Three things we hold dear in this country are words that Thomas Jefferson pinned in our Declaration of Independence. We have certain rights that are not to be taken away from us and those are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But apparently this president is still focused on change. And this time he wants to change happiness to stupidity and change Independence to dependence. The Constitution later goes to explain what these rights are to Americans. And two of them are freedom of religion and speech. But there are limitations to these things because without limitations then people would abuse their freedom and perhaps overstep their boundaries. And if someone oversteps these boundaries it is up to our government to put a stop to it. That is what a Republic is. And the leader of that republic, being chief of state, should uphold the values of the majority of the people. Again, that is what a republic is. If the republic is not held true to its origin then it is doomed.
In the middle of this republic is brewing a controversy about the limitations of the freedom of religion. Should people have the right to worship anyway they want? Yes, for the most. As long as it does not hurt others would be the limitation. If it involves human sacrifice then it becomes wrong. If it becomes a vehicle for hate crimes that leads to violence then it should be at least watched. If it wants to spit in the face of 3000 people who died and build a "community center" right on the spot where it fellow religious family members murdered them, then the action should be stopped. By whom? The government! But what does our leader say and do?
Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Stupidity. That's what this administration is all about. Maybe the next campaign should be hope and happiness. Forget the change.
If one learns from history:
1) Islam was started as a conquering religion. Muhammad himself won his title by conquering others in Arabia. After conquering Jerusalem in the late 600's AD, the Dome of the Rock was built on the site (or at the least very close to) of the Temple Mount. What happened to this area since? Constant war.
2) The average nation usually only lasts 75-100 years in existence. Why do they fall apart? Most self-destruct from the inside due to diversity and/or dissension and then are conquered by an outside force. The US is now officially 234 years old (1776) but by our law of the Constitution we are only 221 (1789). Either way we are over the average.
3) The Constitution- Amendment #1 says Congress can not establish any religion or stop it. It does not say the people can or can not! If majority says no, then it should be NO.
4) This has nothing to do with democrats or republicans. More than likely Joe Lieberman does not want this thing to go up. It has to do with the direction of our country. Piece by piece the American way of life has been taken apart because of loose interpretations of laws and customs. As it may be true that our laws and government are not specifically "Christian" in words, the principles behind them and the motivations are.
Results: 9-11 is just a precursor.
1) Islam was started as a conquering religion. Muhammad himself won his title by conquering others in Arabia. After conquering Jerusalem in the late 600's AD, the Dome of the Rock was built on the site (or at the least very close to) of the Temple Mount. What happened to this area since? Constant war.
2) The average nation usually only lasts 75-100 years in existence. Why do they fall apart? Most self-destruct from the inside due to diversity and/or dissension and then are conquered by an outside force. The US is now officially 234 years old (1776) but by our law of the Constitution we are only 221 (1789). Either way we are over the average.
3) The Constitution- Amendment #1 says Congress can not establish any religion or stop it. It does not say the people can or can not! If majority says no, then it should be NO.
4) This has nothing to do with democrats or republicans. More than likely Joe Lieberman does not want this thing to go up. It has to do with the direction of our country. Piece by piece the American way of life has been taken apart because of loose interpretations of laws and customs. As it may be true that our laws and government are not specifically "Christian" in words, the principles behind them and the motivations are.
Results: 9-11 is just a precursor.
4 comments:
3) The Constitution- Amendment #1 says Congress can not establish any religion or stop it. It does not say the people can or can not! If majority says no, then it should be NO.
Oopsie!
There is a basic fallacy with this point. Who is Congress? Congress is our group of leaders that we Americans put into office through a majority rule system. Therefore, no "WE" can't. They are simply our representatives. Majority rule is not always fair or constitutional.
Take Loving v Virginia. I'd be willing to bet my right hand that the majority did NOT want these two people to be legally married. The Supreme Court had to go in and rule against the majority through their interpretation of the Constitution and the Law. Who put those judges in? Presidents and presidential committees. Who put those Presidents in? We did. Who put those committees in? The President. So, we've said. "We need smart people to make sure we're doing the right thing. We're gonna vote some dudes into office who will appoint these smart people to keep us all in check. Then, we're gonna listen to them."
Thomas Jefferson said: All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.
AND
Equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever persuasion, religious or political.
AND
The constitutional freedom of religion [is] the most inalienable and sacred of all human rights.
Like I tried to explain to someone the other day in reference to the Mosque: "Where do you draw the line? Two blocks? Three blocks? Four blocks? 20 blocks? How far away is far enough? Where is the line drawn for religious freedom? And, who's church/temple/synagogue is next?"
Hawk,
Sorry to post your coment so much later than when you originally commented.
Although I can appreciate your comment and completely respect your opinion, I still of course would have to disagree with some of the things you said.
Yes, Congress comes from the people, but if what you said is accurate then the framers should have just said "people can establish...". But that would have made us a direct democracy, which we are not. We are a republic. Once we elect someone, they are separated somewhat from the rest of us. Unfortunately, they think they are higher than us. In the words of Abraham Lincoln, the government is of the people, by the people, and for the people, but not just the people.
The term congress means "to meet", but in American political terms it is our lawmaking body. So when the Constitution talks about Congress in Article 1, it is not talking about people in general but those who are in Congress and tells them what they can and can not do. The first amendment explains more, Congress can not take sides, but the ninth and tenth amendments say that the people (ordinary citizen)can.
I don't quite get the meaning behind your second point. I would agree that the majority was wrong in the court case you have mentioned. But the original law was in 1883, in a time where the customs were different. I would imagine by 1967 the majority looked a little different. However, that is why it had to go all the way to the US Supreme Court because apparently the majority on Virginia still believed in that type of segregation. Morally speaking, they were wrong. When morals can trump man's law, then do it.
I like the quote from TJ, but it isn't really consistent. The majority prevails but the minority has the same rights? How can that be unless they believe the same thing? I believe in the protection of minority rights but not the prevailing of special rights, or exceptions to the rights. We are promised life, liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness. It is not guaranteed we will get it.
The Constitution tells us we have freedom but what if people take the freedom too far? What is others abuse their freedom of speech to hurt others? There is no Constitutional law that says we can't stop it. But common sense says we have to have limitations to make sure some do not abuse these rights. Building a mosque, which represents the religion that caused a great tragedy, on the site of 3000 murders that the same religion caused the great tragedy, would be abusing the right of freedom of religion. It is insensitive and a slap in the face of all of those who died.
Where do you draw the line? This is the question that cuases too many problems, because people get scared to draw the lines. Well if the lines disappear you have chaos. The line still has to be drawn. Where? At the beginning! Where is the beginning? 1776 American values.
I am not offended by what you have said as I hope the same for you. Please comment anytime you want.
Do you mean the American way of life where white Christian males were the boss of everything and got to make all the rules for everybody? Yeah, those days were really great. For anyone who was at least two out of the three of those. Everybody else, well, I don't think they want to go back to those days as much as you do....
Auntie Bubbles,
You are tying two things together that should not be. (A common mistake of those who do not study history). You are also putting words into my mouth. I gave you historical facts, you turned it around. It may be true that the ones who created our first laws were white, Christian men. That doesn't make the laws wrong. If you go back and search history, most governments especially at that time were created by the religious men of the country. That was just a cultural thing. So to the founding fathers this was the correct way of saying it all. But that is also why they left the elastic clause in the bill of rights. We were far more advanced than France, England and other "modernized" worlds. Islamic countries were far worse and are still far worse with their humanitarian efforts for getting rid of slaves and getting women equal rights. So your point on that is mute. They were wrong not to get rid of slavery but slavery has been around since the beginning of time, even women and darker skinned leaders had and have this problem today. So it is not about being white, Christian or a man.
Now your other point. I wish I could go back to those days and tell them what they need to adjust.
Post a Comment