A (relatively) long time ago, I wrote about the no smoking policy of Weyco, a Michigan based health care company. For those that do not remember, or have not read that far back in time, Weyco prohibits employees from smoking at all. Not just on company time or company property, but even at home. They have instituted the sort of random drug testing more common with illegal drugs to enforce the ban also. At first I was somewhat in favor of this, certainly ambivalent. In my second glance, I am mostly against it, though still somewhat unsure. This long introduction comes because of this article. Apparently some of the smokers are quite upset over this policy. And some of them are pushing law makers in Michigan to prevent it. With at least some success. In my views of it so far, I have focused on its potential impact on the employee, and (via the premiums we pay) on the person’s co-workers and society as a whole. John Stossel takes a different approach. He looks at it from the point of view of the employer, who, in this case, is Mr. Weyers, owner of the company. Where does his freedom to employ who he wants, to pay who he wants, start? Where does it stop? While this is a company doing this, and not a government, the freedom to work elsewhere exists. So since it is his company and his money, why should not he have the freedom to enact and enforce his own standards? If he thinks it is morally wrong to smoke, a tenable position (see my second post on this subject), naturally he should enforce such a policy. On the other hand, given the impact on premiums, its easy to see smoking leading to a sort of blacklisting effect. At first, this would tend me towards “but people have a right to work, the right to earn a living to raise their family.” Which is true, they do. But this is not a life-time ban; they simply have to quit smoking, something that would be good for them anyway. So in that sense, it is much like saying the alcoholic needs to get help and get in control of his addiction before he will be able to hold a job, something that is eminently reasonable, and eminently common sensical. So I guess my overall conclusion is that since this is a company, and not a government, and in light of the premium impact on others, and in light of the need to respect the employer’s freedom and responsibilities as well as the employee’s, it appears that this sort of policy is justifiable. I do am not so sure the same thing would hold true of a government policy implementing the same sort of thing. And I am less sure of this with regards to weight than I am smoking, as I still believe our idea of “overweight” is off kilter (note I also still admit I need to loose some weight. Just not as much as the federal definitions would require.).

Ederlyn found “The Crusaders” from www.rollingstone.com. It is so stereotypically paranoid of Christians and Christianity that it is almost funny. It is also somewhat true in places, especially as it talks about Evangelicals and not about Catholics. D. James Kennedy is quoted saying

Our job is to reclaim America for Christ, whatever the cost. As the vice regents of God, we are to exercise godly dominion and influence over our neighborhoods, our schools, our government, our literature and arts, our sports arenas, our entertainment media, our news media, our scientific endeavors — in short, over every aspect and institution of human society.

Sound scary? It is a little, these are Evangelicals, they would certainly be tempted to have a Puritanical approach to their domination. But at the same time, in some respect, it is true. While I do not think we can entirely dominate society, we certainly can, and should, influence it. We certainly can, and should, help shape the direction it takes. Our decent into relativism is in large part our own fault, the fault of Catholic clergy and Catholic people to stand up for the absolute truth we hold from our forefathers in faith.

The author worries that they do not think the “separation of church and state” is constitutional. He would be surprised, I think, to realize how recent an invention it is. The Evangelicals are absolutely right when they say that the First Amendment was meant to shield religion from government, not to shield government from religion. Remember, our founding fathers had just suffered the government oppression of their dissident (but still largely Protestant) beliefs. Remember also that the famed Spanish Inquisition, it was the secular side of governance that executed people. In the much more sane, less corrupt versions across Europe, the threat of torture was 1)largely formal, not actual, and 2)incredibly in line with societal norms at the time (which are not our norms now). The Protestants in England however, set up the Star Court, and similar, to enforce the particular form of Anglicanism that the throne happened to espouse that generation. The pilgrims, and others such as William Penn’s Quakers, came to escape that. Remember also, that several states were by and large (and I believe formally as well), theocracies. Connecticut especially so. The First Amendment had no issue with this, rather it was designed to prevent federal interference with it. The author says we want activist judges. I suppose it looks that way to someone who takes secularism and materialism as a given. But our founding fathers were not secular in mind set. Patrick Henry, John Adams, George Washington, and many others, in the papers they have left for us, emphasize the importance of religion for a just society time and time again.

The author worries about the school systems as well. He mentions a court case in California, but does not give me the name, and I am not familiar with it. But remember, until recently, it was not uncommon to release the children during the school day to go to their parishes for religious education. And once upon a time, the “main stream” protestant faith was taught in public schools, and only the Catholic and Jewish children even needed to be released. Today, we teach no religion. Or more accurately, we teach materialism. This is really what the debate over “Intelligent Design” is about. Not about a strict interpretation of Genesis (which may or may not be good science, it mostly is not, but it might be possible to do good science on such a theory, but that too is a separate issue), but about whether or not Darwin’s theory and its modifications will alone hold sway, will be taught as fact or dubious theory. Materialists (I suspect this author would number among them) want it to be taught as fact. Any rational person should admit it really has very little support in evidence. Many of us think there are better explanations coming from design even where a seven day creation is not accepted. He worries that we resist efforts to “tolerate” homosexual activity. We know they do not want us to simply ignore it, they want us to accept it as normal — which we are theologically opposed to doing. I would tend to believe, however, that the author does not take a theologically based line of reasoning as legitimate though. He likely thinks that only reasoning coming from materialists can be valid.

He claims that once Rep. Walter Jones would have been laughed out of Washington for claiming that the ass ult on preachers having, and teaching, that the faith has, must have, an impact on the politics of the faithful is both real and an ass ult on the United States itself. Perhaps that is true, I do not know. I do know that once you would have been chased out of Washington for suggesting that preachers should not. I highly doubt he admits the ass ult is real (reference the threats to revoke such church’s tax free status) but asserts it is not problematic. Maybe I give him too little credit however, maybe that is his real opinion, perhaps he is, in fact, that hostile to religion.

Robert Novak briefly mentions that it is not only the Muslim population that Israel is giving a hard time. Their security practices are impacting the ability of Christians, primarily Catholics and Orthodox, to live and prosper as well. It is important to remember that just as the Muslim population wants an end to Israel, so too does Israel really want an end to anyone non-Jewish living in Israel.

John Leo asks a very good question: “Do we really need yet another major assault on a prominent politician, or can we spend some time discussing actual issues?” He rightly points out that we only tend to object to such attacks when they are against someone we mostly agree with. But he seems to lump together the attack of the Swift Boat Veterans against John Kerry with the democratic comparisons of President Bush to the Nazi regime. To me, these seem like incredibly different things. John Kerry unquestionably misrepresented his involvement in the Vietnam War. The Swift Boat Veterans called him on this, attacked him for his duplicity, and for his record then and since. This is a necessary part of political debate. Do you want someone who routinely lies to you as your president? Someone fervently against the military as Commander in Chief during a time of conflict (unjustifiable conflict perhaps, but that is a different issue, we are in it and need to finish it right)? Should we not have access to the truths of the candidate’s positions and record? These seem fairly self-evident questions. Conversely, what new information does the comparison of President Bush to the Nazis add to the debate? If you hate his policies, attack them. If you think he really did lie about the situation in Iraq, present your evidence for that assertion. Should Tom DeLay have called the ruling to remove Mrs. Schivao’s feeding tube “medical terrorism”? No, probably not. It was a hyperbolic statement of the sort that politicians should be careful of. Should he have come down strongly and publicly against it? Should he be working for judicial reform if he thinks that represents an abuse? Absolutely. Should he campaign for support for that reform? Yes, he should. Does the fact that some now (and would otherwise still) send death threats to Judge Greer stop him? No, it shouldn’t. Fanatics and extremists, insanity of all sorts, looms in any extreme position, and thus in any issue. We must not let that stop us from seeking to move forward. And we cannot allow deceitful politicians impede that progress by misrepresentation of themselves and their positions either.

Phyllis Schlafly is on questionable grounds for a “conservative” in her recent article. She comes out strongly in favor of the REAL ID Act (H.R. 418). She states:

All but 10 states already require driver’s license applicants to prove legal presence in the United States. All but 14 states require verification of at least one of the documents applicants produce, and 22 states and the District of Columbia require licenses to expire with temporary visas.

The states that don’t currently have these standards are a magnet not only for illegal immigrants, but also for foreign terrorists and U.S. criminals and identity thieves. Congress has a duty to close these monumental gaps in our national security, and the Senate should promptly pass the REAL ID ACT.

Where in the constitution does Congress have this duty imposed? Under what article and section does it have the authority to mandate standards for identification? When did we delegate to the Federal government such regulation of our own citizens? Make no mistake about it, for all she rests her argument on the fact that illegal immigrants can now obtain a driver’s license, this would be regulating the lives of you and I. This moves us closer to a “National ID,” something I have fairly consistently opposed. What difference would there be between that and an internal passport except that you wouldn’t need the visa stamp pages? In that light, the clear course is to maintain control over identification at the state level, we should be working to remove the federal government from such matters, not increase its role.

In a remarkable display of speculation and specious logic, “Odd fly uncovers evolution secret” equates the presence of biodiversity with its cause. This is a nice example of begging the question, and leads me to ask, just how credulous do they think we are? Well, given the infinite capacity for stupidity, probably only about half as silly as they should.