ETHICS AND MORALITY. RIGHTS- WHAT THEY ARE, AND WHAT THEY ARE NOT. PT 5.

What is really fascinating about the BILL OF RIGHTS, and how it is interpreted, is the omission of wording within the Article itself and corresponding text within the body of the U.S. Constitution, that have a direct baring on how specific Rights should be legally defined, and the protections that they offer the American Citizen.

These pick and chose tactics are not just something political candidates do to gain support, but can be misused by those who should know better.

Case in point:  Here is one quote taken from a recent speech made by Supreme Court Justice ANTON SCALIA; 

“I think the main fight is to dissuade Americans from what the secularists are trying to persuade them to be true: that the separation of church and state means that the government cannot favor religion over nonreligion."

Judge Scalia should know better, but let us see what the 1st Amendment actually says;

"CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION, OR THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF;  OR ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH, OR OF THE PRESS;  OR THE RIGHT TO PEACEABLY ASSEMBLE, AND TO PETITION THE GOVERNMENT FOR A REDRESS  OF GRIEVANCES."

Why have I quoted the entire passage?  BECAUSE THE ENTIRETY OF THE AMENDMENT USES TERMINOLOGY THAT IS UNIVERSAL IN NATURE, NOT CONDITIONAL.  In other words;

All forms of RELIGION, SPEECH, PRESS, ASSEMBLY OR GRIEVANCES MUST BE PROTECTED, AND NO PART OF ANY CAN BE SANCTIONED AS PUBLIC POLICY OR, YOU HAVE "ESTABLISHED" OR "CREATED" AN ENDORSEMENT THAT ONE FORM OF RELIGION, SPEECH ETC., IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN ANOTHER.

PUT ANOTHER WAY;  FREEDOM OF RELIGION, SPEECH, THE PRESS, PEACEFUL ASSEMBLY, OR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES ARE ABSOLUTES. IN NO CASE CAN THEY BE RESTRICTED OR PROMOTED.  FOR ONCE THAT IS DONE, THEY ARE NO LONGER "RIGHTS", BUT HAVE BECOME "PRIVILEGES."   

Yes, such things must be defined and limits placed, for you cannot use Religion, Speech,The Press etc, to do anything you want. These restrictions are of the HOW, WHEN AND WHERE VARIETY,  THEY CANNOT BE USED TO SUPPRESS OR DENY RIGHTS OTHER CITIZENS HAVE.

So no, government cannot favor religion, over anything else.  That is not its' job, which is:  PROTECTING THE RIGHTS OF THE PRIVATE CITIZEN, BY NOT MAKING THESE RIGHTS SUBJECT TO CHANGE BY PUBLIC POLICY.

In part 6 we will again address more of Justice Scalias recent comments, and remind him and his supporters of ARTICLE 6 OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.

End of PT 5.
10/12/2014

FEATURE ARTICLES. THE MOST DANGEROUS ONE OF ALL. PT 4.

So what are some of the Categories of Hypocrites that cause so many problems for Society, and how can we limit the Damage they are capable of?

First, ALL HYPOCRITES, Regardless of the Category we place Them in, have several things in common:

1)  They Concentrate on how the Decisions made by the Political/Legal System will affect Their Chosen Position. Possible Outcomes to Others, or PRECEDENTS SET, hold no Value to them, only WHAT THEY WANT COUNTS. 

2)  Their Belief that They Have a Monopoly on Moral Behavior.-  However it is Derived, the HYPOCRITE KNOWS WHAT IS RIGHT, AND WHAT IS WRONG. JUST ASK THEM.

3)  "RIGHTS" are something  to protect Them and Their Allies, and are not to be extended Universally to everyone else.  THIS, OF COURSE, NO LONGER MAKES THEM RIGHTS, BUT PRIVILEGES.

4)  That They have No Obligation to anyone else, Either Morally or Legally.

5)  Lying and Deception are sometimes Necessary Evils, to help ensure that the ULTIMATE GOOD, WHICH IS TO SEE THEIR AGENDA ACCEPTED INTO LAW,  BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE FABRIC OF SOCIETY.

6)  That They hold a Special Place Within the Given Political System, which Should Exclude Them from CRITICISM OR EVALUATION BY OPPOSING OFFICIALS, NEWS MEDIA, OR ANY ORGANIZED POLITICAL GROUP THAT DOES NOT SUPPORT THEIR GOALS.

LOOK FOR AN ANALYSIS OF THE DIFFERENT CATEGORIES OF HYPOCRITES IN PART 5.

FEATURE ARTICLES. THE MOST DANGEROUS ONE OF ALL. PT 3.

I would like to make one thing clear: The HYPOCRITE IS BY NO MEANS FOUND IN A SINGLE POLITICAL PARTY, OR REPRESENTS A PARTICULAR POLITICAL, MORAL, OR RELIGIOUS PHILOSOPHY.  

They may be more Prevalent on One Side of a DEBATE OR DISCUSSION,but the LACK OF A COHERENT LINE OF REASONING IS NOT FOUND ON JUST ONE SIDE OF THE AISLE.  It is Vital to Identify Hypocritical Thinking as soon as possible, before it has a chance to take hold and become Entrenched in the Minds of Those who may not realize the Inherent Irrationality of what it Truly is.

On a Personal Level, I have found it More Discouraging when it Happens Among Those I Think Should Know Better.  

On one Hand there are Certain Types of Public Figures, Politicians, Decision Makers etc., I have come to expect it from. Calling out Their Self- Centered and Egotistical Thinking Processes is not a surprise, because They Rarely come up with a Well- Reasoned Line of Argument.  They don't change, and Those who Support the same Agenda could care less anyway.

What is Really Troubling, is when I see Intelligent, Insightful, and Focused Individuals Toss out Critical Thinking and Logic, when it Doesn't Lead Them to the Conclusions They Expect, or more likely, Desire.  For Some, it is Difficult to Understand that:

LOGIC AND CRITICAL THINKING ARE MENTAL PROCESSES, AND DON'T HAVE A PRECONCEIVED AGENDA THAT WILL LEAD YOU DOWN ANY PATH YOU DESIRE.  THE ARGUMENTS YOU MAKE, THE PREMISES YOU USE, AND THE CONCLUSIONS YOU DRAW ARE SUBJECT TO THE SAME RULES THAT YOUR OPPONENT  MUST OBEY.

This leads us to DIFFERENT CATEGORIES OF HYPOCRITE; WHAT THEY HAVE IN COMMON, WHAT SEPARATES THEM, AND THE PROBLEMS EACH PRESENTS TO FINDING SOLUTIONS AND ANSWERS.

Date-  10/10/2016.

Scroll down for future posts.

WHAT A SHAME- A look at the low points in the modern media. PSEUDOSCIENCE ON TELEVISION- THIS IS ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE: MY STORY. PT 1.

I have used this term: ANECDODTAL EVIDENCE many times when referring to testimony provided by those who have used it to support such pseudo-scientific subjects as Bigfoot, The Loch Ness Monster, Alien Visitation, Demons., etc. Often, it is the only evidence offered in many cases.

ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE IS, ( MY DEFINITION)-  Individual Testimony, regarding a Personal Encounter with a Specific Phenomena. It can be Sight, Sound, Smell, Touch, Taste. In other words, the five senses. From this Event, the individual draws conclusions about the Identity of said Phenomena.

Unfortunately, such an encounter that is not backed up by any corrorborating evidence that can be properly observed, studied, or analyzed, to Identify the Reality or True Nature of the Subject under Speculation, leaves Science with little choice but to characterize the PHENOMENA AS UNKNOWN, WITH FURTHER STUDY NEEDED.

Now , I am not going to talk about previous incidents in which I was asked to offer an opinion, or investigate the experiences of others.  This is MY CASE OF OFFERING ANECDOTAL TESTIMONY.

Date- 10/11/2016.

Place- My Home. Specifically: Dining Room and Back Yard.

Time- Approximately 12:15pm. Weather- Partly Cloudy.

Sitting down at my Dining Room Table to eat lunch , I glanced out to the Back Yard, and saw a Large Bird alight upon a Bird Bath located about Ten feet from the Dining Room Window.  Although, by no means an Ornithologist, I had worked for a company that Manufactured, among other things, High Quality Binoculars, considered to be among the best in the World. (SWAROVSKI). So, I had developed a Mild Interest in Identifying Birds found in North America. Well, the appearance of this one surprised me...

See part 2.