On April 21st, National Public Radio Senior Correspondent and Fox News contributor Juan Williams wrote the following on the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship program:
"As I watch Washington politics I am not easily given to rage. Washington politics is a game and selfishness, out-sized egos and corruption are predictable. But over the last week I find myself in a fury.
The cause of my upset is watching the key civil rights issue of this generation — improving big city public school education — get tossed overboard by political gamesmanship. If there is one goal that deserves to be held above day-to-day partisanship and pettiness of ordinary politics it is the effort to end the scandalous poor level of academic achievement and abysmally high drop-out rates for America’s black and Hispanic students.
In a politically calculated dance step the Obama team first indicated that they wanted the Opportunity Scholarship Program to continue for students lucky enough to have won one of the vouchers. The five-year school voucher program is scheduled to expire after the school year ending in June 2010. Secretary Duncan said in early March that it didn’t make sense “to take kids out of a school where they’re happy and safe and satisfied and learning…those kids need to stay in their school.”
And all along the administration indicated that pending evidence that this voucher program or any other produces better test scores for students they were willing to fight for it. The president has said that when it comes to better schools he is open to supporting “what works for kids.” That looked like a level playing field on which to evaluate the program and even possibly expanding the program.
But last week Secretary Duncan announced that he will not allow any new students to enter the D.C. voucher program. In fact, he had to take back the government’s offer of scholarships to 200 students who had won a lottery to get into the program starting next year. His rationale is that if the program does not win new funding from Congress then those students might have to go back to public school in a year.
The National Education Association and other teachers’ unions have put millions into Democrats’ congressional campaigns because they oppose Republican efforts to challenge unions on their resistance to school reform and specifically their refusal to support ideas such as performance-based pay for teachers who raise students’ test scores.
By going along with Secretary Duncan’s plan to hollow out the D.C. voucher program this president, who has spoken so passionately about the importance of education, is playing rank politics with the education of poor children. It is an outrage."
Do I sense a little buyer's remorse here? He is outraged, but does he regret voting for "change" and "hope" like 64 million other residents, legal and illegal, living and dead? This is yet another broken promise, along with transparency, lobbyists in the Oval office, fiscally responsible government, ending the culture of corruption, etc., by his highness President Obama. Both parties are guilty of satsifying the desires of lobbyists seeking to enrich themselves with more money versus enriching we people with more freedom, which is their solemn duty under the Constitution.
Consider this: the DCOSP...
...costs less per student ($7,500) than traditional federal programs ($15,315 in the 2004–2005 school year)
...provides a better learning experience - Studies of scholarship families show higher parent satisfaction with their children’s school safety and learning environment. Test scores showed that students offered scholarships were performing approximately 3.1 months ahead in reading of students not offered vouchers and an equivalent of 3.7 months of total additional learning.
...cost a total of $13 million which is a drop in the bucket (0.02% of total) compared to the $68 billion Department of Education (DOE) budget.
Here's another outrage. The recent $787,000,000,000 stimulus bill alone added over $98,000,000,000 (12% of total) to the DOE. In fact, the 2007 DOE budget spent almost $14,000,000 per DOE employee (which ranked the highest of all cabinet departments that year in terms of $ per employee including defense!), yet they didn't see fit to continue $7,500 per D.C. student? How exactly will this $166,000,000,000 be spent? Who is accountable for showing its effectiveness? How can a bureacracy effectively manage this vast sum of money?
If the government sees fit to confiscate this wealth from its citizens, which I do NOT advocate, would it not be better spent on school choice, scholarship programs for ALL inner-city, poor, underpriveleged minority students? Why do the majority of the parents of these students keep voting (no real stats but just looking at an electoral county map of the country that ALWAYS shows big cities shaded blue) for the people who say they will help them but help the unions and other campaign contributors instead? Mr. Williams probably speaks well for these parents, but will he and they actually do something about it and vote for real change next time?
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Thursday, April 16, 2009
TEA Parties
Yes, I attended the Wichita Falls TEA Party, and my sign and comments were cited in the front page of the local paper. I guess that officially makes me a "right-wing extremist" according to the Department of Homeland Security. I consider it an honor. This may be the biggest risk I've ever taken, but it certainly does not even come close to the risk taken by our founders and made by ALL of our military personnel (including my father and grandfather who lived to tell and my great uncle who didn't) who fought to preserve our unalienable rights.
One nagging question in my mind though is "Why did we low-tax-supporting, freedom-loving citizens not rise up earlier?" These unconstitutional expenditures, and inevitable burdensome taxes, have been in place for decades even before my grandparents were born. Why rise up now? Well, the following excerpt from the Declaration of Independence helps explain it.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established (now 222 years) should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies (now States); and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.
I think of the frog-in-the-pot-of-boiling-water analogy. The frog (citizen) would never jump into a pot of boiling water (i.e. despotism, hard tyranny, communism, fascism, etc.), but it would jump into a pot of luke-warm water (constitutional republic). As the heat is applied and the water slowly warms, the frog either doesn't notice or does so and likes it because it feels good like a hot tub (government education, unemployment, welfare, healthcare, retirement, etc.) which soothes and relaxes after a hard day. A little while longer, the frog gets addicted to the warm water because its really cold out there in the real world. Eventually, the water is boiling, and the frog becomes a tasty meal for the cook (government).
A few local responses to our TEA Party lamented our grievances saying "What about the military? Money from bases comes into the community." or "What about education? Who else will pay for it?" The answer to the military is simple: we have no problem with the military or its funding because it's constitutional and, at this time in the world, very necessary. The answer to education is simple too: we have no problem with public education at the state, county or city level, but at the federal level it is unconstitutional, and if we do have a problem with it, we have a better chance of changing it at the state, county or city level than we do at the federal level. We agree with the founders that the federal government serves the states primarily by guarding against foreign enemies and guaranteeing each state a republican form of government, and all other powers, such as education, should be left to the states and the people. We TEA partiers believe that this model has served us well, and we protest the discarding of it.
Our Declaration says it is our right and duty to throw off such oppressive government. We do not intend to do such a thing; we believe that there is still time to change it peacefully. I hope that it doesn't come to the point where we must do what our founders did. What is the last straw for America though?
One nagging question in my mind though is "Why did we low-tax-supporting, freedom-loving citizens not rise up earlier?" These unconstitutional expenditures, and inevitable burdensome taxes, have been in place for decades even before my grandparents were born. Why rise up now? Well, the following excerpt from the Declaration of Independence helps explain it.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established (now 222 years) should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies (now States); and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.
I think of the frog-in-the-pot-of-boiling-water analogy. The frog (citizen) would never jump into a pot of boiling water (i.e. despotism, hard tyranny, communism, fascism, etc.), but it would jump into a pot of luke-warm water (constitutional republic). As the heat is applied and the water slowly warms, the frog either doesn't notice or does so and likes it because it feels good like a hot tub (government education, unemployment, welfare, healthcare, retirement, etc.) which soothes and relaxes after a hard day. A little while longer, the frog gets addicted to the warm water because its really cold out there in the real world. Eventually, the water is boiling, and the frog becomes a tasty meal for the cook (government).
A few local responses to our TEA Party lamented our grievances saying "What about the military? Money from bases comes into the community." or "What about education? Who else will pay for it?" The answer to the military is simple: we have no problem with the military or its funding because it's constitutional and, at this time in the world, very necessary. The answer to education is simple too: we have no problem with public education at the state, county or city level, but at the federal level it is unconstitutional, and if we do have a problem with it, we have a better chance of changing it at the state, county or city level than we do at the federal level. We agree with the founders that the federal government serves the states primarily by guarding against foreign enemies and guaranteeing each state a republican form of government, and all other powers, such as education, should be left to the states and the people. We TEA partiers believe that this model has served us well, and we protest the discarding of it.
Our Declaration says it is our right and duty to throw off such oppressive government. We do not intend to do such a thing; we believe that there is still time to change it peacefully. I hope that it doesn't come to the point where we must do what our founders did. What is the last straw for America though?
Friday, April 10, 2009
Temporal Life
As we approach the day when we Christians celebrate the resurrection of the Author of Life, I thought it appropriate to post an unsent letter adopted from World Net Daily's Joseph Farah a little over a year ago.
The Honorable Justice Scalia,
Recently, you told students at the University of Central Missouri that the subject of abortion is not found in the Constitution. You stated "The reality is the Constitution doesn't address the subject at all. It is one of the many subjects not in the Constitution which is therefore left to democracy. If you want the right to an abortion, persuade your fellow citizens it's a good idea and pass a law. If you feel the other way, repeal the law."
I disagree. In fact, I believe the Constitution outlaws abortion – and I think I can prove it to you. To understand why abortion is still illegal, despite Roe v. Wade, you must begin by doing something few Americans bother with anymore – reading the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. It says "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
All important words, but I want you to focus right now on those to whom this document applies. Who are the subjects and beneficiaries of the Constitution, as stated clearly in the preamble? The answer is "ourselves and our posterity". The word "ourselves" in this context refers to those men who wrote it – and to their generation of Americans. "Posterity," which literally means "descendants" or all succeeding generations, refers, in this context, to all those Americans yet unborn.
Is your great, great, great, great granddaughter your posterity? Absolutely. Is she born yet? Absolutely not. Does the fact that she is not yet born make her any less your posterity? No.
Now, specifically what rights are ascribed by the Constitution to ourselves and our posterity? "Amendment V: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
Clearly, the Fifth Amendment establishes that our posterity – those yet unborn – shall not be deprived of life without due process. This same principle was contained in the Declaration of Independence: "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."
Life is an unalienable right, which means man can't take it away through laws or through Supreme Court decisions. Furthermore, just so there is no confusion about this being a limitation only on the federal government, check out the 14th Amendment: "Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Tell me...where is due process for those unborn children sentenced to death while still in the womb? Some abortion advocates have tried to suggest that Roe v. Wade – an arbitrary and capricious attempt by the Supreme Court to exceed its constitutional limitations and legislate – is itself the due process for unborn babies. Once again, however, the Constitution trumps that poor excuse for an argument. "Amendment VI: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed; which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense."
Roe v. Wade is, thus, a sham – a house of cards. It was an artificial attempt to make abortion a right by citing a "right of privacy" that is itself nowhere to be found in the Constitution. Roe v. Wade created rights where none existed and abrogated those that were enshrined as unalienable.
I rest my case.
The Honorable Justice Scalia,
Recently, you told students at the University of Central Missouri that the subject of abortion is not found in the Constitution. You stated "The reality is the Constitution doesn't address the subject at all. It is one of the many subjects not in the Constitution which is therefore left to democracy. If you want the right to an abortion, persuade your fellow citizens it's a good idea and pass a law. If you feel the other way, repeal the law."
I disagree. In fact, I believe the Constitution outlaws abortion – and I think I can prove it to you. To understand why abortion is still illegal, despite Roe v. Wade, you must begin by doing something few Americans bother with anymore – reading the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. It says "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
All important words, but I want you to focus right now on those to whom this document applies. Who are the subjects and beneficiaries of the Constitution, as stated clearly in the preamble? The answer is "ourselves and our posterity". The word "ourselves" in this context refers to those men who wrote it – and to their generation of Americans. "Posterity," which literally means "descendants" or all succeeding generations, refers, in this context, to all those Americans yet unborn.
Is your great, great, great, great granddaughter your posterity? Absolutely. Is she born yet? Absolutely not. Does the fact that she is not yet born make her any less your posterity? No.
Now, specifically what rights are ascribed by the Constitution to ourselves and our posterity? "Amendment V: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
Clearly, the Fifth Amendment establishes that our posterity – those yet unborn – shall not be deprived of life without due process. This same principle was contained in the Declaration of Independence: "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."
Life is an unalienable right, which means man can't take it away through laws or through Supreme Court decisions. Furthermore, just so there is no confusion about this being a limitation only on the federal government, check out the 14th Amendment: "Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Tell me...where is due process for those unborn children sentenced to death while still in the womb? Some abortion advocates have tried to suggest that Roe v. Wade – an arbitrary and capricious attempt by the Supreme Court to exceed its constitutional limitations and legislate – is itself the due process for unborn babies. Once again, however, the Constitution trumps that poor excuse for an argument. "Amendment VI: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed; which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense."
Roe v. Wade is, thus, a sham – a house of cards. It was an artificial attempt to make abortion a right by citing a "right of privacy" that is itself nowhere to be found in the Constitution. Roe v. Wade created rights where none existed and abrogated those that were enshrined as unalienable.
I rest my case.
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Free Speech
The University of Maryland recently pulled the on-campus screening of an "adult" movie entitled "Pirates II: Stagnetti's Revenge". Needless to say, many students as well as the coordinator of the event, Planned Parenthood, are outraged. President C.D. Mote, Jr. made this decision after Republican State Senator Andrew P. Harris threatened to pull their funding. This is one of the problems with government-funded schools.
An April 9th Baltimore Sun op-ed stated that this action "sent the wrong signal about the university's commitment to academic and intellectual freedom." (Would this be the same freedom to question evolutionary theory?) In protest, some "students planned a shortened screening last night on campus and asked some professors to participate in a discussion of porn, free speech and what they saw as the legislature's arbitrary intrusion into their affairs." Also in 2004, the state AG "wrote a memo saying the university can legally prohibit 'offensive language' under certain carefully defined circumstances without violating the First Amendment. How that applies to porn films is unclear, however, since obscenity is not constitutionally protected speech." However, I do believe that at least one Supreme Court case has ruled that porn is free speech.
The op-ed finishes by saying, "There's no doubt pornography degrades women and coarsens society. It is not harmless entertainment, and recent reports suggest it's dangerously addictive among college-age men." How about all post-pubescent men! "We hope young people figure that out pretty quickly through forums like the one held last night. In the meantime, lawmakers' threatening to shut down the university won't help and may make matters worse. It's a heavy-handed way of dealing with a complicated issue; moreover, do we really want lawmakers scrutinizing every film, lecture, play or poetry reading students attend? It's the better part of wisdom for them to realize that's not their job, and that attempting to do so sets a troubling precedent that can jeopardize the many years of work that have been invested in raising UM's stature." That "work" was done at taxpayer expense.
First of all, I don't want lawmakers regulating any speech-related college function. This isn't their job, but so are many other things that we have slowly let them do over the years. Why should we get so bent out of shape on this issue? Raise cane on all of the other ones!
Secondly, the First Amendment says that "Congress shall make no law...prohibiting free speech" although someone might argue that the 14th amendment conferred on the states this clause. Even if Maryland's Constitution has a free speech clause, does the stripping of public funds violate it? The senator certainly didn't want them to show the porn, but they still could have done so. (As long as my son lives under my roof, if I tell him that his butt will hurt if he hits his sister, can he not still choose to hit her?)
Furthermore, Andrew Harris is just one member of the minority party (30% of seats) of the Maryland state senate. What power does he have over the budget? Certainly his amendment would fail if he was alone or even if all of his Republicans colleagues agreed. For his threat to have any "teeth", it would need strong bipartisan support which makes me wonder why he was the only one listed. Who else signaled their support of this threat? Does the op-ed want us to believe that only Republicans want to suppress speech?
Finally, if it's O.K. for the federal government to fire CEOs, limit salaries, negate bonuses, dictate production lines, etc. for companies feeding at the public trough, can they not also dictate anything they want to a college doing the same? If UM wants to show porn, then they should do so on their own dime. It should be noted that the viewing was going to be paid by student fees, but it was still scheduled to show in a campus facility. No college is forced to take public funds...yet, but if and when they do, they must be prepared for "the strings". Unfortunately, some banks were forced to take public TARP funds, and we now see why...control.
As the Bible says, the borrower is servant to the lender. Pray that we the people do not become borrowers to one of the biggest lenders on earth, the U.S. government or that they do not become servants to another rising lender...China.
An April 9th Baltimore Sun op-ed stated that this action "sent the wrong signal about the university's commitment to academic and intellectual freedom." (Would this be the same freedom to question evolutionary theory?) In protest, some "students planned a shortened screening last night on campus and asked some professors to participate in a discussion of porn, free speech and what they saw as the legislature's arbitrary intrusion into their affairs." Also in 2004, the state AG "wrote a memo saying the university can legally prohibit 'offensive language' under certain carefully defined circumstances without violating the First Amendment. How that applies to porn films is unclear, however, since obscenity is not constitutionally protected speech." However, I do believe that at least one Supreme Court case has ruled that porn is free speech.
The op-ed finishes by saying, "There's no doubt pornography degrades women and coarsens society. It is not harmless entertainment, and recent reports suggest it's dangerously addictive among college-age men." How about all post-pubescent men! "We hope young people figure that out pretty quickly through forums like the one held last night. In the meantime, lawmakers' threatening to shut down the university won't help and may make matters worse. It's a heavy-handed way of dealing with a complicated issue; moreover, do we really want lawmakers scrutinizing every film, lecture, play or poetry reading students attend? It's the better part of wisdom for them to realize that's not their job, and that attempting to do so sets a troubling precedent that can jeopardize the many years of work that have been invested in raising UM's stature." That "work" was done at taxpayer expense.
First of all, I don't want lawmakers regulating any speech-related college function. This isn't their job, but so are many other things that we have slowly let them do over the years. Why should we get so bent out of shape on this issue? Raise cane on all of the other ones!
Secondly, the First Amendment says that "Congress shall make no law...prohibiting free speech" although someone might argue that the 14th amendment conferred on the states this clause. Even if Maryland's Constitution has a free speech clause, does the stripping of public funds violate it? The senator certainly didn't want them to show the porn, but they still could have done so. (As long as my son lives under my roof, if I tell him that his butt will hurt if he hits his sister, can he not still choose to hit her?)
Furthermore, Andrew Harris is just one member of the minority party (30% of seats) of the Maryland state senate. What power does he have over the budget? Certainly his amendment would fail if he was alone or even if all of his Republicans colleagues agreed. For his threat to have any "teeth", it would need strong bipartisan support which makes me wonder why he was the only one listed. Who else signaled their support of this threat? Does the op-ed want us to believe that only Republicans want to suppress speech?
Finally, if it's O.K. for the federal government to fire CEOs, limit salaries, negate bonuses, dictate production lines, etc. for companies feeding at the public trough, can they not also dictate anything they want to a college doing the same? If UM wants to show porn, then they should do so on their own dime. It should be noted that the viewing was going to be paid by student fees, but it was still scheduled to show in a campus facility. No college is forced to take public funds...yet, but if and when they do, they must be prepared for "the strings". Unfortunately, some banks were forced to take public TARP funds, and we now see why...control.
As the Bible says, the borrower is servant to the lender. Pray that we the people do not become borrowers to one of the biggest lenders on earth, the U.S. government or that they do not become servants to another rising lender...China.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Universal Values
I would like to hear our President once and for all tell us what he means by common, shared or universal values. That's what he talked about on the campaign trail, what he talked about since being elected and taking office and especially what he talked about on his first world tour as President. What are those specific universal values? Now I understand he means these are values held universally, or by most societies/civilizations, but again what are they? By the way, if these values, whatever they are, are universal, why should there be any war? Does this nation possess or espouse these universal values? Did the values of this nation conform over the last 230+ years to the world's values, or did the world conform over that time to those of this nation? This is kind of like telling someone that your faith got you through a difficult situation. Faith in what...the sun, or the Son? Everyone has values; even a drug addict values that next high. Everyone has faith in something; even the evolutionist has faith that we came from pond scum.
He even went so far as to imply that we were not founded on Judeo-Christian values or that our value system is not essentially Judeo-Christian but a mix of many faiths. I believe that it is Judeo-Christian, but do we risk offending the world if we say so? Is it hate speech to even admit this truth? Does saying so mean every American has to accept Jesus as their Savior or otherwise be imprisoned, executed or banished? Does it mean that we are a theocracy like Iran?
I recently attended a conference on Christainity and the Constitution. It was yet another review of our founders' writings and reinforcement of the notion that this nation was founded on Judeo-Christian values. Although there are few references to the name of "Jesus", there are numerous references to the name of "God", "Creator" and "Lord", which also appear numerous times in the Bible. The generic name "Supreme Being" also shows up in their writings, but I have not once seen the names Confucius, Buddha, Zeus, Molech, Allah, Baal, Satan, slug, tree, sun, rock, etc. Although I do not believe that our founders recognized these gods, any citizen of this country can believe so without fear of imprisonment, execution or banishment. This is what the First Amendment is all about...not keeping religion out of state affairs, the so-called separation of church and state, but keeping the state out of religious affairs. Why do people still seek religious freedom here more than anywhere else on earth?
Again I ask...what are these universal values, and were they the foundation of this nation? Are clean air, water and land universal values? I suppose everyone wants those, but is he really referring to such tangible issues? If I accept the premise that we were founded on universal, rather than Judeo-Christian, values, as our President implies, then why did our founders fight a war for independence from them? It certainly wasn't for a clean environment; the Declaration of Independence makes no mention of it. It certainly seems like they had something else in mind such as the sanctity of human life, religious freedom, speech freedom, print freedom (Blogs!), innocent until proven guilty, right to self-defense, property ownership and others as spelled out in our Constitution our President, along with judges, justices, senators and congressmen, took an oath to defend. I'll call them Judeo-Christian values; he can call them whatever he wants as long as he does everything in his power to defend them for us and our posterity.
He even went so far as to imply that we were not founded on Judeo-Christian values or that our value system is not essentially Judeo-Christian but a mix of many faiths. I believe that it is Judeo-Christian, but do we risk offending the world if we say so? Is it hate speech to even admit this truth? Does saying so mean every American has to accept Jesus as their Savior or otherwise be imprisoned, executed or banished? Does it mean that we are a theocracy like Iran?
I recently attended a conference on Christainity and the Constitution. It was yet another review of our founders' writings and reinforcement of the notion that this nation was founded on Judeo-Christian values. Although there are few references to the name of "Jesus", there are numerous references to the name of "God", "Creator" and "Lord", which also appear numerous times in the Bible. The generic name "Supreme Being" also shows up in their writings, but I have not once seen the names Confucius, Buddha, Zeus, Molech, Allah, Baal, Satan, slug, tree, sun, rock, etc. Although I do not believe that our founders recognized these gods, any citizen of this country can believe so without fear of imprisonment, execution or banishment. This is what the First Amendment is all about...not keeping religion out of state affairs, the so-called separation of church and state, but keeping the state out of religious affairs. Why do people still seek religious freedom here more than anywhere else on earth?
Again I ask...what are these universal values, and were they the foundation of this nation? Are clean air, water and land universal values? I suppose everyone wants those, but is he really referring to such tangible issues? If I accept the premise that we were founded on universal, rather than Judeo-Christian, values, as our President implies, then why did our founders fight a war for independence from them? It certainly wasn't for a clean environment; the Declaration of Independence makes no mention of it. It certainly seems like they had something else in mind such as the sanctity of human life, religious freedom, speech freedom, print freedom (Blogs!), innocent until proven guilty, right to self-defense, property ownership and others as spelled out in our Constitution our President, along with judges, justices, senators and congressmen, took an oath to defend. I'll call them Judeo-Christian values; he can call them whatever he wants as long as he does everything in his power to defend them for us and our posterity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)