I believe that the First Amendment was intended for individual persons, not corporate "entities."
I believe that as long as corporations are granted the same free speech rights as individual persons, the individual person will be forgotten by our government.
I believe that sending money to a political campaign should not be seen as an exercise of free speech rights.
I believe that public financing of political campaigns is a good first step, but that it will not be the final solution for removing the overwhelming amounts of corporate influence from the government.
I believe that tension between the branches of government is a good and desired thing.
I believe in congressional oversight. (I further believe that our current Congress has abdicated this responsibility.)
I believe that a one-party government is beholden to no-one. And that is a bad thing.
I believe that in six years of being the only party with significant power, the Republicans have yet to deliver on their promises of small government, fiscal responsibility, transparency, security, integrity, and personal freedom.
I believe that as long as voting citizens hold party before country that we will vote ourselves into tyranny. Or worse.
I believe that sometimes we as voters need to bite the bullet, hold our noses, and vote for someone we don't particularly like in order to ensure that our government continues to work for the people.
I believe that transparency in government is a pre-condition to democracy. I further believe that secrecy is a poison that will kill our "great experiment."
I believe that putting power in the hands of people who are overtly (but not piously) religious inevitably leads to theocracy.
I believe that theocracy inevitably leads to persecution of minorities, atheists, homosexuals, and anyone else that is not part of the "flock."
I do not believe that terrorists can topple this country. Our governments are too distributed.
I believe that what will topple this country is apathy.
I believe that this journal entry will produce enough flames to power the pyrotechnics at a KISS revival concert.
JOhn.
- Mood:
pessimistic
Page Summary
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif)
jbriggs : (no subject) [+1] - slacker_x : (no subject) [+1]
- maniakes : (no subject) [+3]
- bobaloo : (no subject) [+1]
- madknits : (no subject) [+1]
- irrationalrobot : (no subject) [+0]
- maybe4sure : (no subject) [+1]
- hereticsoul : (no subject) [+2]
- glittercat13 : (no subject) [+0]
- lordpook1 : (no subject) [+1]
- killerjoe : (no subject) [+0]
- scout1222 : (no subject) [+1]
- nolly : (no subject) [+0]
Designed by chasethestars
chasethestars
Comments
Yet, I believe that a great bit of what you say here is correct.
Pyrotechnics not withstanding d^;
JOhn.
I'd also be interested in seeing your "I believes".
JOhn.
1. I believe that tension between the branches of government is a good and desired thing.
2. I believe in congressional oversight.
3. I believe that in six years of being the only party with significant power, the Republicans have yet to deliver on their promises of small government, fiscal responsibility, transparency, security, integrity, and personal freedom.
4. I believe that sometimes we as voters need to bite the bullet, hold our noses, and vote for someone we don't particularly like in order to ensure that our government continues to work for the people.
5. I believe that theocracy inevitably leads to persecution of minorities, atheists, homosexuals, and anyone else that is not part of the "flock."
6. I do not believe that terrorists can topple this country.
(Perhaps "reunion" might have been a better word? *laugh*)
JOhn.
I believe I may copy your post and put it in my journal (with appropriate crediting, of course--please let me know if that is OK).
I believe that a lot of people are going to agree with you, too.
JOhn.
I believe that you don't believe that, or that I seriously misunderstand your readership.
terrorists won't topple this country, but our own politicians, using terrorism as an excuse, are working toward that aim. and when i say "this country", i mean a country that respects, and works toward opening, the freedoms of many people, not a decreasingly select few.
So, I think you made clear what I intended to communicate.
Thanks!
JOhn.
I believe that the First Amendment was intended for individual persons, not corporate "entities."
I don't think the issue here is simply the application of the First Amendment to corporations. I think the problem is much broader than that. I believe that the legal fiction of the corporation as a person, with all the rights we accord human individuals, must be ended. With very few exceptions, no one person in this country has the power of most corporations and as such they suffer from a serious imbalance of power. As long as that imbalance of power, brought about by the aggregate wealth of corporations, continues, we need to ensure that actual human beings are accorded rights that no corporation should enjoy.
I believe that putting power in the hands of people who are overtly (but not piously) religious inevitably leads to theocracy.
I'm not certain what you mean by distinguishing between overtly and piously religious people, so I'm not certain that I agree with you here. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was a very overtly religious person who wielded considerable power in the body politic and his influence did not lead to theocracy. Presidents Kennedy, Carter, and Clinton are/were overtly religious and their faiths did not generate theocracy.
I believe that people who claim any kind of divine imprimateur for unilteral and unquestioned government is inherently threatening to a democratic and egalitarian state. Leaders who believe that they have a divine right to leadership and that only their specific interpretation of faith is suitable for governance can threaten to bring about theocracy.
There are many overtly religious people who are firmly committed to the separation of church and state. They are not the threat. The threat comes from narrow reading of any religion as the sole basis for deciding how to govern. As long as the fully diversity of religious views, including atheism, are honored and respected, theocracy is not a danger.
As for the latter point, I think we can both point to many individuals who wear their religion on their sleeves but who do not appear to be following the tenents of their supposed faith. People who use religious symbols as a weapon against their opponents. People like Swaggart, Robertson, Falwell, Reed, Bush, Dobson, Schlaffley, and the ilk. All of them are overtly religious, yet I would find it hard to say any of them actuall practice what they preach.
Those who are soulfully religious have a different attitude, or so I perceive. They speak of their faith, but not in a way that says "My beliefs are supreme, and we should destroy those who believe otherwise." Thier religion is evident but not "in your face." Their faith gives them a quiet strength, and compels many of them to use that strength to help pull other people up rather than cut them down. I have immense respect for those of this nature.
I realize I may be using the word "pious" in the wrong context. I'm not sure what word would be better. I'll change the word once I figure out what word I really want to use.
JOhn.
"Truly" is another option.
"Outwardly" rather than "overtly", with "inwardly" for "pious", might be better as well.
Thank you.
It's a little scary, but not at all unexpected, to see that no one has challenged statement number one. I suppose that's because we are accustomed to thinking of corporations as powerful, evil, country-ruining entities - and rightfully so, much of the time! But just because you don't agree with a group's agenda does not mean their rights to free speech should be suspended. Yes, I know you think it would give more power to individuals, put corporations on an even footing, etc. But imagine if a business couldn't become a corporation because they'd lose their free speech rights. Or if the various news corporations -radio, tv, newspapers - had no rights to free speech. I guess its fine if you want all the news published on Xeroxed pamphlets and blogs...
The point is, the right to free speech is granted to EVERYONE - entities included. The New York Times is not an individual, an activist group is not an individual, a company that builds biodeisel cars is not an individual - and they all get the right to free speech. But for some reason you'd have this stop at corporations. But just because you don't want Exxon drilling in your flower bed does not mean that their first amendment rights can be waived. If it didn't apply to everything, there'd be no point of having it.
"There ought to be limits to free speech."
-George W. Bush
JOhn.
http://www.npr.org/thisibelieve/agree.h
But thanks!
JOhn.
I do, however, agree with statements 1 and 2, regarding the treatment of corporations as individuals, legally.