This entry was triggered by Ross Douthat’s “Trumponomics Is Reform Conservatism’s Evil Twin”, http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/10/opinion/campaign-stops/trumponomics-is-reform-conservatisms-evil-twin.html, New York Times, 2016-08-10.
Once again, a commentator uses “free market” without clearly defining what it means. And of course, they really never define what is being conserved.
“Free markets’ generally mean that corporations are free to do what they please, no government regulation, no interference from shareholders, and no unions.
The Constitution states that Congress has the power to regulate commerce among the states. Isn’t contamination of rivers that flow into other states “commerce among the states”. Isn’t the smokestack pollution that goes into neighboring states “commerce among the states”.
But those conservatives who are so quick on the “patriotism” of
"limited government” quickly ignore the conservatism of carefully reading the Constitution. The Constitution has lots of checks and balances to have a fair government for all, but these “conservatives” only note those that fit their agenda. For example, they want legislators to attend “prayer breakfasts”. But isn’t the political pressure to attend a “prayer breakfast” a religious test for office, a test prohibited by the Constitution?
Showing posts with label religious test. Show all posts
Showing posts with label religious test. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 10, 2016
Saturday, January 30, 2016
Republicans are anti-Constitution
Among the many charges that Republicans make against the Democrats is "activist judges", members of the Supreme Court who interpret the Constitution differently than their "strict constructionist" view.
Then a Republican-appointed majority interprets "people" in the second Amendment to be "persons" and interprets corporations as "persons". Washington, Jefferson, Adams, and many other signers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights must be spinning furiously in their graves.
Now those who would be the Republican candidate for President are stepping all over the Constitution with their accusations that their opponents are not Christian enough. I guess they really need a refresher course about the Constitution: "... but no religious Test shall ever be Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." - Article 6.
And the Constitution also requires a new President to take an oath or affirm: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
If these religiosity types can’t even protect the Constitution, can they even protect the nation from threats from within and without?
See “The G.O.P.’s Holy War”, Frank Bruni, New York Times, 2016-01-30, http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/31/opinion/sunday/the-gops-holy-war.html
And the Constitution also requires a new President to take an oath or affirm: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
If these religiosity types can’t even protect the Constitution, can they even protect the nation from threats from within and without?
See “The G.O.P.’s Holy War”, Frank Bruni, New York Times, 2016-01-30, http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/31/opinion/sunday/the-gops-holy-war.html
Thursday, May 14, 2015
The United States is NOT a Christian Nation
...and it was not founded as such.
The United States may have many people who call themselves Christians, but evidence abounds that very few practice Christianity. I’ll get back to this.
Many who proclaim that the United States is a Christian Nation cite the Declaration of Independence. But “Christian” or “Christianity” do not appear in it or the Constitution. The closest to a religious statement in either is “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
But Thomas Jefferson, the drafter of the Declaration, was a hypocrite. He held slaves and did not pass on their Creator-given inalienable rights of liberty. Furthermore, what did “men” mean at that time? People of male gender as in the Adam and Eve story. Or people as in on the sixth day “God created man in his own image…male and female created he them.” - Genesis 1:27, King James Version.
The only “religious” word that appears in the original Constitution is “religious”, as in “but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” Given all the religious tests that have been required, “ever” was not a very long time.
It took over 170 years for a Catholic to be elected President. And he felt compelled to be vetted by a group of Protestant ministers. It took a bit less for a Jew to be appointed to the Supreme Court. John McCain and Barack Obama had to be vetted by an Evangelical minister to prove their “Christianity”. Shame on Obama, the Constitutional professor, for submitting to this religious test.
And this same Constitutional professor is sponsoring his own “Prayer Breakfasts”. And shame on all the other politicians who do not have the political will to object to this religious test.
These prayer breakfasts also prove that these politicians are hypocrites. “And when thou prayest, thou shall not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men.” Matthew 6:5.
What does a Christian practice?
For starters the greatest commandment is to “Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and soul.”
The second is “Like unto it, to love thy neighbor as thyself.” And who was “thy neighbor”? The hated Samaritan who helped a Jew beaten and robbed by the side of the road.
A variation of the second commandment is “Do unto other as you would have them do unto you.” Would we like foreign troops stationed in our country? One of the reasons of the American Revolution was the stationing of British Troops in many of the Colonial cities. But we have bases in dozens of countries, sometimes welcomed by the populace, sometime hated by the populace.
Many congregations recite the “Lord’s Prayer”: “Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us.” The United States and many other countries have forgiven Germany and Japan for World War II, but has the U.S. gotten around to forgiving others that they have trespassed against?
U.S. mobsters practically ran Cuba and the U.S. supported the dictator Batista. Is it any wonder that a Cuban leader arose to oust Batista? And is it any wonder that leader wanted to reclaim the ill-gotten gains. But there are many “Christians” in the U.S. that still don’t want to forgive the Cuban government. Very strange that the U.S. had “good” relations with other Communist governments, including China.
The U.S. was implicit in the overthrow of Mohammad Mossaddegh of Iran and the support of the Shah with his brutal Savak. Is it any wonder the Ayatollahs have little love for the U.S? Who should be the first to “forgive those who trespass against us”?
“Blessed are the peacemakers” is part of the Beatitudes, but is U.S. peacekeeping around the world only making matters worse? See above about the British troops keeping peace in the Colonies. Are nuclear weapons peacemakers? Oh, yes! The Colt Peacemaker has the blessing of the Bible!
We definitely don’t have any “Christian” banks. How many of them are going to forgive loans every seven years, even for loans to Christians? Are “Christian” farmers not going to till the land every seven years? Unless they are farming only for themselves and have saved a lot of food, they would go bust.
Now we have many people asserting that their “freedom of religion” allows them to refuse to associate with certain people or to not have to abide by certain laws. There is a certain logic in this because “conscientious objectors” are allowed to avoid military service, but they have to do other public service instead. So if the “Christians” at the top of a corporation object to paying health insurance for abortions, should they then be required to contribute to a fund for child care?
My take of the “freedom of religion” clause in the First Amendment is that we are free to believe what we want, whether it’s the Big Guy in the Sky, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or a Golden Calf. It isn’t anybody else’s business. The writers of the Bill of Rights were only too aware of all the persecutions that had happened because somebody believed the “wrong” thing. The “freedom of religion” clause guarantees that we are free to believe what we want. In return we should let others believe what they want.
Also published in the Reader Weekly of Duluth, 2015-05-14 at http://duluthreader.com/articles/2015/05/13/5275_the_united_states_is_not_a_christian_nation
The United States may have many people who call themselves Christians, but evidence abounds that very few practice Christianity. I’ll get back to this.
Many who proclaim that the United States is a Christian Nation cite the Declaration of Independence. But “Christian” or “Christianity” do not appear in it or the Constitution. The closest to a religious statement in either is “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
But Thomas Jefferson, the drafter of the Declaration, was a hypocrite. He held slaves and did not pass on their Creator-given inalienable rights of liberty. Furthermore, what did “men” mean at that time? People of male gender as in the Adam and Eve story. Or people as in on the sixth day “God created man in his own image…male and female created he them.” - Genesis 1:27, King James Version.
The only “religious” word that appears in the original Constitution is “religious”, as in “but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” Given all the religious tests that have been required, “ever” was not a very long time.
It took over 170 years for a Catholic to be elected President. And he felt compelled to be vetted by a group of Protestant ministers. It took a bit less for a Jew to be appointed to the Supreme Court. John McCain and Barack Obama had to be vetted by an Evangelical minister to prove their “Christianity”. Shame on Obama, the Constitutional professor, for submitting to this religious test.
And this same Constitutional professor is sponsoring his own “Prayer Breakfasts”. And shame on all the other politicians who do not have the political will to object to this religious test.
These prayer breakfasts also prove that these politicians are hypocrites. “And when thou prayest, thou shall not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men.” Matthew 6:5.
What does a Christian practice?
For starters the greatest commandment is to “Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and soul.”
The second is “Like unto it, to love thy neighbor as thyself.” And who was “thy neighbor”? The hated Samaritan who helped a Jew beaten and robbed by the side of the road.
A variation of the second commandment is “Do unto other as you would have them do unto you.” Would we like foreign troops stationed in our country? One of the reasons of the American Revolution was the stationing of British Troops in many of the Colonial cities. But we have bases in dozens of countries, sometimes welcomed by the populace, sometime hated by the populace.
Many congregations recite the “Lord’s Prayer”: “Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us.” The United States and many other countries have forgiven Germany and Japan for World War II, but has the U.S. gotten around to forgiving others that they have trespassed against?
U.S. mobsters practically ran Cuba and the U.S. supported the dictator Batista. Is it any wonder that a Cuban leader arose to oust Batista? And is it any wonder that leader wanted to reclaim the ill-gotten gains. But there are many “Christians” in the U.S. that still don’t want to forgive the Cuban government. Very strange that the U.S. had “good” relations with other Communist governments, including China.
The U.S. was implicit in the overthrow of Mohammad Mossaddegh of Iran and the support of the Shah with his brutal Savak. Is it any wonder the Ayatollahs have little love for the U.S? Who should be the first to “forgive those who trespass against us”?
“Blessed are the peacemakers” is part of the Beatitudes, but is U.S. peacekeeping around the world only making matters worse? See above about the British troops keeping peace in the Colonies. Are nuclear weapons peacemakers? Oh, yes! The Colt Peacemaker has the blessing of the Bible!
We definitely don’t have any “Christian” banks. How many of them are going to forgive loans every seven years, even for loans to Christians? Are “Christian” farmers not going to till the land every seven years? Unless they are farming only for themselves and have saved a lot of food, they would go bust.
Now we have many people asserting that their “freedom of religion” allows them to refuse to associate with certain people or to not have to abide by certain laws. There is a certain logic in this because “conscientious objectors” are allowed to avoid military service, but they have to do other public service instead. So if the “Christians” at the top of a corporation object to paying health insurance for abortions, should they then be required to contribute to a fund for child care?
My take of the “freedom of religion” clause in the First Amendment is that we are free to believe what we want, whether it’s the Big Guy in the Sky, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or a Golden Calf. It isn’t anybody else’s business. The writers of the Bill of Rights were only too aware of all the persecutions that had happened because somebody believed the “wrong” thing. The “freedom of religion” clause guarantees that we are free to believe what we want. In return we should let others believe what they want.
Also published in the Reader Weekly of Duluth, 2015-05-14 at http://duluthreader.com/articles/2015/05/13/5275_the_united_states_is_not_a_christian_nation
Saturday, December 15, 2012
Strange remarks on gun control
On the Connecticut shooting, a letter to the Star Tribune included:
"To discuss this very volatile matter, we need to wait until we have a period of, say, a year and a half with no mass killings that come about as a result of gun sales and ownership."
- http://www.startribune.com/opinion/letters/183584251.html
I wonder if the writer considered that "a year and a half with no mass killings" is about the same as never. First, unfortunately there will be some copycat killings. Second, what does he define as "mass killings", more than two dozen victims, more than a dozen, more than six? This writer also thought that the killer could have killed as many with a club and feet!
We really should have been having intelligent conversations how to reduce the number of killings, no matter how many are killed by no matter how many. But, no, we have the National Rifle Association (NRA) raising political hell on any restrictions of unlimited availability of guns and a few less politically powerful calling for complete restrictions.
I wish some Constitutional scholars would really take on the meaning of the Second Amendment:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to bear Arms shall not be infringed."
Many argue that the single-shot "Arms" of the time were nowhere near as lethal as the large-magazine automatic pistols of today. Unfortunately, few argue about the choice of words for who has the right to bear arms or for what purpose.
First, the purpose in the Second Amendment is "the security of a free State", not the "defense of home or self". Many claim that the Constitution gives them the right to have arms to defend their home. That is common law, the so-called "castle doctrine", not constitutional law. Given the times, I venture that this was meant for communities on the frontier to defend themselves against Indian attack or foreign invasions.
Second, please note the choice of words to describe who has the "right to bear arms" - "the people", not persons or citizens. The writers used "the people" only twice in the original Constitution: "We, the People" in the preamble and "The House of Representative shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People..." in Article I, Section 2. That is, "people" is a collective noun. Otherwise, when writing about individuals, the writers used "person" or "citizen" in the singular or plural form as appropriate.
I do find it ironic that the party that wants a strict interpretation of the Constitution gives such a loose interpretation to the Second Amendment. This same party completely ignores the parts of the Constitution that state office holders need only give an oath (or affirmation) to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." - Article II, Section 1, and Article VI. Article VI also includes "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." It would seem the political pressure to attend prayer breakfasts or to end speeches with "God Bless America" are certainly violations of the Constitution.
"To discuss this very volatile matter, we need to wait until we have a period of, say, a year and a half with no mass killings that come about as a result of gun sales and ownership."
- http://www.startribune.com/opinion/letters/183584251.html
I wonder if the writer considered that "a year and a half with no mass killings" is about the same as never. First, unfortunately there will be some copycat killings. Second, what does he define as "mass killings", more than two dozen victims, more than a dozen, more than six? This writer also thought that the killer could have killed as many with a club and feet!
We really should have been having intelligent conversations how to reduce the number of killings, no matter how many are killed by no matter how many. But, no, we have the National Rifle Association (NRA) raising political hell on any restrictions of unlimited availability of guns and a few less politically powerful calling for complete restrictions.
I wish some Constitutional scholars would really take on the meaning of the Second Amendment:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to bear Arms shall not be infringed."
Many argue that the single-shot "Arms" of the time were nowhere near as lethal as the large-magazine automatic pistols of today. Unfortunately, few argue about the choice of words for who has the right to bear arms or for what purpose.
First, the purpose in the Second Amendment is "the security of a free State", not the "defense of home or self". Many claim that the Constitution gives them the right to have arms to defend their home. That is common law, the so-called "castle doctrine", not constitutional law. Given the times, I venture that this was meant for communities on the frontier to defend themselves against Indian attack or foreign invasions.
Second, please note the choice of words to describe who has the "right to bear arms" - "the people", not persons or citizens. The writers used "the people" only twice in the original Constitution: "We, the People" in the preamble and "The House of Representative shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People..." in Article I, Section 2. That is, "people" is a collective noun. Otherwise, when writing about individuals, the writers used "person" or "citizen" in the singular or plural form as appropriate.
I do find it ironic that the party that wants a strict interpretation of the Constitution gives such a loose interpretation to the Second Amendment. This same party completely ignores the parts of the Constitution that state office holders need only give an oath (or affirmation) to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." - Article II, Section 1, and Article VI. Article VI also includes "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." It would seem the political pressure to attend prayer breakfasts or to end speeches with "God Bless America" are certainly violations of the Constitution.
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Picking and choosing from the Constitution
One of my relatives posted on facebook the following poster with reference to the shootings in Chardon High School in Ohio:
If the schools determine how students should pray, then the schools are determining the religious beliefs of the teachers. If the schools determine the religious beliefs of the teachers, then that is a religious test of the teachers and such a test is definitely unconstitutional.
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." - Article VI, Constitution of the United States
DEAR GOD,Which God are we talking about? The God of Roman Catholics, the God of Southern Baptists, the God of Jews, the God of Muslims, the God of Unitarians, the gods of Hindus, and on and on. It was not that God was not allowed in schools, it was that the schools couldn't determine how students should pray.
Why do you allow so much violence in our schools?
signed, a concerned student
DEAR CONCERNED STUDENT,
I'm not allowed in schools.
God
If the schools determine how students should pray, then the schools are determining the religious beliefs of the teachers. If the schools determine the religious beliefs of the teachers, then that is a religious test of the teachers and such a test is definitely unconstitutional.
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." - Article VI, Constitution of the United States
Sunday, February 12, 2012
Pledge of allegiance revisited
I find it interesting to look at Google's reports of this blog and of my website with many of my Reader Weekly articles.
One report is referring websites. That led to "Extremism continues on the Unfair campaign".
Another report is search words. One set today was "in defense of obama's patriotism a dissent on the pledge". Hm! What did I write that showed up in a Google search of that phrase? Doing my own search with that phrase, I found that one of my blog entries turned up fourth out of about 169,000 results!!! The entry is "Pledge of Allegiance or Sledge of Allegiance" from February 2008.
My only reference to the phrase is "Among the more interesting hits, you'll find "In Defense of Obama's Patriotism, A dissent on the pledge", Ron Rosenbaum, Slate, Nov. 12, 2007 http://www.slate.com/id/2177838/fr/rss/". My tags didn't include that specific phrase but I guess I used enough other relevant tags to get a good position.
I did reread Rosenbaum's article, and I still agree with him. It makes me think that my renaming Republicans as Roboticans was very appropriate. Hm! I typed that new name as Roboticons; that might be appropriate too.
And since I'm running wild at the keyboard, I'll be an equal opportunity name changer. Given that so many Democrats also depend on big buck, corporate donors, shouldn't they be called Plutocrats?
One report is referring websites. That led to "Extremism continues on the Unfair campaign".
Another report is search words. One set today was "in defense of obama's patriotism a dissent on the pledge". Hm! What did I write that showed up in a Google search of that phrase? Doing my own search with that phrase, I found that one of my blog entries turned up fourth out of about 169,000 results!!! The entry is "Pledge of Allegiance or Sledge of Allegiance" from February 2008.
My only reference to the phrase is "Among the more interesting hits, you'll find "In Defense of Obama's Patriotism, A dissent on the pledge", Ron Rosenbaum, Slate, Nov. 12, 2007 http://www.slate.com/id/2177838/fr/rss/". My tags didn't include that specific phrase but I guess I used enough other relevant tags to get a good position.
I did reread Rosenbaum's article, and I still agree with him. It makes me think that my renaming Republicans as Roboticans was very appropriate. Hm! I typed that new name as Roboticons; that might be appropriate too.
And since I'm running wild at the keyboard, I'll be an equal opportunity name changer. Given that so many Democrats also depend on big buck, corporate donors, shouldn't they be called Plutocrats?
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
No religious test for President
I sent the following in a Christmas greeting to a high school classmate who is a Mormon long active in his state's Democratic Party:
I can't resist a political comment. I have nothing against Mitt Romney becoming president as a Mormon. After all, the Constitution does say there shall be no religious test for office. However, he could have chosen a different party.
I can't resist a political comment. I have nothing against Mitt Romney becoming president as a Mormon. After all, the Constitution does say there shall be no religious test for office. However, he could have chosen a different party.
Tuesday, February 05, 2008
Pledge of Allegiance or Sledge of Allegiance
Although I often dutifully recite the Pledge of Allegiance, I do so reluctantly and hypocritically. I do it more because of social conformity than any real attachment to the flag. To me, a pledge of allegiance, to a flag or a country, is un-American. We are a country founded on dissent; we should not have a legally or socially enforced act of conformity that serves no other purpose than to make some people feel good. Those who recite the pledge should remember that "liberty and justice for all" should include those who take the liberty of not reciting the Pledge of Allegiance.
As a measure of how emotional this can get, consider the campaign smearing Barack Obama for supposedly not putting his hand over his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance. Actually, it was during the singing of "The Star Spangled Banner"; I know hardly anybody that puts his or her hand over heart during the singing of the national anthem.
To me, "The Star Spangled Banner" and the Pledge of Allegiance are more worshiping an icon than respecting the idea of a democratic republic. It became even more a public worship when "under God" was added in 1954. I find this ironic in that the Constitution states that there shall be no religious test for public office. However, if a candidate doesn't dutifully recite the whole Pledge of Allegiance, including "under God", he or she is considered unpatriotic and unsuited for public office.
What makes matters worse is that some office holders wear their flag pins, recite the Pledge of Allegiance, call unpatriotic those who do not, and then trash the Constitution. There is no requirement of a flag or a pledge of allegiance to the flag or government. There is simply the requirement that all government officials down to the state level "shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution" (Article VI). The President is required more stringently to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution" (Article II).
For more on the Pledge of Allegiance and dissent, search on "pledge of allegiance" and "Jehovah's witness". Among the more interesting hits, you'll find "In Defense of Obama's Patriotism, A dissent on the pledge", Ron Rosenbaum, Slate, Nov. 12, 2007.
As a measure of how emotional this can get, consider the campaign smearing Barack Obama for supposedly not putting his hand over his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance. Actually, it was during the singing of "The Star Spangled Banner"; I know hardly anybody that puts his or her hand over heart during the singing of the national anthem.
To me, "The Star Spangled Banner" and the Pledge of Allegiance are more worshiping an icon than respecting the idea of a democratic republic. It became even more a public worship when "under God" was added in 1954. I find this ironic in that the Constitution states that there shall be no religious test for public office. However, if a candidate doesn't dutifully recite the whole Pledge of Allegiance, including "under God", he or she is considered unpatriotic and unsuited for public office.
What makes matters worse is that some office holders wear their flag pins, recite the Pledge of Allegiance, call unpatriotic those who do not, and then trash the Constitution. There is no requirement of a flag or a pledge of allegiance to the flag or government. There is simply the requirement that all government officials down to the state level "shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution" (Article VI). The President is required more stringently to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution" (Article II).
For more on the Pledge of Allegiance and dissent, search on "pledge of allegiance" and "Jehovah's witness". Among the more interesting hits, you'll find "In Defense of Obama's Patriotism, A dissent on the pledge", Ron Rosenbaum, Slate, Nov. 12, 2007.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)