Sunday, July 25, 2010

Lawsuit Against Arizona To Move Forward

As lasted reported, the Obama Administration is moving forward with its ill-conceived lawsuit against Arizona’s tough new anti-immigration law. While many, if not most of the anti-immigration advocates are opposed to the lawsuit, I’m not one of them. I can almost see the puzzled look out there on many of your faces. Why would I, a long time proponent of national sovereignty, support a lawsuit to challenge a state’s anti-immigration law? Have I taken leave of my senses?

Have faith my friends. My reasoning is perfectly sound. The federal government as many of you already know does not have a comprehensive and enforceable law to prevent and enforce illegal immigration into the country. We have laws designed for that purpose, but they are either not properly enforced or they are simply not funded or are underfunded. Laws aimed at employers are all but ignored. Naturally, during election time, you’ll hear about a minor bust, but that’s about all. Here in Kentucky, we have numerous businesses which make no secret about hiring illegals and at this point, seem to have little to fear from ICE. Racetracks, farms, restaurants, and home improvement like roofing and lawn care are particularly popular industries since the employees are considered “independent contractors” and are paid in cash. Arizona’s law, which picks up these unraveled strings, ties them together in a way that does not conflict with existing federal law, and that’s the key.

You see, the US Justice Department is planning to argue that the federal government has sole jurisdiction over matters of immigration. No argument there. The federal government should set the tone on immigration policy. The trouble is, as outlined above, is that there is no overarching policy for illegal immigration. Arizona has carefully examined existing federal laws to make sure that their law did not conflict in any way with what was already in place. Secondly, the Constitution states that whatever rights not specifically assigned to the federal government are reserved by the states. Some argue that it’s actually the other way around; whatever rights not specifically assigned to the states are reserved by the federal government. This is the concept of state versus national sovereignty (this argument over state’s rights came to head during the Civil War, but that’s another article).

However, regardless of either position, what is clear is that while states can not have any laws which conflict with the federal government, a state may enact their own laws which compliment federal laws. That is, they can have the same or similar laws but stronger penalties or enforcement for example. Again, this is what Arizona’s lawmakers were careful to do. There is nothing about Arizona’s anti-immigration law other that its enforcement is more stringent that existing federal laws with emphasis on avoiding racial or ethnic profiling through additional training by law enforcement personnel.

Therefore, by moving forward with this ill-conceived lawsuit, the federal lawsuit will, albeit unwillingly, help establish a precedent by a federal court judge (assuming an unbiased and knowledgeable judge), and that will open the door for other states to follow suit. In addition, I predict this will serve as the impetus for Congress to get off its duff and finally get serious about creating a real law with real teeth aimed at stopping this invasion of America.

Apparently too, I’m not the only who feels this way. The attorney generals of 17 states have filed briefs as “friends of the court” in support of Arizona, along taking steps to create their own versions of the Arizona law. Those states are Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhoda Island, South Carolina, Texas, and Utah. Numerous counties thorough out the country have also passed laws similar to Arizona’s (Prince William County in Virginia comes to mind). Interestingly, despite’s Kentucky’s problems with illegal immigration, Kentucky’s Attorney General, Jack Conway, has not stepped up to plate and joined with the other 17 attorney generals. Jack Conway (D) is currently running for US Senate to replace outgoing Senator Jim Bunning (R). If this is any indication of how Conway will vote in Washington, I personally think we need tell “Wrong Way” Conway “no way” and send Rand Paul (R) to Washington instead, but that’s just me.

You can let either candidate know how you feel about illegal immigration by contacting their respective camps. Jack Conway may be reached at: His phone number is (502) 632-1820. You can contact Rand Paul through his website address of: His phone number is 1-866-232-9747. I’m sure both candidates would like to know your opinion, as would I.

The Costs of Illegal Immigration

Have you ever wondered just how much illegal immigration costs you and me as taxpayers? The good citizens of Arizona have to foot a $2.7 billion dollar tax bill to pay for illegals in that state. Kentuckians pay $326 million dollars to support their illegal aliens. In a poor, mostly rural state like Kentucky, that’s a lot of money which could go to education, roads, job programs, law enforcement, state parks, and the like. Folks in Illinois pay $4.6 billion dollars while Floridians pay $5.5 billion dollars. The people of the great state of Tennessee pay $547 million dollars while the taxpayers of the Empire State pay $1.4 billion dollars. All toll, US citizens pay a whooping $84 billion dollars in taxes to offset what illegal resident don’t pay at the local and state levels. If you factor in the costs at the federal level, that number increases to $113 billion dollars. To see what it costs you in your state click here:

Book Review: A Revisit with John Coats

You may remember I reviewed John Coats’ book, Original Sinners: A New Interpretation of Genesis. I thoroughly enjoyed this book. Not only was it entertaining, but Mr. Coats’ retelling of these timeless stories with a modern and personal take was totally engaging. What follows is a Q&A with Mr. Coats which I thought you would enjoy.

Q&A with John R. Coats, author of Original Sinners: A New Interpretation of Genesis

1. What inspired you to write a book based on the book of Genesis?

I wanted to do something different, to write a commentary on Genesis that took the conversation above the tiresomeness of the “is too,” “is not” squabble over whether the Bible is history. And I wanted to speak to both sides of that debate. The method I chose, learned some forty years ago, is not the usual extraction of a religious cum doctrinal lesson from the text, but that of mining the text for the human issues at its center, asking questions such as, “How are they like me, like us?” “If I dig around in their stories, will I see my own, something I need to see, however painful or pleasant?” “Might I understand more about me, about us, about being human?” I have a hunch that the book had been writing itself for decades, waiting for me to notice. It was Phillip Lopate, my teacher during my last semester at The Bennington Writing Seminars, who suggested that I draw from my biblical-theological background. When I’d written two essays, parts of which are in the book, he encouraged me to write a book. Three and a half years later, Original Sinners was published.

2. The book of Genesis is core to the values held by many throughout the world. What kind of relationship does your book have with an audience engrained with preconceived notions about how the original stories fit into life?

An interesting relationship for sure. It’s hard, isn’t it, to take a fresh look at something familiar, to see it with “new eyes”? The more you love it or hate it, the more difficult the task of seeing around the mindset to the thing itself. But that’s exactly what I ask readers to do—not throw away their notions about Genesis, mind you, but set them aside and consider Genesis as a narrative with human characters who do this, do that, do something else, and along the way find themselves confronted by life altering situations they neither asked for nor had anything to say about. Throughout the book, my focus is on the individuals in the stories, their behavior, character, whether they mature with time and experience, or stay the same. The inherent promise in this method of biblical interpretation is the possibility of seeing in the lives of the biblical characters not only a reflection of one’s own life, but discovering some clarifying truth. To facilitate that possibility, where there were parallels—and there were plenty—I’ve interlaced stories from my own life and the lives of people I’ve known. For instance, in Cain’s story and in Jacob’s I saw, and learned more about, my own darker impulses. As I dug deeper into the feud between Noah and his oldest son, I unraveled a four-decade old knot of resentment, and in both the young Jacob and Joseph I saw my own youthful penchant of jumping from one frying pan to next.

The pushback I expected from religious conservatives never materialized, but those who’ve read it have been excited at how the characters come alive. But I’ve been surprised and baffled by the rigid fundamentalism from the unreligious. The response shows up in a sort of syllogistic insistence that puts the same stamp onto anyone who finds value in the Bible. That’s a pretty broad sweep of humanity. I have a hunch it’s a reflection of the mostly silent rage from lives damaged by religion, and very real fears, some of which I share, about the political and financial power of the religious right.

3. After reading Original Sinners, people unfamiliar or new to the stories of Genesis might acquire an opinion far from a major consensus. Could you describe an argument that might arise from an encounter between these two perspectives?

Let’s say the reader in question is a single young woman raised in a “Bible-believing” family in a mid-sized American city. Taking a new job, she moves to a large city where she acquires a new, more cosmopolitan circle of friends. Their attitude toward religion and the Bible, while it is shocking to her, does lead her to question what she’d always assumed, to open up. She likes the freedom of it—a lot. But let it all go? Why the limited choices? One day she picks up a copy of my book and is surprised to discover that there is a tradition that offers a third choice. A few days later, she arrives at an event attended by her parents and several of her most vocal friends. She makes the introductions, and as she opens her briefcase to retrieve something, one of her friends spots the book, grabs it, and says, “You’re reading about Genesis?” Her parents, fearing their daughter had gone astray, say, “You’re reading about Genesis?”

She’s in a very tough position. The rise of religious fundamentalism with its denial of science and inherent threat to free thought and expression has spawned a pro-science, anti-Bible, and very expressive counter-movement in the “New Atheists.” The players on both sides of this game have little, if any, room for those who disagree with the “correct” position.

4. Interpretations often require one to examine a subject from a distance. What are some examples of distant views coming into focus you experienced while writing this book?

Like it or not, the Bible’s DNA is embedded in the foundations of Western civilization. It has influenced the shape of our society and the lives we live. Given that, the Bible belongs, in equal part, to everyone. Original Sinners demonstrates yet another way that the religious reader can teach the Bible, and for the reader who’s marginally religious or entirely unreligious, it demonstrates a way into the material that requires no “belief” beyond the universal constants of human experience.

5. Are you ever surprised by the types of readers you find enjoying Original Sinners?

I think my primary audience is the curious reader who is interested neither in being saved by religion nor in being saved from it, who, on seeing the word “Genesis” in the book’s title, will not assume to “know”, without further inquiry, what he or she will find between its covers. I thought the book would find an audience among readers who considered themselves “searchers,” “thinkers,” people who, at most, would likely never be more than marginally involved in religion but, nevertheless, might be curious about finding a way into the biblical material that did not require them to believe this or that. And it has. Where I’ve been surprised is hearing from conservative Christians who’ve found it useful. And there’ve been a few biblical scholars who’ve liked it, and others with advanced degrees as well as readers, men and women I know from my consulting days, others, whose lack of formal education past, say, high school has not in the least hampered their curiosity.

6. We all fall into the realm of making decisions based on our own previous life experiences. Has writing this book changed the course of actions you take in your life?

Yes. It’s a story I mentioned earlier, and that I tell in detail in the book. In outline, it goes like this: Almost forty years ago, during my final semester at the seminary, for reasons I considered more than a little suspect, the dean tried to expel me, and would have had my bishop not stopped him. The outrage cooled into a knot of resentment I’d never entirely come to terms with. Then, digging into the relationship between Noah and his oldest son, I was reminded of the relationship between Samuel and Saul, and the outrage I’d always feel for Samuel when I read the story. Digging deeper, I realized it was the same outrage. There’s more to the story, but the bottom line is that the knot is gone and I’m the wiser for it.

7. What kind of research did you have to undergo for this book? What fascinated you the most?

Lots of research, more than I’d imagined, and it was all fascinating. But then, I’m one of those odd ducks who loves spending day after day digging through obscure tomes. Still it had been decades since I’d done any kind of serious biblical studies, so I had some catching up to do. I decided to focus primarily on the Jewish scholars and, one by one, discovered the likes of James Kugel, Tamara Cohn Eskanazi, Robert Alter, Richard Elliott Friedman, Ellen Frankl, Everett Fox, and others. Their scholarship is unparalleled, they are very good writers and never suggest that I believe this or that.

However, I’d have to say that what fascinated me the most was the relationship I formed with the text, itself. I once heard a young man tell of his experience with a T’ai Chi master in Beijing, how it had taken three years of showing up most every morning, whatever the weather, before the master would regard him as a serious student. The old rabbis spoke of their experience with the Torah in the same light—Prove yourself willing to return and, in time, it will begin to reveal its secrets. That may sound strange, as if the “it” I’m referring to is a living thing, yet my experience of returning day after day for more than three years revealed a Genesis I’d never known, one that is alive with subtle meanings.

8. Do you have any projects lined up for the near future?

I now have a blog in the Religion section of the Huffington Post. I’ve been asked to post at least once a week. And I’m laying the groundwork for a book, this one on Exodus. Also, I’ve been making notes for several essays I have in mind. And I have a couple of short stories and a completed novella that I’d like to go back and polish, but that’s for another time.

9. What would you like your readers to take with them after reading this book?

A new method of interpretation, not the usual non-scholar’s method of extracting a religious cum doctrinal lesson from the text, but a way of mining the text for the human issues at its core.

Author Biography

John R. Coats holds his master's degrees from Virginia Theological Seminary and Bennington College Writing Seminars. A former Episcopal priest, he was a principal speaker and seminar leader for the More To Life training program in the United States, Great Britain, and South Africa and an independent management consultant. He lives with his wife in Houston, Texas.

For more information please visit and connect with him on Facebook.

Sunday, July 11, 2010

Obama Sues Arizona over SB1070

President Obama has ordered the Justice Department to formally file suit against Arizona. Their allegation is that the Arizona’s new tough anti-illegal law is “unconstitutional” in that matters relating to immigration fall exclusively to the federal government. In what could be dubbed as “Showdown at the OK Corral” over the issue of illegal immigration, Arizona’s Governor Brewer may want to hang out a “Welcome to Tombstone Mr. President” as his administration bumbles into a lawsuit they really don’t want any part of.

The general rule regarding federal law versus state law is that a state law can not impede or contradict existing federal law. It does not matter if the federal law is haphazardly enforced or not. At present, the federal government does not have a single coherent law regarding illegal immigration, and certainly takes an uneven approach to its enforcement with little in the way of “teeth”. As a result, illegals have little fear at being stopped. An arrest and deportation is of only minor inconvenience, and they’re often right back in this country within a few days. Employers too have little to fear from federal government which rarely investigates and even more rarely prosecutes (lack of personnel and money). Individuals seen “running for the border” are often not stopped under existing federal law, who must be stopped in the act.

Arizona’s new law, however, provides law enforcement officials with the legal authority to stop and arrest anyone thought to be here illegally provided they have justifiable probable cause. To avoid charges of discrimination, Arizona requires all law enforcement personnel to take racial sensitivity classes, with an emphasis on avoiding racial profiling. In short, Arizona lawmakers anticipated the Justice Department’s lawsuit and took every step to ensure its law would be compliant with existing federal law.

Seventeen other states have begun to take steps to enact similar legislation as Arizona’s. Three states, Utah, South Carolina, and Oklahoma have already taken steps to stop illegal immigration ( Oklahoma has, for instance, made it a felony for transport or shelter illegal immigrants, and they’ve blocked efforts by illegal immigrates to obtain driver’s licenses and in-state tuition. A bill will be introduced in 2011 to seize the property of any business that knowingly employs illegal immigrants. A good step, but I wonder if this includes religious groups who act as if they are exempt from local, state, and federal laws when it comes to illegal immigration. They often smuggle, shelter, and find housing and jobs for illegal aliens, and at the same time, instruct them in steps they can take to circumvent existing laws concerning public assistance.

Meanwhile, Obama has ratcheted up the rhetoric about providing illegal immigrates with blanket amnesty. Obama said during a speech, which received little national press coverage, at American University on July 1 that he would seek to provide the estimate 11 million illegals with “pathway for legal status” and went on to claim that our southern border have never been more secure. Under his version, illegal immigrates would have to acknowledge that they broke the law; register; pay their taxes and possibly a fine; learn English. Geez, I wonder if that would have worked for Al Capone? (“Ah, sorry about that St. Valentine Day’s thing. I’d like to pay back taxes on my rackets in cash. Anyone want a beer?”). Obama has even hinted that he may bypass Congress and issue an executive order. Wouldn't surprise me one bit. Obama has become quite adapt at doing end runs around Congress. For more, I suggest checking out:

Book Review

There’s an old joke that if you remember the sixties, you probably weren’t there. That’s the basic premise behind Bernard von Bothmer’s new book, “Framing the Sixties: The Use and Abuse of a Decade from Ronald Reagan to George W. Bush”, at least, if you’re a Republican. The sixties, as the author correctly points out, was really two eras. The first, “the good sixties”, was from the late 1950’s to the Kennedy assassination in 1963. In fact, up until Kennedy’s murder, America was still basking in the afterglow of the Eisenhower Years, with a few exceptions such as the failed Bay of Pigs invasion, Cuban Missile Crisis, which brought the world to the literal brink of nuclear war (Soviet Premier Khrushchev ordered the Russian Navy to stand down due to, in large part according to Khrushchev, Kennedy’s “lack of experience”), Sputnik, the Berlin Wall, and America’s first tentative steps into Vietnam.

Von Bothmer goes to describe “the bad sixties” as 1964 to 1974 as a time of America’s quagmire in Southeast Asia, student protests, the SLA, Black Panthers, the Gray Panthers, the SDA, set-ins, campus takeovers, Chicago Police Riots during the Democratic Conventions, the murders of Dr. King and RFK, the War on Poverty, moon landings, and finally, America’s military defeat in Vietnam and Watergate. In between we had the Civil Rights, Women’s, and Gay movements. We had NOW, rock’n’roll, love-ins, the Summer of Love, Hell’s Angels, the Green Movement, drugs, and sex galore. It was an era of pushing the limits…any limits.

The book, all 232 pages of it, was interesting; though provocative may be the more operative word since von Bothmer contends there is a subtle battle raging between the Left and Right as to who will ultimately “own” the legacy of the 1960’s. According to the author, it was the Right who broke the 1960’s into essentially the “good” and “bad” years, with the obviously the Republican afterglow of Eisenhower representing the best part and the Democratic led latter years as representational of all that was bad about the era (of course, Watergate serves as a explanation point for the Democrats while Vietnam underscores the decade for the Republicans).

It has often been said that the victors write the history. Personally, I don’t believe the history of the sixties has yet to be written. The sixties was as much about conservative blue collar white kids and poor blacks marching off to a unpopular war as it was for the sons of the rich being deferred or the burning of draft cards, bras, and communes. The book makes a great effort at trying to make some sense of an incredible era in today’s political light, though it is clear that the author lays much of the blame at misrepresenting the icons of the 1960’s at the feet of the Republicans. There was much that good about the 1960’s, and much that was bad. I don’t think either side is any more right or wrong as the other. It was also a time when people believe we could do better as a society, and they tried. Oh, and by the way, I was there.

Poll Results

Our last poll asked if you thought the federal government should sue Arizona. 37% of you said they should while 63% of you did not. Actually, I think it’s a good idea. Have I lost my mind you wonder? No; at least I don’t think so. The reason is because I see this blunder by the DOJ as something of a “friendly” lawsuit. The lawsuit will show the true intent of Arizona’s law was to protect its citizens. Secondly, that it was designed to be compliant with federal law (such as it is). Third, a decision in favor of Arizona will spur on other states to enact similar legislation. And fourthly and perhaps most importantly, a defeat of the DOJ may, just may mind you, prompt Obama and Congress to do something about illegal immigration instead of sit there on Capitol Hill like a bunch of bobble heads.