We must cease this senseless war on marijuana and this unconscionable undermining of marriage law. The opposition (primarily) comes from the religious sector who attempts to make the morality argument. In both cases the proposal set forth is that both activities are moral evils and as such any measure to prevent (including willful law breaking not civil disobedience) them is considered heroic. The fault lies in that the arguments are based on appeals to emotion and authority, not logically rational discussion. Indeed on these issues it would appear that there are gross gaps and severe lacking of any rational reason for prohibition and mountains of impartial evidence on why both activities, under the social contract theory law is based on, should be permitted. It is the willingness of the populace to buy into the fallacies of the prohibitionists and the willful blindness of the consequences inherent in allowing those arguments to hold sway at the ballot box. We must, to progress socially and individually, see past these scam arguments to the facts and reason and carry that into the voting booth. Thoughts or comments?
Tag Archives: separation of church and state
How far we’ve come or “Welcome Back McCarthy”
A little background information: Â John McCain on CodePink
First a little background information (for those of you who passed 5th grade civics class I apologize for the review; it’s more for our illustrious representatives): Â The opening to the founding document and the highest law in the land begins with “We the People,” includes numerations of rights assured to the people (including Freedom of Speech and Expression), and has been interpreted by one of our greatest Presidents as meaning a nation, “for the People, by the People, and of the People.” Â Even our Declaration of Independence describes the fundamental principles on which liberty is founded and includes, in part, a description of legitimate government as being, “Government by consent of the governed,” and assures us of the right to alter or abolish any unjust government that has become so oppressive as to be tyrannical in nature and practice. Â Above all though, these documents make it clear that the entire purpose of the legislature (state and/or federal) is to listen to the constituency and act according to what the people want (while protecting the minority from abuse).
Now the current way things work: Â The legislature is elected by infusing commercials with misinformation and relying on the comparatively tiny amount of voters that participate. Â Once in office, the majority of them rely on “Campaign Contributions” from special interest groups while conveniently ignoring the pleas of their people (or at least the ones without money).
All of this leads me to the group CodePink, a women’s anti-war group that frequents congressional hearings (their right as citizens) and are routinely thrown out for “disruptions” no different than Republican disruptions in a Democratic congress and vice versa.  A good deal of them are Mr. McCain’s constituents, yet because of their unpopular opinion, he calls them scum.  Sen. Feinstein (D) threw them out of a CIA confirmation hearing because of less than audible disruptions: Audio of Hearing and no Congress or Executive has given credence to this large movement (a very poignant fallback to the difficulties of the Suffragettes).
If the problem is not evident by now, let me spell it out. Â While I may agree with CodePink and what they are trying to do, that point is irrelevant. Â I disagree with Westboro Baptist Church, the KKK, and many other bigoted groups, but they still have the right to express their opinions (so long as they do not interfere with others self-same rights) and should be heard in the context of their overall populace representation. Â That is what Freedom of Speech means! Â I may not like what you say (or I may support it on different levels) but everyone has the right to be heard. Â Government employees at every level are duty bound to hear and give credence to their citizenry. Â If they feel it is interrupting their important “business” (you know, bilking the public and so forth), their responsibility would be to offer truly public hearings that would allow those voters to express themselves and give the legislature (Executives and Justices as well) the full picture, regardless of personal opinions.
So let CodePink speak, at the very least, with equal opportunity as the wealthy special interest groups.  Their message is sound and agreed with by 66% of American (27% Approve): American Current War Support. And their message is not in least bit unsound:  CodePink.  Yet the opinions of the citizens (unless they pander and flatter to those with money and/or power) are ignored even though Congress works far less than anyone in any country (not counting their “vacation” which come out of your taxes).  To verify, follow this link (the blue days are work days and Congress is paid even when they don’t work):  Congress work days and what they spent their time on (bear in mind some activities overlap and were done at the same Time:  Congressional Breakdown.  This is the President’s priorities (golf is more important than poverty apparently): Presidential time.  Finally, the Supreme Court works 5 hours per day(End of October to beginning of June, excluding  federal holidays, can choose which cases to accept, recesses frequently and takes an enormous amount of time to be even heard and thus works a maximum of 143 days or 715 total hours:  Work days Supreme Court Calculator.  The point being that no elected official works enough to even logically say they can’t listen to their constituency.
CodePink deserves to be heard and McCain’s comments are indicative of how Congress feels and by extension how the government feels about our populace. Â They are so disconnected sitting in their golden mansions an deaf ears that they use the guise of democracy (which we have none nor are we headed towards it again) and placate the people with plenty of gadgets, games, and make sure no one notices the clear violations of the social contract (for example, several wars that are killing our young people in droves but few efforts are being made to change things because as long as we have “Candy Crush” we can ignore our attempt to occupy the world and keep our populace ignorant by reducing education, science, etc.). Â If we were to educate our young and old people we might understand CodePink, and at least have rational debates on the many viewpoints out there.
I fear, however, that we have past this point. Â The income divide is too great and the people too indolent to make the changes necessary. Â I encourage CodePink and any of those who share the beliefs of a free, peaceful, and united nation to join together in arms to set up and defend a nation founded and sealed on truth, justice, liberty, equality, and brotherhood (sisterhood, etc.). We have been oppressed and insulted by the wealthy rulers long enough, Â We must join together and exercise our right to revolt: Declaration of Independence. Â If a new and better nation that listens and addresses your complaints, concerns, ideas, etc. sounds like a place you would want to be a part of, feel free to contact me. Â If you believe we can save this current United States, please contact me for a rational discourse. Â I am always looking for new ways of looking at things.
Foundational Documents:
How the Judiciary Failed us today both in Utah and in the Supreme Court
It is curious how the Mormons, whose educational system is less than reputable, and who still maintain a doctrine of polygamy could be so sly. Calling upon one of the few Justices whose ignorance is only outweighed by her inappropriate mixing of her religious beliefs with civil law, the State of Utah (one could hardly argue that it is anything less than a state whose official, but unofficial, religion is Mormonism. A story, by the way that’s good for a laugh if one is up to it, but I digress.) asked Justice Sotomayor for an emergency stay halting all gay marriages until the District Court of Appeals rules whether Gay marriage is constitutional. She, being the ever prudent jurist (who has apparently forgotten that the Court has already ruled that prohibiting gay marriage is unconstitutional) decided to grant the stay until the Appeals court decides. Thankfully, the Appeals Court judge actually was paying attention when the DOMA decision was handed down (I believe Ms. Sotomayor was having a mild stroke that month and just signed the dissent to satisfy her HEAVILY religious and conservative lobbyists-follow her paper trail and it reads like Jerry Falwell’s memoirs) placed the ruling under a sort of Fast-Track. So what can we draw from this? The Judicial system was created for one purpose and one purpose alone, to handle disputes when the law is unclear or outright broken. Contrary to Ms. Sotomayor and several other judges’ opinions, it was NOT created to impede the progress of law (until AFTER an initial ruling and then it should not interfere until it reverses that ruling), not to create laws, and certainly not to stop something that has stood numerous appeals and affects only one group of people (gays) in a positive way. Judges, and especially Justices, continue to build their power, issuing their own “executive orders” as it were (stays, injunctions, etc.) and issuing them based only on personal preference, not any educated interpretation of the law. We have seen this happen time and again in famous cases like Brown v. The Board of Education (Stays on the decision to integrate were issued until the Supreme Court could get their grubby mits on it, depriving blacks of what was their right at the time of the stays, as an appeals court had ruled). What is worse is that if we dislike the President and his executive orders, we can impeach him. We cannot impeach sitting Judges, even when they are so old and senile that their decisions are ignored by the others at best, but still become part of case law. We can only wait until they all die and then elect a President to place competent jurists on the bench, and elect a senate that will confirm them.
In short, doesn’t it seem that rather than protecting liberty and allowing the courts to rule in their jurisdiction (Ms. Sotomayor’s decision was WELL outside of the powers enumerated in the US Constitution), our courts have become places where the richer your lawyer, the better your chances, and the more you belong to whatever sociological group the judge does, the better your chances of winning? Does justice rule in our courts? What do you think?
Church and State and the space in between
This nation was founded with the idea that all men and women could practice whatever religion (or lack thereof) that they wished with little to no interference from the government. Because of the government being set up as a contractual government (i.e. the people give the leaders the right to rule and expect fair and just treatment in return) it also expected little to no interference from religion. This is only a right way of thinking if one stops to consider it. In order to allow the practice of any religion or lack thereof, the government itself must be free from the moral and ethical confines of any one religion. It must relegate itself to reason and scientific inquiry in order to achieve the freedom we claim to hold so dear. Yet one religion in particular wants to assert dominance (albeit in a covert manner) over all the others and dominance over the laws of the land. This religion is Christianity. To say this, one must first understand that no claim is made as to the right or wrong character of Christianity or any claim to wish its existence gone. Neither of these is argued or will be argued. It is simply argued that a number of misguided individuals believe the nation should base its laws on Christian ethics and morality and not on what the facts actually say. In addition, these same people desire to have no aid in creating such a nation as they wish to remain tax free. As the saying goes, they wish to have their cake and eat it too. What these individuals refuse to confront is that to base laws not on rational and scientific means, but to base them on one very small subset of the population, denies the ethical considerations of the Jew, the Muslim, the Hindu, and the many other religions prevalent in our society. Thus far, the government has done little to interfere with the practice of any religion, but should organizations such as the Westboro Baptist “Church” (Their prevalence of social activities and large expenditure on them, their constant self instigated legal battles, and their lack of any coherent dogma or actual church membership-the “church” is almost exclusively the extended family of “rev.” Phelps- makes it hard to take them seriously when they call themselves a church. e.g. by their definition my blog and our family meals are a church), and the numerous Senators and Representatives who pander to their constituents’ emotional love of religion, continue then the government should step in. They enjoy a tax free and quiet existence, to ask for laws without even considering that those laws only benefit them and serve no purpose in a rational society, borders on political and not religious organization. In short, the ethical and moral guidelines of Christianity or any other religion have no place in politics. If our laws are based on one particular subset, it is always to the detriment of others. The law must be rational, not religious. Only when the law infringes on the practice of a religion (NOT simply offending them but actually prohibits them from worship in some tangible way) is that religion allowed to petition the government for its change. Any other political speech should , rationally and logically, be avoided by religion OR the religion should be taxed as any other corporation. The space between is the freedom afforded to religion to practice off of public roads and to use public utilities. Any further space invites the tyranny of a State Religion. What do you think? How should church and state be separated? Should they be separated? I look forward to your comments and the probably protest/lawsuit of the Westboro Baptist “Church”.
Gay Marriage
It is one of the most amazing things to see when a society refuses to grant a right that would seem to be so simple, the right to love and live with whoever one wants to. Yet this is what is happening in America today. The Land of the Free is lagging behind the Old World of Europe and clinging to an ideology at odds with the very foundations of America. Thomas Jefferson in The Federalist Papers recommended to our young nation that we keep religion and state separate. Remarkably the people that are against the idea of gay marriage (marriage as a state institution, not marriage as a religious one since our laws do not cover what a religion recognizes as valid) are almost exclusively against it because it would somehow taint the “holiness” of the United States. They have no qualms, however, with accepting tax exemption and would argue that religion should be separate from the state in that matter. It would seem they want to have their cake and eat it too. The simple fact of the matter is that marriage as a state institution should be available to all and should not be exclusively held by those who are heterosexual. Marriage to the person one loves simply, from a state standpoint, means that two people wish to enter into an exclusive contract with certain binding terms that sets that relationship apart from friendship. It is not, from the standpoint of the state, a matter that concerns religion at all. If those who wish to ban it based on their religious beliefs persist in their public opposition, they should also be willing to be taxed and nonexempt from their other public duties (nondiscrimination laws, etc.). If they are unwilling to do so, then they should be willing to allow the state to extend the right to marry to any two consenting adults, regardless of gender. What do you think? Should gays be allowed to marry?
The Valeyard 