Kamala Harris, California’s junior senator and perhaps a 2020 presidential candidate, is walking into the quagmire of political correctness with a nominee for the federal court in Nebraska. It has to do, in part, with religion. Most politicians tend to avoid questions related to religion because the risk of offending someone is far greater than the payoff of criticism, however justified.

In this particular case, Senator Harris, along with Senator Mazie Hirono of Hawaii are raising questions about Brian Buescher, who has been nominated by Donald Trump to serve on a federal district court in Nebraska. It turns out that Mr. Buescher is a member of the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic fraternal organization.

The Knights of Columbus is an all-male group, clearly an anachronism, but as a private organization, they have the right to restrict their membership in this way. An editorial in the Wall Street Journal quotes Senator Hirono as saying that the Knights “hold a number of extreme positions, particularly on same-sex marriage and abortion.”

But the question is should Mr. Buescher be disqualified because of guilt by association. After all, John F. Kennedy was also a member of the Knights, but he made compelling arguments that if elected president, he would separate church from state and make decisions based on the constitution and not the bible.

Mr. Buescher has somewhat followed President Kennedy’s strategy and has said that as a judge he would uphold precedent by both the Supreme Court and the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.

It is certainly understandable that Senator Harris has concerns about the associations of any person being considered for a judgeship, or any number of other federal jobs. But the problem is, where do we draw the line?

The French historian Alexis de Tocqueville found that one of the unique characteristics of Americans is how they form groups, and strongly identify themselves with these groups. In one sense, a group provides support for individuals. In a different sense, a group provides baggage for individuals.

So, a key question becomes, how can someone belong to a group, enjoy the benefits, and not be responsible for those components of the group that are not in their comfort zone?

Some groups are very purposeful, such as a professional scientific organization. But others are based on beliefs, even myths. Religious groups tend to resemble the latter.

But religion is such an engrained part of our past, that it is unrealistic to limit those who are qualified to hold positions such as judgeships to those who do not have religious affiliations.

The bottom line seems to be that individuals can have religious affiliations, not necessarily because joining a religion was motivated by rational thinking or even an emotional need for community. Rather, it is something that is almost in their genes, at least in the recent history of them and their families. The question is whether or not, like John F. Kennedy, the individual can separate the secular from the religious. If they can, this is tantamount to an individual acknowledging that religion may serve a purpose for them, but when it comes to decisions that impact others, it has to sit on the sidelines.

I definitely want to see Kamala Harris succeed and not fall into rabbit-holes that can be avoided. She has had her own experiences with religion, growing up in both a black Baptist church and a Hindu temple. But as a public official, she is very comfortable taking the road of rationality. Our goal is to increase the number of humans who are comfortable with reason and empathy. In the process, we may have to forgive some people for how they got there.

The post Kamala Harris: Walking the Tight-Rope of Political Correctness appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Unlike Donald Trump or Roy Moore, Al Franken seems to have a reasonable level of self-awareness. Hopefully that can put him in a position to provide us with a few lessons to learn from the mistakes that he has made. First, a few basic points about the situation.

1. The obvious – what Al Franken did to Leann Tweeden, Lindsay Menz and potentially other women is thoroughly inappropriate and reflects the lack of boundaries that many men have towards women. At best, Franken seems to have mistaken sexual harassment and assault as mere chumminess.
2. Franken should not be expelled from the U.S. Senate. Nor should Roy Moore if elected, just as Adam Clayton Powell should not have been expelled from the House in the 1960s. In a democracy, our representatives are elected by constituents and they should not be replaced until the voters decide otherwise. This does not mean the Franken should not resign if he thinks that his character has been compromised to the extent that he can no longer function properly and effectively.
3. As a comedian, Franken has lived in a world in which limits are pushed, especially regarding issues of sex. It goes with the territory. As Franken states in his book, Giant of the Senate, he knew at an early age that he wanted to be a comedian. That meant that he was going into dangerous territory regarding most any definition of propriety. It’s a lot easier to be an informal comic than one who makes a living by creating popular humor.
4. There are some social settings that are almost made for “bad behavior.” Going on a tour of U.S. military bases in Afghanistan and Iraq as Franken and Leann Tweeden did, created a recipe for bawdy behavior. The soldiers are horny, and sex is a big part of what they want to hear about. At the very least, the want a lot of innuendos about sex.This culture clearly carries over to what the performers are doing when not on stage. It is not altogether unexpected that Franken would take liberties with Ms. Tweeden, just as he did with his audiences.At the risk of sounding like a prude, these sorts of trips are unfortunate opportunities for boys to act like boys. It is further collateral damage from the tragedy of war, and why war should be avoided whenever possible.
5. In Franken’s book, he repeatedly talks about his love for and loyalty to his wife Franni Bryson. It might have been best for him to tone that down in light of his previous indiscretions.
6. There is an obvious absurdity about Franken’s actions being investigated by and judged upon by his peers on the Senate Ethics Committee. Is there anything ethical about the means by which they get into office?

We boys have a lot to learn. Women can teach us a great deal and we have to take ourselves to school. In this case, popular culture is not our friend. We have to think beyond so much of what we read, see on TV or in the movies, or to quote an infamous president, how we behave and speak in locker rooms.

Bill Maher and others have reminded us that taking political correctness to the extreme leads to a very boring world. It is essentially devoid of humor. Maybe Al Franken can take his Harvard-educated mind and help us learn ways to properly respect women and not unwittingly abuse, while at the same time not having us walk on pins and needles in every mixed gender situation. Men don’t want to be like Mike Pence and fear being alone in a room any woman other than their wives. We have much to learn, and maybe Al Franken can help us along the way.

The post A few thoughts about Al Franken’s Current Situation appeared first on Occasional Planet.