No religion in public schools

The Supreme Court rejected an appeal to overturn a ruling by an appeals court to allow religious services in New York City school buildings after hours. The appeal was made by the Bronx Household of Faith, an evangelical Christian church. The religious group wanted to use a local middle school for its Sunday morning services that included singing of hymns, prayer and preaching from the Bible.

The appeal was made on the grounds that the denial by the New York City Board of Education was “viewpoint discrimination” and the appeals court authorized “censorship of private religious speakers.” The Supreme Court rejected the appeal without comment. This usually means that a majority of the justices found no merit in the request.

In a community, places represent things. The police station, the fire station and schools are places in the community that have very clear meanings. When you go to any of those places, like the place station, you are expecting to see police conducting their official business. We expect the same experience when we visit the fire station and schools.

Private buildings have the same expectations but are also distinctly different then public buildings. The local hardware store, the auto repair facility and churches are different places than public. The owners and managers of private places have control over the image that they project and can refuse to allow entry to people as long as it isn’t based on certain issues.

Allowing religious activities in a public school building would confuse its purpose of learning. It sends a message that this is the religion you should learn about. If you attended a religious school building you would expect to hear about one particular religion. But, public schools need to be a place where learning can be conducted without the influence of any religion.

The New York City School Board made the right decision to keep religion out of their buildings. This maintains a clear division between public and private purpose. It was good to see that the appeals court and the Supreme Court agreed with their decision.

-----

Protect IP act is no protection

If the Protect IP Act becomes law, it will empower the Attorney General of the United States to blacklist websites without court review. This is like the chief of police of a local community deciding that a group of protesters should not be allowed to assemble in a local park because the local gas station asked the chief.

Many countries around the world allow their citizens to steal copyrighted material and sell it for a profit. China is the biggest abuser. Big corporations through their associations like the United States Chamber of Commerce, the Motion Picture Association of America, the American Federation of Musicians and others have petitioned congress for stricter laws preventing piracy. The act that is working it was through congress is called the Protect IP Act.

One of the provisions of the act would allow the United States Attorney General to blacklist sites that are suspected of piracy. With the big names mentioned above behind the law, the pressure on the Attorney General to block sites would be tremendous. But, he could do it without any judicial review. It would be his or her digression to block a site.

There is the possibility that sites could be blocked that may have an issue with one of the big corporations. Instead of spending their billions challenging the site in court, they could just pick up the phone and ask the Attorney General to take action. There is also a chance that sites could be blocked that are not politically aligned with the administration at the time. With no judicial review, the citizens of the community would have no way of making an informed judgment about the case.

This is clearly a freedom of speech issue.  If the site is on the wrong side of the law, then a simple court review would illustrate it.  Our judicial system is a way of checking the power of the congress and the president. This is a bad law for our community. The prevision about block sites should have judicial review.

-----

Rick Perry and his call to prayer

Rick Perry may be the most politically dangerous man in America right now.

The Texas Governor’s call to prayer at Reliant stadium over this past weekend in Houston isn’t the reason. On his free time he can practice his religion with abandon. His deep faith in his religion isn’t the reason either. There have many religious people that have been public officials, including Presidents, in the past and present.

Rick Perry is a politically dangerous man because of many other reasons.

One is my concern that Perry’s beliefs will direct his decision making process. He would like government to a religious and spiritual guide. He, like strong and vocal groups of Americans, believe that this is a Christian nation. This, despite the fact that John Adams, one of three people that are credited with being the primary authors of the Constitution, and many others that helped create the Constitution, have said it is not. They have said this in writing many times. This government’s primary purpose, and what should be the primary purpose of any government, is to protect the rights of people regardless of their belief. The only time government should take action is when harm will or can happen to an individual. Perry, it seems from all of his campaigning up to this point, thinks that laws should be in place that protects morality. A morality in this case that is based on Perry’s own religious beliefs.

Another is my concern that Perry will attempt to excluded people that do not share his religious beliefs from the public forum. It’s hard to image that the governor will allow freedom of religion in American that isn’t Christian. This will mean more intense pressure will be applied to groups like the Muslims that are already having a difficult time building their own religious houses.

Another is that Rick Perry, if he becomes President, will be a divider. Those that don’t believe that Christian morality should be the guide for government’s action will be side lined. This will cause incredible strife between other religious groups and those that have no faith in a spiritual being. They will be forced to live under the religious mandates of a religion they don’t believe in. This is the very thing our nation finds so abhorrent in religious countries around the world. We call them terrorists when they take over a country and enforce a strict adherence to a religious doctrine.

Rick Perry is dangerous because those that support his campaign with money and infrastructure will demand and expect that their beliefs will become policy. Just one of the groups, The American Family Association, with over 200 radio stations under their control, provided a million dollars to the Houston rally. Another group, the Cornerstone Church lead by John Hagee, sent 700 members to help in the organizing for the Houston Rally. (Another blog will be posted on the Cornerstone Church’s leader John Hagee in the near future as soon as the research is completed.) With that kind of investment and the infrastructure of 200 radio stations and staff, they will expect a return. If you think that they won’t have a say in policy decisions, think again please.

Finally, because Rick Perry believes that the Christian God will deliver us from all the social ills that may befall us. Problems that we face as a nation will not be solved by deep faith but by critical action. To fall to our knees and pray may help us understand our inner selves better but will not provide the solutions. Hard work and cooperation between all individuals will solve our problems.

This blog post may sound anti-religious. It is not. Spiritually is a strong influence in the personal lives of every human. To allow our own spiritually to guide us as individuals is important for personal peace. But, to allow a single spiritually to be forced on all American citizens through government action will only cause dissension and conflict.

-----

Herman Cain supports banning mosques

Herman Cain, Republican candidate for president, says that communities don’t have to accept mosques if its citizens don’t want them.  The Washington Post called it “buffoonery.” The definition of buffoonery is behavior that is ridiculous but amusing.  Cain’s statement is certainly ridiculous but it is not amusing.  It feeds the irrational fear of public opinion about Islam. 

During an interview with Chris Wallace on Fox News, Herman Cain said that Islam is not a religion like other religions and Americans have the right to keep it out of their communities if they wish.  Cain said, “Islam is both a religion and a set of laws – Sharia laws.  That’s the difference between any one of our traditional religions where it’s just about religious purposes.”  So, according to Cain, because the Muslim religion has an established set of laws, communities can ban mosque if they so choose.

Cain continues with, “That’s not discriminating based upon their particular religion.”

Cain’s words are clearly political double speak.  First, he says that it is a religion.  But, because there is a code of conduct for its believers it should not be treated like a religion.   But, Mr. Cain, isn’t that what religion is… a belief that we need to follow some rules?   

So, using Cain’s logic, any religion that has a code of conduct for its faithful should be banned.  Communities should be able to ban Jewish temples.  Rabbinical law would be considered a set of “laws,” therefore communities could ban temples.  Then, there are the Catholics with their cannon law.  In fact, they have a country that enforces cannon law, the Vatican.  It is presumed that if given the opportunity, the Catholics would love to have the United States run by cannon law, therefore, since the Catholics have a set of laws, communities should be able to ban Catholic churches. 

Cain is baiting all those that believe that Islam attacked us on 9-11 and continues to threaten our national security.  Just because the individuals that attacked us on that fateful day claimed to be good Muslims, doesn’t mean that everyone that follows Islam is the same.  No matter the religion, it is individuals that should be held accountable for their actions.    

It is presumed that Cain is a conservative because he is running as a Republican.  Conservatives strongly believe, as they should, that individuals need to be held accountable for their actions, not groups.  Yet, he states on national television that a group of people should be separated from everyone else because of their religious beliefs.

All of this, of course, is not addressing the fundamental issue in Cain’s statement.  No community has the right to ban a religion nor its place of worship.  In the United States, the First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion.  To suggest that Islam can be narrowly redefined to separate it from other religions is to use a blunt object to disconnect it from protection under the amendment.  If communities can successfully do that, then they can find ways to redefine any religion that the majority disagrees with and ban them as well. 

Will your religion be next?

-----

The "Internet Kill Switch" needs some safe guards

Recently, under the radar of all the other arguments that our culture is currently debating, the senate passed out of committee a bill entitled, “Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act.” (at this writing it is not clear to the author what the current status of the bill is). The act would establish the “Office of Cyberspace Policy and National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications.” It directs this new office to set standards and coordinate cybersecurity efforts within the government. The bill is sponsored by Senator Joseph Lieberman (I, Connecticut), Susan Collins (R Maine) and Tom Carper (D Delaware).

The biggest concern about the bill is that it would authorize the President of the United States to shut down all or parts of the internet during Internet-based attacks that threaten national security without review of the courts. Whenever the term “national security” is used, it is suppose to make all of us flinch and allow our freedoms to be limited. It provides the ground work to take action without authorization from the courts much like Bush’s actions after the 9-11 attacks.

Before anyone thinks that this is national issue that doesn’t affect main street and your neighborhood, please reconsider. The uprisings in many countries around the world over the last year, especially during the Arab Spring, have been supported by the internet. The right to free speech about the issues in those faraway places was enhanced by communication on the internet. It drove the passions of people that seek their freedom from the dictators of countries that oppressed their citizens for far too long.

If the freedoms of everyday people in those oppressed nations had not been stomped down, there would have been evolutionary change in the governments that control those countries and violent change would not have been necessary. But, since freedoms that are basic to all people were suppressed, the governments held a firm hold over the masses. It was the rise of the internet that allowed people to coordinate protests (the basic right of assembly) and demand change (a redress of their grievances).

With the free flow of information about issues, we can all make informed decisions about the threats that face our community. To hear from many voices about the ideas and actions of others is to foster an open dialogue about solutions and actions to take. In the countries that experienced the upheavals of the last few months, especially the more sophisticated and developed countries, the internet was controlled or in some places shut down as a first line of defense to the protests. In the United States, or any nation, to place the same power as is held by the dictators in the hands of very few people without review, is a dangerous act.

But, there is a more practical and simple reason to prevent such power without review to take place. Much of our communication not only between political groups but also between loved ones, friends and others is facilitated by the internet. To be able to connect with them in times of trouble is to ease the fear and panic that is created by crisis.

There does need to be a policy, well developed and measured, in the event of attack to the internet. We can’t be blind to the fact that there are those that would do us harm. The community needs to respond appropriately to prevent the loss of lives and assets. The creation of a cybersecurity team may be the correct path to take. But, the power placed in the executive branch must be balanced by a review from both the courts and the congress. This will prevent a stomping down of rights that is the hallmark of totalitarian governments.

This is the way an open community works best.

Note: Three things presented themselves while writing this blog post.

The First amendment of the Constitution guarantees not only the freedom of speech, but also of the press. The authors clearly meant to identify two issues, speech and the right to distribute that speech through a medium, in this case the internet.

Second, another issue linked to this one is net neutrality. There are those in congress that would like to limit the amount of the internet that users can connect to, leaving that decision to the market. But, as is identified above, the Constitution clearly makes the distribution of speech a right. To limit it would be hard to justify.

Finally, the word cybersecurity used in the act. It is such a new term that the word processing software used to write this post didn’t have the term in the spell check data base. Therefore, it marked the word as misspelled. This is how new this issue is in our culture.

-----

Religion is the first right

The headlines of the Oakland Press a week ago said that Muslims had purchased a school building in Farmington. If it was Catholics, Baptists or Methodist no one would have paid much attention. But, because it was a group associated with Islam, a religion many in America have trouble with, it raised some concern by the community. Enough concern that the Oakland Press placed it on the front page.

Religion in America is the most scared of rights. It is the first right that is given protection in the first amendment of the Constitution.

The founders knew well the troubles that England and Europe had with religion and all the wars it caused. (or at least, like those that claim there are good Muslims, the wars that religion was given as the reason – but more on that in another post). Religion was one of the biggest reasons people came to the “New World”, second only to making money. They traveled across the ocean, a scary thing to do at the time, in search of a place they could practice their religion without interference. The immigrants set up communities that were for the most part, doing just what they were escaping from in England. They formed communities whose government and culture were dictated by the official religion of the community.

This was okay at first. Most everyone practiced the established religion, or at least played along. But, the new country grew from just a few settlements along the coast to, what was at the time, large cities. As trade begin to happen between the communities, people that didn’t follow the established religion of one community, moved in. The same trouble that communities in England experience could have happen here, if it wasn’t for a bold idea. Everyone agreed, although with some difficulty at first, that everyone could practice their own religion in their own space.

Looking back, many believe that this is a Christian nation, born from the belief of those Christians that traveled here from Europe. Jews were well established in New York and Islam had a community in Philadelphia. Even among the Christian religions, there were many different sects that, in some cases, aggressively disagreed with the beliefs of others.

Those that created the nation and its government didn’t call it a Christian nation either. In documents and treaties at the time, they removed religion from the government. There are treaties that state we are not a Christian nation, meaning that there is no state religion. In the First amendment, it states that government shall not establish a religion nor prevent the free exercise of religion. It does not state on any document that set up the United States government that religion should play any role. In fact, in the main body of the Constitution, it clearly and emphatically states that there shall be no religious test - twice. A very clear statement considering that some phrasing of the Constitution is vague.

Even if there wasn’t a Constitution that barred religion from government and provides an atmosphere for religious freedom, it would be the right thing to do. There is little chance that followers of a religion that is barred from freely exercising their beliefs and prevented from participating in community life, would support the community. The reality is, that when anyone feels isolated from the main street community for any reason, they will be less supportive, if not anti-social in their conduct.

To draw from the supporters of another right, religion doesn’t harm people, people do. No matter what the religion may or may not teach, it is individual followers of a religion that may use it as an excuse to be violent. These individuals should be stopped when their action causes harm others, not the religion. To exclude an entire religion is to prevent other, none violent citizen in good standing from following their right to practice their faith.

With some exceptions, no right is absolute, all should be allowed to practice their religion in their own space. To do otherwise is to limit the freedom of the community.

-----

A community should not support a faulted exercise of freedoms

The Michigan branch of Americans for Prosperity received a lot of attention Monday by posting fake evection notices on hundreds of homes Detroit’s Delray district. The words “Eviction Notice” were in very large print on yellow sheets of paper. Americans for Prosperity are against the State of Michigan building a second bridge across the Detroit River. The fake notices claimed that their homes would be taken to make way for the new bridge. This was their attempt to get the attention of the residents in the Delray district.

Businessman Manuel (Matty) Moroun is the owner of the Ambassador Bridge. He is strongly opposed to the state building a new bridge. It would obviously draw traffic and business away from the Ambassador Bridge, where Moroun makes money by charging a toll to use the bridge. He has been running television ads making some very outrageous claims about the cost of the new bridge to the taxpayers of Michigan.

Americans for Prosperity, reported to be a conservative group, is based in Washington, D.C. with offices in many states around the country. The group that peppered Delray with the eviction notices is Michigan based. Scott Hagerstrom is the official spokesperson for the Michigan group. He said that he could not say if Moroun’s company, Detroit International Bridge Company, supported the action. The company did issue a statement that said they didn’t support the tactics of Americans for Prosperity.

Americans for Prosperity have committed a faulted exercise of the freedom of speech and it should not be allowed. Buried deep in the story is an issue that needs to be explored to understand why it should not have been allowed. Hagerstrom said that the membership of Americans for Prosperity is secrete. Even though they are involved in the political process, the United States Supreme Court has ruled in error that membership in such organizations can remain hidden.

A representative democracy doesn’t work that way. That isn’t the way it worked over 200 years ago when we separated from England with the Declaration of Independence. John Hancock did not believe that. A wealthy shipping businessman, he could have had much to lose if the events of the day went wrong. It is clear that every British authority of the time knew who he was because of his business and wealth. But, there in the middle of the document is his signature. Many others also signed the document such as Benjamin Franklin, Samuel Adams, Roger Sherman. They wanted their names displayed on this document to show support for the movement at the time.

A country, a community, cannot be based on hidden agendas and secrete societies. It must be based on open government. If someone, anyone, takes a political stand on the issues they need to come forward to announce their views and sign their name. That provides everyone else with the opportunity to make informed judgments about the issues and the arguments for and against.

To Moroun’s credit, he is staking a sizable portion of his wealth by working against the building of the second bridge, not unlike John Hancock. While his assessments of the issue are suspect, at least he has signed his name to issue. Knowing who he is and what is at stake for him, his family and the Detroit International Bridge Company, we can make a better decision to either support or not support his position.

Every freedom comes with a responsibility. In this case, the concept of freedom of speech would have supported the fake eviction notices circulated by Americans for Prosperity. But, with that freedom comes a release of the supporters of the organization. Since the membership remains hidden, Americans for Prosperity have committed a faulted exercise of freedom. They were wrong in circulating the fake notices.

-----

Why do you need a silly reason to carry a gun?

Why do you need a silly reason to carry a gun. Why not just say, I want to carry a gun because I want to carry a gun.

GeorgiaCarry.org is suing Georgia over the state’s open carry law. The law states that people can’t carry a gun into a church as well as a few other places. Since 2007 the organization, that was founded to “protect the Second Amendment”, has been fighting cities and counties in Georgia to repeal gun laws. With their sights now on a state law, they claim that the restriction against openly carrying a gun at church restricts their right to exercise their freedom of religion.

Yes, you read that correctly. The group claims that the restriction that prevents the carrying of a gun in church restricts the right to exercise the freedom of religion. They suggest that they would not be able to protect themselves and their families if they don’t have a gun. Therefore, that fear prevents them from going to church.

The Constitution’s Second Amendment does protect the right to bear arms. It states:

• “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

According to the debates on the Constitution that swirled around at the time, the authors were concerned that a strong military could be used against the country’s citizens. That is partly why they wrote in the document that funding for the military should not be longer than two years. The country, though, still needed to be defended in times of crisis. The response was to ensure that each state had a militia that was armed and trained. Yes, of course, they also knew at the time, many people needed a gun for hunting and protecting themselves from the “savages” that lived on the frontier.

The news reports don’t say why Georgia felt they needed a law that restricts the open carry of weapons in churches. Communities need a real reason that is supported by evidence to enact any law. Since the arguments made by those that would like the law declared unconstitutional were not about why Georgia made the law, it is hoped that the state had a solid reason.

The issues here are about both the Constitution and a reasonable response of a community to a concern it has. The Constitution does clearly state a right to own a weapon. The Georgia law didn’t disregard the constitution all together by outlawing the ownership of guns. Chicago and Washington, D. C. tried that. The gun ownership laws in those cities were struck down by the Supreme Court.

That doesn’t mean that congress or a legislature in a state can’t prescribe reasonable guidelines for the right to carry a gun. A community, in this case the people of Georgia, through there rightfully elected legislature, has the right to say that even though we can own guns, we just can’t carry or use them in situations where there is a perceived danger. Would anyone argue that we can own a gun and fire them where we want? Or, that we should be able to carry a grenade launcher into a bank?

If GeorgiaCarry.org thinks that people should be able to carry guns when they go to church and Georgia can’t demonstrate a reason they should not be able to, okay. But to say that it prevents people from exercising their freedom of religion, is a none argument.

Georgia didn’t make the ownership of weapons illegal. An over reaching response to any concern by the community would be to make guns illegal to own under all circumstances. According to the Constitution, people do have the right to own guns. But no right is absolute and responsible communities can prescribe reasonable restrictions on any right.

-----

No rights to marry for prisoners

Would you marry a man or woman that is in prison for second degree murder and a weapons charge?

Perhaps you would, but that shouldn’t be the determining factor here, because in a situation like this, it is not your choice alone. When there are two people that are free from prison or any other monitoring by state or federal authorities, they are free to associate with whom they wish. If they want to be married, they should be granted that wish by the state or the federal government without question. But, if one of the partners has misused the trust that is held by him or her in a responsible community by committing a major crime, that partner should lose all rights except those that enable him to fight the charge.

A Rochester Hills woman married a man that is in prison for second degree murder and other weapons charges. If he is not granted clemency or parole, he will be there for the rest of his life. He misused the trust of the community by committing these crimes. He should lose all his rights other than those necessary for his defense.

Should we let him out of prison because it is a beautiful Spring day? Or should we let him start a business, an operation that requires a great amount of trust between people? How about voting if he is still in confinement? No, no and no again. All those acts are granted only to those that the community can trust.

So why do we allow prisoners to marry? It is the relationship that requires the most amount of trust between two people.

On another point, the man is convicted of murder. His actions resulted in the death of another person. That person can’t enjoy the coming Spring, can’t get involved in a business and certainly can’t marry. If an individual’s actions have limited or permanently taken the rights of another person you should also not have any rights.

Allowing a person in prison to defend himself is an absolute right. But, once convicted he should have no other rights until he has served his term (by serving, parole or clemency) or, until he is proven innocent.

-----

Courts must rule from the Constitution and not religion

What many of us mean when we say freedom of religion is really freedom of our religion at the exclusion of others.

An Ohio judge hung the Ten Commandments in the lobby of the court house where he presides. Alongside the Ten Commandments was a statement, that he said, was attributed to “humanist” view of the rule of law. (It does need to be noted here that the humanists views were not from a “humanists”. They were his own interpretation of the humanist view point. Needless to say, perhaps, they were not flattering.) The judge argued that it was a freedom of speech issue because he was making a comparison between his religious beliefs and those that do not believe in a god. He claimed that his action is protected under the First Amendment.

Members of the community objected and took him to court. They did this since they owned the court house in union with others in the community and not the judge. By the judge hanging a display expressing his own religious beliefs and not that of the overall community, he didn’t express the community’s overall view of religion.

The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that it was a display of a religious document. The court ordered that he take down the display.

The audacity of the judge is remarkable. What the Ohio judge was doing was excluding all other religions in the community from expressing their own views in the same manor. He also insulted some in the community, the humanist, with his negative interpretation of their view. He was doing this because he thought he owned the court house and could do as he pleased. But the truth is, everyone in the community owns an equal share of the court house. They also pay the judge’s wages in equal share. His actions should reflect the will of the entire community and not exclude anyone because of his or her religious beliefs.

Freedom of religion doesn’t mean that you can use the resources of other community members to practice your faith. It means that on your own, or in association with a private group, you can worship, express, gather and in other ways exercise your religion.

This most likely took place in a predominantly Christian area of the country. What if the judge was Muslim and in a part of the country that is predominantly Islam? What if he wanted to hang the a list of the five pillars of Islam in the lobby of the court house and compare it to Judaism in a negative way. Events in some parts of the country already have an answer to that question. In Oklahoma, they passed a voter initiative that doesn’t allow courts to use Sharia Law as a basis for decisions. Sharia Law is the primary basis of law that guides most Muslims. Courts in Oklahoma can only use Constitutional law in harmony with state law.

It is proper that Constitutional law be the only law for any court in the United States follow. It should be used worldwide. We should not use Muslim, Christian or Judaism as a factor in decided cases. There are many legal issues in Constitutional law that are in conflict with Christianity, Islamic and Judeo law. But, courts and their judges, specifically the judge in Ohio, must be blind to the faith of the individual that is in front of them. They must adhere to the law of the Constitution in all of his or her rulings.

-----

Religious freedom is not absolute

Trilochan Oberoi is a United States citizen that lives in California. He is a Sikh. He has applied for the position of a corrections officer with The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. He has passed all the tests, his background check is clean and is deemed tough enough. For all reasons other than one, he should get the job. What is holding back the department from giving it to him? He won’t shave his beard.

Sikh’s in part, believe that they should look like their creator made them. If he cuts his beard (and his hair, which doesn’t appear to be an issue here) he would be violating one of the tenets of his belief. But, the department of corrections’ policy is that every man keep his face clean shaved. This allows for a gas mask to fit properly.

Oberoi is suing to have the department’s policy changed because it would be a violation of his religion to shave his beard.

We all know the quote from the First Amendment, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The word “Congress” in this case, via the Fourteenth Amendment, means any law making or policy setting body in the United States. The California Department of Correction and Rehilibation is a function of the state of California. It appears that “congress” in this case, the legislative branch of California, has a policy that prohibits the free exercise of a religion. End of story.

Well, not so fast.

Never did the Founding Fathers, anyone else that voted in support of the Constitution, anyone that has ruled on cases involving religion or people living in any responsible community believe that it means that the right is absolute. Public safety is the most important issue. Of course, congress should not make laws without any reason, but when the public safety is involved, all rights are subordinate.

The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s policy that men keep their beards shaved so that a gas mask can fit properly is not a violation of Oberoi’s religious freedom. The policy is there for a reason, so that men can be sent into a situation where tear gas will be used. If the commander of the guards can’t be certain about an individual’s ability to perform at the peak of performance, in this case Oberoi, he should not have the job.

The phrase “Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” are not just three words strung in any order. They are in order of importance. Life being the most important. If communities can’t help protect the lives of the individuals in the community, all liberties would be in jeopardy. Mandating that every corrections officer shave his beard is a way that the community can help individuals protect the lives of everyone.

-----

Banning speech at the funeral of the Arizona victums

Tragedy visited Arizona over the weekend. A representative of congress was seriously wounded and 6 others were killed. The gunman’s motives are unclear right now and may never really be known.
The debate after all of this is about the freedom of speech. The representative that was wounded was the focus of harsh comments by many that didn’t agree with her politically. The question that is being tossed around the media is what responsibility do those that preach political hate have? The answer for many is none. Political pundits and talk show hosts, many say, are just exercising their freedom of speech and should in no way be connected with what this young man did in Arizona. Even though his actions killed people, the freedom of speech should be protected at all costs.

Well, unless of course, politics get in the way.

Members of the Westboro Baptist Church from Topeka, Kansas will be in town for the funeral of Christina Taylor Green, a 9 year old girl that was one of the people that were killed. The church group is most famous for showing up at the funerals of veterans suggesting that the reason they died was because the United States accepts the gay lifestyle, as well as other issues. This time, they will arrive because “God sent the shooter to deal with idolatrous America.”

The Westboro Baptist Church is the focus of a Supreme Court case about the freedom of speech. Last fall, they argued that they have the right to express their opinion and should not have to pay damages to the father of a veteran that they picketed. That case is expected to be released sometime this Spring.

Lawmakers in Arizona have now crafted a law that will not allow the members of the Westboro Baptist Church from picketing the funeral of the little girl. The lawmakers suspended most of the rules to make this happen before the funeral. Jan Brewer, the governor of Arizona, signed the bill.

Even if every last person in Arizona agrees with the law banning the picketers, that doesn’t make it right. You can’t on one side of the argument defend the freedom of speech, then, make laws that limit the freedom of speech for no other reason than because it is uncomfortable.

The Westboro Church group may make us cringe to think that anyone would want to turn a funeral into a political statement and not respect the deep sorrow of the families of the 9 year old girl. The Westboro Church, though, at the very least broaden the limits of our freedoms. The lawmakers that are worked so hard at banning the Westboro group are limiting our freedoms in ways that may come to haunt us in the future.

-----

Politicians need to open about their income and contributions

Jack is the owner of a diner in Pontiac. He services up good food to working class people from the neighborhood and others that work in the area.

Jack immigrated to the United States from Iraq between the wars. He has known first hand corrupt politicians and officials. He lived under a dictatorship that only held elections to appease the voters. Where money came from to run campaigns and pay people was not known. That is no way to run a government he would often say.

When he came to America, Jack just knew things would be different. He quickly adds that it wasn’t the money. It was the way the government is run. But, it hasn’t turned out like he thought.

“They are all corrupt,” he was ranting the other day. “Every politician that is elected is corrupt.”

Thinking he meant the local politicians and officials from the city, I begin to quiz him about what he was really saying. There may be a few corrupt people working in Pontiac, but for the most part they are just everyday people.

“No, I don’t mean them…” he said with a roll of his eyes. “I am talking about everyone that goes to Washington.”

He must of seen my own roll of the eyes. Seems that most people think politicians are corrupt, even though they don’t have any proof. Everyday people, just like those that come into his diner, knows it for a fact… mostly because everyone else thinks so.

“Look, every time Verizon, or GM or some other big corporation gives money to one side, they give money to the other side,” he started explaining. “If they were giving money for the right reasons, they wouldn’t give money to both sides. Do you think anyone in this restaurant right now would give money to someone if it weren’t in their best interest?”

“This was a hard working class of people, they won’t give any of the little money they do have if it wasn’t for something good,” I had to admit. “But, giving campaign contributions is legal. It isn’t corrupt if it is legal. Besides, the Supreme Court said not only can they, but they don’t have to reveal themselves to the public.”

“But, the outcome is the same,” he challenged back with a growing passion. This was clearly a subject he had strong feelings about. “If I kill someone, it doesn’t matter if it was legal, the person is still dead. It is the same here. Politicians go to Washington and even if they don’t want to, they learn how to be corrupt.”

Jack’s words were harsh and passionate. But, his comparative approach to his home country and the United States did have merit. If the contributions to a politician come from a business or organization that disagreed with his or her political positions, most politicians will still take the money. Not that they can be blamed. Even the most honest politician knows that it takes money, and lots of it, to run a campaign. Politicians that have little money because they take limited contributions from only individuals most always loses to the one with lots and lots of money.

We as individual voters, not unlike all the people that eat lunch at Jack’s, need to know where that money is coming from for campaigns. It doesn’t matter what the Supreme Court says. If we as voters will not support a candidate, even if they take positions we agree with, unless they reveal all their sources, it would stop.

An example is Carol Moseley Braun. She is one of six candidates, including ex-White House Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, who made the cut yesterday in the run for Mayor of Chicago. She first said she wouldn’t release here income tax records. Then, changed her mind and did release them. But, now, she refuses to release details about her income.

If open government has any meaning, it means that the lives of politicians lose a lot of privacy when they run for office. Just as it should since they are suppose to be representing people, just like us, at Jack’s.

-----

6 gunned dead in Arizona, including a 9 year old girl

A shooting in Arizona brings back the debate about the freedom of speech and foreseeable harm that may result.

It was just two weeks ago a post was made on this blog about a disgusting man who wrote a book to help pedophiles. (The pedophile's book is free speech)  A sheriff in Florida sent deputies to Colorado to arrest him because the author had sold a book via mail order to the deputies. Charged with breaking Florida’s obscenities laws, the author’s defense lawyer claimed the book is protected speech. The conservative Republican sheriff’s response was that it is speech, but speech and words have consequences and can cause some to take action that can cause harm.

The blog took the side of freedom of speech, but hoped that someone could find a way to censor the author’s book without damaging one of the most important freedoms of all, the freedom of speech.

Sunday, six people were killed and a Democratic congresswomen was left with a bullet wound to her brain by a 22 year old gunman.  (Congresswoman still sedated after gunman’s attack; second person of interest sought) The congresswoman was one of the 20 districts that Sarah Palin had targeted on her website, with cross hairs like that of a gun site.  (We diagnosed the problem... )Others across the country, using a variety of media as their outlet, have also expressed in very vitriolic rhetoric, their hatred of people that disagree with their opinions in politics. The sharpness of political debate has come to the edge if not just crossing the line of speech that has consequences.

There are plenty of people with personalities that are easily manipulated. Political opinion leaders in the media know it well. They have built their careers, and filled their pockets, on the loyal readership, viewers and audience that follow their every word. As was suggested by the sheriff in Florida, speech can provide the justification needed to lead some to take action that they might not have otherwise.

This rhetoric flows in a circle. The opinion leader makes expressions that pulls in the audience. The audience then responds with their own harsh comments. That is then echoed back and forth until the debate loses any rational basis, leaving only the hate. In the last Presidential election, Senator John McCain stopped the echo when he shut down a woman in a televised town hall meeting. To his credit, he brought back the debate from the edge. Political opinion leaders need to do the same.

Political debate has always been hot. But, the opinion leaders’ venomous expressions have taken a sharp turn to the edge of lunacy. It will be difficult to find that line between freedom of speech and criminal activity. But to continue without backing up from the edge means that the expressions of some will be like the man that yells “fire” in a crowded theater or incites a riot. The freedom of speech ends when as a result, there is foreseeable harm.

-----

A cross at a war memorial needs to be removed

So what does it matter that a single cross is at a war memorial in San Diego?

On Mt. Soledad in San Diego, California, there is a war memorial honoring the fallen in the Korean War, a respectable and virtuous thing for a community to do. But, in the center of the memorial it has a single religious symbol, a cross. The cross is arguably the religious symbol solely of Christianity. People have been debating since 1989 that the cross, or any other religious symbol doesn’t belong on this or any government site.  The 9th district court of appeals in California ruled that the cross endorses a single religion over all others. The court sent it back to the lower courts to determine what should be done with the cross.

Keep in mind, the Constitution commands that, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” If this has any meaning, it means that through any direct or indirect act of congress, the government cannot establish a law that even appears to endorse religion. By owning the memorial, the federal government has endorsed this memorial and has chosen to keep the religious symbol of a single religion as part of the memorial.

So what does it matter that a single cross is at a war memorial in San Diego? A Jewish war veterans group, who was one of the individuals and groups that fought the presence of the cross in the memorial, said that it excludes veterans that weren’t Christian. So what about the Hindu’s, the Muslims, the Buddhist or the Catholics for that matter since their cross has Jesus on it? As a community, are we to begin to select the symbol of a single religion to represent all religions at government sites? Which we can’t according to the Constitution, nor should we in a Responsible Community. Are we to begin the process of determining what a religion is then place a symbol for each at sites such as this? That would be a confusing and exhausting task because if you would like to see a long list of religions of the world, click here. It would also set up court battles for those individuals that feel their religious beliefs, as minor and subtle as the difference might be from one on the list, are not represented fairly.

It is a very wise and thoughtful concept to not have a single religion established by any legislative body in the community. It is also wise to not attempt to represent all religions just to allow religion to be part of a government site.

Government was not established to govern our religious life, only our civilian. By keeping government out of our religious life it gives us the greatest religious freedom possible.

-----

The pedophile's book is free speech

Do not think there is any support in this blog post for the disgusting pedophile this post is about. But sometimes, our most important freedoms in a community are articulated in the defense of someone who has done something terribly wrong.

By now, many may be aware that Philip Greaves II has written a book called, “The Pedophile’s Guide to Love and Pleasure: a Child-lover’s Code of Conduct.” The book has been called an instruction manual for abusing children. He claims it is a book meant to help men “avoid taking action that would cause them to be arrested.” In the book, he says, it discusses how men “can go about to improve their own lives.” But, apparently, it isn’t how to stop abusing minors, to seek help or to turn themselves in if they have had sex with a minor. It is how to keep their action legal. News articles state that he has sold 14 books.

Greaves, responding to a request from the sheriff department of Polk County in central Florida portraying themselves to be an interested person, sent a copy of his book from his Colorado home. Apparently in Colorado there aren’t any laws that would allow Greaves to be arrested. But, in Florida, the obscenity laws make it a crime to distribute material of an obscene nature depicting minors engaged in conduct that is harmful to them. In the book, Greaves writes about two encounters, real or not, about sex between a man and a 9 and 13 year old boy.

The author claims that it is a freedom of speech issue through his lawyer. Although, news articles about the arrest, Greaves himself has never taken that stand. Perhaps he will now. At Greaves’ arraignment, his lawyer claimed that the book is just words, not action. The prosecutor in the case, says that not only are the scenes in the book obscene, but that words can turn into action.

This case is certainly a speech issue. No right is absolute, so when action harms someone else, it needs to limited. In this case, the words in the book themselves do not harm anyone. The sheriff’s claims that the scenes depicted in the book are obscene is not enough to warrant arrest.

But, the sheriff’s claims that words can turn into action does have some merit. This is especially true because the words are about an illegal activity that is particularly repulsive to the culture. If someone using the book as a guide turn the words into action, it could do great harm to a minor, his family and the community.

It will be a tough case to find a path between protected speech and the sensibilities of the community. As an example, it is well understood that we do have freedom of speech unless we incite a riot. At that point, the speaker can be held accountable for the actions of the rioters.

But, what of a radio talk show hosts that may say someone needs to take action against a politician? Conservative talk radio hosts have been vilified by the liberals over the risk that their words will incite someone to attack a disliked politician. In their defense, conservatives have said that words are just words and the action of someone is their own responsibility. But, the sheriff of Polk County, a republican and a supporter of conservative causes, says that words have the chance to cause action and Greaves should be held responsible even before the action happens.

The subject of Greaves book is disgusting. It is not fiction which could be brushed aside. It is not a research paper that reports on how to treat pedophiles. It isn’t a legal advice book written by a lawyer to help people resolve their legal issues. It is a book, as even the title states, that guides pedophiles in their love relationships with minor children.

This book needs to be stopped. But, finding the very thin line between free speech and this view on the subject matter is difficult to impossible at best. Better to error on the side of free speech than censorship. At the very least, the community now has a better understanding of the issue because of this book. This knowledge can now be used to help prevent a very repugnant crime.

-----

The wall of separation

Yes, correct, the phrase, “separation of church and state” is not in the Constitution.

The phrase, “right to privacy” doesn’t exist in the Constitution either. “The right to a fair trial”, “separation of powers,” “state’s rights” and “federalism” aren’t in the document as well. Who would deny that we don’t have a right to privacy or a right to a fair trial. All of these expressions are metaphors used to explain constitutional principals.

Politicians often create glib expressions and statements to support their point of view. One of the newest is “since the phrase wall of separation between church and state isn’t in the Constitution, the authors didn’t intend to keep religion out of government.” If that is true, the authors could have written a more direct statement in the First Amendment in support of religion and its role in the newly formed government.

The phrase “separation of church and state” is thought to have been first written by Thomas Jefferson. It was in a letter written to the Danbury Baptists who agreed with the founders that the Constitution was a guide to the civil government of the country. Their leader, Roger Williams, used the phrase before Jefferson. Williams believed that there needs to be a “wall of separation” to describe the relationship between church and state. He and many living at the time know well the corruption that follows when the civil government of a community has too close of a relationship with any with religion. Thomas Jefferson echoed this belief in his letter.

Religion is only mentioned in the Constitution twice. Both times it is to limit the role of religion. Of course, there is the First amendment that expressly states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” It is to be read that government is not to make any law that establishes or prevents any religion. That means that government is to stay entirely out of religious activity.

The second time is in Article VI. The third paragraph states that:

“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

An oath is to be taken supporting “this Constitution” not a deity and that no “religious test shall ever be required” to hold any office or public trust in the Federal government and all the states. Powerful words that can only be interpreted one way, that everyone who is involved in the government; elected or not, at the federal or state level; must be true to the Constitution and not a deity.

It is a dangerous game if we allow religion to have a say in government. Let’s stay true to the Constitution and keep religion as a matter of personal worship.

-----

It must be Christmas

It must be Christmas in America. The annual rite of paying for and setting up a Nativity scene by the government of a small town somewhere is being challenged. And, rightly so because government should not be involved in sponsoring the celebration of any religious holiday.


But that isn’t what this post is about… that will come in a later post.

This post is about not standing up for what you believe in.

In Brookville, Indiana, a Nativity scene has been purchased by tax payer dollars and is being displayed on town property. A letter was sent by the Freedom from Religion Foundation to the small town’s leaders asking that the crèche be removed. The foundation is based in Madison, Wisconsin. The organization found out about the crèche because someone in Brookville snitched. That has town leaders and supporters of the crèche all upset.

Hazel Graves, a resident of Brookville, says she is a Christian and believes in Jesus. Graves thinks the person who informed the Freedom from Religion Foundation needs to come forward. "There's somebody here in town, and they should step forward if they're so brave, and want to take down our Nativity scene," says Graves.

Agreed. The person who sent the notification to Freedom from Religion Foundation should come forward. This country was not founded on mysterious people making statements and not standing up for them. Wasn’t it John Hancock who is to have said, “I will sign my name big enough so the King doesn’t need his glasses to read it.” Sure enough, right there in the middle of the Declaration of Independence is his name as big and bold as anything. He agreed with the words in the document and was willing to sign his name to it.

But, it appears that the person or persons who didn’t reveal themselves is concerned about the backlash from the small town. If they own a business, some neighbors may not shop there anymore. If an employee, he or she may have a hard time finding a job. Neighbors may even picket the snitch’s home to express their outrage.

But, an issue that conservatives support, those who provide money to political action committees and other organizations need not reveal themselves. Most conservatives support the issue because then individuals and corporations can financially support hotly contested issues and not be concerned about the backlash from individuals that disagree with them.

In Washington state, conservatives argued remaining anonymous on political issues was a right. A petition was circulated and submitted that asked the state to submit a question on the ballot to disallow gays and lesbians the right to marry. Opposing groups in the state asked for copies of the petition so all could see who had signed it. Those that signed the petition and the organization that circulated it argued that people may be subjected to harassment if the opposition know who they were. Ultimately, the Supreme Court did rule that there is no expectation of privacy on a petition.

Hazel Graves stance on the issue and likely many others in town, is a little hypocritical. First, Graves and her fellow town folk, were hoping that no one would tell the world about their crèche. They wanted to keep that little secrete for themselves. But, Ms. Graves, if you are asking the person that snitched to come forward, “if they’re so brave” why are you hoping to hide behind anonymity. You should be brave enough yourself to let everyone know about the Nativity and challenge anyone to come forward to contest it so that the issue can be debated in public.

But there is even a wider reason why that stance is hypocritical. This reasoning does assume that a conservatives in the town of Brookville is the same as a conservatives anywhere in America. The residents of Brookville want to know who the snitch is that informed Freedom from Religion. But, on the other hand, conservatives support the Supreme Court decision that ruled that individuals and corporations have the right to remain anonymous when taking political positions, because they are also concerned about anger being taken out on them by those opposing.

John Hancock must be confused by all of this. He, perhaps having more to fear in the days before the Revolutionary War with England, was more than willing to stand on his convictions. His signature is the largest on the Declaration of Independence. The person who snitched on the town of Brookville needs to come forward (and be applauded). But, all individuals and corporations that support political issues in the community need to also come clean.

Our republic was founded on the idea that openly debating issues was the best way to run a community. Let’s return to that concept.

-----

No more sermons at the soup kitchen

No more sermons at the soup kitchen.


Government must stay neutral when it comes to religion. It cannot support one religion over another nor can it even have the appearance of supporting one over another.

Yet, under President Bush, faith based organizations could deliver federal aid while preaching their form of religion. Churches and other religious organizations, under President Bush’s executive order, could deliver federal aid, such as the operation of a soup kitchen, while they were delivering a sermon.

That is changing. President Obama has amended the executive order issued by President Bush mandating the separation of the normal functions of a church and the delivery of federal aid.

Faith based organizations, no matter what calling, should not be able to deliver federal aid of any kind. This is a much too close relationship between God and Country. Whenever this happens, it is much too easy for anyone, especially those that are receiving the aid, to draw the conclusion that there is something special with this religion. Especially if the members of the church are preaching while having dinner.

President Obama’s amended of the order mandates the separation of the two activities, which is a start at getting local religious organizations out of federal aid delivery. The president’s order also goes a step farther. The amendment requires the government to “monitor and enforce standards regarding the relationship between religion and government in ways that avoid excessive entanglement between religious bodies and government entities.”

Don’t forget, in England during the pre American colonial days, religion and government went hand in hand. You were required to be a particular religion, depending on who was in power at the time. If you were protestant and the state religion was catholic, as it was under Queen Mary of Scots, you needed to change. Even tax dollars collected from a protestant would in part be delivered to the catholic church for support, but none to the protestant church. [ The Church of England, a legitimate religion by any standard, was separated from the Catholic Church by Henry the Eighth in an effort to support his government and provide legitimacy for his personal activities. It was, by some conclusions, not only a state religion, but one created for the state.]

In the Constitution, in a plan to make sure that state supported religion doesn’t happen in the new country, the signers wrote in the opening lines of the first amendment that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” They also made very clear in the document that no religious test would be provided to elected officials, providing even further evidence that they wanted to keep religion out of government functions.

By placing a seal of approval on certain religious organizations to dole out federal aid, it appears to support that religious organization. If that money was going to catholic organizations, Queen Mary would be very pleased. But, we in the United States should not be.

-----

Phelps is disgusting, but should receive our support

Pastor Fred W. Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church has it all wrong.

Young men that are fighting in foreign wars are not dying because the country allowed “fags” into the military. They are dying because that is what happens in war. Catholics are not “satanic”, its past has a straight line connection to Jesus Christ. (I am Catholic and it is my chosen religion). Divorced parents do not teach their children by their action to “defy [their] creator.” There can be no love for Hitler or breast cancer even though Pastor Phelps and his followers have said so verbally and in writing.

But, Evelyn Beatrice Hall has it right (or Votaire, or Paine or who ever else you may attribute it to). To paraphrase her, I disagree to the point of disgust with what Phelps says, but he does have the right to say it.

Albert Snyder, on the other side of the argument, believes that Phelps should not be able to say what he does because it caused him emotional distress.

He is the father of Lance Cpl. Mathew A. Snyder, 20, who died in a Humvee accident in Iraq on March 3, 2006. A week later, a funeral mass was held for him at St. John’s Roman Catholic Church in Westminster, Maryland. Members of the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas protested the funeral with signs that said all the things listed above and more. It was a cruel and obscene way for the congregation to express its political and religious beliefs. Later, an essay was posted on line by Phelps’ daughter continuing the cruel expression of their beliefs, mostly against Lance Cpl. Snyder.

Albert Snyder admits that he didn’t see the protesters at the church or at the grave site where his son was buried. It wasn’t until much later that he was on line and discovered the essay about his son. He then sued the pastor and the church for the distress that they caused. A lower court ruled in Snyder’s favor, but an appeals court reversed. Snyder took the case to the Supreme Court. The court heard the oral arguments this week.

The protestors obeyed all the laws of Maryland. They kept their distance from the church and the grave site as outline by law. (They did this, because there are limits on free speech, as with any right. The grave site was a public sitting and could be argued that they had a right to be on site during the funeral, but stayed off the property. But, please do not take this as being understanding of the protesters.)

Snyder didn’t see the protesters at any time. There was no physical or financial harm done to Snyder. His oral argument in court was focused on the emotional harm that was done by reading the things the church sponsored. After reading much of the material, it is not difficult to understand Snyder’s pain.

As truly whacky and indefensible as Pastor Fred W. Phelps and his Westboro Baptist Church are, they do have the right to express their political and religious beliefs. They didn’t cause any practical damage to Snyder and by obeying the laws of Maryland on protests they didn’t interfere with the safety and order of the community.

To return to Hall’s quote, it would be difficult for the Supreme Court to rule any other way other then expressing their disgust with the church even though they support their right to say it.

-----