From the windmills of my mind…
How is it that prayer in public schools or at any government function constitutes a violation of the “establishment” clause of the Constitution today, when holding church services in the chamber of the US House of Representatives did not represent an “establishment of religion” to the people who wrote and ratified the Constitution?
It seems incorrect to say that religion is playing a greater role in politics, but rather that religious Americans are becoming more likely to align their electoral choices with their values. This is probably the result of more education and information as well as increasingly feeling that fundamental values are under attack (such as with issues like marriage, the Ten Commandments, abortion, prayer in schools, et cetera). The greater the perception of attacks on their values, the greater their political awareness, and then the more rapid their political realignment becomes.
When did “illegal aliens” become “illegal immigrants”, then morph into “undocumented workers”, then “guest workers” or just plain old “immigrants?” When did the nomenclature change in this debate? And who sent out the memo?
As with most issues, we are lulling ourselves to sleep with language that attempts to gloss over our problems or make them appear more fuzzy and less clear-cut. Sort of like the way the pro-abortion crowd refuses to call an unborn baby anything other than a fetus.
How have we let the immigration problem get to a point in this country where we have foreigners entering our country illegally, then holding mass rallies demanding their “rights,” much less that we are actually considering their demands.
For those who are curious, or happen to be members of Congress, the definition of “amnesty” is: n 1: a period during which offenders are exempt from punishment 2: a warrant granting release from punishment for an offense [syn: pardon] 3: the formal act of liberating someone [syn: pardon, free pardon] v : grant a pardon to (a group of people).
The key elements of the Republican electoral coalition are religion, money, and testosterone. For the Democrats it is secularism, other people’s money, and estrogen.
People who complain about political parties as being either too extreme or not representative enough are those least likely to either have been and/or get involved in politics, thus becoming prophets. They are also the people most likely to complain.
American consumers have benefited from one deregulation after another, such as with telephone service, airlines, and the banking industry. In light of no evidence to suggest otherwise, what logic do opponents of choice in education rely on to support their claims that deregulation -– or at least de-monopolization -– of public education would prove less beneficial?
The current debate over the legal definition of marriage did not come about as the result of legislative action, much less public demand for such changes, but rather due to a series of actions by a handful of liberal activist judges.
The ultimate strategy of “gay marriage” advocates is to use the “full faith and credit” clause of the US Constitution as a loophole through which to drive a new definition of marriage and force it upon the entire country without so much as a debate or vote on the matter. They intentionally use sympathetic courts in liberal states as a vehicle for this strategy.
It is interesting to note that the laws being proclaimed as not specific enough as to what defines a marriage lack such specificity primarily due to the fact that, when they were written, everyone was quite sure they knew what a marriage was. Just goes to show that it pays to be specific.Powered by Sidelines