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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment