Stuff About Which I’ve Meant To Blog

Here’s some random subjects that I wanted to use for full posts, but for whatever reason never did.

First, in a case I previewed here, Scotus heard oral arguments this week on whether or not to destroy T.J. Max.

Second, in this post, I slammed B’ham Councilor Roderick Royal for his asinine refusal to recognisethat principles of equality do apply to people other than African Americans. Alabamian makes a much better argument than I did:

One councilman’s remarks were telling: “I’m concerned with the lobby for gay and lesbian rights that somehow or another this group insists on equating their movement with the movement for civil rights. This is not to say that their movement is not legitimate, but it is to say that to equate it with the noble movement of civil rights does not compare.”

In other words, the argument is that the gay rights movement is somehow in competition with the 1960s civil rights movement. And that would be logical if there were a zero-sum pool of civil rights in which one minority group’s gain was another minority group’s loss. However, that not being the case in the real world — where fair treatment of gays doesn’t detract in any way from fair treatment of blacks — that idea simply makes no sense.

On a lighter note, I saw this headline last week and wondered who, exactly, was insulted:

A first-term congressman from Michigan who compared parts of Iraq to Detroit . . . defended the comments Thursday.

Moving on, like the Tuscaloosa News points out here, saying teachers ought to be paid based on merit is easy, but deciding how to measure merit is hard.

Next up: Roy Moore v. James Madison. First, everyone’s favorite theocrat:

There is a dangerous trend in recent religious freedom cases: claiming victory in self-inflicted defeat. City councils criticized for having official prayer at their meetings are often changing their policy to keep prayer—but only as a private exercise before the official meeting begins. . . .

Nevertheless, such actions designed to avoid a lawsuit are in reality a dangerous concession and a regretful compromise of a basic principle: the public acknowledgment of the sovereignty of Almighty God.

Next, the Father of the Constitution:

Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom? In the strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the U. S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion. The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them; and these are to be paid out of the national taxes. Does not this involve the principle of a national establishment, applicable to a provision for a religious worship for the Constituent as well as of the representative Body, approved by the majority, and conducted by Ministers of religion paid by the entire nation?

The establishment of the chaplainship to Congs is a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles . . .

If Religion consist in voluntary acts of individuals, singly, or voluntarily associated, and it be proper that public functionaries, as well as their Constituents shd discharge their religious duties, let them like their Constituents, do so at their own expense.

Most of the founders, I think, would be condemned as crazy radicals if they lived today.

And finally, on the subject of radicals, if this is how most folks who call themselves conservative actually thought, I would gladly call myself a conservative.

Advertisements
Explore posts in the same categories: Uncategorized

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: