Minimum Wage Increases Defy Common Sense

The minimum wage increase will hurt jobs among those we are attempting to help. No debate required. I guess it just feels good to a liberal when they "help" the poor with other people's money. The liberal can drink his wine and feel good about himself while the intended beneficiary looks for a new job ---- somewhere.

Obama's Agenda is Frightening

Getting more scared about where we are headed every day. Debate and common sense are needed now more than ever.



Glenn has it right.

Conservatives and Their Religious Views

Conservatives will be more widely accepted if they can live their lives in a manner that attends to their personal beliefs, while also keeping those beliefs private. Do not proselytize and the majority of Americans (even those deeply religious) will be much more accepting of the conservative message.

The term "Religious Right" has become synonymous with the Republican Party and conservatism. This term is not a term of endearment for most Americans. It is has come to mean intolerance and holier-than-thou snobbishness. Personally, I know this meaning is not accurate, but this image prevails when the term "Religious Right" is used.

For me, religion is a deeply personal topic. I am significantly influenced by my upbringing and belief in Christianity. However, I do not impart my views on others. My relationship with God is MY relationship. I do not need an organization to monitor or facilitate my religious views about what I believe. I do not need a middle man to act as a portal to God for me.

I married a woman from a Jewish family. I accept her religion. She accepts my religion. Our children have been educated on the traditions and meaning of both Christianity and Judaism. Our children are primed to make a decision on religion when they are old enough to fully understand and develop their own views. My advice to the devoted evangelical is that even if a you believe a person will "go to hell" for not being Christian - - let them do it. Let people live their lives and respect them for what they believe. As long as their belief is not infringing on human rights or promotes violence, then let them believe what they want to believe. The best example of how to apply this in real terms is the same-sex marriage debate. Let the marriage happen. Accept the lifestyle of others and as long as their lifestyle is not forced on you, then everything is OK.

I am confirmed as a Presbyterian, but have attended many Catholic masses, Jewish services, Baptist and Unity services. There is one God with many paths to that God. Let people have their path and use the founding principles of respect, human rights, dignity, honesty, integrity and good citizenry to base decisions on. These principles can come from any religion. Factions within religions that are intolerant should be exposed. The method to do this is through discussion and debate. Discussion and debate will show objective individuals that the radical factions are not worth following.

Religion and Public Policy

A strong cultural divide exists on the topic of religion in the public square and the definition of separate of church and state. The conservative mantra is "Freedom of religion not freedom from religion." The liberal agenda is geared toward erasing every reference to religion and all influence of religion from anything public (past, present and future).

These positions are seemingly mutually exclusive and for the far left and far right they are irreconcilable. However, for those interested in common ground, it is easy to find.

Let's start with basic assumptions: 1) The United States of America was predominantly founded on Judeo-Christian values based on individual rights. 2) The USA of the 21st Century has a widely diverse citizenry with regard to religious beliefs. 3) The government can make no law establishing a religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Taking in consideration the first assumption, it is easy to see how government documents, memorials and buildings can legitimately contain words such as "In God We Trust" and "Under God." These should remain in place as a reference to the history of this nation. Actions to erase this history, tradition and remembrance of the impact of God on our country result in the cultural war we are in.

Combining assumption one and two from above, it is easy to see why we have a culture war at this time in history. The answer is simple. Acknowledge the country's history, but accept the future as a diverse nation of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus and a host of other religions. To do this, we should stop trying to change the past and simply focus on the future. Putting this into pragmatic terms, commercial organizations should feel free to celebrate and honor any and all religious holidays it deems beneficial to its commercial entity. Christmas, Hanukkah and Kwanzaa can be treated the same or differently as deemed necessary by the commercial entity. However, the government should honor the religions equally as its constituents see fit. If a constituency is left out and is not embraced, then the government should amend its position. This does not mean that Sikh holidays need to be honored in a town that has no Sikh citizens. It does not mean schools should only sing Christmas Carols about snow and Santa. Jesus is not a bad word in the public square. Abraham and Mohammad are not poison either.

Finally, the last assumption paraphrased from the Constitution gives ambiguous guidance that needs a dose of common sense. Government cannot make laws, rules, regulations, policies or other guidance that supports one religion over another. Additionally, government cannot stop anyone from expressing their right of religious expression. Again, let's put this in pragmatic terms. The government is not in the business of accommodating religions. This includes not putting foot baths in public areas for Muslims at taxpayer expense. However, it also means that banning of women wearing headdresses is also unconstitutional. Both of these violate the Constitution. Commercial entities can make their own rules subject to public reaction that would then benefit or harm their shareholder goals, but government cannot make any policy (period). This also means government cannot punish commercial entities from making their own decisions on this topic.

At least for those actually religious, these three basic assumptions when combined with common sense and a desire for agreement will put an end to this culture war.

That leaves atheists and agnostics as constituents that need to be addressed. For this group, any reference to any religion can leave them feeling left out. There is no easy answer for this group. Militant atheists and agnostics are the minority group that drives the culture war. Their activities get the religious right up in arms. This upheaval may actually be the objective and in that case no middle ground is possible. However, this group can gain solace in the fact that the USA is a secular nation. They are protected by the establishment clause of the Constitution to be free to do whatever they want, but unless there is a way to "celebrate" their lack of religious affiliation there is no way they can be treated fairly. Without an instrument to be equal, atheists and agnostics may continue to feel left out. My suggestion is to not deny religious events that are Constitutional and find a way that their beliefs can be treated on equal terms. This argument will not appeal to all members of this group, but the alternative is an unending culture war.

Alienating others is not a form of maintaining standards

Why do conservatives feel that holding back the rights of other individuals is somehow holding up a standard. Same-sex marriage is an inevitable trend that will make its way through the 50 states within the next 15 years. It is a tidal wave that cannot and should not be held back. Voters under the age of 30 overwhelming support same-sex marriage. Conservatives that believe they are standing up for decency and withholding rights of others are simply on the wrong side of history. They are presenting themselves and subsequently Republicans and conservatives in general as intolerant religious bigots. This attitude disenfranchises new voters and socially moderate voters. There is no perceived upside to maintaining this posture.

Let's use common sense when making decisions. Religion is certainly a framework for making decisions. It provides a moral compass and basis for making decisions. For government officials this is a starting point for discussions and decisions on policy. A religious framework is just one example of a framework that should influence decisions. The bias and background of all Members of Congress come into play when making decisions (as it should). This includes backgrounds and frameworks associated with black, female, homosexual, Hispanic and other minority Members.

At no point, should any of these frameworks be used to exclude, denigrate, or de-legitimize American citizens. I say this without reservation as it applies uniformly to both sides of the aisle. If any of the above frameworks is used for that purpose, the Member or coalition using these tactics should lose credibility and suffer an overall loss of voter support. This applies to religion as a decision making process and also Congressional Black Caucus frameworks for making decisions. Decide based on your moral background, your individual upbringing, but discrimination or alienation of a constituency is not acceptable.

The government should not force churches to perform same-sex marriage. That is the jurisdiction of the church. There will be churches that will perform the ceremony, so no individual church should be forced to compromise on its religious belief.

Conservatives do not have to abandon their beliefs, but they do need to stop imparting their beliefs on others. Similarly, supporters of same-sex marriage should not force their lifestyle into the public discourse in order to gain acceptance. They demean their own cause by being militant about needing to be accepted. A perfect example is a recent "research" study about Disney films that only portray heterosexual relationships. Warning: A push to change Disney films to be homosexual will inherently cause harm to the Gay Rights movement. Moderates that might accept same-sex marriage will be turned off by this militant approach to changing mainstream pop culture toward homosexual positions.

Adultery and Public Office

There has been a lot of debate about recent events associated with affairs and adultery among government officials. Should they resign? Are they hypocrites? Can they be trusted in office when they cannot be trusted to stay faithful?

The answers: Common sense should prevail. Republicans need to stop "preaching" to America.

Common sense approach: Public officials, especially elected public officials, should be held to a high standard. We should expect that of our leaders of this great country. One would hope we can find 50 Governors, 435 Congress members and 100 Senators that can meet this standard, but obviously that is not the case. That high standard should include staying focused on the job of solving the problems of their constituents. An affair is a distraction. I personally cannot imagine trying to keep two woman happy. I have a hard enough time keeping one woman happy. An affair increases stress as the person lives a lie. An affair opens the official up to bribery and extortion possibilities. (Reference article on Sen. Ensign - - http://www.mysanantonio.com/50389872.html). An affair can lead to additional mistakes to try and cover-up the situation. An affair shows lack of judgment. For all of the above reasons, an elected government official should step down from any significant leadership roles. Certainly, a Governor should step-down. A Congress member should resign committee leadership positions, but can still be a legitimate Member of Congress. This position is NOT based on a religious superiority or "holier-than-thou" belief. It is a pragmatic position that also is based on the assumption that elected officials have an important job to do and must be held to a high standard. If the elected official makes peace with his family, stops the affair and is reelected by his/her constituency, then remaining in office is viable. At no point does this position tell a person not to have an affair. That is not the jurisdiction of anyone in government. If a person wants to have an affair, do it when you are not a public servant. Do it when a lack of focus, bad judgment or susceptibility to extortion are not going to impact Americans.

How Republicans should address this topic: Stop putting yourself on a pedestal. Democrats do not preach and when a Democrat has an affair it gets washed away. Republicans take the high ground in such an absolute manner, such that when the inevitable occurs the world laughs at the hypocrisy. Republicans need to maintain a high standard in concert with the above common sense approach, but no one should be scorned for committing sins. The truly religious will embrace and pray for a sinner instead of cast out and shame the sinner. Be inclusive. Personally hold the standard, but do not put yourself on a pedestal to be knocked off with a hard fall.

Common ground on Abortion: Can we find it?

Abortion is clearly one of the most polarizing debates in American history. Is there common ground? I can guarantee the below debate will not sit well with 15% on the right and 15% on the left, but for most American’s it makes common sense and is better than the current situation we have right now.

Let’s start with a couple basic assumptions – 1) Children cannot be killed and 2) once a child exists, it has rights. If anyone does not agree with these assumptions, common ground cannot be achieved. However, if we assume a rational audience, the next step is to determine when a fetus becomes a child. To do this, we’ll look at the opposite end of the life spectrum – death. A person is pronounced dead when the heart stops beating for a sufficient period of time. Cells may still be “alive” and the body may even still have a temperature, but the body is pronounced dead. We should apply this logic to the birth of a child. When the heart starts beating, there is a child. Prior to the heart beating, it is a collection of cells with the ability to produce life, but a child does not yet exist. A beating heart will typically occur in the third or fourth month. A child exists at that point and has rights. The hardcore belief that life begins at inception is just not accurate in the context of true life. Life at conception is predominantly a religious based belief and should not be a determining factor for government policy.

Once there is a child, the last step is to determine if there are circumstances that would require the killing of the child. There are some circumstances that are worth debating, such as incest, rape, health of the mother, birth defects that were detected. I have my own opinion, but believe these specifics should be left to the state to decide individually.

I do believe that partial birth abortion is never a necessity and should never be performed. Anyone that believes otherwise falls into one of two categories: 1) They don’t understand the procedure, or 2) They are radically committed to abortion as a right with no regard for the child and are afraid of the proverbial “slippery slope” to include horrific destruction of a child.

The above concept will lend itself to be a policy in which abortion can occur legally in the first 3-4 months. After that point, it becomes a procedure that individual states can regulate on a rare exception basis, but only for a period of time that the child cannot sustain life outside the womb.