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.

-----

Pontiac Promise Zone brings hope to a community

Without detailing study after study, educated people earn more money, they have less children and make better decisions in the market place and in the voting booth. Families that make education and lifelong learning their primary focus are functional and healthy. They have less issues with abuse. Communities that are populated by educated people have less crime and less blight. Communities with high education levels replicate themselves.

When one part of the complete quadrangle of education fails, the other parts must work twice as hard to be successful. The student, the family, the institution and the community must work equally as hard and work together for an education system to succeed.

That is why the Pontiac Promise Zone that was announced last month is so important.

The people who suffer the most from a community that has failed are the students. But, even in tough situations, if the individual student and his or her family can see the proverbial light at graduation from high school, they will feel a sense of hope. If they make the effort to graduate, they know they will be able to go on to college. The Pontiac Promise Zone brings hope to thousands of children for many generations.

Let’s us all applaud the Pontiac Promise Zone and all those that have worked so hard to bring it to the community. This is a brilliant example of a community drawing together to build a better future.

-----

Law enforcement officers protect us, let's protect them

On this New Year’s Holiday, I would like to step back from the normal blog to tell a personal story that will never leave my memory.

On a pleasant summer afternoon when I was 12 years old, the family went for an outing. My father drove the car with my mother next to him in the front seat. My brother and I were in the back seat, he on the passenger’s side and I on the driver’s side. The windows were down because it was hot. We were all talking while I was fighting with my brother.

Suddenly, seemingly out of nowhere, four guys on motorcycles quickly passed our car. The speed and noise gave everyone except my father a fright. He had seen the bikes coming from a long way off in the rearview mirror so he was prepared. The guys on the bikes thought they saw a familiar face and slowed down dramatically. My father had to slow the car down to avoid hitting them because they were taking up both sides of the road and he couldn’t pass them. As they recognized my dad, one stayed in front to keep our car in check while the others slowed to come up beside the driver’s side of the car.

Sitting just behind my father in the car with the window down, I had a front row seat to something this country boy hadn’t seen very often. They starting yelling obscenities at my father at the same time they were giving me the evil eye. After a few more obscene jesters, they drove on ahead and disappeared from sight.

Everyone in the car starting asking my father what that was all about. We were all scared and in shock. My father, the quite guy he was, didn’t say much other than he had put them in jail one time.

My father was a cop in the Shelby Police Department. It was something he had always wanted to be and was very proud of it. The Detroit Police had stricter guidelines so he wasn’t able to join the force there. He did finally get on the force at Shelby and retired from there after many years.

The bad guys are out there. They would love to know more about the police so they can carry out attacks of terror and seek revenge for whatever punishment they received for the crimes they had committed. The above story is just one of many my father and family experienced over the years. It is likely that thousands take place every day in America to other officers and families.

In Tacoma, Washington, a man convicted of stalking and assault has asked for the names, addresses and other personal information of police officers that work for the city. He has requested the information through the Freedom of Information act. The Tacoma Police Union Local No. 6 has filed a motion with the courts to prevent the individual from receiving the information on the officers. Unless the courts place an injunction on the request, the bad guys, like those mentioned above, will be able to get all the information they need to carry out attacks on the officers and the families in their homes.

It was announced in the past couple of days by the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund that more law enforcement officers have lost their lives in the line of duty in 2010 than in 2009. The number of deaths in 2010 spiked to 160 from an almost 40 year low of 117 in 2009. As a law enforcement officer, the risk of losing your life is very real.

The right of people to know who is working for the government and what they are doing is not an absolute right. When there is a real risk that innocent people will be hurt by the right to know, then the community must prevent it from happening. In the Tacoma case, the courts need to block not only this individual from receiving the information, but all such requests need to be prevented.

It is important that the citizens of a community have oversight of their government. But, in the case of law enforcement officers, who place their lives on the line, there is plenty of oversight by the city government. There is no need to provide the personal information that would endanger so many lives.

-----

End of story, Joe

As a follow up to yesterday’s post, a federal judge has cleared the way for U. S. Senator Lisa Murkowski to take her seat in the new session of congress that begins January 3, 2011. Murkowski ran as a write-in candidate during the last general election after losing in the primary to fellow republican and Tea Party favorite, Joe Miller.

Miller contested the Alaskan election commissions’ decision to accept write-in votes that were clear as to their intent, if not the correct spelling of Murkowski’s name. After exhausting his challenges in state courts, including the Alaskan Supreme Court, Miller asked a federal court to rule on the election.

Federal District Judge Ralph Beistline released the injunction he had placed on the election. The judge ruled that, "Generally speaking, the Alaska Supreme Court is the final expositor of Alaska law. That must be the case here."

Federal courts have consistently ruled that unless civil rights are violated that evokes the Fourteenth Amendment, elections are a matter for each state to set and arbitrate. The Constitution clearly states that it is up to each state who they send to represent them in congress.

End of story, Joe.

-----

In Alaska, they have the basis for a reality show

Lisa Murkowski, the Republican primary loser in the Alaskan Senate race, decided she wanted to run as a write-in candidate in the general election. Joe Miller, the Republican winner in the primary thought he would only be running against the Democrat. Murkowski won the election as an independent write-in against both the Republican and the Democrat.

Miller is a poor loser. Almost more than two months out, he is still contesting the election. After working his way through the state courts and the state supreme court, Miller is taking his case to federal court. His issue is that he wouldn’t have lost by as many voters in the general election if it weren’t for the state election commission’s decision to count a vote on the write-in portion of the ballet if the voters intention was clear. The state courts gave Murkowski a win with 10,328 votes including the contested ballets. But, Miller says Murkowski won by only 2,169 votes.

Are you confused? Murkowski still wins if Miller wins in Federal Court? There is an important issue here, but Miller isn’t telling the whole truth.

Without being in Miller’s head, it sounds like Miller wants to cut the lead so he can ask for another recount. With only 2,169 votes to overcome, it is possible that he could turn the election around and take the Senate seat away from Murkowski.

But, to the rest of us, there is an even bigger issue here. The Alaskan Election Commission decided before counting the contested ballets, that as long as long as it was clear who the voter intended to vote for, they would count the vote. After reviewing the circumstances, the state courts, including the state supreme court, ruled in favor of the Alaskan Election Commission. This sounds like the hanging “chad” problem from the Bush-Gore election. In that election, voters needed to punch out a hole to cast their vote for a candidate. Some of the “chads” from the punch out were left hanging, so those votes were in question. In this election, the commission decided that even if the name of Murkowski or any other write-in candidate was misspelled, if it looked like one of the names, they would count it.

Mercowski, Murcoowski, Mercowsomething, Mcowskyed and perhaps many other spellings would be accepted by the election commission in Alaska as being for Murkowski. Miller’s beef is that the commission made up a new law with the “as long as it was clear” rule. He says the commission not only over stepped its bounds as defined by law, but didn’t even open up for public comment on the ruling before starting the counting of the contested ballots. Of course, we would still be waiting for the public comment part of the process to be over with even now if the commission had.

More directly stated, the commission has made a ruling on the election that Miller says isn't clearly stated in the election law. There could be a section of the law that gave the power to the commission to make just a ruling, but isn’t clear here. What is important here is the separation of powers and the right of each state to set its own election rules.

As a principle of the Constitution, although never stated used, is the term “separation of powers.” The Alaskan legislature empowered the election commission to make decisions on the voting process. If a candidate has concerns with the results, they can take it to the state courts. It is a challenge of one branch’s authority by another. In this case, if the state legislature, through the election commission, over stepped its bounds, another branch of government can decide if it did, in this case, the state courts. The state courts have done just that. With a small detour here, the courts ruled that the outcome of the election would not have been different even if the commission had made a decision beyond the powers granted to them.

As for taking the case to the federal courts, the Constitution clearly states that elections are a state function. Unless Miller’s rights were violated in a way that would evoke the Fourteenth Amendment, the Federal Court should pass on any review.

Miller was a Tea Party candidate. The Tea Party has strong concerns about the Federal government getting involved in our lives. Yet, as soon as things don’t go Miller’s way, he looks to the Feds to give him help.

This election is over and the challenges need to stop.

-----

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.

-----