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