The Logical Conclusion to Religion...

In the aftermath of the horrific Paris Attacks friday night, Twitter was quick to jump down the throat of anyone daring articulate that Islamic extremists were at it again. 'Terrorism has no religion' quickly became a trending topic, and as warm and fuzzy as that might make us feel, it is actually a load of crap. Religion has used terrorism for just about as long as religion has existed. Pretending otherwise is historically blind. Pretending religion doesn't play a role in modern jihad against the West is intellectually bankrupt.

Some are even committing dizzying mental gymnastics to separate ISIS (that is the ISLAMIC STATE) from Islam at all. ThinkProgress, which is usually not worth the paper it's printed on (see what I did there?) proves its stupidity once again with a piece entitled 'Why ISIS Is Not, In Fact, Islamic' where it pretends that having political motive wipes out the parts of the movement that are deeply intrenched in fundamentalist understanding of Islam, the Quran, and Mohammed's teachings. Let us not forget that ThinkProgress, and the five people who actually read ThinkProgress, have been blaming the entire American culture, and white people in general, for the fact that some drunk frat guys were allegedly racists once at Mizzou. So, essentially, the crimes of an isolated Frat reflect on all of society, but the actions of millions of radical Muslims say nothing about Islam at all. That is, of course the definition of intellectual hypocrisy.

But why such and urge to separate Islam from ISIS (or the countless other terrorist groups associated with radical Islam)? Well, there are two main reasons. 1) There are far too many right-wingers who are eager to blame regular Muslims for the crimes of the most radical of their religion. This is not fair and leads to the over reaction by identity politics leftists to defend 'all Muslims'. 2) It is difficult for many leftists to admit that a group they personally see as a victimized minority could be the perpetrators of such violence. They like to see victim and aggressor in black and white, and for them, the 'privileged' need to fill the role of the black hat wearing villain. Fundamentalist Muslims really poke a hole in that narrative...especially when they start killing people.

But forgetting why, it doesn't really matter. It's nearly impossible to reason with the twitter crowd. So lost in their Tumblr morality, they are irredeemable. What I think is fascinating about this 'Terrorism has no religion' nonsense is that, in fact, if taken to the logical conclusion, most religions are the very definition of terror. It is only by picking and choosing which parts to observe and which to ignore that religion has made it to the 21st century much less harmful than it was a century ago. Think about it...

Do Jews or Christians really believe that women who are raped within the city limits are complicit in their own rape and therefore should be stoned to death? Or that God would not only condone but deliberately burn down a city because of homosexuality within? Or that God would murder the first born of an entire race of people? Or call for the murder of 'witches'? ...I literally could go on and on and on and on. And these bible verses were used to perpetrate serious crimes against humanity. All of them. As society progressed Jews and Christians have had to ignore these and countless other heinous calls for murder, violence, torture, slavery, etc to integrate in a progressive, tolerant, and diverse society. In fact, Israel, the Jewish State, soundly opposes Capital Punishment for moral and ethical reasons, even though its foundational text is filled with 'eye for an eye' justice.

Do Christians really believe that children who curse their parents should be killed? Or that Jesus will punish people who do not believe in him with hell fires? Or basically any one of the epistles that make life sound like a real hell hole for anyone who happened to have never heard of Jesus before? Really? Because that is a pretty terrorizing ideology on its own. That's why most Christians have accepted that they might not know God's ultimate plan. That they should simply love each other and try to do the best they can. But, fundamentally, if you follow the 'word of God', you would look a lot more like the Westboro Baptist Church than the Unitarian Universalists. That's for certain.

Do Muslims really believe that it's okay to marry a 9-year-old child? Or to beat your wife if you avoid her face? Or that infidels must die? Or that there is a constant war with non-believers? Or that that forced conversions are sanctified by Allah? And on and on and on. In no fewer than 109 verses, the Quran calls upon believers to fight the infidels and kill them. So, explain to me how this is a religion of peace? Because you can find peaceful verses? Well, that's all well and good, and I'm certainly glad it's been the basis of belief for those Muslims who have decidedly chosen not to embrace every aspect of their religion. But for those who are fundamentalists of Islam, it logically follows that killing non-believers - or anyone - who stands in the way of Islam or the Caliphate is a religious mandate.

This extends to other religions as well. I generally talk about the 'big three' because for the people who read my blog, it covers most of us. However, there are plenty of parts of Hinduism, Buddhism, Paganism, etc that could become violent and deadly if treated literally. And that's the problem isn't it? What is the point of religion at all if not interpreted literally? For the Torah or Bible or Quran to matter at all, doesn't it have to be the word of God/Allah? And if it's the word of God/Allah, then isn't every word true and valuable? At what point do we decide certain parts don't matter but the religion as a whole does? For Religious Extremists, they don't have to answer that question. They are simply following their religion to it's logical and fundamental conclusion.

The Bill of Rights: A Dying Concept Pt. 3

The final installment of my Bill of Rights series...

Amendment VI: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall be committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process of obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. 

The two most oft cited violations of the Sixth Amendment in the United States are 'right to a speedy trial' and 'right to counsel'. Courts are meticulous in their trial protocols that basically uphold the Sixth in regard to juries, and trial rights. However, there is some disagreement about whether people can inadvertently waive their right to counsel in both interrogation and at trial by means of intimidation.

Let's start with speedy trials. For one, that's a subjective notion. What is speedy? It generally means, without undue delay. We all know of one glaring example where this is blatantly ignored. Guantanamo Bay. In cases that are considered 'sensitive to national security' the government will often hold prisoners for an extended period without trial as they try to amass evidence against the accused. In the case of GitMo Detainees, they aren't strictly entitled to Constitutional Rights (a matter of debate) but for an example of a born and bred American having such a right dismissed, look no further than Chelsea Manning, the trans soldier who was convicted of espionage in 2013 in the Wikileaks Scandal. She was in pretrial confinement for over 800 days. Her confinement was deemed 'reasonable' by a judge, but was it? If she had not exposed embarrassing truths about the government, perhaps the ruling would have been different.

Right to Counsel is one of the major points of the Miranda Rights, read to people as they are arrested, but in some cases the right to an attorney is waived. The question is, are these occasions really voluntary or coerced. Of course there are cases of police trying to get people to 'talk' without an attorney present, and there is really nothing that can be done about that. If you have been read your rights, what you say is really on you. However, waiving counsel as a child is tricky.
Children, by law, cannot sign contracts. So, when they go to court, if they wish to waive counsel, their parents have to sign off. Well, parents, in the interest of helping their children, might waive counsel if they are manipulated into believing this would be better for their kids. And then, kids without counsel are at the mercy of the court with absolutely know legal know-how. This might seem unlikely but in the infamous 'Kids for Cash' scandal in Luzerne County, PA, one of the tip offs that something was not right was that a large chunk of children were being put into juvenile detention after waving their right to an attorney. When asked, parents admitted to child legal advocates they they were told things would be easier if they waived their rights. While the judges involved in the scandal went on to prison no one was ever held accountable for the gross injustice these kids faced at the loss of their Constitutional Right to counsel by way of intimidation.

Amendment VII: In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of common law. 

Essentially, this amendment solidifies the right to civil jury trials, and makes jury findings sacrosanct, unable to be overturned by the judge or another court.

Well, we know the right to file a lawsuit is intact. People file lawsuits over frivolous things all the time. The second clause, however, is where concern comes in. In civil cases, the case of punitive damages has caused more than one judge to stop in and overrule a jury, unconstitutionally.

Remember that case of the grandma who spilled hot coffee on herself and won millions from McDonalds? Well, the judge overruled that punitive damage claim and she ended up getting upward of $400k instead. Still a tidy sum, but the change is a direct violation of the 7th Amendment.

Amendment VIII: Excessive bail shall not be require, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments imposed. 

The government has taken advantage of the subjectivity of this amendment to do almost anything it pleases. Who could say $1million bail is not excessive? a Rockefeller, perhaps. And yet, such a bail is common in capital crimes. Excessive fines? Well, tell that to the drivers of Virginia, who could pay up to $3000 for a speeding violation. But terms like 'excessive' are relative. If you can argue that the crime is bad enough, any fine could be seen as reasonable by a court willing to be liberal with definitions.

Cruel and Unusual Punishment is also subjective. To some, waterboarding is not cruel or unusual. To some, prison confinement at all is cruel and unusual. It's difficult to navigate this Amendment in any sort of black and white way because it is almost entirely based on perspective. That said, a reasonable case can be made that Capital Punishment is cruel and unusual given that it gives the state the right to decide how long you live and by what means you die.

Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. 

Ahh, now we are getting into the fun stuff. So, this Amendment tells us everything we need to know about the intention of the Founding Fathers in regard to personal rights and liberty. That is, they believed that the Bill of Rights was highlighting some of the most important explicit rights of the people, NOT that these are the only protected rights we retain. So, in interpreting the Constitution, SCOTUS should always err on the side of individual liberty. Always.

It is safe to say they do not. I mean, with every wave of SCOTUS rulings there is at least one ruling that denies the rights of individuals in favor of the logic that there is nothing 'explicit' in the Constitution to protect such a right. That is, of course, nonsense. The Ninth Amendment protects all implied rights of citizens. All. And forcing people to buy insurance, or sell the government their property, or pay income tax, or be drafted, or attend any function, organization, or school against their will is a violation of the Ninth Amendment.

We are born with the right to live freely. Every time the government decides we must do something against our personal will, with the exception of something that would violate the rights of others, they are in violation of the Ninth Amendment.

Amendment X: The powers not delegated to teh United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Another big one. This one, like the Ninth Amendment has all but been completely ignored by all three branches of the Federal Government for over a century. It would take pages and pages to point out all the examples of how things like the Commerce Clause, Congress' right to tax, and twisting have taken the Federal Government to the position it has today, doing things never imagined by the Founding Fathers.

Suffice it to say, the Federal Government has few actual jobs. National Security, Borders, Interstate Commerce (which is all but unnecessary at this point), protection of citizens' Constitutional Rights, Minting money, Federal roadways and post, and taxation to cover JUST these jobs. The end. The. End. Currently we have 15 executive departments, including Agriculture and Education (do you remember them being mentioned in the list of jobs the Federal government has?). There are also 88 Senate committees. Do you want to know how many of them have nothing to do with their Constitutional Role of Federal Government?

Recently, the Federal Government has taken to suing states for exercising their Tenth Amendment. The Obama Administration is quite fond of doing this, in fact. Though, he's not the first. And this trend to extend Federal jobs has been going on for a very long time. When states cannot handle their own problems, they seek the help of the Federal Government. But while California might not be able to handle their economic mismanagement, Indiana might be doing economically well. Why is Indiana punished for California's bad planning?

The Tenth Amendment is a huge issue and would take it's own post (perhaps it will get one), but suffice it to say if more people realized what the actual role of Federal Government was, they might be shocked. As of now, we look to them as our main government. They never were intended to be. State and Local political holds politician accountable while giving people more control over their own rights and lives.


And that brings us to the end of the Bill of Rights segment. I encourage all of you to take an active interest in learning more about these Amendments and how they are being mutilated for the 'greater good' or for political interests. Never has there been a more important time to have this discussion, what with college students declaring the right to 'free speech' to be hateful and oppressive. We are fast headed to a place where these sacred natural rights could be ripped completely from our grasp for the sake of politically correct coddling and 'security'. Every one of the ten amendments in the Bill of Rights is ESSENTIAL to a free society and non-negotiable.