Sociology > Education > to believe in justice requires that one believe in the inalienable rights of the individual
| Topic: |
Sociology > Education |
| User: |
"Dana" |
| Date: |
27 Aug 2003 11:18:26 PM |
| Object: |
to believe in justice requires that one believe in the inalienable rights of the individual |
A Few Words About Liberals
by Edward L. Daley
Judge Moore is not the Congress, nor is he establishing religion. Welcome to
the liberal version of the Constitution.
Like most people who watch the nightly news, I've been following the story
of Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore this week, and his struggle with higher
authorities to keep a Ten Commandments monument on display at the Supreme
Court building in that state. At first I was going to write an article
specifically concerning this story, but it wasn't long before I concluded
that the so called "separation of church and state" issue was not what I
really wanted to discuss--at least not entirely. I'm sure there are a
thousand people out there writing op-eds about Judge Moore's tribulations,
so I'll leave that particular case to them. I will, however, say this: our
federal Constitution relates that the U.S. Congress is prohibited from
making laws that concern an establishment of religion or that prevent people
from practicing the religion of their choice.
That seems pretty straightforward doesn't it? I mean, I didn't have to read
the words "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion" twice to understand that they mean exactly what they say. I take
them literally, but apparently liberals interpret this aspect of the First
Amendment in a somewhat different way. They obviously believe those words to
mean that the people of a particular state should not be allowed to exhibit
any religious text or symbol on public property, even though that property
may have nothing to do with Congress. It also doesn't seem to matter to them
that the simple act of displaying something like the Ten Commandments does
not equate to actually establishing a religion.
This should come as no surprise to anyone familiar with the convoluted logic
of those who call themselves liberals though. After all, these are the same
people who believe that the abortion issue is exclusively about a woman's
right to choose what she can do with her own body, hence their use of the
term 'pro choice.' It apparently never occurs to the liberal mind that the
other human body involved might be something to consider as well, or that
the obvious question to be asked is when does a fetus become a human life,
worthy of the same protections as every other individual. Not to burrow too
deeply into this particular subject, but in my opinion, the people who wish
to commit abortion should be required to prove beyond all reasonable doubt
that even a one-day-old fetus is not a human life before they kill it, since
it is inarguable that at some as yet undetermined point in our development
all of us become human beings, and simply taking a wild guess at when that
moment in time maybe isn't consistent with the concept of justice.
Then again, expecting liberals to embrace true justice is rather like
expecting chickens to start laying square eggs. They're just not built that
way. You see, to believe in justice requires that one believe in the
inalienable rights of the individual. With those rights comes personal
responsibility, and justice is concerned with holding individuals
responsible for their actions. Liberals are not prone to individualism, and
the concept of personal accountability almost seems repugnant to
them--unless it's a Republican being held to account. They are, in many
ways, more likened to pack animals than human beings, because they tend to
think in terms of groups, not individuals. That is why it's difficult not to
regard them in that very manner, as a group. They seem to view everyone else
that way, so that's the way they should be viewed in my opinion.
Think about it, have you ever noticed that whenever liberals concoct a plan
that ostensibly promotes fairness and equality, it usually begins with the
identification of everyone involved by their race, sex, religion, political
affiliation or whatever aspect is the most divisive at the time? You're
never just a person to them, you're a stereotype to be labeled and
manipulated. You are rewarded with freebies at the expense of other people
when you agree with them, and punished with character assassination when you
don't. Your individuality is a threat to their world view, and they cannot
afford to let the well of collectivism be poisoned by droplets of
non-conformity.
Keep in mind though that liberals are not necessarily stupid, far from it.
Some of them are very smart indeed, a few having matured into outspoken and
truly brilliant advocates of liberty. Take David Horowitz for example. This
is a man who was as radical a leftist as any of his generation. He was a
Communist who was raised by Communists to be a Communist, yet at some point
in his life he came to realize the folly inherent in that system of beliefs.
No one I know well would seriously assert that he is an idiot, and neither
are many other people I've come to accept in my life who are liberals to
this day. No, the deficit of the liberal lies not in his mind, but in his
personality. Generally speaking, liberals are, to use the vernacular,
control freaks. They are so sure their ideas are the right ones that they
feel compelled to force everyone else to accept them. They genuinely want to
SAVE you from yourself. They are every bit the crusaders that televangelists
are, only instead of Christianity, their religion is Communism, and to them,
hell is the rejection by the masses of their dogma.
Liberals want you to accept what they say at face value and respect what
they do without carefully considering the destructive practices they adopt
or the divisive rhetoric they utter. They expect you to understand that,
because they feel their motives are virtuous, you would have to be a cretin
not to want to follow them blindly down whichever road they choose to lead
you. They believe in parental figures controlling everyone else's lives,
which is why they're so popular with people who think of themselves as
victims in life. Victims need protectors, and who better to protect you than
your parents? The liberal masses seem to want to be told what to do and how
to live, and this is where the leftist mommy and daddy figures come in.
Whatever is wrong in your life can be made right, but not by you, but by the
pseudo-intellectuals who make up the liberal elite. And believe me, they are
more than happy to oblige their followers on that score. You will be granted
every sort of entitlement and be taken care of from cradle to grave just as
long as you let them control everything.
The leaders of the leftist movement "feel your pain" and will gladly relieve
you of the burden of being responsible for yourself. Of course, they also
want to relieve you of your guns and any other weapons you may have which
could potentially be used against them. They may seem portentous or
condescending but they're not really. They're just right, so don't go
thinking you know better than they do about the way things should be. They
will feel perfectly justified in saying and doing the most hateful things to
you if you dare to stand up to them, because to these ideologues you are
like a belligerent child. You need to be corrected, and correct you they
will if given half the chance. After all, it's for your own good.
--
"The Declaration of Independence... [is the] declaratory charter of our
rights, and the rights of man."
-- Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), 3rd President of the United States
(1801-1809)
.
|
|
| User: "Yossarian" |
|
| Title: Re: to believe in justice requires that one believe in the inalienable rights of the individual |
28 Aug 2003 07:27:17 PM |
|
|
That seems pretty straightforward doesn't it? I mean, I didn't have to
read
the words "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion" twice to understand that they mean exactly what they say. I take
them literally, but apparently liberals interpret this aspect of the First
Amendment in a somewhat different way.
If you only want to look at the the Bill of Rights as concerns religion and
speech as a federal document and not as a state level directive, then states
can theoretically have their own supported religions, and can enact laws at
the state level against seditious libel as well as obscenity. This is the
Borkian construct of the Constitution. But Federal precedent and tradition
over 200 years of rulings has established that States must also live up to
Federal standards as concerns the 1st amendment.
As for the Patriot Act, with a strcit reading of the 5th amendment, it does
not say a citizen deserves due proces, but it reads instead that a person
deserves due process to trial and so forth. So the Patriot Act is
unconstitutional. If you read the Constitution with strict construction in
mind, then you cannot accept one amendment with strict rigor while loosely
trying to get around the other for political convenience. Your stand would
have no integrity if you take such a course.
Yossarian
.
|
|
|
| User: "Yossarian" |
|
| Title: Re: to believe in justice requires that one believe in the inalienable rights of the individual |
29 Aug 2003 12:25:03 AM |
|
|
"Bob LeChevalier" <> wrote in message
news:53mtkvkvb8fqlrfrao8326rdvfbqlo7dj9@4ax.com...
"Yossarian" <Yossarian@nulldevice.com> wrote:
That seems pretty straightforward doesn't it? I mean, I didn't have to
read
the words "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion" twice to understand that they mean exactly what they say. I
take
them literally, but apparently liberals interpret this aspect of the
First
Amendment in a somewhat different way.
If you only want to look at the the Bill of Rights as concerns religion
and
speech as a federal document and not as a state level directive, then
states
can theoretically have their own supported religions, and can enact laws
at
the state level against seditious libel as well as obscenity. This is the
Borkian construct of the Constitution. But Federal precedent and
tradition
over 200 years of rulings has established that States must also live up
to
Federal standards as concerns the 1st amendment.
There is also the 14th amendment which says that people may not be
deprived of life, liberty and property without due process, coupled
with a guarantee that the states will uphold the rights and privileges
of citizens.
The first amendment represents a dichotomy. It explicitly prevents
Congress from interfering with things that we call "rights" (as in
Bill of ...). The rights themselves have to be inferred from the
amendment that disallows "abridgement" or "prohibition" of the various
rights. So there are some rights, and then a ban on certain
interference with those rights.
The 9th amendment also refers to and guarantees rights that are not
explicitly listed in the Constitution
The 14th guarantees the states must uphold RIGHTS of the constitution;
it does not say that they must uphold the text of the 1st amendment.
The "right" that accompanies the establishment clause is NOT the
"right not to have Congress establish religion"; the right is the
right not to have government-imposed or supported religion.
In all truth I wish the 1st amendment was more inclusive in saying all
government could not establish a religion or abridge freedom of speech.
Frighteningly enough, the Supreme Court during the term of 1798-1800 upheld
the Anti-Sedition law put forth by Adams administration. In fact before the
Civil War there was very little recognition of freedon of expression at the
state level. Additionally Congregationalist ministers will still collecting
taxes on Massachusettes citizens during the 1810's. Some farmers had their
cattle siezed for not paying their church "taxes/dues" by these churchmen.
The 9th amendment is a mixed picture in that it can give states rights that
impede the liberties of its citizens. The general trend has been mildly
liberalizing as it concerns peronal liberties up until 1976 with the ruling
that the death penalty was not cruel and unusual. But in general court
rulings trend toward giving corporations greater liberty than labor unions.
It will always be a fight as far as liberty is concerned, for I believe that
the first 10 amendments can vastly be transmorgified as far as probable
cause, reasonableness, and governmental jurisdictions as concerned.
Yossarian
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Buttmaster Dana requires that one believe in the inalienable rights of the individual |
28 Aug 2003 04:27:20 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 19:22:24 -0800, "Dana" <yourname@example.com> wrote:
---------------------------------------------------
ladies use my tongue for your pleasure
</groups?q=author:danaraffaniello%40worldnet.
att.net&start=210&hl=en&lr=&ie=UT>F-8&selm=
63j187%24nji%40bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net&rnum=226>
swm very oral will orally worship any female that wishes to be worshipped.
will kiss and lick your feet and butt .
might be wiling to be your toilet paper if you
are that aggressive
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
