Senator Robert C. Byrd has proposed a revolutionary amendment to the Constitution… to provide freedom of religion. I have to say, at first, I thought that maybe Byrd was just getting senile, and he forgot that we already had that amendment.

But, no, he remembers it:

“In my opinion, too many have not given equal weight to both of these clauses. Instead, they have focused only on the first clause, which prohibits the establishment of religion, at the expense of the second clause, which protects the right of Americans to worship as they please,’’ Byrd said in a speech to the Senate.

For everyone who knows me personally and has heard me talk about Senator Byrd, I have a startling announcement to make. If you’re standing up, you may want to sit down.

I agree with everything that Byrd said in that last paragraph. Heck, I even agree with everything he says in the one following it:

“It seems to me that any prohibition of voluntary prayer in school violates the right of our school children to practice freely their religion. And that’s just not right,’’ Byrd said.

The thing is, though, I can’t agree with his proposed amendment. If one accepts that the courts are already disregarding the Constitution in favor of their own opinions, then writing a new amendment that says, essentially, “…and we really mean it this time” is simply ludicrous. You want the freedom to worship in the Constitution? It’s already there.

How’s this for an amendment? How about we pass an amendment that says that the court, in considering whether or not something is Constitutional, has to go to the Constitution and its legal amendments, not to the Revised Constitution as written by the Supreme Court? Seriously, by ignoring what the Constitution says, and instead relying on what other people have said the Constitution says, it’s like the courts are playing a very slow motion game of “Telephone”.

Of course, Byrd can’t actually do that, because going to the Constitution and its legal amendments would mean overturning some of the legislation he’s supported (like the McCain-Feingold travesty) and it would seriously hurt his standing with the anti-gun crowd, since one of those legal amendments is the inconvenient-to-gun-grabbers Second Amendment.

Somehow, I can’t help feeling that Byrd’s primary motivation here has more to do with the pending election than with any real desire to respect the Constitution and the rights that it is supposed to guarantee for his constituents. Maybe I’m just a cynic.

The “Your Money or Your Life” thing was a joke

Scott Adams’s blog, The Dilbert Blog, is often used, it seems, just to stir the pot. In a recent post, Scott argues that it’s silly to believe that George W. Bush started the Iraq War to make a profit for himself or his rich friends:

If you believe that the ultra rich capitalist overlords wanted war to increase their profits, you have to believe they were willing to kill hundreds of thousands of people to get it. THAT’s the part I don’t buy. There can be sociopath billionaires to be sure, but I can’t see them being the majority force in the government.

I have a theory that only people who have never been rich would believe that the rich are routinely willing to kill enormous amounts of people to get richer. Personally, I’ve been poor and I’ve been rich. And I can speak from first hand experience about how it changes you. I’m far less bloodthirsty than before.

The comments are, as always fun (except for the inexplicable fact that they’re backwards — the newest ones are on top). Some people point out that tobacco (and/or firearms) companies are “killing” for profit (I’m surprised they didn’t point at fast food moguls for doing the same, honestly), which is a predictable, if somewhat imbecilic, argument. Others immediately switch to “it wasn’t for money, it was for power”, as though the President of the United States is somehow lacking for power. I guess he was threatened by Saddam’s massive influence over… well, no one outside of his own country.

This one, though, had to have been my favorite comment:

“If you believe that the ultra rich capitalist overlords wanted war to increase their profits, you have to believe they were willing to kill hundreds of thousands of people to get it. THAT’s the part I don’t buy. There can be sociopath billionaires to be sure, but I can’t see them being the majority force in the government.”

What is the difference between this and laying off 1/3 of your workforce???

Posted by: parsko | April 28, 2006 at 03:26 AM

Parsko’s world must be a strange, strange place. If laying off workers is the same as murdering them, then does that mean quitting a job is like committing suicide? What if you quit, then start a new job a few days later? Have you suddenly tranformed yourself into a new-age Christ? Or have you simply been reincarnated?

“I plead you divulge”

Those the final words on a news story from Jaime Leygonier, an independent journalist in Cuba. Those words, for reasons I can’t quite explain, hit me hard when I read them earlier. Jaime reports the news not because his government protects his right to do so, but despite the fact that his government does everything in its power to stop him.

Think about it. American journalists are quick to slap each other on the backs when they criticize the American government, because they’re being so brave, “speaking truth to power,” as the saying goes. Of course, none of them can tell you when the last time the government cracked down on journalists en masse for telling the truth.

As a nice contrast, let’s compare Jaime’s bravery to those brave young souls at the Insurgent, a student newspaper at the University of Oregon, who bravely took a stand against the great Christian Menace. You see, the Oregon Commentator reprinted the Jyllands-Posten political cartoons that sparked so much violence a few months back, and the Insurgent, to make a point, published insulting cartoons about Christ*. The Insurgent apparently has no web presence, so the Commentator scanned and posted the issue for its online readers to see (Warning: The scanned Insurgent issue has images that are potentially very offensive.)

Apparently, they did this to “show Christians what it was like” to have their religion insulted. You know, because the faith of Christians is never mocked, so we have absolutely no idea what that’s like.

Anyway, I know there are all sorts of embargoes about trade with Cuba, but I will happily trade Castro 20 of our journalists and journalism students for every one of his country’s independent journalists that he chooses to export to us.

* Incidentally, as far as I can tell, the Insurgent’s Christ cartoons haven’t got any value as commentary, unlike the Mohammed cartoons. While you might argue whether the point that the Mohammed cartoons made was valid or not, you can’t deny that they were commentary. Despite the lack of any redeeming social value from the Christ cartoons, you might note a distinct lack of death threats coming from this blog.

Heck, you won’t even see this blog supporting any attempt to censor the Insurgent. To be honest, I imagine that the shame that they’ll feel when they, you know, grow up and are still haunted by the existence of these cartoons is worse punishment than any censorship could ever be.

In the words of TallDave4, a commenter at Protein Wisdom:

As a Christian, I’m deeply offended by this obscene mockery of my Lord and Savior. So in response, I’m going to unleash my religion’s most powerful weapon:

I forgive them.

Just one small addition to that. I’m also praying for them.

** [Update: I understood that the Insurgent and Commentator were two separate student newspapers, but it was pointed out to me (see comments) that my original post may have been confusing, so I've tried to make it clearer. The original version of the paragraph is included below:

As a nice contrast, let's compare Jaime's bravery to those brave young souls at the Oregon insurgent (Warning: that article links to some offensive images), who bravely took a stand against the great Christian Menace. You see, the Oregon Commentator (whose article is linked above) reprinted the Jyllands-Posten political cartoons that sparked so much violence a few months back, and the Insurgent, to make a point, published insulting cartoons about Christ*.

Hope that the revised version above makes things a bit clearer.]

It’s a question of overreaching government vs. its citizens

Bono Film and Video, in Arlington, Virginia, refused to copy two “pro-homosexual” films from the 1960s for Lilli Vincenz. Ms. Vincenz then turned to the Arlington Human Rights Commission. The commission then ruled, according to Concerned Women for America, that Tim Bono, the shop’s owner, had, in vact, violated Ms. Vincenz’s civil rights, and required him to do the job, or else.

A few conservative bloggers are getting hung up on the details of this case, decrying it as an example in which the religious freedoms of a Christian was sacrificed to the agenda of those who promote homosexuality and same-sex marriage in particular.

I remember doing “word problems” in math classes when I was younger. Sometimes, they’d give you more information than you needed to solve the problem, and by giving you that information, the problem’s creator would manage to make the solution to the problem that much harder to find. That’s more or less the case here.

It doesn’t matter whether Tim Bono was right in refusing to serve Ms. Vincenz, and I am not addressing that question in this post*. It doesn’t matter if Ms. Vincenz is a lesbian, or whether she was promoting same sex marriage (incidentally, though, I can’t find any evidence that she was; the tapes she wanted copied were from the ’60s, long before that particular question had arisen). it doesn’t matter if Mr. Bono is a Christian.

As far as I’m concerned, there’s only one fact that matters here, and that’s the fact that Bono Film and Video is a private business, not a “public accomodation,” as the Commission describes it (granted, in their defense, it may be the legal definition of “public accomodation” that’s screwed up, not the actual HRC’s members). As a private business owner, I fully support Mr. Bono’s right to refuse service to anyone he pleases for whatever reason he pleases.

I understand that this position opens me up to attacks, so I want to make something clear. If I learned that a company in town discriminated against customers purely on basis of their race, gender, or even sexual orientation, I would not do business with that company. I would encourage others to refuse to do business with that company. I might not have the energy to actively protest that company outside of their offices, but I would absolutely support those who did so.

I would not, however, support taking legal action against the company, because there are so many other ways that the battle can be fought, using only the power of the free market, not the power of government.

I normally hate e-mail forwards, but I specifically requested that a friend send this one to me after she complained about it.

Think about this: If you don’t want to forward this for fear of offending someone—–YOU’RE PART OF THE PROBLEM !!!!

Subject: THIS WAS IN A TAMPA NEWSPAPER

Will we still be the Country of choice and still be America if we continue to make the changes forced on us by the people from other countries that came to live in America because it is the Country of Choice??????

Think about it! All we have to say is, when will they do something about MY RIGHTS?

I celebrate Christmas………..but because it isn’t celebrated by everyone…………..we can no longer say Merry Christmas. Now it has to be Season’s Greetings.

It’s not Christmas vacation, it’s Winter Break. Isn’t it amazing how this winter break ALWAYS occurs over the Christmas holiday?

We’ve gone so far the other way, bent over backwards to not offend anyone, that I am now being offended But it seems that no one has a problem with that. This says it all!

This is an editorial written by an American citizen, published in a Tampa, FL Newspaper. He did quite a job; didn’t he? Read on, please!

IMMIGRANTS, NOT AMERICANS, MUST ADAPT.

I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture. Since the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Americans.. However…… the dust from the attacks had barely settled when the “politically correct! ” crowd began complaining about the possibility that our patriotism was offending others.

I am not against immigration, nor do I hold a grudge against anyone who is seeking a better life by coming to ! America. Our population is almost entirely made up of descendants of immigrants. However, there are a few things that those who have recently come to our country, and apparently some born here, need to understand. This idea of America being a multicultural community has served only to dilute our sovereignty and our national identity. As Americans…… we have our own culture, our own society, our own language and our own lifestyle. This culture has been developed over centuries of struggles, trials, and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom.

We speak ENGLISH, not Spanish, Portuguese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society, learn the language!

“In God We Trust” is our national motto. This is not some Christian, right wing, political slogan.. We adopted this motto because Christian men and women…….on Christian principles…………. founded this nation….. and this is clearly documented. It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home………because God is part of our culture.

If Stars and Stripes offend you, or you don’t like Uncle Sam, then you should seriously consider a move to another part of this planet. We are happy with our culture and have no desire to change, and we really don’t care how you did things where you came from.

This is OUR COUNTRY, our land, and our lifestyle. Our First Amendment gives every citizen the right to express his opinion and we will allow you every opportunity to do so! But once you are done complaining…….. whining…… and griping……. about our flag……. our pledge…… our national motto……..or our way of life….I highly encourage you to take advantage of one other Great American Freedom……. THE RIGHT TO LEAVE.

It is Time for America to Speak up
If you agree — pass this along;
if you don’t agree — delete it – You are in the WRONG Country!

AMEN

I figure if we all keep passing this to our friends, it will also, sooner or later get back to the complainers, lets all try, please!

Last things first. That final sentence is simply stupid. If people are only forwarding it to their friends, how, exactly, is it going to get to the “complainers”? Let me explain. Take two hypothetical people, John and Wayne. John is a die-hard patriot, questioning nothing his country does. Wayne is one of these so called “complainers”. Do you really think that John is going to send Wayne an e-mail telling him to get out of the country, or if he does, that he can rightly call Wayne a friend?

That’s a minor quibble, though. Let’s look at the actual substance of the e-mail’s message. Basically, it says “only people who act and talk like my mental image of ‘good’ Americans are welcome in America.” While conservatives are not at all the only people in America to say this sort of stupidity, the rest of the e-mail definitely seems to cast the writer as a conservative, which is very unfortunate, because I tend to lean conservative, and I don’t want anyone thinking that this speaks for me.

I love this country, but America hasn’t got its own unique culture. Well, it does, but only in the same sense that bronze and steel are unique metals. Our culture is one that is formed from the influences of cultures from all over the world, and it should continue to absorb bits and pieces from new cultures as more and more immigrants arrive here. If I don’t like the bits and pieces getting absorbed, they don’t have to become a part of my individual “culture”, but if enough people adopt them, they will be adopted into the culture at large, and no amount of bigotry will stop that from happening.

I’m a Christian. I celebrate Christmas, and I believe in the Bible. I am not offended when someone wishes me “Season’s Greetings” or discusses “Winter Break.” First off, “Season’s Greetings” is not a new phenomenon, not some new attack on the Christian identity. For as long as I can remember, I’ve seen “Season’s Greetings” to celebrate the beginning of Thanksgiving through New Year’s Day, where “Merry Christmas,” “Happy Hanukkah,” “Happy Thanksgiving” and “Happy New Year” are used to celebrate their respective holidays. Even beyond that, though, no one is trying to take away my right to say “Merry Christmas” to someone on the street. Yes, it might be true that some companies are asking their employees to use “Season’s Greetings” instead, but in that case, it’s the company being overly cautious about offending customers, because offending customers hurts the bottom line, and the bottom line is the entire raison d’etre of most companies.

As for taking God off of our money and off the walls of our school? I must have missed the verses in the Bible that mentioned those things, because I thought God dwelled in the hearts of his followers. I think the walls of our schools (well, in as much as I think we should have public schools at all) should be decorated in such a way as to reflect the communities in which they serve. Got lots of Christians in the community? They should be allowed to celebrate their heritage, assuming they don’t do so in a way that attacks the non-Christians in the community. The same should be true of communities that have a lot of Jews, or a lot of Muslims, or a lot of athiests, or even Scientologists. At the end of the day, though, the decorations used in our schools don’t mean a thing. The school’s teachings and philosophies, and the people within the school, are infinitely more important than whether there’s a Bible verse etched into the stone above the door.

Many of the first Americans were Christians. That’s true. It’s also true that if you’d told them that the national religion was Christianity, they would have argued, quite possibly dispensing with words and arguing with weapons instead. America, you see, wasn’t founded to be a Christian nation. It was founded to be a free nation. Christians should be allowed to worship in they way they choose, but the same should be true of adherants to any (or no) religion, provided the worship of that religion doesn’t require assaulting the property, rights, or the actual person of others.

The one point that the e-mail makes that I kind of agree with is about language. For our society to function, we must have a common language, and English is that language. English is what all of our country’s major historical documents are written in. English is the language shared by a huge majority of the people in this country, and anyone who wants to fully integrate into this society should learn it. That’s not to say “learn English or get out,” but more to say, “things will be easier for all of us if we share a common language.” We should do everything we can to help newcomers learn English, and while teaching them that, we should also teach them what the freedoms guaranteed by the American Constitution mean. If we do that, they’ll be one step up on this “editorial’s” author.

[I apologize for the disjointedness of the preceding. I suspect I should go back and reassemble it into something that looks somewhat logical, but I have other things on my mind tonight.]