Kentucky’s Mini-Gods

Standard

Rowan County, Kentucky

County Clerk Kim Davis was a “born again sinner” and claims that, since that day, she has “pledged the rest of her life to the service of the Lord.” To Kim Davis that pledge apparently means that she has become the sole arbiter, interpreter and executor of God’s word.

Kim Davis has apparently forgotten another vow that she made when assuming the position of Rowan County Clerk:

County Clerk Oath:

Did you catch that last sentence? “. . . ” will faithfully execute the duties of my office without favor, affection or partiality, so help me God!

Kim Davis is not only a Christian Bigot, she is a person who is willing to break an oath to God based on her own, amateurish interpretation of His word.

Does she hold a divinity degree? Does she have years of experience studying the works of biblical scholars? No, she’s just a reformed sinner who, like so many of her ilk, desperately wants to be a mini-God because she has no faith in her Creator’s ability to run His own show.

Hopefully God will reward her with just enough jail time to remind her of her place in the universe, enough of a fine to make her realize that “so help me God” means something and a period of unemployability that will remind her that she is the humble servant not anyone’s master.

The County Clerk’s oath (above) was borrowed from an article in the Daily Kos about another Kentucky County Clerk, Casey Davis (possibly a relative), who had the same hate-filled Mini-God complex that Ms. Davis has. Mr Davis, however, additionally, felt the need, as part of his position, to “remind” gay people that they would forever ‘burn in Hell.” His story and the above oath of office can be found HERE!

Speaking of Hell, where the Hell does Kentucky find these losers?

A note to those who claim God as their personal Savior:

Standard

If I remember correctly from my Bible Stories, Jesus (the leader of your tribe) preached love, understanding and tolerance; I see very little of that from some of you who claim to be Christians.

I’m reading that the most vocal Christians feel that the government, by legalizing the marriage of a man to a man or a woman to a woman, has “taken away your religious freedoms.” That’s also how bigots, racists and homophobes feel (yes, that’s the company you Christians are at least virtually keeping by not following your ‘Savior’s’ examples of love, understanding and tolerance). If being narrow-minded, being fearful of those who do not physically threaten you and being intolerant of those who do not follow your beliefs are considered “religious freedoms” you had better examine your religion. You might have a destructive devil in your heart rather than a savior.

Do a quick self-examination; you will probably find that in spite of the promises you made when being baptized or confirmed in your religion you have not lived up to your religious commitment (i.e., you have not been “saved.”)

On some level, you must know that Christians have not ‘lost anything to legalized gay marriage except an excuse to hate someone or a reason to feel superior to others who feel (and truly believe) differently from you. Both of which are truly unchristian feelings.

I would guess that those who fear different lifestyles are most likely insecure in the belief that the lifestyle they are living is as good as it could be.

Those of you who are intolerant or hate-filled are doing the work of the Devil by leading those who love and respect you in a bad direction.

Then, on a more practical/worldly level:

Those of you who are in business for profit and want to turn away customers because they don’t share your religious beliefs are just plain stupid!  

Stupidity and bad business practices should NOT be punished under law, however, they have their own inherent punishments.

The Supreme Court: ‘It IS what WE say It IS!’

Standard

Supremes

As Christians tear their hair out over the latest Supreme Court decisions that legalized same-sex marriage in five states and effectively reversed lower court rulings in six others, very few citizens seem to challenge the Supreme Court’s power to bend and twist the U.S. Constitution until it fits the world view of those 9 senior citizens in black robes who appear to care not a whit about individual freedoms. We should be ‘in their faces’ but as it stands, we have to accept their decisions and sit in awe of their power.

What an ‘awesome’ power it is! Supreme court decisions are final. Neither the Congress or the president have veto power over Supreme Court decisions.

So we have 9 super beings, 9 demigods right here in our midst with the power to control our lives, for the rest of their lives, from their seats of power. The problem is, the Supreme Court, originally intended to decide Constitutional issues, was given virtually unlimited power by Article III of the Constitution (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii). Unlimited power to rule on every aspect of our lives.

U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 2, Paragraph 1:
“The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;–to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;–to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;–to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;–to controversies between two or more states;–between a state and citizens of another state;–between citizens of different states;–between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.”

What’s more, if these given powers do not specifically apply to a given case, the court has (or is at least unchallenged in assuming) the power to “interpret” their Constitutional authority so that it does.

If there is an inherent flaw in the Constitution, this is it! It dismisses the concept that the United States is a Constitutional Republic, i.e., A form of government in which power is explicitly vested in the people, who in turn exercise their power through elected representatives. Through elected representatives!

Supreme Court Justices are NOT our “elected representatives.” They were put in power by our “elected representatives” but that power is subject to political deals; a seat on the Supreme Court is figuratively ‘bought and paid for” by powerful political operatives and once a justice is sworn in, he or she is effectively beyond the “power that was explicitly vested in the people”. Justices are effectively, ABOVE the Constitution. The Constitution says what the Justices say it says and it means what they say it means.

Is there any one person, or any 9, who should have that much control over American life?

This is not to say that the Supreme Court is not an essential department of government, my point is that it sits as the most powerful force in the United States (which will, hopefully, again someday become the most powerful country in the world) and it sits with virtually no controls over it.

There is no reason or logic that implies that the Supreme Court should have anything to say about our personal lives, i.e. who we marry or who we hire or do not hire in our businesses or even how we educate our children. Most Supreme Court Justices are where they are because of political deals and political contacts, not because of their devotion to the American way of life or to the U.S. Constitution.

Speaking of ‘who we marry’, it is interesting to note the fact that there is NO MENTION of marriage in the Constitution! Shouldn’t that automatically exempt the purely social institution of marriage from Supreme Court’s jurisdiction? This important technicality, it seems, is being ignored. The Supreme Court, as I see it, acting well outside the bounds of it’s charter, has for decades inundated us with marriage laws as well as other laws that effect society, without the explicit power to do so.

I say:

1) Lets find a way to return the power over marriage not to the states or to the people but give the baby with the dirty diapers back to the church. They gave birth to him and should have custody. Marriage is a relationship between two people; always has been and should be. No one gave the Congress, or the Federal courts the explicit power to decide who those two people are. The Supreme Court assumed that power . . . and we said nothing!

2) Let’s also find a way to reign in the general power of those nine old folks in black robes and live in fear of them until we do.

3) While we are tackling these two tasks; tasks clearly worthy of “The Impossible Mission Force” (or at least “Charlies Angels”,  let’s also find a way to restore State Sovereignty in America and bring America back to where it is supposed to be. The 50 sovereign states have, over the years, been vandalized. Their power of self-rule has been diminished to the point where they can make few decisions without the forced advise and consent of the Federal Government. This was permitted by the Supreme Court and, we can only assume that it accurately reflects the thinking of those nine black-robed demigods.

The Social Conservative Mindset

Standard

Arthur Brooks[Author’s Note: This is my 350th post on this blog — a milestone of sorts — and the topic of this 350th post is appropriate because it touches on and delivers thoughts that were important enough to me to set the tone for many (perhaps most) of those posts.]

Early Tuesday evening I had a chance to tune in briefly to the Michael MedVed (spelled with a V as in Victory, as he loves to say) Show on Dallas radio station 660 AM.

Let me say right off that Michael Medved, along with Dennis Praeger, Mark Davis and J.D. Wells, are my favorite talk show hosts because ‘most of the time’ they present logical, reasoned, intelligent arguments for (or against) the policies or propositions that are topics on the show. I stress “most of the time” because there are certain topics that cause the three of them to get off track — into their Social Conservative mode — and when they, you or I are in Social Conservative mode logic and rational thought go out the window in favor of religiosity (they call it “morality)”. In this mode they are not only supporting THEIR religious beliefs (which they should always do) but they are are implying and often mandating that other views are wrong or “un-American” or “morally bankrupt”; they go into an “I’m right because my religious training taught me that I’m right and therefore those who don’t agree with me are wrong” mode.

I can certainly understand that, I kinda feel the same way on most issues but what separates us is the fact that they are arguing for THEIR religious principles above everyone else’s principles/beliefs while I argue for freedom from other people’s religious principles. To me religion is a PERSONAL belief system that guides our PERSONAL actions and it is not something to be used as an ‘iron debate gavel’ against those who have different but still logical and rational principles.

I often refer to myself as a Libertarian because I share the Libertarian’s core belief in the principle that free people should be able to do whatever they feel like doing . . . as long as no laws are broken and one is injured (physically or economically) by their actions. Most Libertarians actually BELIEVE that this is a free country.

Is there any possible way for Social Conservatism to allow free people to ACT like free people? Some say yes!

A “must read” article at Wikipedia titled “Libertarian Conservatism”, explains that:

“Libertarian conservatism,” also known as conservative libertarianism, includes political ideologies that meld libertarian politics and conservative values. Libertarian conservatives’ first value, like libertarians, is liberty but they would use negative liberty — freedom from interference by other people, to achieve socially and culturally conservative ends.”

It is an interesting proposition but the underlying naivety makes a possible compromise unrealistic. Libertarianism is, by it’s very nature “flexible”, at least up to a point, and religion is, by it’s nature inflexible. That, if my analysis is correct, does not sound like a recipe for compromise.

Back to today’s Michael Medved show, where I began: One of today’s guests was Arthur C. Brooks, author, professor and current president of the American Enterprise Institute. Michael Medved began the core dialog by posing the question ‘how can we get the opposition to agree with us that gay marriage is a bad thing?’ That was not exactly how the question was presented but that is basically what Mr. Medved asked Mr. Brooks.

There are so many major problems and items of political disagreement in the United States and the American Enterprise Institute has such a wide range of expertise, the choice of this question gives you a good perspective into the mind of Michael Medved. The problem is, like most Social Conservatives, he cannot really separate what is important to the People of the United States and to the United States itself from what is important to the cause of Social Conservatism.

I’m sure Mr. Medved would argue that without Social Conservatism to keep all of America “on the same moral page” the country would collapse. Think about that, I have and forcefully disagree. When Social Conservatism becomes law (as the Social Conservatives are striving to make happen) and not just a political/religious position among hundreds of others, we will have returned to the theocracy and the iron fist that our forefathers risked their lives to escape.

The answer that Mr. Brooks gave to the ‘gay marriage’ question indicates a typically inflexible mindset (he is also a Social Conservative and an opponent of gay marriage). He could have pointed out that the institution of marriage itself is not a blessing but a ‘burden’ on the married (or to-be married) couple. Marriage partners (whatever their gender) need to make significant lifestyle changes, they need to take the trouble to actually understand the wants and needs of their partner, they need to “bend”, they need to BELIEVE that they can trust their partner, they need to give up the notion that they still ‘pilot their own ship,” and they need to understand that entering into a marriage is entering into a legal contract. But instead of taking that tact, he simply, boldly (and unthinkingly) stated that gay marriage hurts the children.

I’ve heard that before and I wish someone could come up with a rational argument to support that position. Does gay marriage have ANY effect on the children of a married couple or a single parent? NO! Of course not! If a same sex couple decides to adopt a child that is otherwise unwanted, isn’t that a very good thing for the child; giving him or her a stable, loving home environment? Any harm to the child of a gay couple will be caused by Social Conservatives, bigots and homophobes. Responsible, mature parents (straight or gay) will be able to help a child understand that there is evil in the world and a lot of that evil is a result of the actions of unthinking people who hate because they they are afraid and because they don’t understand how anyone could be or think differently than they do. And, the most evil thing is, they pass that hate and blissful ignorance along to their children.