:: KipperCat :: =^. .^=

:: Monday, June 04, 2007 ::

:: posted by JRH ::

We don't know where it starts, so where it ends gets easier

Ft. Worth, Texas: Police find the body of a newborn infant along the shore of Eagle Mountain Lake. They are looking for the mother and have asked the public to report anyone who may have recently given birth but has no child.

Pompano Beach, Florida: An 18 year old girl from Iowa gives birth in a hotel bathroom and tosses the baby in a trash chute where it falls 7 stories to its death.

These are not isolated incidents and they are the first shuch stories to be reported. They are becoming more common with each passing day. Such incidents indicate a growing disregard for the value of a human life that is the best argument I have seen against legalized abortion.

Since the passage of Roe v Wade, the argument as to when life begins has been continuous. But the lack of a clear answer has not stopped abortion proponents from pushing the limit as far as possible. Second trimester, third trimester, "partial birth" abortions make it clear that where life begins is not a concern. Is it any wonder that some mothers-to-be see nothing wrong with a "post-partum" abortion?

Labels: abortion

:: -- JRH 6/04/2007 04:43:00 PM [+] :: (0) comments
...

:: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 ::

:: posted by JRH ::

What Do We Mean by "Marriage"?

I was hoping that Tuesday's vote would allow Texans to demonstrate an intelligent understanding of the marriage issue. But we, as a state and as a nation, still don't seem to understand just what marriage is or should be.

Marriage in the US is not something that can rightfully be defined by law. Marriage, as practiced in the US, derives mainly from western European cultures in which church and state were inextricably linked. Rites and rules of the church had legal standing and the force of law (not that much different from some Islamic countries today). Marriage is such a religious rite with legal standing.

With the ratification of the 1st amendment, the US severed the connection between church and state but just what does that mean? As to marriage, it means marriage still has the status of a religious rite with legal standing, but it must also mean that the legal standing be separated from the religious rite and become a civil union created by law.

Churches may define marriage however they like and may withhold the rite from whomever they see fit. This is, under the 1st amendment, outside of the control of government. Likewise, government may recognize that the religious marriage rite conveys legal protections, but that rite should not be, and under the 1st amendment, cannot be, the only means of conveying such legal protections.

For this reason, marriage and civil unions have long existed separately even though both are called "marriage".

A marriage performed by a magistrate is not a religious rite, it is a civil act which establishes and conveys legal protections. These legal protections are the same as those recognized by law and custom as being created by the religious rite of marriage, but we make a big mistake in calling the civil ceremony a marriage. It is a civil union, and as such, it must apply to all citizens equally as all citizens are entitled to equal protection of the laws.

Marriage is a rite of the church. Civil unions are created and recognized by law. Under the 1st amendment, civil law cannot define a rite of the church, and a rite of the church cannot have the force of law. But the law can accept a rite of the church as having a legally defined standing and has done so many times. So a marriage can create a civil union, but a civil union cannot create a marriage.

Just what legal protections may exist in a civil union is a legislative issue. Perhaps since two people of opposite sex are required to create a child, a state may legislate that only opposite sex couples may adopt children. Or civil unions could be recognized by federal and/or state law for purely economic, non-sexual purposes.

However civil unions are defined, any law or state constitution that denies the legal status of civil union on the basis of a religious definition of marriage is a violation of the 1st and 14th amendments. And any law or state constitution that denies a civil union to any adult on the basis of race, sex or religious affiliation is violation of the 1st, 14th, 15th, 19th, and 26th amendments.

I have no problem with churches defining marriage. Any minister who does not want to perform a same-sex marriage because it violates his/her religious beliefs may refuse. I do have a problem with anyone imposing these or any other religious beliefs on others in ways that clearly deny equal protection of the law to all citizens.

:: -- JRH 11/09/2005 07:15:00 PM [+] :: (0) comments
...

:: Monday, August 11, 2003 ::

:: posted by John ::

Never too Early

Ok, all you fellow baby-boomers; and the “x’s & y’s” behind us; it is time to get up off our duffs and get with the program. You know, the one that your school system inflicted on you a long time ago called “Civics”. Yes, that’s the one where we were told how our government worked, separation of powers, Executive, Legislative & Judicial, the Constitution… yes, I am beginning to see a dim light back there. Some of you remember at least having something about that on your high school credits when you graduated.

Now it is execution time. For the next fifteen or so months, we as a nation are going to see the increasing “gearing up” process that attends every presidential year election. This year, I am going to make a few suggestions toward the process in a hope of making the entire process a little more meaningful for us all.
I am NOT going to push anyone toward any party or candidate; my purposes are different than that. My purpose is to put a little more emphasis on where you, dear reader, fall within that process and why it is important that you understand your roll.

If you are twenty-one years of age, not currently or previously incarcerated for a crime and a citizen of the country; you are most likely eligible to vote. First, you must register. If you have not; do it and do it this week. Don’t put it off and don’t make excuses. Of the many rights and privileges accorded you under our system of government, this is perhaps the single most important – your say in the entire set up. So, don’t put it off. If you are in doubt as to “how” to do this; speak to your local post office or contact either of the major political parties. You will find them all eager to assist you in becoming registered.

Once you are registered, your life should become somewhat more complicated. I say “should” since empirical evidence seems to indicate that most voters regard our election process as a large-scale equivalent of the old high school student president process and never seem to really believe that it is NOT a popularity contest between candidates or parties. What is involved is how the government (from your city, county & state through the Federal government in Washington) is going to be run and who is going to run it. Each party and candidate wants your vote and will do their best to tell you “why” you should support he or she and/or their political party in their pursuit of election. Listen to what they say; but if you really want to get a close on look – read what they say! Read their speeches, go on-line (if you have no access of your own, the library is open most of the time… and they have computers for you to use too!) and see what their political party says about the candidate and the parties stand on issues.

It is easy in our busy world, to let others do our thinking for us. Newscasters will tell you right after a speech, what a political figure said. I don’t know about you, but I have always regarded this as an insult. While not a genius, I like to believe that I have enough intellect to know what some one said while I was listening to it – I don’t need someone else to tell me what I heard or what it means and neither should you, dear readers. I can not a bit if you are liberal or conservative (or somewhere in between) Democrat or Republican (or a third-party supporter); you should have enough sense to know what you hear and what it means to you! And, if you are in doubt, go back to the printed or on-line resources. Read a “hard copy” that you can make notes on; find out what is being said and decide for yourself if you agree or not.

You’re too busy, right? You don’t have time to sort out the issues and candidates and what it is all about. It is easier to listen to the t.v. or radio and get the take on what is going on that way and then go to the polls. Or stay home, if you have decided that either (a) you don’t like anyone running or (b) your vote is not going to change anything so why take time out of your busy schedule over a “done deal”?

In this third year of the twenty-first century, we as a nation have become somewhat cynical about the political process and the new media. The press is either too liberal or too conservative and in any case all they are interested in is getting you to watch the news (or read it in the papers & magazines). As has been discussed elsewhere on this blog; there is no doubt that the news media has bias and want you to be influenced by them. Still, if you bring your brain to the table with you; you can start sorting out what is going on; like buying a care you don’t have to buy but you can listen and read. Myself, I prefer to read my news; it is easier for me to discern what the writers bias is and how it is slanting what I am reading. For the same reason, I rarely listen to speeches. I would rather read them. Reading a speech allows you to “digest” what a person said and what they are trying to persuade you to believe or accept.

But my vote really doesn’t matter. I hear that a lot. The nice thing about the last presidential election was how very close it was and how it boiled down to several thousand votes in Florida. That’s right, several thousand… that means a very few votes were being contested to decide “who” would be elected our president for the next four years. Your vote does count, and you should use it as often as you can; from election of the local dog catcher to your national leaders. But you don’t like any of the candidates. O.K. neither do I; I have been at odds with both the major political parties for about twenty years. You can either vote for the “lesser” of two evils, or select a third party candidate that comes closest to supporting those issues close to your own heart. If you vote the “lesser of two evils” method; always remember he or she will be coming back for re-election and if they did not deliver what you expected, you should try to put someone else in their place.

I will pontificate more on this as elections and primaries come closer. But for now, go and register and start educating yourself about what the issues and candidates are. That, my dear readers is YOUR responsibility in this system. To be an “informed electorate”. If you want more details, I would suggest the United States Constitution as a good starting place.

:: -- John 8/11/2003 08:51:00 PM [+] :: (0) comments
...

:: Sunday, June 29, 2003 ::

:: posted by John ::

History: Why does the Textbook Keep Changing?

I haven’t had a chance to get my hands on the latest history text being studied for adoption in Texas yet. Sight unseen, I am confident that they will be very different than the ones that I read while going through elementary and high school thirty plus years ago. I am equally certain that I will find elements that I have strong issue with. History is like that, a subject we all get a taste of (some like it most end up either hating it or at the very least very glad when they are done with it) and then get on with our lives. History, however, does not go away and when it raises it head everyone has an opinion even if not the best informed opinion on the subject.

The problem with history is that it is so alien to the hard sciences and mathematics. Science examines the framework and fabric of our universe; internally and externally. Mathematics provides one of the principal tools in these investigations. In both cases the broad outlines of “how” things are done and the meaning of what is discovered is generally accepted. The scientific method of inquiry holds sway over both realms. History is not like that; never has been never will be. The quest for “objective” history is more futile than the one for the Holy Grail; the Grail most likely existed (abet in a form unrecognizable to most of us). “Objective history is a scepter that has never existed no matter how hard the hand of human kind has tried to create it.

History is an interpretive discipline. A creditable writer of history researches “the facts”, and then proceeds to interpret what all the facts mean for the reader. I stress creditable and discipline in this process because there is a lot of “history” that is poor in its research and represents poorly organized opinion rather than useful interpretation. I’ll get back to these in a minute or so. Let’s look at facts; they are or should be the skeletal structure on which a reputable writer of history builds in order to have anything to interpret. For sake of discussion (someone else can bring in the dictictionaries) let me define a “fact” as it relates to history this way: something happened and multiple and diverse verification can be obtained and studied by anyone interested in doing so. Example: in 1648 the warring states of Europe signed the Treaty of Westphalia ending the Thirty Years war. Copies of the treaty still exist, so not only “who signed” but also what they signed is available for examination by anyone interested in doing so. In 1776, by act of Congress, the delegates in Philadelphia declared their independence from Britain, listing the reasons for this action. Both examples can be substanciated by anyone that cares to seek out the actual documents, or exact copies that can be read for study. Now, what do these two “facts” mean? Are the two related to each other in any way, and if so how and why? Determining that is interpretation; “what does it mean?”. This is where most of the arguments involving history start; what does it mean?

Taking the example of 1776 and our Declaration of Indpendence, this event has been interpreted and re-interpreted many times. Back nearly four decades ago, when I ran into this in high school American History, the whole thing was pretty clear cut. The colonies are seeking independence from the British Crown over lack of reprentation and taxation ("no taxation without representation"). Not much to argue about. I went off to college and the subject got boader and a little more complicated. At that time (the mid-sixties) the "ecconomic" school of history was in full swing and there were many well written articles and books stressing that the population most interested in independence were the merchants and investors (here) that were frustrated with British trade laws requiring all exports to go through England or one of the crown colonies. Not only was this costly, but it ment that the cargo was subject to British tarifs and trade laws. It was easier to smuggle and avoid the whole mess; and much more profitable! An expanded meaning was creeping into the "no taxation without representation". The motives of some of our prime movers in the American Revolution started to appear less noble and somewhat more self-serving. When this interpretation hit the school text books, about the time I did my studen teaching; it was not well received at all! Someone had snuck in and "changed" history.

This process continues. As new information becomes available and new scholars find different approaches to view "what happened", interpretation continues to changes. Recently, there was a brief blip in the press as the President and some of his chief associates began tossing around the expression "revisionest history". My take on that is "get used to it". Re-interpretation is an on-going process. What we should all hope for is that those the doe the writing and "revision" adhere to my first two requirements; discipline and fact. Discipline, to rigorously research the facts of currrent events and fact as that foundation on which interpretation is based. Without these two qualities, the product will only be uninformed opinion and best left for the radio and television talk shows that are longer on argument than they are on fact.

:: -- John 6/29/2003 05:51:00 PM [+] :: (0) comments
...

:: Thursday, June 26, 2003 ::

:: posted by JRH ::

Limits to freedom

Blogcritics.org are apparently upset about how the Secret Service is dealing with protesters at Pres. Bush's public appearances. You can read the whole thing here, but this passage jumped out at me:

In the letter to Ashcroft recently released, the members of Congress called the prosecution of Bursey for carrying his sign outside the designated free speech zone "a threat to the freedom of expression we should all be defending."

"As we read the First Amendment to the Constitution, the United States is a 'free speech zone.' In the United States, free speech is the rule, not the exception, and citizens' rights to express it do not depend on their doing it in a way the President finds politically amenable ... We ask that you make it clear that we have no interest as a government in 'zoning' Constitutional freedoms...

No interest in zoning Constitutional freedoms? Since when? It looks to me as if someone decided to interpret the Constitution with some consistancy for a change and read the First Amendment the same way the Second Amendment has been read for many years.

But they are actually right. There are no zones of Constitutional freedoms. Per the First Amendment, the entire United States is a free speech zone. And per the Second, it is a free to bear arms zone as well.

As we read the Second Amendment to the Constitution, the United States is a 'free to bear arms zone.' In the United States, the individual right to keep and bear arms is the rule, not the exception, and citizens' rights to bear arms do not depend on their doing it in a way that Sarah Brady or anyone else finds politically amenable.

:: -- JRH 6/26/2003 11:47:00 AM [+] :: (0) comments
...

:: Monday, June 23, 2003 ::

:: posted by JRH ::

Guns to blame?

Jeff has an interesting post over at Alphecca. After you read it, come back and read my comments below.

When I was a teenager (age 13 or 14) in Houston, Tx, I walked into a Western Auto, bought a .22 rifle and ammo and walked out. White Oak bayou was near my house and my friends and I regularly walked the mile or so carrying our .22s for an afternoon of plinking along the bayou after school. Lest anyone think that this was somewhere in the country, I lived inside Loop 610.

Was this legal? Buying the gun was. Owning the gun was. Shooting the gun inside the city limits was not. But we knew gun safety and shooting down into the bayou was safe so we never got into trouble. And we knew if we did get into trouble with the police, we would be in even more trouble with our parents.

Our parents raised us, taught us right and wrong, taught us correct behavior, and reinforced that teaching with discipline. Discipline was not a negotiation of what we could do an not do. It was rules of conduct with real consequences for breaking the rules. That is another big change. Kids today are not disciplined and the law often prevents parents from doing so effectively. As a result, kids often have little respect for their parents' authority and consequently, they learn little respect for any authority. This doesn't apply to all kids, but it applies to way too many.

:: -- JRH 6/23/2003 09:15:00 PM [+] :: (0) comments
...

:: Sunday, June 15, 2003 ::

:: posted by JRH ::

Terrorists Termites

The World Trade Center wasn't the first incident, nor the last, but it did inspire these words:

"We continue to pursue the terrorists in cities and camps and caves across the earth. We are joined by a great coalition of nations to rid the world of terror. And we will not allow any terrorist or tyrant to threaten civilization with weapons of mass murder. Now and in the future, Americans will live as free people, not in fear, and never at the mercy of any foreign plot or power.

"We have no intention of ignoring or appeasing history's latest gang of fanatics trying to murder their way to power.

"We will not relent until justice is done and our nation is secure. What our enemies have begun, we will finish." --President George W. Bush, 09-11-2002.

The USA, in good conscience and without hypocrisy, cannot ask that Israel do otherwise.

The Roadmap for Peace is a noble goal, but Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, and the other Palestinian terrorists organizations and those that support them and celebrate their actions are not just roadblocks on that road, they are landmines in a desert. They have to be cleared before the road can even be built.

The world may wish for peace in the Middle East. So what? The Palestinian terrortists wish for the complete destruction of Israel.

Abdel Aziz Rantisi, a hard-line Hamas leader, said Saturday his Islamic militant group would not halt its attacks against Israel.

"The word cease-fire is not in our dictionary, Resistance will continue until we uproot them from our home land."

Terrorists are like termites. You can't negotiate with termites. You can talk all you want, but all the while, they just keep chewing, chewing, chewing. Why? Because while your goal is to protect your house, the termites' goal is to consume it. You can't talk to termites, and if it is your house they are eating, you can't ignore them either. You have to exterminate them. Israel seems to understand this. After 9-11, I thought we had figured it out as well.

:: -- JRH 6/15/2003 12:01:00 AM [+] :: (0) comments
...