The Public Square - PodCast with David Zanotti

Why would someone be buried with a fork in their suit coat pocket?

When the mourners came to the casket at the wake, they were more than puzzled to find a fork prominently displayed in his suit coat pocket. Was this a restaurant owner or a food critic, or perhaps a bit of belated humor?

I heard this story in church the other day—true story.

A member passed away who was a dear friend of church potlucks. Whenever the servers would come by to clear his plate they would always tell him to keep his fork.

After a while he figured it out. You keep your fork because there is something more coming, like a great dessert, to close out a wonderful meal.

So he was fond of remembering to keep his fork because something better is coming.

Toward the end of his life, this potluck proviso became a spiritual reality.

This faithful congregant came to realize that the next life—the one we are all heading to, holds eternal, limitless possibilities for those who have discovered faith in Jesus Christ.

I go to prepare a place for you, Jesus said, a place of celebration, restoration, a feast of endless proportions, where all things are made right. A place you can only call heaven.

Sort of like the dessert part of living.

So this man of Christian faith asked to be buried with a fork in his pocket to symbolize to all those who would see his remains, that he died believing that in Christ the best is yet to come.

C.S. Lewis was fond of saying there are no normal people. Everyone we bump into is in fact immortal—a living soul that will spend a place in eternity. We all will live forever—the question is where?

Chuck Colson has a problem and it might impact you.

A lot of people know Chuck Colson’s story as the Chief of Staff in the Nixon Administration. And most people know how Chuck’s life was dramatically changed by a personal encounter of faith in Jesus Christ. The ministry Chuck founded at Prison Fellowship is a testimony to the power of the Gospel in changed lives, beginning with the Founder.

Now a federal judge wants Chuck and Prison Fellowship out of federal jails. The Americans United for Separation of Church and State—a group to the left of the

ACLU—has won a district court case against Prison Fellowship.

Their premise is two-fold. First, they hate the Bush Administration’s Faith-based-initiatives and want them stopped. Prison Fellowship funded the program in question with 40% support from your tax dollars.

Second, the federal judge looks to have gone way overboard in a 140 page decision pointing out his personal bias against evangelicals and trying to mark them as a fringe element in society. At first review this decision looks dangerous to the religious liberty of all.

It reminds us of the frightening decision made by a federal judge in Indiana that barred prayer in Jesus name from the Statehouse. It bears a strange resemblance to the case of Michael Newdow and the pledge of allegiance.

Judges drove prayer and the mention of God from public schools. Are we happy with the results?

Now a judge wants to ban evangelical ministry from prisons? Can that make any sense at all?

There is another step to protecting marriage that we can do today.

The Federal Marriage Amendment is going to take a while.

In the process, we must find candidates willing to work for marriage in both parties and fund them. We can also pay very close attention to state marriage amendments. A few key states like Florida and Pennsylvania are still without them. Not good. Pennsylvania still does not have the ballot initiative which means only the legislature can pass this amendment. That makes it very tough on the people.

Florida has a good amendment petition in circulation for 2008. If you can sign it, you should.

Now there is a bigger problem. Big business wants to change the Florida Constitution to require a 60% majority to pass any future constitutional amendments. This measure is a direct threat to the Florida marriage amendment.

44 states currently protect marriage but only 19 have state constitutional amendments. Granted, these amendments are worthless if the US Supreme Court decides to pull a Roe v. Wade attack on marriage – or are they?

If every state in the union had a constitutional definition of traditional marriage do you think the US Supreme Court would dare override all 50 states?

Do you think the President would enforce such an action?

To learn more about the realities of this historic debate please order a copy of Untangling the Marriage Debate.

Is there any chance for a federal marriage amendment?

The next step in passing the FMA should actually have been the first step. Unfortunately, marriage backers got things a little out of order.

If we learn anything from the history of amendments we learn that, short of having a civil war, the only way to pass constitutional amendments is with a broad base of support that must be translated into both political parties on Capitol Hill.

One party cannot make a constitutional amendment happen, especially in the Modern Senate. 60 votes are required to bring a measure to a vote and 67 votes are needed to pass the amendment. Remember, US Senators serve 6 year terms. Replacing the make-up of the Senate to make it more “pro-marriage” will take at least 6 years and maybe longer.

So, unless pro-marriage amendment organizations have a magic wand, somebody better wake up to the political realities of this debate. The only way to pass this amendment is to raise up a body of voters who will not support any candidate - Democrat or Republican - that will not vote for a federal marriage amendment. That’s the easy part.

Next, we the people, have to find candidates who are truly pro-marriage and fund them to run in Congressional primary races against candidates IN BOTH PARTIES.

If we cannot or are unwilling do these things, then all the rest is wishful thinking. One thing is certain, those opposed to marriage are doing those things right now.

Let’s say our federal marriage amendment is the right thing to do, and the language makes sense.

Is there a smart way to get it passed?

Take a look at your US Constitution. You will find 26 amendments since 1787. Now ten of those are the original bill of rights, so in reality the US Constitution has only been amended 16 times in history. Three of those amendments were the result of the Civil War. Two dealt with prohibition and cancelled each other out, so we are looking at 11 times the nation has made the big move toward a national amendment.

So what’s the point? That its hard to do or too hard to try?

No.

Is it that marriage isn’t worthy of Constitutional protection?

No.

The point is, if we want to change the Constitution we are looking at a historical process that requires a serious strategy to reach a national consensus.

Why?

Because to pass an amendment you must first gain the support of 2 out of every 3 members of Congress and then three fifths of the state legislatures. That doesn’t happen very often in history, and it has never happened by accident.

Just holding a news conference and writing a few letters just is not going to get the job done. The opponents of traditional marriage know that.

So what’s the next step?

We’ll talk about it tomorrow.

Lots of people want to change the US Constitution to protect the definition of marriage.

I agree that the legal definition of marriage is under attack and must be preserved, but when I crack open a copy of that old document I see some things that make me wonder.

First off, if we're being honest, the US Constitution was not designed for the practice of family law. Try to fit marriage into the existing document and it’s a pretty tough fit. OK, that’s what amendments are for.

The problem is, this would be the first time such a matter would leave the realm of state law and become a part of the constitution.

Aren’t constitutional conservatives supposed to fight for state’s rights and against federal intrusion?

Well, the Courts have made that a moot point. Since so many federal and state judges have decided to make marriage their own personal political plaything it seems the only way to keep marriage together is a federal amendment.

That’s an argument you hate to have to agree with, but it looks like the case. So a federal marriage amendment is a first time deal for America which means it is going to take a lot of support to get done.

How much support?

We’ll delve into that question tomorrow.

How important is your right to vote?

Let’s imagine you did not get to vote on who your US Senators would be.

The Constitution provides that every state gets two Senators no matter how large or small.

But let’s say that you didn’t get to vote on them. Let’s say a private club or corporation appointed them. How would you feel about the US Senate? Would you believe Senators were looking out for you?

My guess is you probably don’t feel much like that right now. After all the US Senate is the most privileged club in America. Those 100 members have a lifestyle, income and retirement that is way beyond most of our reach.

But at least we get to vote on who gets there. It didn’t used to be that way.

Up until the early 1900’s US Senators were elected by State Legislators. That’s right – the direct election of the Senate was a late amendment to the Constitution.

It came about largely because of the efforts of Teddy Roosevelt and the reformers that fought for the right of ballot initiatives and referenda. Prior to Teddy and his friends, you could not propose a state constitutional amendment by petition or fight to repeal a bad law or recall a corrupt politician. Fortunately Teddy and his friend charged that hill and won the battle for more ballot access – including the right to vote for the US Senate.

Are you in trouble for registering someone to vote?

Politicians, we can’t live with them or without them. Every now and then, it seems like we might want to try.

Incumbent partisan politicians are honked off that so many people and groups are working on voter registration, so they are tightening the rules.

Now this is just plain dumb. It is so difficult to get people registered and keep them motivated to participate in the first place – why would any decent citizen do anything to discourage civic participation?

The politicians claim they want to protect the precious system from fraud. So they have passed laws in a few states, like Ohio, to make it a penalty if you fail to immediately hand in a voter registration form to the board of elections or the Secretary of State. The law is being challenged in court as it should. It is a typical case of political overkill.

This kind of overkill is happening all over the country. In Florida, politicians and business interest groups are trying to take away the right to pass a constitutional amendment by a simple majority vote. They want to force the people into a 60% vote to amend their constitution.

There are campaign finance laws going up all over the nation that severely impact the rights of people to free speech and participation. All these kinds of laws claim the same noble purpose “to protect the system” but in reality we have to ask if they really exist to protect incumbents from facing the voters on fair ground.

When politicians start talking about reform – look out for your rights.

What’s the problem with kids today?

Back when I was a kid, there was a song by a guy named Mike Douglas.

“What’s the problem with kids today?”

I hated that song. I swore that if I ever grew up I would never attack kids or look down on them. Especially not just because I could drive a car and do all that other adult stuff.

The other day I was talking with a national journalist and college professor. He told me about his students and their profound lack of passion. Like me, this journalist grew up in the 60’s of the Civil Rights movement and Woodstock. We both remembered sharing a passion for changing the world, or at least complaining about it.

Today’s students, he lamented seem only passionate about making a living, nothing else.

I’m sure that is not universally true. I know a lot of kids who have a deep passion for faith, family and freedom. But there is a lingering question here.

If we teach the majority of our kids that they are nothing but material accidents of evolution and that they have no divine spark, nor is there any such thing or thought in the Universe, should we be surprised that so many lack a passion to change the world?

After all, if we are just all the result of a cosmic accident, why try changing the world or even changing your socks?

Ideas have consequences, our kids become a whole lot like what they are taught.

And what we accept in a culture, we teach.

“When the righteous thrive, the people rejoice; when the wicked rule, the people groan.”

That’s a popular quote from what period of history?

“When the righteous thrive, the people rejoice; when the wicked rule the people groan.”

Sounds pretty Biblical right?

In fact, it is a quote from the wisest man in world history, King Solomon of Israel. Easy for him to say – after all –he was the King.

This verse from the book of Proverbs long outlived King Solomon. In fact, according to historian David Barton, this passage from Proverbs 29.2 was among the most frequently quoted verses found in the writings of America’s Founders.

Those folks wrote about the Bible a lot. They read Scriptures to each other on the floor of the Congress, they even took official breaks to call for times of prayer and fasting.

They were not all saints. They had some of their doctrine really messed up, especially a few who held onto the evil notion of slavery. But trying to live together and govern states and a nation in full reference to Biblical truth was not foreign in early America. It was normal.

My guess, is if the Founders came back today and took over Congress, they would all end up in a lawsuit with the ACLU in about – one day’s time. Obviously we are so much wiser now than back then. We have obviously outgrown the archaic notion that righteousness pays civic dividends and wickedness brings anguish and pain.

Or have we just come up with more material distractions to enhance our denial?

If you don't know your rights is it more likely someone can take them away?

When I talk to "new" Americans-people who have come to this country legally and become citizens-I am often reminded of how much we take for granted. Especially when it comes to the right to vote and the right to take good ideas to the ballot. Most of us have no clue how this concept of ballot access came into being. Since we have heard about "ballot issues" all our lives, we just figure they have always been around.

Earning the right to the ballot was a long fight in America and in some states people still cannot initiate laws and amend their constitution. The history on this right is quite a story. It's highest point came during the Presidency of Teddy Roosevelt, who championed against the corruption of big business and big political machines. Teddy saw the right to go to the ballot and pass a measure with a majority vote of the people as critical to holding the Legislature accountable. He knew he was right because of the corruption he saw as big business and big government worked against the common good and used government as a tool for private gain. Unfortunately we see lots of that kind of collusion again today. This is not to say that business is bad or government is bad. But as Madison rightly said, "If men were angels-we'd need no laws."

Giving citizens a fair shot to bring initiatives and amendments to the ballot is one way to hold legislators accountable. Voting them into or out of office is another.

Do you know where your lawmakers stand on this important right to ballot access?

Do you know the rules in your state on how your constitution can be changed?

Do you know if anyone is trying to take those rights away from you?

To find out more click on the "Teddy was Right" section today.

There was a great victory you should know about.

Term limits is a national issue.

Holding state lawmakers accountable to the constitutional authority vested in the people is an essential principle to civil government.

Said more simply—if we are going to continue to live together under the same laws we have to know that lawmakers are playing by the same rules as the rest of us.

So when Florida lawmakers tried to pull a fast one on the people by switching out 8-year term limits for a faulty twelve-year proposal, we sounded the alarm.

People all across Florida responded—in fact we got responses from states all across this part of the country.

Phone calls and emails started flying into the Statehouse.

The deal that was supposed to stay quiet got exposed. The lines between the establishment insiders and the people who put them in office were clearly drawn.

The pollsters ran the numbers and could easily predict the twelve-year plan would go down to a huge defeat if it ever reached the ballot. They also saw voters just might throw out the rascals behind the twelve-year plan as well.

So in the last hours of the Legislative session the House pulled the anti-term limits measure from the ballot. The vote was 103 to 14.

Around the country no one could remember a time when the Legislature made such a move—pulling an amendment from the ballot which they placed there in the first place. The news coverage on this story was extremely limited. Most papers hate term limits and are not going to put this victory on the front page.

But we thought you should know.

If you prayed about this struggle in Florida, or wrote or called, we want to say thank you. You made a difference and the people of Florida made history and sent a message across the nation.

It’s a little old fashioned, I know, but this stuff still works.

The experts said it would never happen.

The Florida legislature decided to place an amendment on the ballot to wipe out 8-year term limits and pass a convoluted plan to give state lawmakers 12 years or more.

The idea was poorly written, defied the direct wishes of the voters, and messed up the balance of powers in state government. But lawmakers were determined to break out of term limits.

But then the people got involved. Lots of people began calling and emailing their elected officials. First the Senate buckled and caved. Then the House quickly followed. In the last hours of the session, the Legislature pulled the measure from the ballot.

They still left a horrible proposal called the 60% supermajority on the books but that’s another story.

Nobody thought there was a chance the Legislature would back down on term limits. But the Republican leadership realized the term limits measure would fail at the polls and they would likely go down with it, so they had to choose—8 years in office or no years in office. It looks like they did the math.

Thanks to all of you who logged onto aproundtable.org, got the facts, and contacted your elected officials. Folks, this stuff still works. If you’d like to be part of a team that is making a difference at the State Capitol please log on today and sign up for email updates. Or call us at 1.800.522.VOTE.

This would be a lot more fun with you on board.

Like the jelly of the month club gambling promoters always need a new hook, a new spin, a new con to make people believe gambling serves a public good.

This year the hook appears to be education—at least that is the promise being made in a major campaign to open casino gambling in Ohio.

The gambling moguls are promising to give high school students college scholarships if their moms and dads will legalize casinos. Here’s the math:

The casinos will drain $2.5 billion from the Ohio economy—at least most of it from Ohio. In return the gambling moguls will place $700 million each year into a scholarship fund. Qualifying high school grads can get tuition scholarships, provided they stay in Ohio to go to college.

The casinos don’t want you to notice that they will keep $1.8 billion for themselves. They want everyone to focus on the kids getting tuition scholarships.

But here is the real math question. What if parents didn’t gamble their paychecks away and chose to save every year for their kids education. If $700 million is a big number for scholarships, how much bigger and better and smarter is the idea of parents keeping their money and investing $2billion every year?

For that matter, what if Americans gave up gambling altogether—especially senior citizens? Can you imagine the billions of dollars that would suddenly become available to pay for health care, prescription drugs and education?

The gambling industry loves to tell us what we get if we play along. They never want us to see what playing their game really costs.