Who the hell is Richard Cohen? He is a columnist in the Op/Ed section of the Washington Post. And he is an idiot. In a piece published today, Giuliani’s JFK Moment, he presents the argument that a person’s religion should not have an impact on his or her qualification for president. Wrong, wrong, wrong!

Every man and woman has a religion. That religion may be Catholicism, Islam, Wiccan, or even Atheism. It may be self, some concept of a Utopian society or a set of rules or values by which to live. Religion is basically the practices and beliefs that bind man to his god. A person’s god is the thing he worships. The thing he worships is what he devotes his time and treasure toward. To discover the religion of any man or woman, understand what is important to them. Is it power, financial security, family, preservation of a series of rites and rituals, music in church, drugs, and this list is only limited by the number of people to ever exist.

So as Mr. Cohen argues that a man’s religion is not relevant to his ability to be the leader of this country, he goes on to describe how a schizophrenic president will then benefit the guiding principles of his own religion - rationalism, ending the war in Iraq, and homosexual marriage. For a man that worships rationalism, he is most certainly being very irrational. Man cannot be separated from his religion without a tremendous amount of upheaval, angst, and violence. So to take Mr. Cohen’s position is to deny a fundamental truth about the mind and spirit of man. Rather than ignore the religion of the presidential candidates, we should seek to understand them. Because by understanding the religion of the candidates we can begin to understand the kinds of decisions they will make. Mr. Cohen sees in Mr. Giuliani for what he is, a rationalist and a secularist; and this agrees with Mr. Cohen’s religion.

This posting and more like it can be found at The CommonMan Commentaries.

A couple of days ago I wrote about Health Care as an issue in the presidential campaign.  In that post I wrote,

“…Giuliani wants to allow health insurance policies to be sold across state lines. “

Among all the proposals for reforming the health care system in America, this proposal will likely have the most dramatic effect on the way health insurance operates in this country.  Currently, if you work for a company in the same state where their insurance policy is written, that policy has been approved by that state’s Department of Insurance or some equivalent office.  Each state has its own laws governing how insurance plans can be marketed, what they must cover, and the level of benefit.  So if you work for a company based in New York, your health insurance policy has been approved by the state regulators in New York, and therefore, meets New York regulations for insurance.

Giuliani’s proposal is to allow a group or individual residing in New York to purchase an insurance policy that has been approved by any state.  Giuliani’s proposal effectively forces the state insurance regulators and legislators to compete with each other.  Can you imagine the debate in the New York State Assembly over requirements for health insurance if they have to consider the legislation that governs policies approved by the state of Texas?  Eventually, the states with high regulatory requirements like New York and New Jersey will find that more and more health insurance policies will be sold in their state that skirt around their regulations.

What Giuliani is proposing is exactly the kind of proposal in which the authors of the Constitution empowered Congress to do, promote the unimpeded interstate trade of goods and services.  Insurance is one of the last remaining vestiges of interstate commerce controlled by the states.  Giuliani is right to propose this change.  The marketplace will move far more quickly to adapt to this new environment to make products that consumers want and need than any legislation or regulation that government can enact.

The Washington Post posed the following:

Last month, a Hindu chaplain opened the U.S. Senate with prayer. Some critics say that violated “One Nation Under God,” others church-state separation. What do you think?

We could argue about what these principles mean, but regardless of their meaning, I think a Hindu prayer in Congress violates neither principle.

One Nation Under God

“One Nation Under God” is NOT “A Nation Under One God.” We are a nation whose laws are subservient to divine (natural) law. That is what “One Nation Under God” means. A Hindu prayer in Congress does not violate “One Nation Under God” but expresses a different understanding of the divine or natural law.

Church-State Separation

Prayers delivered in our Congressional chambers are not spiritual events, but political ones. And from a political perspective, a follower of Hindu is represented in the Congress as are Jews, Christians, Muslims, Zoroastrians, Buddhists, Wiccans, Druids, and Druze.

Because all prayers delivered publicly in Congress are political and not religious, the church-state separation issue is irrelevant. Congress allowing a Hindu prayer is the equivalent of the IRS giving an organization tax-free status because it is a religious group.

Finally, for those Christians that have their panties in a knot over this, let me remind you of the teaching of scripture,

As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one. For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) but to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. - 1 Corinthians 8:4-6

Is a prayer delivered to a non-existent god even a prayer? From the perspective of the “Christians” in Congress, did the prayer even exist? If one has a monotheistic religion, then a prayer to some other god is no prayer at all, but just meaningless words, nothing.

If you believe that the prayer of a Hindu is to another god besides the One God, then, by definition, you are not a monotheist.

This posting and more like it can be found at The CommonMan Commentaries