Freedom and prepositions

Posted on November 4, 2009 by Michael

The First Amendment reads, in part, as follows.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

This necessarily entails freedom from religion. There’s a growing number of morons who have absolutely no concept of grammar or how to interpret texts with historical and logical context.

Here’s the jist: the religidiots believe that ‘freedom of religion’ means that the constitution was intended to allow people to worship without government interference, but that that concept only goes one way; they think religious interference in government is okay, just not the other way around. There’s an unspeakable poverty in this sort of infantile thinking.

It is not possible for a government to be subject to religious interference while simultaneously allowing its people to worship (or not worship) as they see fit. If one group instills its religious beliefs into law (as just happened here in Maine), then that belief is obviously placed upon all people of all religions. It shouldn’t be hard to make the connections now, but I will do it just in case any “Yes on 1” supporters are reading this: my religious choices (or lack thereof) cannot be freely made because one group has told me, based upon religion, that I cannot behave, act, think, or otherwise do as I personally see fit in accordance with my own beliefs. That means that I no longer have any freedom of religion because, through interference in our secular government, I am not free from religion.

It’s that fucking simple.

Filed under: Politics and Social | Tagged: | Leave a comment »

Question 1

Posted on November 3, 2009 by Michael

The results for question 1 will be coming in soon and I hope my home state is smart enough to not discriminate against an entire group of people. However, if bigotry and a disregard for civil liberties do prevail, it will not be the end of the world. This issue will return soon enough. That’s how it was with Maine’s law that bans discrimination in employment, housing, education, and a few others things based upon sexual orientation. It took the better part of a decade until people realized, ‘Hey, it is illegitimate to fire, say, an accountant because she’s gay’, but it happened.

If the drive for equal rights fails due to the blinding hatred of religious institutions, it will not be the last the state hears of the issue.

Filed under: Politics and Social | Tagged: , | Leave a comment »

How they want to define marriage

Posted on November 3, 2009 by Michael

The far-right, radical conservatives want to define marriage as a privilege between heterosexuals. If marriage is a privilege and not a right, it is then subject to the whims of the majority, not any guiding principle(s). These people are either too stupid, too ignorant, too blind, or too narrow-minded to recognize that such a definition affects the marriages of all people.

Filed under: Politics and Social | Tagged: | Leave a comment »

Helping the 'Yes on 1' campaign

Posted on October 26, 2009 by Michael

Helping the ‘Yes on 1’ campaign with its ads.

The Maine Attorney General and commissioner of Education have determined the “Yes on 1” ads asserting that legalizing gay marriage will lead to gay marriage being taught in Maine schools to be a load of … um … manure.

With that in mind, perhaps we should help the “Yes” campaign with ideas for more credible and compelling campaign strategies.

Here are my three:

* Ad 1: Scary snarling (but well-coiffed) men ripping kittens from children’s hands and biting off their heads. Soundtrack (deep male voice): “If gays are allowed to marry, they will eat your children’s pets.”

* Ad 2: Burly women in plaid shirts and work boots with short hair laughing while throwing nasty looking powders into lakes and streams. Maine forest ranger with crooked mustache appears in foreground (ranger played by female private Christian school teacher with glued-on facial hair). Soundtrack (woman trying to imitate a man): “If homosexuals are allowed to marry, lesbians will poison your water supply.”

* Ad 3: Mother and child running back and forth, frantically dodging lightning and blue-gray blocks of unknown substance. Soundtrack (pitiful child’s voice, choking back sobs): “Mommy, is the sky falling because the homosexuals are allowed to get married?”

I’m betting the actual ads in the final weeks of the “Yes” campaign will make these look tame.

Perhaps we should just vote “no” on Question 1 and send the message that spreading manure should really be an agricultural pursuit rather than a political one.

Mark Nordberg

Litchfield

Filed under: Politics and Social | Tagged: , | Leave a comment »

Helping the ‘Yes on 1’ campaign

Posted on October 26, 2009 by Michael

Helping the ‘Yes on 1’ campaign with its ads.

The Maine Attorney General and commissioner of Education have determined the “Yes on 1” ads asserting that legalizing gay marriage will lead to gay marriage being taught in Maine schools to be a load of … um … manure.

With that in mind, perhaps we should help the “Yes” campaign with ideas for more credible and compelling campaign strategies.

Here are my three:

* Ad 1: Scary snarling (but well-coiffed) men ripping kittens from children’s hands and biting off their heads. Soundtrack (deep male voice): “If gays are allowed to marry, they will eat your children’s pets.”

* Ad 2: Burly women in plaid shirts and work boots with short hair laughing while throwing nasty looking powders into lakes and streams. Maine forest ranger with crooked mustache appears in foreground (ranger played by female private Christian school teacher with glued-on facial hair). Soundtrack (woman trying to imitate a man): “If homosexuals are allowed to marry, lesbians will poison your water supply.”

* Ad 3: Mother and child running back and forth, frantically dodging lightning and blue-gray blocks of unknown substance. Soundtrack (pitiful child’s voice, choking back sobs): “Mommy, is the sky falling because the homosexuals are allowed to get married?”

I’m betting the actual ads in the final weeks of the “Yes” campaign will make these look tame.

Perhaps we should just vote “no” on Question 1 and send the message that spreading manure should really be an agricultural pursuit rather than a political one.

Mark Nordberg

Litchfield

Filed under: Politics and Social | Tagged: , | Leave a comment »

Tremendous honesty

Posted on October 25, 2009 by Michael

I have lately found myself hammering people with certain points. See, it is one of the most common tactics to ignore the points of an argument that are inconvenient, so I have found it expedient to only address counter-arguments as long as I also include my most important issues. Namely, I have been presenting Yes on Oppression people (those who seek to deny rights to people by outlawing same-sex marriage in Maine) with a scenario. Since I keep hammering the point, it comes in a few different forms, but it is to this effect:

A group says public prayer is immoral. They are a majority and have codified their morality into law. They have violated your concept of morality. Do they have this right?

Other forms involve me specifically saying ‘Humanists have deemed public prayer immoral (for whatever reason) and they have a majority. With this majority they outlaw public prayer on a moral basis. Have they stampeded over your rights or not?’

The point is that if the person answers that, yes, the hypothetical humanists have trampled the rights of others, then it isn’t logically tenable to say that morality is the core issue. That is how it has been framed by the humanists, but it is not the important reason why their actions are wrong. They can always maintain that public prayer is immoral. To force everyone else to acquiesce to that position, however, is absurdly wrong. It demonstrates no understanding, or at least no concern, for the rights of individuals.

Well, it’s obvious I set up my scenario as a sort of trap. Obviously I know what the response is going to be, so once I get it I can just connect the dots to same-sex marriage. Right? Nope. Here’s the response I got from one person.

You asked me if I would make you a deal… If I would not impose my morality on you if [sic] you would not impose your morality on me. Right? I think I got it close… well thats [sic] a bad deal for me. I want to impose my morality on you. I want to impose my morality on Maine and America. Im [sic] thinking world domination. Why? Because the reality of sola scriptura (the truth of scripture) burns in my heart. I don’t take it as a good idea but the entire purpose of my being. And Christ’s last command to me through scripture was “Go fourth into all the world and disciple nations”… disciple aka teach them what I taught you. Christianity and its morals was never meant to be a “laid back for whoever wants to believe it” religion, but was to go to every ear, and invade society and government and culture as we know it.

Now I am not some radical terrorist Christian, I have just been possessed by the truth and I will lay my life down for the cause of that truth. I will lay my life down for the homosexual to come into the saving knowledge of Jesus, to see them saved, healed, and delivered. Because I absolutely love them, because God loves them.

So I know you wont understand why I do what I do, and stand for what I stand for, I cannot not be talked out of my stance, because I have been possessed by the truth of scripture, and its the greatest reality I live in. Not once have I emailed a homosexual and tried to talk them out of their lifestyle. Not once have I asked you to vote differently than you are planning to vote.

I love you man, now leave me alone.

Emphasis mine.

The honesty is, frankly, frightening. This person believes his morality should usurp my freedoms. This sort of talk is more well-suited for the Middle Ages or the Middle East than 21st America. But the most terrifying thing of all is that this view isn’t so uncommon. Sure, quite a few people won’t be so daring as to outright state hostility toward personal liberties like this, but that is what close to 50% of Mainers (hopefully less) will do November 3rd.

My favorite part, however, is the last paragraph.

Not once have I emailed a homosexual and tried to talk them out of their lifestyle. Not once have I asked you to vote differently than you are planning to vote.

This is far from the point. Trying to convince someone of something through words is far different from what the Yes on 1 people want to do. “Please don’t have sex with other men, sir” is not the same as saying “You are not allowed to do X.” What’s more, if this person had his way, “X” would not only include marriage, but homosexual sex (and probably anything outside the missionary position), not to mention whatever other harmless action his god tells him to hate.

~~~

Update: I came across this written on another person’s page by the same person.

regardless of your belief everyone has an opportunity to vote for what they believe to be right, thank you bill of rights… unless you want to remove that freedom than let the man stand for his convictions.

The Bill of Rights says nothing of what he speaks. In fact, the 9th Amendment destroys his unsubstantial case where it says The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. His right to vote does not mean he should also be allowed to piss all over the rights of people who wish to marry another person of the same sex.

Filed under: Politics and Social | Tagged: , , | Leave a comment »

Rights and why they matter

Posted on October 25, 2009 by Michael

I have found descriptions of this blog and myself on the Internet where I am labelled a defender of gay rights. That is only superficially true. I am no less a defender of gay rights than I am a defender of straight rights. It is the same fight.

That said, here is a piece I’ve written specifically for those likely to vote Yes on 1 on the upcoming ballot in Maine.

~~~

I want you to really consider the concept of rights. They are far more important than any personal beliefs one may hold insofar as government is concerned. You violate one individual’s rights and you’ve violated the rights of all people.

James Madison espoused a separation of church and state in much the same manner as Thomas Jefferson. He is recorded as expressing these views in these Congressional minutes,

Mr. Madison said, he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience.

And we can go one step further into Madison’s mind with more recordings from the same session,

Mr. Madison thought, if the word national was inserted before religion, it would satisfy the minds of honorable gentlemen. He believed that the people feared one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combine together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform. He thought if the word national was introduced, it would point the amendment directly to the object it was intended to prevent.

It’s hard to see how a reasonable person could misinterpret this. Madison obviously rejected the notion that religious beliefs should be codified into law, thus establishing them as the moral directives of other individuals. That is, religious beliefs should not be made law because that essentially makes government an enforcer of religion – and that is far from its role. Good government doesn’t dictate morality.

Moving beyond Madison, a discussion of the concept of rights needs to happen. What is a right? A succinct definition is hard to formulate, but I think a good idea can be created. Something which does not infringe upon another’s rights should be a right. This alone isn’t much of a definition because it assumes the existence of rights, the very thing we want to define. But within a certain context it does give a good approximation of what a right should be; we already have established rights (free speech, religious beliefs, protest, etc), so assuming we agree on many of those, we can ask ourselves, does X infringe upon these? If the answer is “no”, then there’s a good chance that X is a right.

But more is needed. I think it is eminently appropriate to include safety and security as one defining piece of rights. Does X cause bodily harm to me or others? Does it cause me undue financial hardships? Does it put me at risk of life or health? If the answer is “no”, we again have another good indicator that X is a right.

I hope it hasn’t escaped anyone that the previous two paragraphs are speaking of natural rights. These are rights which extend to all peoples, not merely Americans or Europeans or Russians or any one particular group. They are effectually based upon the idea that rights are to be based upon humanity and the human condition (which may extend to other animals, but I digress).

So why are rights so important? I think it should be obvious. If a society (or the world as a whole) goes about imposing restrictions upon minorities or the meek, then the statement that some people are not equal to others is being made. This seems like nothing less than a superiority complex manifested.

Yet restrictions go beyond this statement of superiority. They implicitly say any group can be superior to another. The reasoning behind the superiority isn’t important (whether from religious doctrine or philosophical notions). What matters is that (usually unknowingly) there are people who do not accept the idea that rights are universal. They can’t. They believe that the very concept of rights can be ignored if it runs counter to some other line of thought. Does Religion X say public prayer is immoral? If so and if Religion X’s followers are a majority, they can stampede the rights of those who wish to publicly pray. This can only be because the teachings of Religion X are being claimed to be superior to the rights of others. And this can only be true if rights are not universal and if we agree that morality trumps individual rights. I, for one, disagree.

Filed under: Politics and Social | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a comment »

Making the pleas

Posted on October 25, 2009 by Michael

I’ve been pleading with people who I suspect or know will vote “Yes” on 1, the Maine ballot measure that would codify one group’s idea of morality over another, thus damaging the very concept of rights (and, incidentally, keeping it illegal for same-sex partners to marry). Here is one message I made specifically for someone, but it can apply to anyone leading toward oppression.

Even though I’m unlikely to change your mind if you’ve already decided, I still want you to know that no one should impose their morality upon another. That is what “Yes on 1” means. It doesn’t simply mean you are against homosexual sex or relationships. It means you believe it is your place to tell people how they should behave. Look deep within yourself and ask if your rights are being infringed by same-sex marriage. Ask yourself if you will hurt financially or physically. Ask yourself if your religious beliefs can no longer be practiced. Ask yourself if this harms your liberty or life. Does it prevent your personal pursuit of happiness?

As November nears I find myself getting more and more passionate and more and more focused on this issue. I give almost no thought any more to whether or not love matters. I care little about whether or not homosexual sex is moral or immoral (or amoral). What concerns me – and far more deeply than anyone knows – is that this is fundamentally about rights. Infringe upon the rights of one group and you no longer have those rights for any groups; they become privileges. They place one group above another based upon majority rule, not based upon equality and fairness. Rights must be rights for all.

Filed under: Politics and Social | Tagged: , , , | Leave a comment »

Sometimes they get it right

Posted on October 18, 2009 by Michael

While many people obviously put little thought into their letters to the editor, that isn’t true of everyone. Here is one example.

Today, I read a front-page article called “Changing the Law” and I decided to take a stand in Question 1 debate.

Your article noted two important factors in the debate, and I have a comment about each.

To Mainers I ask: Why do we allow tax-exempt status to an organization that collects political contributions alongside donations to the ministry? It sounds to me that the Catholic Church has abused its influence and blurred the line between worship and activism. I also ask the church, why do you ignore your members who share a different view, who accept homosexual marriage as a civil right, separate from faith?

A second factor is the influence of out-of-state groups. Why don’t we agree to keep the debate local? We don’t want transplant volunteers from Massachusetts or New Hampshire just like we don’t want copy-cat advertisements from California scare groups.

When we vote on Nov. 3, let’s remember what makes us Mainers: We respect everyone in our community; we do things our own way; we value reason over rancor; and we don’t vote on other peoples’ rights.

This November, please vote “no” on Question 1.

Padric Gleason

Dresden

I recently wrote about the Catholic Church abusing its tax-exempt status. Religions shouldn’t be exempt from taxation in the first place, but since they are, they should at least obey the law. Padric Gleason understands that; his comments deserve respect.

Filed under: Politics and Social | Tagged: , | Leave a comment »

More letters to the editor

Posted on October 18, 2009 by Michael

Do people put thought into what they write before sending their letters off to the editor?

I was reading Vivian Ellis’ letter (Oct. 11) regarding Judge Nancy Mills conduct in regards to the Leo Hylton trial for the house break-in and assault on the Guerrette family: “…He should be comfortable with his legal defense.”

Yeah, right! This travesty of justice is an old story with Judge Mills. Her typical sentencing is of the “20 years, all but 2 suspended…” variety.

How do we get rid of these liberal judges and replace them with judges with some spine? I do not know the answer, perhaps someone can shed some light on this subject. This business of letting murderers go free after 15 or 20 years is another example of the failure of our judicial system. The bleeding heart reply to stiffer sentences is, “the jails and prisons are overcrowded.”

Build more and bigger jails, get rid of the cable TVs, commissary, freebie this and freebie that, etc. In my opinion, jails and prisons should not have the “country club” status they have now. That’s a big part of the problem. Check out Sheriff Joe Arpaio in Arizona. Here’s a guy that’s tuned into reality!

Convicted murderers and sex offenders: Issue brown uniforms, glue antlers on their heads and turn them loose into the woods next month! Those that make it get to serve out their sentence.

Finally, what ever happened to the concept of a speedy trial? Lawyer shenanigans can result in a wait of two years, maybe more, for a case to come to trial.

Robert Schena

Whitefield

I almost wrote about the referenced letter last week. I decided against it because I told myself most people don’t buy into such inanity. I guess I was wrong.

Quick summary: Guy machete’s a family (which survives). He gets a lawyer. Recently, he asked for a different one and his request was granted. Some mook writes that this is absurd. Now we get the above letter.

Why don’t people understand that bar a few requirements, defendants have a choice in counsel? That anyone would think this absurd is tantamount to saying the Constitution is absurd. But my favorite part of this letter is the reference to a speedy trial. This concept specifically relates to the defendant. What Robert Schena suggests is that the state has a right to a speedy trial. At the very least his criticism should be that it is the fault of the state for allowing the defendant a new lawyer. This doesn’t mean the defendant should be denied his rights because the state is slow to act. To think otherwise is clearly illogical. Of course, this is all moot because Schena hides in language by referring to “lawyer shenanigans”, not any specific event. And if he is referencing this supposed “shenanigan”, then he is wrong. It doesn’t take years.

It’s utterly clear that these people who whine about this sort of thing are just emotional infants who have no concept of individual rights. ‘What? The bad guy wants something? Noooo! Waaaahhh!” Grow up, Schena.

Filed under: Politics and Social | Tagged: , | Leave a comment »

« Previous Page — Next Page »