My question of the day is, "How can one be true to the concept of freedom of religion without admitting the risks implied by the political nature of Islam?" Islam as a religion is not an issue for most Americans; however, Islam carries within it a political system which is an anathema. The most troubling aspect of Islam for Americans is the apparent structural connection between these two facets of the Islam belief system.
Whether political power is granted to Caliphs or to Imams by the Quran is a source of internal debate within Islam - but either way we have a conflict with the principle of separation of church and state. (I acknowledge that this conflation of Church and State is not limited to Muslims. We already have ongoing battles pitting religious beliefs against Liberty most apparently within the Republican Party. However, that is another issue.)
On the surface, it appears to me that one has to choose between tolerance for the religion with the associated risks of appeasement for the politics, or intolerance for both. Since, as a belief system, Islam is intolerant of our traditional belief systems, both religious and political, it seems the choice has already been made for us, since tolerating intolerance in the name of tolerance is a fool's (or a saint's) bargain.
David
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
It's the Constitution, Stupid!
I believe the Libyan affair is truly a fight for Democracy; one which demands the immediate and passionate involvement of the People of the United States. Obama’s acts of war under the pretense of a United Nations Resolution constitute a direct assault on our United States Constitution and must be countered.
Our Founding Fathers did not establish a kingdom, where one man could carry out war in the name of the American people or, worse yet, under the banner of a foreign agent. I call upon all freedom loving Americans to demand action from their Representatives in Congress, and I offer the following letter as a suggested communication:
Dear Congressman Reichert,
I call upon you today to live up to your oath of office and to defend the United States Constitution from those forces which seek to undermine and usurp its authority in our affairs of state.
President Obama has initiated acts of war against a foreign power without any declaration of war from Congress, under the guise of a United Nations Resolution approving such actions. This is a direct violation of Article I of our Constitution.
I call upon you to sponsor or to co-sponsor a Resolution establishing Articles of Impeachment against the President in this affair. Should you be unwilling to honor your oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States," I call upon you to resign your office.
Sincerely,
David Rogers
Bellevue, WA
Our Founding Fathers did not establish a kingdom, where one man could carry out war in the name of the American people or, worse yet, under the banner of a foreign agent. I call upon all freedom loving Americans to demand action from their Representatives in Congress, and I offer the following letter as a suggested communication:
Dear Congressman Reichert,
I call upon you today to live up to your oath of office and to defend the United States Constitution from those forces which seek to undermine and usurp its authority in our affairs of state.
President Obama has initiated acts of war against a foreign power without any declaration of war from Congress, under the guise of a United Nations Resolution approving such actions. This is a direct violation of Article I of our Constitution.
I call upon you to sponsor or to co-sponsor a Resolution establishing Articles of Impeachment against the President in this affair. Should you be unwilling to honor your oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States," I call upon you to resign your office.
Sincerely,
David Rogers
Bellevue, WA
Sunday, March 13, 2011
Regarding the Messages of Intolerance in the Koran
RE: Bill Maher Debates Islam with Democratic Muslim Congressman
Bill Maher is not exactly an advocate for religion, but you couldn't say he is biased toward one or another. Between his comments and those of his guest, the point is made that most Muslims do not espouse the messages of intolerance present in the Koran - yet, those message are clearly there in spite of the denials.
That presence of mixed messages is often defended by pointing to mixed messages in the Christian bible. The problem with the Koran's mixed messages is that the hateful and intolerant material comes after and supersedes the more wholesome spiritual material found earlier. The exact opposite is true in the Christian bible. The difference is significant!
The seeds of hatred and intolerance of others (infidels) are there and are cultivated by the passages in the Koran having precedence. A key question is whether one can then believe, without engaging in delusional thinking, that those seeds will fail to produce their bitter fruit in the long run.
Bill Maher is not exactly an advocate for religion, but you couldn't say he is biased toward one or another. Between his comments and those of his guest, the point is made that most Muslims do not espouse the messages of intolerance present in the Koran - yet, those message are clearly there in spite of the denials.
That presence of mixed messages is often defended by pointing to mixed messages in the Christian bible. The problem with the Koran's mixed messages is that the hateful and intolerant material comes after and supersedes the more wholesome spiritual material found earlier. The exact opposite is true in the Christian bible. The difference is significant!
The seeds of hatred and intolerance of others (infidels) are there and are cultivated by the passages in the Koran having precedence. A key question is whether one can then believe, without engaging in delusional thinking, that those seeds will fail to produce their bitter fruit in the long run.
Saturday, March 12, 2011
The Defense of Marriage Act is Worth Wasting Time and Energy Over?
Wednesday, House Republican leadership lead by John Boehner voted to defend DOMA (the so-called Defense of Marriage Act.)
Let me get this straight, Boehner: You can't rustle up the will and resolve to pony up much more than a single week's federal spending - in budget increase reductions (much less actual budget CUTS.) Yet, you have the unmitigated gall to divert precious time and energy (THE PEOPLE'S TIME AND ENERGY!) to this sort of misanthropic micromanagement of people's lives in America?!?
You are a disgrace to your office, and to the oath you took upon entering your office!
You are a big-government charlatan, and you deserve to be swept aside with the rest of the big-government charlatans. You obviously didn’t hear the message in 2010, let’s hope you hear it loud and clear in 2012.
Let me get this straight, Boehner: You can't rustle up the will and resolve to pony up much more than a single week's federal spending - in budget increase reductions (much less actual budget CUTS.) Yet, you have the unmitigated gall to divert precious time and energy (THE PEOPLE'S TIME AND ENERGY!) to this sort of misanthropic micromanagement of people's lives in America?!?
You are a disgrace to your office, and to the oath you took upon entering your office!
You are a big-government charlatan, and you deserve to be swept aside with the rest of the big-government charlatans. You obviously didn’t hear the message in 2010, let’s hope you hear it loud and clear in 2012.
Monday, February 28, 2011
Obama Administration's Decision to Ignore DOMA
I found a great quote in my in-basket today:
"The ordaining of laws in favor of one part of the nation, to the prejudice and oppression of another, is certainly the most erroneous and mistaken policy. An equal dispensation of protection, rights, privileges, and advantages, is what every part is entitled to, and ought to enjoy." --Benjamin Franklin, Emblematical Representations, 1774
Those who are wasting their precious energy attacking the Obama administration for deciding to ignore the so-called "Defense of Marriage Act" would do well to ponder the meaning of those words.
There are bigger fish to fry. Focusing on anti-Gay Marriage and anti-abortion positions serves only to dilute the energy we can direct at working toward a more limited government.
Yes, there is a lot of heat around these issues, however, there is precious little light. For example, quoting the Old Testament in a land of predominantly Christian believers is disingenuous and unhelpful.
One might almost wonder if these issues continue to be brought to the forefront in a calculated attempt to keep the anti-socialist and libertarian memes, so dear to most of us, from taking hold and taking over the political landscape of the Right.
"The ordaining of laws in favor of one part of the nation, to the prejudice and oppression of another, is certainly the most erroneous and mistaken policy. An equal dispensation of protection, rights, privileges, and advantages, is what every part is entitled to, and ought to enjoy." --Benjamin Franklin, Emblematical Representations, 1774
Those who are wasting their precious energy attacking the Obama administration for deciding to ignore the so-called "Defense of Marriage Act" would do well to ponder the meaning of those words.
There are bigger fish to fry. Focusing on anti-Gay Marriage and anti-abortion positions serves only to dilute the energy we can direct at working toward a more limited government.
Yes, there is a lot of heat around these issues, however, there is precious little light. For example, quoting the Old Testament in a land of predominantly Christian believers is disingenuous and unhelpful.
One might almost wonder if these issues continue to be brought to the forefront in a calculated attempt to keep the anti-socialist and libertarian memes, so dear to most of us, from taking hold and taking over the political landscape of the Right.
Sunday, December 26, 2010
An Open Letter to Tom Schatz and CAGW
Dear Tom;
Why are you defending the status quo with regards to “Defense Spending”? From your materials (e.g., the survey), you appear to subscribe to the idea that, other than a few expensive toilets and hammers, “Defense Spending” is sacrosanct. I urge you to reposition CAGW on this issue!
Spending for our national defense is something conscious Americans can fully support. However, you and I both know that this bears little resemblance to “Defense Spending.” We have military bases all over the world, located in countries who are by and large our allies. Why? I am not interested in defending Israel or Germany – they have ample resources to do this on their own. Why are we taking food out of our poor, under-educated American children’s mouths (cue the soft violins) to monitor air traffic coming into Israel and Germany?
If we are providing a service to these countries, let them pay for it – IN FULL. Otherwise, close the bases and installations and bring our American Service Members home.
Why are we wasting our blood and money in Iraq and Afghanistan? We went into Iraq on a set of lies – we should be getting the hell out of there on the wings of the truth - Iraq has never had a damned thing to do with our national defense! Along the same lines, the Afghans insist on electing feudal lords and mullahs, so let them be. Get us the hell out of there too - just make them aware that if they ever again allow terrorist training camps back in we will bomb them the hell out of existence.
My proposed positions free up funds for and promote our national defense. The current positions and policies are related to empire-building and are a waste of American money and goodwill.
Our State Department and intelligence gathering apparatuses are a disgrace, a huge waster of funds, and in some case, a danger to our liberty. There should be more accountability in the funds that are spent for these activities.
The huge growth of the federal government implied by the health care bill is indeed a priority. But what about the massive waste represented by the Department of Energy, the Department of Education, the FDA with the so-called food safety bill and a dozen other chunks of bloated bureaucracy?
Finally, where is the call for pay and benefit equity with the private sector? Where is the call for the illegalization of public unions - how much sense does it make for public service employees to organize to lobby for their collective self-interests against those of the general public? This is a travesty, and you have not had the integrity to speak up in this matter all the years which I have been following CAGW.
I am not interested in a laundry list of expensive toilets and the occasional bridge to nowhere. I want to see some real change – some change I can bank on. Stop getting balled up in the little details and fight the big fights! If federal bureaucrats are forced to take pay and benefit cuts, they will have less time to overpay for toilets.
Sincerely,
David Rogers
Why are you defending the status quo with regards to “Defense Spending”? From your materials (e.g., the survey), you appear to subscribe to the idea that, other than a few expensive toilets and hammers, “Defense Spending” is sacrosanct. I urge you to reposition CAGW on this issue!
Spending for our national defense is something conscious Americans can fully support. However, you and I both know that this bears little resemblance to “Defense Spending.” We have military bases all over the world, located in countries who are by and large our allies. Why? I am not interested in defending Israel or Germany – they have ample resources to do this on their own. Why are we taking food out of our poor, under-educated American children’s mouths (cue the soft violins) to monitor air traffic coming into Israel and Germany?
If we are providing a service to these countries, let them pay for it – IN FULL. Otherwise, close the bases and installations and bring our American Service Members home.
Why are we wasting our blood and money in Iraq and Afghanistan? We went into Iraq on a set of lies – we should be getting the hell out of there on the wings of the truth - Iraq has never had a damned thing to do with our national defense! Along the same lines, the Afghans insist on electing feudal lords and mullahs, so let them be. Get us the hell out of there too - just make them aware that if they ever again allow terrorist training camps back in we will bomb them the hell out of existence.
My proposed positions free up funds for and promote our national defense. The current positions and policies are related to empire-building and are a waste of American money and goodwill.
Our State Department and intelligence gathering apparatuses are a disgrace, a huge waster of funds, and in some case, a danger to our liberty. There should be more accountability in the funds that are spent for these activities.
The huge growth of the federal government implied by the health care bill is indeed a priority. But what about the massive waste represented by the Department of Energy, the Department of Education, the FDA with the so-called food safety bill and a dozen other chunks of bloated bureaucracy?
Finally, where is the call for pay and benefit equity with the private sector? Where is the call for the illegalization of public unions - how much sense does it make for public service employees to organize to lobby for their collective self-interests against those of the general public? This is a travesty, and you have not had the integrity to speak up in this matter all the years which I have been following CAGW.
I am not interested in a laundry list of expensive toilets and the occasional bridge to nowhere. I want to see some real change – some change I can bank on. Stop getting balled up in the little details and fight the big fights! If federal bureaucrats are forced to take pay and benefit cuts, they will have less time to overpay for toilets.
Sincerely,
David Rogers
Sunday, August 8, 2010
Should We Join with Today's Conservatives?
The FaceBook group "Being Conservative' reminds us that “The Constitution remains under constant attack! We must be prepared to make a difference! ‘Like’ if you will be standing with us!!!”
Just remember, while you are standing there thinking that you are standing with patriots who love our Constitution, you are also standing with men and woman who would empower the state to bring "men with guns" to enforce prohibition (anti-drug laws, etc.), to force pregnancies (anti-choice laws), and to dictate which groups of consenting adults can call themselves married (so-called "defense of marriage" laws).
Are you sure that you are so callous about the rights of individuals that you can bear to support today's conservatives? Do you think that their definition of "limited government" is worth the devil's bargain they have made with the Religious Right which invites these intrusions by the state upon individual rights? Do you think that an entity that acts to shred the Declaration of Independence, and the understanding of Individual Rights and Liberty therein, is worthy of your support?
I don't!
How can we reconcile these differences, between true Libertarians and the new conservatives? You can start by recognizing the difference between convictions and policies.
You may have the conviction that drugs are evil, but making that a policy infringes on the rights of other individuals.
You may have the conviction that abortion is morally wrong, but making it a policy subjugates a woman's body to the State and infringes on the rights of other individuals.
You may have the conviction that homosexual marriage will destroy the institution of marriage and should be banned, but making it a policy violates the "equal protection" clause and infringes on the rights of other individuals.
Notice that nowhere am I telling you that your convictions are wrong! But I am telling you that if you advocate these policies, you are acting in a way that is un-American, in that you are supporting the right of the state to infringe on the rights of individuals!
Do you hear me Didier? Do you hear me Rossi? Do you hear me Dr Paul?
Just remember, while you are standing there thinking that you are standing with patriots who love our Constitution, you are also standing with men and woman who would empower the state to bring "men with guns" to enforce prohibition (anti-drug laws, etc.), to force pregnancies (anti-choice laws), and to dictate which groups of consenting adults can call themselves married (so-called "defense of marriage" laws).
Are you sure that you are so callous about the rights of individuals that you can bear to support today's conservatives? Do you think that their definition of "limited government" is worth the devil's bargain they have made with the Religious Right which invites these intrusions by the state upon individual rights? Do you think that an entity that acts to shred the Declaration of Independence, and the understanding of Individual Rights and Liberty therein, is worthy of your support?
I don't!
How can we reconcile these differences, between true Libertarians and the new conservatives? You can start by recognizing the difference between convictions and policies.
You may have the conviction that drugs are evil, but making that a policy infringes on the rights of other individuals.
You may have the conviction that abortion is morally wrong, but making it a policy subjugates a woman's body to the State and infringes on the rights of other individuals.
You may have the conviction that homosexual marriage will destroy the institution of marriage and should be banned, but making it a policy violates the "equal protection" clause and infringes on the rights of other individuals.
Notice that nowhere am I telling you that your convictions are wrong! But I am telling you that if you advocate these policies, you are acting in a way that is un-American, in that you are supporting the right of the state to infringe on the rights of individuals!
Do you hear me Didier? Do you hear me Rossi? Do you hear me Dr Paul?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
