posted
This one came out on the week of the 7th-10th. The date on the Decalogue article was accurate then.
From the Desktop of the Editor
I am very pleased with the results of the first edition of The Last Straw. Even with the problems in distribution, I still saw more than enough people walking around with copies or idly glancing through them in class. Feedback was more than a bit sparse, though, and that needs to change. I really need to know what parts you like and don’t like, from content to writing style to layout. Also, if anyone has any brilliant ideas for distribution, e-mail me! I need your help!
The Terrorist You Won’t See on CNN
This week, we have been granted a once-in-a-lifetime interview with terrorist “Fred Flintstone”(Name Changed for Protection).
LS: Hello, Mr. “Flintstone”. You’ve been involved in terrorist activities for how long now?
FF: Seven years. And we don’t like that term. “Terrorist” has such a negative sound. We prefer “freedom fighter”.
LS: What would you say is the difference?
FF: For one, terrorists have shifty eyes. And they use low-quality components in their weapons. I always make sure to use the freshest ingredients possible.
LS: So the difference is just in how high class you are?
FF: And the fact we’re right. The fact we’re right makes us freedom fighters. And being a freedom fighter makes us right. It’s like the difference between Pepsi and Coca-Cola. They’re both over-sweetened swill brewed in garbage bins; but of course, the one you drink is the best.
LS: What sort of activities have you been involved in?
FF: I subscribe to the Guy Fawkes form of freedom fighting. We fail in our endeavors, generally speaking, and then we have a holiday in our honor. Once, I didn’t hijack an armored car and drive straight to Mexico. Instead, I hijacked a Meals on Wheels truck and ended up in Canada.
LS: What’s the UN’s stance on your organization?
FF: I’m not sure they know we exist. We are planning to throw a brick through the window of the representative from Switzerland. It has a threatening note tied to it. That’ll show them what we think of neutrals . . .
LS: What exactly are you fighting for?
FF: Well, I decided long ago I’d be more original in my cause. Animal rights? Ha. Freedom for your people? Been there, done that. Ever since I first became a freedom fighter, I’ve had truly unique values to fight for.
LS: When was that?
FF: When I’d just graduated college. I was a young idealist, and simply appalled at what was going on in the world. For instance: Domino’s refused to drive far enough to deliver to my apartment. And Wal-Mart wouldn’t take my coupons.
LS: Is that all?
FF: (pause) I’d like my landlord to call in a plumber to fix the septic tank. And my roof leaks.
LS: In what way is this freedom fighting, really?
FF: I definitely feel oppressed. I’d like the freedom to flush my toilet. And I want to get rid of all those pots I had to put out to catch the drips from the ceiling.
LS: This has certainly been an interesting interview. Do you have any final words?
FF: Yes, actually. I’d like to thank my mom, my dad, and everyone in New Zealand. And this year, when I win the Emmy for Failed Hijackings, I know it’ll be because of your total lack of support.
The Ten Commandments vs. The Establishment Clause
As of the printing date of this newsletter, the United States Supreme Court has entered its third day of deliberations on the Constitutionality of public displays of the Ten Commandments, also known as the Decalogue. This verdict (whenever they feel the pressing need to reach it…) promises to be a vital forecast for the future of the separation of church and state in this nation.
The main source of conflict in this debacle lies in the First Amendment, which states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” This phrase and all the laws concerning it make up what we know today as the ‘Establishment Clause’ – intended to keep our government from meddling in religion, and perhaps more importantly to keep our religion from meddling in our government. To figure out whether or not something violates the Establishment Clause, our courts use the Lemon and Endorsement test, among others which do not apply to this case.
I intend to demonstrate that prominently displaying the Decalogue in government buildings, especially houses of law, violates the Establishment Clause on both counts. I will assume that you are familiar with the Decalogue. If not, I have placed them on the back page for easy reference.
The Lemon test (arising from Lemon vs. Kurtzman in 1971) states that the action (or display) in question must have a bona fide secular purpose. In response to this, many argue that the Ten Commandments are founding principles of American law. I would politely recommend that you review Commandments I, II, III, and IV before making such an assertion – I don’t quite recall the United States ever being a monotheistic theocracy, as is prescribed by the First commandment.
The fact is that United States law rests on English Common Law and the Roman Laws, found in the Twelve Tables. US law is designed to make a crime a matter of individual versus society, rather than society versus family (as is prescribed in Exodus 20:5). The argument that our laws are based on the Decalogue simply falls apart when you recognize that the six we do respect are universal dictates of moral behavior; this is demonstrated as far back as recorded history allows. The Decalogue, alone and in its entirety, obviously has no secular purpose.
I might remind you at this point that the government display of the Decalogue must only fail one of the tests to be unconstitutional. It has failed the first, but we’ll give it a try with the second test.
The Endorsement test is much simpler. It states that an action is in violation of the EC if it appears to an objective observer that the government is endorsing or disapproving a religion. I might remind you once again of the First Commandment. This commandment specifically endorses the three Abrahamaic religions: Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. Combined with the second amendment, it disapproves of all polytheistic views and a variety of other religions, including Buddhism and Deism. The Decalogue, by merit of those two commandments alone (and I could go on…) fails the Endorsement test immediately. The government display of the Ten Commandments violates the Establishment Clause and is distinctly unconstitutional. This leaves only one argument left: majority rule.
Over 75% of people in the United States are Christian. If the United States were a democracy in which majority ruled, this case would present no problem. If the United States were a democracy in which majority ruled, the Civil Rights movement would have never succeeded. Nor would the Suffrage movement, or any other number of civil battles. As Bovard said: “Democracy must be more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.”
A Summary of the Ten Commandments
I: I am the Lord thy God; thou shalt have no other Gods before me.
II: Thou shalt not make any idols or graven images of anything in heaven, or under the Earth, or in the seas.
III: Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.
The Ten Commandments are Undeniably Part of Our History
In 1831, the French journalist Alexis de Tocqueville, writing after a visit to the United States, expressed his astonishment and admiration for the role religion played in the lives of the citizens of the new Republic. Indeed, wrote Tocqueville, Americans of all ranks and classes believe that religion is “necessary to the maintenance of republican institutions”, and America “is the place where the Christian religion has kept the most real power over men’s souls; and nothing better demonstrates how useful and natural it is to man, since the country where it has the widest sway is both the most enlightened and the freest.”
From the earliest colonial periods, the men and women who settled the American shores sought to establish a society and culture based on what they believed to be foundational Christian standards. Among these, equality, personal liberty, and freedom of religion, principles largely foreign to European law, were dearly held by these early ideological pioneers, many of whom were fugitives fleeing a corrupt and oppressive Europe. On the eve of the American Revolution, Samuel Adams asserted that the rights of his fellow colonists “may be best understood by reading and carefully studying the institutes of the Great Lawgiver… found in the New Testament.”
Regarded as the foundation of biblical law, the Ten Commandments, in particular, served a particularly special place in the hearts and minds of the colonialists and, later, the citizens of the new country. Several decades after the signing of the Constitution, the great statesman Daniel Webster declared to a crowd of enthusiastic fellow Americans: “Our fathers were brought hither by their high veneration for the Christian religion…They sought to incorporate its principles with the elements of their society and to diffuse its influence through all their institutions, civil, political, or literary.”
Clearly, when we study the writings of the early leaders of America, we cannot fail to see the fact that these visionaries believed religion to be the very basis for the principles of natural law that underlay the Constitution and the society that they labored to create. A recognition of the role of religion in the foundations of our nation’s legal system is, therefore, imperative to understanding and fully appreciating our heritage, history, and culture, and how we came to be where we are today as a nation and a people. Placing carvings and models of the Ten Commandments in our nation’s courtrooms is a unique way to celebrate the origins of the principles and philosophies that were fundamental to the early formation of our free society. Contrary to critics, placing displays of the Ten Commandments in our courtrooms to commemorate the role of religion in shaping the fundamental structures of our legal edifice is not an endorsement of Christianity as religion; rather, it is merely a recognition of the influence of Christian beliefs and philosophies on the discovery of the natural laws of human freedom and dignity and their seminal role in our nation’s origins. Objectively, whether the claims of Christianity are “true” or not, the religion of Christianity, symbolized by the Ten Commandments as the core of biblical law, played a cardinal part in our nation's beginnings; only bias would prevent one from discerning and openly declaring this fact. Even those who are not religious in their own beliefs can appreciate the impact that religion has had in this country in creating a free, egalitarian society in which freedom and equality of opportunity reign supreme.
Contributed by ‘Vianova’
Premiering Tonight! — Lovesick
A dozen bachelorettes locked in a quarantine ward with a leprosy victim. After two months, the survivors choose between a million dollars and a slow, leprous death or engagement to our leper and a vaccine.
Posts: 515 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Again, I think this is very well-written. I like the use of contrasting pieces, as well. A suggestion on the first one: the "you might say" technique sounds decidedly patronizing, especially as you go on and on to show what a fool "you" would be if "you" actually said this. I would encourage "some say" or "proponents of ___ say" instead.
The leprosy thing? What can I say? That really did fall flat. Sorry.
Some people might find the humor in it disarming, but others might get offended and give you a piece of their mind. Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
I have a pool of about twelve of those 'Premiering Tonight' things my brother wrote. You guys know him here as Anthropo (I believe...).
They (and the humor bits he writes, like the Fred Flinstone thing and the new fashion line) are generally hit or miss...
Posts: 515 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
