Occasionally people decide that what they have to say is more important than what the Outpost has to say, and they think the Outpost should pay for their speech. So they cover up our papers on our racks with papers or handouts of their own.
In such a way I came across a stack of pages copied from the American Free Press, a publication that among other interesting positions calls the Holocaust an "establishment hoax." Before throwing the pile in the trash, I noted one article that listed Montana Sen. Conrad Burns as a cosponsor of the Constitution Restoration Act. Could such a thing be true? Yes, it could.
The bill is stuck in committee, but if it were to pass, it would prohibit federal courts, including the Supreme Court, from reviewing any case involving a government officer or agent's "acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government."
Exactly what that might mean isn't clear, at least not to me, but it seems to leave open the possibility that, say, a state judge might cite the sovereignty of God's law as grounds for overturning or ignoring manmade law. And that decision could not be appealed to federal court.
Conrad, Conrad. What are you thinking?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
31 comments:
Wikipedia has a brief overview with some external links pro and con:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_Restoration_Act
but more important to understanding this is their link to Dominionism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominionism
Sounds like all this an attempt by the religious right to protect themselves from governmental action as they use the government to further their vision of the world.
Hijacking your papers racks to get some legitimacy is pretty low.
I see some interesting scenarios, where God's law would contradict our modern law.
The Biblical law would overturn 'Roe vs. Wade' for sure.
David, are you stupid? Have you ever read anything by Thomas Jefferson, like maybe the Declaration of Independence? What do you think the source of liberty is? The state?
Problem with that view, Eric, is that abortion isn't even mentioned in the Bible. That's just people using God as a sock puppet.
Mark I was thinking about the laws in Exodus where it addressed penalties for hurting unborn children.
To Mark T.
You don't need a Bible to understand that abortion destroys societies and is therefore evil. All you need some common sense. If you don’t have any of that, buy a good history book, and you’ll learn why the practice has been banned for thousands of years in the West. D'oh!
Eric-
You are taking that bible passage a tad out of context, don't you think? Exodus 21:22-23: "And if men strive together, and hurt a pregnant woman so that her fruit (child) comes out...the one who hit her shall surely be fined..."
So basically, if two men are fighting and hurt another woman in the process, causing her to miscarry, then they shall be fined. So, Like Mark T. said, the bible does not mention an abortion. It's all a mute point anyways, since the bible is just a silly book......and plenty of people in this country don't believe in it. Using it as the basis for any argument simply sets you up for failure.
Adam - Speaking of common sense-- Have you ever seen what's engraved on Thomas Jefferson's tombstone? (by his request, I might add)
"Here was buried Thomas Jefferson; Author of the Declaration of American Independence; Of the Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom..."
You probably haven't heard of that second one...the whole statute of religious freedom thing. If you have heard it, you've simply ignored it. Anyways, here's a link
http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/42.htm
If you actually read this, you will never use Thomas Jefferson in your ridiculous arguments of combining church and state again.
And also, your silly assertion that abortion destroys societies is just that.....silly. I'm sure you're looking in your version of "history" and seeing that some societies allowed abortion.....and then fell. Typical A caused B logic fallacy. What you probably ignore is that all societies and governments fall at one point, and just because you've decided what the cause of the societal failure was doesn't mean that it was actually the cause.
In any case, anyone who takes such a contested and divisive issue and calls it a matter of "common sense" is a fool, plain and simple. I disagree with you but would never call abortion a matter of common sense.
P.S. Adam Parker = Don Mellon? The D'oh clued me in......
Steve that's just one passage.
Well Mr. Anonymous......find me some more vague passages that don't talk about abortion if you want, but it won't do you any good, I am still correct. The bible does not mention it. In any case, I believe I mentioned the uselesness of using that silly book in your arguments, as many of us don't think it's more than a stack of papers. Change your angle.
The Church taught us that ensoulment happens at conception.
And I view Exodus as confirming that an unborn child is a life, with value.
That means that 'Thou shalt not commit murder' applies to babies too.
Eric - If only the bible had been more explicit on the monetary value attached to a fetus. Then they could charge women who are getting abortions that amount, and all of that money could go to the Catholic Church to help them pay off their lawsuits. In any case, your head is in the sand. You can not base any kind of public policy on that stack of papers you just referenced again. But if you want to keep trying, more power to you.
Mark - I find myself quoting the bible for the second time today, I don't like to but here it is:
Matthew 6:5-6: "And when thou prayest, thou shalt 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....when thou prayest, enter into thy closet and when thou has shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret...."
-Jesus
Why must you subject us to your prayer? In any case, once again, that certainly doesn't qualify as any kind of argument. But I'm used to that from your type. It's easier to make up a prayer between you and God and post it here than actually using your brain. Way to go!
Just thought I would throw in the official position of the Catholic Church on abortion - they are against it, of course, but here's the reasoning: The Bible is silent on the matter. We are given a choice, we therefore choose to err on the side of life.
Eric - your use of Exodus to reinforce your view on abortion is a common trait seen on the Christian Right: Use of God as a sock puppet.
To Steve T.--
D’oh = Homer Simpson. And don’t pretend you never heard of Homer Simpson, because it’s obvious to everybody here that you’ve spent hours studying him. You have perfectly reproduced his genius for confusing everything.
“What do you think the source of liberty is, Homer?”
“The Statue of Liberty?”
“No, the source of liberty.”
“Uh, I don’t know really but Lisa says it’s not good to combine church and state!
“OK. But that wasn’t the question—“
“D’oh! Goodness me. I’ll never win that dirt bike.”
“Let’s try something different, Homer. Historically speaking, what does the practice of abortion do to a society?
“Uh, makes it smaller?”
“No.
“Uh, nothing! It’s only practice! Hee hee hee.”
“No. Sorry.”
“Darn it.. Bart so wanted that dirt bike.”
“OK. Let’s try one more. This is an easy one. Have you ever read any history books?”
“Do old Sears’ catalogs count?”
Adam -
I have at least given you a couple of bible verses and a link to a statute written by Thomas Jefferson.... you have given me an imaginary dialogue between two animated characters.....not much to respond to there.
So OK.... you want to argue that abortion destroys societies? Fine, do that. But do so by citing at least one or two examples of societies that have been destroyed by it at the very least. Your imaginary dialogues and avoidance of any facts also smack of Don Mellon.
Steve T - your posting here is brilliant - simply brilliant. Kudos. I suspect your Mellon comments are right on too.
I'd like to see Mark T's brother, the *real* Steve T do a little blogging...LOL
The whole problem *I* have with this "God's Law" thing is...
WHICH God? The primitive tribe that worships the volcano God? The Brahmin God(s)? The Buddhist God? The Muslim God? Jewish? Shinto? Other? If the Christian God - which one? Catholic? Baptist (Southern or Other)? Methodist? LDS? Christian Scientist? The snake-handlers? Jim Jones' or David Koreshs?
Sorry, but someone's doubtless sincere faith and belief that theirs is the One True God doesn't justify them telling me what's right or wrong, or trying to push their ideas of morality and ethics onto _me_.
Unless, of course, you're trying to tell me that it's "okay" to use force (whether physical or economic or social) to cause me to comply with YOUR beliefs against my will, as was done for the Crusades, the Inquisition, the 'salvation' of indigenous peoples when the New World was "discovered", and similarly liberating experiences...
I believe that they are referencing our Christian God, the one who inspired the bible.
And after reading the prayer for the unborn, I now remember why I haven't been to mass in over 25 years.
Don't overlook a key distinction: What the Bible thinks about abortion is one thing. What the implications of that are for government is another.
DMerriman—Man are you dazed and confused! This country is more than 85% Christian. Nobody cares about the “gods” you listed. Majority rules. Take a hike with your wishy-washy nonsense.
Bopper, The majority doesn't rule on constitutional issues.
David--Maybe you missed the Alito confirmation.
Bopper, Your point is irrelevant at best. Alito can interpret the Constitution, but he isn't supposed to rewrite it. He never would have been confirmed if he had hinted that was what he planned to do.
David--My point is spot on.
You said, “The majority doesn't rule on constitutional issues.”
1.) The U.S. Supreme Court has the final word on all constitutional issues.
2.) The U.S. Supreme Court decides constitutional issues by majority vote.
3.) Therefore, the majority rules on constitutional issues.
Bopper - you've pretty much proven my point, I think. I brought up the other religions and variations of Christianity (which you failed to address) to point out that using one's religious beliefs as a basis for secular law isn't appreciably different than Islaamic use of the Koran as the source of Sharia law.
If the guiding principle is that it's okay for the "majority" to impose their will on everyone else, then that same principle should be maintained when whoever constitutes a "majority" changes.
The way I figure it, for something to be "fair", it should be equally acceptable to both sides even if the strength of the bargaining positions is reversed: how happy would Christians be if those other religions represented the 85%, and started trying to impose non-Christian values into law?
As for "nobody cares" - well, those in that 15% might disagree with you.
Bopper,
A little civics here.
1. The Supreme Court doesn't have the final word on constitutional issues. The Supreme Court is bound by tradition, ethics and standard judicial practice to restrict its authority to settling disputes over the meaning and interpretation of the Constitution. It's not supposed to just make up whatever Constitution it wants, and if it does, then citizens and the Congress have the authority to amend the Constitution to fix the court's errors.
2. The court does make its decisions by majority vote, but that in no way implies or guarantees that its opinions match those of a majority of the people. The court was, in fact, specifically designed not to be bound by the will of the majority.
3. Therefore, your third point makes no sense.
David—That’s so ingenious! Slide the debate away from ruling on “constitutional issues” and move it toward amending the constitution. That might work with a high school freshman civics class, but it won’t work here.
Bottom line: The Supreme Court is empowered by the U.S. Constitution to hear “all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution.” That means “constitutional issues.” The cases are decided by majority vote. There is no appeal.
As for this idealistic nonsense you are spouting about the Supreme Court being bound by “tradition, ethics and standard judicial practice,” be serious. Sandy O’Connor demolished that fantasy years ago in her famously incoherent, socially sensitive decision on affirmative action.
The MAJORITY on Supreme Court answers to no one. Dream on about “tradition, ethics and standard judicial practice.”
And as for the “citizens and the Congress” having the authority to fix the Court’s errors—oh sure, sure. When was the last time you saw that happen?
DMerriman—I did not respond to your argument about “other religions and variations of Christianity” because it is an absurd argument that leads nowhere. You might think that four followers of The Infinite and All-Knowing Goddess of Pluto are entitled to some special treatment by the 250-million Christian majority in this country, but I do not. I say to them, Go back to Pluto if you don’t like it here.
The source of law can be anything you please. The ancient Greeks had one source, the ancient Romans another. Whenever and wherever they were in control, the Jews, the Christians, and the Muslims all had their own source of law. That you apparently prefer atheism (secularism) as the source of law is your business.
According to your theory of universal fairness, even in the face of overwhelming power on one side or the other, there would have never been a Roman Empire, and home mortgages would be interest free.
Is the Goddess of Pluto related to Elizabeth Claire Prophet by chance?
LOL
Post a Comment