Home » 2011 » January (Page 5)

Activists Assaulted At Hawaii State Capitol (4/29/2010)

On April 29, 2010, activists Mitch Kahle and Kevin Hughes were assaulted by Ben Villaflor, the Senate Sergeant-At-Arms, and State Sheriff’s Deputies, for objecting to unconstitutional Christian prayers used to begin each session of the Hawaii State Legislature. Hughes was injured in the attack and was taken to the hospital for x-rays and treatment. Kahle was arrested and prosecuted, but was ultimately vindicated when Judge Leslie Hayashi found Kahle “NOT GUILTY” and ruled that: “The Senate’s [Christian] prayers violate the constitutional separation of church and state.” More to come . . . RELATED: Capitol protestor found not guilty Hawaii News Now – Nov 25, 2010 www.hawaiinewsnow.com Hawaii Citizens for the Separation of State and Church www.lava.net
Video Rating: 4 / 5

Approaches To Religion In Rousseau And Locke

For many people, religion has an indispensable place in society. Regarding its exact place in the society however has largely remained debatable. For some politics and religion are simply incompatible. Regarding religion and politics there are two extremes. One view simply seeks to eliminate religion out of politics. This view has several supporters even today; those who believe that politicians should stay away from religious issues, while pastors should stay away from political issues. It has had several supporters for a long time. John Locke was one of those who sought to draw a line between religion and politics. His is one of those positions that this paper will concern itself with. The other position is that seeks to marry religion with politics. This view as already indicated tends to go to another extreme. It nonetheless has been subject of great discussion within the field of rational thinking. Jean Jacques Rousseau is one philosopher who supported this kind of idea. So what is the point that these two are trying to make in their arguments? Why are their positions totally different?

Locke on Religion

Locke sought to draw a line between the authority concerned with matters of this temporary world and the world that is expected, which is spiritual. The distinction that he offers is quite clear. The persons that are charged with the responsibility of guiding people in as far as the goods of this world are concerned should not claim to have the authority to direct people even in matters of non material eschatological world. This for Locke is informed by quite a number of reasons. First, God has apparently not given anyone power to determine the way of salvation for others, and this includes deciding for anyone which religion to follow. This is informed by the awareness that there is an abounding responsibility in every individual to seek after their own salvation. This is done in the freedom that is inherent in nature. Therefore no one should give up their right to seeking individual salvation to the determination of the leadership of the country, or the judicial officers. One cannot follow any belief whatsoever without fully being convinced mentally that this is the faith that will likely offer them salvation. Resigning one’s right to the whims of the judicial officers then would reduce the individual to a subject of the politicians. This would already take away the liberty that is at the core of human subsistence. Worth mentioning is the fact that even the judicial officers also have the responsibility of saving their own souls. The heart of any religion is actually deeply rooted in the full conviction of the believer that whatever they hold in their mind is exactly what is required of them by God and that that is what they should do. The power of the political leadership is entirely external. This means that it appeals to forces outside in order to govern well. The power of any genuine religion however, is inherent is in the mental conviction that what one is following is the path that leads to their own redemption. This means that no one can force another into a form of religion, because no matter how hard they may try, they cannot force someone to accept mentally what they are convinced is not right for them. The power of the judicial authorities resides in their ability to enforce laws. Taking away from a man all he owns cannot force him to accept a religion that he sees as not leading him anywhere. The judicial power does not go beyond the laws. It is without their mandate to come up with ways of worship, because there is no way they can enforce these ways. It ensues from deep mental convictions. Furthermore, even if the state were able to force people to accept its religion, this does not necessarily mean that they have the salvation of their souls. What would result is a situation where each state dictates its own kind of religion, suitable to the interest of its leader. This only amounts to a blind resignation to the whims of the rulers. It takes away any use of conscience and reason.

These arguments show that the authority inherent in any government to lead the people relates only to the corporeal realities. Locke makes it clear it is imperative that people learn to tolerate each other. Everyone has a right to enjoy their belonging in a particular state, and no one is allowed to take this away on account of religion or lack of it. If someone should go contrary to what is considered as the right way, too bad, but no one should punish them in this world, in the assumption that they will suffer in the next. If the political leadership is to join a particular church, it does not mean that that particular church is identical with the state. The difference must be maintained fully. The judicial officers have also a role to play in as far as toleration is concerned (Locke, 2009). As already indicated, the responsibility of caring for the soul entirely resides in its owner. It often so happens, that certain individuals neglect this responsibility. If this happens, just as in the case of individuals who neglect their wealth, the judge must exercise toleration. The law only protects private property from any external interference, but not against its rightful owner. Moreover, the judge has neither the power to forbid the use of any rites within any particular church, or permit the use of others. This lies without his jurisdiction. Those rites however, ought to be in tandem with the normal functioning of life, not harming anyone or their property, and the judge is not obliged to tolerate those who perform unacceptable rituals (Locke, 2009). All that is acceptable in the state must not be forbidden in religion and vice versa. Ideally, Locke is drawing a line between the state and religion. There should be clear separation of roles because both are concerned with totally different realities (Locke, 2009).

Jean Jacques Rousseau

Unlike Locke, Rousseau considers that religion is totally crucial for the proper functioning of any society. The role of religion for him was to bring unity in the society. Three things were central to the civil religion of Rousseau: the idea of a life after this life, punishment or reward for virtue or lack of it, and tolerance (Rousseau, 2003).  Governments were free to uphold such beliefs as eternal life. Rousseau considered that originally, there were no rulers; only gods existed. However, because every state had its own gods, no state would accept the gods of another, and even within a nation, differences brought about worship of many gods. One particularly interesting thing in Rousseau is that despite the fact that several gods existed within nations, a state of peace among the various religions persisted. This is apparently because; there was no border line between the gods and the law. There was no separation as such, between the state and religion (Rousseau, 2003). These gods however were restricted to the borders of the people over whom they lorded. This is seen even with the people of Israel, when they refused to worship alien gods after being exiled. An interesting thing was with the Roman attack on other cities. The solders required that the gods in that particular city leave before the attack, and victory meant that the gods of the defeated people would have to be subject to the gods of the Romans. Rousseau compared between three kinds of religion, which for him were in some way defective (Rousseau, 2003). The first one is that of man, this one is internal, and is not subject to any external factors. It lacks the physical sacramental typical of other religions. It involves the person with God, and the moral demands on the person. The other one relates to the people and the government. The laws and dogmas governing this kind of religion are designed by the law. This is a civil kind of a religion. The last one is a bit difficult to follow. This is because it offers dual codes to those who subscribe to it. Christianity falls into this kind of religion. It preaches a life in a different world, thereby reducing this world into a lesser one. This religion is destructive of unity, because it leaves people confused, between following diligently the faith they profess and the citizenship that they allege. Any kind of a system that is destructive of the bonds of society is totally unacceptable. It is important therefore that people follow the second kind of religion because this religion brings about the marriage between the law and the divine. This consequently means that when the people serve the needs of the state, they are in reality serving the deity. This can be almost comparable to the medieval period when Ceasaropapism was the order of the day. This means that anything that is done on behalf of the state is done in the name of God.

However, this kind of religion needs to be well guarded against any kind of tyrannical tendencies, and possible deception.  The state should come up with articles meant to help the citizens become better in their service to the state and each other. The state cannot force anyone to follow the prescriptions in these articles, but it ought to throw out those who do not abide by them. This is because these are enemies of society. Those who knowingly go against the set religion should actually be killed. However, these prescriptions should be few and clear enough for the people to be able to follow them. There should be no difference placed between the theological and civil intolerance. It people go against the state by breaking the law; they are by extension going against God. Therefore they must be punished in the same way that God would. To Rousseau therefore, the mention of the theological presupposes the civil and vice versa.

Conclusion

As already established, these two philosophers have very interesting thoughts regarding the kind of relationship that should exist between the state and religion. The kind of relationship by both of them however, does not necessarily fit within present levels of life. It is absolutely impossible for instance to take religion as totally out of the state, because those who profess that religion are basically the same individuals that form part of the government. It is also impractical to assume the possibility of a marriage between state and religion. As it stands, there is a plurality of religions, and this must be respected if the state of war that Rousseau attempted to address is to be avoided. What should be put in place, however, is a sound constitution that respects the core freedom of people to worship, while at the same time respecting their own responsibilities as citizens of their respective countries. Ceasaropapism, where the pope was Caesar was tried in Rome with severe consequences. There is a very thick line between matter spiritual and matters material, yet the line that separates the two within the individuals that understand them is very thin. This brings a lot of problems. Therefore it would be important that reason be applied in matter of faith, in order to eliminate the possibility of either fundamentalism or Fanatism.

The author Anna Petrescu has academic writing experience of over 5 years. She holds a PHD in education from Cambridge. She has been assisting students in writing professional academic papers including thesis, dissertations, research papers and term papers. bestessayscenter.com

Article from articlesbase.com

More Freedom Of Religion Articles

Nice Freedom Of Information photos

A few nice Freedom of Information images I found:

nate&marcia_toss2
Freedom of Information
Image by ElectronicFrontierFoundation
EFF lawyers Marcia Hoffman and Nate Cardozo celebrate the arrival of two large boxes full of government documents relating to telecom immunity.

Landing 3488
Freedom of Information
Image by Wonderlane

More black holes than a cheesy sci-fi film
Freedom of Information
Image by gary_foulger
MPs website names are classified information

IRS Commissioner Dodges Income Tax Question – No Law!

New York Times reporter David Cay Johnston asked IRS Commissioner Mark Everson, “What law requires Americans to file or pay income taxes?” His answer: Blah blah blah blah blah; dodge dodge dodge dodge dodge. The IRS Assistant Commissioner’s answer: Blah blah blah blah blah; dodge dodge…

Former IRS CID Agent Joseph R Banister and presidential candidate Ron Paul discuss the illegality of the income tax on a 2004 edition of CNBC’s Special Report with Maria Bartiromo. Watch Aaron Russo’s AMERICA: Freedom To Fascism for free on Google Video to learn more about the illegality of the income tax.

The Family Court Abridges Constitutional Rights and Justice

Because our family courts are not setup to protect the rights of litigants but a so-called ‘higher good’, it’s ripe for distributing injustice and persecution – mostly to fathers and their children. This article explains why.

Thomas Jefferson stated that trial by such a jury is the only anchor yet known to man to hold the state to the principles of the constitution so as not to leave the protection of the individual solely up to the government or judicial elites.

It’s through the jury that ‘the people’ participate in the judicial process and rein in unconstitutional or unreasonable laws and judgments of the state. Without the protection of a jury trial, tyranny will surely reign.

*Our most fundamental rights are in jeopardy in family court for doing no wrong:

At stake are your right to parent your child, to control and choose your income and profession, your right to maintain your professional and driver’s licenses, your right to have or maintain your passport and travel as you see fit. These rights are guaranteed by the constitution.

*What about the ‘best interest of the child’ – isn’t that ‘a greater good’?

Greater goods are part of dictatorships and tyrannies. The greatest goods of republics are peoples’ constitutional rights which includes the protection of ‘due process’. Supreme Court case laws states that the ‘best interest of the child’ resides in a ‘fit’ parent – not the state.

*How are fundamental rights at stake?

Because if the family court judge assigns you to be the noncustodial parent, you lose your parenting rights to your children (i.e. to support them directly, live with them, and direct their lives) and then you’re forced by the court to pay the mother whatever the judge says – amounts that will impoverish most fathers. If you don’t pay regularly and pay it all, you’ll go to jail without a trial.

*What do you have to do wrong to be assigned the noncustodial status?

Nothing! Fit parents – overwhelmingly fathers – have their constitutional rights denied by judges assigning them as noncustodial parents.

The judge – as representative of the state – invokes his ‘illegal’ right to take away constitutional rights of fit fathers for the ‘best interests’ of the children. Best interest determinations are only to be invoked when there are no fit parents.

*The family court setup prevents protection of father’s constitutional rights:

The family court doesn’t allow a trial with a jury. It only permits ‘bench’ trial which means that the judge is both judge and jury for you. So you’re denied the protection of the people from the legal elites and special interest groups that feed off the injustice that the family courts produce.

*Why doesn’t the family court protect a father’s constitutional rights?

Because when you eliminate the natural protections – like a jury – you leave judicial elites in power. More power means a more corruptible system. That’s human nature.

The family court and its affiliates have seized on a ‘greater good’ excuse such as ‘best interest of the children’ and ‘safety of women’ to forego constitutional law and protections for fathers.

*Special interest groups influence on the family court setup and actions:

A host of legal and court-assisting persons and organizations have a strong financial interest in keeping the family court set-up as it is. They together can be called the Divorce and Domestic Violence Industry (the DDVI).

The DDVI is made up of the judges, lawyers, GALs, mothers/women, probation/family service officers, psychiatrists, sociologists, visitation centers, battered women’s shelters, the abuse industry, women’s advocates, the state’s department of revenue (DOR), the federal government’s child support enforcement division…and more! Let’s consider where some of these entities find their financial interest in the family court setup.

The DDVI have interest in:

* Setting larger child support orders.

Both the court and DOR/CSE(child support enforcement (agency)) receive federal incentive payments. Court-DOR (Department of Revenue) agreements send some DOR money to the Court systems. County jails make money by more inmates – who are court-created deadbeat dads.

* Making abuse allegations more easily allowed.

Visitation centers and lawyers benefit by this as well as do Battered Women shelters and Batterers Groups. Incidentally, battering is relatively rare; accusations are very common.

* Aggravating parental exchanges and unequal allotment of rights – as the court imposes.

This makes lots of money and job security for lawyers, family services officers, psychologists, GALS, parenting class coordinators, women’s groups, and affiliated VAWA organizations who receive some Billion over 5 years.

The DDVI, taken together, is a powerful lobby and participant in the rule-making process. They’re not about to favor any change – however fair – that will undermine their positions, benefits, or money and power they’ve accumulated.

Shane Flait gives you the capability you need to fight for your rights.
Get his FREE Downloads at http://www.FathersRightsLegalAid.com
Take his ecourse: How to Handle Your Family Court Case at http://www.FathersRightsLegalAid.com

Article from articlesbase.com

A Quick Info about Dual Citizenship!

Dual citizenship simply means that you are a citizen of two countries. It allows you to retain your current nationality while becoming the citizen of another country where you are immigrating to, with sheer ease.

Various countries including China and Denmark have restrictions when it comes to allowing Dual citizenship.  Some countries consider this concept of Dual Citizenship undesirable. That is why; a majority of them have taken ample measures and made certain rules to prevent it.

Every country has its own set of requirements for citizenship. In addition, multiple countries follow different set of rules and regulations when it comes to offering Immigration and Dual Citizenship. These laws sometimes create situations where a person is bound to hold more than one nationality at times.

Moreover, some countries find the concept of Dual Citizenship extremely rewarding as it enhances the opportunities for their own native citizens to compete with a wide range of people and build contacts at an international level. They find a great possibility in building global presence via the concept of ‘Dual Citizenship.’

Here are some generalized advantages that are arrayed with ‘Dual Citizenship’:

*  The applicant gets the benefit of feeling connected with the native country.

*  People who have Dual Citizenships have two passports. At the same time, they have the flexibility to reside and travel to the relevant countries in accordance with their needs and preference level.

*  Employment opportunities: The other countries are decked with plenty of advantages when it comes to availing a diverse range of job opportunities.

*  Other advantages include entitlement to social programs like pensions etc.

*  Dual Citizens broadens a country’s economic base.

*  The applicant gets the benefit of unrestricted residency and property ownership also.

*  A Dual Citizenship holder can avail practical advantages like society-security, freedom  of speech, freedom to express thoughts, amongst others.

In order to avail a dual citizenship, you are required to pay a certain amount of recurring fee to maintain your status. The best part is that the applicant can obtain Dual Citizenship at any time of his life. In addition, there are several major factors that need to be considered while applying for the Dual Citizenship.

In case, you are attired with any kind of confusion regarding dual citizen and other immigration and visa related matters, it is always advised that one should avail the benefits of an ace immigration visa firm.

Ajay Sharma is an immigration expert who provides his valuable advice to people seeking immigration in countries like Canada, Denmark, USA, Australia and many others. With years of experience under his belt, he is the principal immigration consultant of ABHINAV.com, which is in business since 1994.

Article from articlesbase.com

Related Citizenship And Freedom Articles

Latest Church And State News

Church rebuilt on faith
SPRINGFIELD – There is a roof, four walls, windows and doors, and a concrete floor. Eventually all the ornamentation and decor will be in place, but for now the interior of new home of the Macedonia Church of God in Christ has a maze of 2×4 frames and exposed electrical wires.
Read more on The Republican

Church Received Hefty Sum from Unclaimed Bonds
Earlier this week a church in Charlestown West Virgina received a check from a state’s unclaimed property fund or unclaimed bonds. The United Methodist Church was presented with the check just shy of of $ 10,500 by State Treasurer John Perdue earlier this week. The funds were discovered by the Purdue’s office field officer Roger Huges. The retrieved funds will be allo
Read more on ThirdAge

Fascist Liberals Suppress Freedom of Religion

Please keep all comments and debates civil, no vulgarities, ECT…
Video Rating: 4 / 5

Rorty: Anti-Terrorism and the National Security State (Pt 2)

Richard Rorty Anti-terrorism and the National Security State Potsdam, March 4, 2004

Obama Speech: ‘A More Perfect Union’

Barack Obama speaks in Philadelphia, PA at Constitution Center, on matters not just of race and recent remarks but of the fundamental path by which America can work together to pursue a better future.
Video Rating: 4 / 5