PUNISHMENT -- WE OUGHT TO QUIT IT!

By Edwin Cooney

Yah, I know I’m in trouble already even before you read any further!  However, that’s okay, because one of my jobs, as I see it, is to invite you to join me in occasionally thinking outside of the box.  However, before I make my case, here’s the origin of this week’s social commentary.

I got a message from a friend and reader this week. He related a story from the Buffalo Evening News about a 68-year-old nun, Sister Mary Anne Rapp of the Sisters of St. Francis of Penance and Christian Charity in Lewiston, New York.  Sister Mary Anne is going to jail for 90 days for stealing $130,000 over a period of five years from the parishioners of two churches in Orleans County, New York.  No one, not even me, argues with the restitution aspect of the court’s judgment, but I agree fully with my friend who writes that jailing this nun is not justice.  She will get through the 90 day sentence in the Orleans County jail and she’ll gladly do her 100 hours of community service and pay her $128,000 of restitution.  However I argue that her punishment will have nothing to do with her successful struggle with her gambling addiction.  Unfortunately, the fact that she’s being punished is what is likely to matter to most people. 

So, first, let’s define "punishment."  Broadly speaking, punishment is the suffering, pain, and loss inflicted by our judicial system as a penalty in retribution for a crime for which you or I (or perhaps both of us!) have been convicted after the due process of law.  The dictionary lists a number of categories of punishment that society in general or people in particular may dole out to us: capital, company, corporal, cruel and unusual, physical, temporal, and self.

Of course, from almost the very instant we’re born punishment is available to us.  We don’t even necessarily have to earn it as we must earn food, shelter, clothing or all of the pleasant aspects of human life.  Yes, indeed -- we’re actually entitled to it.  Punishment is a birthright available throughout the entire world!  What a bargain! 

We have only anecdotal proof that punishment ever works.  Oh, I know all of the anecdotes that speak of how a parent scolded and spanked a kid so soundly that he or she never again chased a ball into the street.  Then I’ve heard story upon story of testimony from jailed felons who’ve mended their ways as a result of the Christian, Judaic or Muslim ministry they experienced while inside.  My observation would be that Christian, Judaic or Muslim ministries are just as available outside as they are inside prison.  Hence, from the time we begin to reason, we’re indoctrinated with the idea that retribution -- in at least a controlled form -- is just and therefore constitutes justice.

Now I’ve received and meted out my share of punishment throughout my entire life.  (I suppose, in retrospect, that as an adult I’ve even administered punishment to my friends and to my two spouses just as they have to me.)  The purpose of punishment is to send the proverbial message that someone’s actions have damaged one's sense of well-being -- that it hurts -- and that one ought not repeat the offense, thus the angry words or hurtful action.  The bottom line however is that it seldom works.  Punishment and justice, as I see it, aren’t comparable or compatible.

Now, before you get your undies in too much of a bunch, I’m not against controlling people who are out of control.  People who would endanger the safety and security of others must be prevented from doing so.  There must be places where such persons are held and reprogrammed to alter their behavior to the degree that that is possible. When a child is in the grip of punishment, most of the time in confinement is taken up feeling sorry to have been caught.  The child may ultimately regret having hurt or embarrassed parents, friends and perhaps teachers, but that retrospect on their part usually comes afterward once the sting of the punishment has spent itself.

Thus, if there’s little relationship between the cause and the method of alleviating the offense, then that method of offense alleviation needs revising, doesn’t it?

The idea of revenge, retribution, payback or whatever you call it is endemic to almost every western culture as well as some eastern cultures.  Hence, if we teach that punishment is just and much of the time is an antidote to unacceptable behavior, but that teaching proves to be very limited in its truth, isn’t it time to rethink that lesson?

Insisting that you and I are accountable for what we do and devising ways to enforce accountability is one thing and is very legitimate.  Punishment, retribution, the administering of loss or pain only reinforces the power of payback as I see it.  If payback constitutes justice then where is the principle in justice?  If justice is devoid of principle, what is its real value?

The judge was right to order that Sister Mary Anne reimburse those whom she defrauded.  That requirement, as I see it, doesn’t constitute punishment.  That part of the verdict is justice in its most powerful exactitude.

The administration of justice is a legitimate and essential element of any worthwhile society.  Sadly, every society throughout the history of man seems to have made the same mistake: they have made punishment the main ingredient of justice.

That may well be humankind’s greatest sin!

Whether my thinking is inside or outside of the box it seems that I’m forever a candidate for punishment –- the single most popular human right!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

BECAUSE IT MATTERS!

By Edwin Cooney

Okay, here’s the bottom line:  I’m a reasonably comfortable guy when it comes to almost every aspect of my existence.  I’m fortunate enough to have a substantial handful of good friends.  Like most people, I like to think my friends are as comfortable as I am in Twenty-first Century America.  Sadly, however, I must report that many of my friends are so uncomfortable, especially with our current socio/political situation, that seemingly they’re near despair.

A few days ago, I got the piece you’re about to read from my friend. I’ll call him "Zack" although that’s not his name.  Zack believes, as so many do it seems, that for the most part we’re being governed by fools or at least near fools.  Hence, he sent me the following message:

“Remember that I once told you that one day we’ll be ruled by mediocrity.”

H. L. Mencken, born 1880, died 1956, a journalist, satirist and critic, wrote in an editorial appearing in the Baltimore Evening Sun, on July 26, 1920:
"As democracy is perfected, the office of President represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day, the plain folks of the land will at last reach their heart's desire and the White House will be occupied by a downright fool and complete narcissistic moron."

That editorial by Henry Louis Mencken was written during the 1920 presidential campaign that featured Ohio Governor James M. Cox and Assistant Secretary of the Navy Franklin Delano Roosevelt for the Democrats against Ohio Senator Warren G. Harding and Massachusetts Governor Calvin Coolidge for the Republicans.

Since neither Mencken nor Harding is my topic here, I’ll simply make one observation about each of them.  Warren Harding, except for being a man of the best intentions, in most ways was not suited to be president (although it must be noted that he had several golden presidential moments).  Henry Lewis Mencken was a remarkably brilliant and often irreverent journalist and socio/political commentator.

Like Mencken and such “Founding Fathers" as Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, John Adams, and Governeur Morris, my friend Zack appears to believe that it would be better if we were governed by “our betters.”   Before one examines that belief, it should be remembered that the Constitution leaves it to the states to set voting requirements and that not until the era of Andrew Jackson did most states open the polls to white males who didn’t own property or pay sufficiently high taxes.  Hence, as I see it, if my friend is right, then between 1789 and say 1830, few foolish or moronic things must have occurred in the government of the United States. 

Okay! Let’s see now:

In 1794, the President of the United States, a man named Washington, led a twenty-thousand-man army into western Pennsylvania to collect a federal excise tax on whiskey which poor western farmers rebelled at paying. (Could President Obama get away with such an act today?)

In1794, two Virginia aristocrats named Jefferson and Madison created a political party called Democratic-Republicans as Alexander Hamilton and John Jay, a couple of other aristocrats, created the Federalist Party. This occurred despite President Washington’s advice against the creation of political parties.

In 1795, the Georgia legislature found it necessary to invalidate a huge scandal perpetrated by the previous legislature that sold huge tracks of land in the territory of Mississippi to political insiders at below market prices. It was called the Yazoo land scandal.  The state would ask the federal government to intervene in 1802, which it did, in exchange for the state dropping all claim to any land west of its modern border. (Note: No state's rights advocate objected to the feds agreement to absorb all liabilities by the State of Georgia in the 1802 settlement.)

In 1798, the Federalist Congress, loaded with the “better born,” passed the Alien and Sedition Acts restricting freedom of speech and freedom of the press until 1802.

In 1804, two of the most highly educated men in the country, Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr, engaged in a duel fatal to Hamilton.

In 1804, President Jefferson, a sometimes thin-skinned aristocrat, attempted to impeach Associate Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase, a signer of Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence, for casual but critical remarks about Jeffersonian Democrats which he’d made from the bench.

In 1812, a Congress full of property owners declared a war against Great Britain which it couldn’t possibly win and didn’t, really.

Near the end of 1814, just before the War of 1812 was settled at Ghent, a group of New England Federalist "better borns" called the Hartford Convention to consider seceding from the Union because the war was ruining New England commerce. (Note that this was about 46 years before Fort Sumter.) Finally, in 1819, American bankers and real-estate speculators combined to create the first economic panic or depression in American history.

Of course, this same generation of leaders did a lot of miraculous things, too.

In 1776-81, they broke away from Great Britain and created a republic.

In 1786, they turned down a proposal by either Nathaniel Gorham, President of the Congress, or Friederich Von Steuben (who’d served under Washington during the Revolutionary War) or perhaps Alexander Hamilton to make Prince Henry of Prussia (younger brother of Frederick the Great of Prussia) the first president or possibly king of the United States.

In 1787, 1788 and 1789, they established our federal system of government with its checks and balances.

In the 1790s, they created a currency and a strategy that paid off a huge debt to European nations after the Revolution.

In the early 1800s, they purchased Louisiana, provided capital for public and higher education, railroad and steamboat construction, and built the Erie and other canals vital to the growth of commerce. 

My point is that “the great unwashed” have no monopoly on foolishness or downright narcissism, as H. L. Mencken seemed to insist.

As I’ve written in these pages on countless occasions, I’m merely a student of history. I'm definitely not an historian, as I have no academic standing.  However, I’ve read about some thousand years of British and European history and nearly 500 years of American history and I’ve yet to read of a happy and successful society established and maintained by the best born and the best educated.

Of course, men and women of all ideologies possess and even maintain misgivings about our future.  The very intensity of their skepticism, as I see it, provides a sense of outraged righteousness.  We live amidst mountains of legitimately daunting fears of Radical Islam, federal regulation, changing trends in religion, a valueless currency, global warming, unemployment and even more.  Of course, our security matters to me, to my friend Zack and all those to the right and to the left of us.

I suppose I should be ashamed, but the truth is I’m not.  I think it simply makes good sense to let all of my ideologically certain friends, who are invariably stuffed with “gotcha” debating and talking points, to do my worrying for me.  Meanwhile, I’ll simply luxuriate in Fortress America!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

UNCLE SAM’S TWO-HUNDRED AND THIRTY-SEVENTH BIRTHDAY!

By Edwin Cooney

It never fails to grab Sam.  Here he sits every July Fourth for as far back as he can remember at an exceedingly long oaken picnic table.  Off to his left at one end of the table sits Father Time.  At the other end of the table sits George Washington.  Both sides of the huge table accommodate all but one of the rest of the 36 men, in addition to Washington, who have been President of the United States between 1789 and 1985.  At other tables sit men and women, the great and the near great, even a rogue or two like Aaron Burr and Spiro Agnew. “Is that really Frank Sinatra over there?” Uncle Sam wonders.

“Happy two-hundred and thirty-seventh birthday, Uncle Sam,” says Father Time off to Sam’s left.

“Thank you, sir,” responds Sam.

“Sam,” intones George Washington off to Sam’s right, “I know that I speak on behalf of our Creator and all of the American people when I profoundly offer you every kind and inspiring wish in gratitude for your past and hope for your future.

All Sam can think to do is what he does every year in the wake of President Washington’s pronouncements: he bows and salutes.

“It wasn’t as easy at the beginning as some of our school children have been taught, was it, Sam?” Ben Franklin’s voice came from behind Sam’s left shoulder.  Before Sam can respond, Martha Washington places a huge plate of potato salad, baked beans, corn on the cob, hotdogs, barbecued chicken and a hamburger in front of Sam.

“No, it wasn’t,” Sam replies “I’ve been told that just a day or two before I was born it was possible that the delegates to the Second Continental Congress from New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware and South Carolina might not have voted for Richard Henry Lee’s June 7^th Resolution for Independence.  If it hadn’t been for men like Caesar Rodney who rode almost nonstop from Delaware to Philadelphia, I might have been a late arrival or perhaps I might not have been born at all.”

“It really was a hell of a cliff hanger!” came the voice of Robert Livingston, one of the New York Colony’s delegates to the Second Continental Congress.  “I was for the resolution and sat on the drafting committee, but so strong was the opposition in New York that I was recalled before I could vote for it.” (Chancellor Livingston occupies a special place in Uncle Sam’s heart for two reasons: fourteen years later, as Chancellor of New York State, Livingston would swear in George Washington as America’s first president.  In 1803, Livingston, along with James Monroe, would successfully negotiate with Napoleon Bonaparte for the purchase of the Louisiana Territory.)

“I remember celebrating your first birthday in Philadelphia back in ’77 when the city was loaded with British troops,” commented Dr. Benjamin Rush.  "That was pretty dicey, indeed!”

“Adams and I had a wonderful time in ’78 celebrating your second birthday with royalty from all over Europe, didn’t we, John?” said Franklin to the country’s second president.

“I’m afraid you enjoyed it more than I did, Ben,” said Adams. “I worked at least as hard as you partied to get the French to fully commit to supporting us against Britain,” recalled the rotund New Englander.

“How do you like my baked beans?” came the little voice of Abigail Adams from behind Sam’s right ear.

“They're every bit as tasty as Betsy Ross’s blue hotdogs from last year! Betsy’s been putting food coloring on hotdogs so that there are red hots, white hots, and blue hots every year just like the flag,” said Uncle Sam.

“She only does that,” said Abigail, “because she’s still a little embarrassed by the story which was released by her grandson William Canby to the American History Society of Pennsylvania in 1870 that she’d made the first flag even though she didn’t. It was just in time for the 1876 Centennial celebration of your birthday. She and her first husband John Ross attended Christ Church in Philadelphia with General George and Martha Washington in 1776, but she didn’t make or present the flag to the General.  She only wishes she had,” Abigail added rather cattily.

Conversation throughout the picnic was a mixture of pride and regret as it was every year.  John Adams and Thomas Jefferson regretted all over again that their Federalist and Democratic-Republican followers had politicized the Fourth of July celebrations in the 1790s in Philadelphia, Boston and New York City turning them into partisan parades, parties, and occasional street brawls fueled by drink.

Puffing on his inevitable cigar, Ulysses S. Grant, from his seat next to Abe Lincoln, expressed sorrow that under his first administration in 1870 the Fourth of July became an official federal holiday, but there hadn’t been a clause in the legislation making it a paid holiday for federal workers.

 “I knew you were sorry about that General Grant. That’s why I saw to it that it was a paid holiday for federal workers in the 1938 legislation,” said FDR as he fit a smoke into his long ivory cigarette holder.

“I’ve always been sorry,” said Uncle Sam to John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, "that you both died on my fiftieth birthday.”

“Think nothing of it, Sam,” said Jefferson, “We were glad to do it.  It made us even more famous than we already were.  After all, we were politicians before we were statesmen, Remember, Sam, no one becomes a statesman without first being a politician!”

“Yah! said James Monroe, the only president to have been wounded in the Revolutionary War while fighting under Washington, "but how many people know I also died on July Fourth five years after you fellows did?"

"Well,” said President Warren Harding as he looked up from the card game he was playing with Presidents Martin Van Buren, Chester A. Arthur, Frank Pierce and Andrew Jackson.  “Cal Coolidge, my Vice President and the man who succeeded me upon my death in San Francisco’s Palace Hotel on August 2^nd, 1923, was actually born on the Fourth of July."

“I like to think I was! But I don’t know," replied Coolidge rather shyly as was “silent Cal’s” nature. “It was pretty close to midnight on Wednesday, July 3^rd 1872 when I was born.  Papa hinted once that upon hearing my first cry he might have nudged the hands forward just a bit on the big grandfather clock in our living room.

“Good,” said Uncle Sam, “it’s always nice to have company, especially presidential company."

Suddenly, Father Time, a giant of a man, taller and broader than George Washington and Abraham Lincoln with a remarkably calm manner, was on his feet. Uncle Sam’s birthday cake was on a huge tray.  Its thick frosting contained a facsimile of the autograph of every president and chief justice and a reproduction of the American flag.  Every first lady had contributed her time to baking, layering and decorating the cake.  Uncle Sam rose slowly to his feet, preparing to blow out the two hundred and thirty-seven candles – a task that was getting harder every year.

As he huffed and puffed, he made his annual wish.  Although in keeping with tradition his wish was a silent one, everyone there knew what it was.  It was Uncle Sam’s abiding wish for his fellow Americans: “May there forever be freedom and justice for all!”

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

GOT A HERO? – I CERTAINLY HOPE SO!

By Edwin Cooney

Someone asked me the other day if I thought Edward Snowden, the latest famous or infamous Washington D.C. whistleblower, is a hero.  To my friend’s inquiry I had to plead ignorance.  My knowledge of what he has recently done was sketchy and even after doing a smidgen of research, I’m still unclear in my mind as to the purposes, motives or ultimate results of his action.  Certainly Mr. Snowden has risked, as do genuine heroes, his reputation with some pretty powerful people I’d be reluctant to inconvenience let alone anger.  However, whether that risk was for gain or for more noble purposes is the ultimate question.  If he blew his whistle over concern for your and my personal privacy, he’s definitely a candidate for heroship.  The civil libertarian part of me says “maybe he’s the real McCoy,” the patriotic and watchful part of my being says “wait a while!”

Generally speaking, a hero is one who risks his or her reputation, well-being, or both to save a life or lives, sustain or advance a noble cause or to prevent physical, emotional or societal disasters.

I’ve had heroes all my life.  In my youth, they had such names as J. Edgar Hoover (who kept America safe from gangsters and Communism), Douglas MacArthur  (who I then thought was heroic to publicly challenge President Truman’s limited war policy in Korea), Elvis Presley (who dared to defy traditional musical rules and mores as he became rich and famous), a host of great professional baseball players (most, but not all of them, New York Yankees) whose skill, strength and daring won World Series, American astronauts named Sheppard, Grissom and Glenn, et al. (who risked their safety by being shot into space by powerful rockets for America’s continuing world superiority and national security), and politicians named Nixon and Goldwater -- who ran for president while defending unpopular political principles.  Many of these people, although not all of them, are still heroes or at least favorites of mine.  Others have dimmed in my regard like the Lone Ranger, Jack Webb, and Matt Dillon (as played on radio by William Conrad).  Still others such as the early astronauts, with the addition of Neal Armstrong, Buzz (Edwin) Aldren, Michael Collins and the ill-fated Challenger crew of January 1986, remain heroic to me.  Since the mid 1970s, Hubert Humphrey, Jimmy Carter, and Barack Obama have joined my personal pantheon of heroes.

Of course, my heroes may be your political, sports or cultural opponents.  For most of us, George Washington was a freedom fighter, but to the British, George Washington wasn’t man enough to come out and fight, preferring to make the gallant British forces led by generals Howe, Clinton and Cornwallis chase him all over the North American continent thereby bringing on exhaustion, increasing British debt and ultimately victory for their “subjects” in the thirteen colonies.  The Civil War blurs heroism even more.  My heroes might be Lincoln, Grant and even Sherman, but for millions of modern day Republican Party patriots, Stonewall Jackson and Robert E. Lee are names that stir the hope that one day, the South may rise again – as if such a wish were somehow patriotic.  I may have some admiration for Ronald Reagan and even some for George H. W. Bush, but their goals and principles are sufficiently different from mine to make distant admiration the limit of my regard for them.

I suppose the question you might ask is: “What is the value, if there is any, of having heroes?”  I believe there is a wealth of information and opportunity for you and me when we allow ourselves to admire those who dare to dream and ultimately accomplish feats that benefit us all.  Some “hero worship” may on the surface appear to be trivial such as that of athletes or of other entertainers.  However, if such “hero worship” inspires someone enough to escape childhood poverty for financial and personal success in adulthood, then it has ultimate value.

Former major league pitcher Mike Marshall was said to have often refused to sign autograph books of kids who couldn’t show him that among the autographs in such books were those of their parents, teachers, and perhaps clergy.

Some of our greatest national heroes had heroes of their own.  Young Abraham Lincoln idolized Henry Clay and Daniel Webster.  John Glenn and Neal Armstrong were said to have admired the Wright brothers and Charles A. Lindbergh.  President Obama has been open in his genuine praise and love for Lincoln, and Jimmy Carter has striven to live his life in accordance with the teachings of Christ.

It’s my guess that most people would be hard pressed to identify twenty-first century American heroes, so I thought I’d offer a list from which you might build an even longer one of your own:  The terrorist attacks of 9/11 produced a host of heroes from the passengers aboard United Airlines flight 93 to the firefighters, police officers, and plain citizens who attempted to rescue the occupants of the World Trade Center; and the special forces that saved lives and eliminated Osama bin Laden in Abbottabad, Pakistan on Monday, May 2^nd, 2011;  Wesley Autrey, the New York City construction worker who, on Tuesday January 2^nd, 2007, saved the life of Camron Hollopeter who, while in the midst of an epileptic seizure, fell onto the tracks of a New York subway train; US Airways flight 1549 Captain Chesley Sullenberger, who safely set his damaged aircraft into the icy Hudson River saving the lives of 150 passengers and four other crew members on Thursday, January 15^th, 2009; and the countless citizens who assisted in recovery and rebuilding efforts in the wake of Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy in 2005 and 2012 respectively.

Heroes live everywhere and perform acts of love for you and me.  They may not all risk their safety or enhance their reputations, but they certainly make our lives easier and very worthwhile.

I began by asking if you’ve got a hero and hoping that you have one.  I’ll end by asserting that if you know a hero that’s even better!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

GOD’S RULE, IS IT YOUR BUSINESS OR YOUR TEACHER’S BUSINESS?

By Edwin Cooney

Exactly fifty years ago today the United States Supreme Court decided, by a vote of eight to one, Abington School Board vs. Edward Schempp. Ah! You’ve never heard of Mr. Schempp?  Okay, but perhaps you’ve heard of the other plaintiff in the case decided on that historic occasion, Madalyn Murray O’Hare.

On Wednesday, February 27^th and Thursday, February 28^th, 1963, the high court heard the arguments consolidated from two cases, School District of Abington Township, Pennsylvania, et al. v. Edward Schempp, et al. and Murray, et al. v. Curlett, et al., Constituting the Board of School Commissioners of Baltimore City.  Both cases challenged the constitutionality of Bible reading in the public schools.

Edward Schempp, a member of the Unitarian Universalist church, objected to his son’s exposure to Biblical doctrines his faith didn’t endorse, such as the divinity of Christ and the doctrine of the Trinity.  A 1949 Pennsylvania State law, more than allowing Bible reading, actually required ten verses of Bible reading along with recitation of The Lord’s Prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance at the daily opening of all public schools.  Although the state, during the adjudication of Schempp’s lawsuit, amended the law to allow exemptions from participation in the Bible reading and recitation of prayer, Mr. Schempp objected to the social ostracism he viewed as inevitable when religious minority or non-religious students would seek such exemptions.

Most mainline Protestant and non-orthodox Jewish religious institutions accepted the court’s decision.  However, evangelical Protestants, the Catholic Church and orthodox Jews (and of course Billy Graham) saw the court’s decision as exchanging faith in God for a new and promiscuous secular faith.

Even more outrageous and thus more repulsive to millions of Americans was the outspokenness of Ms. Madalyn Murray, founder and president of American Atheists.  At the time of and subsequent to Abington School District vs. Schempp. Ms. Murray, who married Richard O’Hare in 1965, was a frequent guest on American talk shows and an aggressive opponent of Christianity.  Her attacks on religion in general, and on Christianity in particular, were strident and thus offensive to many, gratifying as they were to others.  Far more than Edward Schempp, Ms. O’Hare became synonymous with anti-religious pro-secular forces here in the United States and thus more permanently linked in the public mind with the high court’s banning of Bible reading and prayer in America’s public schools.  A 1964 Life Magazine article declared that Madalyn O’Hare (who was born Monday, April 13^th, 1919 and would be murdered by Richard Rowland Waters Friday, September 29^th, 1995) was the most hated woman in America. (Note: Waters didn’t murder O’Hare, her son John, and granddaughter Robin out of religious revenge; he was merely a very disturbed individual.)

Far more significant than either Ms. O’Hare or Edward Schempp (who died peacefully in a Hayward, California nursing home at the age of 95 on Saturday, November 8^th, 2003) is the legacy of Schempp vs. Abington School District.  Millions of Americans have come to see the decision as an attack by a secular-minded liberal Supreme Court on a God-fearing public.  The decision, which was eight to one, was handed down by seven white Anglo-Saxon Protestants and one Jew.  The dissenter was Mr. Justice Potter Stewart who objected to the conclusion that the establishment clause of the First Amendment applies to the states as it applies to the federal government.  In other words, the federal government may not establish a religion or prohibit “...the free exercise thereof,” but the states may encourage religious activities within their borders.  Thus, if the State of New York sought to establish a prayer to be said in its public schools or if the State of Pennsylvania proscribed that ten Bible verses be read before the daily opening of public schools, that was okay with Justice Stewart.

Many Americans would assert that 50 years ago today God was driven from America’s classrooms.  Others, however, will assert that God, being omnipotent, can’t be driven from anywhere and is most powerful not in the classroom but from within you and me.  As true as this might be, conservative commentators and office seekers have gotten a lot of mileage out of the idea that God can be and was victimized by a secular minded Supreme Court sympathetic to the advancement of socialist and materialistic doctrines foreign in nature to the “American way.”  Yet, most of the eight justices who joined in the majority decision in Abington vs. Schempp were affiliated with Christianity or Judaism.

For religious minorities and secularists today, June 17^th, 2013 marks 50 years of freedom without explanation or apology to be themselves.  If there’s anything more American than that, this observer can’t imagine what it is!

I don’t see how any reasonable observer can avoid asking the following two questions.  If God reigned in the American classroom until driven out by secularist Supreme Court Justices in 1963, how is it that such official policies as Native American genocide, chattel slavery and racial segregation lingered in our law as long as they did? Second, whether God prevails is more our individual business than that of either federal or state government’s business, is it not?

Then, there’s the final observation of John F. Kennedy’s 1961 Inaugural that works for me:

“Here on earth, God’s work must truly be our own.”

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

JUSTICE AND TRUTH –- HALLELUJAH, THEY STILL LIVE!

By Edwin Cooney

It’s my guess that millions of Americans are breathing sighs of relief this week since the ruling by five Supreme Court Justices:

Anthony M. Kennedy, Stephen G. Breyer, Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. and Samuel A. Alito, Jr., legitimized an invaluable tool used by law enforcement to identify and control those who would violate your well-being and mine.  By allowing DNA testing of chronic criminal suspects, it may be possible (and I emphasize “may be possible”) to take a giant step toward safeguarding all of our lives.  To that I say hallelujah.

The immediate reaction to the high court’s decision in Maryland vs. King was the public analysis of the strange alliances of liberal and conservative justices reflected in both the majority and minority decisions.  To find Stephen Breyer siding with Justices Kennedy, Thomas, Roberts and Alito was something of a surprise, but the shocker was to find Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joined by Justice Antonin G. Scalia.  (Keep in mind that Bader Ginsburg was appointed by Bill Clinton and Sotomayor and Kagan were appointed by President Barack Obama. Scalia was appointed by none other than Ronald Reagan.)

The question lingering in most minds, however, is whether DNA testing of criminal suspects to connect them to a crime for which they are not under suspicion, not to prove guilt for the crime for which they’re being held, is a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.  In his minority opinion, Justice Scalia made it clear that he does believe the decision was in violation of the Constitution.

Plainly, Justices Scalia, Sotomayor, Bader Ginsburg, and Kagan insist that it’s more important that you and I be protected from wrongful governmental investigations than that the government be empowered to tie suspected criminals to other crimes of which they may be guilty.

What’s fascinating about this debate is who these justices appear to be most interested in protecting.  It would seem on the surface that Justices Scalia, Sotomayor, Bader Ginsburg and Kagan are more concerned with the rights of the individual than they are with the lives and security of society as a whole.  On the other hand, it appears that Justices Kennedy, Thomas, Roberts, Alito, and Breyer are more interested in justice and truth than they are in constitutional principles.  Traditionally, ideological conservatives tend to be more interested in whether laws are consistent with the original intent of our “Founding Fathers” rather than whether a law will protect you or me from harm by a vindictive criminal or by a careless corporation.

Liberals traditionally concern themselves with wide sweeping issues such as the socio/economic well-being of the most vulnerable in society.  Therefore, it is strange to find Antonin G. Scalia ideologically cuddling with the three Supreme Court liberal darlings!  As for me -- I love it!

Regardless of our motives, you and I -- along with all nine Supreme Court justices -- insist always that justice and truth are two of our best friends.  Hence some of us wonder how Justices Bader Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan cannot recognize a glaring truth: that allowing criminal suspects to be painlessly swabbed to test their DNA ensures justice and liberty far more effectively than the intentions of “the Founding Fathers” as put forth in the Fourth Amendment.  In the case of Mr. Justice Scalia, the problem is simple.  Justice Scalia hates government.  It appears that government is never a solution insofar as he is concerned. To the good 77-year-old justice, solving problems isn’t and never should be the responsibility of government.  Government’s only function is to provide the noble principles that should always guide John and Suzie Q. Citizen in the conduct of their private affairs.

As for Justices Bader Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan, their insistence on the rights of minorities appears to blind them to the reality that, like a busted clock twice a day, the forces responsible for administering justice are occasionally right.

The late Republican Senator Everett McKinley Dirksen of Illinois used to observe that now and then we must all rise above principle.

Of course, Justice Scalia obviously never will rise above his principles. Like ideologues of the left, he has figured out how society should always be run under all circumstances despite the compelling cries of "truth and justice."

Just to demonstrate my own magnanimity, I’ll rise above principle long enough to make a concession I haven’t made since Justice Thomas’s 52 to 48 confirmation by the U.S. Senate on October, 15^th, 1991: Mr. Justice Thomas, sir, you voted right this time!

Now it’s your turn to say "hallelujah!!!”

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

THAT’S RIGHT -- FOLLOW THE LADIES, FELLOWS!

By Edwin Cooney

Recent news that sixty-one percent of the delegates attending the Boy Scouts of America annual meeting in Grapevine, Texas voted to allow gays the opportunity to join their ranks is most encouraging. 

Back in 2000, the Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 that the Boy Scouts had the right to set lifestyle standards for its members.  So, that’s exactly what they did!  Thus, until the annual meeting held May 22nd through May 24th, that decision was in force.

Now the ban on the admission of gay youngsters has been lifted, although the ban on allowing adult leaders who are gay remains in place.  Reaction by some but not all conservatives, angry and determined, against this decision has already begun and American scouting may be in for a severe schism.  What I was unaware of, however, until I read a New York Times editorial praising this recent piece of news is that the Girl Scouts of America have for years allowed girls and women who are gay to become scouts and even leaders in the Girl Scout movement.  Good for them!

So, what has kept the Boy Scouts of America from being just as American as the Girl Scouts have been?  Might it be because…

Girl Scouts are more patriotic than Boy Scouts? Girls and women control themselves better than men and boys do? Girl Scouts are morally superior to Boy Scouts? Or is it that women really and truly do possess more good sense than men?!

Of course, young people have a reputation for being less controlled than adults when it comes to sexual behavior, but, as I see it, that’s all the more reason for bringing them together in a positive and responsibly supervised environment like scouting.

Recently, a thoughtful friend of mine brought the news of the Boy Scouts’ recent action to my attention and issued forth the following set of concerns:

His first concern was whether the admission of gays to the Boy Scouts might (and he was not at all certain of this likelihood) be creating an environment that could affect the sexual orientation of otherwise “straight” impressionable teenage boys.

His second concern was even more thought compelling.  If it is perfectly safe to mix gay and “straight” hormone-driven teenagers, wouldn’t it be just as safe to mix Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts in the same environment?  We’d then have the United Scouts of America!

His third concern was more an observation that not everyone needs to join every organization open to the public.

My friend’s first concern about environment being a factor in a teenager’s choice of sexual orientation makes sense, since we’re all affected by environmental factors, but it’s my guess that heterosexual mores having been drummed into their awareness invariably have a far greater influence than homosexual proximity.

My friend’s second question is really compelling except that it leaves out the most important factor.  Appropriate behavior is understood to be a vital function in the life of every organization.  Scouting is not about sexual activity.  Engagement in any sexual activity whatsoever can and should be grounds for immediate separation from scouting just as discovery of theft or personal harassment would be.

As for my friend’s third point, of course not everyone has the need to belong to every organization, but the question at issue isn’t one of individual need, as I see it, it’s a freedom of choice issue.

Of course, there are sexual prudes and perverts in every organization conceived by humankind, but their activities are more uncommon than most realize.  To be heterosexual isn’t a guarantor of appropriate behavior any more than being gay is a sign of bad behavior.  Homosexuals and heterosexuals alike:

Love their parents, teachers, and friends; revere their country; are often brave when they’re scared; enjoy good food and good beer; have more nonsexual friends and associates than they do sexual partners; and are both fickle and loyal to their partners.  Finally, and perhaps shockingly to some, gays can be very politically conservative.

As for our reluctance to mix the pure with the impure or the sinner with the sinless, several things need to be said:

If you are someone fearful of being tainted by someone else’s sin, fear not, for you can be quite sure that in some way or another you are just as sinful as your gay or lesbian neighbor. Nowhere in the Ten Commandments is homosexuality mentioned as a “shalt not” while the heterosexual practice of adultery is specifically addressed.

Remember that Jesus hung out with more sinners than He did saints.

And keep in mind that Jesus expects you to love your neighbor as you do yourself and that can’t be practiced by disassociation.

The Girl Scouts have been right for at least a decade.  It’s time for the Boy Scouts to catch up.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY