Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.

–Deuteronomy 20:16

The Eighth Commandment. Not a real complicated rule. Not very difficult to understand, even when rendered in the somewhat archaic language of the King James Version of the Holy Bible. And yet the editor of publication aiming to serve Roman Catholics can’t seem to get it right.

Writing in Wednesday’s edition of The American Spectator, George Neumayr, editor of the conservative Catholic World Report, wrote about the “Unholy Triumvirate” of Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.

To be a good American now means you nod vigorously as an Obama supporter at a cocktail party bashes the Boy Scouts as bigots while explaining to you why Obama’s association with the “distinguished” education professor (as Congressman Rahm Emanuel put it) Bill Ayers is no big deal. It means you chuckle along with Joe Biden as he tells Ellen DeGeneres that conservative Californians are deluded to oppose gay marriage.

Or it means listening in hushed awe as unimpeachable American hero Colin Powell calls the most liberal Republican presidential nominee ever “narrow” and insufficiently “inclusive,” and scolds unnamed Americans for objecting to the notion of a Muslim president. (I was half-expecting him to join Barney Frank in calling for the elimination of the Constitution’s prohibition on foreign-born presidents. Surely that’s not “inclusive” either.)

To start with, it’s not just Rahm Emmanuel who calls former terrorist Bill Ayers a “distinguished” education professor; it’s the University of Illinois at Chicago, which gave that to Ayers as a formal title.  And, if John McCain is “the most liberal presidential nominee ever”, what then do we make of a GOP presidential nominee who helped lay the groundwork for Human Rights Watch, one who supported the ill-fated Equal Rights Amendment and one who nominated a (gasp!) liberal to the highest court in the land.

Mister Neumayr, feel free to read up on the life and times of Gerald R. Ford sometime.

Of course, the whole Muslim charge has been debunked so many times I scarcely need to repeat it here. But it’s because of writers such as Neumayr that this unfounded rumor lives on. It’s worth noting that U.S. Rep. Keith Ellison, a practicing Muslim, has been serving his Minnesota constituents since January of 2007.

Or consider Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan, a 20-year-old soldier who was awarded the Purple Heart and the Bronze Star.  His headstone is marked, not by Christianity’s cross, but rather Islam’s crescent and star.
No one with a trace of humanity can fail to be moved by the patriotic sacrifice of a man whose patriotism would have questioned by some of the people he died for.

Still, patriotic sacrifices such as Khan’s may be beneath Neumayr’s notice, the way he claims that patriotic acts are beneath liberals’ notice:

Patriotism is now measured not by respect for the conservatism contained in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution but by the level of one’s enthusiasm for the America to come.

And what conservatism might that be? Surely not the notion that all men are created equal. As far back as anyone living can remember, egalitarianism hasn’t been part of the Republican game plan. Separation of church and state? Don’t be silly. The social conservative base of the GOP would love nothing more than to see the Ten Commandments posted every 25 feet or so.

Or, in Mister Neumayr’s case, maybe just nine of them.

President George W. Bush
1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President:

With your permission, I’d like to test out a hypothesis. My theory is that, back in the days of your wild youth, back before Jesus became your favorite philosopher, you must have been a huge Led Zeppelin fan. The lyrics of their classic heavy metal music must have spoken to your soul on such a deep level that they would continue to affect you for years to come.

Let’s face it, no one outside of your ever-shrinking circle of supporters can look at your actions of the last eight years and not think Dazed and Confused. Hurricane Katrina? It must take you back to When the Levee Breaks.  Kashmir might have planted a seed that led to your interest in the Middle East. And your policies concerning the death penalty, elective war, torture and relaxed workplace safety standards surely mean you’ve done more than anyone currently alive to send people on the Stairway to Heaven.

But, more than any other Led Zep song, the one that must have affected you the most was The Song Remains The Same. Here you are talking about the economy in 2004:

“Sure there will be costs, but the cost of doing nothing will be greater. It’s a difficult issue, otherwise it would have been done.”

Turning from the general issue of economic reform to the more specific issue of
Social Security reform, you also said this in 2004:

“We’ll start on Social Security now. We’ll start bringing together those in Congress who agree with my assessment that we need to work together. … [T]here are going to be costs. But the cost of doing nothing is … much greater than the cost of reforming the system today.”

A good turn of phrase must be one of the few areas where the theory of trickle-down actually works.  The ever-unpleasant Michelle Malkin emerged from the right-wing echo chamber in February of this year to offer this view of entitlement reform:

“The cost of doing nothing about exploding federal entitlements? A Republican-sponsored $3.1 trillion with a “T” budget and bogus claims of balance by 2012. Earmark reform and pork-barrel spending cuts are all well and good. But they’re a drop in the bucket.”

A month later, administration apologist Tony Fratto invoked the phrase again in a strident denunciation of  The Three Trillion Dollar War: The True Cost of the Iraq Conflict,  Joseph Stiglitz and Linda J. Bilmes’ critique of the U.S. war in Iraq.

“People like Joe Stiglitz lack the courage to consider the cost of doing nothing and the cost of failure. One can’t even begin to put a price tag on the cost to this nation of the attacks of 9/11. It is also an investment in the future safety and security of Americans and our vital national interests. $3 trillion? What price does Joe Stiglitz put on attacks on the homeland that have already been prevented? Or doesn’t his slide rule work that way?”

The phrase we came full circle Saturday, Mr. President, when you began discussing the cost of the $700 billion financial institution bailout.

“This is a big package, because it was a big problem. I will tell our citizens and continue to remind them that the risk of doing nothing far outweighs the risk of the package, and that, over time, we’re going to get a lot of the money back,”

There are two disturbing points about this bailout. One is a new national debt ceiling in excess of $11 trillion. Another is the lack of restrictions on administration efforts to deal with the crisis. As Sunday’s New York Times reported, all that is required is semiannual reports to Congress.

Because your administration would never do anything to betray that kind of trust in them.

Mr. President, the American people will be choosing your successor in less than a month and a half. On the one hand, we have a septuagenarian Sunbelt senator and his sidekick, a lipstick-wearing pit bull of a hockey mom who couldn’t give a flying puck about her lack of preparation for the vice presidency.

On the other hand, we have an intellectually curious with time spent in the streets, in academia and in the legislature at the state and federal level.

When the American people cast their ballots, they need to take their cue from a British rock band that resonates with me, one that’s different from the one you evidently like so such. So we don’t get a new boss  who’s the same as the old boss.

And we don’t get fooled again.

For I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me.

Not content to leave the above warning where the Book of Deuteronomy does, certain Roman Catholic clergymen have taken it upon themselves to extend it, punishing supporters for the sins of their candidates.

Consider the case of Douglas Kmiec, a supporter of Barack Obama’s presidential run who was denied Communion in April by a priest who takes exception to Obama’s pro-choice views.

Mind you. Kmiec is no wild-eyed, tax-and-spend flag-burning leftie. In fact, he has impeccable Republican credentials, including time within the Reagan Justice Department. He’s even on record as opposing Roe v. Wade. Still, during a Mass for businessmen, an unnamed representative of Mother Church took it upon himself to wield the wafer as a weapon in the fight against legalized abortion.

In a column by E.J. Dionne of the Washington Post, Kmiec has argued that there must be some way to promote a culture of life that does not rest solely rely upon the elimination of legalized abortion.

“To think you have done a generous thing for your neighbor or that you have built up a culture of life just because you voted for a candidate who says in his brochure that he wants to overturn Roe v. Wade is far too thin an understanding of the Catholic faith,” Kmiec, is quoted as saying. Kmiec, a critic of the Bush administration’s Iraq policy, added that Catholics should heed “the broad social teaching of the church,” including its views on war.

Exactly. An authentic pro-life position would include concern for criminals sentenced to execution and all the casualties that have occurred in the wake of the Bush War on Terror. Not just the brave men and women who have given their lives in a misguided effort to spread democracy at gunpoint, but the uncounted innocent Iraqi lives lost as well.

But let’s get back to the issue of abortion. The good old days before Roe weren’t all that good, as witnessed by Dr. Waldo L. Fielding, a retired gynecologist and obstetrician:

“The worst case I saw, and one I hope no one else will ever have to face, was that of a nurse who was admitted with what looked like a partly delivered umbilical cord. Yet as soon as we examined her, we realized that what we thought was the cord was in fact part of her intestine, which had been hooked and torn by whatever implement had been used in the abortion. It took six hours of surgery to remove the infected uterus and ovaries and repair the part of the bowel that was still functional.”

Research indicates that one reason endure the invasive abortion procedure is that they cannot afford the economic burden of another mouth to feed. So it stands to reason that removing from power the political party that transformed a budget surplus into a monstrous deficit could well save lives – more lives than the ban on late-term abortions.

Kmiec told Dionne that he was supporting Obama in the hope that the Illinois Democrat’s emphasis on personal responsibility in sexual matters might change the nature of the nation’s argument on life issues.

But all that will never be done if members of the Roman Catholic clergy refuse Communion to some people through reasoning that’s thinner than the Host itself.

How can social conservatives who yearn for an America where the Ten Commandments are posted on every stationary object across this great nation be so obtuse as to the meaning of those Commandments?

I’ve been asking myself that very question after reading the results of a study that found people with conservative ideologies are happier than their liberal counterparts. It’s not that I begrudge the conservatives their happiness. Heck, this country was founded on the right to pursue happiness.

No, I’m concerned about the reason conservatives are so happy. According to researchers Jaime Napier and John Jost of New York University, conservatives are happy because they are able to rationalize social and economic inequalities.
Marital status, income or church attendance, none of it seems to have as much impact as an individual’s political leanings. Apparently, something about the conservative psyche allows adherents to gloss over injustice.

Napier and Jost reported last week that conservatives score highest in their ability to explain away these injustices. These rationalizations included classics from the Apathy Hall of Fame (I know. It hasn’t been built yet due to lack of interest) like: “It is not really that big a problem if some people have more of a chance in life than others,” and “this country would be better off if we worried less about how equal people are.”

Excuse me? Rationalize away injustice? How did that ever become part of the doctrine of social conservatism, or compassionate conservatives’ worldview? Has part of the Book of Genesis been expunged from their Holy Scripture? The part where Cain rhetorically asks, “Am I my brother’s keeper?”

The answer to that question is supposed to be yes.

Or maybe social conservatives were snoozing in the pews on that Sunday morning when the resident pastor preached on James 2:15-17.

“Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, “Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead,”

After all, an itinerant rabbi who reportedly is the President’s favorite philosopher once said, “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.”

To justify economic inequalities, a person could support the idea of meritocracy, in which people supposedly move up their economic status in society based on hard work and good performance. In that way, one’s social class attainment, whether upper, middle or lower, would be perceived as totally fair and justified.

Ironically, it was the notion that everyone who was successful in life because of some innate superiority was of great concern to churchgoers who were exposed to Darwin’s Origin of the Species when it was published in the mid-19th Century. The reasoned that a “survival of the fittest” mentality might harden the hearts of the haves against the have-nots.

Did Ronald Reagan’s famous comment about the Cadillac-driving welfare queen supplant the Gospel message in the hearts of the faithful? Napier and Jost found that progressives spent more time pondering the plight of the less fortunate. An inability to justify gaps in status left progressives frustrated and disheartened, they said

“Our research suggests that inequality takes a greater psychological toll on liberals than on conservatives,” the researchers wrote in the June issue of the journal Psychological Science, “apparently because liberals lack ideological rationalizations that would help them frame inequality in a positive (or at least neutral) light.”

Concern for others. Isn’t that a core Christian value?

The results support and further explain a Pew Research Center survey from 2006, in which 47 percent of conservative Republicans in the U.S. described themselves as “very happy,” while only 28 percent of liberal Democrats indicated such cheer.

If progressives are more alarmed by economic disparity than their typical conservative counterparts s, there are signs that change is coming. According to a Seattle Times article recently published in the Huffington Post, 15 percent of white evangelicals between 18 and 29, they no longer identify with the Republican Party. Older evangelicals are also questioning their traditional allegiance, but not at the same rate. The surprising results were taken from a September 2007 survey by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life.

Other polls indicate that traditional Republican wedge issues like gay marriage have little appeal for these voters.

There’s no guarantee that these voters will all swing Obama’s way, but progressives no longer need feel that their voices are echoing in the wilderness.

When it comes to the Great Depression, Herbert Hoover probably gets a bad rap. The fact that he shares a surname with W.H. “Boss” Hoover, whose eponymous firm helped popularize the vacuum cleaner, has only further cemented his reputation as an economic scapegoat. (We had a Hoover in the White House and the economy sucked!)

But however clean Hoover’s hands may be when it came to the stock market crash of 1929, there’s no getting around the fact that he helped pave the way for the current economic downturn.

How did it all go so wrong? Some history is in order.

Before becoming the nation’s chief executive, Hoover had accrued a portfolio of progressive credentials that would have had members of today’s Republican Party frothing at the mouth. For one thing, he specifically spoke out against the free-market philosophy that helped contribute to the worst economic times the United States has ever known.

In fact, as Secretary of Commerce in the Harding and Coolidge administrations, Hoover promoted the idea of government intervention in the economy as part of the Efficiency Movement.

John McCain, meet a real maverick.

By the time Hoover entered public life, he already had demonstrated personal bravery and professional competence –- two traits which place him head and shoulders above  members of the current administration. Trapped in China during the Boxer Rebellion, Hoover once risked his life to rescue some Chinese children.

Hoover’s concern for his fellow man continued during World War I.  He headed the Committee for Relief in Belgium. His capable action there, and later, as chief of the American Food Administration made him a hero across the globe. He was so competent, in fact, that when the Mississippi River flooded in 1927, the governors of six states asked for Hoover by name.

Health units organized by Hoover succeeded in eliminating malaria, pellagra, and typhoid fever from many flood-stricken areas.

Imagine if Hoover had been in the Bush administration after Hurricane Katrina. The president might have said, “Heckuva job, Hoovie,” and meant it.

Alas, Hoover’s term as president was not to be as distinguished.  Fear factored into the election of 1928. Somehow, it always seems to when Republicans win. In this case, the Catholicism of Democrat Al Smith sent many voters to the GOP.

Then the bottom fell out of the stock market, and Hoover’s economic ideology betrayed him.

Throughout his public life, Hoover had pushed the idea that government and business should work cooperatively to solve problems. It was a strategy that had worked well in the past.

. “I suppose I could have called in the Army to help,” he said regarding the 1927 flood, “but why should I, when I only had to call upon Main Street.”

One of Hoover’s first responses to the Depression was to ask employers to keep workers on the payroll. But most firms were unable or unwilling to keep paying workers for that amount of time.

Many of the tools that Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s administration used to combat the Depression were tried first by Hoover, albeit on a smaller scale. It seemed that Hoover couldn’t grasp the enormity of the problem confronting him.

But what role did Hoover play in the current economic mess?

It happened while he was serving as Commerce Secretary. Hoover worked with bankers and the savings and loan industry to promote a newfangled financial instrument called the long-term home mortgage.

The rest, as they say, is history. Aided and abetted by today’s conservative mantra of deregulation, the once-benign mortgage industry now stands at the center of the current financial crisis. “Liars’ loans,” subprime mortgages and dubious investment packages have spread financial woe into such diverse segments as plastic surgery, truck sales and retail sales.

But remember. It’s not a Hoover thing. It’s a Republican thing.