Monday, February 2, 2009
Letter about Chamblis election
Should Saxby Chambliss be returned as a from Georgia?No. He does a fine job already as a representative of the Imperial Sugar company. After the explosion at that plant in Savannah earlier this year he went to a Congressional hearing and attacked the whistleblower for pointing out that this explosion didn’t have to happen if Imperial didn’t ignore the high risk of combustible dust hazards. Indeed, OSHA chief Edwin Foulke, Jr stated that the explosion could have been prevented if Imperial had complied with existing OSHA standards and health safety standards. Savannah Morning News stated that the good senator was put up by Imperial to harass the whistleblower. Senator Isakson, a fellow Republican and no leftwing partisan, stated that the whisteblower’s evidence was credible. Does Chambliss care more about the people of Georgia and its’ workers or the elite? Indeed, Chambliss’s PAC received $9500 from the sugar lobby. Now, is this is the Senator’s opinion, that the profits of his “donors” are more important then ensuring the safety of the voters and workers of Georgia? Sen. McCain stated about a campaign ad directed against Chambliss’s opponent in 2002, Vietnam Veteran Max Cleland, that it was “it’s worse then disgraceful, it’s reprehensible. Fellow Republican Senator Chuck Hagel decried it as “beyond offensive to me.” Senator Chambliss supported the massive financial bailout without restrictions on “golden parachutes” of crooked or corrupt CEOS and senior executives. He voted for the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which dismantled the safeguards that had been put into place after the collapse of the stock market in 1929 and helped lead to the present financial collapse that is burdening taxpayers already with the fallout. Chambliss also voted for the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which deregulated whole sectors of the financial markets, including derivatives like the credit default swaps that brought down AIG. More costs to the taxpayers. Does Sen. Chambliss represent the people of the state of Georgia? Yes, absolutely, along as you are one of the elite who are able to give generous amounts to his political campaign. Along as you are an elite who wants legislative favors from the good senator. If that is you, if that meets the definition of you as a Georgian, then by all means support Senator Chambliss. If not, then maybe you want to look for a change. His name is Jim Martin.
Same Sex Marriage threatens society?
Some state that same sex marriages are threatening their right to see these marriages as illegitimate. This is not true. If one wants to disagree with sex marriages, fine. They lose this right to do so no more then those believe that there should be no right of marriage between a couple where one is 20 years older then another. But, the government represents all taxpaying and law abiding peoples of that state who enjoy the same rights as everyone else. The government has to ensure everyone is treated equal under the law. What about civil unions? Well, if civil unions are fine for same sex couples and their children why then not for heterosexual couples and their children? Marriage was invented by human beings to serve our societal/individual needs such as the raising of children. Hundreds of thousands of children today are being raised by same sex couples. They would be better off if their parents weren’t married? I don’ think those who oppose same sex marriage are full of hate but I don’t think enough of them have gotten to know the proud gay parents across the street who are raising great kids.
Another letter on domestic partnerships
I am confused, if domestic partnerships are ok for same sex couples, they aren’t for heterosexual couples? After all, both groups are today raising children. Are the children of same sex couples inferior and less worthy of protection? I think that most Americans would say of course not. They aren’t 2nd class citizens and their parents aren’t 2nd class parents who should be ok with a watered/legalistic version of marriage which ironically doesn’t even offer the same full rights as marriage. Even if civil unions in fact did that would we say that was ok? No, marriage is also symbolic. It is a statement that we don’t think of one group of people as so inferior to the rest of society that we have to create a special system that no one else really wants for themselves, for them. Those who oppose same sex marriage don’t hate but I don’t believe they truly understand what it is for society to say to you, that you are not a full member of society or at the very least your relationship is not really valued by society.
Another letter on domestic partnerships
I am confused, if domestic partnerships are ok for same sex couples, they aren’t for heterosexual couples? After all, both groups are today raising children. Are the children of same sex couples inferior and less worthy of protection? I think that most Americans would say of course not. They aren’t 2nd class citizens and their parents aren’t 2nd class parents who should be ok with a watered/legalistic version of marriage which ironically doesn’t even offer the same full rights as marriage. Even if civil unions in fact did that would we say that was ok? No, marriage is also symbolic. It is a statement that we don’t think of one group of people as so inferior to the rest of society that we have to create a special system that no one else really wants for themselves, for them. Those who oppose same sex marriage don’t hate but I don’t believe they truly understand what it is for society to say to you, that you are not a full member of society or at the very least your relationship is not really valued by society.
Couple denied same sex marriage license in CA
While online I saw a picture that made me stare and made me think that a picture is really worth a thousand words. It showed two women being denied a marriage license in California right after the election. One can’t see their faces, just their backs as they walk down the long hallway after being turned away. I know some might be happy at that sight (or at least relieved) under the idea that “marriage was being protected” from those two women. I don’t remember their names or if they were printed with the article. But those women, who loved each other and cared for each other (I am sure) were turned away. Now, was it the will of the people of California. Sure, a slight majority but I wonder if some of those 52% who voted to take marriage away from that couple, would have changed their minds after looking at that picture. I never saw the couple’s faces but I could imagine the utter disappointment of not only those two women but their friends and families who wished for the couple not only to enjoy the benefits of marriage but the symbolic meaning of two people who love each other being able to wed. I imagine that one of the couple’s mothers might have given their daughter a token from her own wedding. The problem with a ban on same sex marriage is that it is one thing in the abstract when one doesn’t have to deal with the pain, the hurt, the disappointment of someone one doesn’t know or talk to and another when a person actually has a close gay family member or friend or wishes to marry someone under the law but are denied to do so. I realize that those who voted for the ban believed they were doing the right thing for America. That they weren’t voting for a ban because they hate gays, but because they sincerely believed they were protecting marriage. But the problem is, when you vote to restrict someone from marrying the person that they love (just as you could marry the person you loved) are you not saying that their love should be valued less and that the government of all people should put this into law? Who is the government to say one the love of two people is less worthy? When has the government become Cupid? Are civil unions just as good? To a certain extent they have some of the same benefits but in America symbolism is also important, as it should be
No, I believe times will change, as they often do. Are there setbacks? Yes, on election day there were when it came to the rights of same sex couples to marry but I believe in America. I believe that America, in the end, will do what is right. I believe that in the end America will say to its’ gay cousins and aunts and uncles and brothers and children that you are one of us. That you work and pay taxes and serve our country and yes you deserve the same rights as everyone else. I believe that day is coming. I wish it would come sooner but it will come.
No, I believe times will change, as they often do. Are there setbacks? Yes, on election day there were when it came to the rights of same sex couples to marry but I believe in America. I believe that America, in the end, will do what is right. I believe that in the end America will say to its’ gay cousins and aunts and uncles and brothers and children that you are one of us. That you work and pay taxes and serve our country and yes you deserve the same rights as everyone else. I believe that day is coming. I wish it would come sooner but it will come.
Palin to would be protestors: Basically go to Cuba
Sarah Palin has said to would be protestors ( actually supporters of hers) at a rally that they should thank the troops for their right to protest. An ok statement if it was made to both sides of this presidential race but I find it ironic that never is such a statement made by conservatives about conservatives protesting against Democrats. Only Democrats protesting against Republicans. Why? Because the implication in such a statement is that those who disagree with people like McCain and Palin and Rush Limbaugh are that they are not true Americans, that they kind of hate America and are abusing their freedom so they should feel guilty by using that freedom. Mrs. Palin, people aren’t protesting against the military, they are protesting against you and McCain and the GOP establishment that has failed this great country for so long so stop hiding behind the troops. If you need to defend yourself then defend your policies. The right to dissent, the right to protest is what America is built upon. We aren’t a nation of individuals who say yes to whatever the government says we should follow. If a policy or war is wrong then it should be questioned even if the Rush Limbaughs of talk radio (who opposed the Bosnian war by the way) don’t like it. North Carolina congressman Robin Hayes stated at an McCain rally, "Liberals hate real Americans that work and achieve and believe in God." I hope and wish this isn't what the GOP stands for today. I hope and wish this isn't the view of the average conservative and republican. I don't think it does, I think it represents only a fringe of the GOP. Neither fringe of both parties does their side justice. Liberals and conservatives have their disagreements, as they always have since the founding of the Republic in the 18th century but the idea that rank and file liberals who work and achieve and pay taxes and quite frequently go to church hate those conservatives who also do the same exact things, is absurd.
A GOP congresswoman wants us to investigate members of congress if they are "pro-America or anti-America." I didn't know when the congresswoman became the judge of what a true American was in Congress or society and the idea we engage in witchhunts in order to appease Ms. Bachman is absurd. We shouldn't be trying to divide ourselves as a nation.
A GOP congresswoman wants us to investigate members of congress if they are "pro-America or anti-America." I didn't know when the congresswoman became the judge of what a true American was in Congress or society and the idea we engage in witchhunts in order to appease Ms. Bachman is absurd. We shouldn't be trying to divide ourselves as a nation.
Libs hate real Americans?
North Carolina congressman Robin Hayes stated at an McCain rally, "Liberals hate real Americans that work and achieve and believe in God." I hope and wish this isn't what the GOP stands for today. I hope and wish this isn't the view of the average conservative and republican. I don't think it does, I think it represents only a fringe of the GOP. Liberals and conservatives have their disagreements, as they always have since the founding of the Republic in the 18th century but the idea that rank and file liberals who work and achieve and pay taxes and quite frequently go to church hate those who also do the same exact things, is absurd. We shouldn't be trying to divide ourselves as a nation.
Colin Powell and and McCain and Sarah Palin
Colin Powell has endorsed Barack Obama for President and not John McCain. This is a man who was Chairman of the Joint Chieff of Staff, highest position in the US Military. He was National Security Adviser and Secretary of State. No man or woman has higher qualifications on who should run this country and its' military and foreign policy. The only question I have, when is the rightwing smear campaign about to begin on Gen Powell? For a group that supposedly supports members of the military I bet they smear this fine man's character. Sarah Palin, she of the secessionist family ties, talked about in a speech about a "pro-America" region of America. So those Americans who died in the WTC attack weren't pro-America, Ms. Palin or were you talking about other parts of America? Which parts do you mean? It seems pro America regions are only those that support her. Mrs. Palin has said to would be protestors, actually supporters of hers, at a rally that they should thank the troops for their right to protest. An ok statement if it was made to both sides of this presidential race but I find it ironic that never is such a statement made by conservatives about conservatives protesting against Democrats. Only Democrats protesting against Republicans. Why? Because the implication in such a statement is that those who disagree with people like McCain and Palin and Rush Limbaugh are that they are not true Americans, that they kind of hate America and are abusing their freedom so they should feel guilty by using their free speech rights. Mrs. Palin people aren’t protesting against the military, they are protesting against you and McCain and the GOP establishment that has failed this great country for so long so stop hiding behind the troops. If you need to defend yourself then defend your policies. Defend your accepting favors as Governor of Alaska. Defend your abuse of authority as Governor of Alaska including firing the Public Safety Commissioner of the State of Alaska. Don’t hide behind our brave troops Ms. Palin. The right to dissent, the right to protest is what America is built upon. We aren’t a nation of individuals who say, ok to whatever the government says and wants but questions are government when need be. If a policy or war is wrong then it should be questioned even if the Sean Hannitys of the world (who questioned the Bosnian war by the way) don’t like it. Finally what about John McCain’s connections? He has on his staff, Rick Davis, Charlie Black and others men who lobbied on behalf of dictators in Philippines, Zaire etc. He tried to get an entry visa for Russian Oligarch and mobster Oleg Depraska. He served on a board that was involved with death squads in Central America and that board had connections even with Klaus Barbie, one of Hitler’s Nazis. Was McCain connection to these individuals and despicable actions no but if serving on a board is reason to state one shouldn’t be President (as with Obama and Bill Ayers) then shouldn’t that be a reason against McCain? Lastly who else was on Ayers and Obama’s Board? None other then Arnold Weber, McCain donor and aide to both Nixon and Reagan.
Palin more pro-American?:
Sarah Palin talked about in a speech about a "pro-America" region of America. So those Americans who died in the WTC attack weren't pro-America, Ms. Palin or were you talking about other parts of America? Which parts do you mean? It seems pro America regions are only those that support her. Mrs. Palin has said to would be protestors, actually supporters of hers, at a rally that they should thank the troops for their right to protest. An ok statement if it was made to both sides of this presidential race but I find it ironic that never is such a statement made by conservatives about conservatives protesting against Democrats. Only Democrats protesting against Republicans. Why? Because the implication in such a statement is that those who disagree with people like McCain and Palin and Rush Limbaugh are that they are not true Americans, that they kind of hate America and are abusing their freedom so they should feel guilty by using their free speech rights. Mrs. Palin people aren’t protesting against the military, they are protesting against you and McCain and the GOP establishment that has failed this great country for so long so stop hiding behind the troops. If you need to defend yourself then defend your policies. Defend your accepting favors as Governor of Alaska. Defend your abuse of authority as Governor of Alaska including firing the Public Safety Commissioner of the State of Alaska. Don’t hide behind our brave troops Ms. Palin. The right to dissent, the right to protest is what America is built upon. We aren’t a nation of individuals who say, ok to whatever the government says and wants but questions are government when need be. If a policy or war is wrong then it should be questioned even if the Rush Limbaughs of talk radio (who opposed the Bosnian war by the way) don’t like it. North Carolina congressman Robin Hayes stated at an McCain rally, "Liberals hate real Americans that work and achieve and believe in God." I hope and wish this isn't what the GOP stands for today. I hope and wish this isn't the view of the average conservative and republican. I don't think it does, I think it represents only a fringe of the GOP. Neither fringe of both parties does their side justice. Liberals and conservatives have their disagreements, as they always have since the founding of the Republic in the 18th century but the idea that rank and file liberals who work and achieve and pay taxes and quite frequently go to church hate those who also do the same exact things, is absurd. GOP congresswoman wants us to investigate members of congress if they are "pro-America or anti-America." I didn't know when the congresswoman became the judge of what a true American was in Congress or society and the idea we engage in witchhunts in order to appease Ms. Bachman is absurd. We shouldn't be trying to divide ourselves as a nation.
Finally what about John McCain’s connections? He has on his staff, Rick Davis, Charlie Black and others men who lobbied on behalf of dictators in Philippines, Zaire etc. He tried to get an entry visa for Russian Oligarch and mobster Oleg Depraska. He served on a board that was involved with death squads in Central America and that board had connections even with Klaus Barbie, one of Hitler’s Nazis. Was McCain connection to these individuals and despicable actions no but if serving on a board is reason to state one shouldn’t be President (as with Obama and Bill Ayers) then shouldn’t that be a reason against McCain? Lastly who else was on Ayers and Obama’s Board? None other then Arnold Weber, McCain donor and aide to both Nixon and Reagan.
Palin more pro-American?:
Sarah Palin talked about in a speech about a "pro-America" region of America. So those Americans who died in the WTC attack weren't pro-America, Ms. Palin or were you talking about other parts of America? Which parts do you mean? It seems pro America regions are only those that support her. Mrs. Palin has said to would be protestors, actually supporters of hers, at a rally that they should thank the troops for their right to protest. An ok statement if it was made to both sides of this presidential race but I find it ironic that never is such a statement made by conservatives about conservatives protesting against Democrats. Only Democrats protesting against Republicans. Why? Because the implication in such a statement is that those who disagree with people like McCain and Palin and Rush Limbaugh are that they are not true Americans, that they kind of hate America and are abusing their freedom so they should feel guilty by using their free speech rights. Mrs. Palin people aren’t protesting against the military, they are protesting against you and McCain and the GOP establishment that has failed this great country for so long so stop hiding behind the troops. If you need to defend yourself then defend your policies. Defend your accepting favors as Governor of Alaska. Defend your abuse of authority as Governor of Alaska including firing the Public Safety Commissioner of the State of Alaska. Don’t hide behind our brave troops Ms. Palin. The right to dissent, the right to protest is what America is built upon. We aren’t a nation of individuals who say, ok to whatever the government says and wants but questions are government when need be. If a policy or war is wrong then it should be questioned even if the Rush Limbaughs of talk radio (who opposed the Bosnian war by the way) don’t like it. North Carolina congressman Robin Hayes stated at an McCain rally, "Liberals hate real Americans that work and achieve and believe in God." I hope and wish this isn't what the GOP stands for today. I hope and wish this isn't the view of the average conservative and republican. I don't think it does, I think it represents only a fringe of the GOP. Neither fringe of both parties does their side justice. Liberals and conservatives have their disagreements, as they always have since the founding of the Republic in the 18th century but the idea that rank and file liberals who work and achieve and pay taxes and quite frequently go to church hate those who also do the same exact things, is absurd. GOP congresswoman wants us to investigate members of congress if they are "pro-America or anti-America." I didn't know when the congresswoman became the judge of what a true American was in Congress or society and the idea we engage in witchhunts in order to appease Ms. Bachman is absurd. We shouldn't be trying to divide ourselves as a nation.
Finally what about John McCain’s connections? He has on his staff, Rick Davis, Charlie Black and others men who lobbied on behalf of dictators in Philippines, Zaire etc. He tried to get an entry visa for Russian Oligarch and mobster Oleg Depraska. He served on a board that was involved with death squads in Central America and that board had connections even with Klaus Barbie, one of Hitler’s Nazis. Was McCain connection to these individuals and despicable actions no but if serving on a board is reason to state one shouldn’t be President (as with Obama and Bill Ayers) then shouldn’t that be a reason against McCain? Lastly who else was on Ayers and Obama’s Board? None other then Arnold Weber, McCain donor and aide to both Nixon and Reagan.
Nation under God?/McCain a straight talker
James Wilson stated that “One Nation Under God” in the Pledge does not divide our nation. Well it does to the extent that tens of millions of Americans, though a minority I admit, object to the inserting of pro-religious language of our secular government. Not all of these people are the “dreaded atheists”, a good deal are devout religious believers who don’t believe this is the arena of government. Let the question of God existing or not by public debate, the government shouldn’t take sides. I would be just as opposed if our national motto stated a deity did not exist. God. If God exists, he does not need the help of government. I am not in offended by the mention of God, by private citizens or groups or even by the placement of pro-religious material on public property along as humanist or atheist citizens have the same right to put their message on public property. The rights of religious individuals and groups is dear and fundamental to Americans but those rights are not contingent on the government stating they are true.
Letter on McCain being a straight talker, supposedly.
John McCain likes to call himself the “Straight Talker”. Maybe he was at one time, but not anymore. He has stated that Barack Obama favors comprehensive sex ed for kindergartners, implying that Obama would teach 6 year olds all about sex. Karl Rove, by no means an Obama partisan but a mastermind behind the GOP, has said McCain has gone too far in his “truth” telling. Sen. Obama has supported, as have many republicans, the common sense notion that some touch is good and some is bad touch and that is what should be taught. McCain’s VP running mate Sarah Palin has said she opposed the Bridge to Nowhere. Actually, running for governor of Alaska she supported it and her support of the bridge did not change until it became politically unpopular by ironically, such critics as Sen. McCain. Another reason for her sudden opposition was that the federal government wasn’t going to pay for the whole bridge for the state of Alaska. The pastor of a church in Alaska that she was for a member for years, and she still has connections with, made a comment that criticism of the President is like criticism of one’s pastor. Pastor Kalnins seems to believe dissent from a President is analogous to a divine right of a monarchy. This is an idea that even the most conservative and religious Americans would be aghast at. I hope Sarah Palin does not share the same view as Kalnins. What about Palin and the Alaska Independence Party? She has connections to that party and at the very least her husband was a member of that party. The founder of the AIP is Joe Vogler, a man who stated about the American flag, "and I won't be buried under their damn flag," Now, imagine for a second that Michelle Obama, wife of Barack Obama, had connections to a secession party and the implications of it on (GOP) rightwingradio. She would be condemned as a “hater of America”, “unpatriotic” or any of the statements that those who disagree with conservatives and their policies have been called since we became a nation. Mrs. Palin wants us to vote for us because she is from a small town and a hockey mom, I don’t care if she was from the smallest town in America or New York City. I want a competent President not someone who condescends to Americans. Are the Obama’s perfect? No, of course not. They both have made statements they regret. Everyone regrets, especially those who speak a lot, statements that they wish to take back but the difference between the Obama’s church and patriotism issues is that those have been questioned and examined to a high degree by the Hannitys and Limbaughs of the world who completely and totally excusing every flaw in the Palin pick.
Letter on McCain being a straight talker, supposedly.
John McCain likes to call himself the “Straight Talker”. Maybe he was at one time, but not anymore. He has stated that Barack Obama favors comprehensive sex ed for kindergartners, implying that Obama would teach 6 year olds all about sex. Karl Rove, by no means an Obama partisan but a mastermind behind the GOP, has said McCain has gone too far in his “truth” telling. Sen. Obama has supported, as have many republicans, the common sense notion that some touch is good and some is bad touch and that is what should be taught. McCain’s VP running mate Sarah Palin has said she opposed the Bridge to Nowhere. Actually, running for governor of Alaska she supported it and her support of the bridge did not change until it became politically unpopular by ironically, such critics as Sen. McCain. Another reason for her sudden opposition was that the federal government wasn’t going to pay for the whole bridge for the state of Alaska. The pastor of a church in Alaska that she was for a member for years, and she still has connections with, made a comment that criticism of the President is like criticism of one’s pastor. Pastor Kalnins seems to believe dissent from a President is analogous to a divine right of a monarchy. This is an idea that even the most conservative and religious Americans would be aghast at. I hope Sarah Palin does not share the same view as Kalnins. What about Palin and the Alaska Independence Party? She has connections to that party and at the very least her husband was a member of that party. The founder of the AIP is Joe Vogler, a man who stated about the American flag, "and I won't be buried under their damn flag," Now, imagine for a second that Michelle Obama, wife of Barack Obama, had connections to a secession party and the implications of it on (GOP) rightwingradio. She would be condemned as a “hater of America”, “unpatriotic” or any of the statements that those who disagree with conservatives and their policies have been called since we became a nation. Mrs. Palin wants us to vote for us because she is from a small town and a hockey mom, I don’t care if she was from the smallest town in America or New York City. I want a competent President not someone who condescends to Americans. Are the Obama’s perfect? No, of course not. They both have made statements they regret. Everyone regrets, especially those who speak a lot, statements that they wish to take back but the difference between the Obama’s church and patriotism issues is that those have been questioned and examined to a high degree by the Hannitys and Limbaughs of the world who completely and totally excusing every flaw in the Palin pick.
Letter of mine when Obama was still running for Prez
Barack Obama is being accused of using race to help him win the Presidency. Senator Obama is not running as a black candidate or any candidate from any racial/ethnic candidate but a candidate for Americans. Yes, he is strong in the black community but Obama can hardly be faulted for his strong appeal in that community. Frankly, no candidate could be leading a major party in delegates without support from not only black voters but also white, latino voters. Obama has had to undergo a vicious campaign against him. He is not Muslim, and the school he attended in Indonesia had not only Muslims but those of other different religious groups in them. Indeed, Senator Obama also attended a Catholic school, why no rumors that he is secretly a Catholic? Probably because being considered a Catholic isn’t a negative such as being perceived as a Muslim is today. Anyway you can’t fault someone for what school they attended as a small child. What about him not putting his hand on his heart during the National Anthem? During a recent pro basketball game I looked around during the playing of our Anthem and 90% of those who I saw did not put their hand on their heart. They stood, just as Obama did. Should those 90% be disallowed from running for public office? Senator Obama has recited the Pledge of Allegiance with his hand on the heart. But what about Obama being endorsed by Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan? Yes and John McCain has been endorsed by John Hagee, a man who has stated that the catholic church is a “Great Whore.” Although Sen. McCain sought out that endorsement to get elected I am sure that he doesn’t agree with the views of Rev. Hagee. You cannot help who endorses you. But doesn’t Obama not wear a flag pin? Well, so do virtually none of those who condemn Obama wear them. A Republican congressman (while being interviewed) from Georgia named Jack Kingston decried Obama for not wearing them. Was Kingston wearing one, he had to admit no. Is Kingston the only conservative not wearing a flag pin? No of course not though some do wear them. But, why aren’t those not wearing them being criticized? Well, they aren’t a threat to be elected to the Presidency, of course. Patriotism isn’t just wearing symbols, though to a certain extent it is part of it, but ideas, support for liberty and democratic values.
Teaching of evolution/Special rights to gays
Letter in response about subject of evolution:
Larry Christian states that the teaching of evolution is teaching of the "religion" of humanism. Some, though just a handful today, of God believers believe the earth is flat. Does teaching that the earth is round constitute the teaching of a religious view because it goes against the religious belief of some that the earth is flat? Now, very few people (including Christians) take that view but if 20% of Americans believed the earth was flat (about the same number of Americans who believe in a 6000 year old earth) would we have to teach the dual "theory" that the earth is flat along with it being round in geography classes? Or do we only teach alternatives dependent if a certain percentage of Americans hold those views? If so, then science because a popularity contest, nothing more. We would not state, if a sizable number of Americans believed the atomic theory of matter went against their religion, that it should not be taught in physics classes. In fact, most people who believe in evolution believe in God. About 1/2 of Americans believe in evolution to a certain extent but only 1/10 of Americans are without a belief in God, so 80% of evolutionary believers in fact, are religious to some extent. Do these religious Americans believe that their belief in evolution is part of their religion or part of their knowledge of science? The fact is, something should be taught in science classes when it has solid evidence behind it. Evolution meets and exceeds that test. There are not only fossils but transitional fossils such as homo habilis and homo erectus. There is the fact that fossils are only found in certain geological strata and not randomly in the geological layers. Creationism or the new buzzterm, Intelligent Design, rests on the idea that something can't be explained (because of its' complexity) without a deity. It leaves unanswered wouldn't a deity be more complex then the answers he supposedly solves and second why when the knowledge of science keeps expanding at such a great rate, we would expect that there is certain knowledge that cannot be answered without a deity? After all, we find the idea of Thor hurling lightning bolts laughable in our modern day. Lastly, a scientific theory is not a guess by the way, but a set of principles built on observations. Creationism or ID fails that test.
Gays and evolution redux
Joel. Hendon writes that the American people disagree with “granting special rights to homosexuals.” What special rights? Heterosexuals can marry the people they love, gays can’t. Laws on discrimination and hate crimes cover religion, race, sex but not sexual orientation. If homosexuality is a choice, isn’t religion and should they be covered by these laws? Finally Mr. Hendon makes a statement about “teaching an unproven theory in our schools and calling it scientific fact.” Obviously he means evolution. First a scientific theory isn’t a guess or a hunch. What is meant in the general public as a theory would be a hypothesis in science. A theory in science means a set of principles that described observed events, finds or data. Evolution is a fact and a theory. For example, if evolution wasn’t true then the fossil record would be scattered wildly in the fossil records with homo sapien bones with dinosaurs or mammoths with early reptiles. This doesn’t happen. That evolution has happened, which I would say conservatively 99% of those who make their living in this field would agree, is a fact. The exact mechanism or model of how it happened, is the part that deals with theory. Again, a scientific theory isn’t the same as a theory in the general sense. Strangely, no one ever criticizes Relativity or electro-magnetic theory because they are just “theories.”
Larry Christian states that the teaching of evolution is teaching of the "religion" of humanism. Some, though just a handful today, of God believers believe the earth is flat. Does teaching that the earth is round constitute the teaching of a religious view because it goes against the religious belief of some that the earth is flat? Now, very few people (including Christians) take that view but if 20% of Americans believed the earth was flat (about the same number of Americans who believe in a 6000 year old earth) would we have to teach the dual "theory" that the earth is flat along with it being round in geography classes? Or do we only teach alternatives dependent if a certain percentage of Americans hold those views? If so, then science because a popularity contest, nothing more. We would not state, if a sizable number of Americans believed the atomic theory of matter went against their religion, that it should not be taught in physics classes. In fact, most people who believe in evolution believe in God. About 1/2 of Americans believe in evolution to a certain extent but only 1/10 of Americans are without a belief in God, so 80% of evolutionary believers in fact, are religious to some extent. Do these religious Americans believe that their belief in evolution is part of their religion or part of their knowledge of science? The fact is, something should be taught in science classes when it has solid evidence behind it. Evolution meets and exceeds that test. There are not only fossils but transitional fossils such as homo habilis and homo erectus. There is the fact that fossils are only found in certain geological strata and not randomly in the geological layers. Creationism or the new buzzterm, Intelligent Design, rests on the idea that something can't be explained (because of its' complexity) without a deity. It leaves unanswered wouldn't a deity be more complex then the answers he supposedly solves and second why when the knowledge of science keeps expanding at such a great rate, we would expect that there is certain knowledge that cannot be answered without a deity? After all, we find the idea of Thor hurling lightning bolts laughable in our modern day. Lastly, a scientific theory is not a guess by the way, but a set of principles built on observations. Creationism or ID fails that test.
Gays and evolution redux
Joel. Hendon writes that the American people disagree with “granting special rights to homosexuals.” What special rights? Heterosexuals can marry the people they love, gays can’t. Laws on discrimination and hate crimes cover religion, race, sex but not sexual orientation. If homosexuality is a choice, isn’t religion and should they be covered by these laws? Finally Mr. Hendon makes a statement about “teaching an unproven theory in our schools and calling it scientific fact.” Obviously he means evolution. First a scientific theory isn’t a guess or a hunch. What is meant in the general public as a theory would be a hypothesis in science. A theory in science means a set of principles that described observed events, finds or data. Evolution is a fact and a theory. For example, if evolution wasn’t true then the fossil record would be scattered wildly in the fossil records with homo sapien bones with dinosaurs or mammoths with early reptiles. This doesn’t happen. That evolution has happened, which I would say conservatively 99% of those who make their living in this field would agree, is a fact. The exact mechanism or model of how it happened, is the part that deals with theory. Again, a scientific theory isn’t the same as a theory in the general sense. Strangely, no one ever criticizes Relativity or electro-magnetic theory because they are just “theories.”
Tradition, good thing?/
Letter of mine on answring about is tradition such a good thing
Letter writer James Wilson makes several claims which aren't true.
He states that the values that makes America great are traditional. Well, at one time they weren't. At one time, the right for women to vote went against tradition. The right for non-property holders to vote went against tradition. The very nature of democracy went against tradition. Tradition of these times opposed all these things as tradition usually does. We are not a nation based on tradition but one based on change, a rejection of the Divine right of kings for example. Mr. Wilson talks about Objective truth. Saying you have objective truth doesn't mean you have objective truth, it just means you think you have it. Saying your values are reflected be a deity doesn't make it so. Muslims say the same, is their religion objective truth? What about that of Hindus? Did Joseph Smith speak objective truth too? Debate in the arena of ideas, do not hide behind religion.
Letter on Romney being a Mormon
Some people are questioning former Massachusetts Governor and current Presidential candidate Mitt Romney because he is a Mormon. It doesn’t matter that much to me what his beliefs are but it does matter to the extent that those same religious beliefs might or would impact the policies he would support as President. After all, religious beliefs are beliefs. No person would state that because a candidate is a communist then the fact that they are a communist isn’t relevant to should they be voted into office. If one’s religious belief leads a person to take a stand one way or another on abortion, the death penalty then it becomes relevant. If a candidate is not forthcoming on their positions on these issues but they belong to a church that takes stances on those same issues then it is relevant. On a second topic I wish to mention, Citigroup lost $8 billion in one quarter in 2007 while the CEO of Citigroup received an exit package worth at least $40 million. I thought that CEOs deserved high compensation for the skills and value they bring to companies, as Americans are often told. Maybe we need to outsource CEOs and executives because if an American worker working an assembly line making $12 cannot compete in the global marketplace neither can nor should CEOs who make $40 million and lose $8 billion in a quarter. Somehow I don’t think this will come to pass. Lastly, why do Americans buy tennis shoes from companies like Nike that charge $100 for many of their shoes while paying their workers less then $1 an hour in working conditions that haven’t existed in this country since the 19th century. If these conditions and wages are intolerable for American workers (as they should be) then why do we allow products made under these same horrible conditions into the US? Would you want your 12 year old daughter,, grandson or niece working in a sweatshop? No, so why do we tolerate it if the 12 year old is from Malaysia?
Letter writer James Wilson makes several claims which aren't true.
He states that the values that makes America great are traditional. Well, at one time they weren't. At one time, the right for women to vote went against tradition. The right for non-property holders to vote went against tradition. The very nature of democracy went against tradition. Tradition of these times opposed all these things as tradition usually does. We are not a nation based on tradition but one based on change, a rejection of the Divine right of kings for example. Mr. Wilson talks about Objective truth. Saying you have objective truth doesn't mean you have objective truth, it just means you think you have it. Saying your values are reflected be a deity doesn't make it so. Muslims say the same, is their religion objective truth? What about that of Hindus? Did Joseph Smith speak objective truth too? Debate in the arena of ideas, do not hide behind religion.
Letter on Romney being a Mormon
Some people are questioning former Massachusetts Governor and current Presidential candidate Mitt Romney because he is a Mormon. It doesn’t matter that much to me what his beliefs are but it does matter to the extent that those same religious beliefs might or would impact the policies he would support as President. After all, religious beliefs are beliefs. No person would state that because a candidate is a communist then the fact that they are a communist isn’t relevant to should they be voted into office. If one’s religious belief leads a person to take a stand one way or another on abortion, the death penalty then it becomes relevant. If a candidate is not forthcoming on their positions on these issues but they belong to a church that takes stances on those same issues then it is relevant. On a second topic I wish to mention, Citigroup lost $8 billion in one quarter in 2007 while the CEO of Citigroup received an exit package worth at least $40 million. I thought that CEOs deserved high compensation for the skills and value they bring to companies, as Americans are often told. Maybe we need to outsource CEOs and executives because if an American worker working an assembly line making $12 cannot compete in the global marketplace neither can nor should CEOs who make $40 million and lose $8 billion in a quarter. Somehow I don’t think this will come to pass. Lastly, why do Americans buy tennis shoes from companies like Nike that charge $100 for many of their shoes while paying their workers less then $1 an hour in working conditions that haven’t existed in this country since the 19th century. If these conditions and wages are intolerable for American workers (as they should be) then why do we allow products made under these same horrible conditions into the US? Would you want your 12 year old daughter,, grandson or niece working in a sweatshop? No, so why do we tolerate it if the 12 year old is from Malaysia?
Prayer in School/
I hear that the Supreme Court has disallowed prayer in school. All that ended, was organized prayer as led by a teacher, principal or directed by the school. The problem before the Court rulings dealing with organized prayer in schools was that students were required or pressured to participate in prayer not of their religion, if they had a religion. No government or school board committee has the right to teach a certain religious view that the parents of those students might disagree with. Those that advocate organized prayer back in public schools state students wouldn’t be forced to pray but ironically it was some of those condemned church/state court decisions from the 1940s through 1960s that dealt with children forced to pray or pressured to pray by teachers and the school. While the phrase “separation of church and state” does not in fact appear in our Constitution it was not penned though by judges as some believe, though it was referenced by judges in later court cases. It was in a letter written by President Jefferson, after consultation with advisers, on the ideal that government and religion should have separation between them. Now, President Jefferson was not a signer to the Constitutional Convention but James Madison not only was but is considered to be the Father of the Constitution and wrote very similar sentiments. Mr. Madison wrote in a letter to Edward Livingston in 1822, “Every new and successful example of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters is of importance.” In an 1819 letter to Gene Garman, “The civil government functions with complete success by the total separation of Church and State.” As a nonbeliever, like most nonbelievers, I am not offended by people praying in public buildings. I just don’t want the government organizing prayer or religious exercises. That is all. I am not miserable because I don’t believe in God or life after death. Other people have those beliefs and that is fine. Atheists are not unhappy and wretched with misery. I heard a Christian state once why do nonbelievers believe in atoms but not God when they cannot see neither. Well, an atom is observed scientifically through various experiments that have been repeated many, many numerous times. There is conclusive scientific evidence that atoms do exist. If they did not, then nuclear energy or nuclear bombs would not work at all let alone other advanced technology. That a God is necessary for the universe leaves God unexplained and while I understand Christians say God doesn’t need a cause that just isn’t a sufficient explanation for nonbelievers. Why the universe needs a cause but a cause we can’t observe doesn’t need a cause doesn’t make sense to me. An explanation that God is immaterial doesn’t make.
Self styled expert on atheists, who knows nothing about the topic-nothing new
After reading Joel Hendon’s letter, I am of the impression that he knows less about atheists and atheism then I do about quantum mechanics. At least he didn’t say atheists worship Satan. Atheists do not fear the moral and ethical rules of the bible. Some they agree with. Rules against stealing and murder make sense because they are based on not harming others. Atheists are not rejecting the bible as true because they are afraid to follow those rules but because they simply have no more belief in the bible then Mr. Hendon has in the Qaran. Does Mr. Hendon reject the Qaran because he is afraid of following the moral and ethical rules of Allah? How about those of Hinduism? I doubt it. In fact atheists according to at least one survey by the Federal Bureau of Prisons are less represented in prisons then they are in the general population. If atheists fear the “tough” rules of the bible, then why aren’t they out committing crimes? The bible can give a moral sense but so can non religious sources. Atheists don’t believe in “nothing” but have an ethical system whose precepts are built on reason and empathy and not faith. Anyway the laws/rules of the Christian deity or any other God can’t be based on him because if they are they are either his whims or are above him. If the latter then logic/reasoning can find those same moral rules. I do not fear the bible Mr. Hendon. I do not believe it is true and I do not believe it is the foundation of a moral sense. But unlike you I do not give false motives to people who don’t believe like me.
Self styled expert on atheists, who knows nothing about the topic-nothing new
After reading Joel Hendon’s letter, I am of the impression that he knows less about atheists and atheism then I do about quantum mechanics. At least he didn’t say atheists worship Satan. Atheists do not fear the moral and ethical rules of the bible. Some they agree with. Rules against stealing and murder make sense because they are based on not harming others. Atheists are not rejecting the bible as true because they are afraid to follow those rules but because they simply have no more belief in the bible then Mr. Hendon has in the Qaran. Does Mr. Hendon reject the Qaran because he is afraid of following the moral and ethical rules of Allah? How about those of Hinduism? I doubt it. In fact atheists according to at least one survey by the Federal Bureau of Prisons are less represented in prisons then they are in the general population. If atheists fear the “tough” rules of the bible, then why aren’t they out committing crimes? The bible can give a moral sense but so can non religious sources. Atheists don’t believe in “nothing” but have an ethical system whose precepts are built on reason and empathy and not faith. Anyway the laws/rules of the Christian deity or any other God can’t be based on him because if they are they are either his whims or are above him. If the latter then logic/reasoning can find those same moral rules. I do not fear the bible Mr. Hendon. I do not believe it is true and I do not believe it is the foundation of a moral sense. But unlike you I do not give false motives to people who don’t believe like me.
Treason and absolute Truth
Politically incorrect to call others traitors:
Mr. Hyatt said he isn’t calling Democrat leaders and politicians traitors but he goes on to basically do just that. He said Harry Reid, Murtha, etc would have been hanged in 1944 or 1951. How about 1999? That was the year that almost 2/3 of Republicans in the House of Representatives voted to cut off funding for the Bosnian war. So, should these gentlemen and gentlewomen have been strung up too or was it ok because they were opposing a war supported by a President who was a democrat? Now, I don’t believe these individuals should have been executed. They opposed a war that they believed was wrong and they should have opposed it, including cutting off funding since they believed it was wrong. Should Mark Twain have been executed for opposing the Spanish American War? Mr. Hyatt is not politically incorrect as he probably imagines himself to be. He is just wrong and if he does not support the same harsh treatment to republicans who opposed and voted against the Bosnian war as those democrats who oppose the current war, then he is also guilty of hypocrisy. I do not oppose the Iraq war but I oppose this idea that equates disagreements and dissent with a war as treason. Now, if the term politically incorrect has any real logical meaning then it would be the idea that taking unpopular positions while there are calls of treason and even hanging for taking them. So, I guess the democrats who have oppose the Iraq War are kind of politically incorrect then.
Absolute Truth:
Many Christians believe in absolute truth, and usually they believe their religion is the truth. I doubt Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, Shintos or a host of other religions believe that Christanity nor any other religion that is not theirs is “the truth” but believe that they have “the truth.” As an atheist I believe that is an absolute reality to the universe and that in all likelihood it is purely natural in nature. I believe based on various scientific evidence. Some ask how is it possible for someone to know the difference between right and wrong without a reference point beyond themselves. Well, atheists and even many humanist theists (including Christians) base moral principles on harm. That something is moral or not depends on limiting harm and actions further human happiness. For example the bombing of Hiroshima by an atomic bomb was moral because it saved many more lives then would have happened with an invasion of Japan. But what of the idea that whatever a God says is moral, makes that action or concept, moral? Ok, where did that deity get his moral sense? Is it based on ultimate reasoning ability because he is all wise and intelligent? If so, then such a deity comes to those moral rules/principles/sense that exist outside of himself. These rules are discovered then. So, even if a God exists or doesn’t exist then moral rules/principles are a matter of using reasoning to acquire them. Our rights aren’t based on a creator. Rights are a product of a desire/yearning for happiness and liberty and not to be harmed. Another question is, is Christianity a motivating factor behind most reform in US history? I do not discount that many Christians have done wonderful work in terms of making the nation a better place but humanists or the term more in vogue in the 19th century, freethinkers, accomplished and helped accomplish much reform. Susan. B Anthony, Cady Stanton were not Christians and at best were vague agnostics on the question of religion but they helped start the Women’s suffrage movement. Many of those who supported the Revolutionary War were non-Christians such as Thomas Paine or Ethan Allen. Indeed, it is amazing what non-theists (atheists, agnostics, humanists, deists, freethinkers, etc) have helped accomplish in terms of reform in America while being a relative small minority. Atheists don’t want to impose themselves on Christians. No atheist favors the government making a statement in the Pledge of Allegiance or on coins that a God doesn’t exist. Atheists don’t urge for organized readings of the works of Robert Ingersoll at public schools football games. That atheists are perceived as a threat to the freedoms and rights of Christians is a simply not true anymore then rank and file Christians are a threat to the rights of atheists or other non-religious Americans.
Mr. Hyatt said he isn’t calling Democrat leaders and politicians traitors but he goes on to basically do just that. He said Harry Reid, Murtha, etc would have been hanged in 1944 or 1951. How about 1999? That was the year that almost 2/3 of Republicans in the House of Representatives voted to cut off funding for the Bosnian war. So, should these gentlemen and gentlewomen have been strung up too or was it ok because they were opposing a war supported by a President who was a democrat? Now, I don’t believe these individuals should have been executed. They opposed a war that they believed was wrong and they should have opposed it, including cutting off funding since they believed it was wrong. Should Mark Twain have been executed for opposing the Spanish American War? Mr. Hyatt is not politically incorrect as he probably imagines himself to be. He is just wrong and if he does not support the same harsh treatment to republicans who opposed and voted against the Bosnian war as those democrats who oppose the current war, then he is also guilty of hypocrisy. I do not oppose the Iraq war but I oppose this idea that equates disagreements and dissent with a war as treason. Now, if the term politically incorrect has any real logical meaning then it would be the idea that taking unpopular positions while there are calls of treason and even hanging for taking them. So, I guess the democrats who have oppose the Iraq War are kind of politically incorrect then.
Absolute Truth:
Many Christians believe in absolute truth, and usually they believe their religion is the truth. I doubt Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, Shintos or a host of other religions believe that Christanity nor any other religion that is not theirs is “the truth” but believe that they have “the truth.” As an atheist I believe that is an absolute reality to the universe and that in all likelihood it is purely natural in nature. I believe based on various scientific evidence. Some ask how is it possible for someone to know the difference between right and wrong without a reference point beyond themselves. Well, atheists and even many humanist theists (including Christians) base moral principles on harm. That something is moral or not depends on limiting harm and actions further human happiness. For example the bombing of Hiroshima by an atomic bomb was moral because it saved many more lives then would have happened with an invasion of Japan. But what of the idea that whatever a God says is moral, makes that action or concept, moral? Ok, where did that deity get his moral sense? Is it based on ultimate reasoning ability because he is all wise and intelligent? If so, then such a deity comes to those moral rules/principles/sense that exist outside of himself. These rules are discovered then. So, even if a God exists or doesn’t exist then moral rules/principles are a matter of using reasoning to acquire them. Our rights aren’t based on a creator. Rights are a product of a desire/yearning for happiness and liberty and not to be harmed. Another question is, is Christianity a motivating factor behind most reform in US history? I do not discount that many Christians have done wonderful work in terms of making the nation a better place but humanists or the term more in vogue in the 19th century, freethinkers, accomplished and helped accomplish much reform. Susan. B Anthony, Cady Stanton were not Christians and at best were vague agnostics on the question of religion but they helped start the Women’s suffrage movement. Many of those who supported the Revolutionary War were non-Christians such as Thomas Paine or Ethan Allen. Indeed, it is amazing what non-theists (atheists, agnostics, humanists, deists, freethinkers, etc) have helped accomplish in terms of reform in America while being a relative small minority. Atheists don’t want to impose themselves on Christians. No atheist favors the government making a statement in the Pledge of Allegiance or on coins that a God doesn’t exist. Atheists don’t urge for organized readings of the works of Robert Ingersoll at public schools football games. That atheists are perceived as a threat to the freedoms and rights of Christians is a simply not true anymore then rank and file Christians are a threat to the rights of atheists or other non-religious Americans.
40 hour workweek/Lost of manufacturing base
Letter about George Will and opposition to shorter workweek
George Will decries the 35 hour workweek in France in a recent column. The 40 hour workweek was created in the U.S. almost 70 years ago in 1938. In that time productivity per worker has far more then doubled, but the workweek still stands at 40 hours. While I do not want nor advocate for the labor laws of France, they are too burdensome, we should reward the hard workers in the U.S. who helped the U.S. economy to become so efficient. What is needed a workweek of 32-35 hours to be factored in over the next five or so years. Maybe more, maybe less. We do need to compete in a global economy but not a global economy that is out of the 19th century. Indeed we need to take action to pressure and urge other nations to raise their standards on labor, workplace and environmental rights and not lower ours to oppressive dictatorships such as China.
Lost of Manufacturing Jobs
More then 3 million manufacturing jobs have disappeared since 1998, with probably over half of these directly tied to our manufacturing trade deficit in that period. Not only manufacturing jobs have been lost to globalization, but 500,000 or so professional services and information sector jobs, such a tech support operator in India, have also been lost. Forrester Research inc. predicts US employers will move 3.4 million white-collar jobs and $136 billion (with a B) in wages (from those jobs) overseas by 2015. A study reports 14 million jobs are at risk of being sent offshore. Garner, Inc estimates 10% of computer services and software jobs will be moved overseas by the end of 2007. A survey by Deloitte Research found the world’s 100 largest financial service firms espect to shift $356 billion worth of operations and about tow million jobs to low wage nations over the next five years. The fact is, trade isn’t good for the average American. Yes, it will reduce the price of that shirt or that DVD player, but at what cost? The fact is, even with lower priced goods wages in the last 30 years haven’t kept pace with inflation and through much of that period the sending of jobs overseas has greatly expanded. Indeed an economic assessment is that increased trade has decreased wages by 6% of the 2/3 of Americans without a college degree. Does anyone save 6% of their income (over $1500) in Wal-mart or any other store that sells cheap imported goods? I doubt it. A study by the Economic Policy Institute reports wages in industries where jobs are being created as on average, 21% lower then wages in those industries where jobs are disappearing. In addition expanding industries are less likely to offer workers health insurance then those cutting jobs. This doesn’t just affect workers but everyone in a given community. When the collective wages of towns, cities, counties and even states along with the nation as a whole it increases the burden on local government services. Simply, our nation’s trade policies must and have to change. No longer should they be written for and by big business/corporate interests to no loyalty to America and their lackeys. Indeed, trade agreements like NAFTA allow corporate interests to sue states and local governments for regulation of products that are dangerous or harmful to the environment. Simply we are not in the year 2007 anymore, we are in the year 1877 when workers had no rights and whatever a powerful interest wanted, they got. Really, is this what Americans want, for the price of a $3 t-shirt?
George Will decries the 35 hour workweek in France in a recent column. The 40 hour workweek was created in the U.S. almost 70 years ago in 1938. In that time productivity per worker has far more then doubled, but the workweek still stands at 40 hours. While I do not want nor advocate for the labor laws of France, they are too burdensome, we should reward the hard workers in the U.S. who helped the U.S. economy to become so efficient. What is needed a workweek of 32-35 hours to be factored in over the next five or so years. Maybe more, maybe less. We do need to compete in a global economy but not a global economy that is out of the 19th century. Indeed we need to take action to pressure and urge other nations to raise their standards on labor, workplace and environmental rights and not lower ours to oppressive dictatorships such as China.
Lost of Manufacturing Jobs
More then 3 million manufacturing jobs have disappeared since 1998, with probably over half of these directly tied to our manufacturing trade deficit in that period. Not only manufacturing jobs have been lost to globalization, but 500,000 or so professional services and information sector jobs, such a tech support operator in India, have also been lost. Forrester Research inc. predicts US employers will move 3.4 million white-collar jobs and $136 billion (with a B) in wages (from those jobs) overseas by 2015. A study reports 14 million jobs are at risk of being sent offshore. Garner, Inc estimates 10% of computer services and software jobs will be moved overseas by the end of 2007. A survey by Deloitte Research found the world’s 100 largest financial service firms espect to shift $356 billion worth of operations and about tow million jobs to low wage nations over the next five years. The fact is, trade isn’t good for the average American. Yes, it will reduce the price of that shirt or that DVD player, but at what cost? The fact is, even with lower priced goods wages in the last 30 years haven’t kept pace with inflation and through much of that period the sending of jobs overseas has greatly expanded. Indeed an economic assessment is that increased trade has decreased wages by 6% of the 2/3 of Americans without a college degree. Does anyone save 6% of their income (over $1500) in Wal-mart or any other store that sells cheap imported goods? I doubt it. A study by the Economic Policy Institute reports wages in industries where jobs are being created as on average, 21% lower then wages in those industries where jobs are disappearing. In addition expanding industries are less likely to offer workers health insurance then those cutting jobs. This doesn’t just affect workers but everyone in a given community. When the collective wages of towns, cities, counties and even states along with the nation as a whole it increases the burden on local government services. Simply, our nation’s trade policies must and have to change. No longer should they be written for and by big business/corporate interests to no loyalty to America and their lackeys. Indeed, trade agreements like NAFTA allow corporate interests to sue states and local governments for regulation of products that are dangerous or harmful to the environment. Simply we are not in the year 2007 anymore, we are in the year 1877 when workers had no rights and whatever a powerful interest wanted, they got. Really, is this what Americans want, for the price of a $3 t-shirt?
Christian Nation/atheists truly believe in God deep down? Of course not
I hear Christians state “In God We Trust” is in our national motto and we adopted it because Christian men and women founded this nation, along with Christian principles. This, is a gross oversimplification. There is not one right in our Bill of Rights that is found in the bible. No right against unlawful searches, no freedom of speech and definitely no free exercise of religion. Indeed, the bible gives harsh punishment for those who don’t worship the “right deity.” We are a nation founded upon the ideals of the Enlightenment by children of the Enlightenment such as Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Ethan Allen and others who often were not Christian but deist, although there were certainly Christians among the Founders. Indeed, Ethan Allen who did not share one doctrinal belief of Christianity led Americans to one of their early victories in the capture of Fort Ticonderoga. The treaty of Tripoli, approved without dissent in the US Senate under the first Adams administration stated the United States government wasn’t “founded in any way upon the Christian religion.” Yes, we are majority Christian but our government and its’ principles are secular.
Atheists believe in God?
I hear some people state that atheists truly believe in God, deep down. . As an atheist I never understood this. Atheists don’t doubt there are sincere people who believe in God. Of course there are, their statements and actions support that such a belief actually exists. After all no one doubts Muslims believe in Allah, and capitalists believe in capitalism. But atheists are all liars or deceiving themselves. Go figure. Atheists don’t take action against church/state issues because they want attention, the vast majority of atheists will never file such a lawsuit in their lives though they may support them, but because they believe that the government shouldn’t’ support or endorse religion. Atheists as a rule along with many theists believe in neutrality. Government shouldn’t support the idea that a God exists or not, let the marketplace of ideas debate the idea out. Now, to the point by Mr. Wiggins that we need religion to be taught in schools so that we can curb the rate of crime; a 1997 Federal Bureau of Prisons showed .209% of inmates identifying as atheists, or 156 out of 74, 341. Even if we include those who might have identified themselves as agnostics or humanists it is doubtful if that number reaches more then 1% total, if that. While non-believers are only a minority of Americans that is still a tiny fraction of their population in the general population. The fact is that we are the most religious of the developed Western democracies. More so then Germany, Britain, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Austria, Switzerland and even Spain and Italy. All of those nations have higher rates of atheism and non-belief then the U.S. but all conversely have lower rates of violent crime per capita as compared to us. So, it is not as simple as teaching religion in public schools that will make crime and immoral behavior disappear or decrease. I do not believe religion is a cause of crime among individuals but that larger social-economic problems overwhelm certain communities in America which create such negative consequences. Children need good fathers as role models, especially boys. Gangs are an unfortunate and depressing alternative that children often turn to instead. Teaching moral principles are a good thing and I do not oppose such actions in public schools but morality doesn’t need an appeal to a religious authority or a deity. Morality is universal. Even if a God exists then morality would still be dependent on not harming one’s fellow man or woman. This is what we should and must teach in public schools that must serve all Americans, believers and non-believers.
Atheists believe in God?
I hear some people state that atheists truly believe in God, deep down. . As an atheist I never understood this. Atheists don’t doubt there are sincere people who believe in God. Of course there are, their statements and actions support that such a belief actually exists. After all no one doubts Muslims believe in Allah, and capitalists believe in capitalism. But atheists are all liars or deceiving themselves. Go figure. Atheists don’t take action against church/state issues because they want attention, the vast majority of atheists will never file such a lawsuit in their lives though they may support them, but because they believe that the government shouldn’t’ support or endorse religion. Atheists as a rule along with many theists believe in neutrality. Government shouldn’t support the idea that a God exists or not, let the marketplace of ideas debate the idea out. Now, to the point by Mr. Wiggins that we need religion to be taught in schools so that we can curb the rate of crime; a 1997 Federal Bureau of Prisons showed .209% of inmates identifying as atheists, or 156 out of 74, 341. Even if we include those who might have identified themselves as agnostics or humanists it is doubtful if that number reaches more then 1% total, if that. While non-believers are only a minority of Americans that is still a tiny fraction of their population in the general population. The fact is that we are the most religious of the developed Western democracies. More so then Germany, Britain, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Austria, Switzerland and even Spain and Italy. All of those nations have higher rates of atheism and non-belief then the U.S. but all conversely have lower rates of violent crime per capita as compared to us. So, it is not as simple as teaching religion in public schools that will make crime and immoral behavior disappear or decrease. I do not believe religion is a cause of crime among individuals but that larger social-economic problems overwhelm certain communities in America which create such negative consequences. Children need good fathers as role models, especially boys. Gangs are an unfortunate and depressing alternative that children often turn to instead. Teaching moral principles are a good thing and I do not oppose such actions in public schools but morality doesn’t need an appeal to a religious authority or a deity. Morality is universal. Even if a God exists then morality would still be dependent on not harming one’s fellow man or woman. This is what we should and must teach in public schools that must serve all Americans, believers and non-believers.
Christian revisionism of nation's founding
Dr. Kenn Gangel writes about Stephen Mansfield book, “Ten Tortured Words”. This book is a defense of a very conservative Christian view of the founding of our nation’s government. This book is historically inaccurate to say the least. Mr. Mansfield quotes James Madison for example, as writing this, “Religion is the basis and foundation of government.” The problem is he never wrote that. This is what Madison actually wrote, "the equal right of every citizen to the free exercise of his Religion according to the dictates of conscience" is held by the same tenure with all his other rights. If we recur to its origin, it is equally the gift of nature; if we weigh its importance, it cannot be less dear to us; if we consider the "Declaration of those rights which pertain to the good people of Virginia, as the basis and foundation of government, it is enumerated with equal solemnity or rather studied emphasis." Emphasis mine to show certain words taken out of context to form a brand new quote. Basically Mr. Mansfield made up a quote of Madison or gets an “F” in basic research. Madison was talking about the free exercise of religion, along with other rights, not religion itself as being the basis and foundation of government. To give the false quote that Madison believed that religion was the basis/foundation of government implies that Madison believed that government should be founded upon religion not the accurate quote that government should not interfere in the religion of its’ citizens. Quite a distinction. Another false quote commonly given by religious conservatives is that Madison stated that we base American civilization upon abiding by the 10 Commandments. A quote found nowhere in anything Madison actually wrote. A real quote by Madison, “The civil government functions with complete success by the total separation of Church from the State”, letter to Gene Garman, 1819. What about Dr. Gangel’s statement on Jefferson not really opposed to governmental funding that encourages religion? Thomas Jefferson in the 1779 Statute for Religious Freedom, “To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical.” Now, I am not a religiously devout person but I do not get offended, as Dr. Gangel states about non-theists, at religious symbols. Any person can put up any religious display that they so wish, they just do not require governmental funding to do so. Religious beliefs and their symbols should compete in the marketplace of ideas. The secular are not opposed to prayer, they are opposed to school organized prayer. Who wants a prayer anyway drawn up by a government committee??! Children can pray in school by themselves or among friends, that was never outlawed.
Our children have hard enough times as it is; now they can’t even be quiet. I think we need more prayer in our schools and workplaces. When I went to school we always assembled to “chapel.” We had very few fights or arguments and no shootings, so why not try the old way again?
Our leaders approve of ministers going to the prisons and carrying the Word, so why can’t we try to stop them before they have to go to prison?
Our young people are our future leaders, so let’s help them all we can.
Our children have hard enough times as it is; now they can’t even be quiet. I think we need more prayer in our schools and workplaces. When I went to school we always assembled to “chapel.” We had very few fights or arguments and no shootings, so why not try the old way again?
Our leaders approve of ministers going to the prisons and carrying the Word, so why can’t we try to stop them before they have to go to prison?
Our young people are our future leaders, so let’s help them all we can.
Info on cause of homosexuality
John Tidball made a series of assumptions in his letter about gays. He states the children of gays are more likely to become gay. A 2004 study by Charlotte Patterson at the University of Virginia found that the children of lesbian mothers are no more likely to be homosexual then the children of heterosexual couples. Indeed, what is the greatest indicator of homosexuality, at least among boys? Well, every boy a mother gives birth to raises the odds that a male child will be homosexual by 10%. Having girls doesn’t effect the odds, only male children. This shows that hormones are a strong factor in homosexuality. Mr. Tidball worries about rape in prison. As well he should, this is a crime that society has too long ignored. But men who rape men in prison view themselves as heterosexual in nature and outside of prison are much more likely to have sex with women then men. Simply, prison rape isn’t so much about homosexuals raping other men but violent/social deviants who wish to exercise control over others in prison. But nevertheless rape is something that is obviously harmful because no consent is given and if it is a case of a man raping a woman or a man or a woman raping a man or woman then it should be punished. Child porn, kidnapping, molestation (all examples Mr. Tidball gave as analogous to consensual adult homosexuality) deal with one person abusing others. On one other assumption he was right, the children of gay parents are more likely to accept homosexuality as acceptable. Why, because they come to realize that though their parents are of the same sex they love them just as much and take care of them just as much as non-gay parents.
Ask Jesus into your heart/
Reading Jeanette Rutledge’s letter she implored for non-believers of a God to ask Jesus into their hearts. That is fair. If Jesus is the son of a deity and God exists then it is worth a test to actually see if Jesus exists. I, as a non-believer have done this before and I will try it again based on the suggestion of Ms. Rutledge. Now, as an atheist I am not against God, I don’t believe a God or a certain God exists so I can’t be against a being I don’t think exists. I am also not against the Holy spirit or even Jesus. But, to be perfectly fair I think Christians and other theists should read such publications as the Humanist, Free Inquiry, the magazine or Church & State. Many of these magazines are online. There are articles by such writers as former evangelical Christian Dan Barker, who turned atheist. I think this is only a fair approach for both sides to step into the shoes of one another. Atheists can take a moment to pray and see if it works and Christians can take a moment to read the writings of atheists on the question of morality, arguments dealing with the existence of a deity etc.
Letter of God in the Pledge
Marvin Weber in his letter stated that the phrase "under God" as not being in violation of the First Amendment. He states, "The First Amendment prevents establishment of an official, government-sponsored religion. Merely mentioning God doesn't sponsor any religion." Really? Monotheism is the belief in a God. Hence even the mentioning of a God is the sponsoring of the religion of monotheism. But, nobody really believes that God was inserted into the pledge to further the belief in general of monotheism. It was the Judeo-Christian God. When President Eisenhower signed "Under God" into the Pledge he heralded it for its' support of the Judeo-Christian God. No non-theists want a Pledge that states, "One nation, under no God". They just want government neutrality and let the marketplace of ideas decide the question of a God existing or not. A God that exists doesn't need government endorsement and if he doesn't why endorse him?
Letter of God in the Pledge
Marvin Weber in his letter stated that the phrase "under God" as not being in violation of the First Amendment. He states, "The First Amendment prevents establishment of an official, government-sponsored religion. Merely mentioning God doesn't sponsor any religion." Really? Monotheism is the belief in a God. Hence even the mentioning of a God is the sponsoring of the religion of monotheism. But, nobody really believes that God was inserted into the pledge to further the belief in general of monotheism. It was the Judeo-Christian God. When President Eisenhower signed "Under God" into the Pledge he heralded it for its' support of the Judeo-Christian God. No non-theists want a Pledge that states, "One nation, under no God". They just want government neutrality and let the marketplace of ideas decide the question of a God existing or not. A God that exists doesn't need government endorsement and if he doesn't why endorse him?
Go after AL Qaida in Pakistan/Dog fighting and homosexuality
Presidential Candidate Barak Obama gives a strong statement on going after Al Qaeda terrorists hiding in the mountains of Pakistan, and conservatives criticize him for it. Does the right care more about defeating our common enemies or partisan swipes at presidential candidates they most fear? Hillary Clinton wants information on any possible withdrawal plans from Iraq. She didn’t ask about plans about leaving Iraq today or tomorrow but any plans on withdrawal. Although a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee she is told to buzz off by a civilian Defense appointee. Does the Bush administration believe that the Senate Armed Services Committee has oversite over the Pentagon, or is it that Hillary Clinton doesn’t count as a real member that they have to answer to at all? Dr. Richard Carmona, a former U.S. Surgeon General in the Bush Administration has stated that he wasn’t allowed to speak on stem cells, emergency contraception, sex ed, and that officials tried to water down a report on second-hand smoke. Dr. Carmona stated in a Washington Post article, "Much of the discussion was being driven by theology, ideology, [and] preconceived beliefs that were scientifically incorrect. I thought, 'This is a perfect example of the surgeon general being able to step forward, educate the American public.' . . . I was blocked at every turn. I was told the decision had already been made -- 'Stand down. Don't talk about it.' That information was removed from my speeches." Carmona also says he was “discouraged” from attending the Special Olympics because of that organization's ties to a the Kennedys, and that he wasn’t allowed to present the effectiveness of teaching about condoms as well as sexual abstinence. He was also told to put in three references to President Bush in every speech. Now, some might have negative views to condoms, sex ed etc but the US Surgeon General serves the American people and it is his/her job, according to the Surgeon General’s own website to act “as America's chief health educator by providing Americans the best scientific information available on how to improve their health and reduce the risk of illness and injury.” It is unfortunate that we see a pattern of interference with the scientific process in this administration. Maybe President Bush does not know about this interference. If not, he better state to his political appointees to serve the American people, not partisan politics
Dog Fighting and homosexuality
I was appalled while reading Julio Martinez’s letter. He seems to believe that homosexuality is worse then dog fighting. Dog fighting isn’t simply a matter of technically breaking a law but illegal because it is immoral. It’s just not a “hobby.” Dogs suffer great harm engaged in dog fighting. There isn’t harm in homosexuality. Harm is necessary for something to be immoral. Yes, HIV rates are higher in the male gay community vs. general society but when a cure for HIV/AIDS is found that argument will be moot. If, Mr. Martinez is right and a God put our laws in place then a God must utilize reason and understand that any morality if it is to be non-arbitrary then it must be based on reducing harm. Even an all wise God would have to utilize reason in determining moral laws. If some people don’t like the image or idea of two men or two women having sex, fine, don’t have sex with people of the same sex or don’t watch people of the same sex have sex.
Dog Fighting and homosexuality
I was appalled while reading Julio Martinez’s letter. He seems to believe that homosexuality is worse then dog fighting. Dog fighting isn’t simply a matter of technically breaking a law but illegal because it is immoral. It’s just not a “hobby.” Dogs suffer great harm engaged in dog fighting. There isn’t harm in homosexuality. Harm is necessary for something to be immoral. Yes, HIV rates are higher in the male gay community vs. general society but when a cure for HIV/AIDS is found that argument will be moot. If, Mr. Martinez is right and a God put our laws in place then a God must utilize reason and understand that any morality if it is to be non-arbitrary then it must be based on reducing harm. Even an all wise God would have to utilize reason in determining moral laws. If some people don’t like the image or idea of two men or two women having sex, fine, don’t have sex with people of the same sex or don’t watch people of the same sex have sex.
Evolution not a closed system
Some who argue against evolution brings up the First and Second laws of thermodynamics and entropy. Like Dracula in a bad movie, these arguments just won’t die. Basically the First law stated that energy level in a closed system is constant and the Second law states that in a closed system disorder or entropy must increase or stay constant in time. The trouble with these arguments, well, we aren’t a closed system. If we were a closed system then plants wouldn’t grow, flowers wouldn’t grow. We couldn’t live. The reason we aren’t a closed system is because of the sun. It gives us a steady flow of energy that living things in the US utilize to grow. Now if one wants to make the argument that there has to be some kind of “progam” directing the energy from the sun to produce the complexity of a flower then why does a complex snowflake not need such a program? It is not a living thing but naturally without any genetic code given or directed by a supposed deity we see very ordered patterns in snowflakes. So, obviously a deity isn’t necessary for order and complexity in the world or in life. Mr. Hansen gave a list of three individuals who hold doctorates and believe in intelligent design. Well, only one has a degree in biology. There is a project called project Steve. What it is is a list of men and women named Steve, Stephen, Stephanie or a foreign language equivalent who support evolution and have a PhD in biology or a related field. This list is greater then all the scientists who state they support the idea of creationism or intelligent design (no matter what their name might be) even though only about 1% of scientists have such a name. That just goes to show the huge disparity between the scientists who believe in intelligent design with the rest of the field.
Prayer before Congress
Does someone have to be a Christian to offer a prayer in a state or federal capitol building? Can a non-Christian offer prayers but they must be Christian in nature or not hint of their own’s religion? I bring this up because a Hindu cleric named Rajan Zed while offering a prayer in the federal capitol building was interrupted by protestors. Was his prayer Hindu in nature? No, it was a basically general prayer that talked about a Supreme being. If one didn’t know better this might have been a non-denominational prayer by a Methodist, a Luthern or even a rabbi. The fact is that our government cannot say that only Christian clerics can give a prayer in a capital building. James Madison, who voted against a Congressional chaplain but was overruled, would be aghast at the idea that the government could favor only Christian prayers. There is a case that the government shouldn’t’ have chaplains at all. That congressmen can easily go to any church that is in the DC area. That the government shouldn’t be leading prayers on C-SPAN. But if there are prayers, then the government can’t say, “well only Christian prayers or only prayers given by Christians.” Some Christians have objected to clerics who have been revoked from being able to give prayers in the future, such as the case of a chaplain who prayed at the beginning of a session of a state legislature and was banned from giving future prayers. But, he gave a prayer that was political in nature and took a position on certain culture issues, such as homosexuality. Now, it is perfectly ok to take a position on homosexuality but no one has a free exercise right to use the privilege of being granted the ability to pray before a state legislature or federal capitol to support a political position of theirs even if the political position comes from a religious belief. If they had such a right then a humanist would have a right to advocate for humanism before a governmental session or a capitalist to extol the glories of the free market.
On another issue some state that one of the reasons that the new Surgeon general nominee James Holsinger is said to be opposed by some Senators and groups is because he is a Methodist. That is not true, virtually all political appointees in this country are Christians. They call themselves Christians. The opposition to him comes in large extent from his anti-homosexual positions and if he had this same position on homosexuality and was an atheist or a Hindu then it would not matter. And indeed, of those who say that Holsinger is being opposed because of his religious views, would they themselves ever seriously consider a secular humanist for such a high office? Of if they would consider such a person, would they discount his/her views on policy matters? The religious views of any office holder don’t matter but their policy positions do matter, no matter if they are formed from a religious view point, a humanist position, an atheist position, or any other ideology or belief system.
On another issue some state that one of the reasons that the new Surgeon general nominee James Holsinger is said to be opposed by some Senators and groups is because he is a Methodist. That is not true, virtually all political appointees in this country are Christians. They call themselves Christians. The opposition to him comes in large extent from his anti-homosexual positions and if he had this same position on homosexuality and was an atheist or a Hindu then it would not matter. And indeed, of those who say that Holsinger is being opposed because of his religious views, would they themselves ever seriously consider a secular humanist for such a high office? Of if they would consider such a person, would they discount his/her views on policy matters? The religious views of any office holder don’t matter but their policy positions do matter, no matter if they are formed from a religious view point, a humanist position, an atheist position, or any other ideology or belief system.
Cheney part of the Legislative Branch/same sex marriage
Can someone tell me what branch of government Dick Cheney is a part of? I thought it was the Executive branch but he now informs us it is really the Legislative branch. Earlier in this administration he claimed Executive privilege to get around government oversight. Now to get around oversight from the Executive branch he claims he is a part of the legislative branch citing that he is President of the US Senate. He has voted 7 times as President of the Senate, boy those responsibilities must really eat up his time. I hope he makes up his mind before he claims an office in the Supreme Court.
Marriage should be preserved for just heterosexuals?
Marriage is said to be defined as being between one man and one woman for thousands of years. Well, tradition isn't a defense of keeping the status quo. For thousands of years governments were defined as monarchies or tribal chieftains. Until the early 20th century a democracy was men and not women being able to vote. In this country for several hundred years marriage was regarded by state law, depending on the state, or by custom as between those of the same race. Should we go back to banning interracial marriages? Tradition, or only a limited view of that tradition only serves to reduce rights/freedoms of a group is not good thing to keep.
Of course a large percentage of same sex marriages in Massachusetts happened in the first six months of it being legalized. There was a backlog, including people who waited decades to marry the ones they loved. Second even if same sex marriage rates are low and "few" gays want to marry that is not reason to stop those who want to marry from doing so. If so few gays want to marry, how is this a threat to a heterosexual marriage?
Norm, marry one’s cousin, same right to marry another sex
Marriage should be preserved for just heterosexuals?
Marriage is said to be defined as being between one man and one woman for thousands of years. Well, tradition isn't a defense of keeping the status quo. For thousands of years governments were defined as monarchies or tribal chieftains. Until the early 20th century a democracy was men and not women being able to vote. In this country for several hundred years marriage was regarded by state law, depending on the state, or by custom as between those of the same race. Should we go back to banning interracial marriages? Tradition, or only a limited view of that tradition only serves to reduce rights/freedoms of a group is not good thing to keep.
Of course a large percentage of same sex marriages in Massachusetts happened in the first six months of it being legalized. There was a backlog, including people who waited decades to marry the ones they loved. Second even if same sex marriage rates are low and "few" gays want to marry that is not reason to stop those who want to marry from doing so. If so few gays want to marry, how is this a threat to a heterosexual marriage?
Norm, marry one’s cousin, same right to marry another sex
Military Clerics should respect rights of nonbelievers/Trade Agreements
Respect rights of nonbelievers
There is currently a campaign to guarantee military clerics have the ability to pray according to their religious beliefs during military ceremonies. I agree that chaplains should have the ability to pray within chapels, within a voluntary gathering of soldiers/sailors that are not obligated to attend. But, outside of voluntary gatherings, where military personnel are required to attend, then the military chaplain does not have a right to pray any way he or she so wishes.One does not have the right to evangalize to those who are forced to hear a prayer. If one did have that right, then the atheist soldier in the ceremony should have the same right to get up and give a rebuttal. Remember, a military chaplain isn’t there to further his/her religion, it is to meet the religious needs of the members of the military who seek the chaplain’s services.There is a cross on Mt. Soledad, San Diego, that is a war memorial and meant to symbolize all the war dead of America. Now, maybe many Christians truly think that such a cross memorializes even non-Christian soldiers who have died in our nation’s wars but I must ask if the war memorial was of a Muslim crescent or even an atheist symbol would they still argue that those symbols represent dead Christian soldiers?In Alabama there is a private monument on private land (in contrast to the quasi private/public nature of the San Diego Cross) that recognizes and memorializes “Atheists in Foxholes.” This monument doesn’t pretend to symbolize the sacrifices of non-atheist soldiers in our nation’s wars as the cross supposedly does with non-Christian soldiers.The reason for this atheist monument isn’t because atheists don’t honor the sacrifice of non-atheists but because for too long atheist soldiers were and still are disparaged with statements such as “no atheists in foxholes.” This statement is an insult to the untold thousands of atheists (some I have known) who have died in our nation’s wars and who served in combat.People would be disgusted if someone said “no Jews in foxholes” or “no Buddhists in foxholes” so why do we as a society tolerate the one toward atheists?
Trade Agreements, good things?
Milw. Journal (colleen Kronquist)The Journal Sentinel has come out in support of expanding trade agreements with developing nations because of mandates in these agreements on enforcing existing labor and environmental agreements in those nations. The problem is, those standards are so weak compared to the standards in the US, that they are the equivalent of 19th century standards. American workers should not have to compete with nations where the minimum wage is 50 cents an hour and workers losing hands in machines that are only somewhat regulated. We shouldn't water down our standards for the profits of multi-national corporations who have no loyalty to any country, including ours.
There is currently a campaign to guarantee military clerics have the ability to pray according to their religious beliefs during military ceremonies. I agree that chaplains should have the ability to pray within chapels, within a voluntary gathering of soldiers/sailors that are not obligated to attend. But, outside of voluntary gatherings, where military personnel are required to attend, then the military chaplain does not have a right to pray any way he or she so wishes.One does not have the right to evangalize to those who are forced to hear a prayer. If one did have that right, then the atheist soldier in the ceremony should have the same right to get up and give a rebuttal. Remember, a military chaplain isn’t there to further his/her religion, it is to meet the religious needs of the members of the military who seek the chaplain’s services.There is a cross on Mt. Soledad, San Diego, that is a war memorial and meant to symbolize all the war dead of America. Now, maybe many Christians truly think that such a cross memorializes even non-Christian soldiers who have died in our nation’s wars but I must ask if the war memorial was of a Muslim crescent or even an atheist symbol would they still argue that those symbols represent dead Christian soldiers?In Alabama there is a private monument on private land (in contrast to the quasi private/public nature of the San Diego Cross) that recognizes and memorializes “Atheists in Foxholes.” This monument doesn’t pretend to symbolize the sacrifices of non-atheist soldiers in our nation’s wars as the cross supposedly does with non-Christian soldiers.The reason for this atheist monument isn’t because atheists don’t honor the sacrifice of non-atheists but because for too long atheist soldiers were and still are disparaged with statements such as “no atheists in foxholes.” This statement is an insult to the untold thousands of atheists (some I have known) who have died in our nation’s wars and who served in combat.People would be disgusted if someone said “no Jews in foxholes” or “no Buddhists in foxholes” so why do we as a society tolerate the one toward atheists?
Trade Agreements, good things?
Milw. Journal (colleen Kronquist)The Journal Sentinel has come out in support of expanding trade agreements with developing nations because of mandates in these agreements on enforcing existing labor and environmental agreements in those nations. The problem is, those standards are so weak compared to the standards in the US, that they are the equivalent of 19th century standards. American workers should not have to compete with nations where the minimum wage is 50 cents an hour and workers losing hands in machines that are only somewhat regulated. We shouldn't water down our standards for the profits of multi-national corporations who have no loyalty to any country, including ours.
Troops fight for our freedom? No/
Troops don't fight for our freedom
I am going to make a very controversial point in this letter, but I hope people will stay with me to the end. It is a quite often said statement that troops who fight in our nation’s wars have fought for our freedoms. That the price of freedom isn’t free, that it is paid for by the blood of patriots. Ok, but how often have our wars been fought for the freedom of Americans? WWII freed the peoples of France, Belgium, Norway, Italy and yes even Germany and Japan. But, did our fighting in WWII curtail a possible German invasion of the US? Unlikely, the Germans couldn’t even invade much smaller England only 22 miles across the English Channel from France. Maybe if we didn’t fight (which I am glad we did though because we freed millions) the Germans could have become powerful enough to one day threaten the US, but probably not. Was the Spanish American War fought for the freedom of Americans? Cubans ok, but not Americans. Neither the Mexican American War nor WWI. The Korean War was fought for the freedom of Koreans but not Americans. So too for the Vietnam War, fought for the Vietnamese and the surrounding region to thwart the threat of communism. The War of 1812 was fought in part to stop the British from forcing American sailors into the British navy and the war against the Barbary pirates before that was fought because of piracy against American ships. So, those wars were fought in part for our freedoms. I believe that the history of the world has been improved by the fact that the US has existed. Hundreds of millions of people have been freed from tyranny because we exist. Even the statement that troops have fought for our freedom would be basically ok, if not quite accurate to the history of our nation’s wars, if not for the fact that it is often used as a statement in support of a war. For example, it is commonly said to those who are opposed to a war that the troops in a given war are fighting for our freedom or anti-war protestors are told that troops are fighting (or have fought in previous wars) for their freedom to protest. But, again, that statement really isn’t true. That is not to say that a war wasn’t fought by American soldiers with great courage and that wars shouldn’t have been fought (most of our nation’s wars should have been fought) but that the very statement that Americans fought for our freedoms isn’t necessary correct. Obviously an American who believes a war is wrong will not believe that a war is being fought for their freedom. An argument remains to be made in that case why a war, any war, is moral and correct. This is not an argument against the Iraq war. I believe that overall the mission in Iraq is a good mission, to help bring democracy to that part of the world. Again I realize this is a very controversial statement I make but I hope that people will read my words carefully and give them some thought.
Women have the right to vote:
Would anyone today, deplore a Court decision in 1880 that had ruled that women had a fundamental right to vote, 40 years before a Constitutional Amendment that did just that? No one would, but strangely a court decision favoring same sex marriage is "Judicial Activism". Ah, but same sex marriage is against the tradition of one man and one woman. OK, but didn’t the very idea of democracy violate the multi-thousand year tradition of a divine right of kings? Didn’t guaranteeing women the right to vote later violate the idea that democracy was that only men could vote? I understand some oppose same sex marriage because of religious reasons but no church has been ever forced to marry someone that they didn’t wish to marry, including those of other religions. To “defend marriage” by limiting it is just the same as defending democracy as limiting it to only men.
I am going to make a very controversial point in this letter, but I hope people will stay with me to the end. It is a quite often said statement that troops who fight in our nation’s wars have fought for our freedoms. That the price of freedom isn’t free, that it is paid for by the blood of patriots. Ok, but how often have our wars been fought for the freedom of Americans? WWII freed the peoples of France, Belgium, Norway, Italy and yes even Germany and Japan. But, did our fighting in WWII curtail a possible German invasion of the US? Unlikely, the Germans couldn’t even invade much smaller England only 22 miles across the English Channel from France. Maybe if we didn’t fight (which I am glad we did though because we freed millions) the Germans could have become powerful enough to one day threaten the US, but probably not. Was the Spanish American War fought for the freedom of Americans? Cubans ok, but not Americans. Neither the Mexican American War nor WWI. The Korean War was fought for the freedom of Koreans but not Americans. So too for the Vietnam War, fought for the Vietnamese and the surrounding region to thwart the threat of communism. The War of 1812 was fought in part to stop the British from forcing American sailors into the British navy and the war against the Barbary pirates before that was fought because of piracy against American ships. So, those wars were fought in part for our freedoms. I believe that the history of the world has been improved by the fact that the US has existed. Hundreds of millions of people have been freed from tyranny because we exist. Even the statement that troops have fought for our freedom would be basically ok, if not quite accurate to the history of our nation’s wars, if not for the fact that it is often used as a statement in support of a war. For example, it is commonly said to those who are opposed to a war that the troops in a given war are fighting for our freedom or anti-war protestors are told that troops are fighting (or have fought in previous wars) for their freedom to protest. But, again, that statement really isn’t true. That is not to say that a war wasn’t fought by American soldiers with great courage and that wars shouldn’t have been fought (most of our nation’s wars should have been fought) but that the very statement that Americans fought for our freedoms isn’t necessary correct. Obviously an American who believes a war is wrong will not believe that a war is being fought for their freedom. An argument remains to be made in that case why a war, any war, is moral and correct. This is not an argument against the Iraq war. I believe that overall the mission in Iraq is a good mission, to help bring democracy to that part of the world. Again I realize this is a very controversial statement I make but I hope that people will read my words carefully and give them some thought.
Women have the right to vote:
Would anyone today, deplore a Court decision in 1880 that had ruled that women had a fundamental right to vote, 40 years before a Constitutional Amendment that did just that? No one would, but strangely a court decision favoring same sex marriage is "Judicial Activism". Ah, but same sex marriage is against the tradition of one man and one woman. OK, but didn’t the very idea of democracy violate the multi-thousand year tradition of a divine right of kings? Didn’t guaranteeing women the right to vote later violate the idea that democracy was that only men could vote? I understand some oppose same sex marriage because of religious reasons but no church has been ever forced to marry someone that they didn’t wish to marry, including those of other religions. To “defend marriage” by limiting it is just the same as defending democracy as limiting it to only men.
Rare unprinted letter of mine
Cal Thomas wrote in his column that Jerry Falwell worked to bring prayer back into schools. Prayer was never banned. Organized prayer was banned. Students can decide, if they so wish, to pray in a school. Indeed, there are many bible clubs in schools. What cannot be done though is the government to create a prayer for students to pray. Before court rulings on outlawing organized prayers, students were often required or strongly pressured to participate in prayers that they didn't believe in. It is not the business of the schools. Now, there is debate on such issues as prayer at football games and prayer at graduation ceremonies but the fact remains that the Supreme Court nor any court has ever ruled that a student cannot decide to pray. Any teacher or school who would stop a child violates their fundamental rights.
Atheism/immigration
I as an atheist often hear the quote, "The fool has said in his heart there is no God." What else is the bible going to say? Of course a book that wants to promote the belief that its' God is true will call non-conformists fools. I wouldn't be suprised if the Qaran makes a similar statement. Atheists that the Christian bible disparage value the utilization of reason, not faith. They value the idea that any belief, religious or not, must be held under the microscope of observation and logic. If a belief cannot withstand that scrutiny it need not be held in esteemed. Morality, values must be based on this usage of reason and the needs of men and women because even if a God exists even such a being must utilize reason. Even if a God exists then a God would have to utilize reason is the formation of morality or it is just the whims of that God.
Letter on Immigration
On the question of illegal immigration from Mexico I have a suggestion. While enforcement is good along as conditions in Mexico are so poor that young Mexican men and women have a desire to leave to travel to better conditions in the US, we will have this problem. One thing I have learned in life is that when there is a great demand by people for a product or service, such as fleeing Mexico for the US, then people will engage in those acts. We need to help equalize the conditions in Mexico with the US, economically. This wouldn’t be about helping Mexico, but our own self interest. Along as the average job in Mexico for uneducated workers is a fraction of even a low paying job in the US then there will be demand to flee to the US. We need to mandate that all products exported from Mexico to the US, meet labor standards closer to that of the US. It does not necessary need to be the federal minimum wage but not so low that the incentive remains to leave Mexico for the US. Another advantage to this plan is that US companies knowing they cannot go to Mexico to just hire cheap labor because they realize they would have to abide to a higher standard of pay in Mexico if they wish to export those products back to the US. After all, for an American company to say Americans are good enough to buy their products but not good enough to actually make those same products is the height of unpatriotic. If the profits of America mean more to you then keep the US economy I have no sympathy for you. Indeed, minimum labor standards can be put on all products imported to the US. This would have the same benefits in increase labor standards throughout the world as in the US. NAFTA or North American Free Trade Agreement was an agreement that helped spur illegal immigration from Mexico to the US. One of the effects of NAFTA was that many thousands of Mexicans lost family farms in Mexico because they couldn’t’ compete. These same Mexicans are many of the same people now coming across the border. NAFTA has also turned a net trade surplus with Mexico by the US to a net negative. It has lowered wages in the US. NAFTA allows corporations to sue the national government of a NAFTA country in secret arbitration tribunals if they feel that a regulation or government decision affects their investment in conflict with these so called NAFTA rights. For example if a government wants to have minimum air pollution standards then that is reason to be sued because some fat cat somewhere can’t afford to but that second BMW. For example a Canadian group (NAFTA is also an agreement with Canada) sued the US because the US closed the border to Canadian beef after a cow in Canada was found with “Mad Cow” disease. We need a trade and immigration policy that works for the American people, not employers who want to exploit cheap Mexican labor either in Mexico or the US.
Letter on Immigration
On the question of illegal immigration from Mexico I have a suggestion. While enforcement is good along as conditions in Mexico are so poor that young Mexican men and women have a desire to leave to travel to better conditions in the US, we will have this problem. One thing I have learned in life is that when there is a great demand by people for a product or service, such as fleeing Mexico for the US, then people will engage in those acts. We need to help equalize the conditions in Mexico with the US, economically. This wouldn’t be about helping Mexico, but our own self interest. Along as the average job in Mexico for uneducated workers is a fraction of even a low paying job in the US then there will be demand to flee to the US. We need to mandate that all products exported from Mexico to the US, meet labor standards closer to that of the US. It does not necessary need to be the federal minimum wage but not so low that the incentive remains to leave Mexico for the US. Another advantage to this plan is that US companies knowing they cannot go to Mexico to just hire cheap labor because they realize they would have to abide to a higher standard of pay in Mexico if they wish to export those products back to the US. After all, for an American company to say Americans are good enough to buy their products but not good enough to actually make those same products is the height of unpatriotic. If the profits of America mean more to you then keep the US economy I have no sympathy for you. Indeed, minimum labor standards can be put on all products imported to the US. This would have the same benefits in increase labor standards throughout the world as in the US. NAFTA or North American Free Trade Agreement was an agreement that helped spur illegal immigration from Mexico to the US. One of the effects of NAFTA was that many thousands of Mexicans lost family farms in Mexico because they couldn’t’ compete. These same Mexicans are many of the same people now coming across the border. NAFTA has also turned a net trade surplus with Mexico by the US to a net negative. It has lowered wages in the US. NAFTA allows corporations to sue the national government of a NAFTA country in secret arbitration tribunals if they feel that a regulation or government decision affects their investment in conflict with these so called NAFTA rights. For example if a government wants to have minimum air pollution standards then that is reason to be sued because some fat cat somewhere can’t afford to but that second BMW. For example a Canadian group (NAFTA is also an agreement with Canada) sued the US because the US closed the border to Canadian beef after a cow in Canada was found with “Mad Cow” disease. We need a trade and immigration policy that works for the American people, not employers who want to exploit cheap Mexican labor either in Mexico or the US.
Pat Tillman, most famous veteran of Iraq/Afghanistan war is an atheist
Lt. Colonel Kauzlarich in a magazine interview about the family of the soldier Pat Tillman who was killed in Afghanistan by 'friendly fire' stated, There is not a whole lot of trust in the system or faith in the system [by the Tillmans]. So that is my personal opinion, knowing what I know." This was in regards to the lack of religious belief of the Tillmans. They are a family of nonbelievers, of atheists. Pat Tillman, the most famous killed veteran of the Iraq/Afghanistan campaigns was also an atheist, which was attested to by his brother Richard Tillman. That Tillman was an atheist is ironic because they are said not to exist in combat. I guess Pat Tillman didn’t get that memo. The point of Lt. Colonel Kauzlarich’s statement was that a family of atheists or non-theists could not accept the explanation as given by the US government that he was killed by the enemy because they have no heaven to look forward after death. So, nonbelief in an afterlife is more likely to produce individuals in certain circumstances who are not as willing to accept the line of the government when they are being obviously lied to? Maybe this is so, because atheism produces individuals who pride themselves on being freethinkers, to question authority. No set of doctrine handed out from above do they. Does Colonel Kauzlarich want a nation of lemmings who take marching orders from the government. We are not subservient to the government, the government is subservient to the people. We are citizens, not subjects. To question one’s government is the product of men and women like Susan B. Anthony, Cady Stanton, Frederick Douglas, Martin Luther King Jr, Horace Greeley among countless others. Not all these people were not atheists/non-theists of course but they all questioned their government. I wonder if Lt. Colonel Kauzlarich would condemn these individuals too. On a separate issue, there is an uproar over the case of the D.C. madam and her list of names of men who utilized her escort service. I think underage prostitution is a problem in America and in the world. Street prostitution is a problem because in part of the risk of STDs transmitted. But , when we as a society make criminal escort/brothel services we are ignore fundamental laws of nature. There is a big demand for prostitutes in society, and unless we want to be like Saudi Arabia we cannot ignore that fact. Legalize brothels/escorts while regulating them. Mandate condoms and regular testing for sexually transmitted diseases. Ensure everyone is over 18, because if we don’t then we have the far worse problem of street prostitution. Nations that do legalize these kind of prostitution see rates of disease virtually nill when compared to the rate of prostitution in the US.
Same Sex Marriage and 10 Commandments
Same Sex Marriage
Most Americans today oppose gay marriage. It is also true that in the 1950 South most Southerners opposed integration, the majority of Americans in 1850 opposed women's right to vote. In Brown vs. Topeka Board of Education, it took the Supreme Court to uphold the rights of the minority to attend good, integrated schools. If the 14th Amendment and its' "Equal Protection Clause" did not protect gays from being discriminated against than it does not protect atheists from marrying Jews, Catholics marrying Baptists or blacks from marrying whites because that wasn't the intent of the writers of the 14th amendment originally.Do we want to take such a narrow view of the law and allow the states if they so wish, to determine who can marry? Do we want to be able to say to the short that they can't vote, to the skinny that they can't run for office?All would be allowable by the majority to implement with a limited view of "equal protection."? Unless there is an inherent harm in allowing equal protection, such as allowing brothers to marry sisters which would increase number of birth defects there is no reason to deny gays the right to marry. Aids would decrease under more stable gay relationships, another plus in its' favor. Our nation and government is made for all citizens: Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, atheists, men, women, gays, whites, blacks etc and should not just reflect just the religious beliefs of those who wish to implement their religious beliefs into law when there is no secular reason for that implementation. Our nation is a history of progress and an extension of rights and liberties, since its' beginning women, non-property owning men, blacks have gained the right to vote.Blacks and whites have gained the right to marry each other. Let's continue that progress forward and not hinder it.
10 Commandments:
I'm wondering how the removal of the Ten Commandments in the Alabama State Courthouse stops people from practicing their religion.Is something stopping them from putting the Ten Commandments up in churches? Indeed I have been to quite a few churches and rarely see this document on church walls, but people feel it is needed in public buildings? These public buildings are paid for by taxes by Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists and atheists along with Christians; are the Christians in Alabama and throughout the United States willing to put documents of other religions in these buildings? When questioned, they usually answer no.They want their religion supported and encouraged in taxpayer supported buildings but don't want any other religion to have the same right. Is ours a Christian nation? Our Founding Fathers were dead set against people being forced to support other religions against their will through taxation.
Most Americans today oppose gay marriage. It is also true that in the 1950 South most Southerners opposed integration, the majority of Americans in 1850 opposed women's right to vote. In Brown vs. Topeka Board of Education, it took the Supreme Court to uphold the rights of the minority to attend good, integrated schools. If the 14th Amendment and its' "Equal Protection Clause" did not protect gays from being discriminated against than it does not protect atheists from marrying Jews, Catholics marrying Baptists or blacks from marrying whites because that wasn't the intent of the writers of the 14th amendment originally.Do we want to take such a narrow view of the law and allow the states if they so wish, to determine who can marry? Do we want to be able to say to the short that they can't vote, to the skinny that they can't run for office?All would be allowable by the majority to implement with a limited view of "equal protection."? Unless there is an inherent harm in allowing equal protection, such as allowing brothers to marry sisters which would increase number of birth defects there is no reason to deny gays the right to marry. Aids would decrease under more stable gay relationships, another plus in its' favor. Our nation and government is made for all citizens: Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, atheists, men, women, gays, whites, blacks etc and should not just reflect just the religious beliefs of those who wish to implement their religious beliefs into law when there is no secular reason for that implementation. Our nation is a history of progress and an extension of rights and liberties, since its' beginning women, non-property owning men, blacks have gained the right to vote.Blacks and whites have gained the right to marry each other. Let's continue that progress forward and not hinder it.
10 Commandments:
I'm wondering how the removal of the Ten Commandments in the Alabama State Courthouse stops people from practicing their religion.Is something stopping them from putting the Ten Commandments up in churches? Indeed I have been to quite a few churches and rarely see this document on church walls, but people feel it is needed in public buildings? These public buildings are paid for by taxes by Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists and atheists along with Christians; are the Christians in Alabama and throughout the United States willing to put documents of other religions in these buildings? When questioned, they usually answer no.They want their religion supported and encouraged in taxpayer supported buildings but don't want any other religion to have the same right. Is ours a Christian nation? Our Founding Fathers were dead set against people being forced to support other religions against their will through taxation.
Romney and atheists
Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney has stated that we needed elected officials who are "people of faith."I guess he thinks an atheist combat veteran with a degree in government could not be trusted to be a county clerk.An atheist believes one must use one's own reason and common sense for problem-solving, be it in everyday life or in the Oval Office. Many religious people do this every day but use religion to support governmental policies such as those who oppose same-sex marriage or the right to die.For a nation of 300 million people, appeals to religion won't do. Not all Americans would agree with policies based solely on the Bible or another religious book.An atheist president might believe rights don't come from a god but are the result of evolutionary forces that produced a man who needs, desires and yearns for liberty. If God is true, it doesn't require our country to elect a person to keep telling us that God is true.
NAFTA/Same Sex Marriage/Drug laws violate the Constitution
NAFTA
We as a nation need to oppose more international trade agreements that cost us jobs. Take NAFTA.. "Chapter 11" provisions which, under the North American Free Trade Agreement, has led to local and state governments being sued for environmental and labor laws meant to protect the quality of life of those regions.This has just not happened under NAFTA but also under World Trade Organization rules, whose intent is the same. We as a nation under the guise of "free trade" are allowing our standards of living, our air and water quality and workplaces to be less safe. Foreign competition is a good ideal, but not at this expense.Indeed, if one wants to know how these rules have come about, just follow the money in campaign contributions, as anybody who knows anything about politics knows when you want a special favor in D.C. or a state capitol just start spreading the money and call it free speech. We need to ensure that any nation that wants to trade with us has to have higher wage and labor standards or Americans shouldn’t have to compete with sweatshop/19th century conditions. This will keep more jobs in the U.S. there will be less profit margins to move jobs overseas.
Same Sex Marriage and Religion:
Jean Mealy wrote, "If the creator of this world desired one sex, we would not have had Adam give up his rib to come up with Eve and therefore create more humans. If Adam had lived with all males, there would be no inhabitants at this time. Therefore, the gays wouldn't be here and neither would other humans."Well, I wonder if Jean Mealy, who stated she is 75, is so concerned for marriage that she wants to strip the right to marry from people her own age since they lack the ability to procreate. Not many women older than 60 retain the ability to have children. I doubt she is advocating that though. The U.S. is in no danger of seeing its population decline with same-sex marriage.Indeed, to argue that a society shouldn't' allow same-sex marriage for procreation reasons is illogical because gay men/women don't want to procreate with the opposite sex anyway or two, are we to force them to procreate with those they don't want to have sex with? Lastly, artificial insemination solves any problem of gay families lacking ability to have children.
Drug Laws violate civil rights-letter
I was deeply disturbed to learn that the Racine police issued $968 tickets to 441 individuals (at the Tradewinds bar) who committed no crime whatsoever other than a trumped up charge of disorderly conduct for being in a rave where there was some drug usage. Sgt. Macemon of the Racine Police Department stated that the tickets were justified because raves "can lead to dangerous activity such as fights, sexual assaults and driving under the influence." I don't know if Sgt. Macemon knows this but these activities can happen at any bar; should we punish all patrons if one is found with drugs? These actions by the Racine Police Department are just a sign of the lack of concern for the Constitution that the drug war is creating.Ecstasy is a nasty drug, as are most illegal drugs. But this is not the way to educate the public about its dangers; it only breeds contempt for the law. Overreaching police and courts who think they are above the Constitution or its principles are not what the Founding Fathers envisioned.
We as a nation need to oppose more international trade agreements that cost us jobs. Take NAFTA.. "Chapter 11" provisions which, under the North American Free Trade Agreement, has led to local and state governments being sued for environmental and labor laws meant to protect the quality of life of those regions.This has just not happened under NAFTA but also under World Trade Organization rules, whose intent is the same. We as a nation under the guise of "free trade" are allowing our standards of living, our air and water quality and workplaces to be less safe. Foreign competition is a good ideal, but not at this expense.Indeed, if one wants to know how these rules have come about, just follow the money in campaign contributions, as anybody who knows anything about politics knows when you want a special favor in D.C. or a state capitol just start spreading the money and call it free speech. We need to ensure that any nation that wants to trade with us has to have higher wage and labor standards or Americans shouldn’t have to compete with sweatshop/19th century conditions. This will keep more jobs in the U.S. there will be less profit margins to move jobs overseas.
Same Sex Marriage and Religion:
Jean Mealy wrote, "If the creator of this world desired one sex, we would not have had Adam give up his rib to come up with Eve and therefore create more humans. If Adam had lived with all males, there would be no inhabitants at this time. Therefore, the gays wouldn't be here and neither would other humans."Well, I wonder if Jean Mealy, who stated she is 75, is so concerned for marriage that she wants to strip the right to marry from people her own age since they lack the ability to procreate. Not many women older than 60 retain the ability to have children. I doubt she is advocating that though. The U.S. is in no danger of seeing its population decline with same-sex marriage.Indeed, to argue that a society shouldn't' allow same-sex marriage for procreation reasons is illogical because gay men/women don't want to procreate with the opposite sex anyway or two, are we to force them to procreate with those they don't want to have sex with? Lastly, artificial insemination solves any problem of gay families lacking ability to have children.
Drug Laws violate civil rights-letter
I was deeply disturbed to learn that the Racine police issued $968 tickets to 441 individuals (at the Tradewinds bar) who committed no crime whatsoever other than a trumped up charge of disorderly conduct for being in a rave where there was some drug usage. Sgt. Macemon of the Racine Police Department stated that the tickets were justified because raves "can lead to dangerous activity such as fights, sexual assaults and driving under the influence." I don't know if Sgt. Macemon knows this but these activities can happen at any bar; should we punish all patrons if one is found with drugs? These actions by the Racine Police Department are just a sign of the lack of concern for the Constitution that the drug war is creating.Ecstasy is a nasty drug, as are most illegal drugs. But this is not the way to educate the public about its dangers; it only breeds contempt for the law. Overreaching police and courts who think they are above the Constitution or its principles are not what the Founding Fathers envisioned.
Patriotism:Support of the President:
Rob Letkewicz in his letter states that Michael Moore is not patriotic because patriotism is "someone who loves and defends his country."What Letkewicz and many others have to understand that patriotism is not blind support of a president and his policies. Patriotism is when you see something is wrong with those policies that you state to your fellow Americans, that something is amiss.When Rush Limbaugh criticized Bill Clinton during the Balkan military campaign, Limbaugh was not unpatriotic, he was doing his duty as he saw fit in informing the public that President Clinton was wrong. One doesn't necessarily have to agree with the ideas and statements of Michael Moore to see that Moore and before that Limbaugh are utilizing their free speech rights. To not do so, when one disagrees with the president, is not in the least a sign of patriotism.
Same Sex Marriage/Economy
Now that the state Legislature has taken a step to further the ban on marriage between same sex couples, it can go even further and ban interracial marriage or marriage between Jews and Catholics. After all no one is born a Catholic, it is their lifestyle choice just as being gay is.They can always marry other Catholics. I know for a fact that when an elderly man marries a young woman it is a threat on all people's marriage. When an Asian American marries a a woman from Mexico divorce runs rampant in society, affecting all marriages. We don't as a society want to undermine the definition of marriage by extending it to people of different races, faiths or ages do we? We as a society obviously can't allow any of these types of marriage, because what is next, marriage between men and trees? No we must make a stand. Oh, but gay marriage changes the definition of between a man and a woman, well why limit the arbitrary ways to limit the definition of marriage? As I pointed out there are so many other ways to do so. Gays must know that their marriages pose a threat greater than nuclear war does. So what that limiting the right of marriages intrudes on freedom of choice and happiness of the individual, that it indirectly violates the Establishment Clause by endorsing religious values through governmental policy. Anything less than stopping gays from marrying and we fail to show future societies what a bunch of intolerant, puritans we really are.
Economy:
Bush says his tax plan will spur the economy, but will it? Recessions happen because of low demand, such as lack of consumer spending because warehouses are full, so production is curbed, which leads to layoffs of workers who can't afford to buy merchandise. Supply-side economics or tax cuts don't address this issue, but demand-side cuts - such as tax cuts for the middle class, earned income tax credit for the working poor, unemployment compensation for those who spend more than they invest - do so in fact.Second, every dollar the federal government cuts it has to make up either two ways. Borrow, which means higher interest rates, because it lowers the amount of money that can be borrowed in the economy, or spending cuts, which sound good in theory. Of our $2 trillion federal budget, when you factor in defense, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, interest on the debt, federal justice system, those make up three-fourths of the federal budget. Social welfare spending makes up a few percent.
Economy:
Bush says his tax plan will spur the economy, but will it? Recessions happen because of low demand, such as lack of consumer spending because warehouses are full, so production is curbed, which leads to layoffs of workers who can't afford to buy merchandise. Supply-side economics or tax cuts don't address this issue, but demand-side cuts - such as tax cuts for the middle class, earned income tax credit for the working poor, unemployment compensation for those who spend more than they invest - do so in fact.Second, every dollar the federal government cuts it has to make up either two ways. Borrow, which means higher interest rates, because it lowers the amount of money that can be borrowed in the economy, or spending cuts, which sound good in theory. Of our $2 trillion federal budget, when you factor in defense, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, interest on the debt, federal justice system, those make up three-fourths of the federal budget. Social welfare spending makes up a few percent.
DC Gun rights/Danbury Letter/Same Sex marriage
DC Gun rights
A U.S. Appeals Court reaffirmed the right of Washington, D.C., residents to have handguns in their homes by overturning a ban on handguns. I agree.My concern is that while it is a correct decision, it leaves unanswered the fact that a court decision, though correct, impacts the people of a region that has no U.S. senators who can vote to approve a President's court nominees.Although D.C. residents can vote for President, they lack the ability of people of Alaska (with less people) to have senators to represent them on these kind of issues. A common argument is that the people of D.C. can always move. Well, couldn't that have been an argument used against Thomas Jefferson, John and Sam Adams plus others who decried "taxation without representation?" Should they have just moved back to England?That a few hundred thousand people, with lower than average social-economic status, can have full voting rights is no danger to 300 million Americans.Remember, the power players in D.C. don't live in D.C.; they live in Maryland and northern Virginia.
Danbury Letter.
Robert Wortock is completely wrong on Thomas Jefferson's response to the Danbury Baptists in his famous letter in 1802. The Danbury Baptists wrote of the problems of an establishment of religion, the Congregationalist denomination, by the state of Connecticut.Thomas Jefferson, by any reading of the text never meant it to mean that the federal government simply shouldn't' interfere in the religious matters of the states.The Danbury Baptists wrote, "but our hopes are strong that the sentiments of our beloved President (Jefferson) ... will shine and prevail through all these States and all the world till Hierarchy and Tyranny be destroyed from the Earth." Jefferson replied, "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions." Obviously Jefferson cared about violations of any unit of government towards religious freedom and not just the federal government. Jefferson obviously wasn't a man who thought it was okay for individual states to oppress the religious minority within a state as long as it isn't done by the federal government. The very fiber of his being was in opposition to such an idea. The wall analogy is not just to protect the free exercise rights of Americans but to ensure that the government will not create an establishment of religion. Jefferson's phrase is descriptive of those clauses. Now, people with religious beliefs can indeed influence government but the government on any level cannot endorse one religion or religion as a whole, as true over all else.
Opposition to same sex marriage based on religion
Many of those opposed to gay marriage do it for religious reasons. As an atheist, when I married I did not believe that it was a marriage sanctioned by God.Since I don't, is it a legitimate marriage in the eyes of the religious since I don't believe that marriage is an institution created by God? Did God approve of my marriage, a purely civil one, even though I don't believe (for a host of reasons) in him? Even if it is a legitimate marriage because it is a heterosexual marriage, did I ask for their religion's approval? No, I only ask for the approval and respect of the civil government, the civil government that represents all people of this state, no matter what their religious or non religious beliefs might be. That same respect should be afforded to gay men/women. Some might view gay marriage as unnatural as being against God, but then again this nation is not a theocracy but a republic which is entrusted to respect the rights of all, be it atheists, gays or fundamentalist Christians. For those who say gay marriage is against nature, our morality does not come from nature. It comes from reason and respect/empathy for our fellow person.
A U.S. Appeals Court reaffirmed the right of Washington, D.C., residents to have handguns in their homes by overturning a ban on handguns. I agree.My concern is that while it is a correct decision, it leaves unanswered the fact that a court decision, though correct, impacts the people of a region that has no U.S. senators who can vote to approve a President's court nominees.Although D.C. residents can vote for President, they lack the ability of people of Alaska (with less people) to have senators to represent them on these kind of issues. A common argument is that the people of D.C. can always move. Well, couldn't that have been an argument used against Thomas Jefferson, John and Sam Adams plus others who decried "taxation without representation?" Should they have just moved back to England?That a few hundred thousand people, with lower than average social-economic status, can have full voting rights is no danger to 300 million Americans.Remember, the power players in D.C. don't live in D.C.; they live in Maryland and northern Virginia.
Danbury Letter.
Robert Wortock is completely wrong on Thomas Jefferson's response to the Danbury Baptists in his famous letter in 1802. The Danbury Baptists wrote of the problems of an establishment of religion, the Congregationalist denomination, by the state of Connecticut.Thomas Jefferson, by any reading of the text never meant it to mean that the federal government simply shouldn't' interfere in the religious matters of the states.The Danbury Baptists wrote, "but our hopes are strong that the sentiments of our beloved President (Jefferson) ... will shine and prevail through all these States and all the world till Hierarchy and Tyranny be destroyed from the Earth." Jefferson replied, "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions." Obviously Jefferson cared about violations of any unit of government towards religious freedom and not just the federal government. Jefferson obviously wasn't a man who thought it was okay for individual states to oppress the religious minority within a state as long as it isn't done by the federal government. The very fiber of his being was in opposition to such an idea. The wall analogy is not just to protect the free exercise rights of Americans but to ensure that the government will not create an establishment of religion. Jefferson's phrase is descriptive of those clauses. Now, people with religious beliefs can indeed influence government but the government on any level cannot endorse one religion or religion as a whole, as true over all else.
Opposition to same sex marriage based on religion
Many of those opposed to gay marriage do it for religious reasons. As an atheist, when I married I did not believe that it was a marriage sanctioned by God.Since I don't, is it a legitimate marriage in the eyes of the religious since I don't believe that marriage is an institution created by God? Did God approve of my marriage, a purely civil one, even though I don't believe (for a host of reasons) in him? Even if it is a legitimate marriage because it is a heterosexual marriage, did I ask for their religion's approval? No, I only ask for the approval and respect of the civil government, the civil government that represents all people of this state, no matter what their religious or non religious beliefs might be. That same respect should be afforded to gay men/women. Some might view gay marriage as unnatural as being against God, but then again this nation is not a theocracy but a republic which is entrusted to respect the rights of all, be it atheists, gays or fundamentalist Christians. For those who say gay marriage is against nature, our morality does not come from nature. It comes from reason and respect/empathy for our fellow person.
Evolution/Misunderstanding of Establishment Clause
The controversy over the teaching of creationism vs. the scientific theory of evolution shows the lack of understanding by many people about evolution. Evolution isn't an "atheist religion." A majority of Americans believe evolution is true, but only about 10 percent of society considers themselves atheist or agnostic. Evolution doesn't assume God doesn't exist; it is a set of statements based on evidence in the fossil record, on the geological strata, on morphology, rates of genetic mutations over time that are fairly constant along with other evidence.A common refrain I hear about evolution is that it is "just a theory." The problem is that people confuse a layman's definition of theory with what a scientific theory means. A scientific theory is not a guess or even a hypothesis. The notion that earth orbits around the sun rather than the sun around the earth is a scientific theory.
Continental drift is a theory. The existence, structure and dynamics of atoms is a scientific theory. Relativity and plate tectonics are also scientific theories. Virtually no person, let alone a scientist, doubts these things are facts. A scientific theory is a set of principles that describes observed phenomena. If evolution isn't true, why do some species of fish that reside in caves with complete darkness have skin that cover useless eyes? Evolution shows these eyes are vestigial organs that aren't needed for these species but were functional for these fish ancestors.The creationist response to this questions God did it that way. It begs the question, why did God want to mislead humans into making evolution seem true. Creationism violates Ockham's Razor, where the simplest explanation is most likely to be correct.If we are going to say God is necessary for life, it begs the question that can't be ignored. Where did God come from? If creationists want to be respected scientifically, they have to defend their "theory" too, not just attack evolution.
Establishment Clause Misunderstanding, letter
I found the recent letter by Jack Chesney about the First Amendment very interesting. He states, "Government can neither encourage or discourage religion, it must be completely neutral." I agree, the government should not take the view of supporting the idea that there is a God, with the slogan that we are a nation "under God" in our Pledge of Allegiance or on our currency.Not only are we told there is a God, but we are told indeed we as a nation are under this God. I wonder if this God is aware that we are under him.
I would oppose just as strongly any hypothetical pledge with the words that we are a "nation, under no God." The Pledge of Allegiance and our currency should leave any idea of God's existence or not out of it. Allow individuals to add whatever words they want while reciting our pledge if they so wish.Mr. Chesney then states, "When an agency of government acts to allow the building of a mosque, it is in violation of the First Amendment because it is encouraging the 'establishment' of a religion." Mr. Chesney seems to think that respecting the rights of Muslims to practice their religion by building places of worship that the government is encouraging a religion.Under that same logic, the government should ban the building of churches to stop an "establishment" of religion. Now, if he meant if the government was actually building or paying for the mosques, he would have an argument about a violation of the establishment clause.That is not happening, though.
Another quote of his, "When a school board decides that "Silent Night" shall not be allowed in a school program, it is discouraging a traditional religious custom, a clear violation of the First Amendment."I believe that schools should have songs like "Silent Night" along with songs from different religious traditions in the schools.It makes for a culturally diverse and interesting celebration of the holidays.It is not, though, a violation of the First Amendment because a public school is a part of the government, not of private citizens or a private organization.The free exercise clause is meant to protect people from the violation of their rights by the government, not a protection of the government from the government. Religious traditions do not have a right to be reinforced by the government, even if that government is just a local school.
Continental drift is a theory. The existence, structure and dynamics of atoms is a scientific theory. Relativity and plate tectonics are also scientific theories. Virtually no person, let alone a scientist, doubts these things are facts. A scientific theory is a set of principles that describes observed phenomena. If evolution isn't true, why do some species of fish that reside in caves with complete darkness have skin that cover useless eyes? Evolution shows these eyes are vestigial organs that aren't needed for these species but were functional for these fish ancestors.The creationist response to this questions God did it that way. It begs the question, why did God want to mislead humans into making evolution seem true. Creationism violates Ockham's Razor, where the simplest explanation is most likely to be correct.If we are going to say God is necessary for life, it begs the question that can't be ignored. Where did God come from? If creationists want to be respected scientifically, they have to defend their "theory" too, not just attack evolution.
Establishment Clause Misunderstanding, letter
I found the recent letter by Jack Chesney about the First Amendment very interesting. He states, "Government can neither encourage or discourage religion, it must be completely neutral." I agree, the government should not take the view of supporting the idea that there is a God, with the slogan that we are a nation "under God" in our Pledge of Allegiance or on our currency.Not only are we told there is a God, but we are told indeed we as a nation are under this God. I wonder if this God is aware that we are under him.
I would oppose just as strongly any hypothetical pledge with the words that we are a "nation, under no God." The Pledge of Allegiance and our currency should leave any idea of God's existence or not out of it. Allow individuals to add whatever words they want while reciting our pledge if they so wish.Mr. Chesney then states, "When an agency of government acts to allow the building of a mosque, it is in violation of the First Amendment because it is encouraging the 'establishment' of a religion." Mr. Chesney seems to think that respecting the rights of Muslims to practice their religion by building places of worship that the government is encouraging a religion.Under that same logic, the government should ban the building of churches to stop an "establishment" of religion. Now, if he meant if the government was actually building or paying for the mosques, he would have an argument about a violation of the establishment clause.That is not happening, though.
Another quote of his, "When a school board decides that "Silent Night" shall not be allowed in a school program, it is discouraging a traditional religious custom, a clear violation of the First Amendment."I believe that schools should have songs like "Silent Night" along with songs from different religious traditions in the schools.It makes for a culturally diverse and interesting celebration of the holidays.It is not, though, a violation of the First Amendment because a public school is a part of the government, not of private citizens or a private organization.The free exercise clause is meant to protect people from the violation of their rights by the government, not a protection of the government from the government. Religious traditions do not have a right to be reinforced by the government, even if that government is just a local school.
Support the Troops/ 10 Commandments
Letter of mine on response to Democrats not supporting the troops
Mr. Johnson wrote that Liberal Democrats want to cause chaos, turmoil and stop the things that need to be done, like filling the Supreme Court vacancies and supporting our troops.” (Nov. 10, letters)Hmmm, I don't know if Mr. Johnson realizes this but it wasn't the liberals who killed the Harriet Meiers nomination but the conservatives. They pounded the White House urging President Bush to withdraw the nomination even before there was a Senate hearing.
I guess when conservatives kill Supreme Court nominations then that isn't very important. Second, Mr. Johnson says liberals aren't supporting the troops. Well, when Rush Limbaugh was criticizing the bombing of Serbia by American planes, was he supporting the troops? After all, fighter pilots were risking their lives everyday during that conflict. If that conflict was wrong or right doesn't matter if all that matters is if the troops are being supported.Our Americans troops are risking their lives for their country and they should be applauded for their bravery and service. That can't be disputed. But, we as a nation should not support a war just because troops are currently engaged in the war. We should support a war because it is good public policy.The case for Iraq as good public policy can be argued but those arguments in support of a war/military conflict should be the central reason for support of a war, not the means (the troops). A bad war policy, a bad war (again, not talking about Iraq) cannot and should not be justified by emotional appeals to the troops. If it is bad policy, then we would not be obligated to keep supporting it. American soldier lives should not be thrown away needlessly.Now, Mr. Johnson might consider me not as a true-born American and that is his right. The idea though that anyone who doesn't agree with your side isn't a “true-born American” ignores the patriotism and love of country that Americans as a whole, share.
10 commandments
The recent letter by Buddy Walls showed the danger of putting the Ten Commandments in a courthouse.Not only is Mr. Walls and those of similar beliefs not satisfied by mixing religion and our state with such a display but wish to use such a display in a public building to get individuals to abide by that religious document. Now, there is nothing wrong with prohibitions on killing or theft, but the government has no right to tell me that I must honor the Sabbath, have no other gods or graven images. It is evident that Mr. Walls and many other Americans want to mix religious symbols into our government to get more people who share his beliefs. Mr. Walls, you have the perfect right to argue that your religion is true and that people should practice the Christian belief system. I support that right, but you do so in the marketplace of ideas. If your God is true, then it doesn't need the help of government in order to show that. If your religion is false, then it it's folly to have the government support it as true. Mr. Walls has been wrong on his knowledge of U.S. history in the past. Jefferson's Danbury letter wasn't in regards to the establishment of a National Church as Mr. Walls has stated but the lack of religious liberty enjoyed in their home state of Connecticut by the Baptists. Any reading of the Danbury letter would clearly show this fact. In regards to issues like school prayer, children can pray in school, just organized prayer is not allowed. The rights of parents of non-Christians or liberal Christians should be respected in this area.
Mr. Johnson wrote that Liberal Democrats want to cause chaos, turmoil and stop the things that need to be done, like filling the Supreme Court vacancies and supporting our troops.” (Nov. 10, letters)Hmmm, I don't know if Mr. Johnson realizes this but it wasn't the liberals who killed the Harriet Meiers nomination but the conservatives. They pounded the White House urging President Bush to withdraw the nomination even before there was a Senate hearing.
I guess when conservatives kill Supreme Court nominations then that isn't very important. Second, Mr. Johnson says liberals aren't supporting the troops. Well, when Rush Limbaugh was criticizing the bombing of Serbia by American planes, was he supporting the troops? After all, fighter pilots were risking their lives everyday during that conflict. If that conflict was wrong or right doesn't matter if all that matters is if the troops are being supported.Our Americans troops are risking their lives for their country and they should be applauded for their bravery and service. That can't be disputed. But, we as a nation should not support a war just because troops are currently engaged in the war. We should support a war because it is good public policy.The case for Iraq as good public policy can be argued but those arguments in support of a war/military conflict should be the central reason for support of a war, not the means (the troops). A bad war policy, a bad war (again, not talking about Iraq) cannot and should not be justified by emotional appeals to the troops. If it is bad policy, then we would not be obligated to keep supporting it. American soldier lives should not be thrown away needlessly.Now, Mr. Johnson might consider me not as a true-born American and that is his right. The idea though that anyone who doesn't agree with your side isn't a “true-born American” ignores the patriotism and love of country that Americans as a whole, share.
10 commandments
The recent letter by Buddy Walls showed the danger of putting the Ten Commandments in a courthouse.Not only is Mr. Walls and those of similar beliefs not satisfied by mixing religion and our state with such a display but wish to use such a display in a public building to get individuals to abide by that religious document. Now, there is nothing wrong with prohibitions on killing or theft, but the government has no right to tell me that I must honor the Sabbath, have no other gods or graven images. It is evident that Mr. Walls and many other Americans want to mix religious symbols into our government to get more people who share his beliefs. Mr. Walls, you have the perfect right to argue that your religion is true and that people should practice the Christian belief system. I support that right, but you do so in the marketplace of ideas. If your God is true, then it doesn't need the help of government in order to show that. If your religion is false, then it it's folly to have the government support it as true. Mr. Walls has been wrong on his knowledge of U.S. history in the past. Jefferson's Danbury letter wasn't in regards to the establishment of a National Church as Mr. Walls has stated but the lack of religious liberty enjoyed in their home state of Connecticut by the Baptists. Any reading of the Danbury letter would clearly show this fact. In regards to issues like school prayer, children can pray in school, just organized prayer is not allowed. The rights of parents of non-Christians or liberal Christians should be respected in this area.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)