Archive for U.S. Constitution

Any Torture is Un-American

Posted in Atheist, culture, history, humanity, politics, random, religion, thoughts with tags , , , , , , , , , on September 5, 2009 by chouck017894

In the harsh winter of 1776, a time of crisis for the American colonies, General George Washington sent written orders to officers in charge of overseeing captured enemy soldiers.  One four-line sentence stands out clearly expressing the belief shared by all the founding fathers, which was that each human being retains dignity before the Creator.  That one short sentence was, “Treat them with humanity.”

The authors and signers of the Constitution were men committed to enlightenment principles, and when they had met in 1776 to declare independence from the imposed injustice of a despotic king, their desire was to establish a new nation devoted to those enlightenment principles.  Disrespect for any human life could have no place in such a noble land.  Consequently, the founding fathers emphatically forbade any use of “cruel and unusual punishment” which had for centuries been the mode of conduct throughout church-dominated Europe.

The “uncouth men” of a “course country” dared to defy the traditions of the self-defined “civilized” motherland, and the American yeoman soldiers were expected to treat even enemy soldiers with respect.  And here was set down a purely American tradition; the enlightened principle that declares the equality of all persons before the powers of Creation.  Such a truly noble perception of each person’s inherent worth in the universe astonished the Bible inspired enemy troopers who were taught to believe that physical domination reflected heaven’s favor.  But the colonies clung to enlightenment and endured—and the enlightenment principles they had used as their standard were raised in triumph and held high for the world to reach out for in wonder, hope and inspiration.

Today, nearly two hundred and thirty years after the nation dedicated to enlightenment and equality was founded, we have witnessed the blatant betrayal of those high principles by those who gained political power in a decidedly undemocratic manner.  Authorization of “enhanced” torture methods were actually set in motion.  The founding fathers must have been pacing the floor in agitation in which Dick Cheney, John Ashcroft, Donald Rumsfeld, George Trent and Condoleezza Rice unashamedly conspired and approved the application of specific torture methods (“enhanced”) for enemy prisoners.  John Ashcroft, an oh-so-devout Christian, perhaps felt some psychic presence, for he is said to have wondered aloud, “Why are we talking about this in the White House?  History will not judge this kindly.”

As a side note let us note here—again—that the War of Independence between the American colonies and Britain was not over officially until 1797: only in that year was the final treaty signed at Tripoli recognizing the American colonies as an independent nation.  Within that document was expressed still another bold declaration, i.e. Article 11 which proclaimed in clear and unmistakable words a major principle of the United States Government.  Here are the powerful and precise words of the nation’s dedication to genuine enlightenment.  “The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian  religion.”   The history of Europe was known to all the founding fathers, and the bloody record clearly disclosed that mixing church and state was unacceptable if genuine freedom was to flourish.

Leave a comment »

Burden of Proof

Posted in Atheist, Bible, Christianity, culture, history, humanity, politics, random, religion, Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , on May 12, 2009 by chouck017894

In a court of law, at least in the United States, there is declared an obligation to prove affirmatively a disputed claim relating to an issue that is being contended in court. Because it is always the plaintiff (claimant) that brings the action, it is the plaintiff’s responsibility to persuade the court of the merits (truth) of his case. The plaintiff must therefore establish his case beyond a reasonable doubt.

In a civil case, however, the claimant is allowed what is called “a fair preponderance of the evidence” to establish the truth of his claim. In other words, reasonable doubt can be muddied and manipulated by legal theatrics.

How do these rules of “justice” stand up when questions regarding religion are presented? Unfortunately, history shows repeatedly that in cases debating issues of “belief” the scales of rational justice too often suffer considerable abuse.

In a theocracy, for example, where some religous faction holds iron-fist control of the state, “justice” is balanced against a defendant’s acceptance of the in-power’s religion. In such a religion-dominated governing setup, if one is charged with even a misdemeanor and does not subscribe to the prescribed manmade dogma, the defendant has virtually no chance of receiving genuine justice. When a faith system—any faith system—exerts muscle over the balance of national inquiry, neither spiritual nor human welfare is being served: only those in the seat of power benefit.

So it was considerably alarming in the United States when, in the opening days of the 21st century, the citizens of the U.S. found religious fundamentalists actively seeking to destroy the whole foundation of democratic principles in hopes of imposing their narrow concepts of a “Bible-based” nation. Through their clamor and forgery of the nation’s true history they thus placed themselves in the role of plaintiffs in the court of popular evaluation. Unfortunately for them, the claim of “revealed” wisdom and guidance made by these would-be controllers is not a premise that can be advanced beyond reasonable doubt. Presenting the Bible as their authority is not persuasive either, even in a civil court, for there are countless translations and interpretationsof that book. Moreover, the original authors of those stories were convinced that Earth was the center of all Creation.

But there still remain reasons to worry about the religious fanatics seeking to chip away at the principles set forth in the U.S. Constitution and in the Bill of Rights. The heavy-handed manner of the Supreme Court in the 2000 election belied the noble principles of “goverment of the people, by the people, and for the people,” and by Supreme Court rule a man was set in the Oval Office who brazenly claimed to be chosen by God! Inspired by biblical tales no doubt, he and his cohorts quickly mired the nation neck-deep in an illegal war; those who were taken prisoner were held without charge and without access to legal counsel; torture was approved and indulged in; citizens’ rights to privacy were betrayed—and numerous other biblical niceties were extended. Meanwhile the rich quickly got richer as they sank even deeper into spiritual poverty.

Leave a comment »