< link rel="DCTERMS.replaces" href="http://justtakeitdown.blogspot.com/" >

Saturday, August 27, 2005

A Reflection

After I finished 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America, by Bernard Goldberg


Sometimes I wonder what our nation is coming to.

A student at William Patterson University was expelled for requesting not to receive solicitations to homosexual events from his professor. An Allstate employee was fired for writing an article on his own time criticizing homosexual marriage.

In conservative Howell, Michigan, my town, a solid-red city in a solid-red county, my high school has hung the official flag of the gay-pride movement and demanded that students accept it as diversity. And we have done nothing.

Dozens of the nation’s top universities have adopted “speech codes” restricting “all forms of unlawful discrimination based upon race, creed, color, national origin, ancestry, age, sex, marital status, familial status, affectional or sexual orientation, atypical hereditary cellular or blood trait, genetic information, liability [emphasis mine] for service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or disability,” including harassment “that is not directed at an individual but is a part of that individual's academic environment” … "even if there was no intent ... to harass or demean another.” (See Harvard’s as an example.) The once prestigious bastions of Western thought and free speech now are its greatest foes.

Courts have ruled that it is unconstitutional to pray aloud in school, while legislating that a city council has the right to take away your home and give it to someone else, finding a gay “marriage” clause in the 200-year-old Massachusetts constitution, and stripping all references to God from the public square.

Agencies like the ALCU defend the “rights” of terrorists in Gitmo and illegal aliens in Tijuana, and attack the first amendment rights of those who live in the U S of A.

In the 20 years following Roe V. Wade, 34 million babies were aborted in America alone. That’s every third baby, making the most dangerous place to be in our country within the womb. This is what we do to babies: the most vulnerable and precious gifts God has given us!

Anywhere you go you can here people swearing the most despicable vulgarities. Profanity litters even children’s daytime cartoon shows. I’ve heard it myself! What’s important in this is not that it happens, but that when it happens, no one even notices. What a change for the worse!

Liberals who burn the flag are called patriots, the soldiers who allow them to burn the flag are oppressors, and the murderous thugs who decapitate the soldiers (and innocent women and children) are the freedom fighters. Those who make these comments have “absolute moral authority” by the MSM.

The average American gives over %50 of his income to the government in one form of a tax or another. More than half!

You can’t watch 30 minutes of TV without seeing a dozen ads from mass-tort lawyers urging you to sue: not because someone has broken a law, but because you can. By tolerating this, we have created a culture completely devoid of personal responsibility.

Liberals (who by and large support all this) control the courts, the schools, and the mainstream media.

And there’s a lot I left out, like Gangsta rap, certain sitcoms, the more stupid, vicious celebrities, moveon.org, and the forces that make all of it possible.


Our society is barreling down a perilous road.


I once heard that if you drop a frog in boiling water, he’ll jump right out, but if you drop him in warm water and slowly turn up the heat, he’ll stay in until he’s cooked.

In essence, that is what is happening to our society.

Back in 2004, residents of some states were forced to pass constitutional amendments to protect marriage from judicial activists (and the federal courts may overturn even these drastic measures). Just a few years ago, the very notion that marriage needed to be protected would have seemed absurd. Just a few years ago, gay-marriage was not even a term, much less a real possibility.

And this slow progression, or rather, attrition, can be witnessed in every issue. How long till the pot boils? As Goldberg writes, this may not be the end of Western Civilization, but it is the end of Civility.

When I hear all this, I simply wish my countrymen to awake! How much longer will America slumber while thieves in the night steal the very foundation of her greatness? How much longer *can* America slumber?



It’s a brave new world…

7 Comments:

Blogger dicta said...

this "attrition" you speak of has another name: progression. how can you support rights for an unborn fetus, who, depending on the trimester, may not even feel pain or be human yet, yet you want to deny homosexuals, adults, the right to have relationships and marry? nowhere does it say that marriage is between a man and a woman.

you are a hypocrite, and that's just one example

August 27, 2005 11:45 PM  
Blogger Daniel Christianson said...

Progress. Yeah. Sure. I can’t wait to get married and have kids so I can raise them in a morally bankrupt society. What progress!

You write: how can you support rights for an unborn fetus, who, depending on the trimester, may not even feel pain or be human yet?

I can support rights for them, because they are HUMAN BEINGS. How can anything simply “become human?” One day, it’s just a blob, a POC, and then, the doctor staring at his watch says, “3,2,1 there! Congratulations ma’am, your unborn child is now human!” When do you propose this remarkable transformation occurs?

The very idea is monstrous. After conception, all the genetic information necessary to be a human being is present, and the cell begins to grow.

Like “toddler” and “adolescent,” the terms “embryo” and ‘fetus” do not refer to nonhumans, but rather, humans at a particular stage of development. The term “embryo” is used to describe any living creature at an early stage in its development. The term “fetus” is a latin word meaning “young one” or “little child.” It is ridiculous, and scientifically inaccurate, to say an embryo or fetus is not a human being simply because he is at an earlier stage of development than a born infant. Being at different stage of development does not make you more or less human. A newborn is no more or less “human” than a toddler, a teenager, or an elderly man.

And if you’re tempted to talk about how it doesn’t have a “heart” or any such nonsense, know that all the body parts the child will ever have are present before the earliest first trimester abortions.

And neither is there anything magical about being born that makes you suddenly become human. And any time, or stage, or level of development before birth that you would propose as the moment the child becomes human, would be completely baseless and arbitrary.

I’m willing to pursue this issue further with you if you feel it is necessary.

You also write: you want to deny homosexuals, adults, the right to have relationships and marry? nowhere does it say that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Well, gee, I hate to break it to you, but in many places (and as of November 3, 2004, the Michigan constitution) it does say that marriage is between a man and a woman. For my arguments against gay “marriage,” please se:

http://testimonial-archives.blogspot.com/2004/10/in-defense-of-marriage-for-millennia.html

That should answer any challenges you have. If not, feel free to post another comment on this thread.

August 28, 2005 10:19 AM  
Blogger dicta said...

how can you back a heterosexual clause in the michigan state constitution yet object to a homosexual reading of the massachusetts constitution? a great deal of constitutional law requires interpretation. if interpretation were easy, everyone would agree.

besides, if you believe in freedom and human rights, why would you oppose gay marriage? you're not gay, are you? so what do you care?

and don't give me this whole "sanctity of marriage" argument. please. today, over 50% of marriages end in divorce. MORE THAN 1 IN 2! maybe, just maybe, if you let homosexuals, people who are fighting so hard for a right that everyone else has, marry, then this rate might actually be lower. but no. we continue to let immature, heterosexual people marry for bad reasons or without question.

i do not believe homosexuals choose to be gay. they are born that way. how would you like someone to limit your rights simply because of your race, or gender, or your favorite other trait you cant control? well ok, talking to conservatives maybe race was a bad example.

as for michigan, you said it yourself. as of november 3, 2004. that's brand new. that's coming with this new, ridiculous religious school of thought that homosexuality is wrong (but molesting altar boys is ok, just dont let it get out). this is a modern change, so one cannot argue that it was set in stone in michigan, and has always been this way. my point in saying that "nowhere does it say marriage is b/w a man and woman", while admittedly i was mistaken if this michigan constitution says that, was to point out that there is no longstanding tradition (except in the minds of conservatives) that explicitly rejects homosexual marriage.

August 28, 2005 12:09 PM  
Blogger Daniel Christianson said...

I'll take you point for point.

You write: "how can you back a heterosexual clause in the michigan state constitution yet object to a homosexual reading of the massachusetts constitution? a great deal of constitutional law requires interpretation. if interpretation were easy, everyone would agree."

I can back an amendment because that is how a democracy works: the people have the right to decide issues of policy, and the judges read the law and apply it. It’s pretty simple.

There really isn't that much room for interpretation in the Massachusetts constitution. I challenge you to find a single clause that says people can marry whomever they want. That’s simply not the way the law works. Legislatures (in this case John Adams, who was a highly religious, outspoken Christian even for his time) work very hard to ensure that their bills, amendments, etc. say exactly what they are meant to and are difficult to construe to mean something other than what they explicitly say. Otherwise, they would be subject to the arbitrary rulings of judges.

The following is an except from a speech by Stephen Markman, a Justice of the Michigan Supreme Court:

Myth or Misconception 6: The role of the judge in interpreting the Constitution is to do justice.

The role of a judge is to do justice under law, a very different concept. Each of us has his or her own innate sense of right and wrong. This is true of every judge I have ever met. But judges are not elected or appointed to impose their personal views of right and wrong upon the legal system. Rather, as Justice Felix Frankfurter once remarked, “The highest example of judicial duty is to subordinate one’s personal will and one’s private views to the law.” The responsible judge must subordinate his personal sense of justice to the public justice of our Constitution and its representative and legal institutions.

I recall one judicial confirmation hearing a number of years ago when I was working for the Senate Judiciary Committee. The nominee was asked, “If a decision in a particular case was required by law or statute and yet that offended your conscience, what would you do?” The nominee answered, “Senator, I have to be honest with you. If I was faced with a situation like that and it ran against my conscience, I would follow my conscience.” He went on to explain: “I was born and raised in this country, and I believe that I am steeped in its traditions, its mores, its beliefs and its philosophies, and if I felt strongly in a situation like that, I feel that it would be the product of my very being and upbringing. I would follow my conscience.” To my mind, for a judge to render decisions according to his or her personal conscience rather than the law is itself unconscionable.

Myth or Misconception 7: The great debate over the proper judicial role is between judges who are activist and judges who are restrained.

In the same way that excessively “activist” judges may exceed the boundaries of the judicial power by concocting law out of whole cloth, excessively “restrained” judges may unwarrantedly contract protections and rights conferred by the laws and the Constitution. It is inappropriate for a judge to exercise “restraint” when to do so is to neglect his obligation of judicial review—his obligation to compare the law with the requirements set forth by the Constitution. Nor am I enamored with the term “strict construction” to describe the proper duties of the judge, for it is the role of the judge to interpret the words of the law reasonably—not “strictly” or “loosely,” not “broadly” or “narrowly,” just reasonably.

I would prefer to characterize the contemporary judicial debate in terms of interpretivism verses non-interpretivism. In doing this, I would borrow the description of the judicial power used by Chief Justice John Marshall, who 200 years ago in Marbury v. Madison stated that it is the duty of the judge to say what the law is, not what it ought to be (which is the province of the legislature). For the interpretivist, the starting point, and usually the ending point, in giving meaning to the law are the plain words of the law. This is true whether we are construing the law of the Constitution, the law of a statute, or indeed the law of contracts and policies and deeds. In each instance, it is the duty of the judge to give faithful meaning to the words of the lawmaker and let the chips fall where they may.

One prominent illustration of the differing approaches of interpretivism and non-interpretivism arises in the context of the constitutionality of capital punishment. Despite the fact that there are at least six references in the Constitution to the possibility of capital punishment—for example, both the 5th and 14th Amendments assert that no person shall be “deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law,” from which it can clearly be inferred that a person can be deprived of these where there is due process—former Justice William Brennan held, in dissent, that capital punishment was unconstitutional on the grounds apparently that, since 1789, there had arisen an “evolving standard of decency marking the progress of a maturing society” on whose behalf he spoke. Purporting to speak for “generations yet unborn,” Justice Brennan substituted his own opinions on capital punishment for the judgments reached in the Constitution by the Founders. His decision in this regard is the embodiment, but certainly not the only recent example, of non-interpretivism.

Myth or Misconception 8: The Constitution is a living document.

The debate between interpretivists and non-interpretivists over how to give meaning to the Constitution is often framed in the following terms: Is the Constitution a “living” document, in which judges “update” its provisions according to the “needs” of the times? Or is the Constitution an enduring document, in which its original meanings and principles are permanently maintained, subject only to changes adopted in accordance with its amending clause? I believe that it is better described in the latter sense. It is beyond dispute, of course, that the principles of the Constitution must be applied to new circumstances over time—the Fourth Amendment on searches and seizures to electronic wiretaps, the First Amendment on freedom of speech to radio and television and the Internet, the interstate commerce clause to automobiles and planes, etc. However, that is distinct from allowing the words and principles themselves to be altered based upon the preferences of individual judges.

Our Constitution would be an historical artifact—a genuinely dead letter—if its original sense became irrelevant, to be replaced by the views of successive waves of judges and justices intent on “updating” it, or replacing what some judges view as the “dead hand of the past” with contemporary moral theory. This is precisely what the Founders sought to avoid when they instituted a “government of laws, not of men.”

There is no charter of government in the history of mankind that has more wisely set forth the proper relationship between the governed and their government than the American Constitution. For those of us who are committed to constitutional principles and fostering respect for that document, there is no better homage that we can pay it than to understand clearly its design and to take care in the manner in which we describe it. [end quote]

If only all judges were so wise.
-----------------------------------

You write “besides, if you believe in freedom and human rights, why would you oppose gay marriage? you're not gay, are you? so what do you care?”

Again, see my old post “In Defense of Marriage”

----------------------------------
You write “and don't give me this whole "sanctity of marriage" argument. please. today, over 50% of marriages end in divorce’

That some marriages fail is no reason to destroy it. And, effectively, that’s what would happen by allowing it to be redefined arbitrarily. In the Massachusetts decision you seem so supportive of, the majority wrote that marriage is an “evolving paradigm.” If marriage can “evolve” to mean anything, then it is meaningless.
----------------------------------
You write: i do not believe homosexuals choose to be gay. they are born that way. how would you like someone to limit your rights simply because of your race, or gender, or your favorite other trait you cant control? well ok, talking to conservatives maybe race was a bad example.

Well, this debate can go on without end, but I will cite the Bailey & Pillard study.

Besides, my whole point is that “marrying whomever you want” is not a civil right. Marriage is specifically the union of a man and a woman as a husband and wife. Anything other than this is not marriage. Homosexuals can marry, and a number of them do, they just can’t marry whomever they want. No one can.

And though you may be joking, republicans aren’t, and never were, racists. Though you may want to ask Senator Byrd about that…

---------------------------------

You write: "this is a modern change, so one cannot argue that it was set in stone in michigan"

First off, the amendment didn’t change anything about marriage (that was the whole point). It just elevated it from a normal law to part of our constitution, which protects it from judges at the state level. And, I apologize for the misconception, I wasn’t really arguing against you when I brought that up. My fault.

Secondly, You write: "there is no longstanding tradition (except in the minds of conservatives) that explicitly rejects homosexual marriage."

Yep. None at all, except that of Judaism, Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, countless other religions, and about 4,000 years of history. And that of nature.

August 28, 2005 1:39 PM  
Blogger dicta said...

religion is nice, if you like it, but it has little factual basis. of course, it does have a very rich history, and that is undeniable, but there is little factual basis for the miracles and other oddities of religions that can be found outside religious texts.

anyone can start a religion, if they have enough followers to believe what they are told. however, it is hard to break thru with a new religion today because the major religions have been established for so long. but around the first historical recordings, or the beginning of civilized social groups, it was far easier. that's why different regions of the world have different characteristics within their dominating religions, including different gods and different beliefs. and it is a clash of these beliefs which has been the cause of almost every major war throughout history.

i invite you to post further on the multipurpose workermonkey (i noticed you did post a comment already). i apologize for any harshness that you may have felt was directed towards you. i think you would appreciate some intelligent discussion there between myself and some of the others who post upon it. i have also, as you know, linked to your site so they could explore it here.

August 28, 2005 3:04 PM  
Blogger Daniel Christianson said...

No hard feelings. I never do. :-)

I always appreciate debate!

August 28, 2005 3:52 PM  
Anonymous Christine Lamech said...

The article you wrote is very sad, but it is also very true. America has been existing on the momentum of the moral stability of the past. However, as a fascination with sex and perversion floods our streets, the time is fast approaching where our country will come crashing down. The amazing thing is that no one cares! Instead they cuss, make dirty jokes, get wasted, contract STD's, and scoff at anyone who does care about this country. These people think that everyone should be able to do what feels good, because then everyone will be happy and take care of each other. Well, I've got news for them. This shallow philosophy isn't going to last. France thought this philosophy would cut it when they had the French Revolution. Instead of achieving freedom, the French people suffered a bloodbath and the tyranny of Napoleon Bonaparte. People of America, learn from the mistakes in history, but for the sake of our country don't repeat it.

September 05, 2005 7:48 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Alliance Blog Roll