Tuesday, May 26, 2009

Facts VS Hate Crime Laws

The number of Blacks who select Whites as the victims of their crimes is many, many, times the reverse. Blacks as victims of White rapists are so few as to be statistically meaning less, which is most certainly not the reverse. (I have not been exposed to the same information as to Latinos and Whites, but suspect from local crime reports that the same holds true.)

It is obvious that the number of Gays and Bi-Sexual persons who infect others (And kill them) with AIDS/HIV is infinitely greater that the opposite.

In fact, most deadly and other serous assaults are within the same groups: Black on Black, Latino on Latino, Gay on Gay and White on White.

Hate crimes laws do two, very unfortunate, things:
1.Provide an irrational (ie Not based on facts) unequal protection of the law; And,
2. Cover up the failure of each group to change its own cultures towards civilized, law-abiding and life-respecting behavior---Rather than hiding under another "excuse" for bad behavior chiefly within, but also without, each such "minority group"

Sunday, May 17, 2009

"The Contested Public Square"--Book Review

Forster, Greg; The Contested Public Square (The Crisis Of Christianity And Politics);IVP; University Press, Downers Grove, Illinois; 2008;ISBN 978-0-8308-2880-7

After reading a column noting Mr. Greg Forster's The Contested Public Square, I did buy and read (Study?) it. To anyone who has done so and finds it an "easy book" I bow before their vastly superior knowledge of Theology and Political Philosophy! It was a difficult and challenging "read" for me; But, it did hold my attention by the high quality of its organization and presentation, as well as the usefulness of its content in understanding our social, political and religious world. In fact, it was sometimes very difficult to put this excellent book down.

Most specially I obtained a much better (First?) understanding of St. Augustine's "City Of God" VS "City Of Man" dichotomy. To my untrained mind it appears that the USA's "separation of church and state" (But, only in its original configuration) is a natural, logical and necessary development of Western Christian thought and such early, shining, shining examples as that in Cleves (Germany) as noted by the author and the "freedom of religions" (NOT "freedom from religions") which has, since 1789, boiled and frothed in the USA---Until the artificial "wall of separation" began to end the necessary transfers between the goals of the "City Of God" and the real and political world in which we daily function. I think there is little doubt that the sword of judicial activism has led, since 1948, to a worsening of both public and private morality through the cutting off of a common (Yes, Judeo-Christian) provision for the reality of "right" and "wrong".

The author's analysis might have been extended to what occurs when "The City Of God" is divorced from secular governments. This divorce appears, generally out of the West, to result in various forms of socialism (Nazism, other Fascist movements, Marxism, Stalinism, Maoism, etc.) and generates a true worship of the State as God, often in the persona of such "Glorious Leaders" as Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Castro, Kim Il Jung and others of that ill-favored ilk. In less murderous and more "democratic" states (eg Sweden and the UK) the nameless bureaucrats provide all of the tyranny needed to grind down that spark of the divine which makes us truly and fully human.

Living in the USA of today, I fear for the like future of my nation.

Islam offers a special case example of the reverse results of no separation between the cities of God and of man by its appeals to the basest (Please see note #5 below) and most horrid of inhuman desires with its approval or encouragement, if not commands, to use murder, rape, genocide, enslavement, robbery and perpetual war to further its collective goals and the pathological power and sexual desires of its followers. This degeneration flowed from a gross misunderstanding and Mohammed's personal misuse of the Judeo-Christian teachings to the selfish divorce from any real application of Natural Law to those outside of the believers' view of Islam.

In the East only the Sikhs appear to have the key to that application. In Shinto everything of Japan is holy and nothing and no-one outside of it is of worth. Other Eastern religions appear to be focused on a drive towards an ultimate goal of nothingness that the value of the Divine is lost to them in as to the human world. and worth (Unless I grossly misunderstand these philosophies),

Tuesday, May 12, 2009

The Church, Natural Law, Torture & Self-Defense

At one time the Holy See controlled and ruled a large part of Italy then known as the Vatican States. During that time the Church was required to protect the innocent and punish the guilty as was any other state which was often done by the execution of horrid criminal by hanging and, if my data is correct, beating them to death. Certainly the police of that time, such as they were, used such extraordinary and severe questioning techniques as make "water boarding" appear as a child's game.

Now that the Pope and his advisers are cozy and safe in their stained-glass windowed ivory towers they no longer need to directly protect the People from criminal and military attacks as terrorize and physically threaten individuals, cities and entire peoples. The Pope et.al. can now wring their hands over the necessary use of threatened and real force needed for the common good and protection of the innocent by such statements, attributed to the Holy Father via John Carr of the USCCB staff, reported (NCR; May 17-23, 2009; Page-1): "Pope Benedict XVI has said the the prohibition torture 'cannot be contravened under any circumstances.' Simply put, torture is a classic case of ends and means." said Carr. "Good ends cannot legitimize immoral means".

Certainly the use of deadly force is justified by Natural Law as a right in self-defense and, very likely, as a duty for the protection of the innocent. To enforce that right and enable that duty the means to do so must be allowed including such as ready access to modern arms (Where the civil authorities are unable OR unwilling to do protect) and also the use of force short of killing, which includes what some describe as "torture".

At a more morally balanced time the Church encouraged the use of "the edge of the sword" in counter-attacking those (eg The Cathars and the followers of the false prophet Mohammed) who were attempting to destroy the core of our Faith and its daughter Civilization. As the threat to both are even more severe now than then, I do not understand the Holy See's reluctance to use necessary force to provide the Natural Law rights of the People and resultant protection to the Churches of God.

Thursday, May 07, 2009

Real Torture

For some time I have read many claims that "water boarding" and other severe interrogation methods used against terrorists are "torture"---Without any proofs that it has caused lasting physical or psychological damage to those thugs.OR to the strangely sensitive US or world citizens of a leftist orientation.

Our "torturers are WIMPS ! They should rather select out the more-or-less less useful or wanted subjects, make other subjects watch and use one of the following methods to encourage them to comply: Inject strong acids or other chemical to burn away the subjects bodies with the expected convulsions due to gross pain; OR, slice their living bodies into pieces in imitation of the traditional Chinese "Death Of A Thousand Cuts";
OR, crush their or pierce their skulls and suck their living, functional, brains out of their quivering bodies.

Does this proposal shock you? Why? In the USA and some of those nations whose ethical pundits oppose to "water boarding", this is already done, It is called (Late Term) abortion and the subjects are not terrorists, but the most innocent of all humans.

Now, why does such genocidal actions against the unborn and, sometimes, almost born not shock the consciences of those same, very selective, critics of potentially life saving actions against terrorists?

Saturday, May 02, 2009

What Immigrant Rights?

Today the "Milwaukee Journal Sentinel" published a report on the "Immigrant Rights Parade" . But, What are those rights? Who is entitled to them? Many rely on the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution or related statutes or court cases to define those rights.

The intent of the writers of that Amendment was to force the rebelling, Southern, States to accept as citizens those Black slaves held by Whites, Native Americans and other Blacks. Many rights (But NOT all, such as voting) were extended to legal immigrants and legal visitors to the USA.

Although I am not an attorney, I put to you that the requirement of being "...subject to the jurisdiction.." of the USA and the several States excludes illegal immigrants who have avoided that jurisdiction by their unlawful entry into the USA. I put to you that such "illegals" have NO rights under the Constitution including, but not limited to: Voting in our elections; Possessing firearms; Judicial or other "due process" hearings, beyond that needed to determine their immigration status, before forced deportation; Habeas Corpus; Conditions of confinement pending deportation; Granting of citizenship to their children born in the USA; ETC..

Perhaps, we should now emphasize "duties" as much as "rights" and insist that "illegals" perform the duty of returning to their homelands and only then and only legally re-enter the USA.

Of course, enforcement of such a concept would require Federal Judges who hold faith to the letter and intent of the Constitution and its Amendment.


U.S. Constitution: Fourteenth Amendment

Fourteenth Amendment - Rights Guaranteed Privileges and Immunities of Citizenship, Due Process and Equal Protection

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.