Fundamental Errors

There are some fundamentally bad assumptions or assertions steering the United States of America in some very weird ways.

  • Corporations are no people. It’s not murder, for example, when corporate officers declare bankruptcy and liquidate a company.
  • Money is not speech. We all have one voice; we don’t all have equal amounts of money to spend promoting our message. Granted, we’re only created equal; our accomplishments in life differentiate us. But that doesn’t make money speech.
  • Freedom of religion doesn’t give you carte blanche to do anything in the name of religion. It gives you the right to reject any attempt at an official religion.
  • Your “freedom of religion,” like most freedoms, ends when it impinges upon someone else’s basic human rights. My right to swing my fist stops at your nose. Your freedom to be prudish about sex stops at someone else’s right to good health, even good sexual health.
  • Individuals are not “well regulated militias.” Guns shouldn’t be a universal right; they are at best dangerous tools and in many cases worse than that.
  • Religions are not inherently bad — or good. While I’ve known religious people and religious communities that I’ve admired, there also are too many examples of religions being forces of oppression, in the name of “tradition” or just in the name of religion itself. In fact, many individuals cloak themselves in religion to justify their uneasiness with the diversity of the world.
  • The world changes; fundamental truths must always be examined in light of what we’ve learned since we learned those “truths.” The Founding Fathers of the USA — or anyone 250 years ago — couldn’t have imagined the world of 1900, let alone the world of 2014. Of course we have to consider more than just what we can convince ourselves the Founding Fathers might have thought.
  • The world is full of compromises and allowances. We have to choose, for example, between sometimes acquitting the guilty or sometimes convicting the innocent, because we don’t have absolute knowledge about everything. Even if we had the option of absolute knowledge about everything, that would be in conflict with our right to (or desire for) privacy.


All of which is a way saying, the Supreme Court during the time of John Roberts (and Samuel Alito) has made some very asinine decisions, consistent with some equally asinine political philosophies now in ascent in this country.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s