Saturday, January 28, 2012
Sunday, January 22, 2012
Friday, December 30, 2011
The Power of Reason and the Rule of Law
The principle reason for the moral confusion which seems to pervade the twenty-first century, in America and elsewhere, is the almost dogged determination of so many people to avoid the use of a power given to them by God; the power of reason. To illustrate, here is a true story. Fortunately it came to a good conclusion, but it might have had a disastrous ending. Late at night a car was being driven in a tough and nearly deserted neighborhood in St. Louis. It came to a red light and stopped. A lady driving alone came up behind it. Three young and menacing-looking men approached the lady's car using vile language, with one of them carrying what appeared to be a baseball bat. They were rather obviously durnk. The lady honked at the car in front of her to move on. There was no other traffic in the area. Streets in all directions were deserted. But the car in front refused to budge. Why? As the driver later explained, the light was red. The apparent hoodlums came on and on. As they reached the lady's car the light turned green and everyone in both cars, which then moved on, was safe. The nearly-victimized lady was furious, chased the car down through deserted streets until it pulled into a well-lit gas station where, in the presence of a police officer the story was told.
This is a perfect example of slavish dependence on a rule which had no logical application under the circumstances. Every day or so you can hear about some small child in the first or second grade being reprimanded or even suspended because he is found to be carrying a few cough drops or something like that against a rule prohibiting "drug possession". This is called "zero tolerance". Or someone compliments another person, usually female, on an attractive dress and is accused of sexual harrassment. Now and then a judge will hand down an absurdly harsh sentence because of a hard-and-fast rule in a case where common sense cries out against it, as in a case a few years ago wherein a judge sentenced a boy to five years in prison because of some minimum-sentence rule when all the boy was charged with was the possession of a single marijuana cigarette. (If you think the judge had no choice, he did. He could have ruled that the statute, or at least its application in the case at hand, amounted to a violation of the Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishment. If appellate courts want to reverse something like that, let them do so). And then there are horrific cases in which a judge or prosecutor demands the death penalty for someone when there is actual proof that he was innocent of the crime charged. "He had a fair trial", it will be said. The insanity of this escapes the judge or prosecutor, or he doesn't care about human life, or perhaps he is just incredibly stupid.
But don't we need rules? Yes, but we do not need to reach absurb results in the application of rules when they were obviously intended to apply to something else. When Abraham Lincoln was criticized for by-passing certain constitutional rights during the Civil War he explained that he had to violate some Constitutional provision here or there to save the entire Constitution, which was being torn apart. A prominent 20th Century jurist would say "The Constitution is not a suicide pact". Would the Founders favor a rigid adherence to the letter of the Constitution if that would probably result in the destruction of the whole Constitution? Does it not sometimes make sense to follow the spirit and intent of the law with constructions and applications which common sense dictates that the drafters and ratifiers of the law would have approved? There should of course be a presumption in favor of rules and a very good and compelling reason when their application is modified or even ignored. Obviously, any society needs rules, the fewer the better in my opinion, but some rules are necessary. Reason itself so demands.
This is a perfect example of slavish dependence on a rule which had no logical application under the circumstances. Every day or so you can hear about some small child in the first or second grade being reprimanded or even suspended because he is found to be carrying a few cough drops or something like that against a rule prohibiting "drug possession". This is called "zero tolerance". Or someone compliments another person, usually female, on an attractive dress and is accused of sexual harrassment. Now and then a judge will hand down an absurdly harsh sentence because of a hard-and-fast rule in a case where common sense cries out against it, as in a case a few years ago wherein a judge sentenced a boy to five years in prison because of some minimum-sentence rule when all the boy was charged with was the possession of a single marijuana cigarette. (If you think the judge had no choice, he did. He could have ruled that the statute, or at least its application in the case at hand, amounted to a violation of the Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishment. If appellate courts want to reverse something like that, let them do so). And then there are horrific cases in which a judge or prosecutor demands the death penalty for someone when there is actual proof that he was innocent of the crime charged. "He had a fair trial", it will be said. The insanity of this escapes the judge or prosecutor, or he doesn't care about human life, or perhaps he is just incredibly stupid.
But don't we need rules? Yes, but we do not need to reach absurb results in the application of rules when they were obviously intended to apply to something else. When Abraham Lincoln was criticized for by-passing certain constitutional rights during the Civil War he explained that he had to violate some Constitutional provision here or there to save the entire Constitution, which was being torn apart. A prominent 20th Century jurist would say "The Constitution is not a suicide pact". Would the Founders favor a rigid adherence to the letter of the Constitution if that would probably result in the destruction of the whole Constitution? Does it not sometimes make sense to follow the spirit and intent of the law with constructions and applications which common sense dictates that the drafters and ratifiers of the law would have approved? There should of course be a presumption in favor of rules and a very good and compelling reason when their application is modified or even ignored. Obviously, any society needs rules, the fewer the better in my opinion, but some rules are necessary. Reason itself so demands.
Tuesday, December 27, 2011
Freedom and its Limits
In defending the new government-mandated light bulbs a local columnist recently wrote, after reciting the putative benefits of the new bulbs, "I am unable to understand the principles that govern today's Republican Party, but it is wrong to pander to people's ignorance or to cater to what people want to believe rather than the truth". So shocking is the arrogance of such a statement that it is hard to know where to begin comment on it, albeit that similar assertions are so common that perhaps it shouldn't be so shocking after all. To be fair, the column in question is a cut above the usual hysterical name-calling tirades with which the print and broadcast media daily confront us because at least the writer does offer some tenable arguments in favor of the usefulness and economy of the new bulbs and he does recite facts or claims in support thereof. That, at least, is to his credit.
Aside from any other objection to the columnist's words, there remains a practical one. How many people are there who consider themselves ignorant or mindless of the truth? I have never encountered such a person. So it is fair to conclude that if the purpose of the column is to persuade people to the writer's point of view and away from some incompatible alternative, he failed. Up to that point he might have been getting somewhere. Then he ended his chance of that. So what did he expect to accomplish? And this is typical of the torrents of name-calling abusive political commentary to which the American public is routinely subjected.
Beyond that, there is a simple response to the writer's conundrum. It is easy to understand Republican principles. They are found in the words 'freedom' and the 'Bill of Rights'. Even if I am one hundred percent convinced that the new bulbs are better than the old ones in economy, performance or whatnot, I refuse to cede to the writer or to the government the privilege of deciding the matter for me. The old bulbs work. If I like things the way they are, the writer can buy the new ones and leave me alone. It's a nice arrangement. On a plainer level; who the hell does he think he is anyway?
But shouldn't the government deny to a would-be consumer something which is plainly lethal, such as potassium cyanide? Should I be allowed to go into any pharmacy and buy some of that? No, and for three reasons. First, I may not know it is poisonous, second I might be buying it to murder someone and third, something like potassium cyanide is so dangerous, its lethal effects so instantaneous, that the danger of its being imbibed --- for a child, for example --- is simply too great to allow it in free circulation. The first objection can be answered with adequate informative labelling, and I submit that no reasonable person can object to the disclosure of dangers. The second applies also to hammers, cars and a lot of other items which can be used properly with reasonable precautions whereas potassium cyanide is useful only in homocide. Suffice it to say that there are items which are so dangerous that their sale or use should be restricted or prohibited altogether. One should not be allowed to sell atom bombs indiscriminately. I tend to oppose the prohibition by the government of cigarette selling but favor information dissemination. Tell the public how bad they are but don't tell me that I can't smoke if I choose to in my own home (I don't). Freedom is an ideal. One can champion the principle without having to decide every particular case in advance of the necessity for doing so. What is required after the principle is accepted is the application of human reason. Not everyone will reach the same conclusions in every case. Hence democratic government. Unfortunately all too few people evince a willingness to use the capacity to reason with which they have been endowed by their Creator.
Aside from any other objection to the columnist's words, there remains a practical one. How many people are there who consider themselves ignorant or mindless of the truth? I have never encountered such a person. So it is fair to conclude that if the purpose of the column is to persuade people to the writer's point of view and away from some incompatible alternative, he failed. Up to that point he might have been getting somewhere. Then he ended his chance of that. So what did he expect to accomplish? And this is typical of the torrents of name-calling abusive political commentary to which the American public is routinely subjected.
Beyond that, there is a simple response to the writer's conundrum. It is easy to understand Republican principles. They are found in the words 'freedom' and the 'Bill of Rights'. Even if I am one hundred percent convinced that the new bulbs are better than the old ones in economy, performance or whatnot, I refuse to cede to the writer or to the government the privilege of deciding the matter for me. The old bulbs work. If I like things the way they are, the writer can buy the new ones and leave me alone. It's a nice arrangement. On a plainer level; who the hell does he think he is anyway?
But shouldn't the government deny to a would-be consumer something which is plainly lethal, such as potassium cyanide? Should I be allowed to go into any pharmacy and buy some of that? No, and for three reasons. First, I may not know it is poisonous, second I might be buying it to murder someone and third, something like potassium cyanide is so dangerous, its lethal effects so instantaneous, that the danger of its being imbibed --- for a child, for example --- is simply too great to allow it in free circulation. The first objection can be answered with adequate informative labelling, and I submit that no reasonable person can object to the disclosure of dangers. The second applies also to hammers, cars and a lot of other items which can be used properly with reasonable precautions whereas potassium cyanide is useful only in homocide. Suffice it to say that there are items which are so dangerous that their sale or use should be restricted or prohibited altogether. One should not be allowed to sell atom bombs indiscriminately. I tend to oppose the prohibition by the government of cigarette selling but favor information dissemination. Tell the public how bad they are but don't tell me that I can't smoke if I choose to in my own home (I don't). Freedom is an ideal. One can champion the principle without having to decide every particular case in advance of the necessity for doing so. What is required after the principle is accepted is the application of human reason. Not everyone will reach the same conclusions in every case. Hence democratic government. Unfortunately all too few people evince a willingness to use the capacity to reason with which they have been endowed by their Creator.
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
Saturday, November 26, 2011
Robert Louis Stevenson --- Epitaph
Under the wide and starry sky
Dig the grave and let me lie
Glad did I live and gladly die,
And I laid me down with a will.
This be the verse you grave for me:
Here he lies where he longed to be;
Home is the sailor, home from the sea,
And the hunter home from the hill.
Dig the grave and let me lie
Glad did I live and gladly die,
And I laid me down with a will.
This be the verse you grave for me:
Here he lies where he longed to be;
Home is the sailor, home from the sea,
And the hunter home from the hill.
Monday, November 21, 2011
The Establishment Clause and Religious Freedom
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . ". Thus begins the first amendment to the United States Constitution, which we call the Bill of Rights, consisting of ten articles, eight of which spell out the rights to be protected from encroachment by Congress. The ninth amendment reminds us that the list is not necessarily complete because rights are endowed by God and constitutions do not create rights, they protect them. And the tenth amendment reserves to the states or to individuals the burden of protecting rights which are not specifically listed in the first eight amendments.
That is the Bill of Rights, ten articles which are perfectly understandable in principle, though the details in some cases must be filled in by the courts as they consider individual cases. To illustrate, what precisely is Due Process? For example, granted that a defendant has a right to counsel if accused of a crime, does that include the right to free appointed counsel for those who cannot afford to pay a lawyer from their own pocket? In Gideon vs. Wainright the Supreme Court ruled that it does because otherwise, in many cases, the right to counsel would lack content and be meaningless for some people. However, merely because judges are called on to exercise judgment does not mean, and never did or was intended to mean, that they can read into the law their own personal ideas on the way society should be structured. Judges were not intended to be tyrants or dictators.
Yet radical organizations like the ACLU, aided and abetted by liberal judges, have turned the first sentence of the Bill of Rights, with its simplicity and obvious meaning and intent, from a protection of the indivdual from the tyranny of forced religion into a war on religion, primarily Christianity. Every president from George Washington to George Bush has asked for the recognition by the American people and their government of the dependence of America on Divine Providence for its freedom and prosperity. As President John Kennedy stated in his Inaugural Address, January 20, 1961 "The rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God". There have been hundreds of such statements by presidents, congressmen, governors and, yes, even judges throughout American history. In 1789 President George Washington complied with the request of both Houses of Congress, made by joint resolution, "to recomment to the People of the United states a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be obersved by acknowledging with grateful heart the many signal favors of Almight God, . . .". President Franklin D. Roosevelt ordered that there be inscribed on the mantlepiece in the State Dining Room in the White House a prayer composed by John Adams and contained in a letter to his wife Abigail; "I pray Heaven to bestow the best of blessings on this house and all that shall hereafter inhabit it. May none but honest and wise men ever rule under this roof". The Declaration of Independence, authored principally by Thomas Jefferson, declares that man is endowed by his Creator with certain unalienable rights, among which are the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Harry Truman said to a conference of attorneys general; "The fundamental basis of this nation's laws was given to Moses on the Mount. The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings we get from Exodus and St. Matthew, from Isaiah and St. Paul. I don't think we emphasize that enough these days", and in quoting Psalm 127 John Quincy Adams reminded Americans that "Except the Lord keep the city the watchman waketh but in vain". That passsage was to be read by John Kennedy in the address he would have delivered in Dallas had he not been murdered by a madman. Similar sentiments are to be found inscribed in state capitals, courthouses, public libraries and monuments throughout the United States. Yet this is the nation which liberal judges tell us cannot tolerate a simple, wholly voluntary prayer by a small child in a public school class room, or a cross over a soldier's grave in the desert.
There can be close questions in the application of the first amendment but whether or not the recognition of the Soverignty of God in public places and at public events is constitutional is not a close question. This is a Christian nation, though its people are free to follow the promptings of conscience as they see fit without invading the rights of those who disagree with them. By "Christian Nation" we do not mean that Christianity is established by any law as the official state-supported religion of the United States or that anyone is required to take part in Christian observances but, rather, that Christian principles motivated and animated the nation's founders and subsequent leaders with the full consent and encouragement of the American people. Our people and our government have a right to acknowledge that, and they should, gladly and with gratitute to the Great God who gave them life.
That is the Bill of Rights, ten articles which are perfectly understandable in principle, though the details in some cases must be filled in by the courts as they consider individual cases. To illustrate, what precisely is Due Process? For example, granted that a defendant has a right to counsel if accused of a crime, does that include the right to free appointed counsel for those who cannot afford to pay a lawyer from their own pocket? In Gideon vs. Wainright the Supreme Court ruled that it does because otherwise, in many cases, the right to counsel would lack content and be meaningless for some people. However, merely because judges are called on to exercise judgment does not mean, and never did or was intended to mean, that they can read into the law their own personal ideas on the way society should be structured. Judges were not intended to be tyrants or dictators.
Yet radical organizations like the ACLU, aided and abetted by liberal judges, have turned the first sentence of the Bill of Rights, with its simplicity and obvious meaning and intent, from a protection of the indivdual from the tyranny of forced religion into a war on religion, primarily Christianity. Every president from George Washington to George Bush has asked for the recognition by the American people and their government of the dependence of America on Divine Providence for its freedom and prosperity. As President John Kennedy stated in his Inaugural Address, January 20, 1961 "The rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God". There have been hundreds of such statements by presidents, congressmen, governors and, yes, even judges throughout American history. In 1789 President George Washington complied with the request of both Houses of Congress, made by joint resolution, "to recomment to the People of the United states a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be obersved by acknowledging with grateful heart the many signal favors of Almight God, . . .". President Franklin D. Roosevelt ordered that there be inscribed on the mantlepiece in the State Dining Room in the White House a prayer composed by John Adams and contained in a letter to his wife Abigail; "I pray Heaven to bestow the best of blessings on this house and all that shall hereafter inhabit it. May none but honest and wise men ever rule under this roof". The Declaration of Independence, authored principally by Thomas Jefferson, declares that man is endowed by his Creator with certain unalienable rights, among which are the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Harry Truman said to a conference of attorneys general; "The fundamental basis of this nation's laws was given to Moses on the Mount. The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings we get from Exodus and St. Matthew, from Isaiah and St. Paul. I don't think we emphasize that enough these days", and in quoting Psalm 127 John Quincy Adams reminded Americans that "Except the Lord keep the city the watchman waketh but in vain". That passsage was to be read by John Kennedy in the address he would have delivered in Dallas had he not been murdered by a madman. Similar sentiments are to be found inscribed in state capitals, courthouses, public libraries and monuments throughout the United States. Yet this is the nation which liberal judges tell us cannot tolerate a simple, wholly voluntary prayer by a small child in a public school class room, or a cross over a soldier's grave in the desert.
There can be close questions in the application of the first amendment but whether or not the recognition of the Soverignty of God in public places and at public events is constitutional is not a close question. This is a Christian nation, though its people are free to follow the promptings of conscience as they see fit without invading the rights of those who disagree with them. By "Christian Nation" we do not mean that Christianity is established by any law as the official state-supported religion of the United States or that anyone is required to take part in Christian observances but, rather, that Christian principles motivated and animated the nation's founders and subsequent leaders with the full consent and encouragement of the American people. Our people and our government have a right to acknowledge that, and they should, gladly and with gratitute to the Great God who gave them life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)