IS THE MODERN REPUBLICAN PARTY LEGAL?

The Republican Party has long been the party of the wealthy people to protect and preferably enrich their fortunes. They full well realize that there are not enough of them to win elections so that they have opened their "tent" to some others. Strangely they have attracted a lot of wage workers, even though it is the Democratic Party that has their best interests at heart and the Republican party only pays them attention at election time.* It seems to me that this started when the Democratic Party opened its "tent" to the disenfranchised, namely Blacks, Hispanics and women, but more recently homosexuals. Republicans have also opened the "tent" to a coalition of religious extremists, notably those that describe themselves as "Evangelicals" who are social conservatives and conservative Roman Catholics .

The inclusion of religious extremists had the advantage of taking advantage of a group of very energetic people with religious fervor, to help protect the wealthy (of course some wealthy could be both), but it was also dangerous as we have seen. In the 2012 election cycle, the growth of the religious conservatives within the Republican Party has been phenomenal to the point where the Republican Party now seems to be a party of conservative Roman Catholics and Protestant Evangelicals. It might more properly be called the Christian Right Party, i.e. a religious party. The question is, is a religious party legal in the United States that prides itself on secular political parties and the separation of church and state?

The answer may not be all that clear. Separation of church and state is not specifically mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, although Founding Fathers assume it to be in the First Amendment, most notably Thomas Jefferson. And it has been used in Supreme Court decisions: "Justice Hugo Black wrote: 'In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and state.'"**

If these interpretations are correct the modern Republican Party may be illegal because, as a religious party, it does not separate church and state. If it is claimed they are a religious party, it undoubtedly would go eventually to the Supreme Court that incidentally, is comprised by six Roman Catholics, two Jews, and one Protestant. Not all the Roman Catholics are conservative Roman Catholics, however.

Nonetheless, we have had the politicians in Mississippi propose an initiative that life begins at fertilization of a women's egg, fortunately turned down in the referendum.*** The purpose of the initiative was to attack all abortions. The Mississippi initiative was followed by a bill in Virginia where women having an abortion would be required to have an "ultrasound" transvaginal probe of the fetus which after much outrage, especially by women, the governor threatened a veto.**** Texas, however, does have a law that a sonogram (exterior) must be taken, and the woman must listen to the doctor's description of it and. She must then wait 24 hrs before undergoing the abortion procedure.*****

*The Republican Party to appease wage workers has come out against higher education, especially higher education in Ivy League Universities using terms like "elites" and "not real Americans." See The Dumbing Down Of America:

http://stopcontinentaldrift.blogspot.com/2010/10/dumbing-down-of-america-if-you-listen.html.

** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States

***http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/08/mississippi-personhood-amendment_n_1082546.html

****http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/22/10479427-virginia-lawmakers-back-off-requiring-invasive-ultrasound-before-abortion

*****http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57382162/is-a-required-ultrasound-a-barrier-to-abortion/

REAGAN & CLINTON

I find it interesting that in a recent Gallup poll, the two presidents judged the best in recent history (stating with Nixon, apparently) are Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton. I find this interesting because one of them is one of only two presidents impeached in our nation's history and the other should have been for Iran contra.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/152771/americans-judge-reagan-clinton-best-recent-presidents.aspx

WHERE ARE THE WOMEN AGAINST CONTRACEPTIVES?

The whole argument against some religious faiths rebelling against paying for contraceptives has been, to the best of my knowledge, men. Where are the women against contraceptives being covered in health insurance plans? Even Sarah Palin is for pre-conception contraceptives (http://glassbooth.org/explore/index/sarah-palin/21/abortion-and-birth-control/16/). Better yet, where are the Roman Catholic women against them? I have heard , even from a Catholic Bishop, that 97-98% of Catholic women have used contraceptives at some point in their life (but he felt that made no difference). Rick Santorum says it is not a matter of contraceptives (though he is against them*), but of religious Freedom and economics. Whose freedom is he talking about: the freedom of the Bishops and the Roman Catholic hierarchy or the freedom of women to control their own health.

As to economics, the expenses of pregnancy and child birth are more expensive than the cost of contraceptives and insurance companies will actually save money (by as much as 15%, a figure claimed by some to be too high). No rule says that the Bishops must advocate contraceptives, and no rule says that anyone (nearly all women) must use them. There are many things in my health insurance policy that I have not used (There are those who have been unkind enough to say I should have my head examined.). And even in the original edict by HHS, people working in churches and seminaries and other religious organizations may not be covered by contraceptives. So should non-Catholic women or even Catholic women working in a Catholic hospital be denied contraceptive coverage whereas if they worked in a private hospital or, say, Presbyterian hospital they would be? I think not.

The greater availability of contraceptives has also been credited with the lowering of teenage pregnancy and the spread of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs).**

* http://stopcontinentaldrift.blogspot.com/2011/12/tthe-republican-primaries.html and particularly the reference to http://www.ricksantorum.com/pressrelease/senator-santorum-launches-“faith-family-and-freedom-tour” ("Repeal Obamacare mandate for contraceptive services in healthcare plans").

**http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3324401.html

CHURCH & STATE

Recently two problems have occurred to put into question what is the role of church and state. The major problem is a directive by the Dept. of Health & Human Services (HHS) that states that church run secular services like health insurance and employees of hospitals, schools, etc. must provide for contraceptives being paid for by their health plan. Mind you, nothing requires the church to cover such matters within the church. It is said that this is interference of the state upon the church. Is this the first instance in the country where the state has interfered with church based operations? I think not. For example the state made the Mormons give up polygamy. One still finds Mormons and others who disobey the law, and the law keepers often overlook disobeying the law, but it is still against the law and occasionally the state takes action.* This controversy continues, pro and con: http://mediamatters.org/research/201202080008

It also occurs to me that Quakers are pacifists, but they are given no exemption from paying the part of their income tax that goes to the military.**

The prohibition of polygamy seems to me particularly relevant ( "Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinion, they may with practices."). The edict by HHS does not interfere with the belief that contraception is bad. It only refers to the action of prohibiting government payment by churches of contraceptives to non-members in secular operatons. The Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church are strongly opposed to providing contraceptives to non-member employees. Often the First Amendment is appealed to,*** to support the Bishops; however, the Mormons also appealed to the First Amendment to justify their permitting polygamy. But it is also possible to object to the HHS edict on the secular basis that one doesn't feel the government should be involved in such things as well as for religious reasons. Some further legal discussions on this matter can be seen at: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/08/whose-conscience/?nl=opinion&emc=tya1.

The second uproar came from the California where Proposition 8, that prohibits marriage between same sexes, was struck down by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.**** The basis of doing this was that a right was being taken from people who had the right, i.e. same sex marriage was legal in California for awhile. The verdict would not apply to other states, only California.

** http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/27/us/us-sues-quaker-group-over-taxes.html

"In spite of the law, the Mormons continued the practice of polygamy, believing that it was protected by the First Amendment. In 1879, in Reynolds v. United States,^[3] the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the Morrill Act, stating: "Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinion, they may with practices."^[2]"

"Quakers were not permitted to bear arms, appear "arrayed in a warlike manner", join the militia, or pay war taxes." (http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~quakers/quakinfo.htm)

*** http://articles.cnn.com/2004-07-29/justice/hamilton.polygamy_1_polygamy-marriage-argument?_s=PM:LAW

**** http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/02/07/BA1H1N3T1H.DTL

A RIDE

It was one of those warm clear September days with a nice breeze blowing up from the south. The time was somewhere around noon, and the bus was quite loaded although no one was standing. The fact that all busses are rather stuffy and hot in the first place and that on hot sunny days when they are loaded with people they become even more hot and more stuffy made the bus a mite uncomfortable. Unfortunately, I was unable to get a seat by a window. I had been standing for quite a while, however, so that for the moment I was very relieved just to be able to sit down. Besides heat itself hadn't bothered me much for several years and being able to sit caused me to overlook the stuffiness.

The bus was one of a new type that had been installed several months before. This being the first time I had cause to ride on one of them, naturally I started to examine the interior and to note improvements with which it must have been equipped. I noticed a few years back that a national semantics organization died after seven years of work when they discovered that they hadn't accomplished a thing. They never must have run across the word bus. That is one word that should have been duck soup for them. I can see where it might be somewhat difficult to define, but, if you ever see a bus, you certainly know what it is and will never forget what you saw. Actually of all the ways we have combined letters together to represent objects as words, the formation of the word bus to represent what it represents was one of the most fortunate. If there is anything that buses are, it is that they are, essentially, buses. There is certainly nothing pretty or beautiful about them. They are used as the last resort by the lazy and the unfortunate who desire some other means than those at hand for arriving at some destination. Those people who like to ride on buses never do because they are all in sanitariums. Yes, although some buses may have their motor in the front and others in the rear, once you have seen a bus there is no doubt that it is a bus.

The driver of the particular vehicle that I was on was uncommonly good considering the impossibility of his job. We jostled along with a minimum of jostles. Finally we were forced to stop and observe the progress of a slow freight train crossing our "T". I was finally rested enough to begin to notice the stuffiness when a little girl said in an excited voice to her wilting mother, "Mama, look at the train!" I thought of how nice it would be to get excited over our delay instead of getting irritated.

The study of the bus proving to be very poor stimulus, I moved my concentration to a little boy sitting in front of me who was in the process of removing one of the advertising cards from the racks that are fastened to the back of the seats. Advertising companies must like to amuse small children, for these cards certainly are of no interest to older people. The little boy examined the card very carefully, then put it back in the holder and stared at the ceiling. The little boy's mother got up. She went to the front of the vehicle and called to her son to follow. The son noticed that no one was at the back door. He couldn't see any reason for waiting in line so he skipped out the back. The mother chose to ignore her son's wit, however, and kept bucking the crowd. I moved to the seat made vacant, which was by a window. Now I could look out a window and breathe in the warm September air which was only slightly tainted by the smell of bus exhaust. Being an admirer of good literature, I moved my concentration to a billboard advertising beer.

1952