well as surveys of the judge’s staff, and the Commission’s evaluation of each judge.  That is a starting point for voters to understand whether or not they believe a particular judge should be retained.  There are judges belonging to both parties that deserve to be retained, and some of each party that do not.  The total picture of each individual judge includes far more than just their party affiliation.

Second: it’s identity politics.  Using a party label to paint a broad and unvarying picture of everyone belonging to that party is simply the game of identity politics, something that we know the Democrats are very good at.  It is the Democrats who paint all opponents as “deplorables” or “terrorists” or “destroyers of democracy.”  The Democrats have given us excellent examples of how to pit one identity group against another as they do such things as paint all whites as racist or all Christians as intolerant or all Trump supporters as violent.

When the Republicans paint all Democrats as bad judges or when the newspaper paints all people with one answer to a question as not endorsable, they too are playing the identity politics game which is simply taking one characteristic of an individual’s many facets and painting all who have that characteristic with the same broad brush.

Group-think or don’t think.  The third and most troubling aspect of these party or single-question-based directives is that they are essentially orders to the voting public not to think.  Because if one thinks, they will go beyond the narrowness that creates cardboard cutouts rather than individuals:  they will think for themselves.

The danger of labeling based on one characteristic or identity factor out of the many that we all carry goes far beyond voting.  It destroys us by dehumanizing each and every one of us.

Humanity requires thinking and debate

Interestingly, in the SCOTUS arguments about affirmative action earlier this week, the justices sincerely grappled with the need for a diverse classroom environment while prohibiting race-based (essentially group identity based) decision making.

Diverse environments are essential to open all our eyes as we learn about, debate, and understand the diverse views of our pluralist democracy.  Labeling any one view as definitive of all who may hold that view is disingenuous and destructive of every positive aspect of pluralism. 

Questioning and debating is essential to human growth, but that debate needs to be based upon reality, not cardboard cutouts based on identity factors.  The debate needs to be individualized if the debaters are to learn and grow.  But the necessary partner with debate is the ability to think as an individual about other individuals.  Demanding thought and action based on group identity defeats the entire purpose.

Yeshiva schools understand how important true debate (debate and questioning in order to grow and learn) is to education.  In such schools the students, along with their rabbis, question the Torah, debating, often quite passionately, about its meaning and its application to their lives.  They are taught not to accept, but to question.  And with questioning comes not only thinking, but an evolution in one’s thinking as they grow deeper and deeper understanding of that which they are studying.

WHY – An act of love

The idea of questioning, even questioning God Himself, goes back to the story of Adam and Eve in the Book of Genesis.  We are told that Eve’s mission is to be a helper against Adam.  The rabbinic commentators on this passage explain that this “teaches us a model of friendly antagonism, one in which, in order to support you, I challenge you.” (Prof. Elie Wiesel, quoted in Witness by Ariel Burger).  Such challenging refines the thinking of those involved, allowing them to refine and develop their ideas about the subject being debated. 

Learning about the beliefs of others allows one to challenge one’s own deeply held beliefs, something which is vitally important for one to grow in both spirit and intellect.  Disagreement and debate for the sake of learning, understanding, and growing and not simply to defeat or silence the other’s view is an act of love – for oneself and for the other.  It allows us to see one another for the complex individuals we each are.

Excluding debate, even when done with the misguided motive of protecting delicate feelings, is not an act of kindness but rather an act that serves to stifle individuality.  Demanding that someone vote or base any other activity solely on a group identity classification stifles the individual capacity to think.

Not only in voting, but in the world at large, we need to see people for the complex individuals that they are.  We need to question our candidates and the information that we have about them, not simply base an important decision on one alleged identity characteristic that may or may not be true for that individual candidate, whether based on party affiliation or single question answer. 

If we open our hearts and our minds to question and debate we can reach deeper levels of understanding about ourselves, those we interact with and society at large.  But those questions must not be in the nature of HOW CAN YOU disagree with me/say that? 

Rather, we must learn to ask WHY?  In the context of elections:  WHY are you a member of that party?  WHY do you support that?  In the broader context:  WHY do you say/believe that – help me to understand WHY you hold that view.

That simple word WHY used with curiosity and openness rather than with a closed-minded intent to shut unfamiliar or opposing views down, can go far.  Not only will it likely do more to elect the best candidates, it will also do much to heal our world.

Education requires a questioning interaction – with oneself and with others

 It is easy to give up on America these days.  In considering what we need to move forward I always seem to return to education and the fact that our current education systems do not teach the basic thinking skills that allow individuals to make informed decisions about the direction they would like their country to take.  Indeed, today our education system seems to be more aligned with the narrowness of propaganda than with the open-mindedness that true education requires.

Recently I heard someone on the radio arguing that college is a waste of money because you can learn as much by simply looking up the subjects you would study on Google and reading the information there.

Certainly, one can read up on a subject and in so doing gain information about that subject – that is, learn something about the subject.  But that is not all that education entails and it is not all that occurs in a healthy college environment.  Learning in the sense of acquiring information is but one part of education.  Education also includes reflection both on oneself and on the information being learned, it requires an open mind in coming to information and in listening to views of others about that information.   Most importantly, it requires constant questioning – of the information being presented, of the presenter, and of oneself

Simply acquiring knowledge is not true learning.  Learning and true education have at their core the question “why?”  The student must be taught to ask that question repeatedly, to move step by step into a deeper understanding of the subject being studied and of the understanding of others about that subject. 

In a true educational setting students will be pushed to use “why?” to push themselves to levels of understanding and achievement of which they did not even know they were capable.  They will be asked to address topics with open and curious minds, not minds that are preset or predisposed to merely accept views of others as their own without question. 

Reading or otherwise acquiring information in and of itself does not require thinking and is more likely to simply result in acceptance of the ideas of others.  In contrast, a true teacher will ask a student to question what is read, perhaps to hear other views of the readings presented during a class discussion with other students.  Reading alone does not require the students to articulate their own views about what was read or push the students to stretch their mind to the deeper thinking that discussion with others often does.  Rather, it allows the students to remain in their own world without examining and questioning the values and assumptions of that world.

Those who try to avoid questioning or who try to block the questioning and its resulting mental growth in others are actually quite insecure.  They need a certain and unchanging world in which everyone agrees with their assumptions and beliefs.  (I suspect such is the case of the radio voice I heard – afraid that college might force questioning of his own firmly established views.)

Such people exist on both sides of the political aisle and are always dangerous.  They are the false prophets, the purveyors of propaganda.  They are in many ways the evil opposite of true educators. 

These false prophets tell people what they want to hear; they feed existing fears and provide false solutions.  They demand their students accept what they are told without question, presenting their own view on topics as the one and only acceptable viewpoint.  Their “teaching” provides comfort; it is easy to accept in its certainty. 

True education is anything but comfortable.  It demands that students embrace the discovery and investigation of new ideas, even when that information is painful.  Its lessons can be disturbing as the students explore the depths and uncertainties of their own minds and their world.  It demands that students read beyond superficialities and plunge to depths of understanding that in the end allow a deeper sense of a common humanity that joins us all.

Reading, acquiring information, is only a beginning.  Questioning that reading and being questioned about one’s own ideas about the reading force one to learn and understand rather than simply acquire information.  And interaction with others and their thoughts and understandings about the same information pushes one even further to understand and articulate their own understanding and knowledge about the topic.  Ultimately, this interaction of ideas and ultimately of humanity itself is what a true education will entail.

With that education comes a confidence in who one truly is and about the world in which we all live.  That confidence overcomes the fear of real learning that the propogandists purvey and the cowards accept.

Today in America we have a lot of cowards.  On both sides.  They have dug into their positions and both sides can make arguments supportive of their views.  But what they cannot do is listen to, let alone understand the views of others.  (I note here that understanding does not necessarily require acceptance or a change in one’s own position, but it does result in tolerance.) Too many are afraid to question their own beliefs and who they are and where they are really going – they are imprisoned by their own fears and insecurity, afraid to evolve, denying the humanity that is common to us all. 

True education requires that one not fear human interaction, even with uncomfortable ideas of others.  True education is far more than merely acquiring information.  In true education the student takes the acquired information and is both externally pushed and internally motivated to transform that information into a deeper knowledge of the world, humanity, and one’s place in it; the true student, like all of humanity, is ever evolving and that evolution is reflected in the student’s interactions in the world and with others.

Yet, today, we have teachers who do not educate.  They do not teach their students to think critically – to ask “why?”.  Teachers should delight when a student questions, even and especially when a student questions their own teacher.  But too many of today’s “educators” simply provide information that reflects their own world view and expect students to accept and adopt what they are told without question.  Students are too often punished rather than praised for questioning what they are told.  Too many “educators” are teaching students to become receivers of propaganda, primed to accept the words of false prophets.

The discord and dystopia that we see around us is not going to go away unless and until we once again become real students of our world and our humanity, until we encourage, indeed demand, that education be led by questioning, not simply acquiring.  We must think, ask “why?”, interact with open minds until once again we are able to know ourselves and see our true and common humanity.  This we must teach our children, and this we must model for them as adults.

 

The Truth

 President Biden clearly preached (or ranted) as a socialist in his Sept. 1 speech.  

Some may have seen some other resemblances as well.

Would you rather that you own the government or that the government own you?  That difference between American democracy and authoritarian/socialist forms of government was pointed out by someone who lived in the USSR and now lives in America.

While it may be a simplistic sounding distinction, it actually captures the essence of our American government as it has existed and the America that is being created by the Left and which was in large part captured in Biden’s dystopian prime time political rant on September first.

In our form of democracy, which to be clear is not a pure majority mob rule but rather a people’s representative democracy, we acknowledge that the people own certain freedoms and rights, including the freedom to believe as they wish and to speak those beliefs out loud.  Our democracy also requires that we each have a tolerance for the beliefs of others.  We keep order via the rule of law which is intended to be applied equally to all.  We the people choose our government by voting for candidates of our choice whom we believe will best represent us and our will.  While political parties have differing focuses, policies, and goals, each party has its right to put forward what it believes is best for America.  We do not condemn those who hold different beliefs or who support political opponents.

In authoritarian governments little if any of the above is true.  The government will tell you what to think and what to believe as well as for whom you can vote.  It will prohibit the expression of alternate views.  It will silence those who disagree with those in power.  Any rule of law is not a system that is applied equally to all but rather becomes a way for those in power to retain their power by keeping opponents in check.  Core rights do not belong to the people; rather, all rights belong to the government to dole or not dole out as it chooses, not equally but to, or not to, those whom it chooses.

American democracy does not have the certainty of socialism and it is not easy.  There are no guarantees:  each individual is free to make his or her own decisions and must live with the consequences of those decisions.  Those decisions result not in equity (in everyone having and being the same), but in the ability for each to rise to his or her greatest potential or to ignore that potential as they choose.  Each will have equal rights and opportunities, but how each uses those, along with the individual results, will differ and may or may not seem fair. 

In contrast, when the government owns you there is a certainty that exists which cannot exist when you are free to make both large and small choices about your own life.  If the government makes all your decisions for you then you simply have to live with the life laid out for you and be the person that the government, not you, design.  In the early stages of socialism that life seems easier and not all that bad.  Everyone will have the same thing – equity. 

In the abstract, socialism seems nicer – until it isn’t.  Until one realizes that it does not take into account basic human nature, that it suppresses individuality, that it creates an elite power class that feeds off the suffering of the people. “Equity” is not defined and people forget that it could mean they everyone has nothing equally.   But we are not there yet, though, as last night’s speech unintendedly demonstrated, we are well on our way.

Which brings me to Biden’s frightening show last night.

A Speech of Lies

While allegedly defending democracy, Biden revealed his authoritarian and socialist desires.  Basically, his message was that those who do not agree with his political views – mainly Trump Republicans but others as well – are a danger to our democracy.  Quite the opposite is true.  It is only in authoritarian governments where there is only one political view and those with differing views are considered dangerous.  Biden would silence about half of the country for not agreeing with him.  It would seem that he, and not those in disagreement, are the threat.

But wait, there is more.  Let’s talk about Biden and his Party.  They used the media in conjunction with the FBI to kill the Hunter Biden story prior to the 2020 election as well as delaying investigation into Hunter’s criminal acts and their ties to then candidate Biden.  They used the media to silence opposing voices on not only political issues, but health and Covid truths as well.  They used the DOJ and FBI to attack opponent Trump, President Trump, and possible future opponent Trump and his supporters.  This includes the Russia hoax, the biased Jan. 6 committee, and now of course the Mar-a-Lago raid. 

Biden and his Party are determined to silence Trump just as assuredly as Stalin sent his opponents to the Gulag.   They are not concerned with their acts or their plans or their policies, but only in retaining their power and removing anyone or any voice that might stand in their way.  They refuse to enforce valid laws against people who violently assert Left approved views (such as those that appeared at homes of Supreme Court Justices in attempts to intimidate them or BLM continuing summer riots) but place terrorist labels on parents who speak out at school board open meetings or those who advocate to end or limit abortion and killing of the unborn simply for convenience.  And there is the general silencing of language and views that are not popular.

Biden, “the uniter” apparently thinks uniting is accomplished by silencing all who disagree.  That is not democracy.  That is authoritarianism. 

I note that today Biden has backtracked somewhat on his claims that all Trump supporters are a danger – apparently his attempt to destroy his feared political opponent by name-calling his opponent’s supporters didn’t poll well.  He has not however retracted his belief that those who stand up for American democracy are semi-fascists at best.  Just another lie based on seeing in others what is true within himself.

Socialism’s Lies

Biden, like any socialism advocate, lies.  (He actually has a history of lying, going back to plagiarism during law school and his many lies about himself and his accomplishments during his many campaigns for Senate and the White House.)  His lies now tell us that what we see is the opposite of what is:  while he and his party work to dismantle our democracy and our freedoms, he tells us that it is the Republicans who are the threat.  While he fails to enforce the law equally and uses it to attack and silence his political opponents, he tells us that is what his opponent Trump does.  He ignores his many disasters (Afghanistan and other international messes; our economy and inflation; the recession which he claims doesn’t exits; science and covid; education; the border crisis; etc.) or blames them on others, especially Trump and Trump supporters.  He names a bill that economists overwhelmingly tell us will make inflation worse “The Inflation Reduction Act.”

Socialists must lie because socialism is a lie.  The lies of socialism are all around us if we look.  We already see that things are not equal.  While the workers are asked to sacrifice, the power elite and their chosen reap benefits.  Laws are not applied equally.  And eventually the mediocre life that the socialists sign on to will become far less than mediocre as money and resources to provide the promised life dry up.  Picture bread lines (actually we have already seen a preview of such shortages in our grocery stores, baby formula, manufacturing and building parts).  For a realistic view of where socialism leads, think not only of Soviet Russia, but of Venezuela today: “Venezuela is in the midst of an unprecedented social and humanitarian collapse” which includes “food insecurity, the second largest migration crisis in the world, and regional instability.” (United States Institute of Peace, Feb. 2022)

George Orwell, who understood socialism well, gave us an example of Bidenesque lies and government in his books Animal Farm and 1984.  Saul Alinsky gave us the rules for radicals intent on creating a socialist state and the author Tom Collins has given us a take on these.  Biden and the Left are doing a pretty good job.  It is they who are the threat to our democracy.  

Biden’s speech on Sept. 1 was dystopian, divisive, and dangerous.  Biden’s lies about others are the truth about himself, his party and their dreams.  And unless and until Americans realize that they are being lied to by those in power and brainwashed by the complicit media, we need to understand and accept that we will lose our freedoms, that the government will own us, and we will give up any democratic ideals we may have had.  

Welcome to Authoritarian Socialism

 They tried to make a Constitutional crisis out of the fake Russian collusion story that they themselves made up.  They continue to distort and carefully select facts in an attempt to turn the January 6^th demonstration in which some entered beyond open spaces in the Capital into a Constitutional crisis.  They claim that governors who assert their rights to protect their people from unprecedented & overwhelming illegal migration across our borders are creating a Constitutional crisis.  Indeed, they claim that if Donald Trump were to run again for President (something that they see as a real threat to their power) it would be a Constitutional crisis.

Yet they are the ones creating the real Constitutional crisis.

“They” are the Left, the power-hungry Democrats, the Biden Administration.  It is they who have forgotten that their elected power is not unlimited and that it ultimately belongs to the people, not them.  And the more they get away with, the more boldly authoritarian they become.

Today the Left, the Biden Administration’s DOJ, did something unprecedented in our democracy’s politics and in the law in general.  They, without announcement or reasonable cause, entered and searched the home of a former president.  But this is not the first time the DOJ has used its power to threaten and terrorize political opponents of the Left without taking similar, indeed without taking any, action against verified wrongdoing of their supporters.

These are the actions of an authoritarian regime.

As premier Constitutional scholar Alan Dershowitz stated, the acts of the Democrats are “very scary. They’re very frightening to any civil libertarian. Whether you’re a Democrat or Republican; whether you come from New York or the middle of the country, you should be frightened by efforts to try to create crimes out of nothing.” (See his comments on the Trump raid HERE) 

But it’s not just the weaponization of the DOJ and other law enforcement by Biden and the Left that creates a Constitutional crisis.  It is also this Administration and the Left’s power grab as they build government ever bigger while making the general populace not only ever poorer but also more dependent on that government and hence upon the continuing power of the Left.  They are becoming an authoritarian regime as they work to destroy our democracy and build a socialist country that, in line with socialism historically, ultimately creates not hope but despair for its people (except of course the power elite).

We can all see it happening in front of us with our own eyes.  Too many of us choose not to look.  The rest of us see what is happening and seem helpless to stop it.  So, welcome to our new America – built back better as an authoritarian socialist state in which the people have no voice, no freedom, and no resources other than what the government chooses to allow them.

  

                                        

Thinking about Rules

ONE:    Really, they just don’t understand how our democracy works.

Intensified since the Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade, Democrats assert their mantra that “Republicans may say they want small government, but the evidence shows they want the government to control every aspect of our lives, including our personal health decisions.” 

No, they just don’t get it.  Roe was an example of a government body usurping the rights of the people to make such decisions.  It is the Democrats who seem to worship such usurpation.

What these Democrats don’t seem to understand is that when we now see state legislative bodies made up of legislators elected by the people drafting and passing statutes regarding abortion (or anything else for that matter), it is not the government imposing control on the people.  It is the people, through their own elected representatives, exercising their voices and controlling their own lives.  

It seems that too many have forgotten that when government acts, when it passes a statute that regulates some aspect of our lives by permitting, mandating, or forbidding some action, it is the voice of the people speaking through their elected representatives.  It seems that the Democrats simply don’t understand that our government is a representative democracy in which the people are indeed their own governors by way of their elected representatives. 

The Democrats are confusing a people’s government such as ours with an authoritative form of government in which the governing body indeed imposes its own will upon the people.  And, when the Democrats demand that courts or the Executive branch create rules, mandates, requirements, and prohibitions what they are really demanding is an authoritarian regime that truly ignores the will of the people.

TWO:    Civilized society requires rules from a respected authority.

We see today’s ruling class elite creating rules without regard to the voice of the people.  We see a lot of behavior in the realm of “rules for thee but not for me” as those in power (along with those whom they favor) assert their right to seemingly do as they please.

This got me thinking about rules, authority, and, why do we all seem to find rules that we feel are acceptable to ignore.  Personally, I am strict in my belief that one must follow the rule of law – no exceptions, no emotional or “narrative” excuses.  The law must apply equally to everyone.

I feel much the same about academic rules, both from the perspective of a student and a teacher – no exceptions.  The requirements for an A should be the same for all as should the requirements to achieve various educational milestones.  No excuse.  No late papers.  Simply do the work and let the work be judged by objective criteria.

But when it comes to rules that are such things as directions for building something, whether it be a piece of furniture, or a sewing pattern, or a recipe, I feel no such need to follow those rules precisely.  Indeed, I take pleasure in deviating somewhat to make it easier or to personalize the project.

I have a friend that is a Biblical scholar who can quote probably every rule in the Bible and believes all should be followed precisely.  A Rabbi friend can similarly recite the 613 mitzvot referred to in the Torah (248 Positive Commandments (do's) and 365 Negative Commandments (do not's)).  These address both religious and worldly behaviors.

Less religious people, even though familiar with the Bible, probably are less inclined to be as strict with themselves about following such Biblical mandates than are the deeply and fully committed.

Which rules one follows in large part likely depends on whom one sees as a legitimate authority figure to whom one grants respect and deference and a certain amount of control.  And the reverence one grants to God or to a recipe in one’s personal private life probably makes little difference to other people. 

But the laws that govern the society as a whole must be followed or there will simply be chaos, which is what we are seeing today. 

For the members of society to follow a set of rules, the individuals making up that society must respect the rule maker.  In American democracy, the rule-maker is ultimately the people.  It is they, through their representatives, who develop the statutes and regulations that guide us and keep our civilization civil. 

There is a large body within our population that no longer respects the people as the rule maker.  There are those in power who think they know better.  There are those both in power and in the population as a whole who do not understand the basic civics of our country and as part of that lack of understanding do not understand who it is that is making the rules.  They blame government for rules they don’t like, not understanding that in the end government is not some abstract body but, in America, it is the people.  But not understanding that, they hold no respect for that abstract rule making body.

Psychology will tell you that we all have a self-critical conscience, often referred to as the super-ego, that reflects social standards learned from parents and teachers.  It is that self-regulating conscience, instilled in us as children, that helps us to follow rules rather than break them.  But if that conscience, that respect for the rules as well as their creator, is not instilled in us as children, then one will not feel the need to follow the rules that govern our societal behavior.

We are not teaching respect for our rules because too many do not understand what they are or by whom they are created.  Without an accurate understanding of our American democracy, respect for that democracy and the rules it creates is not possible. 

Today, much of the lack of respect stems from ignorance, but there are also those in power whose disrespect of, along with disinformation about, our government and its rules is fully intentional.  Either way, we cannot expect respect for our country, our society, and indeed our civilization until this is corrected.  To paraphrase Aretha Franklin:  R-E-S-P-E-C-T Find out what it means to we, or you might walk in and find America gone. 

Think about what the rule of law means to you.

And Therein Lies the Problem

Today I read a news piece in which women were interviewed for their feelings about the National Education Association’s proposal to replace the word “mother” with “birthing parent” so as to be “more inclusive” of trans-males.  One woman responded:  "I’m fine with that. Anything to make people feel comfortable."(emphasis added.) 

And therein lies the underlying problem of many of our current societal woes.  Don’t worry if we destroy our entire society, following the whims of a few and ignoring truth and science, just so long as everyone feels comfortable. 

The problem is that one person’s comfort can easily become another person’s pain.  When the selfish need to feel good is more important than concern for truth or one’s fellow human, then life becomes meaningless and civilization dies.

How far is the woman above, or anyone who worships the god of feel-good, willing to take the pursuit of pleasure?  We already know that many are willing to put their own pursuit of what they believe is happiness above the right to life of the unborn. 

We see those who are fulfilled by loudly venting their hatred in public places, chasing those with whom they disagree from places such as restaurants.   Many such incidents occurred against individuals who were in the Trump administration, and now there is a concerted effort to create such incidents against Supreme Court Justices, including a Leftist organization paying for tips when a Justice is spotted in public, all with the tacit support of the Biden White House.    

Such behavior may make the screamers “feel comfortable” but what about the diners?  When Justice Kavanaugh was forced to leave a restaurant this week, the restaurant owner noted, “Honorable Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh and all of our other patrons at the restaurant were unduly harassed by unruly protestors while eating dinner at our Morton’s restaurant. Politics, regardless of your side or views, should not trample the freedom at play of the right to congregate and eat dinner. There is a time and place for everything. Disturbing the dinner of all of our customers was an act of selfishness and void of decency.” 

Yet those doing the harassing were doing something that simply felt good to them – made them “feel comfortable.”  What about the individual who is charged with attempted murder of Justice Kavanaugh – is that Ok if the attempt makes the individual feel good?

“Void of decency” is a good way to describe where this worship of self-comfort has and continues to lead us.  Various groups now openly engage in behaviors that only recently were considered depraved.  Children, who scientifically do not become sexual beings until puberty, are being taught about things like sexual pleasure in kindergarten while things like pedophilia and child pornography are becoming more acceptable as “an unchangeable sexual orientation.”  This may make those who engage in such practices “feel comfortable” but what about the children who are the victims of their depraved pursuit of comfort? 

And then there is the current practice of encouraging expressions of “gender dysphoria” in children too young to suffer it as a basis for permanently interfering with a child’s development by the use of hormone and other “therapies”.   This may make some adults “feel comfortable” but there are too many statements by adults who were treated this way as children that show us this did not and does not make those children comfortable.

Where does one who worships the concept that everyone must “feel comfortable” draw the line when that comfort causes pain to others?  It is a slippery slope.  For if one’s own comfort is prime, and if that comfort causes discomfort to another, then to fulfill  the primary goal one must disregard the life that is in the way of that goal.  If you can murder a preborn child because you think doing so makes you more comfortable, why not murder the two-year-old for the same reason or the senile parent who no longer recognizes you?  Why not dispose of anyone who stands in the way of your being “more comfortable”? 

Wild animals will kill for their own comfort.  When “feeling comfortable” becomes the primary goal, we devolve fully into our instinctive animal nature.  We lose respect for life. 

Humans are far more than the innate animal instincts that are a part of us all.  We are capable of far deeper fulfillment and have far more potential than the superficial happiness that our culture surrounds us with and encourages us to seek.  It is a mistake to make the Self a god and its gratification one’s guiding principle.  Common decency demands more, our souls demand more, and civilization itself requires more.

Religion has always taught us this.  Perhaps we should look to those gods, rather than the god of self-comfort.

 

Our Core is in the Constitution

When people, on either side of the political aisle, begin demanding that everyone agree to a particular value or virtue system, or claim that rules of law are really establishing religion, I throw up my hands in despair that so few really understand what our democracy is or how it works.

Contrary to what many would have you believe, America is a secular country.  Although built on Judeo-Christian values, a cornerstone of our democracy is that this country would not establish or mandate religious beliefs and would allow its citizens to follow whatever faith they chose, including no faith at all. 

Our Constitution envisions our government of/for/by the people as being based on common values that may or may not belong to a religion; the key is that the rules that the people through their representatives enact are secular and apply to all regardless of individual beliefs.   It is the people who create the rights and the rules.

Thus, when SCOTUS (a panel of 9 unelected individuals) usurped the people’s power and declared a right that previously had not existed, they were wrong.  It was the people’s right to grant or not grant an abortion right and to determine any limitations on such right.  Regardless of the Justices’ personal beliefs (many are indeed Catholic), in Dobbs they correctly put the people in their rightful Constitutional position to determine what, if any, right to abortion should exist. 

Our Constitution also requires the people’s understanding that a pluralism of beliefs means that no one will get all that they would like and that everyone must be tolerant of the beliefs of others.

Religious virtues often underly a secular government

A free society’s laws and government reflect the beliefs, values, and mores of that particular society.  As a society evolves, as its values modify or change, so will its governing rules.  Those rules will, however, continue to reflect the voice of all of the people.

It is in authoritarian governments that there is less likely a distinction between a mandated belief structure and mandates for societal behaviors.  That is because in such societies the people are not free to think and believe as they wish; rather, the governing body will mandate thought, belief, and behavior. (As an aside, it is really impossible to force someone to hold a particular belief; a government can mandate behavior that would reflect that belief, but there is no guarantee that a person who follows those mandates actually holds the desired belief.)

Most religions, regardless of their specific beliefs, emphasize something greater than oneself.  Religions, through their core documents (Bible, Koran, etc.), establish rules and sets of values.  The reasons for an individual to subscribe to the virtues of their religion include promised rewards for such virtuous behavior that are not immediate and perhaps not even during this life.

Concepts such as “do onto others as you would have them do onto you” and “treat your neighbor as yourself” appear in some form in most religions.  These concepts encourage one to think beyond oneself.  Such thinking is essential for a society to survive. 

It is these sorts of religious values that become reflected in the government and the society that any group of people create, whether it be a family, a recreational club, or a country.  Unless a society is established as a theocracy that will use the religious rules for the governing rules of the community and require all to be of the same faith, there will essentially be two sets of rules:  the religious rules that will guide the faithful, and the secular rules, generally reflecting those religious virtues, that will guide the secular society.

America’s secular government has Judeo-Christian underpinnings

This country was founded based on Judeo-Christian rules because that was the foundation of the culture of its people.  Those values are key underpinnings in the Constitution and the other secular rules of our society.  But this country is not a theocracy.  It is secular.

Judeo-Christian beliefs, like most religions, place emphasis on something greater than oneself.  As long as most of the American people held similar values the rules of our society worked.  Some held those values because of their religious faith, some simply held those values as their guidelines for living.  But if one does not believe, for whatever reason, in those common values, then rules based on the values will become meaningless.

We really have two guiding sets of rules that are in many ways intertwined, but in the end are separate because of the brilliance of our Founders.  The problem is that the secular rules are based upon the culture and society of those who create them.  One needs to understand these values and generally subscribe to them to understand our secular system and to subscribe to it.  And therein lies the problem.

Houston, we have a problem

Today we are facing a situation in which the underlying beliefs and values of the American people are not in accord, are not even similar, and while the core beliefs of some remain reflected in our governmental structure and laws, for others that structure and those laws are completely foreign to or at odds with their belief and value systems.

Today, fewer and fewer people hold faith in the Judeo-Christian God, or in any Greater Being for that matter.  Therefore, they are also far less likely to subscribe to the rules and mores of a secular society that is based on those beliefs.

Today much of our culture is focused not on something greater but instead revolves around the Self and its need for immediate gratification.  How we got to that point requires volumes to understand with lots of blame to go around, but we are indeed there.  As such, our secular rules and institutions that are based on a bigger picture and concern for the greater good are in large part meaningless to many. 

Many of the Left and the Woke, in satisfying their own immediate desires, ignore rules that interfere with those desires.  They see the values underlying those rules as antiquated and not relevant to themselves.  And, because they think everyone should accept what they do and the values and beliefs underlying their actions, they impose their needs on everyone else, demanding that anyone with conflicting beliefs give them up or be silenced.  Many of the conservative and religious Right also demand that everyone accept and believe as they do. 

The lack of tolerance in our nation today is astounding and potentially fatal. People on all sides misunderstand their place in society as well as the core rules of our democracy and perhaps most importantly the tolerance that it demands.

This is not really a political problem, though it plays out in our politics.  This is really a problem of the soul.  But politicians and those interested in their own power use this value vacuum to their own advantage.  And in so doing they display their ignorance of and disdain for our democracy.

Do we have a core shared value?

Before we can fix our problems we must understand that any culture, any society, must be based upon shared beliefs.  Right now we have two competing belief systems that are not compatible.  Unless we (re)discover a core principle that we all share, we are probably done as the great nation we once were.

Can we exist with very different underlying life concepts and values? The Constitution would direct us to say yes.  It allows for diverse views, for the beliefs of all to be heard and prohibits the federal government from suppressing those diverse beliefs and views.  But to do this requires a tolerance, a willingness to accept that others may not be like us, may not think like us, and never will.  While each of us may want to live our life one way, we must accept that some may disapprove of that and choose to live their lives in other ways. 

We must be able to tolerate and accept the true principle of diversity in a pluralistic society.  We must accept, indeed applaud, that not everyone will agree, that we will not always win our arguments, and that we cannot force our values upon others.

But what about when those values are in direct conflict?  Again, our Constitution guides us.  It gives to the people, through their representatives, the decisions of what laws we need to govern all of us in our interactions and behaviors; we decide what rules we need to keep the peace while being tolerant of those who would behave and believe differently than us.  We decide how we can maintain order without mandating beliefs.  We have done that for nearly 250 years and we should not give up without trying to continue.

But people need to understand that even if their personal belief is that Self is God, they must co-exist with others and that in an orderly and peaceful society they will not always be able to have instant (and sometimes never will have) gratification of all their needs and desires. 

Back to the Constitution

If we consider the values of our Constitution, we will find that it can indeed sustain us and save America in the process.  But we need to understand what it is and what it is not. 

The Constitution grants us our freedom to be ourselves, the individuals whom we are meant to be, but only if we agree to have tolerance (not necessarily acceptance) for the different, contradictory, and opposing views of others.  Just as the federal government cannot create our rights and freedoms nor take them away, we must agree that we will not impose our views on others – explain them, yes; advocate for them, yes, but impose them as mandatory, no. 

We must agree not to relinquish our power to politicians, or others, who would use it to control us.  We must remember that our power lies in the voice of all the people, not in a political party, the press, or other powerful entities and not in only one viewpoint.  We must accept our power and the responsibilities that come with it.

Once we agree that we are different people with different beliefs, values, and backgrounds we can begin to work on common goals that benefit all of us.  But this requires an amount of selflessness that is not natural for many of us today.   We must agree that we will have concern for the greater good.

If our shared belief is in our Constitution and our people, then we will be fine.  But if we choose the selfish path that we are on, even our Constitution cannot save us, for selfishness cares nothing for anyone but one’s self. 

The Founders gave us a great gift, let us not destroy it but instead continue to use it to make our “more perfect union” more perfect every day.

POWER TO THE PEOPLE

An important theme seems to run through several recent Supreme Court decisions: that the power in this country belongs to WE THE PEOPLE.  Too many seem to have forgotten this and simply stood by as various governmental bodies seized more and more power that is not rightfully theirs.  The Court did much to right the ship of state in its decisions released this month.

• The Court did not evade its own usurpation of the people’s power.  It acknowledged that it had overstepped its authority when it created an unstated constitutional right out of thin air.  It reversed its error and returned the power to create a right to abortion to the states and the people where it rightfully belongs. (Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization)
• On its last day of this term, the Court ruled that governmental agencies (in this case the EPA) do not have expansive, unlimited power to make environmental mandates absent a grant of that power to the agency by the Congress (which is the voice of the people). (West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency)
• In ending President Trump’s remain in Mexico immigration policy, the Court noted that federal law allows such discretionary actions by the Executive.  Because such policy is discretionary, and because the people have chosen a different Executive, it follows that such policy or change in policy reflects the voice of the people. (Biden v. Texas)
• In deciding that a school coach has the right to kneel and pray following a game, the Court reminded us that we have the freedom to exercise religion and that it is not the job of governmental entities to seek out and deny such acts that are not intended to impose a particular religion on anyone.  The Court held that the Constitution neither mandates nor permits the government to suppress such religious expression.  That is, again the Court reminded us not only of our rights and the limitations on government to interfere with those rights, but also of the duty of those who live in a pluralistic society to be tolerant of the beliefs of others. (Kennedy v. Bremerton School District)
• The Court also held that Maine’s “nonsectarian” requirement for tuition assistance violated the free exercise clause of the First Amendment, again protecting the people’s right from government intrusion.  (Carson v. Makin)
• The Court held that representatives of North Carolina’s state House of Representatives and Senate could intervene in voter ID-law litigation.  As such, the people, through those representatives, will have their voices heard.  (Berger v. North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP)
• The Court held that a state firearm regulation requiring “proper cause” to carry, prevents law-abiding citizens with ordinary self defense needs from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Here, the Court did as the Constitution expects and requires:  it protected the enumerated rights of the people from intrusion and limitation by the government. (New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen)

Of course the Court decided more than the above cases, and the summaries of those noted above are brief and simplified; all opinions contain far more detailed legal argumentation and reasoning as well as dissenting or concurring opinions that offer further commentary on the majority decision.

Do I, do most people, like the result of every case?  No.  But the Court's job is not to do what is popular but to read the Constitution and remind us of what it says and make sure that by following our Constitution and rule of law that we maintain our carefully constructed democracy.

I rejoice in the fact that at the end of this term the Court provided us with a number of opinions to remind us of the power structure in our government of/for/by the people.  The governmental institutions exist to serve us, not to control us.  We the people hold the power.  We have certain rights, some enumerated in the Constitution, some which we can ourselves create through our representatives and the political process.  But the rights are ours, not the government's to create, grant, or remove. 

Of course, the exercise of our power requires work.  While protests and demonstrations are a way of voicing opinions and desires in the public square, the way to make those desires a reality as a part of our government and our rule of law, is to work through our elected officials to shape our government.  That begins when we cast our vote.  It requires us to be informed of how our government and our political process works and to understand the ways in which we can exercise our voice.  It also requires us to be gracious when we do not get our way and to understand that we cannot have the diversity and pluralism that make this country great without also exercising tolerance of those with whom we disagree.

I am grateful to the Court for reminding us of these things.  I am grateful that the Framers were wise enough to include a non-political branch of government which can keep us focused on who and what we are and ease us back on course when we forget what our democracy is or how it works. 

I only wish that those who are attacking the Court for judgments the results of which they find displeasing, would understand what the Court’s role is and respect it.  How different the behavior of our current president from that of President Kennedy when faced with a decision not to his liking that prohibited prayer in public school.  The following is from President Kennedy’s News Conference on June 27, 1962:

 QUESTION: Mr. President, in the furor over the Supreme Court's decision on prayer in the schools, some members of Congress have been introducing legislation for Constitutional amendments specifically to sanction prayer or religious exercise in the schools. Can you give us your opinion of the decision itself, and of these moves of the Congress to circumvent it?

PRESIDENT KENNEDY: I haven't seen the measures in the Congress and you would have to make a determination of what the language was, and what effect it would have on the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has made its judgment, and a good many people obviously will disagree with it. Others will agree with it. But I think that it is important for us if we are going to maintain our Constitutional principle that we support the Supreme Court decisions even when we may not agree with them.

In addition, we have in this case a very easy remedy, and that is to pray ourselves and I would think that it would be a welcome reminder to every American family that we can pray a good deal more at home, we can attend our churches with a good deal more fidelity, and we can make the true meaning of prayer much more important in the lives of all of our children. That power is very much open to us.

I would hope that as a result of this decision that all American parents will intensify their efforts at home, and the rest of us will support the Constitution and the responsibility of the Supreme Court in interpreting it, which is theirs, and given to them by the Constitution.

If only our current President, our politicians, and all of our citizens would understand the great gift that we have in this country and that we have the Supreme Court to remind us when we forget.   These opinions should wake us not to fear but to joy in our rights and our responsibilities.  It is our duty to work constructively together through our elected representatives to create the rules that this great nation deserves.

I am both thankful and proud that I am a small part of our country’s legal system.  Like everyone, I do not always agree with the Supreme Court, but I do respect it.  And now that it has blatantly reminded us that we the people have the power, rather than disrespect or work to destroy this great institution I wish the people would understand that they do not need to destroy in order to simply seize the power that they already hold. 

Do we really have a culture of death?

Here’s what I don’t understand – why are so many folks upset that, following the overturning of Roe, there is no Constitutional right to kill babies?   I mean, OK, maybe some women have been brainwashed to believe they have this right, but I have to believe (hope?) that most women are more intelligent than that. 

I mean, most adults can still read, and reading reveals that nearly all credible science and medical professionals agree that life begins at conception and that the embryo and then fetus are human life forms and are alive.  Embryo, then fetus are the earliest stages, but there continue to be developing stages post birth.  Infancy is also an early stage of human development and yet, while a few people do believe post-birth abortion is acceptable I have to believe (hope?) that the vast majority are not OK with killing infants.

Recently I pointed out the scientific/medical position to a pro-abortionist.  The response:  "Did you think I wasn’t aware an embryo is a developing human? You’re stating the obvious and proving my point. It’s ‘developing’ - it’s a group of cells multiplying that develops into a human. A human that the majority of pro-lifers won’t care about the moment they’re born.”  Gosh, so much to unpack in this statement!

What is a Developing Human?

If a developing human is just a clump of cells, and if killing that clump of cells is OK, then we are all in danger.  We all reproduce cells daily.  A child’s brain continues developing long past birth.  Body tissues grow by increasing the number of cells that make them up. Cells in many tissues in the body divide and grow very quickly until we become adults. When we are adults, many cells mature and become specialized for their particular job in the body. (cancerresearchuk.org).  According to Scientific American, “About 330 billion cells are replaced daily, equivalent to about 1 percent of all our cells. In 80 to 100 days, 30 trillion will have replenished—the equivalent of a new you.”

The argument that you can kill a clump of developing cells is clearly disingenuous.  Moreover, even if one were to limit that killing to prebirth, it is hard to understand how anyone can accept unrestricted killing of a human entity (even a living clump of cells is an entity) when it has a unique DNA combination that is a legacy equally contributed from both parents, when it has a beating heart at 21 days after conception and a brain that at 6 weeks is at least partially developed and includes:  a forebrain/cerebrum, which controls certain brain functions , like thinking and problem-solving; a midbrain involved in processing visual and auditory information; and a hindbrain/cerebellum, which manages balance and coordination, as well as the medulla, which is the control center for the body's automatic activities, like blood pressure and heart rate.

Yes, the embryo and fetus are developing.  But so is the 6-month-old child, or the teenager, or the young adult, or even the octogenarian.  If one accepts killing a developing human, where exactly would one draw the line?

Pro-Lifers do care

As to the arguments that pro-lifers don’t care about children after they are born, this too is disingenuous as is the argument that they don’t care about the mothers or that they force people to have children.  I don’t see pro-lifers going around killing babies after they are born.

It is pro-life health centers that offer pregnant women not only health care for them and their child before birth, but who offer solutions for the woman if she is unable, for whatever reason, to keep and raise her child.  They are not afraid to discuss adoption.  They are not afraid to discuss types of childcare.  They are not afraid to discuss job training and parenting assistance.  They are not afraid to discuss taxpayer benefits that may be available to the mother and child. 

Pro-life begins with compassion for the unborn child, but it does not ignore compassion for the pregnant mother, the father, other family members and the compassion for all concerned does not end at the moment of birth.

Failing attempts to justify the killing

I continue to believe (hope?) that most women, indeed most adult humans, are capable of understanding the above.  So, then, how is it that so many believe it is OK to kill over 700,000 developing children a year?

Do women really think that abortion is just a form of birth control?  (Hint, it is not:  birth control prevents a pregnancy and thus a new human from being created; abortion kills a new human after pregnancy occurs, after the new life is created).  Yet, most abortions are to kill children that were conceived during consensual sex.  Things like rape, incest, severe medical necessity are the exceptions.  How can anyone who understands what abortion really is believe that it is just another form of birth control?

Do women really believe lack of an unlimited abortion right is some sort of attack on them?  If they do, then they do not have a very high opinion of themselves, because to believe that they do not have a say in whether or not to engage in consensual sex is the result of a very demeaning view of women. 

Women are powerful, and part of their power is the ability to decline sex, to use birth control, and to understand that whenever they engage in sex that the result could be a pregnancy.  If we are not teaching our children (at an appropriate age) where babies come from, then we do have a problem that needs to be addressed immediately. 

Similarly, if we are not teaching our children (again at an appropriate age) about birth control as well as that no birth control guarantees 100% that pregnancy will not follow intercourse, then we need to address that.  Women and men need to understand that if they have sex they are potentially going to become fathers and mothers.   They need to understand their responsibility in choosing to engage in sex.

Women are also strong enough to accept the consequences of their acts, including participating in the creation of a new life and the responsibility that the mother now has to that life.  (And yes, the responsibility is not hers alone, but neither does she have the absolute and unrestricted right to pronounce a death sentence on that new and innocent life.)

Overturning Roe

I grew up before Roe v. Wade.  I remember abortion arguments in the 60s and 70s.  Yes, abortions were performed, some legally, many illegally.  Some resulted in medical problems or even death for the mother as well as the aborted child.  But most occurred in the early stages and most were “successful” in that they killed the child and left the mother with no physical injuries.  The mental and psychological effects of aborting a pregnancy are another story and continue to be a result of abortions both legal and illegal.

I remember when Roe was decided.  It was not a good legal decision as any number of legal scholars have asserted since 1973.  Most people at the time would have preferred that they retain their ability to speak through their elected representatives and determine for themselves what rules and rights would exist regarding abortion.

In 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson established the idea of “separate but equal”.  That too was a poor decision by the Court and again, it took significant time for the Court to correct itself.  Plessy was overturned in 1954, 58 years after it was decided.  The wheels of justice move slowly, but they do move, and the beauty of our democracy is that we eventually get it right.

Everyone needs to put emotion aside and rejoice in what the Supreme Court had the courage to do in Dobbs: read the Constitution and enforce it by returning power to the states and the people where it rightfully belongs. We the people now have the power to determine exactly what the extent of any right to abortion should be. And, because the right is with the states, because we have a diverse population, the state rules will differ to some extent. This is democracy and we should all rejoice in it. The Dobbs opinion should not really be such a big deal, because all the Supreme Court did was do its job.

Now is the time for people on both sides to reach out and suggest reasonable rules.  They need to stop the hateful and violent protests and begin the peaceful lobbying and letter writing to their elected representatives so that everyone, through those representatives, will have a voice in what their state’s laws regarding abortion and life will be.

But first, I think we need to get over the general premise that seems to be that it is OK to kill a preborn (and sometimes being born or post birth) child.  Exceptional circumstances may, in extraordinary situations, justify such killing, but it is never simply dismissible as OK.  I do not understand that culture of death.  And I hope that anyone who has input into the education of children, whether their own or those of others, will not perpetuate the belief that killing an inconvenient child is OK.  We must learn to be less selfish than that.