Grandpa was reading the newspaper when all of a sudden he whispered a small curse. Both, grandma and I was startled by it and looked over to him. He crumbled up the paper and tossed it on the table then stood up and walked away. Both grandma and I knew that was his way of cooling down a bit so we said nothing.
When he returned he sat down and said; “One has to wonder if people actually read the Constitution for what it says or for what they want it to say. If people read it for what they want it to say then the founding fathers wasted their time in writing it and getting it passed by the States. For it no longer has any meaning for governing this country.
John Fund, writing an op-ed column over in the Wall Street Journal on June 25, 2007, was giving his opinion on the issue of Mitt Romney’s bid for the presidency and how his religion was a factor in it. Without going into detail of what he says I agree with him that it shouldn’t be a factor. One can read it for themselves by following the link provided to the Wall Street Journal on the right.
But while I may agree with his conclusion I will disagree with him on his reasoning.
In it he quotes Alan Wolfe: ‘In some ways, [Romney's candidacy] is the best test of whether Americans have really put some of the old religious differences aside. And my guess is that they haven't.’
He also quotes his biographer Hugh Hewitt as saying ‘it will prove a disastrous turning point for all people of faith in public life.’ in reference to a perception of belief Romney lost because of his religious beliefs.
Then he turns around and says and I quote him; ‘Recognizing that Mr. Romney's faith is in some ways a major benefit to him while also discussing the backlash some voters have against him is perfectly appropriate.’
Each one of these implies that his religion will or could be a test of his qualifications. And the author considers it appropriate to discuss it. Now as I said I agree with the author that his religion should not be a test but for this reason;
‘The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.’
This and this alone should be the only reason needed to rebut any argument in regards to religion for a candidate. And it should be brought up every time someone mentions a man's religion in regards to his candidacy for office. And when people discuss the religion of Mitt Romney or any other candidate they ignore this Constitutional requirement.”
WELCOMES YOU to his little home in cyberspace.
Monday, June 25, 2007
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Conscience vs Will of the People, (last post)
Grandpa continued by saying;
“Boy, as I said before we elect leaders not followers. And history will judge them on their leadership. History will not be judging the people who followed them. But that does not mean that any decision our leaders make cannot or is not influenced. We, the people can and do influence the decisions of the leaders we elect. Along with that our leaders have advisors who will influence their decisions.
There are many ways that we as individuals can express our will in regards to any issue. And that list can be as long or as short as one wants to make it. We can join organizations that help influence the decisions of our leaders along with helping to elect those leaders that are sympathetic to their cause. But the ultimate influence that is known is the influence of the ballot box has on the decisions of those leaders. It is there we, as the people, express our will of whether or not that representative made good decisions or not as far as we are concerned.
Where the problem may lie in this ability to influence is the perception that influence is cause. Every man’s decisions are influenced even your decisions, boy. My sitting here talking to you on this issue will influence your decision on this issue. But that will not mean that what I say will be the cause of the decision you will have to make for yourself in regards to it if you choose to take my position on it. Nor will it mean that you disregarded my words if you choose to take the opposing viewpoint.
My last point, boy, is that those who advocate for conscience are also advocates for the idea that man possesses a free will and should be held responsible for their own decisions in life. Those who advocate for the concept of the Will of the People are also advocating for Determinism for they are advocating that the decisions of a representative be determined by the will of the people not their conscience.”
With this said grandpa got up and said, “boy the decision is now in your lap. I will say no more unless you have questions.” Then he walked into the other room to be with grandma. I had to chuckle as I heard him to her, "Come on, my love, let's go try to make a baby."
“Boy, as I said before we elect leaders not followers. And history will judge them on their leadership. History will not be judging the people who followed them. But that does not mean that any decision our leaders make cannot or is not influenced. We, the people can and do influence the decisions of the leaders we elect. Along with that our leaders have advisors who will influence their decisions.
There are many ways that we as individuals can express our will in regards to any issue. And that list can be as long or as short as one wants to make it. We can join organizations that help influence the decisions of our leaders along with helping to elect those leaders that are sympathetic to their cause. But the ultimate influence that is known is the influence of the ballot box has on the decisions of those leaders. It is there we, as the people, express our will of whether or not that representative made good decisions or not as far as we are concerned.
Where the problem may lie in this ability to influence is the perception that influence is cause. Every man’s decisions are influenced even your decisions, boy. My sitting here talking to you on this issue will influence your decision on this issue. But that will not mean that what I say will be the cause of the decision you will have to make for yourself in regards to it if you choose to take my position on it. Nor will it mean that you disregarded my words if you choose to take the opposing viewpoint.
My last point, boy, is that those who advocate for conscience are also advocates for the idea that man possesses a free will and should be held responsible for their own decisions in life. Those who advocate for the concept of the Will of the People are also advocating for Determinism for they are advocating that the decisions of a representative be determined by the will of the people not their conscience.”
With this said grandpa got up and said, “boy the decision is now in your lap. I will say no more unless you have questions.” Then he walked into the other room to be with grandma. I had to chuckle as I heard him to her, "Come on, my love, let's go try to make a baby."
Monday, June 11, 2007
Conscience vs Will of the People, (part 4)
Grampa sipped his coffee as he sat back down in his chair then he continued;
" Boy, politicians have their beliefs as to how to properly run this country just as you do and just as I do. They have their own beliefs about what the people should be able to expect from the government just as you do and just as I do.
And when they campaign for office they present their ideas in hopes of convincing enough of us voters to agree with him and vote him into office. If voted into office he is expected to carry out the promises made. Are those promises based on the will of the people or of his own conscience? I’d say conscience my self because his opponent also made promises but lost. They both can’t be making promises based upon the people’s will. And if one had the capacity to know the will of the people so did the other.
Another aspect of this same argument comes while in office. Before any bill is voted on there is a debate. A debate by meaning is the art of persuasion. Now any representative who gets up and speaks is doing so to persuade. If the idea of abiding by the will of the people held that speaker would be trying to persuade the people but this is not true. He is there to persuade his fellow representatives who agree with him to stand fast. He is also trying to persuade the others to change their minds and vote with him.
One more aspect of this is a personal one. If I were an elected representative I would prefer to follow my conscience rather than follow the will of the people. I would want to sleep at night at those times my conscience conflicts with the will of the people. My honor, my integrity, and my self-respect would demand it of me.
If the people did not approve of my job they can throw me out of office at the next election if I cannot convince them otherwise. And I cannot justify denying others of the same right of conscience. Remember the foundational basis of our nation is the right to abide by our conscience. Why should we deny some of that right just because he is an elected representative? We elect leaders not followers.
Now, boy, these are just a few of the reasons I choose conscience over the will of the people. I could sit here all night giving you more reasons but you have homework to do so I'll cut it short."
I just sat there and smiled. Knowing grandpa, that last reason was the most important to him. But I kept quiet awaiting him to continue.
" Boy, politicians have their beliefs as to how to properly run this country just as you do and just as I do. They have their own beliefs about what the people should be able to expect from the government just as you do and just as I do.
And when they campaign for office they present their ideas in hopes of convincing enough of us voters to agree with him and vote him into office. If voted into office he is expected to carry out the promises made. Are those promises based on the will of the people or of his own conscience? I’d say conscience my self because his opponent also made promises but lost. They both can’t be making promises based upon the people’s will. And if one had the capacity to know the will of the people so did the other.
Another aspect of this same argument comes while in office. Before any bill is voted on there is a debate. A debate by meaning is the art of persuasion. Now any representative who gets up and speaks is doing so to persuade. If the idea of abiding by the will of the people held that speaker would be trying to persuade the people but this is not true. He is there to persuade his fellow representatives who agree with him to stand fast. He is also trying to persuade the others to change their minds and vote with him.
One more aspect of this is a personal one. If I were an elected representative I would prefer to follow my conscience rather than follow the will of the people. I would want to sleep at night at those times my conscience conflicts with the will of the people. My honor, my integrity, and my self-respect would demand it of me.
If the people did not approve of my job they can throw me out of office at the next election if I cannot convince them otherwise. And I cannot justify denying others of the same right of conscience. Remember the foundational basis of our nation is the right to abide by our conscience. Why should we deny some of that right just because he is an elected representative? We elect leaders not followers.
Now, boy, these are just a few of the reasons I choose conscience over the will of the people. I could sit here all night giving you more reasons but you have homework to do so I'll cut it short."
I just sat there and smiled. Knowing grandpa, that last reason was the most important to him. But I kept quiet awaiting him to continue.
Conscience vs Will of the People, (part 3)
Grandpa continued by saying;
"Another reason being is that once being elected a representative takes an oath to uphold the Constitution not the will of his constituents. That means if the will of the people would be unconstitutional in regards to any issue he must consider, in his mind, then he has taken an oath to go against the will of the people. Thus he would be following his conscience rather than the will of his constituents. A few cases where it can be seen that the will of the people, at the time, would be considered as unconstitutional are listed below;
The case of the internment of the Japanese, German, and Italian citizens during our war with those countries.
The issue of desegregation.
The issue of abortion
These are but a few that come to my mind at this time and each person probably can cite an issue of their own. And I admit that the people have changed their minds in regards to the internment and segregation issue to the credit of the people. And while the people may have accepted abortion to the large part, it is still a contentious issue in society today. It is so contentious that when the Senate is interviewing a Supreme Court nominee that issue will be brought up. This in itself suggests that at least one branch of government must abide by the idea of conscience instead of abiding by the will of the people.
And if this be true then we need to apply that same principle to the other two branches of government. The reason being is that they have the responsibility of enforcing any decision of the Supreme Court. A good example of this being President Eisenhower’s need to use troops to enforce the decision to desegregate schools in Little Rock, Arkansas.
Now, boy, this does not mean that the people cannot participate in the decision making of our representative because they can and do. And I'll get to that part later."
With those words gramps went silent once more and got up to refill his cup of coffee that he was sipping on.
"Another reason being is that once being elected a representative takes an oath to uphold the Constitution not the will of his constituents. That means if the will of the people would be unconstitutional in regards to any issue he must consider, in his mind, then he has taken an oath to go against the will of the people. Thus he would be following his conscience rather than the will of his constituents. A few cases where it can be seen that the will of the people, at the time, would be considered as unconstitutional are listed below;
The case of the internment of the Japanese, German, and Italian citizens during our war with those countries.
The issue of desegregation.
The issue of abortion
These are but a few that come to my mind at this time and each person probably can cite an issue of their own. And I admit that the people have changed their minds in regards to the internment and segregation issue to the credit of the people. And while the people may have accepted abortion to the large part, it is still a contentious issue in society today. It is so contentious that when the Senate is interviewing a Supreme Court nominee that issue will be brought up. This in itself suggests that at least one branch of government must abide by the idea of conscience instead of abiding by the will of the people.
And if this be true then we need to apply that same principle to the other two branches of government. The reason being is that they have the responsibility of enforcing any decision of the Supreme Court. A good example of this being President Eisenhower’s need to use troops to enforce the decision to desegregate schools in Little Rock, Arkansas.
Now, boy, this does not mean that the people cannot participate in the decision making of our representative because they can and do. And I'll get to that part later."
With those words gramps went silent once more and got up to refill his cup of coffee that he was sipping on.
Saturday, June 09, 2007
Conscience vs Will of the People, (part 2)
When grandpa reentered the house he sat down in a chair across from and continued with these words;
"Boy, the first thing a person needs to do when speaking of a issue is to look at history. And on this issue we can start at the beginning of government as formed by our founding fathers. And when we do that in consideration of deciding the issue of whether or not a representative elected is to abide by the will of the people the answer is obvious.
In order to abide by the will of the people there must be constant and almost immediate communications between the people and their representatives in government. Now, with this in mind, we must admit that until communication can be established so as to permit this, a representative has to act upon his own conscience.
And anyone who has knowledge about communication would have to agree that communication with a representative and his constituents would be considered as impossible for the purpose of carrying out their will at the beginning. Back then newspapers and word of mouth were the primary means of communication. And the speed of the news reported of government was dependent upon the speed of a horse.
So, from this we can see from tradition that a representative was expected to vote in accordance to his conscience by his constituents. And the idea of a representative voting according to the will of the people is a foolish idea that reality cannot support regardless of how well it sounds in theory. There are other factors that need to be considered before that idea should even be considered feasible and this be but one."
With this said he asked; "keeping up with me so far?"
I only nodded while a million questions seem to race through my head. Grandpa had taught me to hold my questions until the end for the answer may be found before they were asked. Also, that by doing so we prevent ourselves from jumping to conclusions from the answers. So I listened as he continued.
"Boy, the first thing a person needs to do when speaking of a issue is to look at history. And on this issue we can start at the beginning of government as formed by our founding fathers. And when we do that in consideration of deciding the issue of whether or not a representative elected is to abide by the will of the people the answer is obvious.
In order to abide by the will of the people there must be constant and almost immediate communications between the people and their representatives in government. Now, with this in mind, we must admit that until communication can be established so as to permit this, a representative has to act upon his own conscience.
And anyone who has knowledge about communication would have to agree that communication with a representative and his constituents would be considered as impossible for the purpose of carrying out their will at the beginning. Back then newspapers and word of mouth were the primary means of communication. And the speed of the news reported of government was dependent upon the speed of a horse.
So, from this we can see from tradition that a representative was expected to vote in accordance to his conscience by his constituents. And the idea of a representative voting according to the will of the people is a foolish idea that reality cannot support regardless of how well it sounds in theory. There are other factors that need to be considered before that idea should even be considered feasible and this be but one."
With this said he asked; "keeping up with me so far?"
I only nodded while a million questions seem to race through my head. Grandpa had taught me to hold my questions until the end for the answer may be found before they were asked. Also, that by doing so we prevent ourselves from jumping to conclusions from the answers. So I listened as he continued.
Friday, June 08, 2007
Conscience vs Will of the People, (part 1)
While sitting at the table one evening doing my homework a question in my government studies brought up a question that kind of stumped me. It was a question in regards to the idea of what the phrase representative of the people means. Does it mean that once elected he should vote according to his conscience or vote expressing the will of his constituents? Pondering on this question for a while I finally decided to ask grandpa about it. This was his answer.
"Boy, that is a good question. Theoretically it should be both. An elected official when voting his conscience should be expressing the will of his constituents also. But reality declares that to be impossibility. It is the impossibility of this theoretical concept that makes the question valid in the first place. We must also assume from the question that a vote of conscience will contradict a vote of the will of the people and visa versa.
A man can go into a voting booth thinking that the person he is voting for is someone who will vote in accordance to either concept and never know if he will or not. He can only know if that representative voted as he perceives he would have voted on any given bill to address an issue. And that perception of how he would have voted is a perception of conscience.
The answer to the question is more of an ideological answer than a political answer. That representative will need to defend that vote to his constituents regardless of which concept he believes in to vote if he wishes to be reelected. And a person can defend a decision of conscience better than he can a decision based on his perception of the will of his constituents. The reason being is that a conscience vote necessitates the knowing of the reasons before he votes. An elected representative who votes in accordance to the will of the people does not need to know the reasons. He only needs to know how the people wish him to vote at any given time on any issue.
So, based upon the above argument your grandfather has come to the conclusion in favor of the side of conscience. That man or woman must accept responsibility for his vote. I will not hold any one responsible for being in obedience to me if I was to change my mind at a later time. This would be unjust. This is but one reason for a vote of conscience."
Upon finishing talking grandpa got up and headed outside to the outhouse leaving me to ponder the other reasons he had.
"Boy, that is a good question. Theoretically it should be both. An elected official when voting his conscience should be expressing the will of his constituents also. But reality declares that to be impossibility. It is the impossibility of this theoretical concept that makes the question valid in the first place. We must also assume from the question that a vote of conscience will contradict a vote of the will of the people and visa versa.
A man can go into a voting booth thinking that the person he is voting for is someone who will vote in accordance to either concept and never know if he will or not. He can only know if that representative voted as he perceives he would have voted on any given bill to address an issue. And that perception of how he would have voted is a perception of conscience.
The answer to the question is more of an ideological answer than a political answer. That representative will need to defend that vote to his constituents regardless of which concept he believes in to vote if he wishes to be reelected. And a person can defend a decision of conscience better than he can a decision based on his perception of the will of his constituents. The reason being is that a conscience vote necessitates the knowing of the reasons before he votes. An elected representative who votes in accordance to the will of the people does not need to know the reasons. He only needs to know how the people wish him to vote at any given time on any issue.
So, based upon the above argument your grandfather has come to the conclusion in favor of the side of conscience. That man or woman must accept responsibility for his vote. I will not hold any one responsible for being in obedience to me if I was to change my mind at a later time. This would be unjust. This is but one reason for a vote of conscience."
Upon finishing talking grandpa got up and headed outside to the outhouse leaving me to ponder the other reasons he had.
Thursday, June 07, 2007
Honor and Respect
We was traveling home one morning from Sunday services, me in the back seat while grandma was sitting next to grandpa as he held the reins of the horse drawn wagon. I was thinking of the lesson in my Sunday school class on the subject of honor thy mother and father. Tis a word I had not heard used much and I asked this question, " grandpa, how is honor different from respect?"
Grandpa turned and smiled at me and said, "tis a good question, boy for they are two words that should guide us through life. Honor and respect are principles recognizing the person as they are. They both recognize that each person possesses a philosophy of life. They also recognize judgment will be determined not only by whether or not a person abides by his own principles but also by the principles of others. In the recognition of a person as they are, position in a society must also be considered. Relationship to others is another consideration of recognizing a person as they are.
From the above descriptions we can declare that honor is respect at its highest level. By the same token we can declare that contempt is respect at its lowest level. In between those levels we have respect and disrespect of different levels. By the amount of respect we show or should show then determines our ranking of another or others as well as our ranking of ourselves.
The simplest way to differentiate the application of honor or respect is to say we honor those above us and show respect to our peers or those below us. We can then break it down by the amount of responsibility a person possesses or by the amount of knowledge or wisdom they possess. In other words we are comparing another to ourselves in some way. Our philosophy of life will determine the criteria that we use to judge.
The only problem here is that emotions may blind us to reality of what a person really is. Emotions may also blind us in regards to seeing ourselves as we are or as we should see ourselves. When that happens we live in a perception of reality rather than reality itself.
Behavior is the primary means we use to judge another, and while it may be the best way, it too may mislead us. For people will behave solely for the purpose of creating a false image of themselves. Politicians are the best example of this that comes to mind at the moment.
Honor or respect are attributes to be earned, boy, never given. It is how we live our lives that determine whether or not we deserve to be honored or respected. There is two persons that I will tell you to beware of and one person is the one who will tell you that he only respects those who respects him. The other person to beware of is the person who will tell you that he respects every man until he has proven he doesn't deserve it. This is just a variation of the first one in terms of that individual. And both are signs of arrogance and self-rightiousness."
With this said grandpa went quiet as he guided the horses into the driveway to our house.
I just sat there pondering his words along with thinking of the tasty vittles that I knew grandma would prepare for our Sunday picnic.
Grandpa turned and smiled at me and said, "tis a good question, boy for they are two words that should guide us through life. Honor and respect are principles recognizing the person as they are. They both recognize that each person possesses a philosophy of life. They also recognize judgment will be determined not only by whether or not a person abides by his own principles but also by the principles of others. In the recognition of a person as they are, position in a society must also be considered. Relationship to others is another consideration of recognizing a person as they are.
From the above descriptions we can declare that honor is respect at its highest level. By the same token we can declare that contempt is respect at its lowest level. In between those levels we have respect and disrespect of different levels. By the amount of respect we show or should show then determines our ranking of another or others as well as our ranking of ourselves.
The simplest way to differentiate the application of honor or respect is to say we honor those above us and show respect to our peers or those below us. We can then break it down by the amount of responsibility a person possesses or by the amount of knowledge or wisdom they possess. In other words we are comparing another to ourselves in some way. Our philosophy of life will determine the criteria that we use to judge.
The only problem here is that emotions may blind us to reality of what a person really is. Emotions may also blind us in regards to seeing ourselves as we are or as we should see ourselves. When that happens we live in a perception of reality rather than reality itself.
Behavior is the primary means we use to judge another, and while it may be the best way, it too may mislead us. For people will behave solely for the purpose of creating a false image of themselves. Politicians are the best example of this that comes to mind at the moment.
Honor or respect are attributes to be earned, boy, never given. It is how we live our lives that determine whether or not we deserve to be honored or respected. There is two persons that I will tell you to beware of and one person is the one who will tell you that he only respects those who respects him. The other person to beware of is the person who will tell you that he respects every man until he has proven he doesn't deserve it. This is just a variation of the first one in terms of that individual. And both are signs of arrogance and self-rightiousness."
With this said grandpa went quiet as he guided the horses into the driveway to our house.
I just sat there pondering his words along with thinking of the tasty vittles that I knew grandma would prepare for our Sunday picnic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
