By Richard Larsen
Published – Idaho State Journal, 11/25/07

Despite narratives by contemporary textbooks, the earliest of Thanksgiving celebrations were established to acknowledge the hand of God, and give thanks to Him, for deliverance and His mercy. The holiday continues today as a subtle reminder of our dependence on God for the blessings we enjoy as Americans for our freedom and those who have stood as defenders of that freedom and attendant liberties and rights. It also serves as a gentle reminder that our founding fathers feared not the presence of religion in society and even government, but a repressed individual free exercise of religion.

In mid-December of 1620, The Pilgrims, Calvinist Protestants, arrived at the coast of present-day Massachusetts, and conducted the first “thanksgiving” ceremony with a prayer service thanking God for safe arrival in the New World.

After a devastating winter which claimed the lives of nearly half of the 102 faithful in search of religious freedom, the Pilgrims, with the assistance of the neighboring Wampanoag Indians, reaped a rich harvest which they gladly shared with the Wampanoag.

Investors funding their endeavor demanded they incorporate a socialistic economic model where all crops and property were held in common, in order to return half of their produce to their overseas backers. After two years of a socialized economy, Plymouth was in danger of failing as a result of famine, blight, and drought. Even practicing the carefully directed cultivation practices of the Wampanoag failed to deliver them from their plight. Colonist Edward Winslow wrote, “The most courageous were now discouraged, because God, which hitherto had been our only shield and supporter, now seemed in his anger to arm himself against us.”

The Pilgrims realized how dependent they were on deity for their very survival, and set aside a “solemn day of humiliation, to seek the Lord by humble and fervent prayer in this great distress,” according to Governor William Bradford. As an affirmation of their faith, by that evening, the skies darkened, and a slow, steady rain ensued, providing a powerful witness to the Indians of faith in God, the Great Spirit, and a reaffirmation of the same for the Pilgrims. Governor Bradford noted, “And afterwards the Lord sent to them such seasonable showers, with interchange of fair warm weather as, through His blessing caused a fruitful and liberal harvest, to their no small comfort and rejoicing. For which mercy, in time convenient, they also set apart a day of thanksgiving.” Sounds a lot like what Governor Sonny Perdue did a couple of weeks ago in Georgia.

Edward Winslow recorded the Pilgrims’ reaction as believing “it would be great ingratitude, if secretly we should smother up the same, or content ourselves with private thanksgiving for that, which by private prayer could not be obtained. And therefore another solemn day was set apart and appointed for that end; wherein we returned glory, honor, and praise, with all thankfulness, to our good God, which dealt so graciously with us...” This was the original American Thanksgiving Day, centered not on harvest feasting (as in 1621) but on gathering together to publicly recognize the favor and provision of Almighty God.

Bradford’s diary recounts how the colonists repented of their socialistic financial folly and “At length, after much debate of things, the Governor (with the advice of the chiefest amongst them) gave way that they should set corn every man for his own particular, and in that regard trust to themselves; in all other things to go in the general way as before. And so assigned to every family a parcel of land, according to the proportion of their number.”

Over the course of the next 150 years, autumnal Thanksgiving celebrations became commonplace throughout New England. However, in December of 1777, in the midst of the Revolutionary War, General George Washington ordered a day for “public Thanksgiving and Praise, and duty calling us devoutly to express our grateful acknowledgements to God for the manifold blessings he has granted us.” He ordered “all officers and soldiers, whose absence is not indispensably necessary, to attend with reverence the solemnities of the day.” The Continental Congress, acknowledging the need for a warring country’s continuing grateful entreaties to God, proclaimed yearly Thanksgiving days throughout the Revolutionary War from 1777 through 1783.

The first formal recognition of the newly formed United States of America was established in 1789, after ratifying the Bill of Rights to the Constitution. Congress recommended that citizens “gather together and give thanks to God” for the blessings bestowed upon their fledgling nation.

Presidents George Washington, John Adams, and James Madison followed the custom of declaring national days of gratitude, although it wasn’t until another perilous juncture in American history, the Civil War, when another President declared a national day of thanksgiving. President Abraham Lincoln invited “the whole American people to observe a day of thanksgiving and praise to our beneficent Father…with humble penitence for our national perverseness and disobedience.”

Congress set a permanent date of the fourth Thursday of November for a national day of Thanksgiving in 1941.

It is proper for us, indeed, requisite of us, to look to the past to gain appreciation for the present and perspective for the future. While Thanksgiving Day is the formal recognition of our gratitude to the Almighty for our temporal blessings, we should acknowledge throughout the year our heartfelt indebtedness for our freedoms and the country that was founded on principles of individual inalienable rights. Such gratitude should include the recognition of our nations’ early practice and failure of socialized economics, and a commitment to free market principles which inherently advocates the freedom of every individual in our society to choose, both for consumption and production purposes. And most of all, we should celebrate the freedom of exercise of religion without government suppression, repression, or censorship.

By Richard Larsen

Published – Idaho State Journal, 11/11/07

Politics by definition cannot be based on absolutes. When a voter or a group of voters decides to vote based on absolute principle on a single issue, the consequences can be disastrous and almost never makes sense.

A few weeks ago, a large group of evangelical Christian leaders led by James Dobson of Focus on the Family fame congregated in Salt Lake City and discussed the upcoming Presidential election. What emerged from that meeting was very disconcerting.

The group decided that they could not support a pro-abortion candidate by any means, and that if Rudy Guiliani was the Republican candidate, they could not vote for him and would consider throwing their support to a third-party candidate. In all my years of listening to and respecting Dr. Dobson this is the rare disagreement I have had with him.

Their position on abortion is completely understandable considering this country was founded on the principles of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The most fundamental function of a government is to protect life, especially those most innocent; those who cannot protect themselves. As Michael Vick could testify, dogs in this country have more legal protection than unborn humans. Yet, as fundamental as this principle is, it is still not sufficient to eclipse all other issues in the selection of a president.

Ronald Reagan said many times that those who agree with him 80% of the time are not his enemies, they are his friends. Interestingly, he didn’t make a distinction on what constituted the 20% of disagreement, or for that matter, what issues constituted the 80% agreement.

When we vote for President, it is not the same as voting for a pastor. Their theology doesn’t have to match ours and their personal lives may not reflect our fundamental values. But on major issues, if I agree with someone on 80% of my key issues, even though I may disagree on one big issue, why would I then vote for someone who has no chance of winning from a third party thereby handing the election to someone that I may only agree with on 20% of the issues? There is no logic to that.

Some say that it’s a matter of conscience, that they cannot support someone who agrees with taking innocent life. Frankly, the President doesn’t decide that issue. The only role the President has in that regard is through his judicial appointments, primarily to the Supreme Court.

Realizing that, do I want a president who is much more likely to appoint judges that would reverse Roe v. Wade and return the issue of abortion to the states? Or do I, by casting a vote for a third party candidate, want to hand the presidency to someone who is more likely to load the courts with jurists who will support abortion? Since the next President will probably appoint two more Justices to the Supreme Court, do I want more jurists like Ginsburg, or Roberts? And ultimately, do I think Judeo-Christian values will more likely be supported by a Democrat or by a Republican, considering the candidates being considered for the job.

Even an absolutist on anti-abortion should recognize the folly in supporting a third party candidate thereby turning the presidency over to an absolutist on abortion rights. After all, much in politics is incremental in nature. Tax policy is changed incrementally, health-care issues are changed incrementally, and entitlements are incremental in nature. So a step in the right direction is better than trying and failing to take four steps in the right direction, thereby handing the presidency to someone who takes four steps in the wrong direction.

In the primaries, if conscience so demands it, we can be much more single-issue oriented. Vote for your pro-life candidate, vote your conscience. But from a practical standpoint, we can’t afford to be single-issue driven when it comes to the general election. At that point, we need to be thinking of the next best option.

Conscience is to be applied in absolute fashion when it comes to our private lives. But practicality and realism must be the rule of the day when it comes to politics. Since this is directed to those who think their vote should be a matter of conscience and not practicality, how do you explain King David? It seems God is not a purist in selection of leaders, and I don’t think He expects us to be either. Think about it. You’re not compromising your conscience, but rather doing what God would expect of you, to do the right thing based on pragmatism. In our personal lives, we should not compromise our principles. In politics, it’s all about compromise if you want to get something done.

Historically, third-party candidacies have proven to be spoilers for major party candidates who lost races because of siphoned off votes to the minor candidates. For example, Ralph Nader may well have cost Al Gore the election in 2000, as well as John Kerry in 2004.

In 1992 and 1996, Ross Perot may not have made a difference in the outcome, but he did prevent Clinton from receiving a majority of votes, allowing him to win with a plurality of less than 50% both years. Even Teddy Roosevelt couldn’t be elected as a third party candidate (U.S. Progressive Party), and may well have handed the 1912 election to Woodrow Wilson.

In politics it is rare to find candidates with whom we are in total agreement on key issues. Some may say it’s then a process of voting for the lesser of two evils. In my estimation, it should be viewed as a process of voting for someone who comes most closely to my deeply held values. In other words, it’s a matter of electoral pragmatism, not absolutism.

By Richard Larsen
Published – Idaho State Journal, 11/11/07

For years we’ve heard cries of lament from some segments of our society that the U.S. has lost its leadership in the world, that the world hates us, and that we must “reach out” to the rest of the world to regain that once treasured global respect. Those engaged in this lament must have fallen off their chairs when French President Nicolas Sarkozy addressed a joint session of Congress earlier this week.

Apparently much of that perception of negativity was created by Jacque Chirac and Gerhard Shroeder, for ever since they were replaced by Sarkozy and Angela Merkel, relationships with our European allies have appeared stronger than ever. Interestingly, Sarkozy defeated a widely heralded leftist woman, which fact has apparently been lost on much of the American press covering the European elections. In democracies, or republics as the United States is, leaders are voted for not because of their gender or their race, but because of their ideas and leadership. That leadership was very much on display by President Sarkozy earlier this week.

In his comments to Congress he said, “To the millions of men and women who came from every country of the world and who -- with their own hands, their intelligence, and their hearts -- built the greatest nation in the world, America did not say, ‘Come, and everything will be given to you.’ Rather, she said, ‘Come, and the only limits to what you will be able to achieve will be those of your own courage, your boldness, and your talent.’”

It appears that this new French President understands American exceptionalism in a way that many Americans don’t. We are not a socialist state where “everyone is equal,” only some are “more equal” than others. This is a country of unlimited opportunity and equality of opportunity. We are limited only by our own personal limitations of reduced vision, poor work ethic, or lack of industry. For the opportunity is equal for all of us. He was elected on a platform of reducing the pejorative effect of socialism on French society and their economy, and a vow to reduce the internal threats associated with unrestricted immigration.

Sarkozy continued, “The America that we love throughout the world impedes this extraordinary ability to grant each and every person a second chance, another chance, because, in America, failure is never the last word. There is always another chance. Here -- in your country, on this soil -- both the humblest and the most illustrious citizens alike know that nothing is owed to them and that everything has to be earned. That is what constitutes the moral value of America.”

These comments were made on the heels of a visit by George W. and the French President at Mt. Vernon. It wasn’t the first George W. and Rochambeau, but 21^st Century French and American counterparts. Yet the language unmistakably reflects what must have constituted much of the discussion from that first French-American summit at Mt. Vernon.

Sarkozy continued, “America liberated us, and this is an eternal debt we owe America. Every time, whenever an American soldier falls somewhere in the world, I think of what the American army did for France. I think of them -- and I am sad as one is saddened to lose a member of one's family.”

What a thrill to hear a French President not only express his respect of America and her greatness, but to show gratitude for what we did to save their country twice in the last century, and express such a debt of gratitude and respect for our men and women in uniform who thwarted the fascist movement that would have them speaking German today.

With very little exception, U.S. involvement throughout the world especially over the past 100 years, has not been for imperialism. It has been for advancing the cause of freedom and liberty for those unable to defend themselves or unable to throw off the yoke of bondage imposed by their totalitarian rulers. It has been noted that after a war, the U.S. only asks for enough soil to bury our dead on. We ask no more. That was certainly the case with Europe after World Wars I and II, to which the French President refers.

Sarkozy’s closing remarks produced a standing ovation. He said, “We need France to be stronger. I am determined to carry through with the reforms that my country has put off for all too long. I will not turn back. I will implement all of them, because France has turned back for all too long. I have come to present to you today a France that comes out to meet America, to renew the covenant of friendship and alliance that Washington and Lafayette sealed in Yorktown. Together, let us be true to their memories. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, I say this to you on behalf of the French people: Long live the United States of America. Long live France. Long live French-American friendship!”

Not an anomaly among global leaders, Sarkozy verbalizes the respect and admiration for the U.S. held by lovers of freedom, liberty, and principle. Those who “hate” us are terrorists who seek our destruction or are envious of our global preeminence in spite of our relative national youthfulness, or those who feel guilty for the privileges we enjoy. But for those who appreciate the principles upon which this country was founded, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness America stands as a beacon of hope for the rest of the world.

Sarkozy’s speech serves as a reminder of the greatness of America, and her goodness. His presentation to Congress was probably the best lecture on American exceptionalism delivered in many years and solidifies in my mind the realization that we are not hated by the rest of the world, we are loathed by the left wherever in the world they may be from.

The Morality of Water-boarding

By Richard Larsen

Published – Idaho State Journal, 11/04/07

Torture is declared by governmental fiat to be illegal. What actually constitutes torture seems to continue to vex the Bush Administration as borne out by the hearings for the latest nominee for U.S. Attorney General. Clearly illegal are the types of activities the fictional character Jack Bauer engages in to extract information from enemies of the state in the Fox Network show “24.” But the issue of “water-boarding” continues to haunt the Administration which classifies it as an aggressive interrogation technique rather than torture.
The now infamous actions of a few at Abu Ghraib are not related. Those who committed those acts of atrocity were clearly an anomaly and acted outside the purview of military guidelines for prisoner treatment and have been punished.
The most broadly accepted definition of torture comes from the United Nations Convention Against Torture which defined it as, “any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.”
The latest nominee for U.S. Attorney General, Michael Mukasey, faces the prospect of not being confirmed because he has failed to distance himself from the practice of “water-boarding” which some see as torture, but the administration defines as an aggressive interrogation technique.
This is a process where the prisoner is placed on a board, with his feet slightly higher than his head. Water is poured over the face creating the sensation to the prisoner that he is drowning. It triggers a gag reflex and can make a person believe his demise is imminent. Unlike torture, there is no physical damage and as soon as the water stops, so does the discomfort. Yet it is apparently efficacious in extracting information. Even some of our military personnel have been exposed to the practice so they are familiar with it and can deal with it.
According to ABC News, when Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the 9/11 mastermind, was strapped down to the water-board, he felt humiliated - not by the treatment but by the fact that a woman, a red-headed CIA supervisor, was allowed to witness the event. But after two minutes, he cracked and started “singing like a canary,” and yielded invaluable intelligence that interrupted plots in progress and saved countless lives.
Water-boarding does not harm subjects physiologically but may cause mental suffering. It’s this gray area that seems most vexing to those engaged in delineating whether the practice is torture or an aggressive interrogation technique.
Realizing that the practice is in somewhat of a gray area, the morality of using it is inescapable. As in most cases of morality, paradoxes abound when principles of micro morality (what we expect of and do ourselves) are broadly applied on a macro level (society at large, and in this case, government in particular). Even our absolute micro morality of not taking a life is challenged by the reality of a criminal threatening the lives of our family. The conundrum is broadened when that absolute moral principle is applied on a macro basis. On a micro basis, it’s much easier to implement absolute morality, whereas at the macro level, the reality of the evil in the world often trumps that absolutism.
If you were in a position of legal authority and you had a known terrorist in your custody, and you knew they were complicit in a plot to kill thousands of people, what would you be willing to do to protect the innocent? If one of your children was among the threatened would that affect your perspective? Sometimes it helps to personalize the scenario faced by those charged to protect the nation and its citizenry to gain an appreciation for the moral conundrum they face in the discharge of their sworn duty.
On a broader basis, which is the moral high ground? To leave innocents at risk knowing the terrorist you are interrogating has information that can save them, or ensuring there is no discomfort on the part of the terrorist? Is the greater moral requirement to the many, or to the one who seeks their harm? Terrorists are willing to kill, maim, and destroy men, women, and children in pursuit of their twisted political and theological objectives. Is their brief sensation of drowning a greater evil than the potential death of thousands? These are challenging moral issues that the administration must address and promulgate to the rest of us, for their decisions reflect on the morality and the priorities of the whole country.
I sympathize with those charged with making these decisions on a governmental basis. It is a veritable moral tightrope they’re navigating. But frankly, if they err, I would hope it would be on the side of protecting the country and our populace, rather than pandering to a terrorist by extending a civility and respect to him that he is neither deserving of, nor willing to extend to us, his targets. That should be the higher moral obligation.