I’ve already talked about the Ten Commandments and Clay County once before. You don’t need to read that post first, but it provides some background.

Claywestvirginia.com, a website affiliated with our local independent newspaper, The Communicator, has a series of posts about the posting of the Ten Commandments in government building:

• Feb. 28 pm This is the week for right wing fanatics to push for government control of religion. This Wednesday, the US Supreme Court will hear two cases dealing with separation of church and state. One case is from Texas where a huge granite 10 Commandments display is the center of controversy while the other comes from Kentucky where the County Commission hung a 10 Commandments plaque and caught a bunch of grief. In an attempt to make legal the religious display, the Ky Commissioners added historical documents and called the wall a historical display. Does that sound familiar? It should. The same thang happened here in Clayberry.
• Feb. 28 pm Last Oct the ACLU fired over a demand letter to the Clay County Commission to remove the 10 and threatened a suit. So far, the ACLU gang has not followed through with the saber rattling.
• Feb. 28 pm With a US Supreme Court decision coming by June 30 2005 in the Texas and Kentucky cases, it’s time for all the good bible thumpers to stand up and push for a constitutional change. To allow the government to say what religions will be allowed in taxpayer buildings and which aren’t. Some feel that a government endorsement of one brand of religion over another is a good thing.
• Feb. 28 pm The majority rules!!! Your minority religion or those with no religion have little value in the land of the majority. After establishing a national religion, the next step will be deciding who can practice it and who can’t. Locals will join in with plans to eliminate religious diversity. Watch for big billboard ads pushing for one cookie cutter religion for the country to pop up throughout the county of Clay. Since there are more Catholics in the free world than any other brand, maybe that should be the official religion of the USA. Or, since there are more Muslims in the world than any other, maybe this country will … you get the picture.

As I mentioned before, I don’t really care one way or the other about whether the Ten Commandments are displayed during County Commission meetings. I don’t feel that not having them hurts my religious freedom, but I don’t see that having them hurts anyone else’s religious freedom.

When the County Commission shuts down mosques (as far as I know, there are no mosques in Clay County, but that’s a result of population, not of government intervention), then it’s a restriction of relgious freedom. When the Commission refuses to allow county residents of another religious group to display a symbol of their religion while they continue to display the Ten Commandments, I’ll agree that it’s religious discrimination. When they refuse to allow any citizen to speak up during a commission meeting unless he has sworn to follow the Ten Commandments, then there’s a problem.

Until then, the people of this county have every right to have their local government buildings display symbols of their cultural heritage. They shouldn’t be denied that right just because the symbols happen to be tied to a religion. “Freedom from religion” activists don’t have a leg to stand on without real evidence that someone has been forced to worship or restricted from worshiping as they choose, and a simple display of the Ten Commandments in a county facility is a far cry from the religious tyranny that people came to this continent to escape.

I’ve added Kevin Baker’s excellent piece on Eminent Domain to my post here. I can’t believe I forgot it — Kevin’s blog is one of those I visit daily, and I saw this piece earlier. I just forgot to link it.

In his post, Kevin linked to a piece titled “No Law Abridging. I strongly suggest you read the whole thing, but here’s the part I wanted to comment on (also quoted by Kevin):

A man is not free because he’s permitted to vote for his political masters. The subjects of the late, unlamented Soviet Union enjoyed that “right.” So did the subjects of Saddam Hussein.

A man is not free because some portion of his earnings is still his to spend on a variety of attractive goods. Not if the government can punish him for choosing goods it has not approved.

A man is not free because the long arm of the law has not yet descended on his neck. That’s more properly called a stay of execution.

A man is free if, and only if, he has the unchallenged right to do as he damned well pleases with his life, his property, and with any other responsible, consenting adult, provided only that he respects the equal freedom of all other men. That clearly includes the right to buy space for a political ad from any newspaper or broadcast organ willing to sell it to him.

I’ve heard some Leftists say that a dictator who supplies his people with healthcare, education, and an overall high standard of living was a “benevolent” dictator, a man we should like and respect. To that, I have only one reply – A gilded cage is still a cage. If a man has all the luxuries he could possibly have, but is still not free, he is no better off than a well-cared-for rat in a cage.

For all the talk about installing a democracy in Iraq, I honestly have no real interest in simply installing a government that merely allows its people to vote. As Porretto says, “The subjects of the late, unlamented Soviet Union enjoyed that ‘right.’ So did the subjects of Saddam Hussein.” A democratic (or republic, as we have) form of government provides the most stable system to protect those freedoms, I think, but if the people are free under some other form of government, that’s fine with me, too. The Democracy that Bush keeps touting isn’t as important as the freedom that it theoretically represents.

I’m relieved that the guy is being allowed to fight back to some degree, but this is still scary.

Phillips accuses Dr. Sharon Irons of a “calculated, profound personal betrayal” after their affair six years ago, saying she secretly kept semen after they had oral sex, then used it to get pregnant.

He said he didn’t find out about the child for nearly two years, when Irons filed a paternity lawsuit. DNA tests confirmed Phillips was the father, the court papers state.

Phillips was ordered to pay about $800 a month in child support, said Irons’ attorney, Enrico Mirabelli.

…

“She asserts that when plaintiff ‘delivered’ his sperm, it was a gift — an absolute and irrevocable transfer of title to property from a donor to a donee,” the decision said. “There was no agreement that the original deposit would be returned upon request.”

I’m almost speechless here.

I wonder if real sperm donors are given paperwork that absolves them of any parental responsibilities from resulting children, or if the system itself is just assumed to remove those responsibilities (and rights). According to the judges, there was no fraud or theft, so the “transaction” really was akin to a donor situation. Why, then, is he still responsible for the child? (Of course, I’m very much of the opinion that if the woman has had a child and hasn’t made a good-faith effort to notify the father during the pregnancy, then he shouldn’t be held responsible for child support, but that’s a different topic altogether.)

( þ Say Anything )

[Note: I hate linking Yahoo News, since their stories disappear in a couple of weeks. I'll try to look for a more lasting link later.]

Yes, it’s a stupid law, but I’m glad that the Supreme Court decided against hearing a court case about the sex toy law.

Despite the claims of the ACLU, this law doesn’t constitute an intrusion into the bedroom. The law doesn’t ban owning sex toys, as far as I can tell, just selling them. Typically, purchases of sex toys aren’t made in someone’s bedroom. (Well, okay, with the internet, I guess it’s possible, but if that’s the logic, I should be allowed to buy anything I want, including drugs, guns, and/or WMDs, just because I can order them while sitting in my bedroom. I suspect that’s the reasoning has more to do with “It’s none of your business who or what I have sex with”, though.)

I have to agree with this part of the ruling from the 11th U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals:

“If the people of Alabama in time decide that prohibition on sex toys is misguided, or ineffective, or just plain silly, they can repeal the law and be finished with the matter,” the court said.

People really need to stop trying to legislate through the courts, rather than going through the proper process.

( þ Protein Wisdom )

I hate the idea of eminent domain. I started to tell the story of my grandfather’s cow pasture fences and the fight with the neighbor over them, but the story was pointless, somewhat irrelevant, and probably colored unfairly because I don’t really know the whole story (since I didn’t care much about the property itself at the time, and was more concerned with exactly who would have to help my dad and grandpa move the fences back a few feet…).

The Supreme Court of the United States is set to hear a case on Eminent Theft Domain on Tuesday, and I’m hoping and praying that they’ll reach the right decision (that is, when you buy something, it’s yours, and up to you to sell it). A wrong decision here is a huge blow to property rights, in my opinion, and would make me wary of buying a house (or land in general) anywhere near a city that could conceivably grow.

( þ Accidental Verbosity)

Other Related Posts:
Q and O (Questions and Observations) Blog
Running Scared
Pejmanesque
Vodkapundit