Tag Archives: rights

REAL ID = Real Mistake

Stop REAL ID! Submit comments to the Dept. of Homeland Security by May 8th!

  • A broad coalition of organizations across the United States is urging the public to submit comments rejecting the illegal national identification system created under the Department of Homeland Security’s REAL ID program.
  • Five states and several members of Congress have rejected the scheme, which creates a massive national ID system without adequate security or privacy safeguards, which makes it more difficult and costly for people to get licenses, and which makes it easier for identity thieves to access the personal data of 245 million license and cardholders nationwide.
  • To take action and submit comments against this fundamentally flawed national ID system, click here! Comments are due by 5pm EST on May 8, 2007.

Reflection on Gonzales v. Carhart (the recent Ruling on the Partial Birth Abortion Ban)

Judicial Life Potentially Enters the Womb
550 U.S. ___ (2007)

On April 18, 2007, the Supreme Court of the United States decided, 5 to 4, in Gonzales v. Carhart (Carhart) that the Partial-Birth Abortion Act of 2003 (Act) was constitutional in view of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (PP), and Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (Roe). The Act banned the abortion procedure identified as “intact D&E” but kept legal the “standard D&E” procedure Continue reading

As(s)ine Legislation

Spanking is not ipso facto physical abuse. Furthermore, abusus non tollit usus – the abuse of a thing does not destroy it’s right use.

CALIFORNIA TO CONSIDER OUTLAWING SPANKING

The story notes “it would be a misdemeanor, punishable by up to a year in jail or a fine up to $1,000, although a legal expert advising her on the proposal said first-time offenders would probably only have to attend parenting classes.”

Words fail me when faced with this kind of idiocy. >:{

Sovereign Nations?

I was recently at a family function of my in-laws on my wife’s father’s side. We were discussing the concept of right and wrong in government as it related to sovereign nations. In other words, if a people, say those of France, say capital punishment is wrong, shouldn’t it be wrong everywhere? Should they fight to defend this belief everywhere?

My response was yes and no since other countries are sovereign nations and they have a right to make laws as they see fit, while the moral object can be right or wrong.

It then begged to question what a sovereign nation was. I likened it to accreditation of a university. If a governing body of recognized universities came together to decide what criterion was needed for an applying institution to become a university (or chartered a third party entity), that body could declare what was and was not a university. Likewise, sovereign nations can set criteria by which other countries could be judged as actual sovereign nations.

I was sort of pulling this out from under my seat, so I was wondering what yous guys thought.

The Right to be Wrong

My recent post questioning unwavering support for the State of Israel generated a lot of discussion, much of which was off topic, involving religious tolerance, confessional governments, and whether or not anyone has a natural right to be wrong. Being off topic doesn’t make the discussion irrelevant or uninteresting, though. So, in order to “purify” the original comment thread and continue the other conversations, I’ve moved the distracting comments here.

The tangential conversation began when the Waffling Anglican said,

“Christianity demands, IMHO, religious tolerance, respect for justice, liberty, and human dignity. Modern or not, I think a very strong case can be made that those values are products of Christianity, and intrinsic to the practice of true religion.”