Quick Links
Support Vincit Veritas
Make a Purchase From the Following Vendors and Support Vincit Veritas
iTunes Music StoreAmazon.com
Target.com's Gift Finder
Gifts for Him from The Sharper Image
Calendar
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
Categories
Archives
XML/RSS Feed
Statistics
Total entries in this blog:
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Dec 19, 2004 12:50 PM
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Dec 19, 2004 12:50 PM
Sun - December 19, 2004
Gold Coins in Salvation Army Kettles
Just a little tidbit I thought some of you might
find interesting. This is from a CNN.com
article.
In Kirksville, Missouri, someone donated a gold coin that was minted 20 years before the Civil War, worth nearly $1,000.
That's my neck of the woods, so I thought it was cool. Click here to read the entire article.
In Kirksville, Missouri, someone donated a gold coin that was minted 20 years before the Civil War, worth nearly $1,000.
That's my neck of the woods, so I thought it was cool. Click here to read the entire article.
--
Brooks Travis
Brooks Travis
Posted at 12:50 PM
Wed - December 8, 2004
Re: Politics and Religion
Yes! I have finally received some feedback from
someone who is not a relative! Our lucky winner is M. Douglas Wray of macwebguru.com. What does he win? A chance to
have his response published here! So, here you go...
---------------------------------------------------
I have to agree with Brook[s].
I think it's also crucial to remember that the concept of 'Freedom -OF- Religion' also means 'Freedom -FROM- Religion'. That is to say, our rights are protected from the efforts of ANY religion seeking to exert undue influence over us.
The Religious Right's endless prating of '...but our money sez in God we Trust...!' - yes, because of a POLITICAL action by a RELIGIOUS PAC! It's a nice motto, but it doesn't imply that our Country is inherently and intrinsically Christian. That's what the proponents of the bill HOPED people would think.... and voila, there you go.
Oh yes, Thomas Jefferson was a DIEST, which is -not- Christian. He referred to the Bible as 'fables' - something a Christian would not do. I'm deadly sick of hearing people blather about being experts on Jefferson who've obviously never read a word of his works. He knew how powerful the Church was and exactly where it would lead if it was written into the structure of the Government - that was his special genius. Now we see endless efforts to have the clock turned back, hard-fought rights stripped away and people driven apart. Clearly, God's work is not being done here.
I'm a Christian and attend church, so don't even GO there. One's path to Divinity is one's own CHOICE - >not< the choice of some big-money 'religious' PAC with an agenda of control. If people want to worship a Muppet on a dumpster, it's -their- choice. It's when they want to FORCE -our- government to do things, then I take a very dim view of their actions and their muppet.
Want to spout some inane nationalist drivel at a piece of cloth? Fine, I'll wait in the hall till you're done - forcing me to stand and listen is just another way of saying 'You'll listen because you HAVE to' - the HELL with that. Where's the Freedom?
America is about Freedom. Free. Rights.
You don't like it? Too bad. I'm a partriot and I'll fight to death for it - which is why we're ensured the right to bear arms, to keep just such tyrannical imbecility from taking over our government.
Cheers and KEEP ON BLOGGIN!
M. Douglas Wray
---------------------------------------------------
Well, again, a big thank you to Mr. Wray for his comments, and I hope more of you are encouraged to respond to some of my other entries. For instance, I can't believe no one has had a thing to say about my review of the Season 3 premiere of Alias. Jeez! If you'd like to respond to Mr. Wray with respect to his submission, you can either email me or email Mr. Wray directly. If either of us think you've got something meaningful to say, we might post it. Be sure to check back often to find out. Good day, all.
--
Brooks Travis
I have to agree with Brook[s].
I think it's also crucial to remember that the concept of 'Freedom -OF- Religion' also means 'Freedom -FROM- Religion'. That is to say, our rights are protected from the efforts of ANY religion seeking to exert undue influence over us.
The Religious Right's endless prating of '...but our money sez in God we Trust...!' - yes, because of a POLITICAL action by a RELIGIOUS PAC! It's a nice motto, but it doesn't imply that our Country is inherently and intrinsically Christian. That's what the proponents of the bill HOPED people would think.... and voila, there you go.
Oh yes, Thomas Jefferson was a DIEST, which is -not- Christian. He referred to the Bible as 'fables' - something a Christian would not do. I'm deadly sick of hearing people blather about being experts on Jefferson who've obviously never read a word of his works. He knew how powerful the Church was and exactly where it would lead if it was written into the structure of the Government - that was his special genius. Now we see endless efforts to have the clock turned back, hard-fought rights stripped away and people driven apart. Clearly, God's work is not being done here.
I'm a Christian and attend church, so don't even GO there. One's path to Divinity is one's own CHOICE - >not< the choice of some big-money 'religious' PAC with an agenda of control. If people want to worship a Muppet on a dumpster, it's -their- choice. It's when they want to FORCE -our- government to do things, then I take a very dim view of their actions and their muppet.
Want to spout some inane nationalist drivel at a piece of cloth? Fine, I'll wait in the hall till you're done - forcing me to stand and listen is just another way of saying 'You'll listen because you HAVE to' - the HELL with that. Where's the Freedom?
America is about Freedom. Free. Rights.
You don't like it? Too bad. I'm a partriot and I'll fight to death for it - which is why we're ensured the right to bear arms, to keep just such tyrannical imbecility from taking over our government.
Cheers and KEEP ON BLOGGIN!
M. Douglas Wray
---------------------------------------------------
Well, again, a big thank you to Mr. Wray for his comments, and I hope more of you are encouraged to respond to some of my other entries. For instance, I can't believe no one has had a thing to say about my review of the Season 3 premiere of Alias. Jeez! If you'd like to respond to Mr. Wray with respect to his submission, you can either email me or email Mr. Wray directly. If either of us think you've got something meaningful to say, we might post it. Be sure to check back often to find out. Good day, all.
--
Brooks Travis
Posted at 01:06 AM
Wed - November 3, 2004
Generation Why?
I know that people all over the country are
pointing fingers, taking credit, and generally trying to come to a conclusion as
to why the 2004 election turned out the way it has. Some blame
disenfranchisement, some point to high right-wing evangelical Christians finally
coming out in force for Bush. I have a very simple answer for why Kerry lost,
why this country finds itself forced to endure another four years of lies, damn
lies and...well...lies -- YOUNG PEOPLE DIDN'T VOTE! The most glaring of all the
statistics that I saw this morning, was that only 17% of people ages 18-29 voted
yesterday? What happened to the armies of college students that were supposed
to be turning out for Kerry-Edwards? I did my part, did you do yours? Young
people, age 18-29, are one of the largest demographic groups in the United
States today, and according to polls leading up to the election, this group was
braking for Kerry at a ratio of 2:1. As a comparison, the group with the
highest turnout, voters over 50, runs somewhere in the range of 65-85% turnout
every election. If you were a politician, who would you pay more attention to?
There's really no good reason for this type of PATHETIC voter turnout in our age group, people. We're just as informed as the general populace, if not more so. We're more technologically engaged, giving us access to a much broader amount of information and more avenues to exercise our influence. If we choose not to take advantage of the opportunities that have been laid before us, then we deserve what we get. If there's a draft next year, or two years from now, or even three, I don't want to hear anyone that didn't vote yesterday complaining about it. You had your chance, so zip it and remember to vote next time. It's really amazing to me, that we spend our entire childhood trying to find ways to keep our parents from telling us what to do, but when given the opportunity exercise our newly-found adult authority over our own lives, we leave all the power in the hands of our mothers, fathers, grandmothers, and grandfathers. I don't know about you, but that doesn't sound like a world I want to live in, and neither should you. That's my message for today, and I hope to see ALL eligible 18-29 year olds at the polls in 2006 to take back the Senate and House, and then in 2008 to put a Democrat back in the White House. We can have the kind of world we want, but we have to take action, not sit around with our thumbs up our ... nevermind, you get the idea.
There's really no good reason for this type of PATHETIC voter turnout in our age group, people. We're just as informed as the general populace, if not more so. We're more technologically engaged, giving us access to a much broader amount of information and more avenues to exercise our influence. If we choose not to take advantage of the opportunities that have been laid before us, then we deserve what we get. If there's a draft next year, or two years from now, or even three, I don't want to hear anyone that didn't vote yesterday complaining about it. You had your chance, so zip it and remember to vote next time. It's really amazing to me, that we spend our entire childhood trying to find ways to keep our parents from telling us what to do, but when given the opportunity exercise our newly-found adult authority over our own lives, we leave all the power in the hands of our mothers, fathers, grandmothers, and grandfathers. I don't know about you, but that doesn't sound like a world I want to live in, and neither should you. That's my message for today, and I hope to see ALL eligible 18-29 year olds at the polls in 2006 to take back the Senate and House, and then in 2008 to put a Democrat back in the White House. We can have the kind of world we want, but we have to take action, not sit around with our thumbs up our ... nevermind, you get the idea.
--
Brooks Travis
Brooks Travis
Posted at 09:14 PM
Mon - August 16, 2004
John Edwards Visits SMSU
Vice Presidential candidate Sen. John Edwards
visited Springfield, Missouri and Southwest
Missouri State University last night, where he was greeted by approximately
10,000 supporters. He used the appearance to tell supporters and others in the
region about how John Kerry and he would help make the lives of middle-class
Missourians better by creating more and better jobs, providing for affordable
health care, and properly funding federal education initiatives. He also
touched on their plan to insure that no American working full time would ever
have to live in poverty, starting with raising the federal minimum wage and
insuring that people receive overtime pay for overtime work. Keep reading for
more of my views on the appearance.
First off, I want to say how disappointing it is
that I had to go the the Springfield Misleader (News-Leader) for decent coverage of
the rally. Here are links to local TV coverage: KSPR33
, KOLR10 , and KY3. As for the rally itself, it was a very
exciting place to be. Edwards's appearance was only a small part of the overall
experience, as Democratic supporters heard from candidates for the House, Senate
and state executive offices. Probably the only sore spot of the entire evening
were the Bush supporting protesters who managed to gather at the pedestrian
crosswalk on National Ave. to the East of the Quad. When President Bush has
visited Springfield, protesters have been forced to areas far from the event,
while these Bush supporters were allowed to be within rock-throwing distance
(they didn't throw rocks). Edwards turned their heckling to his advantage,
though, by saying that "we want to hear from then now, because come November, we
won't be hearing from then
anymore."
Again, overall it was a very impressive experience. The turnout was phenomenal for the area and the three days notice that was given for the rally. It will be interesting to see how the election goes here in Missouri. I especially excited about the effect of events like this one on the local and State elections. Missouri needs new leadership at every level, leadership with experience and commitment to education (a new constitution, without the crippling revenue restrictions, would also be nice). Phenomenally, there are six women running for state executive office this November, four of them Democrats. I'm throwing my support behind Claire McCaskill (Governor), Becky Cook (Lieutenant Governor), and Robin Carnahan (Secretary of State). Ms. Carnahan is the daughter of the late Mel Carnahan and former Senator Jean Carnahan.
Well, here's looking forward to a new China pattern at the White House.
--
Brooks Travis
Again, overall it was a very impressive experience. The turnout was phenomenal for the area and the three days notice that was given for the rally. It will be interesting to see how the election goes here in Missouri. I especially excited about the effect of events like this one on the local and State elections. Missouri needs new leadership at every level, leadership with experience and commitment to education (a new constitution, without the crippling revenue restrictions, would also be nice). Phenomenally, there are six women running for state executive office this November, four of them Democrats. I'm throwing my support behind Claire McCaskill (Governor), Becky Cook (Lieutenant Governor), and Robin Carnahan (Secretary of State). Ms. Carnahan is the daughter of the late Mel Carnahan and former Senator Jean Carnahan.
Well, here's looking forward to a new China pattern at the White House.
--
Brooks Travis
Posted at 07:54 AM
Fri - October 31, 2003
Free Speech at SMSU
Ahhh...fall, isn't it just a wonderful time of
year. The air begins to crisp, leaves to fall, and the promise of the holiday
season surrounds us. That is, of course you are at Southwest Missouri State
University. Not only are we having an Indian Summer, with temperatures this
week in the mid to upper seventies, but there's also a huge debate raging on our
campus regarding free speech. Don't get me wrong, I love a good first amendment
battle like any other good pre-law student, but this is just getting ridiculous.
Both sides of this argument are failing miserably at conveying their point in an
effective manner to the University Community, and this only leads to further
confusion. To find out more, keep reading.
Straight out of the gates this fall, SMS found
itself embroiled in controversy. This controversy reared its head in the form
of a new student organization, Young Americans for Freedom. Their paper,
The Bear
Review, claims to be the one conservative
journalistic voice on campus. Maybe they're right. I don't know, and, frankly,
I don't care. They're a bunch of students who got together to make their voices
heard, more power to them. Where the problem comes up, is the manner in which
they've chosen to represent their views to the public. Mostly, they have chosen
satire, and personal attacks on individual members of the campus community,
something that a large number of people in powerful positions have taken
exception to. While I'm not one for personal attacks (unless they're against
someone I don't like, and who isn't?) they're perfectly protected free speech,
especially if they are done in the form of satire, where nobody is likely to
take the comments seriously.
As far as breaking the rules regarding sidewalk chalk and restricted speech areas, I say more power to them. The SMS free speech zone policy and sidewalk chalk regulations are exceptionally restrictive. This is a public educational institution, with a statewide mission in public affairs. It should be a campus of outspoken voices on all manner of public issues, representing a vast array of public opinion. Part of that has to be the freedom for students to speak their mind whenever, if not wherever they want. As it stands now, any student wishing to exercise their first amendment rights must register with conference services to use the North Mall in front of Plaster Student Union. This is a highly unreasonable Time, Place, and Manner restriction on free speech, something prohibited by the Supreme Court. Even anonymous speech deserves some protection. We allow people to vote anonymously, one form of political expression, why not allow the anonymous utilization of another with sidewalk chalking. Again, all of this speaks to the very nature of SMS's campus; is it to be a place that embodies the spirit of civic and political engagement, as it's statewide mission would indicate, or is it to be a place where only PC people can say what they believe, and form student groups? The answer to that question will determine whether or not SMS becomes a major school, deserving of name change to Missouri State University, or simply remains a backwards, disorganized, second-rate regional university. I hope for the former, but fear the likelihood of the latter.
--
Brooks Travis
As far as breaking the rules regarding sidewalk chalk and restricted speech areas, I say more power to them. The SMS free speech zone policy and sidewalk chalk regulations are exceptionally restrictive. This is a public educational institution, with a statewide mission in public affairs. It should be a campus of outspoken voices on all manner of public issues, representing a vast array of public opinion. Part of that has to be the freedom for students to speak their mind whenever, if not wherever they want. As it stands now, any student wishing to exercise their first amendment rights must register with conference services to use the North Mall in front of Plaster Student Union. This is a highly unreasonable Time, Place, and Manner restriction on free speech, something prohibited by the Supreme Court. Even anonymous speech deserves some protection. We allow people to vote anonymously, one form of political expression, why not allow the anonymous utilization of another with sidewalk chalking. Again, all of this speaks to the very nature of SMS's campus; is it to be a place that embodies the spirit of civic and political engagement, as it's statewide mission would indicate, or is it to be a place where only PC people can say what they believe, and form student groups? The answer to that question will determine whether or not SMS becomes a major school, deserving of name change to Missouri State University, or simply remains a backwards, disorganized, second-rate regional university. I hope for the former, but fear the likelihood of the latter.
--
Brooks Travis
Posted at 08:34 PM
Thu - October 9, 2003
Re: Politics and Religion (blog)
I recently posted an entry to this category in
which I voiced some of my views on, among other things, the recent controversy
over the Ten Commandments in the Alabama Supreme Court House. I have received
the first feedback on my blog in reference to this entry, and will be posting it
here, today. Read on for a full text of the reply, along with my rebuttal
comments.
My brother, Brenton,
writes:
The Ten Commandments is not a religious document in and of its self. Only in the context of The Bible and other spiritual teaching, is the Ten Commandments religious. And in the instance in the Alabama Supreme Court there is no religious context, rather, there is only a context of law, which keeps order in this society. Moreover, as you stated, the Ten Commandments are part of our institution of law and limitation of how one may behave. No one is proclaiming that individuals must receive Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior of their lives through this Ten Commandments statue. This statue in this court house is an accurate portrayal of the establishment of law, nothing more and nothing less.
Brenton
First off, I want to thank my brother for being the first to respond to one of my postings. Though, now that Google has finally found me, I imagine more people will be writing, though I could be wrong. Now, I'll get down to business.
First, I'll address Brenton's point that the Ten Commandments themselves are not a religious document. I would dare him to walk into a synagogue and try to tell a group of orthodox Jews that the Ten Commandments are not a religious document. The idea that they only become a religious document in the context of religious teachings is absurd. One of the commandments is "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." If that isn't a religious admonition, then I'm afraid that I do not know what is. You must give the Commandments their due, and the respect they deserve as a sacred symbol to both the Jewish and Christian faiths. To say that they have no religious meaning outside of the context of Jewish or Christian teachings does a disservice to both faiths and the Commandments.
Next, I feel as though he is putting words in my mouth. I did say in my previous posting, that the Ten Commandments were part of the Western Legal tradition, but it is not the only one. I also remember mentioning two other, more influential, sources for our legal system. Here's a question that may help to clarify this point: How many of the Ten Commandments are enforced laws today? Answer: 3. To be entirely honest, were we to follow the remaining seven, then the entire capitalist system would collapse due to number ten, blue laws would still exist thanks to number four, nearly every child would be in jail thanks to number five, every person on the planet would probably be in prison for saying God, or Jesus, when not referencing part of the trinity, and so on. To be completely honest, I don't believe that the Ten Commandment were ever meant to be anything more than a list of spiritual restrictions. Those commandments that are represented in current legal traditions are also present as restriction in nearly every legal tradition on the planet--murder, theft, and bearing false wittness (in the matter of perjury). The others, save for number five--honoring thy mother and father--all deal explicitly with religion.
I'm going to stick with my original contention, that it is entirely unrepresentative of the American Legal tradition to display in a prominent place, in an entirely public area of a public building, especially a court house, only the Ten Commandments. Doing so misrepresents the basis of our legal system, by demonstrating to those with only a passing affinity with it the fallacious preference for Judeo-Christian belief in the dispensation of justice. While this not a major problem for those of us who grew up in American culture and its education system, this is not a major problem; we can make the distinction, but those to whom the American legal system a foreign entity, and who have only passing familiarity with the Judeo-Christian tradition, are not always able to make the same discernment. This causes them, and rightfully so, to feel disadvantaged before even entering a courtroom, school, or other government building. If we truly believe in equality before the law, then we need to do our best to give everyone else the same impression, regardless of religion, culture, or language.
That's it for now. Hopefully, this is only the first of many Re: entries to come. Good day.
--
Brooks Travis
The Ten Commandments is not a religious document in and of its self. Only in the context of The Bible and other spiritual teaching, is the Ten Commandments religious. And in the instance in the Alabama Supreme Court there is no religious context, rather, there is only a context of law, which keeps order in this society. Moreover, as you stated, the Ten Commandments are part of our institution of law and limitation of how one may behave. No one is proclaiming that individuals must receive Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior of their lives through this Ten Commandments statue. This statue in this court house is an accurate portrayal of the establishment of law, nothing more and nothing less.
Brenton
First off, I want to thank my brother for being the first to respond to one of my postings. Though, now that Google has finally found me, I imagine more people will be writing, though I could be wrong. Now, I'll get down to business.
First, I'll address Brenton's point that the Ten Commandments themselves are not a religious document. I would dare him to walk into a synagogue and try to tell a group of orthodox Jews that the Ten Commandments are not a religious document. The idea that they only become a religious document in the context of religious teachings is absurd. One of the commandments is "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." If that isn't a religious admonition, then I'm afraid that I do not know what is. You must give the Commandments their due, and the respect they deserve as a sacred symbol to both the Jewish and Christian faiths. To say that they have no religious meaning outside of the context of Jewish or Christian teachings does a disservice to both faiths and the Commandments.
Next, I feel as though he is putting words in my mouth. I did say in my previous posting, that the Ten Commandments were part of the Western Legal tradition, but it is not the only one. I also remember mentioning two other, more influential, sources for our legal system. Here's a question that may help to clarify this point: How many of the Ten Commandments are enforced laws today? Answer: 3. To be entirely honest, were we to follow the remaining seven, then the entire capitalist system would collapse due to number ten, blue laws would still exist thanks to number four, nearly every child would be in jail thanks to number five, every person on the planet would probably be in prison for saying God, or Jesus, when not referencing part of the trinity, and so on. To be completely honest, I don't believe that the Ten Commandment were ever meant to be anything more than a list of spiritual restrictions. Those commandments that are represented in current legal traditions are also present as restriction in nearly every legal tradition on the planet--murder, theft, and bearing false wittness (in the matter of perjury). The others, save for number five--honoring thy mother and father--all deal explicitly with religion.
I'm going to stick with my original contention, that it is entirely unrepresentative of the American Legal tradition to display in a prominent place, in an entirely public area of a public building, especially a court house, only the Ten Commandments. Doing so misrepresents the basis of our legal system, by demonstrating to those with only a passing affinity with it the fallacious preference for Judeo-Christian belief in the dispensation of justice. While this not a major problem for those of us who grew up in American culture and its education system, this is not a major problem; we can make the distinction, but those to whom the American legal system a foreign entity, and who have only passing familiarity with the Judeo-Christian tradition, are not always able to make the same discernment. This causes them, and rightfully so, to feel disadvantaged before even entering a courtroom, school, or other government building. If we truly believe in equality before the law, then we need to do our best to give everyone else the same impression, regardless of religion, culture, or language.
That's it for now. Hopefully, this is only the first of many Re: entries to come. Good day.
--
Brooks Travis
Posted at 07:02 PM
Fri - September 26, 2003
Out of Focus on the Family-Part 1
This is an entry directed towards Dr. Dobson and others
at Focus on the Family , who have commented on the issue of
“Judicial Tyranny” of late. First, I would like to clarify some
politico-philosophical terminology that I feel has been misused. The term
"Oligarchy" does not mean rule by the few, or more precisely, it is not the only
term that carries this meaning. In the western political and philosophic
traditions the term oligarchy was one of two terms that meant rule by the few;
the other was Aristocracy. Socrates preferred aristocracy to all others,
including democracy. Now, many would say that we live in a democracy, but
despite populist attempts to democratize America in the late nineteenth and
early twentieth centuries, we still live in a representative republic, and a de
facto Aristocracy.
I'll save the discussion of the properly, a this
time, aristocratic nature of the American Republic, for a future entry, where I
can devote the necessary amount of attention to it. For now, we will examine
the topic of judicial tyranny. If one examines the historical record
surrounding the formation of The United States, one may see a very different
picture than the one being painted by recent commentators on Focus on the Family
programs. In "Federalist no. 10," James Madison warned of the problem of
faction, and Tyranny of the Majority, dangers, inherent in a democracy, the
proposed Constitution was supposed mitigate. However, the document that the
founders formulated that summer in Philadelphia was not even up to this task.
They knew it might not be, so they provided a process by which the constitution
could be amended, and process that was utilized ten times immediately following
the Constitutions ratification by the necessary nine states. These first ten
amendments, the Bill of Rights, were directed at the Central Government (what we
refer to as the Federal Government today), and, explicitly, through the Tenth
Amendment provided the individual states with a great deal of freedom, among
those was the freedom to establish a state religion, or support religion through
the state. This was the case in many states for the next sixty, or so,
years.
By 1860, no state had an official religion, nor did any state offer support to only one church in what was still an almost homogenously Judeo-Christian society. Then came the debate over States' Rights, and secession by the southern states. It is no surprise that the highest profile case utilized by Focus on the Family is the Ten Commandments case from Alabama, one of these secessionist states. The problem illustrated by the Civil War, was the inability of the states to safeguard basic human rights. To that end, the post-Civil War congress proposed the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth amendments to the constitution. The one cited most often with respect to the issue of judicial tyranny, is the fourteenth. Federal, and state, judges have repeatedly used the fourteenth amendment to apply a number of the first ten amendments directly to the states. Would you argue against its use in application of the fourth, fifth, sixth or eighth amendments? Those amendments protect persons in matters of civil and criminal proceedings, and declare our equality before the law. For the legal system to function properly, it must be viewed by society to be a fair, unbiased system. Unfortunately, this is not the case on several levels.
There is an apparent racial bias in our justice system, a gender one, and also an economic one. And, though it may not be an actual institutional bias, the display of the Ten Commandments monument so prominently and centrally in the Alabama State Supreme Court building gives the impression of a religious bias in our justice system as well. No matter how much we may deny or wish to change it, the truth remains that we live in a highly pluralistic society, composed of many different, disparate groups. What may have been acceptable behavior for a state (that behavior which does not interfere with the exercise of individual rights) one hundred years ago is not so today. Ambassador Keyes argues that the Tenth Amendment gives the states the right to express themselves religiously. This is not necessarily the case. The Tenth Amendment does leave those rights and privileges not granted to the central government to “the states respectively, or to the people.” One of the most central tenets of American political tradition is “freedom of conscience,” or the ability to decide for oneself what is right and what is wrong; what church to belong to, if any; etc. The government cannot tell people what to think or feel, it can only restrict how one acts. Yes, we have a strong Judeo-Christian influence in our legal tradition, but it is not the only one.
The common law, on which our legal system is based, originated with the pagan Angles and Saxons. Other influences of our legal system include Roman Civil Law, also originated under a pagan society. Therefore, it is improper to argue that the only ideas appropriate for the formulation of laws in the United States should be Judeo-Christian morality and belief. This is unfair to those who do not share our religious convictions and social mores. It is truly a sad position to take, where the Christian Church (all denominations included) is so incapable of teachings and spreading its morality in the private sector that it must resort to using the government’s coercive powers to curtail behavior. This does nothing to legitimate Christianity to the non-believers, rather, it shows Christianity to be an ineffectual religion incapable of truly changing the hearts, minds, and spirits of the people it comes into contact with. People cannot be forced to believe something, and that is something that the moral crusaders of this country must learn to live with. Were there to be a prominent display of representative, historical legal documents, say the Ten Commandments, the Magna Carta, and the Roman Civil Code in the Alabama State Supreme Court, it is highly probable that the Federal Courts would be much more accepting of the display, but, as it stands now, the display of only the Ten Commandments is an inaccurate representation of the foundations of our legal system and a perceived symbol of religious bias in that system, a bias that works to erode confidence in that systems ability to provide equal justice to all Americans.
To remedy what they view as a federal judiciary run amok, Dr. Dobson, and those of like mind with him, have proposed that congress restrict the jurisdiction of the federal courts, specifically the Supreme Court, in matters dealing with religion in the public sphere. There is only one problem with this tact, the court may rule it unconstitutional to limit their jurisdiction in such a manner. The passage of the Constitution that supporters of such a congressional action call upon to justify it is the following: "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." This seems pretty straightforward, doesn't it? There's a problem, though. This passage is preceded by this one, at the beginning of Article III, 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..." (emphasis added). That's a funny word, equity, a very common law word.
Long before our forefathers dreamed of breaking with Great Britain, English judges were forming the body of the English Common Law, the worlds oldest, and unwritten, constitution. the tool they used to to do this, was equity jurisdiction. What this jurisdiction basically entails, is the power for the courts to decide issues of fundamental fairness. If it was good enough for the judges who built the basis for our legal system, then why isn't it good enough for judges today? One of the reasons I think people ignore the issue of equity jurisdiction in the federal court system today is that there is little reason to use it. We have simply legislated and litigated the common law to such a degree that there are few questions that remain. However, were there to be an attempt by congress to curtail the Court's Constitutionally prescribed jurisdiction into matters directly affecting the constitutional rights of the people, the Court would likely pull out that trump card it's been holding back for so many years. If the people wish to curtail the power of the court to rule on matters of religion and morality, then they need to constitutionally proscribe them with an amendment. If there is as much support as Dr. Dobson and his supporters claim for something like the Federal Marriage Amendment, then by all means push it through. There is no question that it would be constitutional.
Now, I'd like to close this first part of my commentary on the recent campaign of a group that I greatly respect and admire, Focus on the Family, and a man who has been a great champion for the Christian Faith in so many ways, Dr. James Dobson, by conceding that the courts often make terrible, stupid, and entirely politically motivated rulings. However, these most often occur at the lower levels of District Courts, and Appellate, three-judge panels, and often find themselves being overturned by either an en banc review by the entire Appellate Court or by the Supreme Court. Every once and a while, one even manages to make it all the way through the system, but over time are often revisited and corrected, Plessy vs. Ferguson for example. Overall, the courts act as a buffer to the tendency of mass societies to develop divisive factions and for democracy to devolve into a tyranny of the majority. Thank you for taking the time to examine my words, and stay tuned for part two of my Out of Focus on the Family series, in which I will discuss the irrationality of some of the legal fears posited by Dr. Dobson and the others at Focus on the Family.
By 1860, no state had an official religion, nor did any state offer support to only one church in what was still an almost homogenously Judeo-Christian society. Then came the debate over States' Rights, and secession by the southern states. It is no surprise that the highest profile case utilized by Focus on the Family is the Ten Commandments case from Alabama, one of these secessionist states. The problem illustrated by the Civil War, was the inability of the states to safeguard basic human rights. To that end, the post-Civil War congress proposed the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth amendments to the constitution. The one cited most often with respect to the issue of judicial tyranny, is the fourteenth. Federal, and state, judges have repeatedly used the fourteenth amendment to apply a number of the first ten amendments directly to the states. Would you argue against its use in application of the fourth, fifth, sixth or eighth amendments? Those amendments protect persons in matters of civil and criminal proceedings, and declare our equality before the law. For the legal system to function properly, it must be viewed by society to be a fair, unbiased system. Unfortunately, this is not the case on several levels.
There is an apparent racial bias in our justice system, a gender one, and also an economic one. And, though it may not be an actual institutional bias, the display of the Ten Commandments monument so prominently and centrally in the Alabama State Supreme Court building gives the impression of a religious bias in our justice system as well. No matter how much we may deny or wish to change it, the truth remains that we live in a highly pluralistic society, composed of many different, disparate groups. What may have been acceptable behavior for a state (that behavior which does not interfere with the exercise of individual rights) one hundred years ago is not so today. Ambassador Keyes argues that the Tenth Amendment gives the states the right to express themselves religiously. This is not necessarily the case. The Tenth Amendment does leave those rights and privileges not granted to the central government to “the states respectively, or to the people.” One of the most central tenets of American political tradition is “freedom of conscience,” or the ability to decide for oneself what is right and what is wrong; what church to belong to, if any; etc. The government cannot tell people what to think or feel, it can only restrict how one acts. Yes, we have a strong Judeo-Christian influence in our legal tradition, but it is not the only one.
The common law, on which our legal system is based, originated with the pagan Angles and Saxons. Other influences of our legal system include Roman Civil Law, also originated under a pagan society. Therefore, it is improper to argue that the only ideas appropriate for the formulation of laws in the United States should be Judeo-Christian morality and belief. This is unfair to those who do not share our religious convictions and social mores. It is truly a sad position to take, where the Christian Church (all denominations included) is so incapable of teachings and spreading its morality in the private sector that it must resort to using the government’s coercive powers to curtail behavior. This does nothing to legitimate Christianity to the non-believers, rather, it shows Christianity to be an ineffectual religion incapable of truly changing the hearts, minds, and spirits of the people it comes into contact with. People cannot be forced to believe something, and that is something that the moral crusaders of this country must learn to live with. Were there to be a prominent display of representative, historical legal documents, say the Ten Commandments, the Magna Carta, and the Roman Civil Code in the Alabama State Supreme Court, it is highly probable that the Federal Courts would be much more accepting of the display, but, as it stands now, the display of only the Ten Commandments is an inaccurate representation of the foundations of our legal system and a perceived symbol of religious bias in that system, a bias that works to erode confidence in that systems ability to provide equal justice to all Americans.
To remedy what they view as a federal judiciary run amok, Dr. Dobson, and those of like mind with him, have proposed that congress restrict the jurisdiction of the federal courts, specifically the Supreme Court, in matters dealing with religion in the public sphere. There is only one problem with this tact, the court may rule it unconstitutional to limit their jurisdiction in such a manner. The passage of the Constitution that supporters of such a congressional action call upon to justify it is the following: "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." This seems pretty straightforward, doesn't it? There's a problem, though. This passage is preceded by this one, at the beginning of Article III, 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..." (emphasis added). That's a funny word, equity, a very common law word.
Long before our forefathers dreamed of breaking with Great Britain, English judges were forming the body of the English Common Law, the worlds oldest, and unwritten, constitution. the tool they used to to do this, was equity jurisdiction. What this jurisdiction basically entails, is the power for the courts to decide issues of fundamental fairness. If it was good enough for the judges who built the basis for our legal system, then why isn't it good enough for judges today? One of the reasons I think people ignore the issue of equity jurisdiction in the federal court system today is that there is little reason to use it. We have simply legislated and litigated the common law to such a degree that there are few questions that remain. However, were there to be an attempt by congress to curtail the Court's Constitutionally prescribed jurisdiction into matters directly affecting the constitutional rights of the people, the Court would likely pull out that trump card it's been holding back for so many years. If the people wish to curtail the power of the court to rule on matters of religion and morality, then they need to constitutionally proscribe them with an amendment. If there is as much support as Dr. Dobson and his supporters claim for something like the Federal Marriage Amendment, then by all means push it through. There is no question that it would be constitutional.
Now, I'd like to close this first part of my commentary on the recent campaign of a group that I greatly respect and admire, Focus on the Family, and a man who has been a great champion for the Christian Faith in so many ways, Dr. James Dobson, by conceding that the courts often make terrible, stupid, and entirely politically motivated rulings. However, these most often occur at the lower levels of District Courts, and Appellate, three-judge panels, and often find themselves being overturned by either an en banc review by the entire Appellate Court or by the Supreme Court. Every once and a while, one even manages to make it all the way through the system, but over time are often revisited and corrected, Plessy vs. Ferguson for example. Overall, the courts act as a buffer to the tendency of mass societies to develop divisive factions and for democracy to devolve into a tyranny of the majority. Thank you for taking the time to examine my words, and stay tuned for part two of my Out of Focus on the Family series, in which I will discuss the irrationality of some of the legal fears posited by Dr. Dobson and the others at Focus on the Family.
Posted at 10:16 PM