More on Religion

I have been reading Democracy in America, Volume 2, by Alexis de Tocqueville as part of a PhD assignment. What struck me was on page 444 where he writes "The greatest advantage of religions is to inspire diametrically contrary urges. Every religion places the object of man's desires outside and beyond worldly goods and naturally lifts the soul into regions far above the realm of the senses. Every religion also imposes on each man some obligations towards mankind, to be performed in common with the rest of mankind, and so draws him away, from time to time from thinking about himself."

Having spent some time pondering over these words by Tocqueville written in the 1830s I came to several conclusions. First, if more of us were religious then we would be better citizens of our nation which means more honest people paying more taxes to support our governments. Secondly, if citizens are more religious then there would be more people opposed to abortions and less abortions would mean more babies are born who then grow into more people paying taxes thus benefitting the government even more.

What do you guys think about this? Agree or disagree?

Freedom of what?

Tell me what are your thoughts on this issue (like don't we have enough issues?).

Cheerleaders at Lakeview-Fort Oglethorpe High School in Georgia have for many years created inspirational banners for home football games, the kind of banners players burst through as they come on to the field. Particularly since 9/11, the messages on the banners have often been verses from Scripture, such as "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." But based on one single verbal complaint from a local resident, the Bible has been banned from pregame banners. Once again the tyranny of the minority – in this case a minority of one – has threatened both religious liberty and freedom of speech.

Eminent Domain

Great postings and I appreciate you time and efforts in this great event. Some say that the real meaning of "life, liberty, and the pursuite of happiness" as so stated in the Declaration of Independence and in other founding documents actually means life, liberty, and owning land. I have been searching where this is explained and if any of you find it let me know. The fifth amemdment says "nor private property be taken for public use without just compensation". How then could the Supreme Court rule against land owners in the fairly recent eminent domain case? It seems to weight in favor of municipalities who decide that a specific piece of land would better serve the public if used for a highway or a park or something else and how do we ensure that the owner is given fair value for his or her land? Let me know what you think.

The Constitution

The purpose of my blog is to invoke discussion about the U.S. Constitution. My PhD is in Constitutional Law so have read and studied the Constitution many time and yet I still learn something every time I read it. So I will pose a question and some comments and I would love to hear your take on in.

Issue: I recently read the following, "In 2009, 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Stephen Reinhardt declared DOMA (Defense Of Marriage Act) unconstitutional in a case where the federal government refused to grant spousal benefits . . . On March 3, 2009, GLAD filed a Federal Court challenge, Gill v. OPM based on the Equal Protection Clause (14th Amendment). It questions only the DOMA provision that the federal government does not have to recognize same-sex marriages." I am concerned that the DOMA will be declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. What can be done to stop this? Will a state's right of defining a marriage be overridden by the federal? It is only a matter of time that the Supreme Court will hear a case involving same-sex marriage and the DOMA will (in my opinion) be ruled "unconstitutional". What can we the people do?