Dec

23

Secular Theology:
The Effect of Anti-Catholic Media Bias on the Catholic Community

Category: Education, Faith, Opinions, Society | Leave a Comment | 1,914 words | Print

       Newspapers and news magazines have long been a mainstay for information and keeping up to date about the world around us. The Internet has increased accessibility and dramatically changed the way people gather and read their news, but it has not changed the perception of bias within today’s print media. Publishers learned long ago that sex, scandal, and controversy would sell copies, so it is not surprising that Catholics would perceive an anti-Catholic bias within those publications. In an age where abortion, sexual promiscuity, and same-sex marriage are commonplace, faithful Catholics find themselves at odds with many of the morals and values portrayed in today’s media. This anti-Catholic bias, whether it is simply perceived or otherwise, has a negative impact on the Catholic community.

       The perception of anti-Catholic bias does in-fact exist within members of the Church, therefore it is imperative to prove the reasons behind it. Rev. Avery Dulles, S.J., a Jesuit priest, provided an example of this perception when he wrote, “The church seeks to promote unity and reconciliation, minimizing discord and dissent. The news media, however, specialize in disagreement and conflict which evidently arouse greater interest and boost circulation” (Dulles, 1994). At first glance, his statement implied that the media is not merely biased, but was simply attempting to sell copies of their publications by creating an element of disagreement and conflict. Although every publication is in the business of selling copies, it is not logical, nor realistic, to conclude that all media outlets create hype in order to increase their bottom line. Dulles offered another reason for the perception of an anti-Catholic bias by pointing out that, “most newspapers and magazines have no professionally qualified reporters in the field of religion” (Dulles, 1994). Articles summarizing sporting events should be written by someone who knows the sport they are covering, and financial reports would not be credible if the writer did not possess a basic knowledge of our financial system, so the same should be required of those writing about religion. The veracity of information comes into question when the person writing it has little to no training or has limited understanding of the subject.

       Catholic journalist Amy Welborn acknowledges, “Reporting on the Catholic Church is quite a challenge, given the historical depth and complexity of the subject matter” (Flynn, 2008). Given the complexity of the subject matter, it is no surprise that many reports contain inaccuracies. In a recent survey by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, one-third of Catholics surveyed could not name the four Gospels, and 45% did not know that the Church teaches the bread and wine used in Holy Communion actually become the body and blood of Jesus Christ (Pew Research Center, 2010). Welborn also offered her own recommendation for her fellow journalists in the print media, “Deepening their knowledge of the Church would be a step forward for journalists covering Catholicism… This does not mean losing objectivity, but reporting on events in their proper context” (Flynn, 2008). Her recommendation supports the position that anti-Catholic bias exists because of misunderstanding and ignorance rather than an intentional bias against the Church.

       The Los Angeles Times has a history of providing editorial space to those who appear to write from an anti-Catholic prospective. For example, Tim Rutten wrote, “Many Catholics worry about a Vatican that fires an Australian bishop for speaking in favor of ordaining women and married men, but declines to act against a Belgian prelate who unapologetically admits to molesting young boys” (Rutten, 2011). His statement appears to be a valid argument against Church hypocrisy, but Rutten purposely misled readers by failing to mention that the Vatican suspended the Belgian prelate immediately, while the Australian bishop was allowed to remain in his position for five years before his removal (Wooden, 2011). In this example, Tim Rutten was clearly attempting to sway readers into being sympathetic for relaxing the rules of the Church by claiming that the Church itself was not enforcing its own standards.

       While sex scandals involving priests are definitely newsworthy, some news outlets go out of their way to make reference to those scandals while covering a wide variety of other topics within the Catholic Church. For example, during his homily at the funeral for Cardinal John Patrick Foley of Philadelphia, Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York City said, “any diocese that can turn out such a noble, gentle man is a church which can endure and come out even stronger” (O’Reilly, 2011). The author of the article, David O’Reilly, attributed Archbishop Dolan’s comments as “an apparent reference to the difficulties the archdiocese will face next year – a sex abuse trial, school closings, decisions on 27 priests under internal investigation for possible misconduct with children” (O’Reilly, 2011), when the Archbishop could have simply been referencing the endurance of the Philadelphia community and the effect the loss of their beloved Cardinal Foley will have on them over time. Other news outlets simply quote the most radical thinkers as if they are an example of the Catholic faithful (Seiler, 1999) and some make an intentional effort to undermine Church teaching. Although there are examples of intentional anti-Catholic bias within some segments of the media, the majority of the bias is not intentional, but rather a misunderstanding and ignorance of the beliefs of the Catholic Church.

       Tim Mattingly, director of the Washington Journalism Center at the Council for Christian Colleges commented on the “amazing ignorance by some of the reporters that cover religion” (Flynn, 2008). His comments support the claims made by Dulles and Welborn, in stating that many covering religious topics should be trained and educated in the field they are reporting. This lack of knowledge and training has resulted in an anti-Catholic bias perpetuated by misunderstandings and ignorance, rather than the intentional exclusion of facts.

       The sex abuse scandal within the Church has long been a topic of discourse. While the response from the Church was nothing short of controversial to some, the reaction by the media caused a backlash of unprecedented proportions. In his book, The New Anti-Catholicism: The Last Acceptable Prejudice, author Philip Jenkins wrote, “the sex abuse scandal in the United States has resulted in a public outpouring of anti-Church and anti-Catholic vituperation on a scale not witnessed since the 1920s” (Anonymous, 2003). Allegations of abuse were widespread within the Catholic Church creating an illusion that the entire Church was to blame for the violations. While the investigation of criminal activity and misconduct on the part of Church authorities was completely justified, Jenkins wrote that many reports of abuse, “segued effortlessly into grotesque attacks on the Catholic Church as an institution” (Anonymous, 2003).

       Any attack on the Catholic Church is dangerous because many Catholics today are ill informed about the faith they profess. The U.S. Religious Knowledge Survey, from the Pew Research Center, showed that Catholics answered just 14.7 out of 32 questions (46%) correctly (Pew Research Center, 2010). The results of this survey are not hard to believe, given the influence of today’s media. Rev. Dulles wrote, “It must be recognized that many Catholics learn about what is happening in their Church primarily, or in great part, from the secular media” (Dulles, 1994). As Catholics glean more information from the media than their Church, the influence of that media permeates their lives and begins to distort the teachings of the Church. Jenkins concluded that anti-Catholic bias, “has become so ingrained that reporters do not even recognize their own anti-Catholic attitudes” (Anonymous, 2003). Catholics do not always know their own faith, so we cannot expect them to recognize this anti-Catholic attitude either. Gerald P. Fogarty, S.J. writes, “anti-Catholicism in America today is far more subtle and perhaps even insidious in a culture where religion is too often merely a matter of private opinion” (Fogarty, 2003). Although the result was unintentional, we must realize that the media unknowingly exacerbated the problem of anti-Catholic bias in our society as they continued to report the sex abuse scandal.

       The best recourse for the Church, at this point, is to fight fire with fire. For too long, the Church has ignored the words of Pope Paul VI, who declared in 1975, “The church would feel guilty before the Lord if she did not utilize these powerful means of communication that human skill is daily rendering more perfect” (Dulles, 1994). By utilizing the media to combat inaccurate information, the Catholic Church can establish a new pattern of effective communication and proper context that would contrast the existing media bias and balance the negative messages currently being delivered. The leaders of the Church must learn to use the media as a tool to support their message, rather than to control it. Any attempt to control the message would be seen as censorship and rejected by some of their own members, let alone those working as journalists in the secular media (Dulles, 1994).

       As subtle forms of anti-Catholicism become more prevalent in our society, many people see the Catholic Church as “authoritarian and opposed to freedom of thought” (Fogarty, 2003). This message is deliberately misleading and completely unfounded, yet the Church has done little to dissuade the message from pervading society. “The Church is not without blame in this farrago of vilification. Bishops obfuscate, cardinals equivocate, and Church spokesmen prevaricate as the tide of media condemnation surges around them” (Anonymous, 2003), which is why the leaders of the Catholic Church must embrace new media if they hope to relieve tension and communicate a message that combats anti-Catholic bias in the media.

       As people continue to rely on newspapers and news magazines to keep informed, those sources of media are unintentionally perpetuating an atmosphere of anti-Catholic bias. Publishers of print media focus on stories that will sell copies, often filled with sex, scandal, and controversy and they fail to hire qualified personnel to cover the topic of religion. The consequences of their actions result in misunderstandings about the Catholic Church and ignorance of the Catholic faith itself. The Church must take a pro-active approach and begin participating in the message rather than responding to criticisms after the fact. Until they do so, anti-Catholic bias will continue to create discord and Catholics will become more secular because of that influence. While the existence of anti-Catholic bias in the media may be unintentional, it poses a threat that has a negative impact on the entire Catholic community as well as society as a whole.

References

Anonymous. (2003). Church rounds on anti-Catholic bias by Media. Retrieved from http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=2171705581&sid=1&Fmt=3&client
Id=74379&RQT=309&VName=PQD

Dulles, A. (1994). Religion and the News Media: A Theologian Reflects. America 171, no. 9, pp 6-9. Retrieved from http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/media/me0005.html

Flynn, J. (2008). The Media and Misreporting Religion. Retrieved from http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=31225

Fogarty, G. (2003). Reflections on Contemporary Anti-Catholicism, U.S. Catholic Historian , Vol. 21, No. 4, Anti-Catholicism (Fall, 2003), pp. 37-44. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/25154876

O’Reilly, D. (2011). Funeral for Cardinal Foley draws church dignitaries. Retrieved from http://www.kansascity.com/2011/12/16/3324188/funeral-for-cardinal-foley-draws.html

Pew Research Center (2010). U.S. Religious Knowledge Survey. Retrieved from http://pewforum.org/Other-Beliefs-and-Practices/U-S-Religious-Knowledge-Survey.aspx

Rutten, T. (2011). Tim Rutten: Is Pope John Paul II fit for sainthood? Retrieved from http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-0504-rutten-20110504,0,963466.column

Seiler, J. (1993). Pope’s visit unleashes anti-Catholic media. Retrieved from http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=145475401&sid=1&Fmt=3&clientId=74379&RQT=309&VName=PQD

Wooden, C. (2011). Church unity motivated papal action against bishop, Australians say. Retrieved from http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1104169.htm

Sphere: Related Content

Jul

27

The Focus Of Our Attention

Category: Opinions, Our Nation | Comments Off | 1,372 words | Print

Monday Night LightsWhen I sit back and look at the immigration “problem” in our country, every single issue can be traced back to what our government has failed to do. We are faced with a very serious situation, and no single idea is going to solve the problem.

Most of us are descendants of immigrants, the only difference today is the system of categories and quotas set by the government which severely restrict and limit many attempts at legal immigration.

Did you know, when discussing immigration “quotas” that there are actually two different quota systems in place?

The first quota sets the number of categories in which a person can apply, regardless of country of birth. These categories include student visas, family visas, temporary worker (H-1B) visas, etc. The second quota sets the number of people who can immigrate from any one country, regardless of their place of birth. The categorical quota system now has a significant backlog. Some categories are backlogged four years or more, which means that a person who applied four years ago for a particular type of visa is eligible today for their green card.

The desire for people to immigrate to our great nation has not changed, or else we wouldn’t be discussing illegal immigration. The way our government deals with immigration, however, and which ethnic groups are singled out as “bad” for our nation, has changed.

During the 1800′s many different ethnic groups were scorned. Irish immigrants were forced to live in back alleys, impoverished Germans were frowned upon, French immigrants were considered “scum” by many Americans, Chinese immigrants were brought in to build railroads and work underground, and uneducated Italians did not fare any better by 1870. At one point Catholics were treated as a “subclass” in parts of the NorthEast, and for years now we have heard the cries of Haitians, Cubans, and many others trying to get to our shores, desperate for a chance to build a life within our borders.

So what is different now? I would say it’s the focus of our attention.

People are coming to our country daily under student visa, family visa, and temporary worker visa programs. No one seems to pay attention to them. Our attention has instead been turned toward our southern border. We see images flashing on the television screens of people desperately navigating rivers, sneaking across the desert during the hottest part of the day, and people packed into vans like sardines, driving on dirt roads in the middle of the night. These images are shown over and over, in an attempt to convince us that these people are coming here to cause trouble, to ruin our way of life, to get a “free ride”, when in reality, they just want a chance to live a life that is productive, provides for their family, and contributes to the greater good.

Are there bad people “sneaking” into our country? Without a doubt. But there are also some very bad people being welcomed with open arms into our country under the guise of student visas, family visas, H-1B visas, diplomat status, and many other legal means. You may remember a few people who entered our country legally who flew planes on September 11th. Needless to say, bad people are everywhere.

While many people scream endlessly about illegal immigrants sneaking across our borders, no one seems to notice (or pay attention to) the legal immigrants coming here on H-1B visas. Did you know an H-1B visa allows U.S. employers to temporarily employ foreign workers in specialty occupations? The employer can pay them far less than the going rate, and some employers even receive kickbacks from our own government just for hiring these “legal” foreign workers.

Personally, I have never lost a job to an illegal immigrant, but I did lose a job to a couple legal H-1B visa immigrants. My former employer is saving almost $40,000 per year, but thank goodness those temporary workers are in our country legally. Whew!

The number of illegal immigrants in the United States has been estimated from a low of 12 million to a high of 20 million. From 1991-2000, 11 million people immigrated to the United States LEGALLY and that number represented a mere 0.3% in population growth.

People are quick to say, “lock them all up” and “send them back home”. It’s a quick way to dismiss the whole situation, I know, because I used to be one of the people who were quick to say it. I wonder if people know how much it would cost to “lock them all up” and “send them all home”? For argument sake, let’s forget the fact we have absolutely nowhere to house 20 million people, but let’s look at some numbers…

According to the Immigration Neutrality Act, ICE has 90 days to deport an individual if they have been compliant in providing their travel documents and signing an I-229 form. The I-229 states that the individual will provide travel documents for deportation. If they are compliant, and not deported within 90 days, they can be released. If they refuse to comply, ICE can extend the 90 day deportation time frame. For argument sake let’s presume 75% of the illegal immigrants are compliant and 25% are non-compliant requiring an additional 90 day time frame, even though this is purely hypothetical and it could take much, much longer.

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the average cost of housing a state inmate in 2001 was $62.05 per day. The cost at facilities operated by the Federal Bureau of Prisons was $62.01 per day. Since this is 2011, not 2001, we will use the $62.05 amount, even though I am sure the cost is much higher at this time.

If we actually had a facility to house 20 million people, it would cost us $1,241,000,000 (that’s 1.241 BILLION) per day to house them all. If we use the 75/25 compliance to set our time frame it would cost $83,767,500,000 (83.7675 BILLION) to house the 75% of compliant immigrants, and $55,845,000,000 (55.845 BILLION) to house the non-compliant immigrants. The cost of housing, remember we haven’t even built the facilities to house them yet, 20 million people for the required time frame would be $139,612,500,000 (139.6125 BILLION).

Again, I need to re-iterate this number does not include the cost of building enough facilities to house 20 million people, nor the cost of personnel to “round them up” or transporting them to these new facilities. This number simply reflects the cost of detaining 20 million people for the length of time required to be processed for deportation. This number does not include the cost of actually “sending them back home”, nor the costs associated with caring for their U.S. born children (aka citizens) who are left behind. Those two costs alone would be substantially higher than the cost of merely detaining 20 million people.

The Center for Immigration Studies reports that the net cost to our country from illegal immigrants each YEAR was $10.4 billion in 2002. Since we used 2001 numbers to calculate our numbers above, we’ll use these numbers from 2002 as well. FactCheck.org (http://www.factcheck.org/2009/04/cost-of-illegal-immigrants/) goes into more detail to support this number as well.

Realistically, we’ll never have enough personnel or facilities to process and house that many illegal immigrants. Economically, it doesn’t make sense to “lock them all up” and “send them back home”. Historically, doing so won’t change anything because our government has failed to address the reason the crisis exists in the first place.

Over the course of the past two decades an incredible amount of attention has been turned toward our southern border. Personally, I think it’s time to turn our attention on Washington, D.C.

It’s time for comprehensive immigration reform. I’m sure if we all work together we can come up with a solution that secures our border, is fair and equitable to the citizens of the United States of America, and more importantly, is charitable and humane to those who have come to call America home.

Sphere: Related Content

Nov

19

Not Everything Is Related Is It?

Category: Life, Opinions | Comments Off | 168 words | Print

I don’t see how this is legal…

Two men convicted of shooting a Southern California sheriff’s deputy in 1980 have been charged with his murder following his death this year of related injuries.

The Orange County district attorney’s office said Friday that 54-year old David Knick of Yucca Valley and 55-year old Robert Strong of Riverside each have been charged with one count of murder and are being held on $1 million bail.

Prosecutors say the two men served prison time for attempted murder for shooting Deputy Ira Essoe after he approached them in a mall in Orange.

Essoe was paralyzed and eventually had his legs amputated. He died in February of sepsis, which prosecutors say was related to injuries from the 1980 shooting.

How can you prove, without a doubt, that death from sepsis (as a result of amputation) was caused directly (and solely) by the shooting?

The shooting occurred 30 years ago. That’s a long time, with a lot of other factors at play. Just saying.

Sphere: Related Content

Nov

16

Earmarks For Me, But Not For Thee

Category: Opinions, Politics | Comments Off | 352 words | Print

The results of the mid-term election were pretty definitive. People are fed up with the status quo and we need real change to save our great country. As a result of the vote, Republicans in Washington D.C are vowing to put an end to earmarks (aka reckless spending) in legislation.

Georgia’s very own (just re-elected) Senator, Johnny Isakson (R-GA) has stated he will support the moratorium on earmarks. Well, unless the earmarks are for funding projects within the state of Georgia.

“I supported a temporary, two-year moratorium on congressional earmarks today because I agree we should not be funding projects that are frivolous or non-essential functions of the federal government.

“The oath I swore to uphold when I was elected by the people of Georgia was to the U.S. Constitution, which directs the Congress to appropriate federal tax dollars. I will never abandon my oath, and I will continue to fight for funding for projects such as the expansion of the Savannah port that is critical to my state and to U.S. trade, the settlement of the tri-state water compact involving Georgia, funding for our troops and the best interests of the people in the state of Georgia.

“I also will push for Congress to address the biggest concerns of my Georgia constituents – skyrocketing federal spending and debt. I will continue to push my proposal for Congress to switch to biennial budgeting so that we can give federal spending the scrutiny and oversight that has been sorely lacking. In addition, I supported several other proposals today to reduce discretionary spending, balance the budget, freeze federal hiring, stop unfunded mandates to the states and impose a moratorium on new entitlement spending.”

This is what happens when we elect people who speak out of both sides of their mouths and don’t know the difference between truth and fiction.

Thanks Johnny, it took you just two weeks to re-affirm one of the many reasons I didn’t vote for you this time around. The good news is, we’re on to you. The bad news is we’re stuck with you for six more years.

Sphere: Related Content

Nov

12

Another Day, Another Failure

Category: Opinions, Our Nation, Politics | Comments Off | 283 words | Print

The Failed One® traveled to Jakarta, Indonesia today, and once again, he failed.

While standing in Jakarta, President Barack Obama denounced Israel for building apartments for her growing population in Jerusalem, the capital of Israel. He voiced his opposition to the government of Israel, which like ours, is elected by the people. He made these statements to show his displeasure with the Israeli state.

He proved once again that he is the most anti-Israel President in U.S. History.

Indonesia is one of the, if not the, largest Muslim country in the world and Israeli’s are not allowed to enter the country. Could he have picked a more symbolic location to take his stance?

In going to Jakarta, Indonesia, to launch his latest attack, he literally went to the ends of the earth to give voice to his displeasure. He emphasized his opposition to the policies of the elected government of Israel.

He used his Jakarta platform to complain about Israel building apartments for her growing population. Where? In Jerusalem, the capital of Israel.

To make matters even worse, Jakarta is a city no Israeli is allowed to enter! The symbolism of saying what he said in the country and city where he said it is simply atrocious.

He was in Indonesia less than 24 hours. If he had to make such a one-sided and unfair pronouncement, couldn’t he at least have waited until he got to South Korea? Touting Indonesia’s great tolerance is offensive. We love everyone here in Indonesia, except the Israelis, of course, and except Catholic school girls who get beheaded on their way to school.

Disgusting. He finally proves he is good at something, and it ends up being hate.

Sphere: Related Content

Oct

22

Looking Ahead With A Positive Outlook

Category: Opinions, Politics, Society | Comments Off | 234 words | Print

Good evening. Before you ask, yes, I voted today.

Chuck Donovan, John Monds, Kira Willis, and many more Libertarians received my vote today. I will be honest though, as I did vote for a couple Republican candidates as well because I felt they were qualified to hold (or keep) the office they are running for.

I won’t run through each office line by line, but but I will say that it was quite refreshing to vote this year. This is the first time, in a very long time, that I was able to vote for the best candidate in each race, rather than the lesser of two evils in each race.

That’s how it should always be. We should always vote for the best person for the job, rather than following some party line and selecting all the D’s or R’s on the ticket. I’m thinking of getting a bumper sticker made that says “Don’t blame me, I voted for the best candidate this time around!” I bet those would sell.

Whenever I take political polls on the internet, I always end up right-of-center, in the Libertarian end of the arena. This is the first time my vote will actually represent that same result.

I call that progress! I can hardly wait to see what else the Libertarian Party in Georgia has planned for the future.

– Posted with Stuffr! –
Sphere: Related Content

Oct

21

One Stagnant Senator & Time For Real Change

Category: Opinions, Politics, Society | Comments Off | 503 words | Print

It was a sad day in Georgia when Zell Miller decided not to run for re-election in 2004. When it comes to that Senate seat, I’ve been sad ever since.

Johnny Isakson has been involved in Georgia politics since I moved here. First he was the Congressman from Georgia’s 6th district, then he ran for, and won, Miller’s Senate seat.

You’d think that I, a right-of-center independent conservative, might be happy that a Republican was holding that seat rather than a Democrat, and to an extent I suppose that was the lesser of two evils. The problem is, when it comes to doing the right thing for our country, we need the best, not the better of two evils.

One of the biggest problems in Washington today is that fact that it is very difficult to distinguish which candidates are Democrat and which ones are Republican. Once you exam voting records it’s a bit easier to tell them apart, but their similarities are so striking that it really doesn’t even matter anymore which one you select. So why select them at all?

Chuck Donovan, the Libertarian candidate for U.S. Senate (yes, Isakson’s Senate seat), knows that America is sitting on a ticking time bomb of debt and unlike Isakson he is willing to stand up and help stop the spending, reduce the deficit, fight for our liberty, and make sure that government doesn’t stand in the way of prosperity.

You may think this post sounds a bit like a political ad, but then again, most political ads don’t tell you why you should vote for a candidate, do they?

I’ve lived in Georgia for 13 years and I’ve yet to see any benefit of having Johnny Isakson serving the state of Georgia in Washington, D.C.. Whether it’s an issue of personal liberty, illegal immigration, or the federal deficit, I’ve yet to be impressed with his voting record.

Some people will scoff that I said that, but you are not making a stand “against” legislation if you help draft that legislation but then vote against it because of pressure at the last minute. It just doesn’t work that way. You can’t help but dribble a bit when you’re speaking out of both sides of your mouth.

During this election cycle, and most of them before this one, my Republican friends tell me that we need to vote for the Republicans to “get the Democrats out of power”, and that’s all nice and dandy, but what happens to our country in the meantime?

Shouldn’t we vote for people who will actually change our country for the better? Shouldn’t we be sending good people to Washington who can actually do the difficult job ahead of them? Shouldn’t we, as citizens of this great nation, be doing our part to make sure the bad guys go home?

I’m voting tomorrow, and yes, my second vote (after Monds for Governor) will be Donovan for Senate.

– Posted with Stuffr! –
Sphere: Related Content

Oct

20

Two Good Ol’ Boys & One Reason To Vote

Category: Opinions, Politics, Society | Comments Off | 354 words | Print

As I sit here working each day, I receive e-mail after e-mail from Nathan Deal, Roy Barnes, and every Democrat and Republican under the sun telling me why I should not vote for the other guy. Not one of these e-mails give me any reason under the sun to actually vote for them.

Barnes is busy telling me why he thinks Nathan Deal is corrupt and Deal is busy trying to convince me that Barnes does not deserve another chance.

Well, they are both correct, and I won’t vote for either of them.

I personally think Nathan Deal plays “good ol’ boy” politics and the only reason he stepped down from Congress was to avoid the ethics investigation, rather than to focus on his run for Governor.

Roy Barnes does not deserve another chance. The people of Georgia took a stupid pill and elected him once, I hope they don’t take another dose of stupid and give him the keys to the mansion again.

There is one candidate who stands above these two clowns, and that man is John Monds. If you watch any of the debates you quickly see who the effective candidate is. Monds does not spend his time spewing vitriol about his fellow candidates. Monds actually stands up and tells you what he will do to help the state. Why would you vote for two idiots who have already been placed into positions of trust only to disappoint the people of our state, when you could vote for someone who actually stands for smaller government, lower taxes, and more opportunity?

No matter where you live, you should educate yourself before you head to the polls, and if you live in Georgia, do your research on Deal, Barnes, and Monds. You will, however, need a shovel, and some air freshener. Once you get past the muck and the other crap surrounding the first two, you’ll be pleasantly surprised by Monds and his stand on the issues.

I’ll be casting my vote on Friday, and my first choice will be John Monds for Governor.

– Posted with Stuffr! –
Sphere: Related Content

Oct

19

I’ll Take Knowledge Over Ignorance, Thank You

Category: Opinions, Politics, Society | Comments Off | 550 words | Print

There was a huge stink in the media today.

Apparently, during a U.S. Senate candidates debate in Delaware, GOP candidate Christine O’Donnell asked her Democrat opponent Chris Coons, “Where in the Constitution is separation of church and state?”

The crowd, full of law students, erupted into laughter and the media has lambasted her all day today. The funny thing is, the United States Constitution does not mention the separation of church and state, the U.S. Constitution does not define the separation of church and state, and the U.S. Constitution does not in any way imply the separation of church and state.

Coons replied that the First Amendment establishes the separation of church and state, but that was an incorrect answer. As I said in the previous paragraph, the separation of church and state is not defined, mentioned, or implied, within the United States Constitution.

The First Amendment states,

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The First Amendment clearly prohibits Congress from making any laws respecting the establishment of religion, but it does not in any way construe what many believe to be the separation of church and state.

In fact, the term “separation of church and state” is merely an offshoot of the original phrase written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to the Danbury Baptists Association which was concerned about the U.S. Constitution not reaching all the way down to the state level.

The original statement reads, “I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.”

He was clearly re-assuring the Baptists of Danbury that their religious freedoms would be protected by the U.S. Constitution. The First Amendment places a restriction on the state to prevent its interference in religious practice, it does not remove all religion from government.

If the founding fathers truly meant to imply a true separation, Jefferson’s comment (which was made in 1802) would not have been completely ignored by the courts in the United States for nearly 150 years, when in 1947 then Justice Hugo Black ruled in the Everson v. Board Of Education case.

Many legal armchair analysts cite the Everson case when they argue in support of the separation of church and state, but the decision in the Everson case actually upheld the use of taxpayer money to transport children to Catholic and other parochial schools, therefore negating the entire “separation of church and state” argument as it is used in today’s society and portrayed in today’s media.

Many people believe, and maybe rightly so, that Christine O’Donnell is not qualified to serve as Senator from the state of Delaware, but the fact is, she was right.

At this point I think it would be more beneficial to everyone to have one Senator who was knowledgeable about the U.S. Constitution with little experience, than any “soon-to-be” lawyer who was sitting in that room and laughed when she asked that simple question.

– Posted with Stuffr! –
Sphere: Related Content

Oct

16

We Don’t Need More Stupid Laws

Category: Opinions, Politics, Society | Comments Off | 516 words | Print

Government officials love to write a lot of mumbo jumbo into their policies and procedures. One of the most confusing places to find that mumbo jumbo is on the election ballot when there are amendments or referendums to vote on.

Take the first amendment on the 2010 ballot here in Georgia for instance.

Shall the Constitution of Georgia be amended so as to make Georgia more economically competitive by authorizing legislation to uphold reasonable competitive agreements?

At first glance, it seems completely harmless, doesn’t it? Of course, we all want our state to be more economically competitive, especially in this economy. Right?

Well, the first assumption is that this amendment pertains to making the state of Georgia more competitive, and that is not necessarily the case. In fact, this amendment has nothing to do with making our state more competitive, it has everything to do with making it economically competitive for companies within the state when they hire new employees.

Most people, including this writer, got the impression this was about the state bidding for jobs; but as people in the know begin to speak up it seems it is more about controlling employees on the job; and preventing them from leaving one job and taking one with a competitor doing the same work. In this situation, they are asked to sign an agreement that they will not take a job with a competitor for at least two years after leaving their present employer.

We’ve all seen non-compete agreements, heck I’ve even signed a few in my time. But think about the consequences of this being done on a widespread basis across the entire state.

For example, let’s say you are skilled in tailoring, and you go to work for a small company. On your first day you fill out all your new employee paperwork you sign this new non-compete agreement. Then, just three months later you get laid-off as the company makes cutbacks. Guess what? You still have 21 months before you can work for another company in a similar role. Ouch.

Sure, companies would be happier knowing when they hire someone they won’t stick around for training and then bust loose for a better paying job down the road, but what about those who are honest, hard working, people who want to do a good job but get screwed in the end?

I’m sure the argument about this amendment could be explained logically from either side, but the key word in the proposed amendment is “reasonable”. What exactly would a “reasonable” competitive agreement consist of? Well, we can’t be sure of that before the amendment is passed into law can we?

My recommendation at this time, based on the wording of the amendment, is to vote no. We don’t need the state of Georgia interfering with the employment practices in the private sector.

If you’re in a highly skilled profession and the employer asks you sign a non-compete agreement, that’s one thing. Making it a law is just stupid.

– Posted with Stuffr! –
Sphere: Related Content

Next Page →