There can be no doubt that immigration from various countries of the world has enriched the cultural fabric of the United States of America. Some people say the racial and cultural diversity associated with immigration makes socio-political conflict inevitable, but the history of both America and other nations proves that war and conflict did occur even when their racial composition was more-or-less homogenous. In the American Civil War, for example, men of more-or-less similar racial background from both North and South engaged each other in horrific mortal conflict. It was after that dark chapter in American history came to an end, that immigration to the United States from foreign countries began in earnest.
Associated with the immigration issue is the problem of cultural assimilation, i.e. assimilation on whose terms? What shall be the cultural, spiritual and moral values of the emerging immigrant society? There is often conflict in this arena between those whose ancestral families have also lived in America for several generations, and newly-arrived foreign immigrants. It is to be admitted that the former group has a sense of ownership of the land not possessed by the latter, simply because men's historic roots are meaningful to them. Furthermore, people coming to America from foreign countries still retain in their hearts at least a latent loyalty to their former homeland, of which the native-born American is completely incapable. Many immigrants seek not a completely new life in America, but rather, a replication of their Old World habits and customs in a new physical land. With the presence of a multiplicity of nations in America, the national challenge will be to come to a common concensus of values, with which everyone can comfortably live.
The problem of illegal immigration is especially difficult. America was founded on the proposition of equal justice under law, a blind and impartial law, not recognizing distinctions of such considerations as race, sex, religion, national origin, or other non-merit factors. Amnesty for illegal immigrants threatens to destroy this notion and turn us back to an arbitrary government of men, rather than one controlled by the rule of impartial law. Most foreigners come to America from countries whose social and political institutions do not understand this concept, so it will be a major task, to persuade the new immigrants of the notion of constitutionalism, i.e. explicitly ordered government with precisely-enumerated powers and authorities.
Granting that America's core populace, i.e. those descended from the Pilgrims and the Puritans, is not completely without sins and vices of its own, the fact of increased crime and the cost it brings to America, from certain immigrant nationalities, cannot be denied or ignored in the name of political correctness. A visit to our nation's prisons would convince the most casual and impartial of observers that some ethnic groups of people are more inclined towards criminal and other anti-social behaviour than are other ethnic groups. Members of certain racial and nationality groups frequently populate American jails, while members of certain other racial and nationality groups almost never do. A serious study of this disparity and its causes is long overdue. All immigrant groups which came to America after the core populace settled here, initially came to America economically poor, linguistically challenged, culturally disadvantaged and often victimized in their new land by racial discrimination from earlier nationality groups of immigrants. Still today, there is considerable disparity of outcome between the different immigrant groups, after a century and half of being here, in terms of being societal successes or failures.
The 1970s and 1980s world of TV featured a very popular program called All In The Family, depicting the life of a socially-dysfunctional and all-too-typical lower middle-class "red-neck" American family. It very strongly resonated with millions of Americans, while deeply offending millions more. In both cases, the reason for strong emotional reaction is identical: IT HIT HOME WITH VIEWERS! Many more people are deeply offended and hurt by truth, than they are by lies. But a casual observation of various peoples all over the world will reveal a certain amount of "Archie Bunker" personality in everyone. Reconcilliation of nationality and race differences in America will thus be a major task, to which all Americans must be committed. Cultural sensitivity and appreciation must be a two-way street, not just a one-way street only.
Can a new-comer to America from a foreign land ever be "one of us"? This is certainly possible, but it would entail full understanding of who "us" is, and of the full range of sacrifices and modifications necessary for the foreign immigrant to reach that goal.
-Lawrence K. Marsh
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Monday, June 29, 2009
Those "With Intent To Commit...." Laws
Should the state be granted a presumptive power to read people's minds, in order to discern the intentions of their actions? Or should criminal suspects, upon conviction, be penalized for their outward actions only?
There is always a tendency for government powers to grow, at the expense of individual liberty. Often, a previous power exercised by government will serve as a pretext to arrogate unto itself further logical extensions of that previous power. Should society exchange its liberty for its security, by condoning government pre-emptive and pro-active prior restraint of criminal behaviour, based on presumption of government to read people's minds, and act on their mere thoughts in advance?
All freedom is inherently risky business: so long as other people are free, each of us feels insecure, as to what those other people might do to us. America was not established by cowards, and its very national anthem contains the words "the land of the free and the home of the brave" to describe it. Certainly, if our neighbor points a loaded gun at us, we wish the government would exercise prior retraint upon him, to stop him from shooting us. But should the government prohibit all gun ownership, absenting any proof of intent by would-be gun owners to use the guns for clearly-illegal purposes, simply because they "might do so" otherwise? Some people say "yes", while others say "no".
Our system of law and government is based upon a presumption of innocence until guilt is clearly proven. Under such a system, the burden of proving criminal intent(mind-reading) is always upon the claimant; in most cases, the government. In absence of hard physical evidence, the thoughts of the human mind are at least difficult, if not impossible, for other men to accurately discern. Herein lies the controversy behind the passage of "hate crimes" laws.
To the extent we permit the government to arrest and penalize people just for the thoughts of their minds, to that same extent we will give up freedom. This is a system of government which bases itself upon fear, rather than upon trust. On the other hand, American law does recognize, for example, differing degrees of murder, based upon perception of the degree of intent on the part of the accused to actually take other human lives. Should this notion continue in the law, or should it be scrapped? Surely, in all cases, people are fully accountable for actions which contributed towards or led up to, the taking of other human lives. This would argue in favor of abandoning all consideration of intent in murder cases, and punishing equally for all murder, regardless of the state of mind, or even the external context, in which the murder occurs. Still, we cannot forget the horrors of a Nazi Germany or a Communist-Stalinist Russia, wherein citizens were arrested, tried and executed for allegedly "thinking thoughts against the state".
Every power afforded to government is a two-edged sword which can be used either to our benefit or to our detriment. Suppose we consider a portrait of a naked human person, should the intent context in which the portrait was created make a difference in the eyes of the law, as to whether or not the creator of the portrait is penalized? Should the law consider, whether the portrait showed up in Larry Flynt's "Hustler" magazine, as opposed to being displayed in a respectable public art gallery, and the painting is that of a famous Classical artist, who says he wishes to show man as God sees man? If we consider intent in such matters, we may risk coming to a point of saying the end justifies the means, in all matters of human behaviour. It is OK to break the law, if one is of honorable intention in doing so, we would then be saying. Indeed, the U.S. Supreme Court defined pornography as an appeal to prurient interests, "without any redeeming qualities". The problem of who defines redemption, and by what criteria, still remains.
So long as the American people wish to maintain a free society, it would be best to disregard motive, in the issue of separating legal from illegal behaviour. A society based upon the empowerment of government to read people's minds and hearts when deciding their fate at its hands is altogether terrifyingly inimical to the concept of freedom itself.
-Lawrence K. Marsh
There is always a tendency for government powers to grow, at the expense of individual liberty. Often, a previous power exercised by government will serve as a pretext to arrogate unto itself further logical extensions of that previous power. Should society exchange its liberty for its security, by condoning government pre-emptive and pro-active prior restraint of criminal behaviour, based on presumption of government to read people's minds, and act on their mere thoughts in advance?
All freedom is inherently risky business: so long as other people are free, each of us feels insecure, as to what those other people might do to us. America was not established by cowards, and its very national anthem contains the words "the land of the free and the home of the brave" to describe it. Certainly, if our neighbor points a loaded gun at us, we wish the government would exercise prior retraint upon him, to stop him from shooting us. But should the government prohibit all gun ownership, absenting any proof of intent by would-be gun owners to use the guns for clearly-illegal purposes, simply because they "might do so" otherwise? Some people say "yes", while others say "no".
Our system of law and government is based upon a presumption of innocence until guilt is clearly proven. Under such a system, the burden of proving criminal intent(mind-reading) is always upon the claimant; in most cases, the government. In absence of hard physical evidence, the thoughts of the human mind are at least difficult, if not impossible, for other men to accurately discern. Herein lies the controversy behind the passage of "hate crimes" laws.
To the extent we permit the government to arrest and penalize people just for the thoughts of their minds, to that same extent we will give up freedom. This is a system of government which bases itself upon fear, rather than upon trust. On the other hand, American law does recognize, for example, differing degrees of murder, based upon perception of the degree of intent on the part of the accused to actually take other human lives. Should this notion continue in the law, or should it be scrapped? Surely, in all cases, people are fully accountable for actions which contributed towards or led up to, the taking of other human lives. This would argue in favor of abandoning all consideration of intent in murder cases, and punishing equally for all murder, regardless of the state of mind, or even the external context, in which the murder occurs. Still, we cannot forget the horrors of a Nazi Germany or a Communist-Stalinist Russia, wherein citizens were arrested, tried and executed for allegedly "thinking thoughts against the state".
Every power afforded to government is a two-edged sword which can be used either to our benefit or to our detriment. Suppose we consider a portrait of a naked human person, should the intent context in which the portrait was created make a difference in the eyes of the law, as to whether or not the creator of the portrait is penalized? Should the law consider, whether the portrait showed up in Larry Flynt's "Hustler" magazine, as opposed to being displayed in a respectable public art gallery, and the painting is that of a famous Classical artist, who says he wishes to show man as God sees man? If we consider intent in such matters, we may risk coming to a point of saying the end justifies the means, in all matters of human behaviour. It is OK to break the law, if one is of honorable intention in doing so, we would then be saying. Indeed, the U.S. Supreme Court defined pornography as an appeal to prurient interests, "without any redeeming qualities". The problem of who defines redemption, and by what criteria, still remains.
So long as the American people wish to maintain a free society, it would be best to disregard motive, in the issue of separating legal from illegal behaviour. A society based upon the empowerment of government to read people's minds and hearts when deciding their fate at its hands is altogether terrifyingly inimical to the concept of freedom itself.
-Lawrence K. Marsh
Saturday, June 27, 2009
That Perennial "God-and-Caesar" Question!
From the beginning of this country's history, the relationship of religion to civil secular government has been, and continues to be, a topic of considerable public controversy.
The U.S. Constitution, not the Bible or any other religion's holy book, is the ruling document of this country. Nevertheless, many of the concepts brought to bear upon the formation and organization of the American government can be said to have been inspired by Bible scripture. For example, the presumption of innocence of somebody accused of a crime until guilt is proven goes back to one of the Ten Commandments saying, "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor." The notion of individual rights not rescindable either by government or by majority will is reflected in the Bible, Matthew 18:11-14, where Jesus Christ declares the supreme importance in God's eyes of every single sheep of the flock. The notion of limited and enumerated government designed to preclude the arbitrary and wicked rule of evil men is found in Jeremiah 17:9, which declares the heart of man to be desparately wicked--who could know it? The founders of America knew it, from ample experience and observation of cruel monarchies in the European Old World. In response, they gave us tripartite government, in the which no one ruler would have too much power.
Many Americans of liberal persuasion claim that the U.S. Constitution mandates complete separation of church from state. Those exact words appear nowhere in the text of the Constitution, but there is a provision in the Constitution, saying there shall exist no religious litmus test, in deciding fitness of aspirants to occupy various civil secular government offices. Also, the previous Old World experience of this nation's founders would strongly suggest that they did not want to have power and authority vested simultaneously in the same people on behalf of both the church and the civil secular state. In this sense, we must have "separation of church and state". But in a larger sense, the fact must be recognized that laws, rules and regulations are always based upon religious or anti-religious presumptions, there is no such thing as "religious neutrality" in law. And who among us would be willing to rescind from the law books all laws against theft and murder, just because "Thou shalt not kill" and "Thou shalt not steal" are found in the Ten Commandments?
What the U.S. Constitution First Amendment says is, "Congress shall make no law....concerning the establishment and free practice of religion." What this means is that government shall not use its coercive mechanisms and institutions, in order to forcibly compel anybody to participate or not participate in any religious activity. In our day, much protest has been made over various forms of religious display and exercise engaged in on public property, even when said displays and exercises were made on a completely voluntary basis. It is at least doubtful that America's founders had this interpretation of the First Amendment in mind, when they wrote it. So long as government is not resorting to coercion through the passage and enforcement of laws concerning religion, it is by no means promoting religion per se, to merely passively allow religious activity to take place on government-owned or other public property, devoid of government leadership or direction over the activity.
In recent years, proposals have been made to legally prevent certain passages from the Bible from being read in Christian churches, on the grounds that said passages supposedly constitute "hate speech". The only legally and morally appropriate answer here is that whatever a rabbi, a minister, a priest, an imam or other religious leader tells his congregants in a house of worship on the day designated by that religion for worship is none of government's business! Likewise, if both religious teachings and the civil secular government address a particularly important issue of our national life, American citizens should be absolutely free to state their opinions on said subjects without fear of retaliatory punishment from either the church or civil secular government side. Gay rights and abortion are two of several-such examples of shared interest and concern between God and Caesar.
Religious teachings are no good, unless they are translated into practical action in the outside world. The alleged bottom-line purpose for religion's existence is to make the rest of the world a better place in which all mankind can live. The Bible speaks of men not lighting candles to then only hold them under bushel-baskets. There has been debate within religious communities as to whether adherents of various religions should be fixated on making this world better, or on preparing one's self for a next life beyond this one. This author believes religion must focus on both goals, in order to be worthy of its name.
From time to time, both law courts and legislatures have changed laws, saying previous laws are "unjust". On what basis are they "unjust", if nothing higher than human standard of moral rectitude is being invoked to evaluate them? As a stark example, slavery was practiced all over the world for four millenia, before anybody began to say the practice might be wrong. Also, the notion of a legally-enforced racial equality among all races of men is a relatively recent phenomenon, not strongly in evidence anywhere in the world before the 20th century. Yet, these ideas also go back to Bible scripture: God is not a respecter of persons(Acts 10:34-35), and if we have respect to persons(i.e. discrimination), this is morally wrong(James 2:9-10). At this juncture, something must be said about the legal referent to precedent(stare decisis): How far back do men want to go in history, to decide which precedent represents the right thing to do? Does long-standing historical practice of a particular mode of behaviour, in itself, justify indefinite continuation of that practice? Again, the four-millenia slavery example must be remembered. Some Americans say too that we should not look to foreign countries as a basis for interpreting the U.S. Constitution. But the drama of the Bible unfolds in a completely different time and place from that of contemporary America. Separation of church from state, anybody?
The United States of America is not by any means a theocracy, per se. Yet, its form of government having been designed by Christians, bequeathed since that time a country where persons of all religious persuasion, and even those of no religious persuasion, could flourish far better than they might in other countries where religions outside of Christianity are dominant. That fact should always be celebrated as the "amazing grace" of the United States of America. How sweet that sound!
-Lawrence K. Marsh
The U.S. Constitution, not the Bible or any other religion's holy book, is the ruling document of this country. Nevertheless, many of the concepts brought to bear upon the formation and organization of the American government can be said to have been inspired by Bible scripture. For example, the presumption of innocence of somebody accused of a crime until guilt is proven goes back to one of the Ten Commandments saying, "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor." The notion of individual rights not rescindable either by government or by majority will is reflected in the Bible, Matthew 18:11-14, where Jesus Christ declares the supreme importance in God's eyes of every single sheep of the flock. The notion of limited and enumerated government designed to preclude the arbitrary and wicked rule of evil men is found in Jeremiah 17:9, which declares the heart of man to be desparately wicked--who could know it? The founders of America knew it, from ample experience and observation of cruel monarchies in the European Old World. In response, they gave us tripartite government, in the which no one ruler would have too much power.
Many Americans of liberal persuasion claim that the U.S. Constitution mandates complete separation of church from state. Those exact words appear nowhere in the text of the Constitution, but there is a provision in the Constitution, saying there shall exist no religious litmus test, in deciding fitness of aspirants to occupy various civil secular government offices. Also, the previous Old World experience of this nation's founders would strongly suggest that they did not want to have power and authority vested simultaneously in the same people on behalf of both the church and the civil secular state. In this sense, we must have "separation of church and state". But in a larger sense, the fact must be recognized that laws, rules and regulations are always based upon religious or anti-religious presumptions, there is no such thing as "religious neutrality" in law. And who among us would be willing to rescind from the law books all laws against theft and murder, just because "Thou shalt not kill" and "Thou shalt not steal" are found in the Ten Commandments?
What the U.S. Constitution First Amendment says is, "Congress shall make no law....concerning the establishment and free practice of religion." What this means is that government shall not use its coercive mechanisms and institutions, in order to forcibly compel anybody to participate or not participate in any religious activity. In our day, much protest has been made over various forms of religious display and exercise engaged in on public property, even when said displays and exercises were made on a completely voluntary basis. It is at least doubtful that America's founders had this interpretation of the First Amendment in mind, when they wrote it. So long as government is not resorting to coercion through the passage and enforcement of laws concerning religion, it is by no means promoting religion per se, to merely passively allow religious activity to take place on government-owned or other public property, devoid of government leadership or direction over the activity.
In recent years, proposals have been made to legally prevent certain passages from the Bible from being read in Christian churches, on the grounds that said passages supposedly constitute "hate speech". The only legally and morally appropriate answer here is that whatever a rabbi, a minister, a priest, an imam or other religious leader tells his congregants in a house of worship on the day designated by that religion for worship is none of government's business! Likewise, if both religious teachings and the civil secular government address a particularly important issue of our national life, American citizens should be absolutely free to state their opinions on said subjects without fear of retaliatory punishment from either the church or civil secular government side. Gay rights and abortion are two of several-such examples of shared interest and concern between God and Caesar.
Religious teachings are no good, unless they are translated into practical action in the outside world. The alleged bottom-line purpose for religion's existence is to make the rest of the world a better place in which all mankind can live. The Bible speaks of men not lighting candles to then only hold them under bushel-baskets. There has been debate within religious communities as to whether adherents of various religions should be fixated on making this world better, or on preparing one's self for a next life beyond this one. This author believes religion must focus on both goals, in order to be worthy of its name.
From time to time, both law courts and legislatures have changed laws, saying previous laws are "unjust". On what basis are they "unjust", if nothing higher than human standard of moral rectitude is being invoked to evaluate them? As a stark example, slavery was practiced all over the world for four millenia, before anybody began to say the practice might be wrong. Also, the notion of a legally-enforced racial equality among all races of men is a relatively recent phenomenon, not strongly in evidence anywhere in the world before the 20th century. Yet, these ideas also go back to Bible scripture: God is not a respecter of persons(Acts 10:34-35), and if we have respect to persons(i.e. discrimination), this is morally wrong(James 2:9-10). At this juncture, something must be said about the legal referent to precedent(stare decisis): How far back do men want to go in history, to decide which precedent represents the right thing to do? Does long-standing historical practice of a particular mode of behaviour, in itself, justify indefinite continuation of that practice? Again, the four-millenia slavery example must be remembered. Some Americans say too that we should not look to foreign countries as a basis for interpreting the U.S. Constitution. But the drama of the Bible unfolds in a completely different time and place from that of contemporary America. Separation of church from state, anybody?
The United States of America is not by any means a theocracy, per se. Yet, its form of government having been designed by Christians, bequeathed since that time a country where persons of all religious persuasion, and even those of no religious persuasion, could flourish far better than they might in other countries where religions outside of Christianity are dominant. That fact should always be celebrated as the "amazing grace" of the United States of America. How sweet that sound!
-Lawrence K. Marsh
Cross-Burning/Flag-Burning
In times of extreme national political upheaval and trial, some people resort to extreme behavioural symbols of protest. Two of these have been, and continue to be, flag-burning and cross-burning. There has been much public outrage over such behaviour, saying these two forms of political expression should be banned on the basis of the moral ideals the cross and the flag represent.
On this issue, there are two questions which must necessarily be asked: 1)to whom does the flag or cross belong, and 2)on whose property is the flag or cross being burned? It is a basic core value of American freedom, for any property-owner to dispose of his or her property as they see fit. Under no circumstance, should the burning of a flag or cross paid for with public tax-payers' money be allowed to be burned with impunity, without strong legal response. Not because this behaviour strikes great fear into the hearts of some people, and great moral disgust into the hearts of others. No, this is destruction of public property, which should never be tolerated under any circumstance, regardless of what the form of public property may or may not represent. However, in the case of private property, the act should be permitted if 1)the owners of the cross or flag give their consent to its being burned, and 2)if the owners of the property on which the cross or flag is being burned also give their consent to this action. Actions and behaviours under the law should be permitted so long as all parties involved therein agree to them voluntarily. It should be recognized, in turn, that in a truly free society, people will always and inevitably say and do things which rub other people the wrong way, and rattle their cages.
Thomas Jefferson was correct on-spot in his statement that "timid men prefer the calm of tyranny to the boisterous sea of liberty." The American people would do well, to remember that a liberty once lost will never be re-gained without violent confrontation and conflict, with very tragic consequences. Thomas Jefferson also said, "From time to time, the tree of liberty must be refreshed with the blood of tyrants and patriots. It is its natural manure."
-Lawrence K. Marsh
On this issue, there are two questions which must necessarily be asked: 1)to whom does the flag or cross belong, and 2)on whose property is the flag or cross being burned? It is a basic core value of American freedom, for any property-owner to dispose of his or her property as they see fit. Under no circumstance, should the burning of a flag or cross paid for with public tax-payers' money be allowed to be burned with impunity, without strong legal response. Not because this behaviour strikes great fear into the hearts of some people, and great moral disgust into the hearts of others. No, this is destruction of public property, which should never be tolerated under any circumstance, regardless of what the form of public property may or may not represent. However, in the case of private property, the act should be permitted if 1)the owners of the cross or flag give their consent to its being burned, and 2)if the owners of the property on which the cross or flag is being burned also give their consent to this action. Actions and behaviours under the law should be permitted so long as all parties involved therein agree to them voluntarily. It should be recognized, in turn, that in a truly free society, people will always and inevitably say and do things which rub other people the wrong way, and rattle their cages.
Thomas Jefferson was correct on-spot in his statement that "timid men prefer the calm of tyranny to the boisterous sea of liberty." The American people would do well, to remember that a liberty once lost will never be re-gained without violent confrontation and conflict, with very tragic consequences. Thomas Jefferson also said, "From time to time, the tree of liberty must be refreshed with the blood of tyrants and patriots. It is its natural manure."
-Lawrence K. Marsh
Health Care For America
Several tens of millions of Americans in our day are tragically without any health insurance. What to do about this situation? Many people in government have advocated a national health care system, similar to ones found in Canada and several European countries. But it should be remembered that the American population is much larger than that of Canada and of most European countries; therefore, such a national health care program for America would be far more costly, than that found in the other countries.
President Theodore Roosevelt once said, "Under government ownership, corruption can flourish just as rankly as under private ownership." This statement is true: does a man change his basic moral character based on whether he is in the employ of government or of private industry? No evidence of that has yet been demonstrated anywhere.
Public opinion surveys in the past have shown that of twenty professions, politicians rank rock-bottom number twenty in the collective public esteem. Given that fact, it would be most foolish to place the administration of health care into the hands of politicians. If we cannot trust our political leaders to be fair and just in other matters, why should they be trustworthy in the administration of health care? The distribution of health care would necessarily be made on the basis of political considerations, as some segments of the American population would be inevitably favored over other segments of it. Politicized rationing of health care would be made sooner or later as well.
Given that people's health care needs vary widely, it would be extremely foolish to commit the American people to a single one-size-fits-all national scheme, even if the government officials administering it did so with the utmost of scrupulous honesty.
There is no provision in the U.S. Constitution explicitly authorizing the federal government to get involved into health care. This issue should be resolved by the needs of individual state and local governments, at the direction of their local citizenry. The federal government was originally created to perform only those tasks of which the individual states are absolutely incapable, and the state and local governments are perfectly capable of dealing with people's health problems.
One major problem existing today is that most of the American people have been completely brain-washed to the proposition that only the federal government is the right venue for addressing issues of social interest and concern such as health care, poverty alleviation, education, disaster relief, etc.
Those who have their own private health insurance plans should be allowed to retain them. Those who have no health insurance should be permitted a 100% income tax write-off on their medical treatment. Any and all health care expenses not covered by an insurance plan should likewise be permitted complete 100% tax write-off. Exception: Those who contract illnesses due to extraordinarily risky health practices should not be given any compassionate exemption from responsible payment from their own financial resources, for their health care. When a disease or injury is easily preventable, the general public should never be in any way obliged to financially under-write its medical treatment.
Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The American people should have the wisdom by now to say "no" to any absolutist power wielded over their lives by the government, and especially in the matter of health care.
-Lawrence K. Marsh
s
President Theodore Roosevelt once said, "Under government ownership, corruption can flourish just as rankly as under private ownership." This statement is true: does a man change his basic moral character based on whether he is in the employ of government or of private industry? No evidence of that has yet been demonstrated anywhere.
Public opinion surveys in the past have shown that of twenty professions, politicians rank rock-bottom number twenty in the collective public esteem. Given that fact, it would be most foolish to place the administration of health care into the hands of politicians. If we cannot trust our political leaders to be fair and just in other matters, why should they be trustworthy in the administration of health care? The distribution of health care would necessarily be made on the basis of political considerations, as some segments of the American population would be inevitably favored over other segments of it. Politicized rationing of health care would be made sooner or later as well.
Given that people's health care needs vary widely, it would be extremely foolish to commit the American people to a single one-size-fits-all national scheme, even if the government officials administering it did so with the utmost of scrupulous honesty.
There is no provision in the U.S. Constitution explicitly authorizing the federal government to get involved into health care. This issue should be resolved by the needs of individual state and local governments, at the direction of their local citizenry. The federal government was originally created to perform only those tasks of which the individual states are absolutely incapable, and the state and local governments are perfectly capable of dealing with people's health problems.
One major problem existing today is that most of the American people have been completely brain-washed to the proposition that only the federal government is the right venue for addressing issues of social interest and concern such as health care, poverty alleviation, education, disaster relief, etc.
Those who have their own private health insurance plans should be allowed to retain them. Those who have no health insurance should be permitted a 100% income tax write-off on their medical treatment. Any and all health care expenses not covered by an insurance plan should likewise be permitted complete 100% tax write-off. Exception: Those who contract illnesses due to extraordinarily risky health practices should not be given any compassionate exemption from responsible payment from their own financial resources, for their health care. When a disease or injury is easily preventable, the general public should never be in any way obliged to financially under-write its medical treatment.
Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The American people should have the wisdom by now to say "no" to any absolutist power wielded over their lives by the government, and especially in the matter of health care.
-Lawrence K. Marsh
s
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
The Question of Marriage
The issue of gay marriage, in direct challenge to the traditional Biblical one-man, one-woman model, has become greatly-intensified since the last decade or two of the 20th century. There are strong political efforts in evidence today, to make this practice socially main-stream and fully protected by civil rights statutes.
The U.S. Constitution First Amendment clearly protects freedom of peaceable assembly, which implies freedom of association as well. Certainly, government has no place to interfere into the affairs of the human heart per se, to tell anyone whom they can or cannot love. At the same time, however, individuals cannot claim legal rights without also accepting responsibilities with them. Often, the opponents of gay marriage cite their religious beliefs, or even their personal disgust and revulsion with the practice, as basis for their opposition to it. But so far as the U.S. Constitution is concerned, these are not sufficient reasons to justify the legal recission and subsequent prohibition of the practice from society. Nevertheless, society cannot tolerate, nor should it be required to tolerate, completely untrammeled individual exercise of freedoms without social accountability of individuals in question.
The main reasons to justify opposition to gay marriage most likely rest with demonstrable medical scientific or economic impact considerations. Any responsible government should consider whether or not homosexual conjugal relations involves a spread of sexually-transmitted diseases uniquely-attributable to that social arrangement. Also to be considered is possible psychological impact upon the children of same-sex parentage, as opposed to children coming from a home with both a male and a female parent. Is it indeed deleterious upon a child's personality development, for "Heather to have two mommies"? Some studies and reports strongly suggest that gay marriage does, more often than not, involve extraordinary problems with sexually-transmitted diseases and adverse psychological impact upon the personality development of any children associated with such a marriage. Also to be considered are the possible long-range social dysfunctionalities which may grow out of that same marital arrangement. Increased crime, social dependency upon society-at-large in the future?
In any case, when some people make risky health choices of behaviour, the general American tax-paying public-at-large should not be compelled to underwrite with their tax monies the medical rescue of individuals from any severely-adverse health consequences of their decisions. On the contrary, all American citizens should take full economic, socio-political and moral responsibility for their own personal choices. No monies should be appropriated from the public treasury, for the purpose of finding cures for sexually-transmitted diseases, given that said diseases are easily-preventable through more responsible personal behaviour.
If homosexual marriage becomes acceptable in society, what next? Once the proverbial "glass ceiling" on the traditional Bible-based model of marriage is broken, the issue of polygamous and/or polyandrous marriage may not be far behind: what is so great about gay marriage, that is not equally-meritorious about polygamy or polyandry? For many long years and decades, the law has also prohibited these two latter marital arrangements as well, citing alleged deleterious social and moral consequences of these.
Perhaps the most egregious activity on the part of the gay community is its blatant attempt to compel the rest of society to morally embrace it and dub it "normal". In a free democracy, there is absolutely no place for government-supported tyranny over the human mind. To be sure, public popular disapprobation of a particular action or behaviour is not sufficient reason to outlaw the action or behaviour. Ours is a nation based on the proposition of protecting individual rights not subject to any "lynch-mob" mentality from the popular majority. Persons unpopular for a wide variety of reasons are all entitled to those legal protections from the evils of "mob-ocracy". Nevertheless, the gays, for their part, are not entitled to any emotional protection from popular verbal condemnation and censure of their behaviour, under the ruberic of "anti-hate-speech" laws. When gays openly flaunt their sexual perversities, they should remember the dictum of the late President Harry S. Truman: "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen." This author believes the "don't ask-don't tell" policy is the best on this question. The Constitution First Amendment freedom of speech for all Americans, regardless of persuasions, must always remain the supreme law of this land we call America.
-LKM
The U.S. Constitution First Amendment clearly protects freedom of peaceable assembly, which implies freedom of association as well. Certainly, government has no place to interfere into the affairs of the human heart per se, to tell anyone whom they can or cannot love. At the same time, however, individuals cannot claim legal rights without also accepting responsibilities with them. Often, the opponents of gay marriage cite their religious beliefs, or even their personal disgust and revulsion with the practice, as basis for their opposition to it. But so far as the U.S. Constitution is concerned, these are not sufficient reasons to justify the legal recission and subsequent prohibition of the practice from society. Nevertheless, society cannot tolerate, nor should it be required to tolerate, completely untrammeled individual exercise of freedoms without social accountability of individuals in question.
The main reasons to justify opposition to gay marriage most likely rest with demonstrable medical scientific or economic impact considerations. Any responsible government should consider whether or not homosexual conjugal relations involves a spread of sexually-transmitted diseases uniquely-attributable to that social arrangement. Also to be considered is possible psychological impact upon the children of same-sex parentage, as opposed to children coming from a home with both a male and a female parent. Is it indeed deleterious upon a child's personality development, for "Heather to have two mommies"? Some studies and reports strongly suggest that gay marriage does, more often than not, involve extraordinary problems with sexually-transmitted diseases and adverse psychological impact upon the personality development of any children associated with such a marriage. Also to be considered are the possible long-range social dysfunctionalities which may grow out of that same marital arrangement. Increased crime, social dependency upon society-at-large in the future?
In any case, when some people make risky health choices of behaviour, the general American tax-paying public-at-large should not be compelled to underwrite with their tax monies the medical rescue of individuals from any severely-adverse health consequences of their decisions. On the contrary, all American citizens should take full economic, socio-political and moral responsibility for their own personal choices. No monies should be appropriated from the public treasury, for the purpose of finding cures for sexually-transmitted diseases, given that said diseases are easily-preventable through more responsible personal behaviour.
If homosexual marriage becomes acceptable in society, what next? Once the proverbial "glass ceiling" on the traditional Bible-based model of marriage is broken, the issue of polygamous and/or polyandrous marriage may not be far behind: what is so great about gay marriage, that is not equally-meritorious about polygamy or polyandry? For many long years and decades, the law has also prohibited these two latter marital arrangements as well, citing alleged deleterious social and moral consequences of these.
Perhaps the most egregious activity on the part of the gay community is its blatant attempt to compel the rest of society to morally embrace it and dub it "normal". In a free democracy, there is absolutely no place for government-supported tyranny over the human mind. To be sure, public popular disapprobation of a particular action or behaviour is not sufficient reason to outlaw the action or behaviour. Ours is a nation based on the proposition of protecting individual rights not subject to any "lynch-mob" mentality from the popular majority. Persons unpopular for a wide variety of reasons are all entitled to those legal protections from the evils of "mob-ocracy". Nevertheless, the gays, for their part, are not entitled to any emotional protection from popular verbal condemnation and censure of their behaviour, under the ruberic of "anti-hate-speech" laws. When gays openly flaunt their sexual perversities, they should remember the dictum of the late President Harry S. Truman: "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen." This author believes the "don't ask-don't tell" policy is the best on this question. The Constitution First Amendment freedom of speech for all Americans, regardless of persuasions, must always remain the supreme law of this land we call America.
-LKM
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
