Comments from around the community:
From Politico.org: Newt Gingrich tweaked President Barack Obama Friday for taking time to fill out an NCAA Tournament bracket when he could have been working on the Libyan crisis.
“If they want to, they can get rid of Qadhafi,” he said. “The president announced on March 3rd that Qadhafi has got to go. This is the opposite of Eisenhower or Reagan.”
Obama’s position on Libya “makes us look weak and uncertain and increases the danger in the Persian Gulf,” he said.
Responsible Community’s Comment: And, Mr. Gingrich, who should we replace him with, someone from the rebels that are fighting him? Reagan drove the Russians out of Afghanistan by helping the rebels that was lead by some guy named bin Laden. Now look what we have on the world stage. It isn’t so certain that the rebels would be better than the status quo.
Besides, Mr. Gingrich, should we be involved on a third front in this War on Terror?
From Reuters: Judge temporarily blocks Wisconsin's anti-union law. A complaint filed by Dane County Executive Kathleen Falk and County Board Chair Scott McDonell, alleges that the anti-union measure contained fiscal items that required a quorum in the Senate.
Responsible Community's Comment: It was clearly wrong that the Democrats left the state to hold up the vote on the legislation. It was nothing more than a filibuster by any other name and The Responsible Community doesn’t think they are right. As wrong as the legislation is a filibuster only blocks the will of the people.
But, it was wrong for the Republicans to reduce themselves to using trickery to get the legislation past.
From The Oakland Press: Two former local Democratic party officials from Michigan face up to 14 years behind bars for allegedly forging paperwork to put fake Tea Party candidates on the November 2010 ballot.
Responsible Community’s Comment: This should receive the highest honor for the lowest act (and dumbest) in politics. This is the sort of thing that happens in third world countries and in Arizona. There, Republican officials created fake Green Party Canidates to pull from Democrats.
From the New York Daily News: Right-wing blowhard Ann Coulter took her incendiary views to a whole new level Thursday, this time finding the silver lining in Japan's nuclear disaster.
During a segment on Bill O'Reilly's Fox News show, the conservative firebrand tried to calm jittery viewers by telling them "radiation is good for you."
"So by your account, we should all be heading for the nuclear reactor" leaking radiation in Japan, joked a skeptical O'Reilly.
[O’Reilly continued,] "The prevailing wisdom is there's a level of radiation that's gonna hurt you and perhaps kill you ... What you say may be true - there may be some doses of radiation that in the human body can ward off infection. But in something like this, you gotta get the folks out of there, and you have to report worst-case scenarios."
O'Reilly pointed to the 1945 atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as proof that radiation kills, but Coulter wouldn't budge.
Responsible Community's Comment: Well, I would like to purchase a one way ticket for Ann to help out with the work that is going on with the reactors in Japan. She can help get them up and running at the same time she is becoming disease free.
-----
Responsible Community Working Together in Shared Responsibility.
Saturday, March 19, 2011
Friday, March 18, 2011
American Exceptionalism
Clearly one of the most troubling issues during the Bush administration were the “detainees” at Guantanamo Bay. Then, Senator Obama, while campaigning to replace Bush in the oval office, promised that he would close the prison one year from the time he took office. He signed an executive order to just that two days after he took office.
It has been more than two years and the prison is still open.
Now, President Obama has signed another executive order to keep 50 of the prisoners there without trial for an indefinite period of time. The same order initiates his own “military commissions” trials for the other detainees. This is creating a bill of attainder that is prohibited in the Constitution, or, just picking someone up and creating a law that allows the individual to be held.
Every administration since Clinton has said the “war on terror” is worldwide. The combatants are located in many countries around the world, including the United States. The battlefield, therefore, as defined by The Geneva Convention is not a tightly defined field but encompasses most of the globe. When people in this “war on terror” are captured the Geneva Convention Treaty has very detailed guidelines on how these prisoners of war should be treated. The United States signed the treaty. But, Obama, who promised to end this abuse of power, has now signaled that we will not follow the convention’s rules, but will only follow our own.
What is so troubling about this?
The United States expects every country in the world to follow these rules. If a United States citizen, civilian or military, are captured, the first thing we request is that they be treated fairly and by the rules. The executive order that Obama signed tosses the Geneva Convention rules out for the United States, just like previous administrations. The people that are being held in Guantanamo Bay are not classified as prisoners of war to avoid the convention’s rules and will not be classified as common criminals to avoid United States law. So, how is it we can expect others to follow the rules when we are not?
The answer is that as a culture, we often believe in American Exceptionalism. In its current use, it is the belief that we are better than other nations because of our belief systems, government, culture and history. The idea means that we can make our own rules at the same time that we expect others to follow different rules, rules of course, that we have agreed to but don’t follow.
Well, we are different. Our form of government is nearly perfect compared to most everything out there. Our belief in civil rights that are enumerated in the Constitution has made us a great country. If someone is arrested and charged with a crime, they have the right to due process. This means they can’t be held until we come up with something to charge them with. Or, if they are a prisoner of war, we have other rules that we agreed to follow.
But, our Exceptionalism shouldn’t provide us with an excuse to make our own rules, but rather that we follow them better than others. It is because we became great in our own right not because we were above everyone else, or in a phrase - above the law, but because we are a community of law.
Our Exceptionalism should compel us to follow the rules as an example, a shining beacon to the rest of the world. President Obama needs to resend his executive order and classify the detainees as prisoners of war or charge them with a crime where they can be tried in open court.
-----
It has been more than two years and the prison is still open.
Now, President Obama has signed another executive order to keep 50 of the prisoners there without trial for an indefinite period of time. The same order initiates his own “military commissions” trials for the other detainees. This is creating a bill of attainder that is prohibited in the Constitution, or, just picking someone up and creating a law that allows the individual to be held.
Every administration since Clinton has said the “war on terror” is worldwide. The combatants are located in many countries around the world, including the United States. The battlefield, therefore, as defined by The Geneva Convention is not a tightly defined field but encompasses most of the globe. When people in this “war on terror” are captured the Geneva Convention Treaty has very detailed guidelines on how these prisoners of war should be treated. The United States signed the treaty. But, Obama, who promised to end this abuse of power, has now signaled that we will not follow the convention’s rules, but will only follow our own.
What is so troubling about this?
The United States expects every country in the world to follow these rules. If a United States citizen, civilian or military, are captured, the first thing we request is that they be treated fairly and by the rules. The executive order that Obama signed tosses the Geneva Convention rules out for the United States, just like previous administrations. The people that are being held in Guantanamo Bay are not classified as prisoners of war to avoid the convention’s rules and will not be classified as common criminals to avoid United States law. So, how is it we can expect others to follow the rules when we are not?
The answer is that as a culture, we often believe in American Exceptionalism. In its current use, it is the belief that we are better than other nations because of our belief systems, government, culture and history. The idea means that we can make our own rules at the same time that we expect others to follow different rules, rules of course, that we have agreed to but don’t follow.
Well, we are different. Our form of government is nearly perfect compared to most everything out there. Our belief in civil rights that are enumerated in the Constitution has made us a great country. If someone is arrested and charged with a crime, they have the right to due process. This means they can’t be held until we come up with something to charge them with. Or, if they are a prisoner of war, we have other rules that we agreed to follow.
But, our Exceptionalism shouldn’t provide us with an excuse to make our own rules, but rather that we follow them better than others. It is because we became great in our own right not because we were above everyone else, or in a phrase - above the law, but because we are a community of law.
Our Exceptionalism should compel us to follow the rules as an example, a shining beacon to the rest of the world. President Obama needs to resend his executive order and classify the detainees as prisoners of war or charge them with a crime where they can be tried in open court.
-----
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Don't punishing school districts for good budget practices
Save money and spend wisely, but not too wisely.
What?
That’s right. A state senator thinks that school districts that save money should be punished for saving too much.
School districts in the state of Michigan have a cumulative savings account in so called “rainy day” funds of $1.6 billion. The districts have scrimped and saved as much as they could so they would have a cushion against drastic cuts in state aid or other funding. This not only is a wise thing to do, but fits very well into concepts supported by the Responsible Community.
State senator Jack Brandenburg, R-Harrison, thinks this is “obscene.” He is the chair of the Senate finance committee. It is Brandenburg’s belief that in the slow economy and with the state’s budget problems, each school district should spend their fund before they receive any more state aid. For each school district with a budget surplus the bill that he wants to offer would cut off of school aid until the fund is below 15% of the district’s annual budget. It would seem that Brandenburg would want it to be the other way around. He should offer incentives to school districts to save money and be financially responsible.
Brandenburg is a member of the party that demands government be operated like a business. Any business around, large or small, would be happy to have a reserve of more than 15%. A responsible community, school district or municipality, should save as much money as it can while still providing the services that its citizens expect. The fund, besides being a cushion against swings in funding, can be invested to help provide income to defray the costs of operating, or perhaps, be self sustaining.
Brandenburg is also a member of the party that believes in local control. Making sound budgeting decisions by each of the school districts that has enough of a surplus to establish a rainy day fund reflects exemplary local control. The state should not dictate the budgeting principals of these school districts.
When a community operates out of the establish norm, such as not being able to pay its bills, it is taken over by the state to bring its budget in alignment with general accounting and management principals. But, if that a community swings that other way, operating in a way that reflects sound business practices, it should not be punished.
-----
What?
That’s right. A state senator thinks that school districts that save money should be punished for saving too much.
School districts in the state of Michigan have a cumulative savings account in so called “rainy day” funds of $1.6 billion. The districts have scrimped and saved as much as they could so they would have a cushion against drastic cuts in state aid or other funding. This not only is a wise thing to do, but fits very well into concepts supported by the Responsible Community.
State senator Jack Brandenburg, R-Harrison, thinks this is “obscene.” He is the chair of the Senate finance committee. It is Brandenburg’s belief that in the slow economy and with the state’s budget problems, each school district should spend their fund before they receive any more state aid. For each school district with a budget surplus the bill that he wants to offer would cut off of school aid until the fund is below 15% of the district’s annual budget. It would seem that Brandenburg would want it to be the other way around. He should offer incentives to school districts to save money and be financially responsible.
Brandenburg is a member of the party that demands government be operated like a business. Any business around, large or small, would be happy to have a reserve of more than 15%. A responsible community, school district or municipality, should save as much money as it can while still providing the services that its citizens expect. The fund, besides being a cushion against swings in funding, can be invested to help provide income to defray the costs of operating, or perhaps, be self sustaining.
Brandenburg is also a member of the party that believes in local control. Making sound budgeting decisions by each of the school districts that has enough of a surplus to establish a rainy day fund reflects exemplary local control. The state should not dictate the budgeting principals of these school districts.
When a community operates out of the establish norm, such as not being able to pay its bills, it is taken over by the state to bring its budget in alignment with general accounting and management principals. But, if that a community swings that other way, operating in a way that reflects sound business practices, it should not be punished.
-----
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
We must be certain about convictions
A community can’t know with any certainty that they have the right answer if it doesn’t allow challenges to decisions it makes.
The United States Supreme court has opened the door to allow some forced DNA testing of evidence in Skinner v Switzer out of Texas. This is a very complex case that involves a lot of legal issues. With that in mind, only a brief explanation will be offered here. (For more on this issue, please visit http://www.supremecourt.gov/ )
In 1993, Hank Skinner was convicted of killing his girlfriend and two sons. He claims he was asleep on a coach in an alcohol and cocaine induced haze when the killings took place. At the trial, the result of DNA testing on some of the evidence at the crime scene was presented, but not all the evidence was tested. Mr. Skinner’s attorney, concerned that the results from testing all of the evidence would prove to be injurious to his client’s defense, decline to request all the evidence be tested. After his conviction Mr. Skinner requested that the remaining testing be done. The district attorney refused on the grounds that it is merely a post conviction time and resource waster.
Of course, Mr. Skinner sued.
Then, in 2001 Texas passed a law that allowed post conviction testing of DNA. But, prosecutors and the lower courts all decided against Skinner. All deciding that it was pointless since no other evidence conclusively proved that Skinner did not commit the crime.
The Supreme Court decided that in very limited cases, courts must grant a post conviction request to be sure that state law allowed him due process. But, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for the majority, emphasized in strong terms that this was a very narrow ruling. Only in very particular circumstances could someone sue in the way Skinner did.
So many convicted prisoners claim their innocence that the joke is that the prisons are full of innocent people. This may be just more of the same. In our court system, with all the Constitutional protections, it is difficult to believe that there is a lot of error. Death Penalty Paper, a pro-death penalty web site, reports that 69 innocent death row convictions have been over turned since 1973. Based just on that number, it seems that the proverbial “99.9%” of all convictions have not been overturned and presumed rightfully convicted.
But, this case is more about two other issues than the innocence of Skinner. The first issue is our advancement in science. As science advances, more certainty about evidence can be presented in the courts. As more post conviction challenges are made based on the advancement of science, a responsible community can’t deny a person’s rights based solely on the fact that he was already convicted. Within narrow guidelines, as the recently Supreme Court ruling said, a state can’t deny someone’s basic due process.
The bigger issue here is certainty. The United States has built a criminal justice system that we can have confidence in, not that it is without errors. The way those errors can be reduced and abuse can be prevented is to allow challenges to the system to be given due process. When advances are made in science, there is no reason that a responsible community shouldn’t allow them to be applied to post conviction cases within reason.
-----
The United States Supreme court has opened the door to allow some forced DNA testing of evidence in Skinner v Switzer out of Texas. This is a very complex case that involves a lot of legal issues. With that in mind, only a brief explanation will be offered here. (For more on this issue, please visit http://www.supremecourt.gov/ )
In 1993, Hank Skinner was convicted of killing his girlfriend and two sons. He claims he was asleep on a coach in an alcohol and cocaine induced haze when the killings took place. At the trial, the result of DNA testing on some of the evidence at the crime scene was presented, but not all the evidence was tested. Mr. Skinner’s attorney, concerned that the results from testing all of the evidence would prove to be injurious to his client’s defense, decline to request all the evidence be tested. After his conviction Mr. Skinner requested that the remaining testing be done. The district attorney refused on the grounds that it is merely a post conviction time and resource waster.
Of course, Mr. Skinner sued.
Then, in 2001 Texas passed a law that allowed post conviction testing of DNA. But, prosecutors and the lower courts all decided against Skinner. All deciding that it was pointless since no other evidence conclusively proved that Skinner did not commit the crime.
The Supreme Court decided that in very limited cases, courts must grant a post conviction request to be sure that state law allowed him due process. But, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for the majority, emphasized in strong terms that this was a very narrow ruling. Only in very particular circumstances could someone sue in the way Skinner did.
So many convicted prisoners claim their innocence that the joke is that the prisons are full of innocent people. This may be just more of the same. In our court system, with all the Constitutional protections, it is difficult to believe that there is a lot of error. Death Penalty Paper, a pro-death penalty web site, reports that 69 innocent death row convictions have been over turned since 1973. Based just on that number, it seems that the proverbial “99.9%” of all convictions have not been overturned and presumed rightfully convicted.
But, this case is more about two other issues than the innocence of Skinner. The first issue is our advancement in science. As science advances, more certainty about evidence can be presented in the courts. As more post conviction challenges are made based on the advancement of science, a responsible community can’t deny a person’s rights based solely on the fact that he was already convicted. Within narrow guidelines, as the recently Supreme Court ruling said, a state can’t deny someone’s basic due process.
The bigger issue here is certainty. The United States has built a criminal justice system that we can have confidence in, not that it is without errors. The way those errors can be reduced and abuse can be prevented is to allow challenges to the system to be given due process. When advances are made in science, there is no reason that a responsible community shouldn’t allow them to be applied to post conviction cases within reason.
-----
Monday, March 7, 2011
More guns is not the answer
There is an old and tired logic that says the solution to a problem is more of the same. That logic is often applied by those that are for the unlimited support of the Second Amendment. It is seeing a revival after the shootings in Arizona. Now that we have had a little time to reflect, let’s think about that logic.
Most are aware of the shootings. But to briefly recap, Representative Gabrielle Giffords and 18 other people were shot by a lone gunman on January 8, 2011. Representative Giffords was holding a public event at a Safeway Food Stores shopping center in her Arizona district. The gunman, Jared Lee Loughner, has been charged with the shooting and currently being held by Arizona authorities.
The gun of choice for Loughner was a Glock 19. It has a standard magazine size of 15 rounds and brags about its small size that makes it easy to conceal. Loughner was able to fire all the rounds from one magazine and was getting ready to replace it when the second one fell to the ground. An unarmed man managed to grab that magazine. Another unarmed man hit Loughner on the back of the head with a metal folding chair. He was subdued by many other people who where nearby.
The total time of the event before Loughner was subdued was less than 30 seconds.
The argument that is making the rounds is if a “trained, rationale person” had been at the scene with a gun, the number of people that were injured could have been less. That someone could have responded to the event by firing back at Loughner and preventing him from injuring more people. This is an old and tired argument in support of carry laws in the United States.
The truth is, this happen in arguably one of the most conservative states about personally carrying weapons. In fact, Arizona is making it even easier for people to carry guns in public. They just passed legislation that allows people that carry a gun to ignore policy in public places that asked that people not carry a gun. If the public place doesn’t scan for a weapon, it is not against the law to violate the policy. If more guns would have prevented this tragedy, why didn’t it in Arizona?
If someone had been on site that was carrying a gun, it is doubtful the “trained, rational” person could have been able to shoot back before the end of the first clip. By that time, even if the second clip hadn't fell to the ground, the unarmed people around the area would have been able to take him down.
Also, if many other people had a gun, you can be sure, not everyone would have been well trained and rational. In the confusion of the event, just like the confusion that comes from any crisis, people who are carrying might not have seen the entire event so they wouldn’t know who was the bad guy and who was the good guy. Everyone could have been shooting at anything to try and be a hero.
What makes things more difficult to support the logic, Loughner was not concerned about dyeing. There is every reason to believe that he choose such an event to find a bit of glory, no matter how perverted that thinking was. He anticipated going down in gun fire and still continued with his plans.
Finally, Loughner was able to purchase a gun from a local retailer in Arizona after passing a background test. But, Loughner's application to get into the Army failed because of a drug test. Should people that fail drug tests conducted by the Army be allowed to own a gun? He was kicked out of college until he could prove that he was mentally competent, yet he still was able to purchase a gun. Finally, he had been in trouble with the law before. Again, he was still able to purchase a gun. People who have had no trouble with the law and not a blemish on their record can be on a no fly list, yet Loughner was able to purchase a semi automatic hand gun that advertises how easy it is to conceal because of its small size.
For sure, one understanding of the Second Amendment guarantees our right to own a gun. That doesn't mean that right is absolute. A responsible community can place reasonable restrictions against those that abuse any of the rights in the Constitution. The right to carry a gun has very little time between its abuse and the injury that can be inflicted. Therefore, a responsible community can take a harder line restricting this freedom than with others.
The logic of more guns means less injured isn’t true. There are better ways to address this issue that don’t make the problem worse.
-----
Most are aware of the shootings. But to briefly recap, Representative Gabrielle Giffords and 18 other people were shot by a lone gunman on January 8, 2011. Representative Giffords was holding a public event at a Safeway Food Stores shopping center in her Arizona district. The gunman, Jared Lee Loughner, has been charged with the shooting and currently being held by Arizona authorities.
The gun of choice for Loughner was a Glock 19. It has a standard magazine size of 15 rounds and brags about its small size that makes it easy to conceal. Loughner was able to fire all the rounds from one magazine and was getting ready to replace it when the second one fell to the ground. An unarmed man managed to grab that magazine. Another unarmed man hit Loughner on the back of the head with a metal folding chair. He was subdued by many other people who where nearby.
The total time of the event before Loughner was subdued was less than 30 seconds.
The argument that is making the rounds is if a “trained, rationale person” had been at the scene with a gun, the number of people that were injured could have been less. That someone could have responded to the event by firing back at Loughner and preventing him from injuring more people. This is an old and tired argument in support of carry laws in the United States.
The truth is, this happen in arguably one of the most conservative states about personally carrying weapons. In fact, Arizona is making it even easier for people to carry guns in public. They just passed legislation that allows people that carry a gun to ignore policy in public places that asked that people not carry a gun. If the public place doesn’t scan for a weapon, it is not against the law to violate the policy. If more guns would have prevented this tragedy, why didn’t it in Arizona?
If someone had been on site that was carrying a gun, it is doubtful the “trained, rational” person could have been able to shoot back before the end of the first clip. By that time, even if the second clip hadn't fell to the ground, the unarmed people around the area would have been able to take him down.
Also, if many other people had a gun, you can be sure, not everyone would have been well trained and rational. In the confusion of the event, just like the confusion that comes from any crisis, people who are carrying might not have seen the entire event so they wouldn’t know who was the bad guy and who was the good guy. Everyone could have been shooting at anything to try and be a hero.
What makes things more difficult to support the logic, Loughner was not concerned about dyeing. There is every reason to believe that he choose such an event to find a bit of glory, no matter how perverted that thinking was. He anticipated going down in gun fire and still continued with his plans.
Finally, Loughner was able to purchase a gun from a local retailer in Arizona after passing a background test. But, Loughner's application to get into the Army failed because of a drug test. Should people that fail drug tests conducted by the Army be allowed to own a gun? He was kicked out of college until he could prove that he was mentally competent, yet he still was able to purchase a gun. Finally, he had been in trouble with the law before. Again, he was still able to purchase a gun. People who have had no trouble with the law and not a blemish on their record can be on a no fly list, yet Loughner was able to purchase a semi automatic hand gun that advertises how easy it is to conceal because of its small size.
For sure, one understanding of the Second Amendment guarantees our right to own a gun. That doesn't mean that right is absolute. A responsible community can place reasonable restrictions against those that abuse any of the rights in the Constitution. The right to carry a gun has very little time between its abuse and the injury that can be inflicted. Therefore, a responsible community can take a harder line restricting this freedom than with others.
The logic of more guns means less injured isn’t true. There are better ways to address this issue that don’t make the problem worse.
-----
Friday, March 4, 2011
Only United States Laws
Only United States laws that are enacted by legally elected representatives of the people of the country should be followed by all branches of government. No religious, ethnic, cultural or social laws should be enforced. Additionally, all laws that are enacted should also pass the constitutional test to ensure that it is not violating individual rights that are granted explicitly and implicitly by the Constitution.
There, that is about as clear of a statement that can be written defining what laws courts and the other branches of governments should enforce. That means that Christian religious laws should not be enforce. Neither should Jewish, Hindu and any of the other 4,200 religious and cultural groups in the country.
Recently, lawmakers in Tennessee have proposed legislation that says judges can not consider Islam’s Sharia law in making rulings in their courts. Similar laws have been proposed in other states and Oklahoma passed a citizen’s referendum that also prohibits Sharia Law from being used in a judge’s decision. A responsible community should support this law if it included the other 4,200 other religions that are found in the country. But, by selecting only one religion’s law, it both sets up a situation that can be much too easily abused and shouldn’t pass the constitutional test.
The only reason lawmakers in those states, conservative Republicans all, are proposing such legislation is for political gain. They make their supporters feel good about them instead of working with them to do the right thing. Sharia law is no more likely to be recognized by the United States’ Court system than any other religious based laws. Yet, these legislators continue.
What is also disturbing, this type of law, directed solely at one group of people, begin to move us in the direction of pre-world war Germany. At first, Jews were just blamed for the bad economy. Once it took hold in the country, they were excluded from everyday life by being barricaded in the ghettoes. We all know where that ended up.
Don’t fall for any of this. The proposed legislation in Tennessee and elsewhere has nothing to do with reality. It wastes governments time, creates laws that are not necessary and is unconstitutional.
A Responsible Community can’t support any law that directly targets a religion.
-----
There, that is about as clear of a statement that can be written defining what laws courts and the other branches of governments should enforce. That means that Christian religious laws should not be enforce. Neither should Jewish, Hindu and any of the other 4,200 religious and cultural groups in the country.
Recently, lawmakers in Tennessee have proposed legislation that says judges can not consider Islam’s Sharia law in making rulings in their courts. Similar laws have been proposed in other states and Oklahoma passed a citizen’s referendum that also prohibits Sharia Law from being used in a judge’s decision. A responsible community should support this law if it included the other 4,200 other religions that are found in the country. But, by selecting only one religion’s law, it both sets up a situation that can be much too easily abused and shouldn’t pass the constitutional test.
The only reason lawmakers in those states, conservative Republicans all, are proposing such legislation is for political gain. They make their supporters feel good about them instead of working with them to do the right thing. Sharia law is no more likely to be recognized by the United States’ Court system than any other religious based laws. Yet, these legislators continue.
What is also disturbing, this type of law, directed solely at one group of people, begin to move us in the direction of pre-world war Germany. At first, Jews were just blamed for the bad economy. Once it took hold in the country, they were excluded from everyday life by being barricaded in the ghettoes. We all know where that ended up.
Don’t fall for any of this. The proposed legislation in Tennessee and elsewhere has nothing to do with reality. It wastes governments time, creates laws that are not necessary and is unconstitutional.
A Responsible Community can’t support any law that directly targets a religion.
-----
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Members of Westboro Baptist can continue to demonstate
“The only way for a different ruling is to shred the First Amendment,” said Margie Phelps, the lawyer defending the minister of the Westboro Church. Members of the church routinely demonstrate at the funerals of soldiers who have died in in the service. In a 8 to 1 margin, the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of the church’s right to continue those demonstrations.
In May of 2006, Albert Synder held funeral services for his son, Matthew, who died from a non combat-related vehicle accident in Al Anbar province, Iraq. Members of the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kansas demonstrated at the funeral. Church members believe that the military is being punished by God for the country’s tolerance of homosexuality. A few weeks after the funeral, Albert Synder found a particularly hateful poem on the internet by Margie Phelps. It was about Synder’s son and how terribly he was raised. Synder sued the church for emotional distress. Lower courts sided with Synder, but the Phelps pursued the case to the Supreme Court.
The Responsible Community wrote about the suit when it reached the Supreme Court last fall, “Phelps is disgusting, but should receive our support.” The closing of that post was, “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.”
Chief Justice John Roberts didn’t disappoint. Writing the opinion for the majority, he said, "Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and — as it did here — inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker."
No right has any value if it can’t be expressed. To silence the members of this church would be to deny the most fundamental of all rights, the freedom of expression. If that expression causes harm that can be measured in the loss of property, defames someone or places people in harm’s way then it can be restricted. But, the content of their speech was a political opinion that just happened to involve Synder. The frequency of the demonstrations and the church’s practice of showing up at the military funerals of Catholics, Jews and many other groups clearly indicates they were expressing an outrage of policy, not of Synder or his son.
As the father of a son, I can only image the pain that Albert Synder experienced when reading those hateful words. But, if we silenced all speech that caused pain, we would silence one of the things that makes us strong, the public forum of ideas that allow us to self examine our collective soul.
In May of 2006, Albert Synder held funeral services for his son, Matthew, who died from a non combat-related vehicle accident in Al Anbar province, Iraq. Members of the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kansas demonstrated at the funeral. Church members believe that the military is being punished by God for the country’s tolerance of homosexuality. A few weeks after the funeral, Albert Synder found a particularly hateful poem on the internet by Margie Phelps. It was about Synder’s son and how terribly he was raised. Synder sued the church for emotional distress. Lower courts sided with Synder, but the Phelps pursued the case to the Supreme Court.
The Responsible Community wrote about the suit when it reached the Supreme Court last fall, “Phelps is disgusting, but should receive our support.” The closing of that post was, “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.”
Chief Justice John Roberts didn’t disappoint. Writing the opinion for the majority, he said, "Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and — as it did here — inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker."
No right has any value if it can’t be expressed. To silence the members of this church would be to deny the most fundamental of all rights, the freedom of expression. If that expression causes harm that can be measured in the loss of property, defames someone or places people in harm’s way then it can be restricted. But, the content of their speech was a political opinion that just happened to involve Synder. The frequency of the demonstrations and the church’s practice of showing up at the military funerals of Catholics, Jews and many other groups clearly indicates they were expressing an outrage of policy, not of Synder or his son.
As the father of a son, I can only image the pain that Albert Synder experienced when reading those hateful words. But, if we silenced all speech that caused pain, we would silence one of the things that makes us strong, the public forum of ideas that allow us to self examine our collective soul.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)