Law Stands Above Religion

 

I saw the interview of Bishop Thomas Tobin of Providence on Hardball.  It is accurate to say that Chris Matthews was not the deferential Catholic.  Mr. Matthews clearly disagrees with Catholic teachings.  That aside the Bishop said something that was truly disturbing to me.  He said of an elected official “His first commitment has to be to his faith. … No commitment is more important than your commitment to your faith.” He repeated that second sentence twice saying the words precisely the same.  In other words your religious beliefs takes a higher priority than faith to the laws of the country.

How does this philosophy differ from Jihadists and others holding extreme religious views?  This bishop would make an excellent witness for Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and Maj. Nidal Hasan.  I believe that the United States cannot survive as created by its founding fathers if we accept religious beliefs to hold a higher authority than the laws of our nation.  Apparently I am not alone in this view.  Chris Matthews is at least one other voice that believes law stands above belief.

War Criminals are not Civil Criminals

“We the people of the United States” are the first words of the Constitution.  The basic law of this country was not meant to be the basic law of the world.  Now strangely the Attorney General wants to bring Khalid Shaikh Mohammed who is part of a sworn enemy of this nation to New York City for a trial.  He was captured in Pakistan.  Attorney General Holder argues, along with others that support his views, is that this trial will send a message to the rest of the world that we treat everyone the same.  The argument is both flawed and erroneous.

First the United States has never treated enemy combatants as law breakers.  No enemies from other wars have ever been put on trial as law breakers.  Those Prosecuted for war crimes have been convicted in military trials.  Nuremberg felons are the leading example.

Second the calls for dismissal of charges against Khalid Shaikh Mohammed will be based upon the fact that he was not read his Miranda rights, was not charged with any crimes in a reasonable period of time, and was the victim of torture while held in a prison for more than five years.  I am not a lawyer and I understand these realities.  It is not hard to imagine that a lawyer will have many other reasons to move for dismissal of this case.

Third Khalid Shaikh Mohammed has admitted guilt and under American civil law those pleading guilty are not put on trial.  There is not presentation of evidence in cases where the accused pleads guilty.  A judge issues a sentence.

For those who would argue that there is no war I ask: if there is no war why has the United States placed over 100,000 troops in Iraq and another 68,000 troops in Afghanistan? 

Illegal Aliens Have Rights in America!

In the 14^th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Section 1 reads in part “nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”  That one statement requires that everyone in every jurisdiction must be counted in the census.  I am not happy about this but that requirement is written into our basic law.

Reverend Miguel Rivera, Chairman of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders, has been pushing lawmakers to address immigration reform that would make illegal aliens into legal residents.  He is threatening a boycott of the census if there is no action by Congress.

I feel sorry for those who came to the United States by any means possible to make a better life for themselves.  I might have done the same thing.  However, our first concern ought to be for those who entered the country legally.  Generously this country does provide for the protection of illegal aliens.

If the reverend’s boycott campaign is successful the Federal government ought to pass even more stringent laws that would expedite illegal resident deportation.

The Constitution and the Cross

A New York Times editorial worth re-printing

Published: October 6, 2009

When the Supreme Court takes up a religion case, it often prompts overheated charges: There is a war against Christianity under way; or civil liberties groups are trying to turn this into a secular nation. The court is scheduled to hear arguments on Wednesday in a case that raises none of these issues — even though Americans may well be treated to another round of scare stories.

The narrow question is whether a large cross that has been placed on federal land violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment, the founders’ direction that there must be a wall of separation between church and state. The court should rule that it does.

The Veterans of Foreign Wars erected a cross in 1934 in San Bernardino County, Calif. — in what is now the Mojave National Preserve — to honor America’s war dead. Since then, the cross has been replaced several times, most recently around 1998. Its religious significance is clear, but the National Park Service has not allowed other religions to add symbols. In 1999, the park service denied a request by an individual to place a Buddhist memorial in the area. The cross has also been the site of Easter sunrise services for more than 70 years.

Frank Buono, a former assistant superintendent of the preserve who said that he still visits regularly, sued to challenge the display’s constitutionality.

The case comes to the Supreme Court in an unusual form. When a Federal District Court ruled that the cross violated the establishment clause, Congress transferred the property under it to a veterans’ group in exchange for other property. In a second round of litigation, a Federal District Court ruled that the land transfer continued the constitutional violation. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, affirmed.

The Supreme Court will first consider whether Mr. Buono has standing to challenge the cross. The cross’s supporters argue that he has not really been injured and, therefore, should not be able to sue. But as someone who was in contact with the cross and was offended by its presence, he was injured. More precisely, though, in this case, Mr. Buono has won a court injunction against the cross, and Congress’s land transfer interferes with his injunction. He has a right to challenge the transfer.

On the merits, the appeals court was right that the cross must come down. By allowing a Christian cross, and not symbols of other faiths, on federal land, the government was favoring one religion over others. Also, Congress has designated the cross as a national memorial, which means that it continues to have official government endorsement.

The land transfer was mere window-dressing. Bypassing normal procedures for disposing of government land, Congress gave the land to an entity it understood would keep up the cross, and it provided that the land would be returned if it was not used as a memorial.

Religious symbolism of this kind on government land is, by its very nature, exclusionary. Allowing only a cross to stand over the memorial sends a message to Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and others that their sacrifices, and their family members’ sacrifices, are not appreciated or mourned.

It also sends a message that state and church are intertwined. A single cross does not, by itself, mean America has an established religion, but if the Supreme Court stops caring that the government is promoting a particular religion, we will be down the path toward having one.

Is This Really Democracy?

When the constitution of the United States was written science as we have known it in the 20^th and 21^st centuries did not exist.  The authors of the constitution were merchants who were interested in protecting their wealth and way of life.  That was their purpose.

Since the authors could not foresee the future they wrote the constitution to govern in the world as it existed at the end of the 18^th century.  Wisely they also provided a means to amend the document.  Hence the term “Living Constitution” has evolved.  You can find this term in Wikipedia along with the term originalism, the view that the constituion cannot be changed from its original intent.  The Wikipedia discussion is extensive and is one that I have read elsewhere.  I subscribe to the idea of the living constitution.

George W. Bush has enunciated his desire to bring democracy to all the world.  He is a vocal supporter of democratic institutions.  However, in the United States he was not elected by popular vote. He was elected by an electoral system that was part of the original constitution.  President George W. Bush was selected by a majority of electors and that happened because the elector system provides for a “winner take all” process in each individual state.

As bad as the electoral system is, the United States does not have a formal legal process in place for the selection of candidates in each party.  There is nothing in the Constitution about selecting party candidates.  The process is part of our common law system that was started by England.

Here are the first three candidate selection elections in 2008.

January 3—Iowa Caucus

January 5—Wyoming Republican Caucus

January 8—New Hampshire Primary 

The troubling part of this is that these three states have small populations and they, for the most part, do not reflect the large population centers of our country that are ethnically diverse. 

The insiders that John Edwards talks about in his campaining have control of this situation.  Articles on these subjects are now making the news. Nation Has Its Fill of Iowa-NH First is a good example <http://apnews.excite.com/article/20080101/D8TT8E280.html>.  Changing the system will be a big challenge.  Smaller states want to keep things as they are for both the primaries and the electoral college for just one reason.  The have more influence on the out come.