According to this Fox News article, if you are advertising for a roommate in Michigan, it is illegal to request that the roommate be a certain religion, sexual orientation, etc. The only request you can "legally" make is gender!
The woman in this article simply put up a private announcement on the Church bulletin, asking for a "Christian roommate." Now, fair housing officials have said that in addition to hundreds of dollars of fees, they would like to require the woman to go through "fair housing training." Basically, they want to indoctrinate her against her religious beliefs so she won't ever consider making such a terrible blunder again as asking to live with someone who shares her values. I mean, what a ridiculous idea.
So, does this mean I couldn't ask for a roommate who does their own dishes? Is this now considered a hate crime? I am really appalled at this intrusion of government into citizens' private lives. This legislation is unconstitutional and certainly infringes on freedom of religion. I hope and pray that this woman will find a Christian roommate and get out of this lawsuit with her faith intact!
Showing posts with label Government Intrusion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Government Intrusion. Show all posts
23 October 2010
04 November 2009
Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations"
Hailed as the foundation for modern economic literature, The Wealth of Nations came about in the same time period as the American Revolution and matched the Revolution in novelty and genius (Cropsey). It was printed in the same year as the Declaration of Independence and is a reflection of the times with its call for an extension of liberty. Adam Smith, the Scottish Author, gave voice to many revolutionaries’ desires for freedom in the marketplace as it refuted the practice of mercantilism and paired the abstract of freedom with an new concrete theory of free markets.
The accepted economic theory of the day was mercantilism. Mercantilism was the practice of determining a nation’s wealth by how much treasure the nation had. The main component of this practice was the government’s regulation of trade to assure that as much money as possible stayed within their economy. Adam Smith refuted this system by arguing that a nation’s wealth should be determined by the lifestyle of its people, or, in other words, by the per capita income. He also argued that “the invisible hand of the free market directed economic life more effectively and fairly than governmental intervention” (Foner 224).
The principle of free markets was founded on the principle that if a person is left free to act, their human nature compels them to act rationally in their own self interest. As every person acts in their own interest, each trade will be for the benefit of both parties, though they may not profit equally. Some of the pragmatic elements of a market economy include flexible currency, private corporations, industrialization, and consumerism.
This new theory of free markets fit exactly with the revolutionaries’ ideals of liberty and personal responsibility. As the war ended and an economy was built, the principles found in the Wealth of Nations were incorporated into their system. The writers of the United States Constitution were careful to include no mention of how an economy or a financial sector should be run, to avoid beginning a tradition of government regulation. Free market theory also affected how the banking system and treasury department were organized.
Adam Smith presented many new, exciting economic ideas which quickly spread aross the world. Its influence was especially timely in the forming of the new American nation. Through the rebuttal of mercantilism and an expansion of liberty into concrete theory, The Wealth of Nations became a foundation for modern economics.
Works Cited
Cropsey, Joseph. "Wealth of Nations, The." Encyclopedia Americana. 2009. Grolier Online. 3
Foner, Eric. Give Me Liberty!, Second Edition, Volume 1 (Give Me Liberty). 2nd ed. Vol. 1.
Holzapfel, Richard. "Lecture in BYU American Government and Society Course." Brigham
22 October 2009
Religious Freedom: The First Amendment Under Attack
In the past century, there has been a constant, subtle attack on a principle that lies at the very heart of our nation’s foundation. Through media, legal, and societal pressures, there has been a push to eradicate this principle from our society. Many people claim to be advancing this truth, even as they unwittingly take an ax to its foundation. The principle under attack is the right of religious freedom. American society must recognize the fundamental and natural right of religious freedom and be more vigilant in its protection.
The very first Constitutional amendment ratified in the Bill of Rights says that, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” (Constitution). Many would not see any problem with this statement in regards to our current government and society. However, I disagree. The most prominent example in my mind is the pending Hate Crimes Bill currently being discussed in the U.S. Congress. A pastor may refuse to hire a homosexual individual because it is against his or her religious beliefs and then may be penalized by this law. Wouldn’t that law be “respecting an establishment of religion” by refusing to allow the pastor to follow his religious beliefs?
The more pronounced abuses against religious freedom fall under the phrase “prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” which is what I’d like to cover more fully.
One of the most authoritative voices on religious freedom is Thomas Jefferson. In 1786, the Virginia House of Burgesses passed a bill drawn up by Jefferson titled “An Act for Establishing Religious Freedom.” Among many important points in this bill is a statement emphasizing the free practice of religion. It says:
“No man shall be…enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in nowise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities” (Jefferson 119).
While there are fortunately very few laws that currently restrain religious freedom, it is certainly true that there are media and societal pressures that would restrain a man from arguing his positions on matters of religion and certainly there are forces claiming that the practice of religion affects a person’s civil capacities. One example of this abuse is found in the aftermath of the passing of Proposition 8 in California. Just a few months ago, Proposition 8 was passed in a state-wide vote declaring that marriage is between one man and one woman. Furious at the outcome of the long and intense debate, homosexual activists persecuted financial donors, vandalized and destroyed church properties, and intimidated anyone who had supported the cause. They also started several lawsuits against churches and religious officials claiming that religion should have no part in a political debate.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares that:
“Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. This right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance” (US Code).
Notice that this statement includes public life. This affects the increasing arguments against nativity scenes in front of town halls, and a recent controversy surrounding high school cheerleaders using scripture verses in their banners. It also affects the ban against football players no longer being allowed to drop a bended knee in deference to God after a touchdown and school officials being banned from offering prayers at extracurricular functions.
The writers of the Bill of Rights purposely placed the right to religious freedom as the first amendment. It is an absolutely vital principle in our government and society. The United States Code, a federal law, states:
“The right to freedom of religion undergirds the very origin and existence of the United States….[The Nation’s Founders] established in law, as a fundamental right and as a pillar of our Nation, the right to freedom of religion.”
As citizens of the United States, we must uphold the Constitution and protect the right to religious freedom from attack. It is a natural and fundamental right that is at the core of our nation. Religious freedom is a major basis for the founding of America and it is one of the most prominent reasons for America’s goodness and virtue. As Alexander de Tocqueville’s famous quote says, “America is great because she is good. If America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great” (qtd. in Couch).
Works Cited
The Constitution of the United States with Index and The Declaration of Independence. 2nd ed. Malta, ID: National Center for Constitutional Studies, 2005. Print.
Couch, Stuart. "Couch: A Question of Conscience — The Center for the Study of Human Rights in the Americas (CSHRA)." Center for the Studies of Human Rights in the Americas. UCDavis, 2008. Web. 22 Oct. 2009..
Jefferson, Thomas. "An Act for Establishing Religious Freedom." 1785. Voices of Freedom: A Documentary History. 2nd ed. Vol. 1. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2008. 119. Print.
"US CODE: Title 22,6401. Findings; policy." LII
Legal Information Institute. Cornell University Law School, 2008. Web. 21 Oct. 2009..
The very first Constitutional amendment ratified in the Bill of Rights says that, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” (Constitution). Many would not see any problem with this statement in regards to our current government and society. However, I disagree. The most prominent example in my mind is the pending Hate Crimes Bill currently being discussed in the U.S. Congress. A pastor may refuse to hire a homosexual individual because it is against his or her religious beliefs and then may be penalized by this law. Wouldn’t that law be “respecting an establishment of religion” by refusing to allow the pastor to follow his religious beliefs?
The more pronounced abuses against religious freedom fall under the phrase “prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” which is what I’d like to cover more fully.
One of the most authoritative voices on religious freedom is Thomas Jefferson. In 1786, the Virginia House of Burgesses passed a bill drawn up by Jefferson titled “An Act for Establishing Religious Freedom.” Among many important points in this bill is a statement emphasizing the free practice of religion. It says:
“No man shall be…enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in nowise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities” (Jefferson 119).
While there are fortunately very few laws that currently restrain religious freedom, it is certainly true that there are media and societal pressures that would restrain a man from arguing his positions on matters of religion and certainly there are forces claiming that the practice of religion affects a person’s civil capacities. One example of this abuse is found in the aftermath of the passing of Proposition 8 in California. Just a few months ago, Proposition 8 was passed in a state-wide vote declaring that marriage is between one man and one woman. Furious at the outcome of the long and intense debate, homosexual activists persecuted financial donors, vandalized and destroyed church properties, and intimidated anyone who had supported the cause. They also started several lawsuits against churches and religious officials claiming that religion should have no part in a political debate.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares that:
“Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. This right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance” (US Code).
Notice that this statement includes public life. This affects the increasing arguments against nativity scenes in front of town halls, and a recent controversy surrounding high school cheerleaders using scripture verses in their banners. It also affects the ban against football players no longer being allowed to drop a bended knee in deference to God after a touchdown and school officials being banned from offering prayers at extracurricular functions.
The writers of the Bill of Rights purposely placed the right to religious freedom as the first amendment. It is an absolutely vital principle in our government and society. The United States Code, a federal law, states:
“The right to freedom of religion undergirds the very origin and existence of the United States….[The Nation’s Founders] established in law, as a fundamental right and as a pillar of our Nation, the right to freedom of religion.”
As citizens of the United States, we must uphold the Constitution and protect the right to religious freedom from attack. It is a natural and fundamental right that is at the core of our nation. Religious freedom is a major basis for the founding of America and it is one of the most prominent reasons for America’s goodness and virtue. As Alexander de Tocqueville’s famous quote says, “America is great because she is good. If America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great” (qtd. in Couch).
Works Cited
The Constitution of the United States with Index and The Declaration of Independence. 2nd ed. Malta, ID: National Center for Constitutional Studies, 2005. Print.
Couch, Stuart. "Couch: A Question of Conscience — The Center for the Study of Human Rights in the Americas (CSHRA)." Center for the Studies of Human Rights in the Americas. UCDavis, 2008. Web. 22 Oct. 2009.
Jefferson, Thomas. "An Act for Establishing Religious Freedom." 1785. Voices of Freedom: A Documentary History. 2nd ed. Vol. 1. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2008. 119. Print.
"US CODE: Title 22,6401. Findings; policy." LII
Legal Information Institute. Cornell University Law School, 2008. Web. 21 Oct. 2009.
05 October 2009
The Two Fundamental Laws
In my political science class today, we were discussing the correlation between Politics and Economics. My Professor, Kirk Hawkins, told us:
"Protection of property rights and and enforcement of contracts are crucial for investments, innovation, and growth."
This statement immediately reminded me of the concept of the "Two Fundamental Laws". The Two Fundamental Laws are an idea presented by Richard J. Maybury in his educational "Uncle Eric" book series. It is my belief that these are the only laws any government or society needs to function, and I would like to present them for your consideration. They are:
![]()
"Protection of property rights and and enforcement of contracts are crucial for investments, innovation, and growth."
This statement immediately reminded me of the concept of the "Two Fundamental Laws". The Two Fundamental Laws are an idea presented by Richard J. Maybury in his educational "Uncle Eric" book series. It is my belief that these are the only laws any government or society needs to function, and I would like to present them for your consideration. They are:
24 September 2009
Pelosi Ignoring Fiscal Realities of Healthcare
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is pushing government-run healthcare reform while government-run Medicare is already $38 trillion in debt!
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Politics/Default.aspx?id=695448
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Politics/Default.aspx?id=695448
Morality Necessary for a Free Government
This is a quote from George Washington's farewell address when he left the presidency. He listed several important guidelines for future political decisions, and here is one of the most important ones he listed:
"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.
It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?"
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp
Please go back and read that last paragraph and make sure you understand it.
Who, indeed? Who can look indifferently at our government's push to take morality and religion out of public affairs? Why are we standing idly by?
Also, please note that he gave this speech while still the President of the United States. So much for separation of church and state.
"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.
It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?"
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp
Please go back and read that last paragraph and make sure you understand it.
Who, indeed? Who can look indifferently at our government's push to take morality and religion out of public affairs? Why are we standing idly by?
Also, please note that he gave this speech while still the President of the United States. So much for separation of church and state.
23 September 2009
Pandemic Bill
I can't believe this... Now they're using swine flu to take away people's rights? This bill would let officials force their way into your home!
http://www3.whdh.com/news/articles/local/BO123558/?utm_source=Comprehensive&utm_campaign=95f3a41c46-In_brief_9_22-2009&utm_medium=email
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)