President Obama now says that it is important for him to affirm that same-sex couples should be able to get married. As such, for him, "marriage" is now nothing more than a union between any two consenting adults.
So, then, what is the President's position on polygamy? Is it "evolving," as well? If so, why is the number, "two" sacred?
If "consent" between "adults" is the key, what's wrong with consentual polygamy?
I have recently opined, indicating that "marriage" is a "fundamental right" of the American people and, that while not specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights, that it is protected by the Ninth Amendment. In my earlier discussion, I defined marriage as a consentual union between one man and one woman. I used that definition because that is what people who came to live in the United States prior to the enactment of our Constitution in 1788 understood marriage to be. I now suggest, for reasons explained below, the right to marry -- between a man and a woman -- is also protected by the First Amendment which guarantees the "free exercise" of religion.
But what about people who have religious beliefs that polygamous unions are mandated by their religion? Do they have a right to practice polygamy in the United States, given the First Amendment which provides that "Congress shall make no law ... prohibiting the free exercise" of religion?"
There was a time in the late 19th century when the Mormons believed that polygamy was mandated by their religion. They argued that the First Amendment which provides that "Congress shall make no law ... prohibiting the free exercise" of religion" guaranteed that right.
That was the question answered by the U. S. Supreme Court decision in Reynolds v. U. S. (1878). In that case, George Reynolds, a Mormon, was found guilty under a federal statute which prohibited bigamy in the Utah Territory. On appeal to the Supreme Court, he raised the question: "Should the accused have been acquitted if he married the second time, because he believed it to be his religious duty?
As you read the excerpts from the Supreme Court's opinion below, notice the importance that the court attaches -- for First Amendment purposes -- to the fact while monogamous marriages were recognized throughout the European countries from which the colonists came, and that polygamy was not. The Reynolds court, therefore, concluded that polygamy was not part of the religious freedom that the First Amendment protected.
"The word 'religion' is not defined in the Constitution. We must go elsewhere, therefore, to ascertain its meaning, and nowhere more appropriately, we think, than to the history of the times in the midst of which the provision was adopted.
The precise point of the inquiry is, 'what is the religious freedom which has been guaranteed?'
"Polygamy has always been odious among the northern and western nations of Europe, and, until the establishment of the Mormon Church, was almost exclusively a feature of the life of Asiatic and of African people. At common law, the second marriage was always void ... and from the earliest history of England, polygamy has been treated as an offence against society. After the establishment of the ecclesiastical ... courts, and until the time of James I, it was punished through the instrumentality of those tribunals, not merely because ecclesiastical rights had been violated, but because upon the separation of the ecclesiastical courts from the civil, the ecclesiastical were supposed to be the most appropriate for the trial of matrimonial causes and offences against the rights of marriage ...."
The Reynolds court, not withstanding that polygamy was a consentual relationship between adults, denied polygamy 1st Amendment protection. So not withstanding the President's "affirmation," where does that leave "same-sex" marriage constitutionally? I raise that question because at the time our Bill of Rights was adopted, as in the case of polygamy, nobody in America seriously claimed that same-sex couples had a right to "marry."
Posted Online: May 17, 2012, 3:00 pm - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea
Copyright 2012, John Donald O'Shea
Thursday, May 17, 2012
Wednesday, May 2, 2012
Kumbaya or Confrontation? The 1st Amendment Question!
If Jefferson Davis II were running for president on a platform of reimposing slavery, would a black minister have a right to tell his congregation to vote against Jeff Davis II?
If Adolf Hitler Jr. were running for president, promising to exterminate all Jews, could a Rabbi lawfully urge his congregation to vote against Hitler Jr.?
On April 14, Bishop Daniel Jenky of Peoria, delivered an unusually forceful "anti-abortion" homily entitled, "A Call to Catholic Men of Faith."
Bishop Jenky accused the Obama administration of serious violations of religious liberty. Those who disagree with what he said have demanded his resignation from the University of Notre Dame Board of Fellows. Others have asked the IRS to revoke the dioceses' tax exemption.
Here are excerpts from that homily:
"For 2,000 years the enemies of Christ have certainly tried their best. But ... the Church survived...
"The Church will survive the entrenched corruption and sheer incompetence of our Illinois state government, and even the calculated disdain of the President of the United States, his appointed bureaucrats in HHS, and of the current majority of the federal Senate.
"We can no longer be Catholics by accident, but instead be Catholics by conviction.
"In the late 19th century, Bismarck waged his 'Kulturkampf,' ... against the Roman Catholic Church, closing down every Catholic school and hospital, convent and monastery in Imperial Germany.
"Hitler and Stalin, at their better moments, would just barely tolerate some churches remaining open, but would not tolerate any competition with the state in education, social services, and health care.
"In clear violation of our First Amendment rights, Barack Obama -- with his radical, pro abortion and extreme secularist agenda, now seems intent on following a similar path.
"[T]his is not a war where any believing Catholic may remain neutral.
"This fall, every practicing Catholic must vote, and must vote their Catholic consciences, or by the following fall our Catholic schools, our Catholic hospitals, our Catholic Newman Centers, all our public ministries -- only excepting our church buildings -- could easily be shut down.
Because no Catholic institution, under any circumstance, can ever cooperate with the intrinsic evil of killing innocent human life in the womb."
Whether you think Bishop Jenky right or wrong on abortion, there can be no argument that killing a human fetus raises a moral and religious issue. For 3,000 years Jews and Christians accepted "Thou shall not kill" as God's Commandment. There is no question but that applies to all humans from the minute of their birth. The only issue is whether it also applies to the unborn.
It is historically and religiously the function of a bishop to teach and preach. Christ told his disciples, "to make disciples of all nations ... teaching them "
Teaching has been the bishops' distinctive function for 2,000 years. It was the bishops' office when the Constitution was adopted, and the Bill of Rights approved. Our Founding Father recognized that.
When a bishop sees what he perceives to be a serious violation of God's law, he has a First Amendment right to believe that what he perceives is an "enormous evil." As a teacher, he has a second First Amendment religious right to engage in the free exercise of his religion, plus a third First Amendment right (free speech) to speak to convince others to oppose the "wrong" and/or wrongdoer.
The fact that a man is a bishop doesn't deprive him of First Amendment rights of freedom of belief, or free exercise of his religion. Nor does it mean that he surrenders his right of free speech. Whether he speaks in church, on a street corner, in a Catholic newspaper or on television, he still has the same First Amendment rights. (He is not advocating a breech of the peace.)
The First Amendment exists to give Americans -- including bishops -- the right to convince fellow Americans that any politician is evil, unworthy to be elected, re-elected, etc.
IRS regulations that abridge Bishop Jenky's rights to freedom of religion and speech are unconstitutional.
The reason churches are tax exempt is because the "power to tax is the power to destroy" -- or control.
If churches can be prevented from speaking out on moral issues, or against politicians they perceive to have taken immoral positions on issues, such as extermination of Jews, killing the unborn, or "putting down" the retarded or the elderly, you have destroyed freedom of religion, as well as freedom of speech. Removal of a tax exemption is in essence a tax.
If Planned Parenthood has a right to speak for abortion, a church has a right to speak against it. If "pro-choice" individuals and corporations have a right to support the election of "pro-choice" politicians, Bishop Jenky and religious corporations have a right to oppose "pro-choice" politicians, and to call for the election of "pro-life" politicians.
That is what the Citizen's United case is all about, and why it was correctly decided. Without this right, you get the sort of church leaders who temporized as million Jews were murdered.
So, where do you stand? For Kumbaya or confrontation? What exactly does "Freedom of Religion" mean?
Is a priest to be limited to saying Mass inside his church? A minister, limited to reading scriptures from his pulpit? Kumbaya or confrontation? The 1st Amendment question!
Posted Online: May 01, 2012, 3:24 pm - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea
Copyright 2012, John Donald O'Shea
If Adolf Hitler Jr. were running for president, promising to exterminate all Jews, could a Rabbi lawfully urge his congregation to vote against Hitler Jr.?
On April 14, Bishop Daniel Jenky of Peoria, delivered an unusually forceful "anti-abortion" homily entitled, "A Call to Catholic Men of Faith."
Bishop Jenky accused the Obama administration of serious violations of religious liberty. Those who disagree with what he said have demanded his resignation from the University of Notre Dame Board of Fellows. Others have asked the IRS to revoke the dioceses' tax exemption.
Here are excerpts from that homily:
"For 2,000 years the enemies of Christ have certainly tried their best. But ... the Church survived...
"The Church will survive the entrenched corruption and sheer incompetence of our Illinois state government, and even the calculated disdain of the President of the United States, his appointed bureaucrats in HHS, and of the current majority of the federal Senate.
"We can no longer be Catholics by accident, but instead be Catholics by conviction.
"In the late 19th century, Bismarck waged his 'Kulturkampf,' ... against the Roman Catholic Church, closing down every Catholic school and hospital, convent and monastery in Imperial Germany.
"Hitler and Stalin, at their better moments, would just barely tolerate some churches remaining open, but would not tolerate any competition with the state in education, social services, and health care.
"In clear violation of our First Amendment rights, Barack Obama -- with his radical, pro abortion and extreme secularist agenda, now seems intent on following a similar path.
"[T]his is not a war where any believing Catholic may remain neutral.
"This fall, every practicing Catholic must vote, and must vote their Catholic consciences, or by the following fall our Catholic schools, our Catholic hospitals, our Catholic Newman Centers, all our public ministries -- only excepting our church buildings -- could easily be shut down.
Because no Catholic institution, under any circumstance, can ever cooperate with the intrinsic evil of killing innocent human life in the womb."
Whether you think Bishop Jenky right or wrong on abortion, there can be no argument that killing a human fetus raises a moral and religious issue. For 3,000 years Jews and Christians accepted "Thou shall not kill" as God's Commandment. There is no question but that applies to all humans from the minute of their birth. The only issue is whether it also applies to the unborn.
It is historically and religiously the function of a bishop to teach and preach. Christ told his disciples, "to make disciples of all nations ... teaching them "
Teaching has been the bishops' distinctive function for 2,000 years. It was the bishops' office when the Constitution was adopted, and the Bill of Rights approved. Our Founding Father recognized that.
When a bishop sees what he perceives to be a serious violation of God's law, he has a First Amendment right to believe that what he perceives is an "enormous evil." As a teacher, he has a second First Amendment religious right to engage in the free exercise of his religion, plus a third First Amendment right (free speech) to speak to convince others to oppose the "wrong" and/or wrongdoer.
The fact that a man is a bishop doesn't deprive him of First Amendment rights of freedom of belief, or free exercise of his religion. Nor does it mean that he surrenders his right of free speech. Whether he speaks in church, on a street corner, in a Catholic newspaper or on television, he still has the same First Amendment rights. (He is not advocating a breech of the peace.)
The First Amendment exists to give Americans -- including bishops -- the right to convince fellow Americans that any politician is evil, unworthy to be elected, re-elected, etc.
IRS regulations that abridge Bishop Jenky's rights to freedom of religion and speech are unconstitutional.
The reason churches are tax exempt is because the "power to tax is the power to destroy" -- or control.
If churches can be prevented from speaking out on moral issues, or against politicians they perceive to have taken immoral positions on issues, such as extermination of Jews, killing the unborn, or "putting down" the retarded or the elderly, you have destroyed freedom of religion, as well as freedom of speech. Removal of a tax exemption is in essence a tax.
If Planned Parenthood has a right to speak for abortion, a church has a right to speak against it. If "pro-choice" individuals and corporations have a right to support the election of "pro-choice" politicians, Bishop Jenky and religious corporations have a right to oppose "pro-choice" politicians, and to call for the election of "pro-life" politicians.
That is what the Citizen's United case is all about, and why it was correctly decided. Without this right, you get the sort of church leaders who temporized as million Jews were murdered.
So, where do you stand? For Kumbaya or confrontation? What exactly does "Freedom of Religion" mean?
Is a priest to be limited to saying Mass inside his church? A minister, limited to reading scriptures from his pulpit? Kumbaya or confrontation? The 1st Amendment question!
Posted Online: May 01, 2012, 3:24 pm - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea
Copyright 2012, John Donald O'Shea
Saturday, April 21, 2012
President Obama Looks at World Through Green-colored Glasses
President Obama has been telling Americans that an increase in the supply of oil will not affect the price of oil.
Compare that to what the Associated press recently reported about the supply of natural gas affecting the price of natural gas. Then draw your own conclusions. Is somebody an economic nit-wit? Obfuscating?
Over the course of the past few months, we have seen President Obama say the following concerning oil prices.
-- "There are no quick fixes to this problem."
-- "The U.S. can't drill its way out of high prices."
-- "The Republican mantra is that we need to 'drill baby drill.' This slogan may sound good, but it's based on complete fiction."
-- "No matter how much we drill, our gasoline prices are going to rise if there's a crisis in the Middle East, labor unrest in Nigeria."
-- "The only solution to the challenge (is that) we start using less. That lowers the demand, prices come down."
When President Obama's quotes are taken together in context, this is what we get. "The U.S. can't drill its way out of high prices. The Republicans' simplistic solution is 'drill, baby, drill.' If there is unrest anywhere in the world, no matter how much we drill, gasoline prices are still going to rise. We can't lower prices by increasing supply -- by drilling. The only solution is to reduce demand -- to start using less."
On April 9, The Dispatch/Argus ran excerpts from a New York datelined AP piece headlined, "Too much natural gas?":
"So much natural gas is being produced that soon there may be nowhere left to put the country's swelling surplus..
"U.S. natural gas production has boomed in recent years as a result of new drilling techniques that allow companies to unlock fuel trapped in shale formations. Last year, the U.S. produced an average of 63 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day, a 24 percent increase from 2006. But over that period consumption has grown half as fast.
"The glut has benefited businesses and homeowners that use natural gas.
"But with natural gas prices at a 10-year low -- and falling -- companies that produce the fuel are becoming victims of their drilling successes. Their stock prices are falling in anticipation of declining profits and scaled-back growth plans.
'There hasn't been enough demand to use up all the supply being pushed into the market.'
"So far, efforts to limit production have barely made a dent. Unless the pace of production declines sharply or demand picks up significantly this summer, analysts say the nation's storage facilities could reach their limits by fall.
"That would cause the price of natural gas, which has been halved over the past year, to nosedive. Citigroup ... says the price of natural gas -- now $2.08 per 1,000 cubic feet -- could briefly fall below $1."
Compare what the president has said on oil to what the AP says on natural gas.
While the president tells the American public that only a reduction of demand -- and not an increase in supply -- can reduce the price of oil, the AP story says that the "new drilling technologies" have produced an over supply of natural gas and have driven the price to a 10-year low -- to $2.08 per 1,000 cubic feet, and that the price may well fall below $1.
Why does the law of supply and demand govern the price of natural gas, but not the price of oil?
What has happened with natural gas is economic fact. What the president tells us will happen with oil, is the product of a man looking at the world through green-colored glasses.
When a president continues to try to tell the American public that there is no law of supply and demand at work in the realm of oil, while ignoring the incontrovertible evidence that the same law is clearly at work in the realm of natural gas, one can only wonder whether Mr. Obama is economically challenged or oblivious to the truth!
If we can become as oil self-sufficient as we are natural gas self-sufficient, then all the unrest in Nigeria, or Iran will have far less effect, if any, on our prices.
Perhaps the president should have studied economics instead of constitutional law.
That's where you learn about the law of supply and demand.
Posted Online: April 20, 2012, 1:25 pm - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea
Copyright 2012, John Donald O'Shea
Compare that to what the Associated press recently reported about the supply of natural gas affecting the price of natural gas. Then draw your own conclusions. Is somebody an economic nit-wit? Obfuscating?
Over the course of the past few months, we have seen President Obama say the following concerning oil prices.
-- "There are no quick fixes to this problem."
-- "The U.S. can't drill its way out of high prices."
-- "The Republican mantra is that we need to 'drill baby drill.' This slogan may sound good, but it's based on complete fiction."
-- "No matter how much we drill, our gasoline prices are going to rise if there's a crisis in the Middle East, labor unrest in Nigeria."
-- "The only solution to the challenge (is that) we start using less. That lowers the demand, prices come down."
When President Obama's quotes are taken together in context, this is what we get. "The U.S. can't drill its way out of high prices. The Republicans' simplistic solution is 'drill, baby, drill.' If there is unrest anywhere in the world, no matter how much we drill, gasoline prices are still going to rise. We can't lower prices by increasing supply -- by drilling. The only solution is to reduce demand -- to start using less."
On April 9, The Dispatch/Argus ran excerpts from a New York datelined AP piece headlined, "Too much natural gas?":
"So much natural gas is being produced that soon there may be nowhere left to put the country's swelling surplus..
"U.S. natural gas production has boomed in recent years as a result of new drilling techniques that allow companies to unlock fuel trapped in shale formations. Last year, the U.S. produced an average of 63 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day, a 24 percent increase from 2006. But over that period consumption has grown half as fast.
"The glut has benefited businesses and homeowners that use natural gas.
"But with natural gas prices at a 10-year low -- and falling -- companies that produce the fuel are becoming victims of their drilling successes. Their stock prices are falling in anticipation of declining profits and scaled-back growth plans.
'There hasn't been enough demand to use up all the supply being pushed into the market.'
"So far, efforts to limit production have barely made a dent. Unless the pace of production declines sharply or demand picks up significantly this summer, analysts say the nation's storage facilities could reach their limits by fall.
"That would cause the price of natural gas, which has been halved over the past year, to nosedive. Citigroup ... says the price of natural gas -- now $2.08 per 1,000 cubic feet -- could briefly fall below $1."
Compare what the president has said on oil to what the AP says on natural gas.
While the president tells the American public that only a reduction of demand -- and not an increase in supply -- can reduce the price of oil, the AP story says that the "new drilling technologies" have produced an over supply of natural gas and have driven the price to a 10-year low -- to $2.08 per 1,000 cubic feet, and that the price may well fall below $1.
Why does the law of supply and demand govern the price of natural gas, but not the price of oil?
What has happened with natural gas is economic fact. What the president tells us will happen with oil, is the product of a man looking at the world through green-colored glasses.
When a president continues to try to tell the American public that there is no law of supply and demand at work in the realm of oil, while ignoring the incontrovertible evidence that the same law is clearly at work in the realm of natural gas, one can only wonder whether Mr. Obama is economically challenged or oblivious to the truth!
If we can become as oil self-sufficient as we are natural gas self-sufficient, then all the unrest in Nigeria, or Iran will have far less effect, if any, on our prices.
Perhaps the president should have studied economics instead of constitutional law.
That's where you learn about the law of supply and demand.
Posted Online: April 20, 2012, 1:25 pm - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea
Copyright 2012, John Donald O'Shea
Thursday, April 12, 2012
House GOP Should Assert Constitutional Prerogative
In 1627, England was at war, and King Charles I needed money.
The House of Commons refused to provide that money. The King reacted by dissolving Parliament.
Two week later, the King opted to raise the money he needed by resorting to "forced loans" -- a euphemism for a "tax" imposed by the king without the consent of the Commons.
For the next 20 years, the King and Parliament battled over who controlled the "power of the purse." The issue was finally settled only after the English Civil War (1642-1651), during the course of which Charles I, lost his head.
When America adopted its Constitution (1788), that "power of the purse," which the House of Common fought a 10-year civil war to hold on to, was, in the first instance, vested in our House of Representatives. It is the House's preeminent power, and the guarantee that the people of our country will not be taxed without the consent of their Representatives in the House. A guarantee that they will not be taxed by a "king" or his ministers.
This is the historical backdrop in front of which President Obama rails against a "do-nothing (Republican) Congress" on an almost daily basis. So, is he being honest with the voters? Or is he playing an anti-constitutional cynical game?
How does he explain the fact that when he recently sent his own "budget" to Congress, that every member of the House of Representatives -- every Republicans and even every Democrats -- voted against it!
And how does he explain the fact that Democrat Harry Reid refuses to even call it up for a vote in the Senate the House's proposed appropriations bills?
If President Obama's budget is a "good faith submission," why doesn't Reid call it?
The Democrats control the Senate. If it has an iota of merit, the Senate could pass it without a single Republican vote! Then senators could go to conference with the House, where maybe something might get done.
So, who is really to blame? A president who cannot get a single Democratic House member or senator to vote for his "budget?" Both houses of Congress?
Or would it be "fairer" to blame only one house? And if so, which house? The House or the Senate?
I am from a generation that believes talk is cheap, and that "actions speak louder than words." So what would I do if I were running the House?
It is very simple. I would pass legislation, which if ignored by the Senate or vetoed by the president, would clearly demonstrate to the voters who is really at fault for the current mess. (Of course, the Republican leadership in the House may lack the wit to fashion such legislation.)
Section 7 [1] of the U. S. Constitution provides "All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other bills."
It also provides "No money shall be drawn from the treasury but in consequence of appropriations made by law ..."
Two years ago, Americans gave the Republicans control of the House.
They concluded that the Democrats had been spending ruinously. They expected the Republicans to fix things. Instead, the House and Senate have given us a series of gutless "continuing resolutions."
So here is my solution. The Republicans, rather than passing "omnibus" appropriation and spending bills, should pass a series of separate appropriation bills, and a series of separate spending bills.
If the Republicans believe that there should be an appropriation for the armed forces, they should pass a "clean" appropriations bill for funding the armed forces. (When I say "clean," I mean a bill that does nothing other than fund the armed forces -- with no earmarks, no gimmicks, no extraneous provision.)
If they want to fund Social Security (which will be necessary to make up for revenue shortages caused by President Obama's payroll tax holiday), pass a clean appropriations bill for that purpose.
If they want to fund Medicare, pass a clean appropriations bill for that purpose, etc.
On the other hand, if they are serious about wanting to defund Obamacare, or the Department of Education or any other department, they can refuse to pass an appropriations bill for that department.
If the House passes clean appropriation bills, and if the Senate refuses to consider them, or amends them in a way to dirty them up, it will then be patently clear to the American public which branch of Congress is truly the do-nothing branch.
House Republicans would then be in perfect position to say if the government is forced to shut down, "Don't blame us. We passed a clean bill to make sure that every American would get his Social Security check. And if you don't get your checks, blame Harry Reid and the Senate and/or the president for shutting down the Social Security programs of the government."
Under our Constitution, the House "controls the purse."
It's time that the House, asserts its Constitutional prerogative. Demonstrate in a way that the public can't misunderstand that the Democrats in the Senate are the true obstructionists -- if that is indeed the case.
A House that won't fight to maintain its right to control the power of the purse is a disgrace to its heritage.
Posted Online: April 11, 2012, 3:08 pm pm - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea
Copyright 2012, John Donald O'Shea
The House of Commons refused to provide that money. The King reacted by dissolving Parliament.
Two week later, the King opted to raise the money he needed by resorting to "forced loans" -- a euphemism for a "tax" imposed by the king without the consent of the Commons.
For the next 20 years, the King and Parliament battled over who controlled the "power of the purse." The issue was finally settled only after the English Civil War (1642-1651), during the course of which Charles I, lost his head.
When America adopted its Constitution (1788), that "power of the purse," which the House of Common fought a 10-year civil war to hold on to, was, in the first instance, vested in our House of Representatives. It is the House's preeminent power, and the guarantee that the people of our country will not be taxed without the consent of their Representatives in the House. A guarantee that they will not be taxed by a "king" or his ministers.
This is the historical backdrop in front of which President Obama rails against a "do-nothing (Republican) Congress" on an almost daily basis. So, is he being honest with the voters? Or is he playing an anti-constitutional cynical game?
How does he explain the fact that when he recently sent his own "budget" to Congress, that every member of the House of Representatives -- every Republicans and even every Democrats -- voted against it!
And how does he explain the fact that Democrat Harry Reid refuses to even call it up for a vote in the Senate the House's proposed appropriations bills?
If President Obama's budget is a "good faith submission," why doesn't Reid call it?
The Democrats control the Senate. If it has an iota of merit, the Senate could pass it without a single Republican vote! Then senators could go to conference with the House, where maybe something might get done.
So, who is really to blame? A president who cannot get a single Democratic House member or senator to vote for his "budget?" Both houses of Congress?
Or would it be "fairer" to blame only one house? And if so, which house? The House or the Senate?
I am from a generation that believes talk is cheap, and that "actions speak louder than words." So what would I do if I were running the House?
It is very simple. I would pass legislation, which if ignored by the Senate or vetoed by the president, would clearly demonstrate to the voters who is really at fault for the current mess. (Of course, the Republican leadership in the House may lack the wit to fashion such legislation.)
Section 7 [1] of the U. S. Constitution provides "All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other bills."
It also provides "No money shall be drawn from the treasury but in consequence of appropriations made by law ..."
Two years ago, Americans gave the Republicans control of the House.
They concluded that the Democrats had been spending ruinously. They expected the Republicans to fix things. Instead, the House and Senate have given us a series of gutless "continuing resolutions."
So here is my solution. The Republicans, rather than passing "omnibus" appropriation and spending bills, should pass a series of separate appropriation bills, and a series of separate spending bills.
If the Republicans believe that there should be an appropriation for the armed forces, they should pass a "clean" appropriations bill for funding the armed forces. (When I say "clean," I mean a bill that does nothing other than fund the armed forces -- with no earmarks, no gimmicks, no extraneous provision.)
If they want to fund Social Security (which will be necessary to make up for revenue shortages caused by President Obama's payroll tax holiday), pass a clean appropriations bill for that purpose.
If they want to fund Medicare, pass a clean appropriations bill for that purpose, etc.
On the other hand, if they are serious about wanting to defund Obamacare, or the Department of Education or any other department, they can refuse to pass an appropriations bill for that department.
If the House passes clean appropriation bills, and if the Senate refuses to consider them, or amends them in a way to dirty them up, it will then be patently clear to the American public which branch of Congress is truly the do-nothing branch.
House Republicans would then be in perfect position to say if the government is forced to shut down, "Don't blame us. We passed a clean bill to make sure that every American would get his Social Security check. And if you don't get your checks, blame Harry Reid and the Senate and/or the president for shutting down the Social Security programs of the government."
Under our Constitution, the House "controls the purse."
It's time that the House, asserts its Constitutional prerogative. Demonstrate in a way that the public can't misunderstand that the Democrats in the Senate are the true obstructionists -- if that is indeed the case.
A House that won't fight to maintain its right to control the power of the purse is a disgrace to its heritage.
Posted Online: April 11, 2012, 3:08 pm pm - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea
Copyright 2012, John Donald O'Shea
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
Why Send Our Oil Money to the Saudis? Hugo Chavez?
The Associated Press reports that President Obama has said, "Rising gas prices are not my fault."
Harry Truman said, "The buck stops here!"
But assuming arguendo that President Obama is correct when he says he can't do anything about gasoline prices, why not "buy American"?
According to Der Spiegel, Saudi Arabia pumps about 9 million barrels (378 gallons) of crude oil per day. When oil is priced at $114 per barrel, the Saudi Royal Kingdom earns just over $1 billion a day -- roughly $365B per year! I provide these figures by way of illustration. I realize America gets oil from many countries other than Saudi Arabia. And I realize that others report the Saudis export more.
So how much crude oil did the U.S. import in 2010? According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), the U.S. imported (a net figure of) about 9.4 million barrels per day of petroleum in 2010.
My point is simple. The United States in 2010 imported a net of 9.4 million barrels of oil per day. Saudi Arabia pumps 9 million barrels a day. If the U.S. imported oil only from Saudi Arabia, and took Saudi Arabia's entire 9 million barrel output (which isn't the case), the U.S. would still need to import additional crude. And that is 9.4 million barrels a day is on top of the crude that the U.S. produces.
The EIA cannot determine exactly the amount of crude oil produced in the U.S. that is consumed, as refined products, in the U.S. However, the majority of the crude oil produced in the U.S. is refined in U.S. refineries.
The U.S. also produces other liquids that are used in the refining process that are added or blended with the refined products. The bottom line in 2010 was this: The U.S. produced about 5.5 million barrels of crude oil per day, and imported about 9.4 million barrels per day.
President Obama says the U.S. can effect gasoline prices only by decreasing demand and usage. He denies, I believe disingenuously, that prices can be decreased by increasing supply. Yet when presidents have tapped the Strategic Reserve -- which increased supply -- prices have dropped. Why? (No, I am not advocating tapping the Strategic Reserve.)
But assuming, for the sake of discussion, the truth of the inane claim that oil prices are somehow unaffected by the "law of supply and demand," why can't the president see that it is bad for the U.S. when $365 billion leave America each year and find their way into the pockets of foreigners-- many of whom hate our guts?
When Saudi oil sells for $114 per barrel, even if part of that goes to the oil companies and the refineries and not the Saudis, it still costs the U.S. $114 per barrel to import each of the 9 million barrels we import per day.
That money goes to the Saudis, Venezuelans, the Mexican or some other foreign country, and to the foreign oil companies and their refineries, etc., That $365 billion per year is sucked out of the American economy and sent overseas.
Why? To help the Arab tyrants who hate our guts? To ensure that a Marxist ally of Iran retains power in Venezuela? To provide employment for foreign workers, and profits for foreign oil companies and refiners? That's nuts!
Why not keep that $365 billion here?
How many high-paying drilling jobs would $365 billion create?
How much money would flow into the pockets of American oil drilling companies?
How many high-paying refining jobs would be created? How much money would flow into the pockets of the refining companies?
How many high paying transportation or pipeline jobs would be created? How much money would flow into the pockets of the trucking companies, or the pipeline companies?
How many billion dollars would the federal and state governments rake in in taxes?
We have a president who says "it's not my fault" if $365 billion U.S. oil dollars leave our country.
When I was a boy, I used to read "Mad Magazine." Their "cover boy" was one Alfred E. Neuman. He was famous for the line, "What, me worry?" I prefer a president who does "worry." One who says, "The Buck Stops Here."
But then, since 1956, Alfred he has periodically offered himself as a candidate for the presidency of the United States with the slogan, "You could do worse... and always have!"
It appears, we indeed have.
Posted Online: April 03, 2012, 2:58 pm - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea
Copyright 2012, John Donald O'Shea
Harry Truman said, "The buck stops here!"
But assuming arguendo that President Obama is correct when he says he can't do anything about gasoline prices, why not "buy American"?
According to Der Spiegel, Saudi Arabia pumps about 9 million barrels (378 gallons) of crude oil per day. When oil is priced at $114 per barrel, the Saudi Royal Kingdom earns just over $1 billion a day -- roughly $365B per year! I provide these figures by way of illustration. I realize America gets oil from many countries other than Saudi Arabia. And I realize that others report the Saudis export more.
So how much crude oil did the U.S. import in 2010? According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), the U.S. imported (a net figure of) about 9.4 million barrels per day of petroleum in 2010.
My point is simple. The United States in 2010 imported a net of 9.4 million barrels of oil per day. Saudi Arabia pumps 9 million barrels a day. If the U.S. imported oil only from Saudi Arabia, and took Saudi Arabia's entire 9 million barrel output (which isn't the case), the U.S. would still need to import additional crude. And that is 9.4 million barrels a day is on top of the crude that the U.S. produces.
The EIA cannot determine exactly the amount of crude oil produced in the U.S. that is consumed, as refined products, in the U.S. However, the majority of the crude oil produced in the U.S. is refined in U.S. refineries.
The U.S. also produces other liquids that are used in the refining process that are added or blended with the refined products. The bottom line in 2010 was this: The U.S. produced about 5.5 million barrels of crude oil per day, and imported about 9.4 million barrels per day.
President Obama says the U.S. can effect gasoline prices only by decreasing demand and usage. He denies, I believe disingenuously, that prices can be decreased by increasing supply. Yet when presidents have tapped the Strategic Reserve -- which increased supply -- prices have dropped. Why? (No, I am not advocating tapping the Strategic Reserve.)
But assuming, for the sake of discussion, the truth of the inane claim that oil prices are somehow unaffected by the "law of supply and demand," why can't the president see that it is bad for the U.S. when $365 billion leave America each year and find their way into the pockets of foreigners-- many of whom hate our guts?
When Saudi oil sells for $114 per barrel, even if part of that goes to the oil companies and the refineries and not the Saudis, it still costs the U.S. $114 per barrel to import each of the 9 million barrels we import per day.
That money goes to the Saudis, Venezuelans, the Mexican or some other foreign country, and to the foreign oil companies and their refineries, etc., That $365 billion per year is sucked out of the American economy and sent overseas.
Why? To help the Arab tyrants who hate our guts? To ensure that a Marxist ally of Iran retains power in Venezuela? To provide employment for foreign workers, and profits for foreign oil companies and refiners? That's nuts!
Why not keep that $365 billion here?
How many high-paying drilling jobs would $365 billion create?
How much money would flow into the pockets of American oil drilling companies?
How many high-paying refining jobs would be created? How much money would flow into the pockets of the refining companies?
How many high paying transportation or pipeline jobs would be created? How much money would flow into the pockets of the trucking companies, or the pipeline companies?
How many billion dollars would the federal and state governments rake in in taxes?
We have a president who says "it's not my fault" if $365 billion U.S. oil dollars leave our country.
When I was a boy, I used to read "Mad Magazine." Their "cover boy" was one Alfred E. Neuman. He was famous for the line, "What, me worry?" I prefer a president who does "worry." One who says, "The Buck Stops Here."
But then, since 1956, Alfred he has periodically offered himself as a candidate for the presidency of the United States with the slogan, "You could do worse... and always have!"
It appears, we indeed have.
Posted Online: April 03, 2012, 2:58 pm - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea
Copyright 2012, John Donald O'Shea
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Read the Ninth Amendment to the Constitution; You'll Like It!
In this piece, I am examining contraception from a legal — not a moral — point of view.
In that context, I raise the following questions:
-- Does a married couple have the right to use contraception during their private act of intercourse?
-- Does the government have the right to enter their bedroom to investigate whether they are using a contraceptive?
Those were addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965). There, the executive director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut, and its medical director were convicted of violating Connecticut law for giving married persons advice on how to prevent conception and prescribing a contraceptive.
Justice William O. Douglas wrote the majority opinion declaring the state statute unconstitutional.
"The (cited) cases suggest that specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance. ...
"The present case, then, concerns a relationship lying within the zone of privacy created by several fundamental constitutional guarantees. And it concerns a law which, in forbidding the use of contraceptives rather than regulating their manufacture or sale, seeks to achieve its goals by means having a maximum destructive impact upon that relationship. Such a law cannot stand in light of the familiar principle, so often applied by this Court, that a 'governmental purpose to control or prevent activities constitutionally subject to state regulation may not be achieved by means which sweep unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade the area of protected freedoms.' ...
"Would we allow the police to search the sacred precincts of marital bedrooms for telltale signs of the use of contraceptives? The very idea is repulsive to the notions of privacy surrounding the marriage relationship.
"We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights ... Marriage is ... intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, ... ; a harmony in living, ... a bilateral loyalty... [I]t is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."
In an estimable concurrence, Justice Arthur Goldberg wrote, "The Court stated many years ago that the Due Process Clause protects those liberties that are 'so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental.'
"The language and history of the Ninth Amendment reveal that the Framers of the Constitution believed that there are additional fundamental rights, protected from governmental infringement, which exist alongside those fundamental rights specifically mentioned in the first eight constitutional amendments.
"The Ninth Amendment reads, 'The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.' The Amendment is almost entirely the work of James Madison. ... It was proffered to quiet expressed fears that a bill of specifically enumerated rights could not be sufficiently broad to cover all essential rights and that the specific mention of certain rights would be interpreted as a denial that others were protected.
"A judicial construction that this fundamental right [marriage] is not protected by the Constitution because it is not mentioned in explicit terms by one of the first eight amendments or elsewhere in the Constitution would violate the Ninth Amendment, which specifically states that "[t]he enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.'"
Few would argue that Griswold did not reach the right result. Even conservative agree with the result -- though they are uncomfortable with the terms of "penumbras" and emanations."
They feel Justice Douglas seems to be saying, " I can't find it anywhere in the language of the first eight amendments, but I know it's there somewhere!"
On the other hand, everybody -- especially conservatives -- seems comfortable with Ninth Amendment justification set forth in the concurring opinion.
Without question, Americans enjoyed the right to marry before the Constitution was adopted. And nobody, ever for a second, thought they were giving up the right to marry (which unquestionably included the right to have intercourse) when they voted to ratify the our Constitution. Except in the mind of a totalitarian, marriage is "fundamental right" and is unquestionably one of the other rights -- "others retained by the people" -- protected by the Ninth Amendment.
Forty-five years ago, the majority never dreamed that the government would want to get into the business of limiting the size of families. But Mr. Justice Goldberg for foresaw that eventuality.
"While it may shock some of my Brethren that the Court today holds that the Constitution protects the right of marital privacy, in my view it is far more shocking to believe that the personal liberty guaranteed by the Constitution does not include protection against such totalitarian limitation of family size, which is at complete variance with our constitutional concepts.
"Yet, if upon a showing of a slender basis of rationality, a law outlawing voluntary birth control by married persons is valid, then, by the same reasoning, a law requiring compulsory birth control also would seem to be valid. In my view, however, both types of law would unjustifiably intrude upon rights of marital privacy which are constitutionally protected."
I can't help but wonder what Justice Goldberg would have said of about government requiring insurers to provide contraceptive coverage.
For those of you who would prefer not to share your bedroom with the government, the Ninth Amendment is your best friend. Griswold makes it "legal" for you (and not the government) to make the "moral" choice to use or not to use contraceptives.
Posted Online: March 27, 2012, 2:25 pm - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea
Copyright 2012, John Donald O'Shea
In that context, I raise the following questions:
-- Does a married couple have the right to use contraception during their private act of intercourse?
-- Does the government have the right to enter their bedroom to investigate whether they are using a contraceptive?
Those were addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965). There, the executive director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut, and its medical director were convicted of violating Connecticut law for giving married persons advice on how to prevent conception and prescribing a contraceptive.
Justice William O. Douglas wrote the majority opinion declaring the state statute unconstitutional.
"The (cited) cases suggest that specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance. ...
"The present case, then, concerns a relationship lying within the zone of privacy created by several fundamental constitutional guarantees. And it concerns a law which, in forbidding the use of contraceptives rather than regulating their manufacture or sale, seeks to achieve its goals by means having a maximum destructive impact upon that relationship. Such a law cannot stand in light of the familiar principle, so often applied by this Court, that a 'governmental purpose to control or prevent activities constitutionally subject to state regulation may not be achieved by means which sweep unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade the area of protected freedoms.' ...
"Would we allow the police to search the sacred precincts of marital bedrooms for telltale signs of the use of contraceptives? The very idea is repulsive to the notions of privacy surrounding the marriage relationship.
"We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights ... Marriage is ... intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, ... ; a harmony in living, ... a bilateral loyalty... [I]t is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."
In an estimable concurrence, Justice Arthur Goldberg wrote, "The Court stated many years ago that the Due Process Clause protects those liberties that are 'so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental.'
"The language and history of the Ninth Amendment reveal that the Framers of the Constitution believed that there are additional fundamental rights, protected from governmental infringement, which exist alongside those fundamental rights specifically mentioned in the first eight constitutional amendments.
"The Ninth Amendment reads, 'The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.' The Amendment is almost entirely the work of James Madison. ... It was proffered to quiet expressed fears that a bill of specifically enumerated rights could not be sufficiently broad to cover all essential rights and that the specific mention of certain rights would be interpreted as a denial that others were protected.
"A judicial construction that this fundamental right [marriage] is not protected by the Constitution because it is not mentioned in explicit terms by one of the first eight amendments or elsewhere in the Constitution would violate the Ninth Amendment, which specifically states that "[t]he enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.'"
Few would argue that Griswold did not reach the right result. Even conservative agree with the result -- though they are uncomfortable with the terms of "penumbras" and emanations."
They feel Justice Douglas seems to be saying, " I can't find it anywhere in the language of the first eight amendments, but I know it's there somewhere!"
On the other hand, everybody -- especially conservatives -- seems comfortable with Ninth Amendment justification set forth in the concurring opinion.
Without question, Americans enjoyed the right to marry before the Constitution was adopted. And nobody, ever for a second, thought they were giving up the right to marry (which unquestionably included the right to have intercourse) when they voted to ratify the our Constitution. Except in the mind of a totalitarian, marriage is "fundamental right" and is unquestionably one of the other rights -- "others retained by the people" -- protected by the Ninth Amendment.
Forty-five years ago, the majority never dreamed that the government would want to get into the business of limiting the size of families. But Mr. Justice Goldberg for foresaw that eventuality.
"While it may shock some of my Brethren that the Court today holds that the Constitution protects the right of marital privacy, in my view it is far more shocking to believe that the personal liberty guaranteed by the Constitution does not include protection against such totalitarian limitation of family size, which is at complete variance with our constitutional concepts.
"Yet, if upon a showing of a slender basis of rationality, a law outlawing voluntary birth control by married persons is valid, then, by the same reasoning, a law requiring compulsory birth control also would seem to be valid. In my view, however, both types of law would unjustifiably intrude upon rights of marital privacy which are constitutionally protected."
I can't help but wonder what Justice Goldberg would have said of about government requiring insurers to provide contraceptive coverage.
For those of you who would prefer not to share your bedroom with the government, the Ninth Amendment is your best friend. Griswold makes it "legal" for you (and not the government) to make the "moral" choice to use or not to use contraceptives.
Posted Online: March 27, 2012, 2:25 pm - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea
Copyright 2012, John Donald O'Shea
Thursday, March 8, 2012
U.S. Apologies Aside, Murder Is Not a First Amendment Right
In America, the burning of a Bible is not punishable by death.
Indeed, if it is your copy of the book, you have the right to do so as a matter of symbolic free speech.
Recently, we have seen President Obama and those under him repeatedly and abjectly apologize because American troops in Afghanistan inadvertently burned one or more copies of the Quran.
In a letter sent to Afghan President Hamid Karzai, President Obama expressed his administration's "regret and apologies over the incident in which religious materials were unintentionally mishandled" in Afghanistan.
Then, Peter Lavoy, acting assistant secretary of defense for Asia and Pacific Security Affairs, told the American Muslim community "I come here today to apologize on behalf of the Department of Defense for the incident that took place in Afghanistan this week ... the burnings were done 'unknowingly and improperly.'"
Then, not to be outdone, Gen. John R. Allen, NATO's International Security Assistance Force Commander wrote, "To the noble people of Afghanistan --
"I have ordered an investigation into a report I received ... that ISAF personnel at Bagram Air Base improperly disposed of a large number of Islamic religious materials which included Korans.
"When we learned of these actions, we immediately intervened and stopped them. ...
"We are thoroughly investigating the incident and we are taking steps to ensure this does not ever happen again. I assure you -- I promise you -- this was NOT intentional in any way. I offer my sincere apologies... to the president of Afghanistan, ... and most importantly, to the noble people of Afghanistan...."
In the meantime, the world has seen a week of rioting in Afghanistan. More than 30 people have been killed. Hundreds have been wounded. The AP reports "Protesters [note: not "rioters, "murders,"or "terrorists"] angry over Quran burnings by American troops lobbed grenades at a U.S. base in northern Afghanistan and clashed with police and troops in a day of violence that left seven international troops wounded and two Afghans dead." All this by the "noble people of Afghanstan!"
So copies of the Quran, rather than the bible, have been burned. Does that justfy riots that culminate in over 30 murders? Untold woundings? Burning out of towns? I use the word "murders" because when you throw a grenade into a crowd, or intentionally shoot somebody during a riot, or in the back of the head, that is what it is.
If American troops had burned a like number of Bibles, would Christians or Jews have taken to the streets, killed their neighbors and wrecked everything in site? Maybe in 350 A. D. Maybe in the middle ages.
There is a simple problem here. If the burning of a copy of the Quran justifies the murder of one human being, then a principle has been established. If it justifies one murder, then why not two -- or even a million? And if so, are we going to see like conduct from America's Muslim population in the streets of America when the next idiot or malevolent burns a copy of the Quran?
I can understand the president apologizing for our troops doing something insensitive. But why doesn't the president condemn the riots, the murders, the woundings and the chaos going on in Afghanistan? Or are we here in America willing to accept the premise that those of the Muslim faith are free to do anything -- including murder -- any time they perceive their religion to have been slighted?
Newt Gingrich, has said, "There seems to be nothing that radical Islamists can do to get Barack Obama's attention in a negative way and he is consistently apologizing to people who do not deserve the apology of the president of the United States, period."
I feel the same way. I don't think you apologize to murders, to arsonists, to looters or to people who behave like barbarians.
Citizen A may believe that the Bible is God's word, but that doesn't make it so. Citizen B may believe that the the Quran is God's word, but that doesn't make it so.
And if B is justified in killing A because A doesn't believe God wrote the Quran, I see no reason why A is not justified in killing B if B doesn't believe that the men who wrote the Bible were inspired by God.
For two centuries people have come to America to escape such intolerance.
In our country "freedom of religious belief" is an absolute right. You have an absolute right to believe that the Quran is the word of God, and your neighbor has an absolute right to believe that God inspired the men who wrote the Bible. But there are necessarily limits to the "free exercise of religion."
Another of our neighbors may have an absolute right to believe that God wants him to practice cannibalism. But his right to "freely exercise his religion" won't save him from prosecution if he actually kills and eats his neighbor.
Then too, while all of us in America have an absolute First Amendment religious right to believe that a certain book (e. g., the Bible, the Quran, the Torah) is "sacred," all of us also have the right of free speech. For a Muslim, that includes the right to deny that the Bible is sacred, and even to burn his own copy of it as an act of protest or symbolic free speech.
In America, a man's right to believe a book is "God's word" does not give him the right to enforce that belief upon his neighbor. Any American who can't accept the supremacy of our Constitution on these issues, is an American in name only.
Our Constitution simply does not permit killing in the name of religion. Without religious tolerance, we regress to the dark ages, where religious freedom and tolerance were unknown. Those that chose such a world, are but an airline ticket away.
Posted Online: March 07, 2012, 4:51 pm - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea
Copyright 2012, John Donald O'Shea
Indeed, if it is your copy of the book, you have the right to do so as a matter of symbolic free speech.
Recently, we have seen President Obama and those under him repeatedly and abjectly apologize because American troops in Afghanistan inadvertently burned one or more copies of the Quran.
In a letter sent to Afghan President Hamid Karzai, President Obama expressed his administration's "regret and apologies over the incident in which religious materials were unintentionally mishandled" in Afghanistan.
Then, Peter Lavoy, acting assistant secretary of defense for Asia and Pacific Security Affairs, told the American Muslim community "I come here today to apologize on behalf of the Department of Defense for the incident that took place in Afghanistan this week ... the burnings were done 'unknowingly and improperly.'"
Then, not to be outdone, Gen. John R. Allen, NATO's International Security Assistance Force Commander wrote, "To the noble people of Afghanistan --
"I have ordered an investigation into a report I received ... that ISAF personnel at Bagram Air Base improperly disposed of a large number of Islamic religious materials which included Korans.
"When we learned of these actions, we immediately intervened and stopped them. ...
"We are thoroughly investigating the incident and we are taking steps to ensure this does not ever happen again. I assure you -- I promise you -- this was NOT intentional in any way. I offer my sincere apologies... to the president of Afghanistan, ... and most importantly, to the noble people of Afghanistan...."
In the meantime, the world has seen a week of rioting in Afghanistan. More than 30 people have been killed. Hundreds have been wounded. The AP reports "Protesters [note: not "rioters, "murders,"or "terrorists"] angry over Quran burnings by American troops lobbed grenades at a U.S. base in northern Afghanistan and clashed with police and troops in a day of violence that left seven international troops wounded and two Afghans dead." All this by the "noble people of Afghanstan!"
So copies of the Quran, rather than the bible, have been burned. Does that justfy riots that culminate in over 30 murders? Untold woundings? Burning out of towns? I use the word "murders" because when you throw a grenade into a crowd, or intentionally shoot somebody during a riot, or in the back of the head, that is what it is.
If American troops had burned a like number of Bibles, would Christians or Jews have taken to the streets, killed their neighbors and wrecked everything in site? Maybe in 350 A. D. Maybe in the middle ages.
There is a simple problem here. If the burning of a copy of the Quran justifies the murder of one human being, then a principle has been established. If it justifies one murder, then why not two -- or even a million? And if so, are we going to see like conduct from America's Muslim population in the streets of America when the next idiot or malevolent burns a copy of the Quran?
I can understand the president apologizing for our troops doing something insensitive. But why doesn't the president condemn the riots, the murders, the woundings and the chaos going on in Afghanistan? Or are we here in America willing to accept the premise that those of the Muslim faith are free to do anything -- including murder -- any time they perceive their religion to have been slighted?
Newt Gingrich, has said, "There seems to be nothing that radical Islamists can do to get Barack Obama's attention in a negative way and he is consistently apologizing to people who do not deserve the apology of the president of the United States, period."
I feel the same way. I don't think you apologize to murders, to arsonists, to looters or to people who behave like barbarians.
Citizen A may believe that the Bible is God's word, but that doesn't make it so. Citizen B may believe that the the Quran is God's word, but that doesn't make it so.
And if B is justified in killing A because A doesn't believe God wrote the Quran, I see no reason why A is not justified in killing B if B doesn't believe that the men who wrote the Bible were inspired by God.
For two centuries people have come to America to escape such intolerance.
In our country "freedom of religious belief" is an absolute right. You have an absolute right to believe that the Quran is the word of God, and your neighbor has an absolute right to believe that God inspired the men who wrote the Bible. But there are necessarily limits to the "free exercise of religion."
Another of our neighbors may have an absolute right to believe that God wants him to practice cannibalism. But his right to "freely exercise his religion" won't save him from prosecution if he actually kills and eats his neighbor.
Then too, while all of us in America have an absolute First Amendment religious right to believe that a certain book (e. g., the Bible, the Quran, the Torah) is "sacred," all of us also have the right of free speech. For a Muslim, that includes the right to deny that the Bible is sacred, and even to burn his own copy of it as an act of protest or symbolic free speech.
In America, a man's right to believe a book is "God's word" does not give him the right to enforce that belief upon his neighbor. Any American who can't accept the supremacy of our Constitution on these issues, is an American in name only.
Our Constitution simply does not permit killing in the name of religion. Without religious tolerance, we regress to the dark ages, where religious freedom and tolerance were unknown. Those that chose such a world, are but an airline ticket away.
Posted Online: March 07, 2012, 4:51 pm - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea
Copyright 2012, John Donald O'Shea
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)