|
Paleocon_Libertarian
|
read my profile
sign my guestbook
Name: Daniel
Gender: Male
Interests: History, writing, the Bible, news, politics, sports
Expertise: I won't claim expertise anywhere. I am well-informed about my interests
Occupation: Student
Message: message meEmail: email me
Yahoo:  kiril182000
Member Since:
1/16/2006
|
|
| High and Impregnable?
Perhaps the most well known constitutional concept to the average American is the Separation of Church and State. Despite not actually appearing in the Constitution, it is one of the most controversial ideas in modern jurisprudence. It has been cited as the basis for rulings as diverse as declaring the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional, ruling that the cross at the Mt. Soledad War Memorial (formerly known as the Mr. Soledad Easter Cross) should be removed, and removing public prayer, creation teaching, and the ten commandments from Public schools. Obviously, this is an idea with consequences, and all Americans would do well to know its history and various applications. Its most widely used application is the Lemon test, written in the decision Lemon v Kurtzman. However, the Separation of Church and State – and its application, the Lemon test – is not the only interpretation of the Establishment Clause known to modern judges. Several others have been proposed, most significantly, moderate Justice Anthony Kennedy’s “Coercion Test,” proposed in the 1992 case County of Alleghany v. ACLU. The major question is this: does the Lemon test most accurately represent the Establishment Clause, or does the “Coercion Test.” Only a close examination of history will tell.
The term “Separation of Church and State” actually first appeared in Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists, after the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution. However, it did not enter the judicial lexicon until 1948, when Justice Hugo black wrote in Emerson v. Board of Education “the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State,"” After Black’s landmark ruling, the concept continued developing until it’s defining expression, the Lemon test, was written in 1971. The Lemon test consists of three components. For a law to avoid violating the “Separation of Church and State”, it must a pass three pronged test: first, the law must have a secular purpose, second, it must not have the primary effect of advancing or prohibiting religion, and finally, it must not result in an “excessive entanglement” between church and state. If a law doesn’t violate any of these provisions, it passes the Lemon test. On the other hand, the Coercion test declares a violation of the Establishment Clause if the government provides direct aid to religion in a way that would tend to establish a state church, or coerces people to support or participate in religion against their will. It can be found in the Kennedy dissent to the 1992 Supreme Court case Alleghany v. ACLU.
Now, the main question is: which of these two tests is a more accurate application of the ten words “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” of the Establishment Clause? Logically, the starting point of any discussion of the proper application Establishment Clause is an examination of what the clause meant when it was written. In 1790, when the first congress met to add a Bill of Rights to the new Constitution, the freedom of religion was on everyone’s minds. Many people feared that the new federal government would impose a state church on the nation, like all the governments in Europe did. According to Law Professor Jim Baker, the founders feared that their own state established churches would be abolished, and that America would be declared a Baptist, or Anglican, or Presbyterian, or Congregationalist nation. From these fears, we get the somewhat awkward wording “…no law respecting an establishment of religion.” If the clause had been intended to merely ban an establishment of religion, why didn’t the founders simply write, “Congress shall establish no national religion” in the 1st amendment? They wrote what they did because not only did they not want congress to establish a religion, they did not want congress disestablish a state religion. “No law respecting an establishment of religion” means no law establishing or disestablishing any religions. The Establishment Clause was written not only to protect the nation from religious establishment, but also to protect state churches from religious disestablishment.
With that in view, the next step in determining the meaning of the Establishment Clause is to discover what precisely constituted an “establishment of religion” to the authors of the 1st amendment. Looking at the debate over the wording of the Establishment Clause is quite effective in illuminating it’s meaning, since during the debate, the authors decided what they were banning. In particular, looking at the Senate’s proposed wording of the Establishment Clause and its rejection will show what, to the founders, constituted an “establishment of religion.” When the Senate completed its debate on the wording of the Establishment Clause, the finished product read: “Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith, or a mode of worship, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion.” This version was rejected in conference, however, because it allowed the government to fund a particular religion. Instead, the current version was accepted. What does this show? The initial wording and its rejection reveal the components of an established religion. An “establishment of religion” codifies into law certain articles of faith, a particular mode of worship, and provides funding a given sect. Any of these three would count as an “establishment of religion.’ For a final snapshot of the Establishment Clause, and how people shortly after the founding era viewed it, former Supreme Court justice and Harvard Law Professor Joseph Story’s highly respected Commentary on the Constitution of the United States is ideally suited. Concerning the Establishment Clause, Story writes:
The real object of the amendment was, not to countenance, much less to advance Mahometanism [sic], or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment, which should give to an [sic] hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government. It thus cut off the means of religious persecution, (the vice and pest of former ages,) and of the subversion of the rights of conscience in matters of religion, which had been trampled upon almost from the days of the Apostles to the present age (Story 728).
Now, returning to the Lemon and “Coercion” tests, which of these is most faithful to the meaning of the text? While the Lemon test does prohibit articles of faith, a mode of worship, and funding for a given religious sect, it bans more than that. Nowhere does the Establishment Clause mandate that laws have a secular purpose, nor does it prohibit laws with a vaguely worded “primary effect of advancing or inhibiting religion.” What about the coercion test? It prohibits direct government aid to religion in a way tending to establish a church, thus making it impossible for the government to give money to a particular religious sect. Also, by stating that no one be coerced into supporting or participating in a religion, it effectively rules out any national articles of faith or set mode of worship. Thus, the “Coercion Test” is the best interpretation of the Establishment Clause in jurisprudence today.
| | |
| Life to the dying, death to the living Life to the Dying or Death to the Living?
On July 19, 2006, President George W. Bush used the first veto of his presidency on HR 810, which would have made federal funding available for research on new embryonic stem cell lines (current policy allows funding for research on only those lines for which no new embryos are destroyed to develop). Bush stated in his veto letter to the House of Representatives, “If we are to find the right ways to advance ethical medical research, we must also be willing when necessary to reject the wrong ways.” This really is the crux of the issue: no sane person disagrees with the goals of embryonic stem cell research; everyone wants to see cures to Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, and the numerous other diseases stem cell research advocates claim they may find a way to cure. The question, as Bush said, is how to go about the procedure. Proponents of embryonic stem cell research point to these cells as containing the highest potential for new cures. Their logic is simple, but sound. The best way to find a good cure for Parkinson’s etc. is to use the research with the most potential. However, this logic only works if two conditions are met. First, embryonic stem cells must have the highest potential for new cures, and second, the procedure must be ethical. However, neither of these conditions has been met.
First, embryonic stem cell research has yet to produce any sustained, measurable positive results. No one has yet been cured by treatments using embryonic stem cell (ESC) research. In fact, there are currently no clinical trials in progress or preparation, and according to one article in the journal Rheumatology, even mouse trials are producing poor results. However, some supporters of ESC will talk about cures and treatments using stem cells that have achieved results. What they fail to mention, is that these cures and treatments come not from ESC research, but from adult stem cell (ASC) research. Unlike ESCs, adult stem cells are a very useful tool of medicine, with treatments available now for 72 diseases – according to a letter by former Indiana State Professor of Life Sciences, Dr. David Prentice – and 1175 different clinical trials in progress. Adult stem cells do have the potential to cure myriad diseases, and they are easily obtained and used. Embryonic stem cell research has produced no results, is not close to producing any results, and has not shown the workable potential of adult stem cell research, which is producing real cures for real people right now, and has none of the ethical controversies of embryonic stem cell research.
Indeed, it is in the area of ethics that ESC research exhibits its greatest failings. Unlike adult stem cell research, embryonic stem cell research must kill a human embryo to obtain the necessary stem cells. While it’s defenders claim that human embryos are not actually human, critics disagree, and have several convincing reasons. First, in determining as important an issue as when human life begins, no one wants to use an arbitrary dividing line, yet, that is exactly what birth – the preferred starting point of ESC advocates – is. No substantive change occurs in the organism of a human embryo from the point of conception on to death; it merely ages and develops. At conception, a human embryo has a full genetic code, which doesn’t change, and if left in its natural state will develop until birth and then beyond. Some critics, however, will claim that an embryo is not a person until it has a soul. They reason – as indeed many medieval philosophers did – that the soul does not enter the body until quickening. This, however, is refuted by Psalms 139:13-16 ”13 For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. 14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. 15 My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, 16 your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be. This verse leaves no doubt that the soul is there as the embryo develops, and thus defeats the argument that a new embryo is not a human life. The next argument presented by ESC research supporters claims that, since some zygotes fail to implant and die, conception is not the start of life. However, this is probably the only case where anyone will ever argue that since some people in a certain stage of development die, no one in that stage is a human life. The argument fails when you replace ‘embryo’ with any more developed form of human life. Finally, perhaps the most disingenuous arguments presented by supporters of embryonic stem cell research says “just look at a 5 day old embryo. It doesn’t look like a human.” Once again, in no other situation will anyone try and claim someone else is not human based on looks and have any moral authority to stand on. Thus, all four arguments that try to paint embryos as subhuman fail. Embryos are scientifically, spiritually, and truly human beings.
In conclusion, embryonic stem cell research represents a major moral dilemma facing the United States today. However, this dilemma – unlike others – is not a disagreement on what ought to be done, but rather one of how to accomplish a noble goal practically and ethically. As has been shown, embryonic stem cell research is not the most effective way to accomplish that goal; it has produced no cures, no treatments, and no clinical trials, while adult stem cell research has real cures for real people. Finally, embryonic stem cell research is unethical but it involves destroying a human embryo, which has been shown to be human life by scientific, spiritual, and practical reasoning. Embryonic stem cell research should be abandoned entirely.
| | |
| Price-GougingSo, the president has ordered an investigation into price gouging. Interesting turn of events there.
I don't think there is price-gouging going on -- collusion probably, but not gouging -- as I read somewhere that the oil companies are making $0.09 per gallon sold. As opposed to 40-50 cents in taxes in some states.
It looks like the government is (again) doing its fair share of revenue gathering. Now, I have no problem with lawful taxes and duties, however, it is annoying when so much gets wasted on pork, welfare, and beaurocrats. We could do much better with it (is there anyone out there who thinks the government is doing a better job with your money than you are?).
I am cautious about this investigation, as it stinks of a partisan move and will probably lead to more regulations.
The real investigation should be into why we haven't started making it easier to build new refineries and/or nuclear power plants. Oh wait, earth day, right...
If you did, of course, look into gas prices and taxes, you would find democrats constantly trying to raise them (in '93 -- the last time dems controlled the whitehouse and capitol hill -- they wanted to raise the taxes by $0.25 per gallon). It has always been a democrat/environmentalist dream to tax gas so much that people use less of it (satisfying environmentalists, because less gas means less carbon emissions). The taxes of course satisfy democrats.
Any opinions out there on gas prices? | | |
| Breaking NewsThe religion of peace is at it again:
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/708860.html
At least 17 dead in Siani after Al-Qaeada style attacks on Egypt. Hosni Mubarak has been a friend of Israel since Anwar Sadat was murdered, and the Muslims would love to see millions of Egyptian peasant-soldiers moving on Israel. | | |
| "Fake Regime"Today Iranian President Ahmedinejad (trying saying that three times fast) said that the 'Fake Regime' in Israel must go. According to him, Israel 'Palestinians and Germans are paying for a war they didn't start (WWII).' Apparently Israel's very existence is a burden to Arabs.
Now, does Israel have a right to the land Israel sits on? Well, lets look at the traditional claims to land:
1) Right of inheritance: God granted alot more than the little spit it sits on now to Israel
2) Right of Purchase or Contract: Britain gave Israel quite a bit more land than now in the Balfour Declaration, and jews have bought other land.
3) RIght of Conquest: If the Arabs had not been stupid and attacked Israel in 1967, they would not have lost the West Bank or the Golan Heights. Israell has not been launching aggressive wars.
By all rights, Israeli land belongs to Israel, and the Arabs need ot fulfill their 1948 promise to the Palestianians and take them in. | | |
|
