Krusin' the Capitol
By Nebraska State Senator Lowen Kruse
2005
Week 3
January 22, 2005
Hi
Wow. A member of a Bellevue church phoned this week, to ask about a sermon I
gave over ten years ago. He wanted to explore it further and needed a book
or two. Now THAT does make one's whole day. There is a God.
A lot of good bills and positive news. But tucked into it all is the
discouraging. For example, this week Harold Anderson, the retired publisher of the
World-Herald, came out in his column with a strong appeal for a return to a
partisan legislature. O my. I like his writing and generally appreciate his
thoughts but this is a terrible idea. It will not go anywhere, but I should
speak to it.
Since I assumed it was a viable thought before I got into this job, I should
speak to the idea from a legislator's perspective. If my constituents have a
feasible proposal, or I have something I would like to try, I put in a bill,
learn quite a bit as my staff constructs it, and learn more as we have a public
hearing in front of committee members who can ask the pertinent questions.
If we get a positive response all I have to do is find 24 other senators who
agree with me and we can approach the statewide arena. I do not need the
speaker's permission. I do not know what party all of these persons belong to,
and really do not care. The party does not measure one's thoughts. A broad
representation of the corners of the state does measure the worthiness of a bill.
and we can have a go at "perfecting" it.
In a partisan legislature, most of that does not happen. The party will
decide which ideas to bring. Unelected persons will control the agenda. If my
constituents and I have a good idea there will be no hearing unless the party
leaders agree. Newcomers, of which we have eight this year, can either suck up
to the establishment or sit back in a corner of the process. Instead, we are
free agents, with a lot of energy, debating new ideas as well as old. In most
states, unpopular ideas will not even be discussed.
I shudder to think of the heads of agencies trying to make their case to
leaders who do not have the whole picture, are not in the public debate, and are
subject to election pressures of having a pretty package.
I have been active in the structure of both major parties during my career
and have a great appreciation for what they do well. Dealing with reforming
obscure statutes that really need some help is not one of them.
In this year's bills, Senator Bourne has a smoking ban which limits towns and
cities to be no more restrictive than the state. Upon closer reading, it is
a ban on smoking bans, as it does nothing of significance about smoking.
Clever title.
As a result, letters in the Lincoln Journal really lit up the place this
week. Lincoln just passed a ban on smoking in all restaurants and bars. By a big
margin. This would void their action. Sooner or later someone is going to
put this up to a vote of the whole state. When the smoke clears on that one it
will be a very clear day.
The debate will be fun, and I welcome it. Some things are clearly worth the
argument, which helps involve the public. In this, for example, whose freedom
is to be respected? The smoker's, the nonsmoker's, the worker's, the
owner's? Most anti-ban folks say the business owner should have freedom to run the
business as (he) pleases. Not likely. If he chooses to wash the dishes in
cold water because it saves money, he will be shut down. Public health trumps
personal profits.
The W-H published the three versions of the Ten Commandments -- Jewish,
Catholic/Lutheran, and Protestant. Very helpful in that legal debate. People
generally assume that the commandments are not sectarian, just universal wisdom.
There has been a considerable re-chiseling of Moses' stone tablets. Most of
the public displays are the Catholic version.
The differences are sectarian. The prohibition against "worship graven
images" was not inserted for over 2500 years after Moses. The reformers thought
Catholic statues were not proper, so tweaked the commandments. Far more
significant is "Thou shalt not murder" in the original Hebrew version, which was
changed by Protestants, Lutherans and Catholics to "Thou shalt not kill." In the
Hebrew, "murder" is of a member of one's own tribe and "kill" is a member of a
foreign tribe.
So the Hebrews could kill their enemy without breaking a commandment. But
Christians cannot kill their enemies without a lot of manipulating of other
scripture.
The most serious twisting of commandments scripture is the authority given
the ten. Some Christians say "On this hangs all the law and the prophets" --
and our constitution. Not by a long shot. Jesus said the law and the prophets
are summarized in two "laws" and neither is among the ten. Our constitution
clearly has a strong religious base, but that base has much more authority than
the ten. The real offense in this is to the Jews, for whom the ten is a
small section of their laws. We dismiss much of their [and our!] scripture in
order to elevate the ten.
Life is not so simple. Be kind to one another.
Lowen
Back to Top
Krusin the Capitol Index
Home Page
|
