USAToday is reporting a story about several kids sent home from school for wearing a t-shirt that said "Islam is of the devil". According to officials, they were sent home because their shirts might be considered offensive and therefore would be disruptive. Sense a lawyer is clearly involved on behalf of the students, this should be an interesting case to watch. I'll be the first to argue that children don't have any rights until they reach 18. However, my argument would be based on their home life, not what they do in public, with their parents obvious permission. Can the government limit the rights of children? I'm not so sure. However, I also support a clearly defined dress code for schools (as long as we aren't dressing all the kids the same). No dress code was published in the story, an obvious oversight on USAToday's part. Perhaps it was on purpose sense the tone of the story seemed to want to condemn the students and their church rather than explore the reasons behind it. However, without the dress code, I can't speak to whether I agree that the shirts violated said code. They may have, in which case, I'd support the school. However, I'm also a huge supporter of separation of church and state and freedom of speech. Would the school send a child home for wearing a t-shirt that makes a political statement or perhaps condemns other religious faiths? Perhaps they would, again, that isn't addressed in the story. However, it seems unlikely they would unless they deemed said material to be considered "offensive". Who decides then what is offensive in nature? Sorry, I don't agree that it is the teachers or the principle because their decision making is based on their personal beliefs and experiences, as they should be, which colors their opinion. So, we have to fall back on the constitution. Unless the shirt actually did cause a disruption, it is protected speech under the constitution of this country, I would argue.
Now, a quick word on the sentiment of the shirt. One can disagree with what it proclaims, however, I'll point out that Islam proclaims the exact same thing about all religions that aren't Islam. In fact, Christians are supposed to believe that "nobody comes to the father but through me" meaning the only way to heaven is through Jesus Christ. If you believe that, then by definition, all other religions aren't going to lead to heaven. Therefore, all other religions, in a sense, worship the prince of lies since they are designed to lead people away from the truth. Who is the prince of lies? Satan. So, in the eyes of this church and its followers, the shirt makes sense, assuming they are a conservative bunch, which it seems to me they are. Many people are uncomfortable with the idea that other religions are of Satan and I'm not saying they are. I'm saying that all religions can't be right. Especially considering that many of them proclaim themselves to be the only way. If one of them is the only way, then all the rest lead nowhere. Whether that is of Satan or not, it certainly achieves his goal of leading people away.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Monday, August 24, 2009
I was thinking about morality and government...
So, here's my thought process lately. Is setting up government programs to help people moral? Maybe, on the part of the politician, but certainly not for the rest of us. How can I say that? Let me explain. I agree with modern liberals that morality is a personal choice (in theory). God is the ultimate authority and His word rules my thinking, so you can account for that if you like. However, I don't believe the Bible is ever telling us to establish a government to take care of people. We are constantly admonished however to help others, especially widows and orphans (is it any wonder that the largest group of impoverished people in this country are single mothers?). So, the argument is that working together we can effect greater moral good for society and that the government is the only agent capable of doing so. I don't buy it. Here's why. In order to have moral value, an act must come with a choice. An individual must choose to commit a moral act. When we pay our taxes, we are doing as God has told us to respect authority and give to Caesar. Therefore, paying taxes is what we are supposed to do. It is what we are all supposed to do. There is no moral authority in paying taxes. If an act is something that everyone must do regardless of their opinions, belief, conscience, etc., then they are simply doing what we all must do. Where is the morality in that? So, a government program might be morally justified in the eyes of society, but it becomes amoral when placed in the hands of the government. Perhaps even immoral depending on the moral standing you give to the concept of liberty. At best, a government program is moral for the Congress member who wrote the bill and maybe for the ones who voted for it, because they are making a choice in supporting it. However, they are also making that choice for you as well. Moral?
I return to my statement that a moral act must accompany a choice. Therefore, only an individual or a group of individuals acting in concert can commit a moral act. Is it moral for me to see my neighbor suffering and say to myself (there is a government program to help him, so he should take advantage of it) and then do nothing or is it moral for me to see my neighbor suffering and do all I can to help? The first example to me is cowardly and self-centered. It is the me philosophy that gets the religious man to walk on the other side of the road while the second example is more in line with the principle expressed by the good Samaritan. Of course, I'll be accused of saying that by not voting for people who will support government programs, I am the one walking on the other side of the road. To this I respond that it is only the person who puts their money where their mouth is that can commit a moral act. Voting for or against someone guarantees nothing. Creating a government program that invariably will work to less effect than intended and will ultimately have negative "unintended consequences" is not a moral act either. God will value a person who goes out and feeds the hungry and goes out and clothes the naked and goes out and helps the disabled and goes out and gives to the poor. These are all personal moral choices made by individuals or groups of like minded individuals (not governments). To pay your taxes and yet do none of these things because you expect the government to "care" for others is a self-centered act, not a moral one. It goes directly against what I believe God wants. Yes, we are to treat everyone with respect and dignity and yes, we are to clothe the naked, feed the hungry, help the widows and orphans, etc. etc. However, expecting the government to do any of this while not doing it ourselves removes any moral authority from the argument. The tax returns of our leaders generally suggest that a lot of them believe this is the role of government. I do not agree. The man who pays his taxes and his tithe (money, time, etc.) has moral authority while the man who pays his taxes and does not provide money or time to charity has none. Period.
I return to my statement that a moral act must accompany a choice. Therefore, only an individual or a group of individuals acting in concert can commit a moral act. Is it moral for me to see my neighbor suffering and say to myself (there is a government program to help him, so he should take advantage of it) and then do nothing or is it moral for me to see my neighbor suffering and do all I can to help? The first example to me is cowardly and self-centered. It is the me philosophy that gets the religious man to walk on the other side of the road while the second example is more in line with the principle expressed by the good Samaritan. Of course, I'll be accused of saying that by not voting for people who will support government programs, I am the one walking on the other side of the road. To this I respond that it is only the person who puts their money where their mouth is that can commit a moral act. Voting for or against someone guarantees nothing. Creating a government program that invariably will work to less effect than intended and will ultimately have negative "unintended consequences" is not a moral act either. God will value a person who goes out and feeds the hungry and goes out and clothes the naked and goes out and helps the disabled and goes out and gives to the poor. These are all personal moral choices made by individuals or groups of like minded individuals (not governments). To pay your taxes and yet do none of these things because you expect the government to "care" for others is a self-centered act, not a moral one. It goes directly against what I believe God wants. Yes, we are to treat everyone with respect and dignity and yes, we are to clothe the naked, feed the hungry, help the widows and orphans, etc. etc. However, expecting the government to do any of this while not doing it ourselves removes any moral authority from the argument. The tax returns of our leaders generally suggest that a lot of them believe this is the role of government. I do not agree. The man who pays his taxes and his tithe (money, time, etc.) has moral authority while the man who pays his taxes and does not provide money or time to charity has none. Period.
U.S. Constitution -- part 5 (Article 3 - The Judiciary)
Article 3 of the U.S. Constitution talks about the Judiciary Branch. This is what was intended by the founders in setting up the court system in this country. Let's take a look, shall we?
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
So, what does this say about judges and our courts? Well, it is pretty clear. All judicial power lies within the courts and those courts are made up of the Supreme Court and any other court Congress chooses to define. This does not include state courts which deal with state laws but only the federal court system. So, as an aside, if Congress were truly upset with Bush for using military tribunals or secret courts to try terrorists at Guantanamo or anywhere else, it is the Congress and only the Congress that has the power to establish a court to carry out these trials. Hmm... why didn't they do it then? Oh wait, they did and they still want to say that these trials are shams. So, the judiciary branch did its job here by saying the executive was overstepping its authority and the Congress did its job by establishing a court to do this job, but somewhere along the lines, the current courts became vilified due to their supposed association with the Bush administration when in fact, they were established by Congress. Huh. Now, off my soapbox, what else does this article say? Basically, that judges can't receive a pay cut while in office and they can't break the law (good behavior). Pretty simple. Now for section 2:
(The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.) (This section in parentheses is modified by the 11th Amendment.)
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
The first part of this section clearly outlines the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. This has been altered by the 11th amendment, so we'll revisit this section obviously.
The second part of this section, what constitutes original jurisdiction versus what constitutes appellate jurisdiction is differentiated with the caveat that Congress can regulate exceptions to this. This seems like a clear indication that Congress could have regulated away the concept of judicial review a long time ago if they really didn't want it. Sure, history records there was some grumbling about this, but Congress clearly had authority over this matter and they didn't exercise it, so judicial review stays, along with a lot of other jurisdictional issues.
The third part here clearly delineates the federalist concept. Congress shall create courts to deal with issues that cross state lines or occur on federal property but if a crime is committed solely in one state, it is the laws of that state, not federal law that takes precedence which is why each state has its own court system, independent of the federal judiciary. In addition, this part generally outlines that all criminal trials must be done by a jury. This is constitutional and comes in the section before courts are defined separately between the states, therefore, in my opinion, it follows that it applies to the states as well. Now, the final section of article 3:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
What is this saying, really? Obviously it defines treason. Based on the constitutional definition, the word treason gets thrown around an awful lot by both parties in cases where it is clear it is not. In fact, treason is intentionally defined very narrowly because the founders had seen it used to justify all sorts of heinous acts under the monarchy. However, there are a few other things to note. For instance, to be convicted, there must be two witnesses. This is required. No ifs, ands or buts, except confession in open court (who is stupid enough to do that?). Finally, Congress determines the punishment for treason but what does this final clause mean? The framers also had cause to worry about treasonous acts being blamed on an entirely family or group and so they wrote it into the constitution that treason could not include "corruption of blood," or that the children and relatives of the traitor not be considered traitorous simply by relation. In addition, the "no forfeiture" clause basically means that once the traitor dies, "payment" for the crime ends. This is all pretty simple and the judicial branches independence under the constitution is important for our freedoms, when the judiciary chooses to enforce the law and not create law. Of course, any time the court acts on something, Congress can override it unless it is specifically prohibited them in the constitution. This doesn't usually happen.
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
So, what does this say about judges and our courts? Well, it is pretty clear. All judicial power lies within the courts and those courts are made up of the Supreme Court and any other court Congress chooses to define. This does not include state courts which deal with state laws but only the federal court system. So, as an aside, if Congress were truly upset with Bush for using military tribunals or secret courts to try terrorists at Guantanamo or anywhere else, it is the Congress and only the Congress that has the power to establish a court to carry out these trials. Hmm... why didn't they do it then? Oh wait, they did and they still want to say that these trials are shams. So, the judiciary branch did its job here by saying the executive was overstepping its authority and the Congress did its job by establishing a court to do this job, but somewhere along the lines, the current courts became vilified due to their supposed association with the Bush administration when in fact, they were established by Congress. Huh. Now, off my soapbox, what else does this article say? Basically, that judges can't receive a pay cut while in office and they can't break the law (good behavior). Pretty simple. Now for section 2:
(The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.) (This section in parentheses is modified by the 11th Amendment.)
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
The first part of this section clearly outlines the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. This has been altered by the 11th amendment, so we'll revisit this section obviously.
The second part of this section, what constitutes original jurisdiction versus what constitutes appellate jurisdiction is differentiated with the caveat that Congress can regulate exceptions to this. This seems like a clear indication that Congress could have regulated away the concept of judicial review a long time ago if they really didn't want it. Sure, history records there was some grumbling about this, but Congress clearly had authority over this matter and they didn't exercise it, so judicial review stays, along with a lot of other jurisdictional issues.
The third part here clearly delineates the federalist concept. Congress shall create courts to deal with issues that cross state lines or occur on federal property but if a crime is committed solely in one state, it is the laws of that state, not federal law that takes precedence which is why each state has its own court system, independent of the federal judiciary. In addition, this part generally outlines that all criminal trials must be done by a jury. This is constitutional and comes in the section before courts are defined separately between the states, therefore, in my opinion, it follows that it applies to the states as well. Now, the final section of article 3:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
What is this saying, really? Obviously it defines treason. Based on the constitutional definition, the word treason gets thrown around an awful lot by both parties in cases where it is clear it is not. In fact, treason is intentionally defined very narrowly because the founders had seen it used to justify all sorts of heinous acts under the monarchy. However, there are a few other things to note. For instance, to be convicted, there must be two witnesses. This is required. No ifs, ands or buts, except confession in open court (who is stupid enough to do that?). Finally, Congress determines the punishment for treason but what does this final clause mean? The framers also had cause to worry about treasonous acts being blamed on an entirely family or group and so they wrote it into the constitution that treason could not include "corruption of blood," or that the children and relatives of the traitor not be considered traitorous simply by relation. In addition, the "no forfeiture" clause basically means that once the traitor dies, "payment" for the crime ends. This is all pretty simple and the judicial branches independence under the constitution is important for our freedoms, when the judiciary chooses to enforce the law and not create law. Of course, any time the court acts on something, Congress can override it unless it is specifically prohibited them in the constitution. This doesn't usually happen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)