Government hostility to religion keeps mounting

(Denver Post, June 3) The Founders wouldn’t believe it.  The Colorado Court of Appeals says the governor may not proclaim an official day of prayer because of a clause in the state constitution prohibiting that “any preference be given by law to any religious denomination or mode of worship. This novel interpretation would come as a surprise not only to the governors who have issued such proclamations dating back many years, but also to the authors of that very constitution, who declared in its preamble their “profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe.”  They couldn’t have intended the religious preference clause to become a barrier to state action encouraging Coloradans to seek that Supreme Ruler’s favor. Good to know that Gov. John Hickenlooper has directed Attorney General John Suthers to appeal the ruling to the state Supreme Court, which should surely overturn it based on logic and precedent. 

But wait; did I say “surely”?  When it comes to religion and politics, church and state, nothing is sure any more.  Also headed for the state Supreme Court is an ACLU challenge to Douglas County parents using their own tax dollars to educate their own children in (horrors) faith-based schools. 

Meanwhile at the legislature we’ve seen both political parties consider divorcing the legal definition of marriage from its time-honored theological definition. The rationale for gay civil unions was put this way by Hickenlooper: “We don’t believe we should legislate what happens inside a church or place of worship, but government should treat all people equally.” 

Leaving aside the vexed question of how the law recognizes different kinds of couples, look what the governor is saying in that sentence BEFORE the comma. He implies that government’s power over you and me stops only at the church door.  This echoes a theme from President Obama, whose speeches always refer to “freedom of worship,” not “freedom of religion.”  

What’s the difference?  Freedom of religion includes the individual right of conscience in conduct outside of church – exactly what secular theocrats are trampling on with the HHS mandate for Catholic and evangelical institutions to provide drugs for contraception or abortion, in violation of their allegiance to God. 

“The Supreme Ruler of the Universe,” you see, is no longer acknowledged as a reality under the dominant liberal consensus.  He, or it, is now treated as just an outmoded notion which backward folk are allowed to preach about in their sanctuaries – but to whom they must no longer render homage by public word or deed.  That homage is now supposed to be Caesar’s alone.

Where is all this leading?  For over a millennium and a half, ever since the Emperor Constantine in 312 A.D., Christians in Europe and eventually America have been accustomed to friendly treatment by civil government.  But that is over, over there, and may soon be over with here. 

The Church of State, as my Colorado Christian University colleague Kevin Miller calls it in his important book “Freedom Nationally, Virtue Locally,” is setting up as the one and only religious establishment. I won’t say get used to it, because we never should.  It must be fought. 

But we who honor the God of the Bible had better gird ourselves, for this will get worse before it gets better.  We’d better study the persecuted church, thriving in China and Africa; our own time may be coming. We must realize, as the Founders knew, that America is not in the Bible.  Americans are, however.  It holds vast wisdom and warning for us. 

As the Constantinian settlement – itself quite unscriptural – passes away, a good place to start would be Jesus’ own rule: “Render to Caesar, render to God.”  That balance, the only safe harbor for faith and freedom, was lost in Christendom centuries ago.  It is now ours to rebuild.

Sheriff Obama? Not so much

The President has failed on national security and can't credibly campaign as a tough guy, says John Andrews in the May round of Head On TV debates. Just the opposite, replies Susan Barnes-Gelt: in eliminating bin Laden and removing Qadhafi, Obama has proved the strongest commander-in-chief since FDR. John on the right, Susan on the left, also go at it this month over Romney's chances, Denver's budget woes, and how to help the homeless. Head On has been a daily feature on Colorado Public Television since 1997. Here are all Four scripts for May: 1. SHERIFF OBAMA? NOT SO MUCH

John: Obama was deservedly condemned by left and right after he crudely politicized the anniversary of Bin Laden’s death. This president has failed on national security. His swagger is unconvincing as well as tasteless. He has dangerously slashed our defenses. He has been weak against Iran’s nuclear ambitions and the Muslim Brotherhood.

Susan: President Obama has consistently performed on National Security. In four years, Obama has foiled several attacks on the US, killed the 9/11 master-mind – Bin Laden - and dozens of key operatives, eliminated Quadafi and begun an orderly withdrawal from Afghanistan. He’s the toughest commander-in-chief since FDR.

John: I got the talking points. Now let’s be real. FDR knew who the main enemy was, mobilized massively and gained victory over the Axis. Reagan knew his main enemy, rearmed, and won the Cold War. Obama seeks to disarm. He doesn’t want victory. He’s clueless about our enemy in Iran.

Susan: I sincerely hope Willard and the Wing-nuts make the President’s foreign policy the centerpiece of their campaign. Doing so serves a dual purpose: reengages lefty libs who worry Obama’s caved to the generals and proves beyond reasonable doubt that Romney desperate and hopelessly out of touch.

2. ROMNEY GAINING BY THE DAY

John: Challenger Mitt Romney has the White House worried, and with reason. The former governor has economic savvy and leadership that the former professor can’t match. GOP rivals are closing ranks with Romney, while key Democratic voting blocs are underwhelmed with Obama. November will be close, but the incumbent’s in trouble.

Susan: Which Romney? Anti-auto bailout Romney, now taking credit for US auto rebound? Innovative Gov. Romney author of the first public healthcare program? Entrepreneur Romney who made a fortune in the US, but has untold investments abroad? Conservative Romney? Moderate Mitt? Liberal Willard? Who is that masked man?

John: Cute, Susan. Sort of Jon Stewart in a skirt. But the problem for you Democrats is that it’s very hard to win an election like this one, where the incumbent seeks a second term amid economic distress and looming war clouds. It’s a referendum on Obama, and Romney is gaining by the day.

Susan: It’s a long, long while from May to November – which is good for Romney who’d better figure out who he is, what he stands for and why. Obama continues to face challenging times: a lackluster recovery, uncertainty abroad and the public’s disgust with politics. But . . .you can’t beat something with nothing.

3. SHOULD DENVER RAISE TAXES?

Susan: Denver Mayor Michael Hancock must address structural problems in Denver’s operating budget. Fixed expenses – largely personnel driven – are increasing faster than revenues. He should standardize employee health care and pension formulas before raising taxes. He must chose between pleasing and making long-term decisions.

John: Susan, we’re meeting minds again. It worries me. Running leaner on public employee pay and benefits is the right answer, even though unions will push back. Raising taxes will only make Denver a less desirable place to live and do business. It’s the wrong answer. Can I hold you to that?

Susan: Absolutely NOT! Denver’s taxes are among the lowest in the region. Efficient government and capital investments are necessary to maintain and enhance the City Denverites have built through generations. But before raising taxes and fees, the mayor must focus on more than re-election, and set measurable outcomes and priorities.

John: America is drowning in taxes, spending, regulation, entitlements, debt, unfunded pension obligations, yada yada yada, next stop Greece. Denver’s on that train. If Hancock and the council are smart, they’ll get off the train and make the city a magnet for economic growth. Step one: No new taxes.

4. TOUGH LOVE FOR STREET PEOPLE Susan: Denver’s Mayor approved a tough anti-loitering ordinance - aimed at controlling the explosion of homeless, occupiers and summertime drifters overtaking downtown, Civic Center and the river. Though well-intended, it should have been thoroughly analyzed prior to being jammed through the City Council.

John: Sometimes common sense overtakes political correctness, even with a bunch of liberals like this mayor and council, and you just want to cheer. I’m still pinching myself that Hancock would lead the way and do this. Denver has shelters and compassionate programs aplenty. Enough with the street camping.

Susan: That’s the problem. Good for Hancock for making a tough call. However Denver doesn’t have the shelters, outreach workers, police resources or partnerships to mitigate this growing dilemma. Time will tell if the city is able to meet the expectations of compassion and control this bold ordinance promises.

John: Step one is to think about it differently. Street people used to be called vagrants, emphasizing their chosen behavior. Political correctness now calls them homeless, emphasizing victimhood. Some are victims, but many chose the streets. Denver now offers one less incentive for that dead end. The camping ban is tough love.

Partisan Politics for Dummies

(Denver Post, Apr. 29) If I undertook to write about partisan politics for dummies, I’d immediately have your attention. Many people think that’s all partisan politics is for. It’s everyone’s favorite punching bag.But I’ll argue that partisan politics is forever with us and a good thing, so we may disagree. At least if we avoid capital letters, there’s no trademark rub with the popular “For Dummies” book series. Anyone cover a cut with a generic bandaid or xerox on an off-brand copier, after all. So I come to praise partisan politics, not to bury them. If that sounds crazy or wrong, it doesn’t make you a dummy in the sense of low IQ. But it may do so in the sense of that book series – someone who just never got up to speed on a subject. Politically, I dare you to do it now. Really you can’t afford not to.

Several straws in the April wind bring this up. Harris Kenny of the libertarian Reason Foundation tells The Denver Post that for him and other young voters, “the future is nonpartisan.” Jason Salzman of the progressive Bigmedia.org complains in the Huffington Post that partisan Republicans (me included) “overwhelm” Democrats as voices in the Denver media.

Petitioners set out to make the Colorado secretary of state’s office nonpartisan after Democratic chairman Rick Palacio brands the GOP incumbent, Scott Gessler, as shockingly partisan. Some Republicans brand their state chairman, Ryan Call, as a liberal after he appeals for cooler rhetoric and fewer charges of “RINO” (Republican in name only) or “establishment.”

Meanwhile the new super-PACs overshadow the old parties as Romney takes on Obama. The waters are further roiled by such well-funded upstarts as the No Labels effort, targeting Congress, and the Americans Elect movement, promising a bipartisan presidential ticket with one maverick from each party.

Never mind that this led to a train wreck with Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr after the deadlocked election of 1800, necessitating a constitutional amendment. Our transpartisan dreamers missed that in school, which is typical of these earnest folks. Sam Cooke’s “Don’t know much about history” could be their national anthem.

History teaches ten reasons why partisan politics is fortunately here to stay: (1) Power corrupts; human beings tend to lie, cheat, steal, and overreach. (2) Parties check each other’s stewardship of power and fulfillment of promises.

(3) Human beings naturally disagree; interests inevitably clash; unanimity is rare. (4) Parties give voters a choice between contrasting visions for governance. (5) Governing is difficult; wrong turns are everywhere; mistakes can be disastrous. (6) Thus while the ruling party steers and accelerates, the opposition party is there to monitor and brake.

(7) Americans who see the rewards and benefits of government tend to be Democrats; those who see the dangers and costs of government tend to be Republicans; we need both. (8) Republicans, favoring the brakes, thus tend to agree parties are good; while Democrats, favoring the gas, tend to wish away the need for parties. Hence the “partisans R not us” angle taken by Salzman and Palacio.

(9) There is no real-world example of a free society with democratic institutions and constitutional self-government that doesn’t also have competing political parties, each party consisting of a contentious coalition around an establishment core. Hence the wisdom of Call’s appeal.

(10) There are too many real-world examples of unfree societies with only one political party, or with personality cults and thought control instead of parties, resulting in brutal tyranny. Hence the impossibility of Kenny’s nonpartisan future. It’s a fantasy, and ominous at that.

Aristotle said man is a political animal. Moses and Jesus warned he’s also an imperfect one; often a dummy, in fact. I know I sure am. Parties can help save us from ourselves.

Unlimited government dismays Americans

The lesson already from Supreme Court deliberations over the constitutionality of Obamacare is that unlimited government makes most Americans queasy, says John Andrews in the April round of Head On TV debates. No, replies Susan Barnes-Gelt, the big takeaway is conservatives' inconsistency, suddenly favoring the very judicial activism they long opposed. John on the right, Susan on the left, also go at it this month over Romney vs. Obama, the Trayvon Martin shooting, Secretary of State Scott Gessler, and the urban freeway wars. Head On has been a daily feature on Colorado Public Television since 1997. Here are all five scripts for April: 1. SUPREME COURT WEIGHS OBAMACARE

John: President Obama’s takeover of the health care system, one-sixth of the US economy, will either be approved by the Supreme Court or struck down as unconstitutional in whole or in part, very soon now. Already, it’s making us think about why unlimited government power over our lives is a dangerous thing.

Susan: You can’t have it both ways – until healthcare hit the Supremes – your chronic complaint was activist courts. Now it’s nanny-state government. Seems to me “of the people, for the people and by the people” is the benchmark we’ve lost sight of.

John: Government by the people requires a constitution that maximizes freedom and responsibility while minimizing paternalism and bureaucracy. Lincoln, whom you’re quoting, would be horrified at how badly Obamacare violates that. So would the Founding Fathers. This law worsens health care and tramples liberty. It needs to go.

Susan: Healthcare run for the benefit of insurance companies and for-profit hospitals serves stockholders not people. The lopsided costs, compared to the rest of the world are the primary driver of our budget deficits. Obama’s plan saves nearly $150-billion over the next decade and delivers better care.

2. ROMNEY VS. OBAMA, THE MAIN EVENT

John: One man started as a leader in the free enterprise system. The other started as a community organizer among the discontented. One man makes no apologies for America’s goodness and greatness. The other travels the world apologizing and wants to transform America. Mitt Romney vs. Barack Obama, the 2012 campaign now begins.

Susan: Bring it on. Romney is so out of touch with the typical American that his rants ring hollow. How does a guy with an elevator for his cars relate to Americans at the gas pump? Romney is adept at making money, lacking conviction and blowing in the wind.

John: A president seeking a second term must convince voters he did well in his first. In Obama’s case that’s hard. The 2008 candidate of hope and change is running this time on fear and resentment. His record of economic stagnation and foreign policy weakness leaves no choice. America needs President Romney.

Susan: Which Willard Romney? ? The guv who set the standard for public healthcare in Massachusetts? The one who refused to take on Limbaugh’s screed against women? The guy who doesn’t worry about poor people, old people or the family dog? Or the compromising, tax avoiding, entirely opaque one percenter ?

3. TRAYVON MARTIN CASE

Susan: Florida’s Stand Your Ground law led to the slaying of unarmed 17-year old African American teenager Trayvon Martin by self-appointed neighborhood vigilante George Zimmerman. In a travesty of racism over law, It took 6 weeks to charge Zimmerman with 2nd degree murder.

John: Much of the media has allowed speculation to outrun the evidence in this tragic case, Susan. Not on this program. It now appears Martin was the aggressor in the bloody brawl that cost him his life. It appears Zimmerman was not racially motivated. America’s liberal guilt industry has disgraced itself on this one.

Susan: The brutal slaying of an unarmed teenager is hardly a cause célèbre of the liberal media. The unwillingness of the police to arrest this guy with a record of erratic, gun-toting behavior – is shameful to the left, the right and the center. Good for the prosecutor for finally bringing charges.

John: Evidence, Susan, evidence. Not paranoia, proof. Not fantasy, facts. The country doesn’t need more reckless racial inflammation right now. The Florida authorities are moving appropriately. Justice will be done. Is there too much violent death in this country? Absolutely. Young blacks, young Latinos especially. But they’re mostly killing each other.

4. GESSLER RECALL?

Susan: Colorado Democrats are working to recall Secretary of State Scott Gessler following his attempt to disenfranchise thousands of Colorado voters – including members of the armed services. His claim that 5000 undocumenteds voted in 2010 remains entirely unsubstantiated. He is a state official behaving like a partisan political hack.

John: The priority for liberals is to make voting easy. The priority for conservatives is to make it honest. Coloradans in 2010 had a clear choice between incumbent Democratic Secretary of State, Bernie Buescher, Mr. Easy Vote, and Republican challenger Scott Gessler, Mr. Honest Vote. Gessler is doing exactly what he campaigned on.

Susan: Prior to his election, Gessler worked for a highly partisan conservative law firm. His agenda as a public official, is consistent with his partisan commitment to restrict the voting rights of the military serving abroad, minorities and seniors. And unfortunately, you’re right the voters got what they paid for.

John: Susan, come on. Partisan this, partisan that. Your party, the Democrats, has the trademark on voting irregularities and stolen elections down through the years. LBJ in Texas, JFK in Illinois, Gore in Florida, Franken in Minnesota, Gregoire in Washington State. Secretary Scott Gessler is a standup guy to protect Colorado from that.

5. I-70 EXPANSION THROUGH DENVER NEIGHBORHOODS

Susan: The proposed expansion of I-70 through Denver neighborhoods – Globeville, Swansea, Elyria – is moving into its 9th year. Consensus by impacted neighbors remains elusive – despite attempts to buy them off with a new school, rec center and clean street lights. Time for the Mayor and the Governor to step up.

John: You liberals hate the automobile, so I initially disregarded this Globeville stuff. But as a conservative, not just politically but culturally, I believe that big engineering projects exist to serve the human community, not vice versa. So if we can widen the freeway less disruptively, why not? Persuade me, Susan.

Susan: I think you are persuaded. The issue is efficiency, safety and economics. Demolishing the core city with high-speed freeways is expensive, dangerous and the worst possible land use policy. Urban corridors are key to job creation, small business development and commerce. Highways and cities don’t mix.

John: Stop sloganeering, or you’ll unpersuade me. Highways and cities do mix. How else can18-wheelers move the lifeblood of commerce from one metropolis to another? How else can people get around a big metro area – and don’t say white elephant transit. Still if there’s a 270 solution for longsuffering historic Globeville, explore it.

Imagining a Romney-Santorum ticket

A few days before Rick Santorum upset Mitt Romney in the Colorado caucuses, he made a campaign stop at Colorado Christian University, where I work.  As it was ending, several students asked the former senator if he would Tebow with them.  The picture with all of them on a knee, heads bowed, is my favorite 2012 political image so far. Rick has got game. I wonder, though, if the feisty Pennsylvanian’s political fortunes here are headed into the same kind of fade as the young Floridian’s football fortunes – and if so, maybe it’s for the best. (In Santorum’s case, that is; this is not one more column about ex-Bronco Tim Tebow.) 

My state's caucuses on Feb. 7, you see, were just a beauty contest. A binding vote on delegate selection for the RNC in Tampa won’t occur until Republicans from across Colorado convene at the DU Ritchie Center on April 13 and 14.  On that Friday, seven congressional-district assemblies will elect three delegates each.  The GOP state assembly will elect another 12 delegates on Saturday.

Will the result be different when the Santorum and Romney campaigns, along with those of Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul, battle it out from scratch for Colorado's 33 pledged delegates over the next couple of weeks?  Longshot contenders Gingrich and Paul may show up to make their case in person, party officials say; but Romney and Santorum, the favorites, have given no indication as yet.

If you think it’s just a family feud among the Republicans, a tribe you wouldn’t join on a bet, think again.  You may not be interested in politics at all – but politics is interested in you. These are not ordinary times.

The United States is headed for a fiscal crackup, our national security is at risk, and the institutions that made us a world leader in the last century are looking shaky as this century begins. Three of every five Americans in a recent poll expressed no approval of President Obama’s job performance.  He’ll remain in power until 2017, however, unless the opposition puts up a strong challenger whom voters can trust.

This is where party politics are all-important, however distasteful you may find them.  The only meaningful opposition to Barack Obama and his failed policies, the only counter-force that has legs and a voice and a team on the field – like it or not – is the Republican party.  Hence the GOP nominating contest at DU in April and eventually at Tampa in August matters to the whole country, not just to us partisans.

America’s founders didn’t envision parties helping elect the president, but after George Washington it’s always been that way.  A man (or woman) of character, judgment, capability, and experience, an eminent citizen with integrity and wisdom and the gift of command, unencumbered with the brand of any faction, is what the Federalist Papers portray as our republic’s chief magistrate.  Who measures up in 2012?

Mr. Obama, unfortunately, does not. Voters in 2008 would have seen he didn’t measure up then, had not millions been swept away with emotion and wish-fulfillment; for many of us the sad evidence has now become incontrovertible.  You may disagree, of course.  But if you agree, the next (and only) question is whether former Sen. Rick Santorum or former Gov. Mitt Romney measures up better.

I don’t happen to have a vote in any of the upcoming Colorado assemblies.  To my fellow Republicans who do, I urge them to weigh the choice according to the founders’ gold standard, and not be swept away with emotion and wish-fulfillment. 

Decide soberly.  Temper your partisan or ideological zeal with disinterested patriotism.  If the result in five months is a Romney-Santorum ticket, and an Obama retirement in ten weeks more, we could do far worse.