Category: Legal, Laws, and Regs

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

The Washington Post has an article on TIPS that cuts through the hyperbole to the heart of the issue, and the ultimate cause for concern:

Public vigilance is a good thing, and so is encouraging citizens to alert authorities to terrorist activity. It makes sense to educate people who work at potential targets or at places where lethal cargo may be smuggled. But having the government recruit informants among letter carriers and utility workers — people who enter the homes of Americans for reasons unrelated to law enforcement — is an entirely different matter. Americans should not be subjecting themselves to law enforcement scrutiny merely by having cable lines installed, mail delivered or meters read. Police cannot routinely enter people’s houses without either permission or a warrant. They should not be using utility workers to conduct surveillance they could not lawfully conduct themselves.

Short, but extremely well written article.

Brought to us through the kind offices of a new and improved MetaFilter

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

Much discussion about the Pledge of Allegiance ruling. Many people believe the issue is much ado about nothing, while others are mildly or strongly supportive of the ruling. Of those who dislike the ruling, it seems that there is a strong belief that without religion, we will flounder about, without moral guidance and support.

A friend sent me a quote in an email that I find apropos in regards to the necessity of religion to provide a foundation for morality:

“Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith.”

The author? Adolf Hitler from a speech he made during negotiations for the Nazi-Vatican Concordant in 1993.

Dan Lyke pointed out that Illiad of User Friendly fame has weighed in on the Pledge of Allegiance ruling. I laughed until I shuddered and cried.

The Pledge legal decision and the User Friendly cartoon touched on two critical issues facing the US – our hypocrisy in regards to religion (mixing of religion and state in Saudi Arabia is evil, but it’s okay in the US), and our increasing willingness to sell our freedom for spurious safety.

On the issue of separation of church and state – if we demand that others drop their unique religious practices and conform to the greater good of all humanity, then we must ask the same of ourselves. As for the issue of trading security for safety – we’re willing to die for our country, but not for the freedoms on which the country is based. If this is true, then what good is the country?

I may seem as if I’m mixing the message – separation of church and state and giving up freedoms for security – but as Illiad has noted so well using his own style, it’s all about freedom. It’s all about freedom.

I was also caught by one of the discussion threads associated with the cartoon. In it, Geek Princess stated:

And as we continue down the slippery slope of moral decay, I’m wondering when the attacks on morality will stop? Will we have to become totally lawless and amoral before they will stop? How much filth and destruction do they need? 🙁 It just figures that such a ruling would come from judges who live in “The Sodom of America”. What are they thinking we will gain by further separating ourselves? We will either stand/work together, under one power, or our nation will crumble. I have to wonder whose side those judges are on?

Whoa, boys and girls – last time I looked, freedom of religion meant that all people are equal regardless of their religious beliefs. Assuming that the “godless” are amoral and lawless is, well, childish, simplistic, and scary as hell. And, Babes, I just moved from The Sodom of America. There weren’t no orgies in the street. If there was, no one told me where to go and when.

On a related note: once I finish with ThreadNeedle, I’m going to spend time coding a new application – a web bot that goes out to weblogs looking for two phrases “slippery slope” and “moral equivalency”. And every time the bot finds one, a warning email will be sent to the offending weblogger:

Note: You have used one of the following badly overused cliches:

 

Slippery Slope
Moral Equivalency

 

Continued use of cliches such as these has been shown to be detrimental to your mental health and growth. In addition, increased exposure over time leads to frothing at the mouth, a fixed stare, and a tendency to only wear red, white, and blue.

 

We suggest, for your own good, that you consider restricting your use of said terms in favor of something new and fresh. A thesaurus will be provided on request.

 

Thank you