Sometimes citizenship is just no fun.
Jan. 21st, 2004 04:50 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
stakebaitFinally read the state of the union.
Bleah, Patriot Act. Y'all have heard me do this rant before, right? Ibid.
Fuck you, "reflect our values" in a new immigration policy without amnesty. You and I have no common values. I value an open door and a safe haven, the words on the Statue of Liberty, forgiveness, second chances. I don't know what you value, besides not me.
Drug testing in the schools. Which children are legally required to go to. Because that is no way as invasive as search and seizure. It's only invading your actual body. It honestly hasn't occured to him that the state has to show a compelling interest to violate children's constitutional rights too, has it? Get a fucking warrant.
Abstinence education. Which has been shown ineffective in every study I've ever seen. Gosh, I guess government really *does* want to just throw my tax dollars away. And here I thought that was anti-social-spending bullshit.
Defense of marriage. You've seen me do this rant before too, so ibid. But I've got to add "declares that one state may not redefine marriage for other states."
Um, dude? Full Faith and Credit Clause? We addressed this issue like 40 years ago with interracial marriage and got the opposite answer? Do you really not read history or do you just think we don't? Granted, Loving v. Virginia also referred to the 14th amendment to overrule the state's political interest in regulating marriage, and we don't have an amendment guaranteeing equal rights for gays, but it's certainly not as black and white, pardon the pun, as he's making it sound.
The same moral tradition that defines marriage also teaches that each individual has dignity and value in God's sight.
*Which* moral tradition is that? The ones that still allow polygamy? The ones that don't believe in a single deity, or a diety at all? This is not a Christian country, or even a Judeo Christian one, and my dignity in God's sight is not the issue. It's my dignity in the sight of the state.
Faith based initiatives -- um, *have* you seen me do this one before? In essence, my objection to it is that they promote indirectly, if not directly, their religious objectives using government funds, and can create a situation where someone who is uncomfortable, or even forbidden by their own beliefs, from dealing with a religious organization will no longer have any religion-neutral place to turn. Bush said in his last year's state of the union address that faith-based initiatives "can transform America one heart and one soul at a time." If you don't *want* the needy to have to transform their souls to get help for their bodies, that's scary.
Also, the wildly insensitive dismissal of pagans that Whitehouse officials have shown in public comment on faith based initiatives just underlines the bias in how these programs are concieved and administered. Someone who believes that religions that are not what they're used to aren't real and are too fringe to do charitable works is not a safe guardian of the border between church and state, and cannot be trusted to create a level playing field between faiths, let alone groups with different views on faith altogether (anybody think they'd fund an atheist group?)
In conclusion, bleah.
Mer
Bleah, Patriot Act. Y'all have heard me do this rant before, right? Ibid.
Fuck you, "reflect our values" in a new immigration policy without amnesty. You and I have no common values. I value an open door and a safe haven, the words on the Statue of Liberty, forgiveness, second chances. I don't know what you value, besides not me.
Drug testing in the schools. Which children are legally required to go to. Because that is no way as invasive as search and seizure. It's only invading your actual body. It honestly hasn't occured to him that the state has to show a compelling interest to violate children's constitutional rights too, has it? Get a fucking warrant.
Abstinence education. Which has been shown ineffective in every study I've ever seen. Gosh, I guess government really *does* want to just throw my tax dollars away. And here I thought that was anti-social-spending bullshit.
Defense of marriage. You've seen me do this rant before too, so ibid. But I've got to add "declares that one state may not redefine marriage for other states."
Um, dude? Full Faith and Credit Clause? We addressed this issue like 40 years ago with interracial marriage and got the opposite answer? Do you really not read history or do you just think we don't? Granted, Loving v. Virginia also referred to the 14th amendment to overrule the state's political interest in regulating marriage, and we don't have an amendment guaranteeing equal rights for gays, but it's certainly not as black and white, pardon the pun, as he's making it sound.
The same moral tradition that defines marriage also teaches that each individual has dignity and value in God's sight.
*Which* moral tradition is that? The ones that still allow polygamy? The ones that don't believe in a single deity, or a diety at all? This is not a Christian country, or even a Judeo Christian one, and my dignity in God's sight is not the issue. It's my dignity in the sight of the state.
Faith based initiatives -- um, *have* you seen me do this one before? In essence, my objection to it is that they promote indirectly, if not directly, their religious objectives using government funds, and can create a situation where someone who is uncomfortable, or even forbidden by their own beliefs, from dealing with a religious organization will no longer have any religion-neutral place to turn. Bush said in his last year's state of the union address that faith-based initiatives "can transform America one heart and one soul at a time." If you don't *want* the needy to have to transform their souls to get help for their bodies, that's scary.
Also, the wildly insensitive dismissal of pagans that Whitehouse officials have shown in public comment on faith based initiatives just underlines the bias in how these programs are concieved and administered. Someone who believes that religions that are not what they're used to aren't real and are too fringe to do charitable works is not a safe guardian of the border between church and state, and cannot be trusted to create a level playing field between faiths, let alone groups with different views on faith altogether (anybody think they'd fund an atheist group?)
In conclusion, bleah.
Mer
