DC/Guns/Gays

There is a plan for a full voting member in the House of Representatives for Washington, D.C. I agree with this idea. Maybe the U.S. Constitution has to be amended to allow for it, maybe not. But the point is people shouldn't be taxed and not given full representation. To calls that they can always move away from D.C., didn't our Founding Fathers also have the option of moving away from America and going to England to be represented in Parliament? They shouldn't have had to and neither should those who have raised families for generations in D.C.! After all we support democracy in Iraq, but we do not state that everyone but those who live in the capital city of Baghdad should be able to vote for legislative members to represent them. Most residents of D.C. aren't wealthy/powerful government officials (most of them live in Maryland or Virginia) but common and average Americans.

Americus, Greensboro

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.
On a separate issue I hear discussions on the importance of religious objections for employees who are Muslim, Christian, etc who do not want to perform various duties as specified by their job. Such as a Muslim clerk not wanting to handle pork at a grocery checkout or a Christian pharmacist not wanting to sell the “morning after pill.” But, is a religious objection more important that a non-religious one? Should it be? Should the Christian pharmacist’s objection be more important in society and the law then an atheist pharmacist who doesn’t want to sell the same pill? What about an animal rights clerk who doesn’t want to ring up pork rinds? Should that receive lesser status then a Muslim clerk? All these are belief systems and all should have equal weight under the law. The law should protect all or not protect all objections of all these employees equally. To not do so is to favor religious beliefs over non-religious beliefs.
Lastly, Sen. Brownback (Kans.) stated that as a Catholic he had to agree with Gen. Peter Pace’s statement that homosexual acts are immoral. First, I believe morality is a product of harm, so I disagree. But, the greater problem with this statement is that Sen. Brownback, because he is following religious doctrine, doesn’t have to defend his position. All he has to say it is his religious belief.
As a humanist I cannot do the same. I cannot say “as a humanist I believe X is wrong.” No, I have to defend my position based on arguments/reasons. This is especially important because the good senator wants to be the President.
“Our principles are founded on the immovable basis of equal rights and reason,” said Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Sullivan in 1797. Another Jefferson quote: “Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear.” Jefferson wasn’t an atheist (a deist though), but he stated and lived the importance of reason over that of faith. He would not be a man who would defend a belief of his by just appealing to faith but utilize the tool of reason. Why cannot we have politicians who do the same today?