A law testing the new Supreme Court on upholding Roe v. Wade. Both houses of the South Dakota legislature have passed a bill that outlaws all abortions except those that save the life of the mother. A major point in this bill is that life begins at conception. There are no exceptions for the mothers health, rape, or incest.
I think you can all guess where I fall on this one. I'll post some more tomorrow on my reasonings.
Here's a shortcut to the bill.
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
Thursday, February 16, 2006
Wednesday, February 15, 2006
Georgia and the Ten Commandments
A lawmaker in Georgia, Tommy Benton, is trying to get posters of the ten commandments displayed in all county and municipal courthouses. Lawmakers in the Georgia House of Representatives have approved a bill (see http://www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/2005_06/fulltext/hb941.htm), which main purpose is "to recognize the religious heritage of America". It specifically mentions the display of 3 documents: the Mayflower Compact, the Ten Commandments, and the Declaration of Independence. In the words of the bill these three documents are "Public displays which acknowledge religious heritage".
The bill mainly does three things:
1. Directs the Secretary of State to prepare and distribute these displays to all counties and municipalities, at the Georgia taxpayer expense.
2. Authorizes these county and municipal governments to display them.
3. Directs the Attorney General to defend and bear costs of defending such actions.
Normally I wouldn't worry too much about this, but with the new U.S. Supreme Court makeup, it very well could get upheld. Talk about a waste of millions of dollars that could go to MUCH more useful purposes.
Here's why I don't think that the Ten Commandments offer any legitimate constitutional or legal historical context: Only 4 of the 10 commandments are law. Murder, stealing, adultery, and bearing false witness are all illegal, although adultery is not enforced, and bearing false witness is only illegal in court while under oath (arguably sometimes while under investigation). Those things also happen to be illegal in many other countries whose history have nothing to do with the ten commandments. These offenses are morally wrong whether any religion says so or not. In fact, doing some of the actions the commandments tell you not to do are actions that are protected by the Constitution! So the ten commandments are definitely no basis for the Constitution.
Do the commandments have historical significance in our society? Yes, definitely. But so does the bible, god, religion, and many other countless items. That doesn't mean any of them should be displayed in governmental institutions. This bill is just another way for over-zealous christians to impose their religion on others. We're back on a downhill slide here. Time will tell what direction this takes.
The bill mainly does three things:
1. Directs the Secretary of State to prepare and distribute these displays to all counties and municipalities, at the Georgia taxpayer expense.
2. Authorizes these county and municipal governments to display them.
3. Directs the Attorney General to defend and bear costs of defending such actions.
Normally I wouldn't worry too much about this, but with the new U.S. Supreme Court makeup, it very well could get upheld. Talk about a waste of millions of dollars that could go to MUCH more useful purposes.
Here's why I don't think that the Ten Commandments offer any legitimate constitutional or legal historical context: Only 4 of the 10 commandments are law. Murder, stealing, adultery, and bearing false witness are all illegal, although adultery is not enforced, and bearing false witness is only illegal in court while under oath (arguably sometimes while under investigation). Those things also happen to be illegal in many other countries whose history have nothing to do with the ten commandments. These offenses are morally wrong whether any religion says so or not. In fact, doing some of the actions the commandments tell you not to do are actions that are protected by the Constitution! So the ten commandments are definitely no basis for the Constitution.
Do the commandments have historical significance in our society? Yes, definitely. But so does the bible, god, religion, and many other countless items. That doesn't mean any of them should be displayed in governmental institutions. This bill is just another way for over-zealous christians to impose their religion on others. We're back on a downhill slide here. Time will tell what direction this takes.
Let the games begin, again...
Ok, so I think I've made a decision about blogging. I can't research the hell out of every subject I post on. I have quite a few drafts of blogs I started, but never finished due to lack of time to research. So I think from now on, I'll just post my opinion, and maybe from time to time, do a detailed blog. This should allow me to post much more often, if I can just post my opinion, maybe why I have it, and move on. So let the posting resume.
Wednesday, November 02, 2005
Sooo much to discuss
First, the new nominee for the Supreme Court, Samuel Alito. You can probably guess where my view of this is going. Now I'm not going to prejudge him, or say that the Senate democrats should filibuster, but many of the past rulings I've read concern me. Again, we'll see where this takes us, I'm sure I'll have much more commentary on it.
This leads us into the next subject: the far right pushing out Meirs' nomination. This gets me a little heated. I hadn't even made up my mind about her yet, and certainly we hadn't found out enough about her yet, to make any decisions. But the ultra conservative / Christian right thought she was too much of a gamble and put the pressure on. Whether she withdrew her nomination or was asked to withdraw it is pretty much irrelevant, in that it was the end result of that pressure (I guess it matters a little as to whether it was Bush that caved or her, but not really to the current subject). It just irks me that ...
I wish I had time to go into futher depth... I am seriously concerned about the direction the Supreme Court is headed.
This leads us into the next subject: the far right pushing out Meirs' nomination. This gets me a little heated. I hadn't even made up my mind about her yet, and certainly we hadn't found out enough about her yet, to make any decisions. But the ultra conservative / Christian right thought she was too much of a gamble and put the pressure on. Whether she withdrew her nomination or was asked to withdraw it is pretty much irrelevant, in that it was the end result of that pressure (I guess it matters a little as to whether it was Bush that caved or her, but not really to the current subject). It just irks me that ...
I wish I had time to go into futher depth... I am seriously concerned about the direction the Supreme Court is headed.
Friday, October 28, 2005
Slackin
I know, I know, I've been slackin. It's not that I didn't have the desire to post, trust me, it's a liberal's hay day in the news right now, it's just a time issue. I will try and catch up today and this weekend, so the wisdom will be flowing. :P
For a little humor that made my Friday, look at Steve's latest post (Oct 20th)
For a little humor that made my Friday, look at Steve's latest post (Oct 20th)
Wednesday, October 05, 2005
To be or not to be: that is the question.
Today's topic for post; state assisted suicide. Flowing from the previous topics, the Supreme Court is now considering this question. I have soooo much to say about this subject, as it touches on so many issues.
First off, let me say that I am undecided on the issue itself. Whether one should take their own life under the circumstances provided for by the Oregon law permitting it, I'm not sure. I know if I were in those circumstances, I would not, as I would fight for my life 'till my dying breath. However, if someone is of sound mind and does not want to suffer the last few months of their life, I do believe that is THEIR choice.
I find it hilarious that conservatives support smaller government until it comes to forcing their beliefs on others (there are exceptions, a few out there do support all forms of smaller government, but not the current administration). Basically what I think this boils down to is the Christian ideology the current administration is trying to force on us all. They believe that suicide, in any form, is wrong, and, according to most Christian denominations (among other religions), those who commit suicide will go to some form of hell. I can think of several situations where I might commit suicide, and it be the morally right thing to do (involving sacrifice for family, etc). So under my belief, not all suicide is wrong. That's my belief, and I'm not going to impose it on you. I may discuss it, debate it, or what have you, but no one, including myself, is morally right in imposing it. That is a decision anyone in their right mind (not depressed, insane, etc) has the right to make for themselves.
Now John Ashcroft says he is pursuing this, not for moral reasons, but for legal reasons having to do with the Controlled Substances Act. That's a big load of crap. If you read the CSA itself, here, or for a legal summary of it in the most recent court ruling on it, here, you will see that the CSA does not provide legal grounds for his actions. In fact, the only way it could (his legal argument) is if you took one part of the act, by itself, that says medical prescriptions must serve a legitimate medical purpose, and took that to mean that prescriptions for assisted suicide don't meet that criteria. That is a personal moral judgment cloaked in legal reasoning. Not to mention that other portions of the act specifically outline that it can't supersede any state determinations for legitimate medical purposes (thus that legal argument fails anyway). If inclined, you can read the court ruling for more details on that. I am sure that since the Supreme Court will be ruling on the legal standing of the case, not assisted suicide itself, they will come to a similar ruling as the 9th circuit court of appeals.
There are many more points I could make on this, but as this blog gets longer, and my day shorter, they'll have to wait until later.
I welcome comments and views on this, as I love hearing points of view, especially those that manage to change mine.
For more information on the Oregon Death with Dignity Act, go here.
Bumper sticker of the day: The gene pool could use a little chlorine.
First off, let me say that I am undecided on the issue itself. Whether one should take their own life under the circumstances provided for by the Oregon law permitting it, I'm not sure. I know if I were in those circumstances, I would not, as I would fight for my life 'till my dying breath. However, if someone is of sound mind and does not want to suffer the last few months of their life, I do believe that is THEIR choice.
I find it hilarious that conservatives support smaller government until it comes to forcing their beliefs on others (there are exceptions, a few out there do support all forms of smaller government, but not the current administration). Basically what I think this boils down to is the Christian ideology the current administration is trying to force on us all. They believe that suicide, in any form, is wrong, and, according to most Christian denominations (among other religions), those who commit suicide will go to some form of hell. I can think of several situations where I might commit suicide, and it be the morally right thing to do (involving sacrifice for family, etc). So under my belief, not all suicide is wrong. That's my belief, and I'm not going to impose it on you. I may discuss it, debate it, or what have you, but no one, including myself, is morally right in imposing it. That is a decision anyone in their right mind (not depressed, insane, etc) has the right to make for themselves.
Now John Ashcroft says he is pursuing this, not for moral reasons, but for legal reasons having to do with the Controlled Substances Act. That's a big load of crap. If you read the CSA itself, here, or for a legal summary of it in the most recent court ruling on it, here, you will see that the CSA does not provide legal grounds for his actions. In fact, the only way it could (his legal argument) is if you took one part of the act, by itself, that says medical prescriptions must serve a legitimate medical purpose, and took that to mean that prescriptions for assisted suicide don't meet that criteria. That is a personal moral judgment cloaked in legal reasoning. Not to mention that other portions of the act specifically outline that it can't supersede any state determinations for legitimate medical purposes (thus that legal argument fails anyway). If inclined, you can read the court ruling for more details on that. I am sure that since the Supreme Court will be ruling on the legal standing of the case, not assisted suicide itself, they will come to a similar ruling as the 9th circuit court of appeals.
There are many more points I could make on this, but as this blog gets longer, and my day shorter, they'll have to wait until later.
I welcome comments and views on this, as I love hearing points of view, especially those that manage to change mine.
For more information on the Oregon Death with Dignity Act, go here.
Bumper sticker of the day: The gene pool could use a little chlorine.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)