Saturday, June 25, 2016

Brexit, Religion and a Politics of Reconciliation in Foreign Policy

 By Rudy Barnes, Jr.

            The Brexit vote was a victory for Islamist terrorists as well as for isolationists in libertarian democracies.  Islamist terror precipitated the Muslim refugee crisis that caused widespread anxiety, fear and hostility to outsiders in Europe and the U.S.  As expected, that fear and hostility was exploited by politicians in both the U.S. and abroad.

            The Brexit vote has dimmed the hope for reconciling diverse cultures and religions in pluralistic nations around the world and has raised the specter of more divisiveness, hostility and violence.  Such polarization reflects a human preference for walls rather than bridges.  It is a step away from peaceful coexistence toward isolationism and violence in a pluralistic world.

            It has happened before.  It led to The U.S. Civil War, to Stalin’s Soviet Union, and to the Nazi regime of Adolph Hitler.  They all took place in Christian nations where people knew better, but succumbed to pervasive fears, anger and hostility toward others unlike themselves.  Each was a perfect storm of the forces of evil over those of good, and misguided demagogues exploited that fear and anger to build their power and corrupt nations and even continents.

            The religious dimension should be obvious.  It is God’s will to reconcile and redeem humanity and Satan’s will to divide and conquer—and Satan does a convincing imitation of God in our churches and mosques.  In the ebb and flow of good and evil in the world, Satan seems to have gained a political edge.  In the U.S. that is exemplified in Donald Trump, whose life and teachings are the antithesis of those of Jesus, as well as those of Muhammad.

            Brexit reflected the growing fear and hostility of the British toward Muslims.  The Church of England has been in decline and Islam has been on the increase for some time, and Boris Johnson, a former mayor of London who resembles Donald Trump in body if not in mind, was able to exploit public fear and anger of the Muslim “other” in Great Britain and defeated the forces of reconciliation with the divisive power of nativism and isolationsism.

            Donald Trump has done the same in the U.S. with the support of evangelical Christians who have corrupted the moral power of Christianity in politics.  President Obama has complicated the issue by refusing to acknowledge the religious nature of Islamist terrorism and countered it with military force that has failed to eliminate the threat and even exacerbated it.  

            Radical Islamism is a fundamentalist form of Islam, and its power depends upon its legitimacy among Muslims.  Today there is a battle of legitimacy being waged by fundamentalist Islamists and progressive Muslims for the hearts and minds of Muslims.  It is a battle for God that cannot be won by U.S. military might.  It can only be won by progressive Muslims who can undermine the legitimacy of radical Islamists by defining Islam as a religion of peace and justice.
 
            Progressive Jews, Christians and Muslims all share a common word of faith in the greatest commandment to love God and our neighbors as ourselves.  It requires that believers consider those of other religions as their neighbors and share with them the freedoms that they love, beginning with the freedoms of religion and speech.

            Islamic law (shari’a) denies the freedoms of religion and speech with apostasy and blasphemy laws, and autocratic rulers like Egypt’s President Sissi have used such laws to silence their opponents.  Too often the U.S. has supported such oppressive regimes, and it has been at the expense of human rights and enabled radical Islamist terrorists like ISIS to recruit followers. 

            The real allies of the U.S. against Islamist terrorism are progressive Muslims who are seeking to reform Islam into a religion compatible with peace, freedom and justice.  Those reforms must begin with the elimination of apostasy and blasphemy laws, and the U.S. should be supporting those libertarian reforms rather than the oppressive leaders who oppose them;  

            The objective of U.S. foreign policy is to promote U.S. strategic political objectives overseas, and that requires cooperation with other nations that share a commitment to libertarian democracy, human rights and the secular rule of law.  The isolationism and nativism that led to Brexit oppose a politics of reconciliation.  For U.S. foreign policy to achieve its objectives in Islamic cultures it must shift from a policy of military intervention to a policy of containment.

            The military component of a policy of containment in Islamic cultures would rely on military advisors and trainers who can keep a low profile in hostile cultural environments.  That was the original mission of the U.S. Special Forces in Vietnam, but the deployment of U.S. combat forces in 1965 transformed a U.S. advisory mission into a U.S. war that was lost.

            The U.S. interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq reversed that sequence, with U.S. advisors and trainers following the withdrawal of large deployments of U.S. combat forces.  Perceived as infidels they unwittingly undermined the legitimacy of a U.S. military presence in Islamic cultures.  That will make it difficult for U.S. military advisors and trainers to establish the legitimacy they need for mission success, and make them targets for Islamist terrorists.

            A politics of reconciliation is essential to the legitimacy of U.S. foreign policy and military operations in Islamic cultures, and it will require conforming Islamic standards of legitimacy to those of libertarian democracy, human rights and the secular rule of law.  To that end, U.S. foreign policy should be based on aiding and assisting progressive Muslims who support fundamental human rights that begin with the freedoms of religion and speech.  The elimination of apostasy and blasphemy laws will be the first sign of progress.


Notes and references to related blogs:



On President Obama’s refusal to acknowledge that Al Qaeda and ISIS are radical Islamists, and why it is important to acknowledge the relationship of terrorist violence with radical Islamism, see Ed Rogers at https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2016/06/15/its-important-the-president-says-radical-islam-heres-why/?wpisrc=nl_popns&wpmm=1 and David Brooks at http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/17/opinion/religions-wicked-neighbor.html?_r=0.

On Secretary of State Kerry’s ambivalence on the role of religion in Islamist terrorism, see http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/patrick-goodenough/kerry-acknowledges-some-terrorists-are-radicalized-reasons-having-do.

On the role of religion in the Middle East and U.S. foreign policy, see http://www.huffingtonpost.com/akadir-yildirim/religion-and-the-middle-e_b_10110130.html.

See the following related blogs in the Resources at http://www.jesusmeetsmuhammad.com/: Religion and Reason, December 8, 2014; Faith and Freedom, December 15, 2014; Religion, Violence and Military Legitimacy, December 29, 2014; The Greatest Commandment, January 11, 2015; Love Over Law: A Principle at the Heart of Legitimacy, January 18, 2015; Jesus Meets Muhammad: Is there a Common Word of Faith for Jews, Christians and Muslims Today?, January 25, 2015;  Is Religion Good or Evil?, February 15, 2015; Religion and Human Rights, February 22, 2015; The Kingdom of God, Politics and the Church, March 15, 2015;  The Power of Humility and the Arrogance of Power, March 22, 2015;  May 10, 2015; Faith as a Source of Morality and Law: The Heart of Legitimacy, April 12, 2015; A Fundamental Problem with Religion, May 3, 2015; Religion, Human Rights and National Security, May 10, 2015; De Oppresso Liber: Where Religion and Politics Intersect, May 24, 2015; Fear and Fundamentalism, July 26, 2015; Freedom and Fundamentalism, August 2, 2015; Balancing Individual Rights with Collective Responsibilities, August 9, 2015; How Religious Fundamentalism and Secularism Shape Politics and Human Rights, August 16, 2015; The Power of Freedom over Fear, September 12, 2015; Politics and Religious Polarization, September 20, 2015;  Who Is My Neighbor?, January 23, 2016; The Politics of Loving Our Neighbors as Ourselves, January 30, 2016; The American Religion and Politics in 2016, March 5, 2016; We Are Known by the Friends We Keep, February 14, 2016; The Relevance of Religion to Politics, April 30, 2016; Religion and a Politics of Reconciliation, May 7, 2016; and The Arrogance of Power, Humility, and a Politics of Reconciliation, May 14, 2016.   


Saturday, June 18, 2016

A Politics of Reconciliation with Liberty and Justice for All

  By Rudy Barnes, Jr.

            At the beginning of each session members of Congress put their hands over their hearts and pledge allegiance to the flag …and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.  That’s a pledge for liberty and justice for all, not just a favored few.

            Partisan politics in the U.S. have been divisive and polarizing, with each party mobilizing its constituents with hot-button issues that have strained the fabric of democracy to the breaking point.  Bipolar politics have produced enough disaffected and dysfunctional voters to make Donald Trump the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party.  It is a political aberration that has undermined the legitimacy of the GOP and denied sensible voters a choice for President.

            A politics of reconciliation is needed to save our democracy from self-destruction.  It was predicted by Plato, Edmund Burke (In a democracy, your forge your own shackles) and by other philosophers—including Pogo the Possum, who observed, We have met the enemy and it is us.

            A politics of reconciliation is based on the religious or secular ideal to provide liberty and justice for all, and that requires balancing individual rights and special interests with providing for the common good.  If a majority of voters seek to promote their individual rights or special interests for some to the exclusion of liberty and justice for all, then democracy will fail.

            The Orlando massacre last week produced public reactions that were as negative and divisive as they were positive and reconciling.  The President predictably infuriated gun advocates when he emphasized the need for gun control. Donald Trump used the tragedy to shamelessly take credit for his past anti-Muslim sentiments, continuing to fan the flames of religious division and hate.  And a fundamentalist Baptist preacher in California preached a hateful tirade on the killing of homosexuals as God’s will.     

            There is a means of reconciliation that can counter such dark forces of hate.  The three Abrahamic religions—Judaism, Christianity and Islam—all share the greatest commandment to love God and our neighbors as ourselves.  To love our neighbors as ourselves in today’s world requires a politics of reconciliation to overcome discrimination based on race, religion and sexual preference to enable us to be one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

            Michael Gerson noted that the Orlando massacre would likely produce more divisiveness than reconciliation because of “…our strong tendency is to employ events to reaffirm our convictions.”  And our conflicting convictions—whether on immigration, race, religion, sexual orientation, or guns—are amazingly strong and divisive.  Gerson asserted that “Our political leadership has lost the ability to focus on shared tasks and express moral stakes.”  But he was hopeful: “We are called to imagine...that love wins.”

            To complicate the issue of political reconciliation, globalization has forced us to think beyond being one nation under God, and recognize that we are one world under God.  That has implications for U.S. immigration and refugee policies, foreign policy and military operations.

            The U.S. cannot open its borders to everyone, nor can it block immigrants based on their religion or national origin.  To prohibit Muslims or Mexicans from entering the U.S. violates the most fundamental concepts of liberty and justice for all; but it is reasonable to have quotas and to restrict entry to anyone who may have ties to terrorist organizations. 

            Liberty and justice are meaningless without human rights to define them.  The First Amendment to the Constitution provides for the freedoms of religion, press and assembly in the U.S., and overseas the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) makes those fundamental human rights international law.  Human rights are essential to providing liberty and justice and can counter religious violence in Islamic nations; but promoting human rights has not been a priority of U.S. foreign policy or its military operations.

            Politics in any pluralistic democracy are by nature messy—and the U.S. is no exception.  Liberty and justice for all requires political competition to ensure the free flow of ideas and holding those in power accountable.  With the demise of the GOP, the two-party system cannot function.  There is a need for multiple political parties, so that if one party loses its legitimacy, as has the Republican Party, there will be other parties to hold those in power accountable.

            The American Party of S.C. is a political party that emphasizes inclusion rather than exclusion and seeks to reconcile political differences rather than exploit them.  It recognizes the need to balance individual rights with providing for the common good, and promotes liberty and justice for all.  With the moral corruption of the Republican Party by Donald Trump, voters should now give serious consideration to third-party candidates like those of the American Party.

Facebook discussion.     


Notes and related blogs

On the hateful tirade of a fundamentalist Baptist pastor that the real tragedy in Orlando was that more homosexuals were not killed, see  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2016/06/14/pastor-refuses-to-mourn-orlando-victims-the-tragedy-is-that-more-of-them-didnt-die/?wpisrc=nl_evening&wpmm=1.

Michael Gerson has commented on the demise of the Republican Party as the party of liberty and justice for all now that Donald Trump is the presumptive nominee of the party for president.  “Without a passion for universal dignity and worth—the commitment to a common good in which the powerless are valued—politics is a spoils system for the winners.  It degenerates into a way of one group to gain advantage over another.  [With Trump’s presumptive nomination for president] Many Republicans, I suspect will sicken of defending this shabby enterprise….”  See https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-party-of-lincoln-is-dying/2016/06/09/e669380a-2e6b-11e6-9de3-6e6e7a14000c_story.html?wpisrc=nl_opinions&wpmm=1.  On Gerson’s commentary on the divisive aftermath of the Orlando massacre, divided we mourn, see https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/divided-we-mourn/2016/06/13/19253be4-31a6-11e6-95c0-2a6873031302_story.html?wpisrc=nl_headlines&wpmm=1.

Katherine Parker has noted that “democracy, freedom and civilization…all hang by a thread” in America, and are threatened by the “demographic, slicing and dicing” of the electorate by partisan politics, and the resulting voter frustration and anger has given rise to the nihilistic politics of Donald Trump.  See  https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/once-a-great-notion-america-is-under-relentless-attack/2016/05/31/cf8d43d0-2775-11e6-a3c4-0724e8e24f3f_story.html?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_headlines.

On human rights in Islamic nations, see Barnes, Religion and Conflicting Concepts of Legitimacy at https://www.law.upenn.edu/live/files/5473-barnesreligion-and-conflicting-concepts-of

On human rights in the U.S. military training and advisory mission, see Barnes, Back to the Future, Human Rights and Legitimacy in the Training and Advisory Mission, at   https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3gvZV8mXUp-eVRlcWFENHNUVUE/view


See the following related blogs in the Resources at http://www.jesusmeetsmuhammad.com/: Religion and Reason, December 8, 2015; Faith and Freedom, December 15, 2014; The Greatest Commandment, January 11, 2015; Love Over Law: A Principle at the Heart of Legitimacy, January 18, 2015; Jesus Meets Muhammad: Is there a Common Word of Faith for Jews, Christians and Muslims Today?, January 25, 2015;  Is Religion Good or Evil?, February 15, 2015; Religion and Human Rights, February 22, 2015; The Kingdom of God, Politics and the Church, March 15, 2015;  The Power of Humility and the Arrogance of Power, March 22, 2015;  May 10, 2015; Faith as a Source of Morality and Law: The Heart of Legitimacy, April 12, 2015; Religion, Human Rights and National Security, May 10, 2015; De Oppresso Liber: Where Religion and Politics Intersect, May 24, 2015; Liberation from Economic Oppression, May 31, 2015; Reconciliation in Race and Religion: The Need for Compatibility, not Conformity, July 12, 2015; Fear and Fundamentalism, July 26, 2015; Freedom and Fundamentalism, August 2, 2015; Balancing Individual Rights with Collective Responsibilities, August 9, 2015; How Religious Fundamentalism and Secularism Shape Politics and Human Rights, August 16, 2015; The Power of Freedom over Fear, September 12, 2015; Politics and Religious Polarization, September 20, 2015;  Who Is My Neighbor?, January 23, 2016; The Politics of Loving Our Neighbors as Ourselves, January 30, 2016; The American Religion and Politics in 2016, March 5, 2016; We Are Known by the Friends We Keep, February 14, 2016;  Religion, Race and the Deterioration of Democracy in America, March 12, 2016; Religion, Democracy and Human Depravity, March 19, 2016; Religion, Democracy, Diversity and Demagoguery, March 26, 2016; Standards of Legitimacy in Morality, Manners and Political Correctness, April 23, 2016; The Relevance of Religion to Politics, April 30, 2016; Religion and a Politics of Reconciliation, May 7, 2016; and The Arrogance of Power, Humility, and a Politics of Reconciliation, May 14, 2016. 

Saturday, June 11, 2016

Health Care: A Right or Privilege?

By Rudy Barnes, Jr.
           
            Health care is in transition.  Once considered a privilege for those who could afford it, health care is now considered a right.  It is still provided by the private sector, but unlike other essential services provided by the private sector, health care has inadequate cost controls.  The result is a complex, costly and often dysfunctional health care system in need of an overhaul.

            In 2008 candidate Obama promised cost controls before making health care a right, but later reversed his priorities.  Obamacare (The Affordable Care Act) provides universal coverage without adequate cost controls, and the problem is exacerbated by the unneeded and costly function of health insurance companies in primary care.  Also, costly advertising by health care providers should be controlled, beginning with prohibiting expensive ads for prescription drugs. 

            The increasing cost of health care is caused by an aging population, new developments in medical technology and drugs, and unreasonable public expectations.  Structural changes are needed to fix a dysfunctional health care system and control costs, and cost controls are resisted by health insurance companies, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies and other providers.     
           
            Free enterprise is essential to our economy, but it has no place in primary care services provided as a matter of right.  Another systemic dysfunction is a separate VA health care system that creates unnecessary issues of quality and expense.  Veterans would be better served by a merged system that would allow them to see a doctor of their choice. 

            Republicans in Congress have consistently opposed Obamacare but offered no substitute for it.  They would deny health care for those who cannot afford it until they qualify for Medicare, unless they are poor enough to qualify for Medicaid.  Bernie Sanders has proposed to extend Medicare with its cost controls to all ages.  It is an alternative to Obamacare that should be given serious political consideration, but it would be resisted by private health insurers.           

            With the escalating costs of health care and increasing public expectations for it, resort to surgical procedures should be minimized and emphasis put on preventive health care and less invasive medical procedures.  The emphasis on prolonging life should be tempered by efforts to minimize suffering, and death with dignity should be considered for the terminally ill.

            Lawsuits against health care providers not only increase medical costs but can also distort choices on medical options, since doctors often choose more extreme procedures to minimize potential liability.  Limiting the liability of health care providers by prohibiting punitive damages could reduce the cost of health care and encourage doctors to choose less extreme procedures.    
           
            Since health care is a right provided by private providers, they must be regulated and their costs controlled by government to ensure public accountability.  That is the case for public utilities that are regulated by public service commissions.  Unless a Medicare model with built-in cost controls replaces Obamacare, health care costs must be regulated by a government agency.  The laws of supply and demand don’t work for essential services.

            The evolution of health care from a privilege for those who could afford it to a legal right has created many issues.  Is there an age limit for expensive life-saving procedures?  Are doctors ethically required to prolong life at any cost, no matter what the prognosis?  What about physician-assisted death, or euthanasia?  These are issues with religious, moral and legal implications that will challenge policy-makers for years to come.

            Abortion and euthanasia are contentious political issues that arouse religious passions, but neither are addressed in the scriptures or teachings of the great prophets of Judaism, Christianity or Islam—perhaps because they were primarily concerned with spiritual matters that transcend mortal life.  Today’s emphasis on the sanctity of life is more secular than religious.

            Abortion has polarized politics along partisan lines, and euthanasia is likely to do the same.  On June 9, California became the fifth and largest state to allow physician-assisted death.  Perhaps there will be a Roe v. Wade decision to address simmering disputes over euthanasia, but that Supreme Court decision did not resolve the abortion issue.

            The greatest commandment to love God and our neighbors as ourselves is a moral imperative for Jews, Christians and Muslims that can provide guidance for making hard decisions in health care and even in deciding life and death issues.  Applying love for others to health care and life and death issues can be problematic, but there is no better religious or moral standard available—and we have learned that laws don’t always resolve the issues.          


Notes and References to Related Blogs at http://www.jesusmeetsmuhammad.com/:

           
See Religion and Reason, December 8, 2015; The Greatest Commandment, January 11, 2015; The Kingdom of God, Politics and the Church, March 15, 2015; Faith as a Source of Morality and Law: The Heart of Legitimacy, April 12, 2015;  Who Is My Neighbor?, January 23, 2016; The Politics of Loving Our Neighbors as Ourselves, January 30, 2016; The American Religion and Politics in 2016, March 5, 2016; Standards of Legitimacy in Morality, Manners and Political Correctness, April 23, 2016; The Relevance of Religion to Politics, April 30, 2016; Religion and a Politics of Reconciliation, May 7, 2016; The Arrogance of Power, Humility, and a Politics of Reconciliation, May 14, 2016; and Christianity and Capitalism: Strange Bedfellows in Politics, June 5, 2016.

Saturday, June 4, 2016

Christianity and Capitalism: Strange Bedfellows in Politics

 By Rudy Barnes, Jr.

            If politics makes strange bedfellows, there are no more strange bedfellows than capitalism and Christianity.  Christianity is governed by the altruistic moral teachings of Jesus that condemn greed and emphasize caring for others and communitarian needs.  Capitalism is governed by the self-centered morality of Ayn Rand’s objectivism that emphasizes making a profit by competing with and exploiting others, thus making greed more a virtue than a vice.

            Despite this incongruity, Christianity has conformed its doctrines to accept capitalism as necessary for a free and  productive economy.  The church has even sanctified capitalism as a virtue of the Christian religion with the Puritan work ethic.  But Pope Francis has been critical of the unrestrained greed of capitalism, and he recently invited Bernie Sanders to the Vatican to discuss socialist alternatives to counter it.

            When Soviet Communism collapsed more than 25 years ago, it was hailed as the victory of capitalism over communism, but that declaration of victory may have been premature.  Today America has socialist programs that consume most of its budget: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and Obamacare (The Affordable Care Act); and the recession of 2008 confirmed the dangers of unrestrained capitalism.  There is now a receptive audience for the socialist principles of Bernie Sanders, as evidenced by his impressive support from millennials.  It indicates that future U.S. political leaders will have to consider socialist approaches to limit the excesses of capitalism that have exploited and diminished America’s middle class. 

             Bernie Sanders stands in stark contrast to Donald Trump and the lords of Wall Street, who should not to be confused with the more modest capitalists of Main Street.  But despite his bluster and rude and crude insults to all who question him, Trump has generated an impressive following.  It indicates that the election could be close; and even if Trump loses, the remnants of the Republican Party will likely seek to vindicate his grandiose and dangerous claims.

            Most evangelical Christians support GOP politicians, and are reluctant to admit that many of the proposals of Bernie Sanders, a secular Jew, are closer to the teachings of Jesus than GOP proposals.  The old labels of liberal and conservative are not suitable for today's economy.  Take on Wall Street is a liberal movement advocating economic reforms that are as conservative as they are liberal.  It would restore traditional economic policies by breaking up big banks and limiting them to consumer banking as did the old Glass-Steagall law, and limit the merger-mania that has reduced competition and exploited the middle class.

            Fannie Mae and Freddie Mack represent the kind of irresponsible banking that led to the 2008 recession.  They bought, packaged and sold substandard mortgages to Wall Street, and when the mortgages defaulted they were bailed out as too big to fail.  A bill has been introduced in Congress by Mick Mulvaney (R., S.C.) that "...would set Fannie and Freddie, unreformed, loose on the marketplace again and do so under terms wildly favorable to the hedge funds."  It is an egregious example of how Congress continues to feed the beast of Wall Street.   

            Donald Trump claims his business success qualifies him to be president, but the purpose of government is not to make a profit but to serve the public interest.  And unlike businesses and state and local governments, the federal government is not required to balance its budget.  Even so, federal budget deficits are a major political issue.  Some economists advocate government borrowing to create new jobs and discount the danger of budget deficits, while others warn of the danger of increasing deficits.  Donald Trump has said the U.S. doesn’t have to worry about paying its debts since it can create the money to pay them—but that’s not good economics. 

            The federal government can create new money to stimulate the economy, but that is inflationary since new money reduces the value of each dollar in circulation.  The “easy money” policies of the Federal Reserve after 2008 (quantitative easing) had little inflationary effect in the U.S. since the dollar is the world’s currency.  But even with the stimulation of “easy money” the economy has remained sluggish.  And while a few mega-corporations are awash in enough cash to stimulate the economy, they are not investing it in new jobs.  The “new normal” since 2008 seems to favor larger corporations and fewer jobs; but it is an unacceptable normal for Americans who are not employed by the mega-corporations of Wall Street or Silicon Valley.

           The ability of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and Obamacare to serve an increasing number of beneficiaries will depend on a healthy economy, new taxes and/or borrowing, as well as limiting benefits.  In November voters will choose the members of Congress who make their economic policy.  Democrats and Republicans must follow their leaders, unless they disavow them: For Democrats it will be Hillary Clinton, and for Republicans, Donald Trump. If voters are unhappy with economic policy, it’s their own fault since they elect those who make it. 

            Christianity and capitalism will continue to be strange bedfellows in politics since they represent conflicting communitarian and individualistic ideals.  The greatest commandment to love God and your neighbor as yourself is the moral imperative of Christianity, and it is closer to socialism than to capitalism; but America’s obsession with individual freedom favors capitalism over socialism.  American voters will have a daunting challenge in November to reconcile those conflicting ideals as they shape the future of their democracy.


Notes and References to Related Blogs:

Kathleen Parker has compared Pope Francis’ criticism of capitalism with Bernie Sanders’ socialism at https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/and-then-the-vatican-called-bernie-sanders/2016/04/08/787d3e94-fdcf-11e5-9140-e61d062438bb_story.html.



On Trump saying the U.S. will never default on its debt ”because you print the money,” see http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/09/politics/donald-trump-national-debt-strategy/.

On the emergence of a new campaign to hold Wall Street accountable that would restore the traditional regulations of big businesses and banks that protect the middle class from the excesses of Wall Street, see https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-new-campaign-to-hold-wall-street-accountable-emerges/2016/05/30/24fe5d92-2693-11e6-ae4a-3cdd5fe74204_story.html?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_opinions.

On the “recap and release” proposal of Congressman Mick Mulvaney to revive Fannie Mae and Freddie Mack and “recreate the private-gain, public-risk conflict that helped sink them” and initiate the 2008 recession, see https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/this-fannie-freddie-resurrection-needs-to-die/2016/06/03/c8ad5162-282f-11e6-b989-4e5479715b54_story.html?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_opinions.
      
On A third of cash owned by Five U.S. Companies (Apple, Microsoft, Cisco, Alphabet (Google), and Oracle), see http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/markets/2016/05/20/third-cash-owned-5-us-companies/84640704/.
      
On Donald Trump’s indifference to and even contempt for the rule of law, see  http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/04/us/politics/donald-trump-constitution-power.html?_r=0.


See the following related blogs in the Archives of http://www.jesusmeetsmuhammad.com/: The Greatest Commandment, January 11, 2015; Love over Law: A Principle at the Heart of Legitimacy, January 18, 2015; Wealth, Politics, Religion and Economic Justice, March 8, 2015; Liberation from Economic Oppression, May 31, 2015; Balancing Individual Rights with Collective Responsibilities, August 9, 2015; God, Money and Politics, October 18, 2015; Who Is My Neighbor?, January 23, 2016; The Politics of Loving Our Neighbors as Ourselves, January 30, 2016; Conflicting Concepts of Legitimacy in Faith, Freedom and Politics, February 27, 2016;  The American Religion and Politics in 2016, March 5, 2016; Religion, Democracy and Human Depravity, March 19, 2016; Religion, Democracy, Diversity and Demagoguery, March 26, 2016; The Relevance of Religion to Politics, April 30, 2016; Religion and a Politics of Reconciliation, May 7, 2016; and Religious Fundamentalism and a Politics of Reconciliation, May 21, 2016.