The Supreme Court has done it again.
Desecrated the U.S. Constitution in a recent holding granting corporations (global ones, at that, since there was no distinction even made in their opinion between U.S. based or global corporate entities) the ability to contribute unlimited funds to candidates for state or federal office.
In a roundabout way, it did nothing more than reaffirm that under the First Amendment, the language regarding the rights of the "people" also can be interpreted to mean the "corporate" and that corporations are not property (which they most definitely are, since they can be bought and sold and for which many are publicly funded even at this point in our history, and even sold over a "global" exchange, building foreigners wealth and thus foreigners gaining now more and more influence in our political system progressively) but also persons.
Corporations cannot be both - people and property, but this decision in effect stated exactly that, as did the errant ruling which started this progression into corporate socialism way back when in effect inserting another entity under the Constitution and Bill of Rights the founders never intended, "corporate personhood." (Remember the Boston Tea Party and East India Company for a clue how they felt about global corporations, and thus granting privileges and immunities to corporate "sovereign" subjects of the "crown.")
What has happened to our Constitution, and a judiciary that has strayed so far from both the intent and actual language contained within that document resting not a mile from those hallowed halls?
Where are our lawyers being educated now in this country, and who is in charge of the teaching programs at our law colleges?
The American Bar Association, it appears, a British based association at that and carryover from Great Britain which appears that the agenda is reinstituting "progressively" British monarchial style sovereign rights and sovereign rule over the citizens of this country by now our federal (and state) governments without a new Constitutional Convention, or the "consent of the governed."
Amending the Constitution now even more progressively, without the power to so do, just goes to show the arrogance now of those on the Hill of all three branches of our government, and the political nature now of the U.S. Supreme Court which was supposed to be a "check" on the government with respect to Bill of Rights protections for the PEOPLE against the CORPORATE, especially commercial corporate entities as "commerce" to be regulated actually not given rights at all (since it does state "We the People" and not "We the Corporate") and definitely not a facilitator of the new government it is progressively instituting with each and every decision now coming down the pike as of late especially, "global corporate socialism."
How can you have a representative government of any nature when global and national companies can now donate massive sums throughout the nation in each and every district in order to facilitate their agendas, most of which are at the cost of the general public at large?
The founders understood that the entire basis of a representative government demanded that no candidate for any public office would be allowed to accept "backing" or "funding" for his political aspirations from any person or entity residing or with their legal "home office" domicile outside their legislative district.
Is that concept so totally "foreign" and convoluted for the U.S. Supreme Court justices, who are holders of doctorate degrees in the "law" mind you, to understand?
Where were these justices educated? Great Britain?
I would state that this case was purposely brought in order to set another unconstitutional "precedent" now throughout the nation, although the Supremes actually also have "legally" no power granted except to render decisions on the matters placed before it based on the facts of the particular case "at bar."
Not broad based precedent power for their decisions, but limited jurisdictional powers in both original and appellate jurisdictions, and even those provisions have progressively been misconstrued, broadened and thus also circumventing the Constitution now being made applicable in some form or another throughout each and every state down to now dictating and minimizing in again inserting or redefining the English language the provisions with respect to trials by jury for civil and criminal matters in some of their recent determinations.
While the court fails to hear lawful petitions brought before them on Bill of Rights issues by the people, or even such matters as the legal citizenship status of the holder of the highest office in the land, it accepted this case in order to once again circumvent the Constitution, and all those founders fought and died for.
A government "of the people, by the people, for the people" and not the commercial corporate interests in any manner whatsoever.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/22/AR2010012204341.html
Showing posts with label laws. Show all posts
Showing posts with label laws. Show all posts
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Monday, June 8, 2009
U.S. States Facing Budget Crisis: Why Balance Budget Laws Don't Work
This week there have been numerous headlines with respect to the budget crises now facing most of the states throughout the United States, again with the downward spiraling U.S. economy to blame.
Mr. Obama, of course, recently participated in one of the most massive layoffs and firings of the current employees for General Motors, of course consoling them with how their "sacrifices" now would reap benefits down the road. The question is, of course, for whom?
Apparently U.S.A., Inc. and the United Auto Workers, who were given an ownership share in the deal brokered by the Obama Administration in order to add this major U.S. corporation to Washington's budgeoning stock portfolio.
Oh, and the Canadian Teacher's Union Pension Fund which also received a share, at the expense of the autoworkers' in Detroits pensions and retirement, and the smaller private bondholder's investment, from the few details available since Mr. Geithner and Obama are again handling the details outside usual federal bankruptcy court in order to skirt around those public records and disclosure provisions.
I'm sure that acquisition has set Detroit and Michigan's economy back a bit insofar as sales tax revenues. Most of those autoworkers most likely will be eating pork and beans for a while, "sacrificing" for Mr. Obama's now Government Motors. And those bond holder owners just lost a little of that retirement money for those planned road trips in their golden years.
But China picked up a steal, or should I say, steal for its steel.
Now, even after receiving "kickbacks" in the form of federal funding through the stimulus packages of billions of dollars which are to be transferred to the states and billed to the state citizens and taxpayers as a whole, the states are now still whining about their shortfalls.
And the biggest whinner, of course, is that liberally run Golden State, defined by its excess over the course of years and the high taxes and destruction which has resulted due to their own liberalism.
It doesn't appear those in state office have been able to read the California Constitution for at least fifty years if not longer, since the early 60's.
I guess the costs of their open borders, pro-illegal immigrant positions, and past "save the trees" environmentalism that has since resulted in the destruction of thousands of homes and forested acres is finally coming home to roost. Costs for which the entire nation also has paid for during those self-created disasters in their misguided environmental radicalism during a ten year drought with overgrown forests which can now be set off by static electricity in more than a few areas and almost non-existent groundwater tables. Of course the fountains and jacuzzis are still humming along nicely.
And both Gray Davis and Arnold Schwartzenegger's freewheeling ways.
The OC set have never heard the word "fiscal conservatism," a term they associate with "right wing extremists," and Kansas farmers (who they would like to bail them out) when it comes to their creature comforts, limos, jacuzzis and their private jets which they cannot do without so that they can attend their next global warming lecture.
My former home state, Arizona, is also facing a crisis, or so it has been reported, even though many years ago the citizens in that state actually passed a "balanced budget" initiative.
Has it worked? Hardly.
You see, the government is the worst when it comes to following the laws and directives of "we the people." Our taxes fund literally hundreds of lawyers to advise legislators on just how they can skirt around some of those initiatives in order to continue doing business as usual.
When those budgets are released to the public, you need a magnifying glass and organizational chart to follow the money trail to find where all the funding is actually going. And even with those tools, you would only get half the picture.
Nowhere in those budgets are reported the sums that are received also from the federal government in order to fund some of these state programs. Thus, citizens in most states face dual taxation in numerous areas at both the state and federal levels.
It has gotten so bad in Arizona that they have sold former state funded prisons and/or are now contracting for local prisons and guards privatizing them, and are now charging the prisoners for their accomodations in order to make those lease payments, and giving incentives to officers on those federally funded DUI sports bar patrols in order to meet the federal grant guidelines to make those payments, which sums now are far more than the prior costs of upkeep and maintenance of some of those facilities for state taxpayers.
Most state and local impound lots also throughout the country have been privatized, many of which are owned by police officers as a further incentive in the new social drinking taxes.
Apparently, the state needed the money from the prison sale in order to assist in funding one of the state's new pet projects and new foundation under Janet Napolitano, the high tech gadget junkie, The Arizona Science Foundation.
Were the citizens consulted in this new project?
Of course not.
The state then subsequently entered into multi-year contracts with this organization (contracts with itself), which foundation is now suing the State of Arizona (again themselves or the state citizens ultimately) in order to get the funding through the backdoor, since in order to "balance" this years budget funding had to be reduced to this extra-Constitutional foundation for the press release of a "balanced" budget.
A new legal trick has now been the modus operandi in order to satisfy the state budget requirements, in now simply using the courts in order to fund some of these state created foundations and then hide all the extra revenue they are doling out for state agenda driven projects outside Constitutional authority or citizen accountability.
Then, of course, the state can appear to be "balancing" the budget while the courts and taxpayer paid "foundation" and private corporate attorneys negotiate and "seal the deals" factoring in, of course, their cut also in acting as the go-betweens of the state now in these NGO and extra-Constitutional funding matters.
Look hard, Californians, at that budget, and the court actions which have occurred in your state throughout the years.
I'm sure you'll find that there is plenty of money and there is no "budget" crisis, its just a matter of the state's priorities and legislators extra-Constitutional commitments that are the real problem.
And committing taxpayer sums and entering into contracts with either private or state created "foundation" contractors for multi-year terms in the first place, when state budgets in many states are required to be balanced annually.
To put it simply, deciding to fully fund and fulfill that multi-year contract for the newest "foundation" or multi-plex for the global visitors to Sacramento means the sums needed for vital services for which those tax monies are "legally" required such as the street repairs and garbage collection might just need to be cut, or reduced in order to "balance the budget."
Or in order to quell the masses, provide those sums in order to comply with the law, and then instruct extra-Constitutional "contractees" and developer instead to sue the State of California for their money, so that after the funds are provided and the lawsuit "settled," there is then a carry-over budget crisis and deficit again next year.
Balanced budget requirements are sort of like a shell game, with simply more and more "shells" (or shills) added each year.
That's what "liberalism" and legislating according to "living" Constitution beliefs actually does, encourages "corporate" socialism ultimately in taking from the poor (citizens) and give to the rich (foundations, corporations, developers), while the garbage piles up.
Mr. Obama, of course, recently participated in one of the most massive layoffs and firings of the current employees for General Motors, of course consoling them with how their "sacrifices" now would reap benefits down the road. The question is, of course, for whom?
Apparently U.S.A., Inc. and the United Auto Workers, who were given an ownership share in the deal brokered by the Obama Administration in order to add this major U.S. corporation to Washington's budgeoning stock portfolio.
Oh, and the Canadian Teacher's Union Pension Fund which also received a share, at the expense of the autoworkers' in Detroits pensions and retirement, and the smaller private bondholder's investment, from the few details available since Mr. Geithner and Obama are again handling the details outside usual federal bankruptcy court in order to skirt around those public records and disclosure provisions.
I'm sure that acquisition has set Detroit and Michigan's economy back a bit insofar as sales tax revenues. Most of those autoworkers most likely will be eating pork and beans for a while, "sacrificing" for Mr. Obama's now Government Motors. And those bond holder owners just lost a little of that retirement money for those planned road trips in their golden years.
But China picked up a steal, or should I say, steal for its steel.
Now, even after receiving "kickbacks" in the form of federal funding through the stimulus packages of billions of dollars which are to be transferred to the states and billed to the state citizens and taxpayers as a whole, the states are now still whining about their shortfalls.
And the biggest whinner, of course, is that liberally run Golden State, defined by its excess over the course of years and the high taxes and destruction which has resulted due to their own liberalism.
It doesn't appear those in state office have been able to read the California Constitution for at least fifty years if not longer, since the early 60's.
I guess the costs of their open borders, pro-illegal immigrant positions, and past "save the trees" environmentalism that has since resulted in the destruction of thousands of homes and forested acres is finally coming home to roost. Costs for which the entire nation also has paid for during those self-created disasters in their misguided environmental radicalism during a ten year drought with overgrown forests which can now be set off by static electricity in more than a few areas and almost non-existent groundwater tables. Of course the fountains and jacuzzis are still humming along nicely.
And both Gray Davis and Arnold Schwartzenegger's freewheeling ways.
The OC set have never heard the word "fiscal conservatism," a term they associate with "right wing extremists," and Kansas farmers (who they would like to bail them out) when it comes to their creature comforts, limos, jacuzzis and their private jets which they cannot do without so that they can attend their next global warming lecture.
My former home state, Arizona, is also facing a crisis, or so it has been reported, even though many years ago the citizens in that state actually passed a "balanced budget" initiative.
Has it worked? Hardly.
You see, the government is the worst when it comes to following the laws and directives of "we the people." Our taxes fund literally hundreds of lawyers to advise legislators on just how they can skirt around some of those initiatives in order to continue doing business as usual.
When those budgets are released to the public, you need a magnifying glass and organizational chart to follow the money trail to find where all the funding is actually going. And even with those tools, you would only get half the picture.
Nowhere in those budgets are reported the sums that are received also from the federal government in order to fund some of these state programs. Thus, citizens in most states face dual taxation in numerous areas at both the state and federal levels.
It has gotten so bad in Arizona that they have sold former state funded prisons and/or are now contracting for local prisons and guards privatizing them, and are now charging the prisoners for their accomodations in order to make those lease payments, and giving incentives to officers on those federally funded DUI sports bar patrols in order to meet the federal grant guidelines to make those payments, which sums now are far more than the prior costs of upkeep and maintenance of some of those facilities for state taxpayers.
Most state and local impound lots also throughout the country have been privatized, many of which are owned by police officers as a further incentive in the new social drinking taxes.
Apparently, the state needed the money from the prison sale in order to assist in funding one of the state's new pet projects and new foundation under Janet Napolitano, the high tech gadget junkie, The Arizona Science Foundation.
Were the citizens consulted in this new project?
Of course not.
The state then subsequently entered into multi-year contracts with this organization (contracts with itself), which foundation is now suing the State of Arizona (again themselves or the state citizens ultimately) in order to get the funding through the backdoor, since in order to "balance" this years budget funding had to be reduced to this extra-Constitutional foundation for the press release of a "balanced" budget.
A new legal trick has now been the modus operandi in order to satisfy the state budget requirements, in now simply using the courts in order to fund some of these state created foundations and then hide all the extra revenue they are doling out for state agenda driven projects outside Constitutional authority or citizen accountability.
Then, of course, the state can appear to be "balancing" the budget while the courts and taxpayer paid "foundation" and private corporate attorneys negotiate and "seal the deals" factoring in, of course, their cut also in acting as the go-betweens of the state now in these NGO and extra-Constitutional funding matters.
Look hard, Californians, at that budget, and the court actions which have occurred in your state throughout the years.
I'm sure you'll find that there is plenty of money and there is no "budget" crisis, its just a matter of the state's priorities and legislators extra-Constitutional commitments that are the real problem.
And committing taxpayer sums and entering into contracts with either private or state created "foundation" contractors for multi-year terms in the first place, when state budgets in many states are required to be balanced annually.
To put it simply, deciding to fully fund and fulfill that multi-year contract for the newest "foundation" or multi-plex for the global visitors to Sacramento means the sums needed for vital services for which those tax monies are "legally" required such as the street repairs and garbage collection might just need to be cut, or reduced in order to "balance the budget."
Or in order to quell the masses, provide those sums in order to comply with the law, and then instruct extra-Constitutional "contractees" and developer instead to sue the State of California for their money, so that after the funds are provided and the lawsuit "settled," there is then a carry-over budget crisis and deficit again next year.
Balanced budget requirements are sort of like a shell game, with simply more and more "shells" (or shills) added each year.
That's what "liberalism" and legislating according to "living" Constitution beliefs actually does, encourages "corporate" socialism ultimately in taking from the poor (citizens) and give to the rich (foundations, corporations, developers), while the garbage piles up.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
What's Wrong With Roe vs. Wade?
In light of the recent demonstrations at Notre Dame University with respect to Barack Obama's commencement appearance due to his pro-abortion stances, below is a copy of an article I published about a year ago with respect to this hot button issue for any interested.
What's Wrong With Roe vs. Wade?
And Why The Liberals Don't Get It
Even thirty years after this controversial decision, the jury is still out on Roe v. Wade.
Decided in the early 70's, I remember well when the case was decided, as I had just completed high school.
For many, it was one of those days embedded in your brain due to it's reach and "precedent," along the lines of the day Kennedy was assassinated. A monumental moment in history, and now even in the 21st Century, the controversy still reigns.
When the decision was reached, it turned our country quite upside down and polarized.
Interestingly, historians and others who bring Roe to the forefront in political discussions and discourse, and of course at election time, fail to also mention that at the time Roe was decided, the Pill and other rather reliable methods of birth control were becoming more and more available.
Planned Parenthood had just opened it's doors to "free birth control" during this "free love" era, and AIDS was nothing more than someone's assistant. At the time it was decided, there were many states which did allow early abortions, since this also was the time when the "globalists" had started their scares about overpopulation, and the destruction of our planet.
It is now, of course, being resurrected by many of those former hippies, and capitalists types as the new scheme in which to become a millionaire before 35.
Seems out in California there is now a blend of "hippie capitalists." They don't mind being that dirty word "capitalists" so long as they are making their fortunes along environmentally friendly lines, and saving the planet from overpopulation is one of them.
Many of these left wing pro-choice activists believe in unrestricted access to abortion, such as third trimester partial birth abortions, including from all accounts the Democratic nominee. The defense has been with respect to that Illinois bill a fear that in supporting the partial birth ban it might overturn Roe v. Wade, and was worded incorrectly.
My understanding is that was what the Committees in the state legislatures were for, writing and reviewing laws for Constitutionality prior to bringing them to the floor, and Roe actually only addressed and upheld the right to first term abortions since those were already allowed in most of the states, for rape, health of the mother, and had been expanded for teen pregnancies so long as there was parental consent.
Hey, it's for the good of the planet, and expands the "free market" for the abortion clinics in the process.
For all the scare tactics the libs like to throw out every election about the "threat" of Roe being overturned if, horror of horrors, a conservative should get into office and further stack the Supreme Court, I have just one thing to say.......don't you think it's about time that decision was reviewed, and in the 21st Century now?
At this point throughout the country, we now have even the "Morning After" pill, for heaven sakes. Birth control pills now in many areas of the country can be obtained by even teens without their parent's consent, and due to the AIDS and other STDs epidemic, the use of contraceptives between committed or uncommitted couples has never been higher.
Isn't it about time we pulled the plug, at least, on second and third trimester abortions nationwide, except in the event of health risk to the mother or child in continuing the pregnancy?
Just what are you liberals afraid of, that in so doing we will go back to the dark ages, where abortions were performed in dark alleys with unsterilized equipment, when now there is even a pill that can abort during the first trimester?
I believe abortion should be restricted to the first trimester at this point in our history, and not simply for moral reasons but legal ones.
This was never a "right to privacy" issue to begin with, it was always a "right to life" issue, since if the founder's were not concerned with "life" they certainly wouldn't have based an entire document in order to secure "life, liberty and happiness" for "us and our posterity" if they were unconcerned with just what the "Creator" would think.
And it's pretty clear there is 10 Commandment law behind that Constitution, whether the atheists in this country wish to believe it or not. Those rights referred to as unalienable are acknowledged as "endowed by the Creator." A Creator they clearly acknowledged.
Religious tolerance is actually a Christian doctrine, it is not a Jewish, Muslim, Hindu or Buddhist doctrine, and the freedom of religion provision was also provided in order to prevent a NATION-WIDE or "State" religion, such as they had experienced in England with the decades long fighting between the Catholics and the Protestants.
"Loving thy neighbor," and the story of the Good Samaritan are examples of the scriptural basis upon which the "freedom of religion" provisions were meant to flesh out in our "new" government which had been denied them in England under the Church of England's dominance during the 18th Century.
Read Ben Franklin's speech when the Constitution was ratified, and he specifically alludes to the problems they were attempting to avoid by recognizing each individuals right to worship God according to their own understanding, and in their own way, without "nationalizing" a state religion such as in Britain and the Church of England, and in more recent history, Israel.
It does seem the founder's knew what they were doing, since even today those countries with "national" religions do seem to be engaged in much more strife, both internal and external, than others.
The problem that I do have with the far, far right wing evangelical Christians is their rather rigid interpretation of when life begins, since Jesus never truly addressed it.
Most pastors and members of the evangelical churches relate to the biblical passage of God "knowing you in your mother's womb." The problem I have with that is that adultery was a criminal matter in Jesus's time, and the punishment under the 10 Commandment law at the time was death by stoning.
If life truly begins at conception rather than viability, then God allowed innocent fetuses to be killed along with their mothers since I'm sure a great many of those adulteresses were pregnant.
It is also biblically clear that the first life God created, Adam, he did so by "breathing" life into dust, and that in then creating Eve, he clearly then gave them, not he, the gift of procreation by directing them to "go forth and multiply."
And it's also pretty darn clear that he intended children to be raised in two sex households optimally, since he didn't give us the ability to recreate independently of the other sex.
What is truly amazing to me is that for all the bravado of the "pro-choice" movement and those mostly liberals who even today with medical knowledge and technology the way it is, still cling to this decision as a benchmark of a candidates worthiness.
It is interesting that while the radical liberal element protest over global warming and how it is affecting the whales, polar bears, and other Arctic creatures, they were nowhere to be seen when Teri Schiavo was judicially literally starved and dehydrated to death for almost 14 days while she clung to life, breathing on her own, before dehydration of her vital organs caused her body to literally feed upon itself until her execution.
She was also a practicing Catholic, and nowhere in the court documents does it appear her civil rights, and individual religious beliefs were even given any consideration during that entire multi-year fight over the removal of her feeding and hydration tubes.
The most painful type of death any human can experience ending in progressive organ shutdown, and a judge in this country so ordered it.
Her "right to life" without clearly artificial life support in its termination by fiat was nothing more than judicially sanctioned murder.
Better watch out, liberals, since your definition of "pro-choice" and "freedom" sounds more like Germany, circa World War II.
What's Wrong With Roe vs. Wade?
And Why The Liberals Don't Get It
Even thirty years after this controversial decision, the jury is still out on Roe v. Wade.
Decided in the early 70's, I remember well when the case was decided, as I had just completed high school.
For many, it was one of those days embedded in your brain due to it's reach and "precedent," along the lines of the day Kennedy was assassinated. A monumental moment in history, and now even in the 21st Century, the controversy still reigns.
When the decision was reached, it turned our country quite upside down and polarized.
Interestingly, historians and others who bring Roe to the forefront in political discussions and discourse, and of course at election time, fail to also mention that at the time Roe was decided, the Pill and other rather reliable methods of birth control were becoming more and more available.
Planned Parenthood had just opened it's doors to "free birth control" during this "free love" era, and AIDS was nothing more than someone's assistant. At the time it was decided, there were many states which did allow early abortions, since this also was the time when the "globalists" had started their scares about overpopulation, and the destruction of our planet.
It is now, of course, being resurrected by many of those former hippies, and capitalists types as the new scheme in which to become a millionaire before 35.
Seems out in California there is now a blend of "hippie capitalists." They don't mind being that dirty word "capitalists" so long as they are making their fortunes along environmentally friendly lines, and saving the planet from overpopulation is one of them.
Many of these left wing pro-choice activists believe in unrestricted access to abortion, such as third trimester partial birth abortions, including from all accounts the Democratic nominee. The defense has been with respect to that Illinois bill a fear that in supporting the partial birth ban it might overturn Roe v. Wade, and was worded incorrectly.
My understanding is that was what the Committees in the state legislatures were for, writing and reviewing laws for Constitutionality prior to bringing them to the floor, and Roe actually only addressed and upheld the right to first term abortions since those were already allowed in most of the states, for rape, health of the mother, and had been expanded for teen pregnancies so long as there was parental consent.
Hey, it's for the good of the planet, and expands the "free market" for the abortion clinics in the process.
For all the scare tactics the libs like to throw out every election about the "threat" of Roe being overturned if, horror of horrors, a conservative should get into office and further stack the Supreme Court, I have just one thing to say.......don't you think it's about time that decision was reviewed, and in the 21st Century now?
At this point throughout the country, we now have even the "Morning After" pill, for heaven sakes. Birth control pills now in many areas of the country can be obtained by even teens without their parent's consent, and due to the AIDS and other STDs epidemic, the use of contraceptives between committed or uncommitted couples has never been higher.
Isn't it about time we pulled the plug, at least, on second and third trimester abortions nationwide, except in the event of health risk to the mother or child in continuing the pregnancy?
Just what are you liberals afraid of, that in so doing we will go back to the dark ages, where abortions were performed in dark alleys with unsterilized equipment, when now there is even a pill that can abort during the first trimester?
I believe abortion should be restricted to the first trimester at this point in our history, and not simply for moral reasons but legal ones.
This was never a "right to privacy" issue to begin with, it was always a "right to life" issue, since if the founder's were not concerned with "life" they certainly wouldn't have based an entire document in order to secure "life, liberty and happiness" for "us and our posterity" if they were unconcerned with just what the "Creator" would think.
And it's pretty clear there is 10 Commandment law behind that Constitution, whether the atheists in this country wish to believe it or not. Those rights referred to as unalienable are acknowledged as "endowed by the Creator." A Creator they clearly acknowledged.
Religious tolerance is actually a Christian doctrine, it is not a Jewish, Muslim, Hindu or Buddhist doctrine, and the freedom of religion provision was also provided in order to prevent a NATION-WIDE or "State" religion, such as they had experienced in England with the decades long fighting between the Catholics and the Protestants.
"Loving thy neighbor," and the story of the Good Samaritan are examples of the scriptural basis upon which the "freedom of religion" provisions were meant to flesh out in our "new" government which had been denied them in England under the Church of England's dominance during the 18th Century.
Read Ben Franklin's speech when the Constitution was ratified, and he specifically alludes to the problems they were attempting to avoid by recognizing each individuals right to worship God according to their own understanding, and in their own way, without "nationalizing" a state religion such as in Britain and the Church of England, and in more recent history, Israel.
It does seem the founder's knew what they were doing, since even today those countries with "national" religions do seem to be engaged in much more strife, both internal and external, than others.
The problem that I do have with the far, far right wing evangelical Christians is their rather rigid interpretation of when life begins, since Jesus never truly addressed it.
Most pastors and members of the evangelical churches relate to the biblical passage of God "knowing you in your mother's womb." The problem I have with that is that adultery was a criminal matter in Jesus's time, and the punishment under the 10 Commandment law at the time was death by stoning.
If life truly begins at conception rather than viability, then God allowed innocent fetuses to be killed along with their mothers since I'm sure a great many of those adulteresses were pregnant.
It is also biblically clear that the first life God created, Adam, he did so by "breathing" life into dust, and that in then creating Eve, he clearly then gave them, not he, the gift of procreation by directing them to "go forth and multiply."
And it's also pretty darn clear that he intended children to be raised in two sex households optimally, since he didn't give us the ability to recreate independently of the other sex.
What is truly amazing to me is that for all the bravado of the "pro-choice" movement and those mostly liberals who even today with medical knowledge and technology the way it is, still cling to this decision as a benchmark of a candidates worthiness.
It is interesting that while the radical liberal element protest over global warming and how it is affecting the whales, polar bears, and other Arctic creatures, they were nowhere to be seen when Teri Schiavo was judicially literally starved and dehydrated to death for almost 14 days while she clung to life, breathing on her own, before dehydration of her vital organs caused her body to literally feed upon itself until her execution.
She was also a practicing Catholic, and nowhere in the court documents does it appear her civil rights, and individual religious beliefs were even given any consideration during that entire multi-year fight over the removal of her feeding and hydration tubes.
The most painful type of death any human can experience ending in progressive organ shutdown, and a judge in this country so ordered it.
Her "right to life" without clearly artificial life support in its termination by fiat was nothing more than judicially sanctioned murder.
Better watch out, liberals, since your definition of "pro-choice" and "freedom" sounds more like Germany, circa World War II.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
