A Victory for Civil Liberties

The Times reported today that the Bush administration will now seek warrants from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court in order to conduct wiretapping of American phone calls.

Bravo, but this is too little, too late. What does this really prove, especially so late in Bush’s administration? The wiretapping should never had begun in the first place. Of course American security is important, but once the stone that is civil liberties starts getting chipped, it’s only a matter of time before it turns to dust. This is especially true when it comes to the fact that the administration at first bypassed the court. No matter what, there should always be a system of checks and balances. That’s how you safeguard America.

The Democrats should live up to their promise and look into the matter, hopefully in the end doing away with the wiretapping program altogether.

Swearing in on the Koran

I read about this topic in the New York dailies, and my classmates at the CUNY Graduate School of Journalism were discussing this recently.  I feel that it’s too important to overlook.

Keith Ellison, a Representative and Democrat of Minnesota, was sworn in on the Koran, the holy book of Islam, a few weeks ago.  Ellison’s the first American Muslim elected to federal office and the first black person elected to Congress from Minnesota.   However, Representative Virgil Goode, Republican of Virginia, said that “there will likely be many more Muslims elected to Congress and demanding the use of the Koran.”  Radio talk-show host Dennis Prager warned against “the Islamization of America” and said that by using the Koran, Ellison was undermining American civilization.  Prager also suggested the Christian Bible should be required.

This is a great example of American intolerance.  So what if more Muslims get elected?  If the people think that a Muslim politician is the best person to speak for them, then he or she should get elected.  I doubt the Koran swearing-in will lead to “Islamization” or “undermine American civilization.”  These are prejudiced statements that should be taken with a grain of salt.  They’re nothing but jingoism.

Furthermore, I think that Ellison was sworn in on the correct book because the Koran’s the book of his faith.  What should be required is that those who want to be sworn in on a religious text must be sworn in on the text of their faith.  So, Jews get the Jewish Bible, Catholics get the Catholic Bible, Protestants get the Protestant Bible, Muslims get the Koran, etc.

With that said, what Christian Bible was Prager talking about?  I mentioned three different kinds because there are three different kinds.  Should a big stink be made if a Catholic politician was sworn in on the Jewish or Protestant Bible, for example?  Of course, because neither is the holy text of that politician’s faith.  Of course I can’t speak for anybody, but I’m using common sense here.  I have nothing against Jews and Protestants, but as a Catholic, for example, I would expect to be sworn in on a Catholic Bible if I were to hold public office.

I say expect because I believe in the separation of church and state.  Therefore, I propose the following scenario for all politicians, whether they like it or not, be they of faith, atheists, or agnostics.

Here is the scenario.  All politicians elected to public office must be sworn in on copies of three documents.  From top to bottom, the documents are the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States, and the Bill of Rights.  For non-federal politicians, they must be sworn in on these three and maybe their state constitition, city charter, etc.  The purpose of this scenario is to get rid of religious favoritism and make politicians more accountableto the people of this country, as opposed to God.  After all, the American people elect politicians to office, and the politicians are supposed to serve the public good.

Mass. Gay Marriage

The New York Times reported on January 3 that a state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage was advanced.  This matter was voted on by legislators and needs to be approved by another 50 legislators in the 2007-08 session.  Then, it would be placed on the Nov. ’08 ballot as a referendum question.  If passed, the amendment would not invalidate the gay marriages that have already taken place.

That’s small comfort.  I’m for gay marriage, and as much as it might piss people off, this legislative process must follow its proper course.  If not, then the right will argue that the left is trying to destroy the democratic process, even though we all know the right’s done that already.  If the people of Massachusettes  vote against the amendment, then I think it will be a victory for everyone.  If they vote for it, there’ll be a fight, and one that I hope gets gay marraige reinstated through the proper channels.  With an issue this hot, there is no reason to take chances that would make opponents win in the long run.

There are just two things that bother me about the whole gay marriage debate.  I think that the right has brainwashed this country so much that we forget the way government works.  First, if gay marriage is declared legal by the courts, then this is not an example of judicial activism.  If the executive and the legislature turn down gay marriage rights, and gays still want to get married, then where the hell else can they turn to to make gay marriage legal?  Obviously, the judiciary is the only branch left.  If judges rule for or against, then the process must go through the proper channels for the ruling to be carried out.

Furthermore, I can’t possibly believe that legalizing gay marriage would ban/destroy/undermine heterosexual marriage.  The argument makes no sense.  If gay marriage and heterosexual marriage are both legalized within the boundaries of a certain geopolitical area, and that geopolitical area’s social, governmental, etc., fabric don’t fall apart, then what the hell is the problem?  Canada legalized gay marriage, and Canada’s still here.  No anarchy, no chaos, no World War III.

Now, of course Canadian society is not American society, but even so: it’s still a good indication that the right blows things way out of proportion.  Now, of course Mass. society is not representative of the societies of the other 49 states, but even so: it’s still a good indication that the right blows things way out of proportion.

X-mas Review

Although Christmas 2006 has come and gone, I still think the following is still worth arguing since the Epiphany is two days away.

I think that the phrase “Merry Christmas” should not be banned from public usage. Yes, Christ is a part of the Christmas season, and as Linus reminded us, He is what Christmas is all about. Therefore, there should be no reason to take him out of the holiday.

However:

Everything is a product of its time, including religion, holidays, and language.  At the same time we should not get rid of “Merry Christmas,” we should also not get rid of “Season’s Greetings” and “Happy Holidays,” obviously more symbols of Christmas’s secular side. Those phrases have been around since I was little, since before this whole stupid controversy started.

I think it is all right that we have become more sensitive to those who do not celebrate the Christmas season. However, we should not be blind enough that we have to ruin Christmas for those who celebrate it. You know someone celebrates Christmas, say “Merry Christmas.” If not, say one of the other two. If you’re not sure, take the chance of insulting the person and then politely apologize for the mistake. Keep it simple.

I hope later this year this controversy doesn’t start again. I’ve had enough of it, just like the whole Christmas tree/menorah thing. Christmas and Hanukkah are always celebrated from late November to December. In public spaces, put a tree and a menorah, dreidel, and Star of David side-by-side and be done with it. A nativity scene in a public space? Put the same three Jewish objects next to it and be done with it.

And yes, it’s a Christmas tree. Of course, technically, since Christmas is a holiday, a Christmas tree is a holiday tree, but that’s beside the point. The point is that Christmas is the only holiday that uses the tree, so technically, it should be called a Christmas tree.

And you know what I find most disturbing about all this? That it has to be said in the first place, that such advice has to be given to people before they use their common sense.