Tuesday, March 22, 2005
I know it's been a decade since my last post. I'm sorry, I'll have to tend to you later as I have some serious things going on here that require my full attention.
Thursday, March 03, 2005
Separation of Church and . . . what?
United States Constitution Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
The issue: Ten Commandments displays at various courts and federal and state buildings around the country. Should they be allowed to remain?
The basic argument for: Modern law is based on them? I don't really know. I tried to research it, but my efforts got me nothing more than several sights railing against the proposed separation (see here, here and here) and none explaining why or giving any compelling argument to keep it in there other than saying it wasn't in the Constitution or claiming this country was created, basically, to be a Christian country. Disclaimer: I only looked through the first forty search results.
The basic argument against: The separation is guaranteed in the Constitution.
My analysis:
Both are wrong. Read the first paragraph of this post. The only thing it says is that the government will not pass a law creating a national religion and won't stop someone from practicing his/her religion of choice. Nowhere in the bill of rights or the Constitution does it say in any form that the Government will not have religious displays. That being said, it should also be understood that even casual usage of religious symbols and whatnot IS an endorsement of that religion and can therefore be construed to be the "national religion". For instance, government employees are not allowed to use their post when promoting ANYTHING because it could be taken as an endorsement by the government. Why should this not cover government buildings?
Additionally, the claim that modern law is based on the ten commandments therefore they should be displayed is based on either ignorance of history, political bias or some combination of the two. It should be known that modern law is based on Hammurabi's Law (translated here). Hammurabi chiseled his laws into stone circa 1792-1750 b.c., a full 500 years before the exodus and ten commandments (circa 1250 b.c.). Further, this code of ethics takes a form much closer to that of today's laws than the commandments. Also let it be known that Hammurabi was not the father of law, there were others, but his display is preserved the best.
Why aren't there any displays of Bel or Marduk? If the government wasn't sponsoring Judaism or Christianity then we would see more statues of these "pagan" gods around the country.
My Conclusion: The lack of a more representative display of the foundations of law implies the endorsement of a specific religion (in this case two). Said endorsement acts as an establishment of a national religion (again, in this case two). The establishment of a national religion most definitely violates the first amendment. Thus, the ten commandments should go to the churches and synagogues where they belong.
The real question should be who's going to pay to remove these displays? It'll undoubtedly come from taxes. Which means my pocket.
**Update**
Please see Rusty's post for an excellent essay related to the subject.
The issue: Ten Commandments displays at various courts and federal and state buildings around the country. Should they be allowed to remain?
The basic argument for: Modern law is based on them? I don't really know. I tried to research it, but my efforts got me nothing more than several sights railing against the proposed separation (see here, here and here) and none explaining why or giving any compelling argument to keep it in there other than saying it wasn't in the Constitution or claiming this country was created, basically, to be a Christian country. Disclaimer: I only looked through the first forty search results.
The basic argument against: The separation is guaranteed in the Constitution.
My analysis:
Both are wrong. Read the first paragraph of this post. The only thing it says is that the government will not pass a law creating a national religion and won't stop someone from practicing his/her religion of choice. Nowhere in the bill of rights or the Constitution does it say in any form that the Government will not have religious displays. That being said, it should also be understood that even casual usage of religious symbols and whatnot IS an endorsement of that religion and can therefore be construed to be the "national religion". For instance, government employees are not allowed to use their post when promoting ANYTHING because it could be taken as an endorsement by the government. Why should this not cover government buildings?
Additionally, the claim that modern law is based on the ten commandments therefore they should be displayed is based on either ignorance of history, political bias or some combination of the two. It should be known that modern law is based on Hammurabi's Law (translated here). Hammurabi chiseled his laws into stone circa 1792-1750 b.c., a full 500 years before the exodus and ten commandments (circa 1250 b.c.). Further, this code of ethics takes a form much closer to that of today's laws than the commandments. Also let it be known that Hammurabi was not the father of law, there were others, but his display is preserved the best.
Why aren't there any displays of Bel or Marduk? If the government wasn't sponsoring Judaism or Christianity then we would see more statues of these "pagan" gods around the country.
My Conclusion: The lack of a more representative display of the foundations of law implies the endorsement of a specific religion (in this case two). Said endorsement acts as an establishment of a national religion (again, in this case two). The establishment of a national religion most definitely violates the first amendment. Thus, the ten commandments should go to the churches and synagogues where they belong.
The real question should be who's going to pay to remove these displays? It'll undoubtedly come from taxes. Which means my pocket.
**Update**
Please see Rusty's post for an excellent essay related to the subject.
Tuesday, March 01, 2005
Angry . . .
Fuming, annoyed, irritated, livid, irate, furious, incensed, outraged . . .
I'm so pissed about this I can't even think straight.
I'm sure the airlines would be safer if we didn't allow any baggage. Yeah. I could work for the Dept. of Homeland Security with ideas like that. Hell, I'll be running the place before too long.
I don't want to give away any of the ideas that are going to allow me to advance in the company, but I've also determined that if you don't allow people past the check points and on planes, they'll be safer. I think before I take it that far, I'll ban big, jagged rings. Then add jagged rings. Then I'll follow that up with rings all together. I mean, rings could leave a mark and we want the skies to be as safe as possible. There is circumstantial evidence that says Richard Reid wore a ring so we'll just be banning them for your safety. I mean, we don't want any more Richard Reid's do we?
Now, I know what you're saying, but no we aren't going to pay any more attention to the people who are getting on the planes because, frankly, that would take too much effort and we might have to make educated, in-depth decisions based on less than completely obvious or across the board rules. We might actually have to pay attention to the way people carry themselves, look, act, talk, smell, sweat, pack, pay for their tickets . . . . . .
I'm fed up with DoHS. I worry my rage is getting uncontrollable. Why haven't I heard anybody vehemently protesting this? I know it's just lighters, but I'm tired of giving up civil liberties because of this government's communistic campaign of fear it's trying (and apparently succeeding, free speech zones indeed) to control the people with . "It's because of the shoe bomber guy", fuck you. I DON'T BUY IT, FUCKERS! He didn't get away with it, remember? Have a little faith in the people you're "trying" to "protect". RED, ORANGE, BLUE, YELLOW . . . WHAT'S THE LEVEL OF PARANOIA YOU WANT TO INSTILL IN YOUR CITIZENS TODAY? WHY DO PEOPLE PUT UP WITH THIS? Am I alone here?
AARRRGHHHH. Maybe this is part of another campaign. Maybe, just maybe it's part of a unnecessarily complex ploy to take away my right to kill myself slowly. And I do have that right. If it bothers anyone, I say get out of the smokers lounge. No one should be able to take that right from me. The taxes on smokes keep rising to "pay for the rising cost of health care for smokers," but, I already have health insurance. As a matter of fact, I'm double covered. I wasn't aware that I was required to take out a third insurance policy. I don't want it, where do I sign to opt out? Where are the ridiculous taxes on cigars? Oh, that's right, that's what the legislative branchers smoke when they do smoke. Well, we wouldn't want them to pay any more taxes than their 7 digit capital gains income already does. Lord knows they couldn't afford that.
See . . . That got me off on a rant. Well, it may have been long winded and incoherent at times but at least I don't feel any better about any of it.
I'm so pissed about this I can't even think straight.
I'm sure the airlines would be safer if we didn't allow any baggage. Yeah. I could work for the Dept. of Homeland Security with ideas like that. Hell, I'll be running the place before too long.
I don't want to give away any of the ideas that are going to allow me to advance in the company, but I've also determined that if you don't allow people past the check points and on planes, they'll be safer. I think before I take it that far, I'll ban big, jagged rings. Then add jagged rings. Then I'll follow that up with rings all together. I mean, rings could leave a mark and we want the skies to be as safe as possible. There is circumstantial evidence that says Richard Reid wore a ring so we'll just be banning them for your safety. I mean, we don't want any more Richard Reid's do we?
Now, I know what you're saying, but no we aren't going to pay any more attention to the people who are getting on the planes because, frankly, that would take too much effort and we might have to make educated, in-depth decisions based on less than completely obvious or across the board rules. We might actually have to pay attention to the way people carry themselves, look, act, talk, smell, sweat, pack, pay for their tickets . . . . . .
I'm fed up with DoHS. I worry my rage is getting uncontrollable. Why haven't I heard anybody vehemently protesting this? I know it's just lighters, but I'm tired of giving up civil liberties because of this government's communistic campaign of fear it's trying (and apparently succeeding, free speech zones indeed) to control the people with . "It's because of the shoe bomber guy", fuck you. I DON'T BUY IT, FUCKERS! He didn't get away with it, remember? Have a little faith in the people you're "trying" to "protect". RED, ORANGE, BLUE, YELLOW . . . WHAT'S THE LEVEL OF PARANOIA YOU WANT TO INSTILL IN YOUR CITIZENS TODAY? WHY DO PEOPLE PUT UP WITH THIS? Am I alone here?
AARRRGHHHH. Maybe this is part of another campaign. Maybe, just maybe it's part of a unnecessarily complex ploy to take away my right to kill myself slowly. And I do have that right. If it bothers anyone, I say get out of the smokers lounge. No one should be able to take that right from me. The taxes on smokes keep rising to "pay for the rising cost of health care for smokers," but, I already have health insurance. As a matter of fact, I'm double covered. I wasn't aware that I was required to take out a third insurance policy. I don't want it, where do I sign to opt out? Where are the ridiculous taxes on cigars? Oh, that's right, that's what the legislative branchers smoke when they do smoke. Well, we wouldn't want them to pay any more taxes than their 7 digit capital gains income already does. Lord knows they couldn't afford that.
See . . . That got me off on a rant. Well, it may have been long winded and incoherent at times but at least I don't feel any better about any of it.
