“Your Damn Emails!”

Consider for a moment that an executive officer of a major bank decided to use his own private server for work related emails.  His job responsibilities include keeping savings, checking, and mortgage accounts safe and making sure clients have the best financial deals on the market.  While the content of his emails may never be officially labeled “Private” or “Classified,” the very nature of his email contents are sensitive given his line of work.

The IN Religious Freedom Restoration Act

Recently, the state of Indiana has popped up as the source controversy on the internet and news media.  The reason? The state assembly and the governed passed its own version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act which many believe would allow business owners to discriminate against homosexual customers.  Because same sex marriage and lifestyles are still sensitive issues, this particular legislation has received criticism from many including the NCAA, Ashton Kutcher, and Hillary Clinton.  (Though why she’s getting involved with this and not adequately explaining her reason to use a private email account to handle sensitive State Department communications is beyond me.)

As a result, there has been several accusations going around that a “Jim-Crow” era for homosexuals has begun.  This is a bizarre comparison since many black leaders reject the comparison.  In fact the National Black Church Initiative, “representing 34,000 churches from 15 denominations”(Christian Post), has broken its ties to the Presbyterian Church of the USA when the latter changed its definition of marriage to include same sex couples.  It seems odd, then, that a demographic that has been historically discriminated against is not interpreting the situation as a repeat of history.  Could it be that people have a greater affinity for sensationalism than the truth?  Could it be that all the raucous is just noise to keep viewers entertained?  Or is there a sinister conspiracy afoot?

Well, the best place to find answers is the law itself.  Unfortunately, I am not a legal analyst.  Of course, neither are many of the talking heads and bloggers who are also commenting on this piece of legislation.  (If you would like to see the text, the Weekly Standard has a link to it here.)  That being said, the law from my understanding does not permit businesses to provide separate but equal services or goods to same sex customers.  Nor does it allow realtors to determine where people will be offered to live based on their sexual preferences.  And there is no provision to hinder the homosexual community from voting.

Instead the text does require that if a government institution were to override a business or individual’s right to freedom of religion, it must show that it has a compelling interest to do so and that this is the least restrictive manner to accomplish it.  In other words, the government must consider the views and values of all Americans before coercing them into action.  And this is nothing new.  A few religious groups are exempt from signing up for mandatory military service.  The media, through free speech and freedom of the press, cannot be regulated to say one specific message or obligated to offer both sides of a story.

Now someone might say, “That’s not the point.  The law is protecting bigots and discrimination.”  Perhaps.  There is always the potential for people to misuse the law.  But does that make the law bad, particularly when it comes to protecting differences of moral values?  I remember a few years ago when abortion was the hot button issue across America that pro-choice advocates were saying, “You can’t legislate morality.”  And that’s exactly what’s happening here.  Through either the courts or by state referendums, people have been trying to legislate moral values.  And you cannot do that unless everyone agrees on what those ought to be.  If you do, you make the society around you less free.  As I’ve mentioned before in another post, J.S. Mill’s On Liberty correctly tells us that enforcing the truth/dogma as law blinds us to the possibility that the particular truth claim is wrong or not fully correct.  A free exchange of ideas, as well as the ability to act upon them, is required then to better understand the truth.

So is RFRA in Indiana really that bad?  I’d have to say no.  While it may upset people that they could be potentially denied a service for their wedding, the law does not permit discrimination for the sake of discrimination.  Instead it does provide religious business owners and individuals the opportunity to exercise their religious freedoms without the fear of the government enforcing different values on them.

Besides the Weekly Standard article (see the above link), I also found the legal commentary from CNN to be insightful as well.

Pres. Clinton 2016?

As we enter Pres. Obama’s 6th year as president, political analysts and the news media are all buzz to see who’ll succeed him in 2016.  Currently Republicans appear undecided, if not divided, as to who is the most “conservatively pure” pure choice.  Democrats on the other hand are almost silent except for a few die hard fans of former Sec. of State, Hillary Clinton.  They are absolutely convinced that she is the long awaited messiah for the nation who will fix every problem in America.  And that confuses me.

First, Pres. Obama was the messiah figure for the Democratic Party and clearly he hasn’t lived up to expectations.  Even if it took over five years to realize it, liberals and left-wingers are starting to realize that Obama ringing in their American utopia.  So if I were the Clinton fans, I’d be steering away from any form of idolization until history had taken its toll on the current administration.

Second, what would be her platform?  From what I can remember and find about her previous political pursuits, she is most memorable for pushing healthcare reform during her husband’s presidency and her campaign for women’s rights (political jargon translated as abortion and contraception) in 2008.  Both are really good issues, except Obama has already implemented much of Mrs. Clinton’s policies in the Affordable Care Act.  Not only has this be a source of criticism from conservatives, the problems with the website roll-out and Pres. Obama’s lie about keeping your doctor and insurance has tainted the public’s view on the subject.  It isn’t impossible to overcome, but not necessarily something Hilary would want to be connected to.  Also, I don’t think abortion is the “sexy” policy issue anymore.  Sure it creates a heated dialogue whenever it is brought up, but it isn’t in the spotlight like it did a few years ago.

I suppose someone might mention her time as Secretary of State, but all a Republican candidate has to do is say “Benghazi” and play tapes of American consulate being attacked.  They might even thrown a statement of her testimony before a Congressional hearing like “At this point in time, does it really matter?”  The deep pride of American patriotism would be stirred and Clinton will be doing everything to persuade voters of her own loyalty to the country and the citizens serving overseas.  Again not impossible to overcome, but definitely a setback that she’ll need to address.

Third, do we really want a “Clinton dynasty”?  Sure her husband Bill Clinton was suave and is the most recent president to have created a budget surplus, but aren’t those reasons for reelecting Bill than Hilary?  Plus can family dynasties coexist with freedom and democracy?  Think about it.  Our nation is a liberal, democratic republic which means we can freely choose and elect officials to represent our interests in government.  This was because the Framers of the Constitution didn’t want an aristocratic class to rise up and feel entitled to a public office as if it was their birth right.  And American political history is a documentation of this evolution for diverse candidates and statesmen.  Once it was only property owning men of a particular race.  Now anyone who is a citizen and meets the necessary age and residency requirements can run and hold office.  By electing Hillary Clinton, we would be reinforcing the notion that only a select few from certain families can run for office.  Yes, we did vote in George W. Bush as the 43rd President even though his father was the 41st.  However I would point out that Democrats believed a second Bush was a wrong choice for America and therefore they shouldn’t make the same mistake.  Also there have been only two family dynasties for the presidency, the Adams family with John and John Quincy and the Bush family.  Both sets had small opinion ratings afterward.

So I’m still puzzled by all of this.  I simply do not understand the fascination with her.  And it isn’t as if I’m only seeing this from one small group of friends on Facebook.  Turn on the TV to MSNBC or Fox and they’ll bring her name up if they’re discussing potential candidates in 2016.  Even the WSJ and NY Times are guilty of this.  I suppose for some it is because she is most likely to be the first woman president at the moment.  However, I don’t think that will get her elected.  While a good number of people voted for Barack Obama in order to elect the first non-European American president, he had other things going for him like charisma and youth which Sen. McCain didn’t have.  And I don’t believe very many Americans are as excited to vote in a women as they were to vote in a racial minority.

So perhaps, good readers, you can tell me why she’s practically a shoe-in for the Democratic nomination.  Because honestly I just don’t see it.