Now I don't mean to go off on a rant here, but...
Welly well well well. It appears the Schiavo report has finally been filed by the Pinellas-Pasco Medical Examiner. Despite what the Schindlers and half of bloody congress said, it turns out the physicians were correct all along. Imagine that! Physicians knew more about the woman's medical condition than politicians hiding behind cheap theatrics
( Read more... )
First and foremost, you and every other person who espouses this ardent fixation with the separation of church and state theory have made the same flaw--don't worry, you can fix it and then try to combat it if you must--and that is this: there IS to be a separation of church and state BUT NOT a separation of God and state. Our leaders should be the beacons of morality--this is the only idealism I will toss at you, honest--and were they Christians, they would be. There is nothing wrong with letting God drive your decision making process. The whole "separation of church & state" theory comes from the fact that the founders were wise enough (through experience) to note that the Government needed to be kept out of the church--that is to say, so that the American citizenry wouldn't have religion forced upon them--NOT to dissuade our leaders from making decisions based on their morality. In fact, how can we make ANY decision, but based on our morality? It seems to be perfectly fine when the dems do it and allow their morality to kill innocent lives or advocate sexual welfare or make people "worse than infidels" (i.e., those who won't work to provide for their own--the Bible says that if you don't work, neither shall you eat, and while there are lots of truly disabled people who can't work, there are WAY too many who abuse the system); however, when Repubs do the same, we're labeled as right-wing extremists. Well, call me whatever you wish, but I will stand for the Truth any day. No, make that every day.
Secondly, just because conservatives argue for the primacy of the state, it does not mean that they think that the federal government can't be used in the right circumstances. Granted I don't think this case in particular was a time to do it, and I was just as upset with the leadership as you were, perhaps more so because I am affiliated with them, there is a purpose in having a strong federal government. You see, conservatives believe in the sanctity of the Constitution--it's the political Bible, if you will--of all the documents in my life, the Bible is obviously most important--that is why it gets literal interpretation in my mind, similarly, the Constitution must be interpreted literally. That means that when it says (paraphrasing) "powers not delegated herein to the Federal government are retained by the states," it means it. So things that fall within the Federal realm, to conservatives, should be governed by the Federal government. The same goes with the power delegated to the states (or not delegated to the Fed). Well, in any event, the Conservatives are really big on upholding the Constitution...that may be our fatal flaw, but it is not hypocracy. ;)
And lastly, MJ is clearly guilty--and although the prosecution failed to prove the molestation charges, I remember reading (although I forget where) that MJ admitted to providing his alter boys with alcohol, thus, he should have at least been found guilty on one of those minor counts (assuming of course it was released in open court--perhaps it was in an affidavit taken during discovery?). But, all the same, I didn't follow it, don't care, agree with most of what you said about it, and have just furthered my theory that the California trial courts are simply unwilling to convict anyone who is famous.
I'll be interested to read your well-thought responses...
Reply
Also, I just have a problem with the conservatives being inconsistent. For instance, they have gotten fetal homicide legislation through in many states but have neglected to do anything about abortion in many instances. If a fetus is a human in one instance, how is it not in the other? That's the heart of the issue I have in the sanctity of marraige deal too. If marraige still holds the sacred bond and implications that it once did, then why were the parents even considered in the decision making process?
Additionally the conservatives are attempting to maintain the Patriot Act in its entirety. If conservatives treat the constitution as a sacred text, to be followed at all costs, then how do they reconcile the violations of the 4th amendment contained within the Patriot act with their support of said act? I'm just looking for consistency. I have no problem with people of faith involving themselves in government. I would just like some logic applied to things. One more thing..how did the Schiavo case fall into the realm of federal business?
Reply
2. All politicians try to mobilize their BASE--it just so happens that the conservative base is rooted in most of the nation's denominations. But, all politicians at all times have tried to draw in the religious vote--Clinton, Kerry, etc., have all had their photo-ops in churches to appeal to the religious crowd. It's about keeping and maintaining support to further your cause--and what you feel is the cause of the majority of the people. There's nothing wrong with that at all.
3. All people are inconsistent in some respect, but generally conservatives are the least inconsistent people in the world. In terms of the states rights approach that conservatives generally take to governmental control, the reason why a fetus is a person in one place and not in another is because every state--that is, the people of that state--are given the right to decide their own laws. That's not inconsistent, that's following the letter of the law. As for the sanctity of marriage and why Terri's parents could be involved, it comes down to this: anyone can bring a law suit. I could have even sued her husband to keep her alive if I had wanted to--that's not a conservative thing, that's just the way the law works for everyone.
4. The 4th Amendment, which pertains to unreasonable search and seizure--I think this is what you're referring to at any rate--isn't violated by the Patriot Act. And this is why: searches and seizures are only to be conducted on those who are suspected of harboring malicious intent against the Government and the citizens of the United States. That is not unreasonable in any form of the word. Now, can there be abuses to it? Certainly. No law that is on the books has gone without some abuse, but does that mean we shouldn't have it in place to help those who truly need help/protection (see the welfare state)? Of course not. We all have our crusades, but I think the safety of the nation is best protected by having it. That's just my two cents, though...
5. The Schiavo case fell under federal jurisdiction when her parents appealed the state court verdict. If you remember, it began in the state court--the parents brought the suit against him. And, as a matter of civil procedure (something you couldn't be expected to know without some law school under your belt), he had a right to have the case removed before trial in the state court (which he did not do), and the parents had the right to appeal to the federal court (which they did do), after the lower state court issued its ruling. That has nothing to do with a republican/democrat thing--it's procedural rules that govern the legal process. So, in short, you can elimate that from your rant because it has nothing to do with politics, it's a purely judicial matter. :)
Reply
Leave a comment