A+ A A-

Backlash continues in response to religious war against women

To The Daily Sun,
The misogynist and religious war against women is not going well at all. Time and time again, tea party plagued states pass unconstitutional laws regarding abortion and family health care clinics. The strategy is to close as many clinics as possible and limit pregnancy termination to 20 weeks. Sometimes 18. Unfortunately for the puritanical party, that time frame is unconstitutional after Roe v. Wade. After the tea party rode into power on economic platforms, once in power, the Trojan Horse's doors opened at night and all the screaming religious banshees took to the legislative halls throughout America. Wars against women, workers, and voters were declared. Seven of 10 support Roe v. Wade so many were aghast as the minions of the religious right assaulted the laws protecting a woman's right to choose. And the clinics. But alas, the Imams, Ayatollahs and Mullahs of the Christian right are now being tarred, feathered and pilloried. Right wing abortion laws have been struck down by the courts in eleven states in the last year: Oklahoma, Georgia, Mississippi, Arizona, North Carolina, Kansas. Idaho, Texas (2011), Idaho, Arkansas, and North Dakota. Furthermore, a federal court has ruled that emergency contraception must be made available over the counter for all ages.
Many of these cases will eventually end up at the U.S. Supreme Court where a 5-4 majority ruling against the laws is a likely outcome on most of these various restrictive laws. It all depends on Justice Kennedy really. But Roberts could be a surprise, too. After Oklahoma appealed, the court sent a list of questions regarding their blocked RU-486 ban. So, it has begun and we progressives and moderates hope for an outcome as uplifting as the DOMA and Prop 8 rulings which crushed the tea party and the religious right.
In related matters, a Reagan-appointed judge struck down the use of anti-abortion license plates in North Carolina because pro-choice ones were not also offered by the state. And a Louisiana abortion doctor liability law designed to drive abortion providers out of practice was also struck down.
So all in all, things are looking up as the backlash continues against the Christian Sharia.
James Veverka
Tilton

Last Updated on Tuesday, 09 July 2013 12:27

Hits: 260

The 60s? This ain't your dady's Republican Party anymore

To The Daily Sun,
I don't know whether to laugh or cry when I read Bob Meade writing that 80 percent of the Republicans in Congress voted for the Civil Rights Act in 1964. It's political false advertising — like putting a 767 next to a biplane and saying that all airplanes are the same. Where are those 80 percent to be found in today's Republican party? They're not. Those congressmen and senators couldn't even be nominated in today's version of the party. If they were already in office they would lose primaries to opponents from the knuckle-dragging wing which currently holds the entire party by its shorthairs.
This ain't your daddy's Republican party. Look at last year's presidential primaries. In 2012 clownish buffoons like Bachman, Cain, Trump and Perry were all front-runners. 40 years ago they would have been laughed off the debate stage by fellow Republicans.
Oh, and those one-third of Democrats in Congress who voted against the Civil Rights Acts? Like ole Strom Thurmond and his fellow Dixiecrats, many of them became Republicans and formed the base of the new GOP in the late '60s.
This aint your daddy's Republican party. It isn't Dwight Eisenhower's or Teddy Roosevelt's or Abraham Lincoln's either.
Werner Dietrich
Laconia

Last Updated on Tuesday, 09 July 2013 12:22

Hits: 351

We've reached point where religion is viewed as harmful to society

To The Daily Sun,
When case precedent becomes so far removed from the Constitution from which judges are supposedly basing their ruling on; that you can't recognize one from the other, it's time for the average Joe to take a look at the Constitution and the ruling and see for himself how they square. I'd like to look at Abington School District v. Schempp, the 1963 U.S. Supreme Court case that rendered school sponsored Bible reading in public schools "unconstitutional".
In Abington School District v Schempp, the Supreme Court ruled that school-sponsored Bible reading, even though the student could opt out with a note from his parents, violated the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment to the Constitution, that even though the 1st Amendment as well guaranties the free exercise of religion, the court judged that, that free exercise was subject to limitations and arbitrarily judged that school-sponsored Bible reading fell outside of that guarantee. Or if not arbitrary they judged that this exercise was harmful to at least some of the students.
Let's look at what the amendments to U.S. Constitution say concerning this: Within the 1st Amendment it says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;". The 9th Amendment says,
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The 10th Amendment says, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Within the 14th Amendment it says "No state shall" "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." This amendment was passed to guarantee newly freed slaves equal protection under the law.
The court used the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, quoted above, to apply the establishment clause, also above, to the states. Note that in the 1st Amendment, the establishment clause is specific to Congress where as the free exercise clause is broad. The 9th Amendment, also above, forbids any right written by way of amendment from being interpreted in a manner that will undervalue other rights, as the use of the 14th Amendment to disparage the free exercise of religion guaranteed in the 1st Amendment In a functioning democracy, state and local governments most closely reflect the free will of the people. If the Warren Court were interested in making a constitutional ruling and were not pursuing some other agenda that previous courts patiently pioneered, it should have upheld The Abington School District's right to have these exercises. For in order for the court to accomplish its desired affect it needed to change the specificity of the establishment clause, a major change in its meaning. This was done for them by a previous court in a previous ruling, this is how they do it with out appearing to be revolutionary. They then ignore the 9th and 10th Amendments completely and disparaged the peoples protection from Congress "prohibiting the free exercise" of religion. In doing this and in other similar court decisions, within a generation and a half they have changed the character of the American people, for the compulsory nature of education and the cost of private education being prohibitive to most, most of our children attend public schools. Those who graduate from high school spend 12 years, at an average 1078 hours per year, in a school system that God has been expelled from. These decisions have turned our public schools into purveyors of atheism and the expounders of all sorts of evil doctrines, which was the natural result of these decisions, for social rules governing the conduct of a people always flow from some type of apriori assumption. If you can't assume God, you are forced to assume the other. The neutral stance would have been to allow the FREE exercise of religion to continue.
George Washington and his right hand man, Alexander Hamilton would have considered these decisions treasonous. Read it for yourself in the 27th-29th paragraphs of George Washington's farewell address. Here's an excerpt, "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."
Can you see it? The issue is not that the practice of school sponsored Bible reading has been unconstitutional, but that the attitude has changed from viewing religion as an indispensable support, to that of, it is harmful. This will prove to be the undoing of our nation if it is not turned around.
John Demakowski
Franklin

Last Updated on Tuesday, 09 July 2013 12:17

Hits: 294

Siblings of David W. French say thank you for your comfort & support

To The Daily Sun,
The siblings of David W. French would like to acknowledge with grateful appreciation, our deepest gratitude for the very kind and thoughtful expressions of sympathy received during our time of sorrow. We sincerely thank all of our family and friends for their support, generosity and comfort during this most difficult time. We would also like to thank the Portsmouth Regional Hospital and the Town of Rye emergency responders for their services and professional care that was provided to our beloved brother Dave. We will always remember each and every one of you for your thoughtfulness.
Cheryl, Peggy, Debbie, Kathy, Ray, Sherry, Sue, Mike, Pat, George, Sis, Jim, and Jeanne.

Last Updated on Tuesday, 09 July 2013 12:10

Hits: 347

Nature of the universe is conservation; E=mc2 is its statement

To The Daily Sun,
Neo-cons (new conservatives) originated in the 1960s from a group of anti-soviet liberals and social Democrats who come from intellectuals writing in the journal of the American Jewish Committee, which had replaced the earlier Contemporary Jewish Record of the 1940s. Letter writer George Maloof referenced neo-cons in a long opening paragraph about conservatives. The twist being his reference is towards those "old" liberals who just can't progress. Ronald Reagan was a Democrat dissatisfied with the neo-libs, who are the neo-cons Maloof references; he ran as a Republican.
He goes on then to "broad stroke" conservatives as reactionary fundamentalist of the "Religious Right" of all the religions around the world who are notorious for overreaching. The thick and desirably sticking paint on his brush, a colorless "cognitive dissonance", is summed up as, "they don't like change". Ending with what might be a brilliant thought, "Einstein, who was no conservative . . .", except Einstein was the ultimate conservative.
For over a hundred years an effort has sought to disprove his foundational equations, string theory the latest, all have only succeeded to secure it. The nature of the universe is conservation, was it otherwise the energy which created it would long ago have burnt out. E=mc² is the statement of conservation as it states energy and mass are equivalent. The ends of the universe is limited only by our ability to see.
Psychologists have terms for everything, if they don't they lump it in somewhere as it may always be redefined.
His gospel of terms and definition chase after a desperate search for a truth which only may be found when one looks into a mirror. That long list of labeling others is the cloth which comforts those who are unable to define themselves.
Politically, a conservative — which I consider myself — is one who adheres to the Articles of the N.H. Constitution, Part I — The Bill of Rights. Has there been change, yes, and there has been a more recent redefining of the RSAs as a means of that change. Article IV. Among the natural rights, some are in their very nature unalienable, because no equivalent can be given or received for them. Of this kind are the RIGHTS OF CONSCIENCE. Psychologists most likely have a term for that as well, fortunate for them it is "their" right as well!
G.W. Brooks
Meredith

Last Updated on Tuesday, 09 July 2013 10:14

Hits: 284

 
The Laconia Daily Sun - All Rights Reserved
Privacy Policy
Powered by BENN a division of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Login or Register

LOG IN