Saturday, October 30, 2004

The Ragged Edge: Some background on the Pledge

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court announced that it would hear a case on the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance.

The case, decided by the 9th Circuit Court last summer, ruled that it is unconstitutional to require recitation of the Pledge in public school. The offending passage, the court ruled, is the phrase "under God," and cited the Establishment Clause of the Constitution as its authority.

I remember wondering what all the fuss was about but let the whole thing pass with little comment. Last week's Supreme Court decision prompted me to find out more so I did some research.

Most of us probably grew up reciting the Pledge and just assumed that it was a part of our patriotic tradition. In fact, the Pledge is only 111 years old and has been altered twice - most recently in 1954 because the Knights of Columbus felt that it sounded too much like a Communist oath and lobbied Congress to change it. That's when "under God" was inserted.

The Pledge was written in 1892 and introduced during a nationwide celebration of the 400th anniversary of Columbus' discovery of America as part of a National Education Association program. It was recited as part of that patriotic salute to America and its fledgling public school system.

As an aside, the event also saw about 26,000 American flags sold to public schools all over the land. This item generated the saw that the Pledge was written only to sell flags but the fact is, until then, American flags flew only over military bases.

At the time, the progressive Socialist movement was in full swing in America. If I can trust the historians, the Pledge was written by an avowed Christian Socialist, Francis Bellamy, who was ejected from the pulpit of the Baptist Church where he was employed for preaching Socialist rhetoric. One particular sermon, "Jesus was a Socialist," really earned the ire of the congregation.

Those early Socialists wanted the government to take over the whole economy and enforce equality of income, class and social standing. Their mission statement read like something straight out of a Communist Manifesto with ideals like "worker's paradise" and "industrial army" and "utopian society." (Looking Backward by Edward Bellamy - Francis' cousin - was published in 1888 and sold more copies than any book save for Uncle Tom's Cabin and Ben Hur. Apparently, American Socialism was quite popular.)

One important component of the movement is that Socialists believed that they could subvert society, incrementally, if it weren't for that pesky document called the United States Constitution.

Now, here's where it becomes interesting. Socialists believed that the state (or should I say: State?) reigned supreme. There was no way for them to realize their utopian ideals if the rights of individuals trumped those of the State and the U.S. Constitution was their biggest single roadblock.

In his comparison of American and English constitutions, Francis Bellamy is quoted as saying, "England's Constitution readily admits of constant though gradual modification. Our American Constitution does not readily admit of such change. England can thus move into Socialism almost imperceptibly. Our Constitution being largely individualistic must be changed to admit of Socialism, and each change necessitates a political crisis."

In addition to being difficult to modify, our Constitution (and the Declaration of Independence) consciously promoted certain principles. Under these documents, the rights of individuals come first and the state exists simply to protect those natural, pre-existing rights.

Collectivism, statism and socialism argue the opposite point: that the government comes first and any civil liberties are merely privileges bestowed at the whim of the all-powerful State.

Our Republic depends on the Constitution, not the other way around. If Americans are loyal to the Declaration and Constitution, the Republic is safe.

In other words, would you rather have our elected officials swear to "preserve, protect and defend" the Constitution (as they are required to do) or to "preserve, protect and defend" the government - whatever that vast, faceless organization might happen to be? The former is comforting. The later is, or should be, scary.

All this leads me to wonder how the Pledge became central to our patriotism ... and how the very people who stand for conservative family values, smaller government and individual responsibilities have such a knee-jerk response to any perceived slight against it.

I suspect that Franklin, Jefferson, Adams, et. al. spun in their graves when the Pledge entered our collective (no pun intended) patriotic consciousness and became commonplace.

Might it be more appropriate to teach our children respect for the Constitution? (Not if you are a Socialist and you are trying to indoctrinate children with Socialistic values and disdain for individual liberties.)

And, of course, a lot of people seem to prefer that we all march in unswerving, unquestioning lockstep with current ideology. It's just less contentious that way.

Does this mean that Francis Bellamy was un-American? Probably not; he just had a different vision for our country than the rest of us.

Nor am I trying to make the argument that the Pledge is somehow un-American or unconstitutional. This is just food for thought, context for the fracas surrounding this controversial Supreme Court case.

I'm interested in how things came to be the way they are.

I'll grant that the flag is a very important symbol and the Republic is due our respect but it's important to remember that everything this country stands for springs from the Constitution. Not the Republic. Not the flag. Not a particular political ideology. It's all about the Constitution.

We forget that at our peril.

This was published Oct. 30, 2004 in the Cameron Herald.

Friday, April 23, 2004

The Ragged Edge: Follow the money to tax reform

If you think that there is no connection between campaign contributions and the drive to change the way we fund Texas' public schools, think again.

An editorial we published in our April 8 edition asserted that only a few school districts are clamoring to reform the way Texas finances public education but that Texas Legislators are beholden to these districts for votes and campaign contributions.

A new report states plainly that these few school districts also have tremendous clout with Texas' political leadership. Last week, Campaigns for People, an Austin-based political action committee, released a study indicating that the districts that stand to benefit the most by dismantling the so-called "Robin Hood" school finance system are also those whose citizens donated most generously to political campaigns. This study draws its conclusions through information gleaned from campaign finance reports filed with the Texas Ethics Commission.

Indeed, the report points out that campaign contributions from people living in the top 10 wealthiest school districts accounted for almost 28 percent of all campaign contributions to all candidates in the 2002 election.

House Speaker Tom Craddick was the chief beneficiary of this largess. Nearly 31 percent of his campaign contributions came from within these school districts. Donors from only two wealthy school districts - Austin and Highland Park -- accounted for over 15 percent of all the money Craddick raised to finance his 2002 re-election bid.

These districts took care of Gov. Rick Perry as well. In all, he raised over 25 percent of his 2002 war chest from people living in the top 10 wealthiest school districts.

Of course, these districts represent some of the wealthiest communities in Texas so it's probably not too surprising that they also contributed to re-election campaigns at higher rates than the rest of the state. Still, when you look at the numbers this way, and you recognize that many of these same districts are the ones hollering the loudest for school finance reform, it's got to make you wonder.

Now, I'm not diving back into this issue because I'm opposed to reforming the way we finance our public schools; nor do I think holding a special session or three to address the issue is a waste of time.

It's not a waste of time. Wealthy schools are right to beef about this and rural schools have been watching their state-sponsored revenue stream steadily dry up over the last few years. The current plan isn't really working for anyone. It was, at best, a band aide applied to our tax structure in order to get out from under a Texas Supreme Court mandate. We need to find a more permanent fix, not another crazy-quilt patchwork cobbled together because of political expediency.

My biggest heartburn is with the idea that any system devised at the behest of people from wealthy school districts will be entirely fair to small rural schools or to middle class taxpayers.

Everybody, it seems, insists that our property taxes be reduced, despite the fact that Texans have one of the lowest state and local tax burdens in the United States. The Tax Foundation, a non-profit Washington group, found that Texas ranks 46th nationally. Only Tennessee, Alaska, Delaware and New Hampshire pay lower state and local taxes than Texans.

Further, high property taxes don't seem to be deterring anyone (who can find a job there) from moving to Richardson or Plano or Alamo Heights. These school districts maintain tremendously high growth rates. If low property taxes were such a draw, more folks would be moving to Granger or Buckholts or Zapata.

If we cut property taxes, we'll have to find some other source (or series of sources) for the balance of the $26 billion required to pay for our public education system. You're kidding yourself if you believe that there will actually be more money in education's pot, after all the dust settles. There won't. It's entirely possible that there will be less.

In fact, few of the financing schemes I've heard about actually end Robin Hood. Most of them establish a sort of Super Robin Hood plan that ships all property tax money off to the state for redistribution.

You'll also be kidding yourself if you believe that middle class taxpayers will have a lower tax burden when this is all over. Our property taxes may see a small cut but most of us will pay more in sales and "sin" taxes than we saved. Even the most ardent supporters of tax reform acknowledge this.

So, once the Legislative shell game has run its course, our schools won't have any more money than they do now and most Texans will have a higher tax bill. Does that sound right?

I don't know what the answer is. I think it was former Gov. Ann Richards who said you can't really "fix" school finances; all you can hope to do is manage them.

Our tax system needs to be reformed but it's just not right to "manage" the state's education budget on the backs of rural schools and middle class taxpayers.

This column was published April 22, 2004 in the Cameron Herald.

Thursday, March 4, 2004

Ragged Edge: Gay Marriage, a moderate perspective

The topic of gay marriage is divisive, emotional and freighted with bigotry (on both sides of the issue).

Further, I'm not convinced this is the best time to hold this particular national debate. I mean, what's the hurry?

But, since Rev. Dan Darby took up one corner of the debate last week ("Gay marriage: a Christian perspective"), I'll stake out another.

First of all, I'm just parochial enough that the whole idea of gay marriage leaves me a bit uneasy. However, I learned at my parents' knee that it is my place to neither condemn nor condone cultural differences and personal choices. It's not our place to judge personal behavior.

My parents (a preacher and a teacher) preached tolerance to (and sometimes at) my brothers and me so I grew up with an appreciation for and recognition of personal differences.

While I'm not convinced that we should mainstream gay marriage, I'm very distressed at the idea that we would consider amending our Constitution to discriminate against certain of our citizens simply because some of us are uneasy - or downright hostile - about certain lifestyles.

There are so many facets to a marriage: love, commitment, affection, devotion, sharing of experiences, mutual support, sharing of financial obligations, etc. It seems to me that the State only has an interest in one of those things - the sharing of financial obligations, specifically to provide for children.

The document that the State uses to formalize a relationship between two people is simply a legal contract. Its purpose is to delineate the responsibilities of the parties involved. From a purely civil perspective, a marriage license is no different from any other legally binding contract.

What this contract does not do is sanctify, edify or in any other way make this relationship holy. The State cannot sanctify a marriage. We reserve that to God and His terrestrial representatives.

Frankly, I'm not sure we really want to walk down a path that ends with State being able to tell an adult with whom he (or she) can or cannot enter into a legal contract.

Aside from mutual support (in all its permutations), the primary purpose of a marriage (both civil and Biblical) is to provide for children. Since gays and lesbians are able to adopt children, the State should allow them to enter into a contract that provides for the support of those children. Indeed, they should probably be obligated to enter into such a contract.

I know, I know ... the Bible says certain things regarding marriage and those who are adamantly opposed to this idea can ferret out chapter and verse to support their contention that gay marriage is unholy, disgusting, unnatural and represents a clear and present danger to the Republic.

The simple fact is, you can look in the Bible - particularly the Old Testament - and find justification for all sorts of things our society no longer condones including several forms of polygamy, the execution of women who have lost their virginity out of wedlock, the murder of children who tease old men and several passages that grant men permission to keep mistresses ... as many mistresses as they can afford.

However, you cannot turn to the New Testament and find a verse where Jesus taught we should judge other people. You won't find it because it doesn't exist.

Never mind that our secular government shouldn't meddle in religion - and vice versa. Never mind that our secular government should be able to find room for all sorts of cultural, choice and religious lifestyles. Biblical prohibitions against gay marriage are no more relevant to our secular society than Biblical exhortations to murder girls who lose their virginity before they get married.

This country was founded on certain principals, among them that all men are created equal and have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Who are we to allow the tyranny of the majority to impose its will on the few who are simply trying to live that American Dream? Aren't all of our citizens entitled to a life free from bigotry and religious persecution?

(Look it up: when a class of people are subjected to unfair treatment, it's persecution. When that persecution is justified because of religious beliefs, it's "religious persecution.")

I've known a few - a very few - openly gay men and women. I can't say that I can call more than a bare handful of those friends. However, none of them are ogres bent on destroying the moral fabric of this country. They are simply people - sinners like the rest of us - who want to be accepted for who and what they are.

It's okay to be uneasy about all this and to question how best to protect our society from too-rapid change.

But it is just plain wrong to allow our Constitution to be sullied with words of hate, fear and discrimination.

This column was published March 4, 2004 by The Cameron Herald and was part of a package of personal columns which won a First Place from the Texas Press Association.

Thursday, February 19, 2004

The Ragged Edge: Victims were real people, too

Their names were Albert Gomez and Adolfo Gutierrez.

Albert, 38, was a groom at Valhalla Farms and lived in Rockdale. Adolfo, 27, had a wife and baby girl. They lived in Cameron.

They were both born in Mexico but they lived and worked here. They had friends and family here, people who loved them. They were real people.

Albert and Adolfo died June 4, 2000 when they crossed in front of a BNSF train at the Houston Street crossing, the same crossing where Brian Reinders and Travis Mueck died last month.

The circumstances between the two accidents are chillingly similar.

It was a late on a Sunday afternoon, around 6 p.m., according to the report published in this newspaper, when Adolfo and Albert attempted that crossing. The weather was clear, the sun bright. It's likely that Adolfo, the driver, never even saw the train coming, not necessarily because the sun was blinding (though that is also possible) but because the glare off the rails makes seeing anything past about 100 feet very difficult.

In fact, you can test this particular theory yourself. The next sunny day, go to that intersection at around 5 p.m. and look to the west. Note that the sun is not on the horizon but the glare from the sun glances off the rails and right into your eyes. No one could see a train if it is right behind the glare.

One striking difference between the accidents is that Brian and Travis crossed that intersection from Houston Street. Adolfo crossed from the other direction and would have had to look back over his shoulder - right into the teeth of the glare - to see anything.

In both accidents ... well, never mind. Let's just say that the immediate aftermath of both accidents was also very similar and leave it at that.

Recently, we mentioned Albert's and Adolfo's deaths in an editorial. We meant no disrespect when we referred to them as "Mexican laborers." Had we known more about the men, likely we would have written the editorial the same way because we were trying to make a point.

That point is that, four years ago - long before Brian and Travis were killed - our city leaders had a stark demonstration of the danger posed by that particular intersection. It may be "seldom-used," as one news report put it, but it's not "never used." People in this town - particularly young folks in a hurry - often use that intersection as a short cut.

But, Adolfo and Albert were first-generation immigrants. It's possible they weren't even American citizens yet, but that's not information I have. They were laborers, fully employed but employed at low-skill positions. They weren't well known. While their families and friends - of which, by all accounts, there were many - mourned their passing, they had no family or business connections to the people in Cameron who would feel outrage at their deaths and could Get Things Done.

Brian and Travis were bright young men with stellar futures. They were well loved and well respected. They touched many lives in this town and their deaths affected all of us.

Adolfo and Albert may have been real people but, the way Texans often look at things, they were nobodies.

So, when they died that sunny Sunday afternoon in June four years ago, the community at large shrugged its collective shoulders, tsk'ed briefly at the tragedy then moved on in glacial indifference.

And that's a shame because their deaths were rendered senseless by that very indifference. If nothing else, that accident four years ago should have been a catalyst to appropriately mark - or at least close - that dangerous intersection.

Instead, it was still open, still unguarded last month. It remains open and unguarded today.

This was published Feb. 19, 2004 in The Cameron Herald.

Thursday, February 5, 2004

Editorial: Close it. Now!

Tuesday's accident that killed two Cameron teenagers wasn't the first fatal collision on that stretch of railroad.

In June of 2000, two Mexican laborers were killed while crossing that intersection. It's unfortunate that the men were neither popular nor particularly well known. Had they been, someone in this community would have pushed hard to upgrade or close that crossing a long time ago. Instead, their deaths were largely ignored and the manner of their passing was chalked up to inattention or alcohol or drugs.

Had someone pushed four years ago, that crossing would have either been closed or adequately signed when those young men tried to cross it last Tuesday afternoon.

Just as nobody took responsibility for the accident four years ago, no one wants to take responsibility for last week's accident.

As we've reported in our page-1 story, three entities -- the Texas Department of Transportation, Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad and the City of Cameron - have been discussing since May 2002 upgrading the warning signals at the Houston Street rail crossing (the crossing is listed as the Cedar Street crossing, # 022924R, in an inventory maintained by the Federal Railroad Authority).

But the sequence of events that, on one hand, listed the intersection as the 26th most dangerous rail crossing in Texas as of December 2001, then declared the intersection a private crossing in August 2002 (which dropped it off the federal list of dangerous rail crossings needing improvement) has a hard time passing the smell test.

Further, it gives credence to the conspiracy theorists who insist that state rail authorities are in cahoots with railroad companies to avoid marking any crossing they don't have to.

The three entities met, looked over the crossing and decided that the road opposite Houston Street is not a dedicated city street. Since it's not a city street, the crossing is not eligible for federal funds.

TxDOT insists that it can't advance the project any further until the issue of public-private ownership is resolved.

BNSF officials won't "speak to public or private" issues, even though the railroad actually owns and pays taxes on the property.

For its own part, the city has said it would do whatever is necessary to upgrade the crossing but has been waiting around for either TxDOT or BNSF to tell it what to do.

In other words, everyone's been sitting on their hands waiting for someone else to do something.

That's not good enough. It shouldn't have been good enough and it certainly isn't good enough any more.

Only one of these three entities has the authority, mandate and responsibility to correct this dangerous situation. Only one of these entities is charged with protecting the safety and welfare of the citizens of this town: The City of Cameron.

The city is the only one of the three entities responsible for railroad crossings in the city limits that can and must harass TxDOT and BNSF until something is done.

Make no mistake, this is a public safety issue. Our elected city council members can no longer stand by while more powerful interests dither. It is up to our elected representatives - and the professionals they employ - to cut through the chaff and protect us and our children.

The city council must close the Houston Street crossing - temporarily but immediately, regardless of any protest - until a permanent, safe solution can be found.

Anything less is negligence and places other lives at risk.

This was originally published Feb. 5, 2004 as an editorial in The Cameron Herald. It was part of a package that won awards for editorial writing from the National Newspaper Association, the Texas Press Association, the South Texas Press Association, the Texas Gulf Coast Press Association and the North & East Texas Press Association.

Thursday, January 22, 2004

The Ragged Edge: Politics and religion don't mix

Let's be clear on this. I believe with all my strength that there is no place for politics in religion and no place for religion in politics.

The very worst chapters of human history were written when these two very powerful spheres of culture collided. Theocratic states -- countries either run by a religion or so bound up in religious law that secular and theocratic doctrine become confused -- have generally been intolerant of people who do not firmly and zealously hold to the beliefs of the majority religion.

This intolerance has ranged from oppression of women and denial of citizenship to non-believers, to torture and outright genocide. Indeed, many of the worst atrocities ever committed by mankind have been committed in the name of one religion or another.

That's why this democracy was founded on the very clear understanding that our government has no business messing around with church business and churches should stay out of the government's business.

I bring up this point because there as been a recent trend -- a trend illustrated by several letters published in this newspaper -- that political ideology and religious beliefs should go hand-in-hand.

This trend has been growing for a number of years but intensified after the tragedy of Sept. 11, 2001. In the span of 24 hours, it seemed that you couldn't be patriotic unless you are also a Christian. Never mind that this country has always been a haven for a cacophony of religious voices ... and a place for non-believers as well.

Now, all of a sudden, according to some, you can't be a Christian if you are also a Democrat.

'Democrats believe in abortion and no Christian can hold to that.' Besides, every good right-wing Republican knows that all Democrats are godless.

Excuse me, all liberal Democrats are godless. Those other Democrats are simply confused.

Baloney. That's not only wrong-headed, it's dangerous, divisive and completely against the spirit of our country and Christ's teaching.

There is a sharp difference between secular law and religious doctrine. Secular laws -- the laws passed by the federal and state governments -- are meant to apply to everyone, regardless of their religious beliefs. There's even tolerance built into our secular laws to allow for different religious beliefs.

Religious laws apply only to those who believe in that particular sect of that particular religion. To believe and act in any other way smacks of sanctimonious self-righteousness.

Though some of our laws are grounded in the Judeo-Christian foundation of this country -- in fact, there is a distinct correlation between most common law and Christian doctrine -- the U.S. Constitution does not recognize any religious law as the law of the land.

This is so for the very simple fact that one person's religious law is another person's idiocy.

For example, there are some (actually most) religious doctrines that teach that taking any life is against the Word of God. In fact, the set of laws most revered by Christians in this country include a frank prohibition against taking a life. As I recall, there are no exceptions to the Commandment: "Thou shall not kill."

Indeed, many of the same people who would carve the Ten Commandments on the walls of every public building in the land cite that Commandment as grounds to deny women the legal right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, the right to retain control over her own destiny.

Yet, many of those same people also support capital punishment, state-sponsored execution.

So, which religious laws should we observe? The ones that tell us what food we can and can't eat? The ones that tell us to take unruly, disrespectful children out to the edge of town and smash their heads against rocks?

Who will play Solomon and decide which of God's Words we must observe and when it's okay to safely ignore them?

Politics and religion make a dangerously volatile mixture. Our government is an instrument of secular life, not a tool to compel conformity according to some religious principle.

The Constitution specifically protects minorities from the tyranny of the majority.

We can't afford to let the narrow religious beliefs of a vocal few -- no matter how right and moral they believe they are -- dictate to the rest of us how we should feel, what we should believe, which laws we should pass or overturn and how we should vote.

It would be un-Christian and un-American.


This was published in the Cameron Herald in January, 2004.