Dan Barker’s Freedom from Religion Foundation is immersed in their annual war against all things religious. That is of course how they view it: a war. In this war, they have had quite a few successes, in large part because they realized early on that public sentiment was not on their side. That is, they …
In Part 3, I promised to give an example of the totalitarian attempt to suppress religious expression in the public sphere. Here we go. Consider the HARRIS v. McRAE Supreme Court case of 1980. This case revolved around the Constitutionality of the Hyde Amendment. You will recall that Roe vs. Wade had made abortion on …
The last part ended with a question that this part shall now answer. Why? Because ‘religious’ views are just one example of a ‘world view.’ I asked earlier, “Ought not our attitudes and behaviors in political society be driven by our views about the world? If not our own views about the world, then whose …
This morning I posted a lengthy post on the Jaffe Memo, a document provided by a vice-president of Planned Parenthood in 1969. This memo has been making its rounds because it advocates for the encouragement of homosexuality, forced abortions, adding sterilants to the water supply, and so on and so forth. All this, from an …
This is why I led off with the John Adams quote. ‘Moral and religious people’ will continue to be ‘moral and religious’ whatever freedoms or restrictions are placed on them by the government. I might say: “Libertarianism was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the [government] of any other.” There are any number of forms of government that can work with a ‘moral and religious people.’ For an amoral or immoral or anti-moral or non-religious or anti-religious people, no kind of government is going to work for the long haul.
I just posted this column at The Cypress Times and in the meantime, contributor Kathy posted her own post here at Sntjohnny.com which I thought had a lot of good points. Click on her link to read what she had to say. Click ‘read more’ below to finish reading my column.
This thing down in Florida where a pastor of a congregation not much bigger than my thumbnail has threatened to burn korans has reached the heights of absurdity. Pastor Jone’s one long publicity stunt has paid off in spades. It has attracted all kinds of attention. Even Obama has noticed, and given how hard it is for a commoner to attract his eye, that’s really saying something. But maybe not. President Oblivious seems to have a keen eye for potential beer summits or things touching on Islam.
Now, Interpol has announced this warning:
LYON, France – INTERPOL has today issued a global alert to its 188 member countries following the request of Pakistan’s Minister of the Interior, and its own determination, that if the proposed Koran burning by a pastor in the US goes ahead as planned, there is a strong likelihood that violent attacks on innocent people would follow.
It is my hope that in facing possible imprisonment I will be able to call attention to the shredding of the Constitution and alter some perspectives. Of course, I should say, the continued shredding of the Constitution, as this is only one of the clearest violations of the rule of law and the ‘consent of the governed’ to come down the pike. It is my hope that maybe, just maybe, we’ll decide that the Constitution matters and that if we want to make society-wide changes we’ll at least have the decency to do it the right way, by amending the Constitution if necessary.
Kevin Hundt of La Crosse, WI seems to think so:
Atheists do not have “more” say than religious people, we just don’t want government (public-owned) resources to be used to promote religion. Religious people already have tax-free churches; if you want statues and monuments, you can put them there. No one is demanding anyone “hide” their religious belongings – when you all put up those 10 commandments signs in your yards, did anyone complain? No, that’s your property. Put up whatever you want there. But government property is my property, so keep your backward magic superstition off my lawn. [Emphasis in the original newspaper]
One purpose of the post is to highlight the obvious dangers, illustrated over and over again throughout history, and in the last century in particular, of having secular humanists and atheists in charge of bestowing rights. What they giveth, they can taketh. And they have often taketh.
But another purpose of this post is to point out to the many Christians calling for ‘universal health care’ that if you are claiming that God has bestowed certain rights such as health care, you’ve got to back that up somehow. Your sentimental arguments, sincere and well meaning, have as much weight to me as sentimental arguments like “God makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside, don’t you want that, too?” have weight with atheists. In short, none.
Why? Does it mean that I am indifferent to those who struggle to receive adequate health care? Not at all. It does, however, have important implications as to how we proceed to address that issue
I’m pretty sure that the founders of this country had a similar view. They wouldn’t recognize the bloated thing we have today. One can guess what they’d say or do. (I have some guesses). Let us just assume that no one even tries anymore to have good, moral, proper, principled reasons for passing legislation any more. That has been abandoned. In its place are just two basic principles: 1. Will the legislation make money for the government (or those donating to officials)? 2. Will it extend the government’s reach?
But it is the nature of the human beast that after enough time has passed- 20 years will do, but in today’s media saturated 24/7 news cycle apparently 20 minutes will do, as well- the things of the past are just that, the things of the past. “Those things won’t happen again.” “Things are different today.” “We’d never let that happen again.” “We are smarter today.”
This, I’m afraid, is all wishful thinking. Very dangerous wishful thinking. Under the cover of this mentality the principles of old are allowed ever deeper reach into the operations of free societies. But God cannot be mocked. If you plant a corn seed you will get a corn plant. If you plant these principles you will reap their fruit. You may delay it a little while or change its expression, that’s all.
I have no love for Blagojevich. Frankly, I have no love for any Illinois politician. My five years in Illinois was like being front and center at a circus. There is also no question in my mind that Blagojevich is guilty as sin- and this is certainly not his first offense. What is the difference between Blagojevich, Daley, and Obama? Blagojevich got caught. We’re talking Chicago politics, here. You’re living in la-la land if you expect anyone- even the Messiah- to have clean hands in general, and few places in the country get hands dirtier.
So it should be clear that I have no special fondness for Blagojevich. Nonetheless, in this country- allegedly- people are innocent until proven guilty. To try to get the state supreme court to toss the governor out before the man has even had his trial is simply wrong. Should the man resign? Of course. But then I think almost every politician in Illinois should resign, and that probably includes the Republicans, but the Democrats for sure. If the man doesn’t resign, will the state suffer? Probably. But that still doesn’t mean you can just ignore the rule of law and it doesn’t mean that just because a guy is an arrogant knucklehead that you can strip him of due process.
Already I’m seeing and hearing reactions to today’s Supreme Court tossing of the DC gun ban saying that this is conservative judicial activism. As I understand it (I haven’t read the decisions myself), even the dissent is making that accusation. I don’t agree, personally. I believe that the ruling was constructionist (which makes me wonder …
let us consider the implications: our soldiers will have to take into account the rights under American law that those shooting at them have. After all, even gangsters shooting at cops have rights. Will our soldiers have to get warrants before breaking into buildings the enemy is thought to be hiding in? Will they have to prove ‘probable cause’ to obtain those warrants? Will they have to read them their rights before shooting?
Recent Comments