A Savage Response to Freedom of Speech

In most cases I tend to agree with Dr. Savage!  I even agree with his sentiment on the issue I'm about to discuss - but, since he (in my humble opinion) has unjustifiably attacked the Catholic Church, as a Catholic apologist I must speak out.

On August 22, 2013, I was listening to Dr. Savage on the radio and the subject of the involvement of the Catholic Church in supporting amnesty came up.  Now, on the point of amnesty, I agree with Dr. Savage!  The Church should not be publicly supporting those who have willfully broken the laws of the United States.  That being said, is it really "the Church" taking this stand, or a few rouge bishops and/or priests?  I would like to see Dr. Savage's documentation on this.

Now, to the point which motivated this response.  Dr. Savage related that the Church's involvement in this subject was "against the law."  He compared this to the "separation of church and state," and this is where the "buffoonery" comes into play.  Normally, Dr. Savage speaks quite intelligently on such matters, but in this case he is simply wrong.  The United States Constitution makes absolutely NO reference to ANY church's RIGHT to FREE SPEECH!  The ONLY mention of "church and state" in the Constitution protects the churches, NOT the state!  The "establishment clause," as it is known by, is found in the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Note, it speaks to CONGRESS, and NOT to any church/religion!  The "free exercise thereof" includes the "freedom of speech" (in the same sentence!) of any churchman, whether from the pulpit or in a public forum, to speak out on ANY matter, even political/state matters!  In fact, if the Catholic Church would actually take a united stand in supporting certain politicians - half the "schmucks" (to use another part of Dr. Savage's vocabulary) in elected office would never have made it there and we wouldn't be in the mess we're in today!

So, while I politically disagree with anyone promoting amnesty among illegal aliens, I respect the RIGHT of anyone to SPEAK FREELY on these subjects.  Personally, I would prefer that priests stick to the Gospel and/or Epistle of the day when they preach their sermons - unless what they are preaching can be related to the readings of the day - they should refrain from such topics.  But again, there is no "law" in the Church or the Constitution or the Amendments to the Constitution which prohibits a priest (or other churchman) from preaching on ANY subject they would so desire (unless, of course, they are preaching against defined Church doctrine, but that will get them in hot water elsewhere).  The point is, a bishop or priest is quite free to speak out on matters of politics and such speaking is NOT a violation of the "establishment clause."  I was quite disappointed to hear Dr. Savage ignorantly using this argumentation typically invoked by liberals who feel threatened by any religious person speaking out in a public forum against what they believe.

As I said up front, I actually agree with Dr. Savage's position on this matter!  Amnesty for illegal aliens should NOT be considered by US lawmakers precisely because these aliens are US lawbreakers!  On this matter, I would agree with those who take the position of allowing the illegals to legitimize themselves, but not ahead of those who have been "doing it right."  If those who are in our country illegally wish to gain citizenship and/or other legal means of being in the United States, then they must get in line BEHIND those who have been OBEYING our laws.

So, while I agree that amnesty is a bad idea - I do not believe it is against the rights of ANYONE to speak out to support their own views on such matters.  We should not ignorantly, or even in bigoted fashion, attempt to dissuade individuals or even churches from THEIR exercise of freedom of speech.  Right or wrong, it is their right to speak out.  I hope this message reaches Dr. Savage, and I hope he publicly retracts his ignorant statement regarding the alleged separation of church and state matter here.

#separationofchurchandstate, @ASavageNation, #SavageNation, @SavageNation

Inland Border Patrol Checkpoints

Is it "legal" to have inland Border Patrol checkpoints?  According to the Arizona ACLU, yes - they are "legal."

http://www.acluaz.org/sites/default/files/documents/Checkpoints%20One-Pager.pdf

Does anyone have the "right to remain silent" when stopped at a BP checkpoint?  In the video (below) we see a driver giving the "silent treatment."  Did the BP agent(s) overreact?  Skip forward to about the 11 minute mark (to save 11 minutes of just hearing the air conditioning running).

In the opinion of this writer, no, they did not.  The fact of the matter is that there are laws now which permit the BP to conduct these checkpoints.  Someone I was dialoging with on Facebook said, "It's still wrong, as wrong as Dred Scott."  Well, in the Dred Scott case, the laws were eventually changed.  That's the way the Constitution works - if there is a bad law, it gets changed.  Breaking a bad law is still breaking the law - and there are consequences, legal consequences.  

That being said, to compare this situation to Dred Scott is quite the overreaction, in my humble opinion.  Why?  Because the Scotts were deprived of virtually ALL freedom.  A BP agent merely asking, "Are you a United States citizen?" does not impinge upon your rights or freedom.  One might claim they have the "right" to not answer them - well, again, in not answering you have now given them probable cause to suspect you might be doing something illegal.  At that point, all bets are off.  Once you have gone to the "secondary interview" - it is now the BP agents who have the "right" to further inspection and/or interrogation.  Further refusal to cooperate can lead to you being legally and constitutionally detained.  I would add, your refusal to answer a simple question is actually the cause of your lack of freedom of movement.  

The Right To Remain Silent
To simply "remain silent" does not really apply here either.  I'm sure those who would like to invoke this are thinking of the Arizona v. Miranda case where an arresting officer must inform the arrestee of their "right to remain silent" and that "anything you say can and will be used against you."  When the officers are simply trying to assess "just cause" the Miranda rights have not even come into play yet.  In fact, until you are read/given your Miranda rights, anything you say prior to that cannot be used against you!  Those arguing for "the right to remain silent" have it exactly backwards here!  You can say anything you want, yes or no, and that cannot be used against you until you've been read your Miranda rights!  Now, if you answer "no" to the question about United States citizenship, well, you've just given them "probable cause" to detain you.  If you answer "yes," then unless they have MORE reasonable cause to suspect you, you will likely be on your way with very little delay.

The following video is also a bit on the silly side, watch and then read my comments:

So, by expressing their 1) knowledge of the United States Constitution, they are giving evidence of United States citizenship!  Hence, in most cases after the protestor has sufficiently spoken, he has provided enough evidence to be allowed to proceed.  2) In speaking in clear English, without a foreign accent, they are, again, providing evidence that they really do belong in the United States.  This is likely why, after the person/protestor has willfully delayed him/herself - the BP agents just let them go without further incident.  After you've talked enough, you've provided enough evidence to warrant either letting you go - or detaining you further.  

Note also the comparison to "Nazi Germany," wherein this driver (and family) are well within the 100 mile range of the Border Patrol, which according to United States law, the Border Patrol is within their "rights."  Someone driving on a roadway in proximity to the border, in the opinion of this writer, has already consented to such an interview, just as if one actually leaves the country, they are subject to interview and even inspection of personal property.  

Why Do We Have Border Patrol Checkpoints?
Well, the reason is two-fold, at least.  1) In a post-911 era, where terrorists could easily be attempting to slip across the border and have avoided actual border checkpoints - putting these further inland gives them the opportunity to observe the behavior of those driving up - and if someone quickly turns around, they've just given "probable cause" to be pursued and detained.   2) With the ever increasing problem of illegal aliens coming across putting extra burdens upon the legal citizens of this country, well, the country has a right and even responsibility to protect herself from this illegal invasion.

The Bottom Line
Just answer the question!  Especially if you ARE a United States citizen!  If you're not - you deserve to be detained.  And, if you don't like the law - work to get it changed - THAT is how our country's Constitution is supposed to work!    

Taking Your DNA For Any Arrest

The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled it is legal for law enforcement to take your DNA for any "major" (not defined) arrest.  You don't have to be found guilty of anything, just accused - and you have to submit potentially self-incriminating evidence.

OK, sure, it's purpose is to catch the "bad" people, but one who is just "accused" is not guilty of anything yet, and what if this information is used to identify medical issues, but even in the case of "bad people" a person cannot be forced to testify against himself, and this essentially does exactly that.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/06/03/scotus-taking-dna-swabs-upon-arrest-without-a-warrant-is-legal/

Right To Health Care?

An interesting topic posted from Facebook...

"You have a 'right' to pursue the best health care you can afford to get for yourself.  Beyond that, there is not, and can not be a "right" to something that involves the labor of other people. "Health Care" is the labor of doctors, nurses, pharmacists, medical technnology engineers, etc. And claiming a 'right' to their labors is to regard them as slaves. Neither can a 'right' be determined to the labors of other people (in the form of their money) to pay for one's health care. The very concept defies logic and that is the very simple argument we should all make when confronted with this garbage. The same goes for Welfare and any other 'right' that imposes upon other individuals to provide the benefit."

While I could not find the exact quote put in quotes above, I believe I found an article which sums up his point to a "T":  

Under the American system you have a right to health care if you can pay for it, i.e., if you can earn it by your own action and effort. But nobody has the right to the services of any professional individual or group simply because he wants them and desperately needs them. The very fact that he needs these services so desperately is the proof that he had better respect the freedom, the integrity, and the rights of the people who provide them.

You have a right to work, not to rob others of the fruits of their work, not to turn others into sacrificial, rightless animals laboring to fulfill your needs.

http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?id=13873

Another added this comment:

"I agree with your stance on government subsidized healthcare, but I'm curious how you would address the tax benefits afforded to churches and religious organizations using the same logic. My inkling is there would be a bit of a double standard."

To which I responded:

First off, you conceded the initial point - but then changed the subject. While getting a tax benefit can be seen as a subsidy, that was not the original point. The point was that calling healthcare a "right" (Constitution of the United States) when it is chiefly the labors of those in the healthcare industry is in reality taking the "rights" (Constitution...) of those who provide the services away from them. It is to take *ownership*, or "making slaves" of those persons and/or their skills. With that in mind, your question has pretty much hijacked the original discussion point.
The further (original) point is that this is the same as any *welfare* system which demands that others pay for the *wants* of others. I hesitate to call it *needs* anymore, for no one "needs" a cell phone, yet we're paying for cell phones for those who cannot afford them. We subsidize the food for many individuals who turn around and use money on drugs which they could have spent on food. I have no problem being there for an individual or family who needs help in an extra-ordinary situation, and that was the original purpose for welfare. It is not intended to be a "cradle-to-grave" (Adams, Henry) subsidy, or in other words - it was not to become the *ordinary* which it has become.
Now, to sort of tie-in the diversive point... The traditional role of providing for these *needs* of individuals and families *was* and to a large part *still is* the responsibility of religious organizations! Catholic Social Services and the St. Vincent dePaul organizations, to name a couple, are huge *providers* to those *in need.*
The REAL problem here, and more on the original point, "using the same logic,"  such *welfare* has become the expectation and the norm for many in society. It has gone beyond a temporary means of assistance to this "cradle-to-grave" (Adams, Henry) mentality. It has become to be thought of as a "right" (Constitution...) which has essentially takes the will of those caught up in this system, and breaks it, "broken, as the colt dies in harness, taking a new nature in becoming tame...” (Adams, Henry).

The person who wrote the (what I called "hijacked") point responded to me stating:

I've never seen someone go to such great lengths to miss the point. Congratulations. I didn't "hijack" his discussion point. I spoke to the core of the issue. Even with Obamacare enacted, those in the healthcare field will still be paid for their labor. A far cry from slavery. More to the original point is the undue hardship it puts on the entire system and more importantly the taxpayers who have to pay to subsidize the income of the healthcare worker. To be clear, I'm a proponent of smaller government, much smaller. 

Then we should put the breaks on and even repeal "Obamacare."   You claim to speak to "the core of the issue" - but the original point had nothing to do with religion.  To say I "missed the point" is a bit humorous, since I brought the discussion BACK to the original point AND incorporated the additional topic you brought up!  That being said, I believe what you've just said puts us in agreement!  "The undue hardship it puts on the entire system and more importantly the taxpayers who have to pay to subsidize the income of the health care worker."  THAT statement is completely in line with the original point of this discussion!
  
Footnotes:

Adams, Henry qtd. on: http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/240528-from-cradle-to-grave-this-problem-of-running-order-through

Constitution of the United States and Bill of Rights http://constitutionus.com/

Addendum, 5/13/2013:

> How can you reconcile your stance on subsidized
> healthcare with your stance on subsidized
> religious organizations without some mental
> gymnastics?

Simple, you're comparing apples to oranges.  Health care organizations (I work for one) are getting literally millions of dollars, per organization, in direct subsidy.  Can you name a religious organization which is getting DIRECT subsidy, especially in the millions of dollars?  Each hospital is getting funded, dollar for dollar, for everything they are spending on converting to electronic health records; and the catch is they HAVE to do this - for if they don't then soon comes the penalty phase of the EHR - where if you DON'T have a viable one in place, you will LOSE millions of dollars in Medicare reimbursements!  There is no such thing going on in religious organizations.  The minor percentage of what a hospital MIGHT have to pay taxes on (and there ARE "for profit" hospitals which DO file taxes) would be easily countered by what they "write off" as uncollectable from the uninsured and under-insured.  In the end, they'd pay no significant taxes, if any, even as "for profit" hospitals.

Actually, some religious organizations, namely the Catholic Church, are being forced by the government to subsidize things (like abortion and contraception) which are completely contrary to their doctrines.  Veiling it as "their insurance companies pay for it, not them," is a joke - whom do you think pays the premiums to the insurance companies?!  How about those who self-insure?

> Sorry for taking the conversation in a
> different direction. I had no idea it would be
> this hard for you to follow.

1) Thank you for admitting you took it in a different direction!  That's ALL I was saying when I said you "hijacked" the topic.  It was hijacked too, because Jr., et. al., followed you down the rabbit trail.

2) It wasn't hard to follow at all.  I followed it perfectly - I merely pointed out that it was a different direction from the original topic.  Well, I also have been pointing out the differences between direct and indirect government subsidy.

> For me it seemed a much more interesting tangent
> seeing as how we already agreed on the healthcare
> issue.

Interesting, but as you say - a tangent.

 

Republicans Hate?

I got into a little "debate" of sorts with a friend...

After just a couple rounds, suddenly his account

no longer exists on Facebook!

Actually, I don't think they love America at all. If they did they wouldn't constantly be shredding the Constitution that they claim to love with their talibangelical philosophies.

• 

  CathApol Windsor I'm a Republican and I don't hate President Obama. I have extreme displeasure with many of the things President Obama has done, but I do not hate him. As for the Constitution, um, it is President Obama who has been thumbing his nose at it frequently ...See More

  16 minutes ago · Like
• 

  Obadiah Robert Robinson Tell me what part of the Constitution President Obama has gone against?

  14 minutes ago · Like
• 

  CathApol Windsor Answering a question with a question again, I see. Some things never change. As usual though, I will answer your question - will you answer mine?http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/national-politics/20130125-obama-s-recess-appointments-to-labor-board-violated-constitution-federal-appeals-court-rules.ece
  

  
  

  Obama's recess appointments to labor board violated Constitution, federal appeals court rules

  www.dallasnews.com
  

  WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama violated the Constitution when he bypassed t...See More

  10 minutes ago · Like · Remove Preview
• 

  Obadiah Robert Robinson One thing. Any others?

  7 minutes ago · Like
• 

  CathApol Windsor How many do you need? Remember, YOU said it was Republicans "shredding the Constitution" and YOU have been challenged to document where - when they are not even in control of enough to do any such "shredding." So, you want more? Try this "Top Ten List:"http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/president-obamas-top-10-constitutional-violations
  

  
  

  President Obama's Top 10 Constitutional Violations

  www.cato.org
  

  One of the biggest political changes that 2011 brought — in large part due to th...See More

  3 minutes ago · Like · Remove Preview
• 

  Obadiah Robert Robinson None of those "top ten" are violations of the Constitution.

  a few seconds ago · Like
• 

  CathApol Windsor Also, remember, I said he's "thumbing his nose" at the Constitution, not "shredding" it. How about supporting the ordering of drones to kill Americans without due process - a Constitutional RIGHT for all Americans?

  Unable to post comment. Try Again