We Must be Talking

  Christian Nationalism               Gerry OShea Christian nationalism is best understood as an ideology highlighting the belief that God’s providence was involved in the American break with English rule in the 1775 Revolution. Adherents to this creed see the divine finger of approval guiding the revolutionaries in forming a new Christian country and in a continuing influence since. It suggests that real Americans should be baptized Christians who subscribe to a country with a special moral assignment allegedly sanctified by their god. Christian nationalism exists in a spectrum from the quiet but insidious kind evident among most evangelicals to the prominent leadership roles played in our time by the likes of Representative Lauren Boebert from Colorado, Governor Ron DeSantis in Florida, Senator Joshua Hawley from Missouri, Neil Gorsuch on the Supreme Court and a multitude of others who believe that the separation of church and state was never meant to preclude their conviction ab

         The G20 is an intergovernmental group of 19 powerful countries, plus European and African Union representatives, who meet annually to discuss a unified approach to dealing with major economic and social problems. Its members include Russia and China, as well as powerful Western countries such as Germany, France, and the United States. Gabriel Zuchman, the noted economist, in a report to the group, focuses on the rates of capital taxation paid by billionaires, which are typically about a quarter of what the average person pays. He points out that taxes fall far more heavily on average people than on billionaires, whose main assets are simply not taxed. Zuchman puts it very clearly: “In effect, the middle class is subject to wealth taxation while billionaires manage to avoid it.” In a recent book on taxation titled “The Triumph of Injustice” authored by Mr. Zuchman and his colleague in the University of California, Emmanuel Saez, they provide some eye-opening and shocking

  The Boundary Commission 1924         Gerry OShea In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, a vibrant Irish Parliamentary Party represented Irish nationalist aspirations and demands in Westminster. Charles Parnell first provided able and strong leadership, and John Redmond took over at the helm after his demise. The Third Home Rule Bill passed in 1913 was greeted by massive celebrations in Dublin. Finally, the country would have its own legislature for the first time since Grattan’s Parliament was prorogued in 1800, and that gathering excluded Catholics from serving. Patrick Pearse, one of the leaders of the Republican Fenian tradition, welcomed Home Rule while warning presciently that if the British reneged on its implementation, there would be “hell to pay.” A few months before the celebrations in Dublin, Sir Edward Carson, who, along with James Craig, provided the main leadership in the Loyalist community in Northern Ireland, spoke in Craigavon, outside Belfast, before mor

  Democracy 2024           Gerry OShea This year, 2024, is being justifiably hailed as the year of elections. Almost half the world’s population lives in countries that will be voting this year. It should be a global watershed affirming human rights and the rule of law, but a closer look provides only limited reason for celebration. Consider some of the results to date. In India, in the largest election held in human history, Narendra Modi, the Hindu strongman, won re-election but by a surprisingly reduced majority. The legitimacy of the election is not being questioned, but with some political opponents and journalists locked up because of their opinions, Modi’s ideas on democracy are questionable. In March, thousands of Russians gathered in Moscow’s Red Square to celebrate Vladimir Putin’s reelection. Three Kremlin-approved losing candidates showed up to give credibility to the charade - Putin allegedly got 86% of the votes cast. Behind this tightly controlled scene lay a gri

    Ralph Waldo Emerson, the leading 19th-century American intellectual, warned that adhering to accepted “truths” sometimes blinds people to wider realities. He named this limited perspective as leading to “a foolish consistency that is the hobgoblin of little minds.” I thought of Emerson when last month, the homosexuality conundrum was addressed by Pope Francis and his team of advisors in the Vatican. The Catholic Church is in the middle of a major internal debate about the standing of LGBTQ members in the church. On the one side we have the clear consistent church teaching that God created two sexes, male and female to take care of human procreation. This line of thinking stresses the obvious physical dependence and attraction between men and women, that result in new life. “Increase and multiply” remains the biblical command that must be obeyed and has a divine imprimatur. This leaves no room for same-sex intimacy, incapable of pregnancy, which is marked as unnatural, devia