The Principle of Tolerance And Free Expression (but with a twist)

Let me be controversial for a moment...    


One group of people fervently holds beliefs that dismiss any other group's fundamental tenets therefore this group is deemed as a threat to the latter's survival--physical or cultural. Really, isn't this the true reason for opposing the expression and practice of other religions? It's the fear that their values are so different than the prevailing ones and that those values will dilute or poison the good established socio-political culture.

How about the various laws against proselytizing? How could a religion tell the infidels about a good thing they're missing out if prevented from preaching openly and acquiring new members? [definition: proselytize] It's the dominant religion that uses the state to safeguard its own faithful from competition. The Founders understood this danger when they established the principle of separation of church-state. The courts have also ruled on the Establishment Clause.

I do believe in the First Amendment. Freedom of religion is part of it, as freedom of expression is too. Free speech means that people can argue about ideas, or just pronounce their beliefs without offering any proof. But, they can't prevent others from doing so. Here's a fundamental point: Respect for the right to free speech but no idea or belief system should claim immunity from criticism or evaluation. This concept is hard for many to accept. If I haven't examined my own ideology, my own cultural directives, how could I be "open to a dialogue" when confronted by people with different claims? 

If I happen to be a tolerant person, I could accept others' religion to exist on the principle of tolerance but without evaluating their claims--unless I say, I know they're going to hell but that is their choice, those fools....  All major faiths claim the only true path to salvation while condemning others. And, here's the crux of the matter: Faith isn't up to rational thinking and critical evaluation whereas revision is possible or desirable. The dogmatic approach demands devotion, acceptance, and that a few special persons understood God's absolute commandments. 

The Muslim organization that wants to build its cultural center, including a mosque, near the WTC has the legal right to do so and if this offends other people and organized religions so be it. Can you imagine how different our country would be if we made "being offended" a legal principle? Anything you do or say can be found offensive by a number of people. There would be no wealth of art, literature, music, fashion, etc. Granted, not everything out there is fine by me. I found many things offensive. What I don't like, I boycott not try to ban it legally. Of course, I'm talking about adults who have choice, not children. 


Personally (adding to being controversial) I believe that all religions are fundamentally wrong. They pronounce edicts, deliver judgments, and construct arguments on the idea they have captured the only absolute truth--and only them can possess it. All major faiths (at least) are misogynistic. Their holy books contain passages supporting slavery, killing of the apostates and members of other faiths, promote blind obedience, superstition, and ignorance.


Humans have established more civil societies because they created the secular state and chose not to strictly obey the commandments in their holy books. I do prefer a more thought-out, rational, appropriate for our enlightenment-era society. Can you imagine the world whereas we killed adulterers, those who left a faith, those who worked on the Sabbath or wore the wrong clothes, ate the wrong foods or broke their fast, that we could beat our slaves, murder children for the sins of their fathers, commanded women to be man's property while we cut their clitoris once they became teenagers, etc, etc,...

The Conservatives Have Opposed Most of the Good Things We Take for Granted Today

Today, NPR did a story on the 40th anniversary of Earl Warren's retirement from the Supreme Court, and it reminded me of the important role the high court has played in shaping our country. Even a cursory look back at the court's major decisions, it's easy to see the differences between the liberals and the conservatives: That the conservatives have opposed over the last several decades it has now widespread support!

The conservatives (I include the Dixiecrats) have opposed all legislation and SCOTUS rulings in regards to civil rights. Just to name a few: desegregation, voting rights, reproductive choice & women's rights, privacy issues, church & state separation, Miranda rights of self incrimination and procedure, illegally seized evidence not admitted in court, etc, etc.

The high court has ruled that the Bill of Rights applies not only to the federal government but also to the states--an opinion that isn't shared by justices Scalia and Thomas! [here's a link to an earlier post discussing the views of Scalia & Thomas] Seriously, they believe the First Amendment doesn't apply to atheists and the Establishment Clause doesn't apply to the states! Can we affort to add another justice to the RATS (Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Scalia) team on SCOTUS?

McCain will make sure that the Supreme Court will go back. If for nothing else, the next president will have a chance to shape our country via SCOTUS for many years after he leaves office. With Obama--assuming that the next vacancies will most probably be from the liberals (Ginsberg, Stevens, Souter)--we can hold the line.

I didn't want to include all the other good things we managed to secure for the commonwealth despite the rabid conservative response, like Social Security, minimum wage, labor laws, etc., etc.

The problem is that conservatives do not have a positive proposal for government! It's a philosophical stance, that government is bad, (except when it gives preferential treatment to the elites), and that smaller is better... If you don't think that government can be a force for good change and empowerment, then you should never be allowed to get a hold of any major public office.



PS. I'm frequently updating the Meet the Presidential Candidates column (right side of this blog). Currently, there's a nice video of McCain's ideas about sex education, birth control, etc.

The Real Issue of the Telco Immunity is to Cover-up The Illegalities of the Bush Regime

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The 4th Amendment, US Constitution

The House passed a bill giving retroactive immunity to the telecommunication comanies (telcos) for helping Bush perpetrate the illegal spying on Americans. The Senate is taking up the measure these days. It's about the FISA law that gives the government quick access to any person who is deemed a threat to the US national security.

There's lots of talking points out there--most probably you've heard already--and many Americans don't understand what the issue is. Here it is:

The 4th Amendment to the US Constitution supposedly is in force; it hasn't been changed. If you look closely, this constitutional provision also creates a record of governmental activity, which is necessary for accountability!

The telcos cooperated with the Bush administration--and they knew they were breaking the law. What Bush & Co want to do is not necessarily protect the telcos from lawsuits (from customers whose rights have been violated), but when those cases end up in court, then they will reveal the extend of the illegality perpetrated by the current regime! That's why Congress should not give immunity to the telcos, and, by extension, to this criminal administration!

Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI):
"[Immunity] doesn't simply have the impact of potentially allowing telephone companies to break the law," Feingold said. "It may well prevent us from getting to the core issue, that I've challenged since December 2005, which is the president ran an illegal program I think that was essentially an impeachable offense."

The Senator went on to criticize the Democrats in the House and the Senate who caved in.


Update: Sen. Barack Obama supports this compromise FISA bill, and this is wrong!!! The argument that a future president Obama may criminally prosecute the telcos isn't a good one. We need to know what has happened so the next President can prosecute the law breakers. What was Obama thinking on this one???!!!

Here's a case where progressives argue and debate this issue: Olbermann v. Greenwald. I think it's very important not to keep quiet when a candidate we support makes a big mistake, like this one!

Update 7/1/08: mcjoan on DailyKos unearthed this gem, from former SCOTUS justice Louis Brandeis.

If the government becomes a law breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that in the administration of the criminal law the end justifies the means 'to declare that the government may commit crimes in order to secure the conviction of a private criminal' would bring terrible retribution. What a thought, heh?!!

The Supreme Court (by slim margin): The U.S. Constitution is Still Valid!

<-- GITMO--US military base in Cuba (AP)

If you didn't know already, the Supreme Court has a marginal majority of more or less sane judges--something that will change (for better or worse) when the next president takes office. In another "stunning blow" to the Bush regime, SCOTUS, by 5-4, decided that the GITMO detainees have rights of habeas corpus (due process) even if they're foreign nationals. The high court reaffirmed the principle that the US constitution affords rights to persons (not just citizens) and that not even Congress can take away those rights. [here's the complete SCOTUS decision,in pdf]

Bush&Co thought to keep the enemy combatants on Cuban soil so that the laws of the United States didn't apply to them. There are hundreds of detainees at the US base in Cuba. Some of them are really bad people but some were caught in a wide dragnet when the US was paying thousands of dollars to local warlords to turn in "enemy combatants." You can imagine who accurate this was. Thus, the question is what should a person who's been caught & labeled "enemy combatant" do? Should the US detain such persons for ever without any charges filed against them? And, for no way for them to petition the courts? Of course not! If we are to remain a nation of laws, and not of men--like the Old Regime's elites that operated outside the law--then we have to maintain our high standards of legality of a civilized & liberal society.

What's also obvious, is that the country has to opt for a regime change in the White House, and for a Congress that will void the disgraceful Military Commissions Act. As the case Marbury v. Madison showed, the Executive and Congress cannot act in violation of the constitution. It also established the principle of judicial review--that the courts can rule on the legality of the actions by the branches of our government.

However, there are radical extremists on SCOTUS nowadays. Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and increasingly Roberts who want to reverse the progress the US has achieved in civil rights and liberties. Three of them are ready to overturn Roe v. Wade, and even demolish the separation of church & state--as Scalia & Thomas seem to think that such restrictions apply only to the federal government not the states!!!! Just think about this. Then make sure Bush&Co don't get a third term.

The nation is "at war with radical Islamists" and that the court's decision "will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed."

Dissenting Justice Scalia

This is in line with Scalia's views on torture--that torture is OK as long as it is not punishment--as he argued in his recent interview on 60 Minutes. Sure, what a brilliant legal mind he's got! Our country has faced far greater enemies than the terrorists today, so there's no excuse for giving up those principles and conditions we've been admired for and have made our country great.

"The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times."

Justice Kennedy writing for the majority opinion of the Supreme Court

Why We Must be First Amendment Patriots. Fortunately We Still Have Some Choice (and a Duty)

An Impossible Scenario?

Imagine that you're abducted and gang-raped--the court agrees and convicts the rapists--but you also get punished for this crime by a six-month prison sentence and 200 lashes! Your punishment is for "meeting with an unrelated male" (who also gets raped by the way). Where in the world did that happen, you may ask. You could assume that no civilized country would do this today. But you'd be wrong. That's the reality in the many Muslim countries where there's no separation of state & religion. This case in point took place in Saudi Arabia this month!*

One of the best things we did early on was the separation of church & state. The Founders knew of the bloody religious civil wars in Europe and elsewhere. They knew about the Inquisition, they knew that the tyranny of the majority could pose threats to individual liberty--after all, liberalism was about freedom, individual freedom. Our Bill of Rights, and the First Amendment in particular, see to this. Freedom of expression and beliefs, now that's a novel concept!

Now, why would intelligent people--especially those who've studied law, the constitution, and maybe some American history--argue for bringing a theocracy to the US? Good question. Maybe we couldn't thoroughly examine their motives, but their actions are based on wishful thinking, ignorance (willful?), and specific political objectives.

This past few days, the Federalist Society had its 25th anniversary with president Bush delivering the keynote address. Members like Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas, Scalia, Roberts, John "torture-is-OK" Yoo, and several others got their chance to "shine" under the presidencies of Reagan, Bush 41 and Bush 43. These people are the most conservative judges & lawyers that seek to "restore the law" as intended--not by the Founders and framers of our constitution, by of a ..higher authority. This is another example, among the many in recent history, that the lunatic fringe is not marginal in this country.

Unfortunately today, secular America hangs on a very thin margin in the Supreme Court. It's not too early in the election cycle to point out that there is a huge difference between the Democratic and Republican candidates in jurisprudence and intent on keeping our country secular--and by secular I don't mean non-religious, but a separation of church & state. We knew about this very important difference in the last 2 elections. Bush 43 has had a big impact on SCOTUS by appointing very conservative justices to the hight court; one more and the balance will tip to the other side.

The fact is that the Framers of the constitution (and most of the Founding Fathers) were explicit in maintaining this wall of separation. Here's a brief history:

• Jefferson and Madison, opposed state support of the churches. 1786: Drafted the Virginia statutes for religion freedom. Shielded minority (explicitly including non-believers) from majority's religious views. "To protect every infidel of every denomination."
  

• 1787: Drafting of the US Constitution. No "god" in it. Article 6, sec. 3: no religious test for any public office. Madison drafted the First Amendment and defended it in the Federalist Papers. Protecting individual conscience was paramount.

• 1789: Congress rejected arguments that the First Amendment only meant to protect one religion over another and not the non-believers.

• 1796: The US signed the Treaty of Tripoli which declared that the US is not a "Christian nation."
  

• 1802: Jefferson reiterated that the 1st Amend. was indeed a "wall of separation" between church-state.

• 1868: The 14th Amendment abolished slavery but also said that the Bill of Rights must apply to all states! [make of note of this Judge Thomas]

• 1947: The Supreme Court decided that no branch of government could favor one religion over another or over non-believers.

There's a great body of legal precedence and jurisprudence that supports this separation, which, in turn, protects individual freedoms. Yet, Americans have failed to grasp the importance of electing extreme conservatives [note: not all Republicans are like that] to the Senate and the White House. Elections have consequences. A majority of FIVE can change the conditions of freedom we expect from living in a liberal democracy!

We Have to Make the Connection: Guilty by Association

The Republican Party today does not want to safeguard this separation of church-state and observe the tradition established by law. Unlike the Goldwater Republicans, the current crowd is state authoritarians who want to impose on others their religious dogma, intolerance of dissent, and that Scripture is without error! It's no surprise they're anti-science [abortion, evolution, stem-cell research, etc] and anti freedom of conscience!

Sure, we have great differences with those conservatives. These differences need to brought into the light. I understand that our politics is to a great extend about personality and not substance, but we can't afford to have another folksy president whose policies can be disastrous. It's too costly and we can't afford it right now!


Why shouldn't we press the point that the conservatives hold crazy views? Justice Scalia has said that the First Amendment does not protect the non-believer! He does not accept the concept of freedom of conscience! His pal on the Supreme Court Thomas has said that the "establishment clause" does not apply to the states! And, that every state can establish its own state church!!

Surely, you can find someone guilty by association too! I'm not talking about casual association, but about building alliances, bridges of support, and forming public policy. Mr. Giuliani has to be held accountable for accepting the support of Pat Robertson. The label reverend can be easily obtained but this should not deflect criticism, nor should it bestow any more legitimacy on anyone.

The reverend Falwell wanted to see an America without public schools, where the churches would take them over. He also said this: "I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way -- all of them who have tried to secularize America -- I point the finger in their face and say "you helped this happen." Robertson concurred. Take that Rudy. God punished your city. God was behind the attacks on 9/11. Now, if this isn't lunacy, religious bigotry, ignorance, superstition, I don't know what it is.

This bigotry reveals itself in the overt effort to oppress homosexuals [insert any "deviancy" here]. In 2003, SCOTUS [Texas v. Lawrence] decriminalized private sexual conduct--as it should have. No state can punish consenting adults for what they do to each other. But, only a few years later, this view hangs on a 5-4 margin! In his dissent, Scalia [with Thomas concurring] said that people should be able to use the sense of tradition to criminalize all sexual behavior they deem offensive!!!! [and he's not talking only about homosexuality; NYU student questions Scalia]

We have the federal government mandating the teaching of religious dogma instead of science--i.e., birth control is bad, masturbation can lead to pregnancy, etc. President Bush asked the Pope to direct American Catholic priests to be more political in cases like same-sex marriage and abortion (rights). Religious charities have been funded by Bush and they spread misinformation. Contraception, family planning, the "morning after" pill [not an abortion], sex education, etc, have all been contorted to fit a particular religious dogma. And, in ..supermarket fashion, they pick what they like (or being told) while disregarding other passages from their holy book. Protect life from the moment two cells meet until birth, but after that, you're on your own!
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Jesus (allegedly?) said, "there's no justice if people have no shelter," and "there's no justice if people are hungry"? Did he add any qualifiers to this statement? I wonder...

The conservatives talk about limited government but their most popular leaders want to use the government to tell us how to live our own private lives. The next president must support the wall of separation. No Republican presidential candidate is for this! The Supreme Court's future depends on our decision in 2008. The next president should not be a religious preacher. The control of the US Senate is at stake too. Judge Bork had said that the 1st Amendment only applies to political speech (campaigns), and that we should "get over" our objection to school prayer. It was the widespread opposition and a Democratic Senate that prevented this extremist from serving on SCOTUS.

Both parties and all their candidates appeal to religious groups for support. Yet, they differ on what kind of judges we get on the federal courts. This, to me, is a clear choice--among the many that keep liberals and conservatives apart. You have to be partisan today if you want to have a realistic chance of maintaining a secular society where individual freedom of conscience is protected.

We have to be First Amendment patriots!


Footnote
* From Think Progress: The woman, who had been appealing her original sentence of 90 lashes, was sentenced to six months in prison and 200 lashes after her appeal. The Saudi judges more than doubled the punishment for the victim because of “her attempt to aggravate and influence the judiciary through the media.” The Saudi Justice Ministry confirmed that the stiffer sentence handed out on appeal stemmed from the fact that the victim had gone to the media with her story. “Media may have adverse effects on the other parties involved in the case,” a statement said.

Editor's note 11/21: The victim met with a male friend (he was the "unrelated" male) when they were abducted by 7 men. Both were raped; she was 14 times. For her "crime" she was originally sentenced to 90 lashes! But, she had the audacity to challenge this punishment, appealed, spoke to the media, and that was offensive to the theocratic regime that keeps the country firmly in the 12th century. Horrors.

The Torturous Position of the Attorney General-Nominee

Why should we care about a bunch of terrorists and enemy combatants?

Well, how could Michael Mukasey answer to the senators' questions whether water boarding is torture? The United States prosecuted several Japanese interrogators in WWII for employing such a method on our own troops. Rather recently, we did the same to prison guards in Texas.

Thus, water boarding is torture by any reasonable (legal or non) definition. I place emphasis on reasonable, because there are those like John Woo and his mentor, Alberto Gonzales, who tried to re-define torture as actions that can lead to death or major organ failure. In other words, water boarding, pulling one's fingernails (or cutting fingers off), etc., is not torture.

If Mukasey agrees that water boarding is indeed torture then what should he do when he becomes the country's Attorney General?.... [suggestion: go after those who broke the law!]

On PBS, Bill Moyers Journal, there was an interesting discussion recently. Check it out here.

Meanwhile, the Bush government has refused to answer unequivocally whether this method has been used, several officials, including the CIA chief, have said that water boarding has been used--and it's not a bad thing, they say, when it's used against bad people during times of crisis.... Hmmm

"Waterboarding is torture. Torture is unacceptable. Period.
If Michael Mukasey won't stand up to President Bush and tell him that, then he doesn't deserve to be Attorney General."

Senator E. Kennedy, opposing Mukasey's confirmation. [read the senator's statement here]