Month: October 2010

Want to know why I won’t vote Constitution party? Well, I believe our nation is a grand experiment in a secular democracy: a Republic founded upon Enlightenment principles. Ours was the first Western nation to believe — and embody in its founding documents — that the power of government springs from the consent of the governed, not from God or earthly institutions claiming to speak for God.

Here’s the preamble to the 2010 Constitution Party Platform:

The Constitution Party gratefully acknowledges the blessing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of these United States. We hereby appeal to Him for mercy, aid, comfort, guidance and the protection of His Providence as we work to restore and preserve these United States.

This great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been and are afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.

The goal of the Constitution Party is to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations and to limit the federal government to its Constitutional boundaries.

The Constitution of these United States provides that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” The Constitution Party supports the original intent of this language. Therefore, the Constitution Party calls on all those who love liberty and value their inherent rights to join with us in the pursuit of these goals and in the restoration of these founding principles.

The U.S. Constitution established a Republic rooted in Biblical law, administered by representatives who are Constitutionally elected by the citizens. In such a Republic all Life, Liberty and Property are protected because law rules.

It’s hard to figure out where to start. So I’ll leave it there. What room is there for a non-Christian under a system ruled by the Constitution Party? I’m not an equal partner. I’m a person of some “other” faith granted “asylum” in the land of my birth.

No thanks. Go jump in a lake, Constitution Party. You are on my “Never voting for any of your candidates, EVER” list.

Look, I don’t want to be the a*s*ole here, but I just wanted to review the facts and make sure I understand what I believe to be a misconstrued misplacement of national attention.

Last week, at Rutgers, a college freshman surreptitiously filmed his gay roommate on video making out with another guy and streamed the video online. Several days later the gay subject of the filming committed suicide. Charges were brought against the filming roommate for tampering of privacy.

Unless I missed something, I haven’t seen anything that gives the definitive reason this kid committed suicide. It could have been for any reason. It sure could have been for being ‘outed’ by his roommate in an embarrassing manner. It could have also been for unrequited love. It could have been because he was depressed. The national reaction has been a wave of ‘gay suicide’ rants; pleas about how teasing gay people leads to gay suicide. Hey USA: suicide is a matter for all teens. What is the annual number of gay teens committing suicide compared to the number of teens committing suicide? How many other teens commit suicide for being teased, regardless of their sexuality, eating disorder, etc.?

If we want to use this awful, particular circumstance to refocus the light on the heinous, perennial nature of teen suicide, then I hope the light delivers a harsh unveiling on a subject under-discussed in our daily stream of dialog. But given the lack of facts above, people are jumping to a conclusion to fit the en vogue nature of the gay culture issue, and micro-focusing that light only on a subset of teen troubles. It’s unfortunate because we’re talking about teen suicide.

My problem with organized religion is illustrated by a small slice of a speech being given by some dude with an accent on the TV in Utah right now. He used an urban legend as if it were truth to prove a doctrinal point. Religions are based on legends formed from half-truths and inaccurate memories accepted as fact and given a veneer of respectability by the passage of time.

The specific legend he referenced is the “Nasa Space Pen” legend, in an attempt to recommend that people simplify their lives: http://www.snopes.com/business/genius/spacepen.asp . The “simple” solution of using a pencil results in sharp pi…eces of conductive graphite floating around the cabin getting into astronaut eyes, nose, ears, as well as the spacecraft’s electrical circuitry. Additionally, a pencil is very flammable in a 100% oxygen atmosphere which is a profound safety hazard… which is the reason astronauts today don’t use them.

Meanwhile, the “space pen” — research paid for by a capitalist company, not the government — is safe, effective, non-flammable, and a near-perfect solution to the problem of writing in space. But it is a very complicated writing instrument, used for its safety and versatility over the hazardous but “simple” pencil. And one in use by all astronauts everywhere because it does the job without a safety hazard.

I understand the desire to encourage people to simplify their lives. I agree with the sentiment. But using falsehoods to prove a point poisons the well of one’s entire store of wisdom.