-
- Tue 18 Jun 12:00 AMOn Syria, no, I'm not ready for Hillary
0
by kbusch - Mon 17 Jun 8:54 PMRebuild the Casey Bridge campaign
0
by peggy - Mon 17 Jun 6:31 PMSen. Spilka introduces "Electronic Privacy Act" in MA Senate
2
by fenway49 - Mon 17 Jun 1:24 PMNew Assault on the Poor
7
by progressivemass - Mon 17 Jun 9:56 AMNate Silver has weighed in.
0
by mollypat - Mon 17 Jun 9:25 AMNate Silver weighs in today on Markey-Gomez
1
by oceandreams - Sun 16 Jun 8:33 PMNEIGHBORHOOD SCHOOLS, NEIGHBORHOOD SUPERINTENDENT
3
by columwhyte - Sat 15 Jun 8:05 PMGame 2 open thread
5
by jconway - Sat 15 Jun 8:01 PMA team of brothers
4
by cam-kerry - Sat 15 Jun 6:52 PMIf Gabriel Gomez Supports ENDA, Why Doesn't He Say So Publicly?
14
by laurel
- Tue 18 Jun 12:00 AMOn Syria, no, I'm not ready for Hillary
mel-warshaw
Attorney. Old liberal activist.
Person #1260: 0 Posts
Recommended: 9 times
I recommend the following slogans (0 Replies)
“I’m a Mitt Romney Republican.”
“Inexperience in government is no vice.”
“It’s what’s good for the top 2%, stupid!”
“I am not a crook.”
Lumber Company? (1 Reply)
Steve Grossman has nothing to do with Grossman Lumber. He is or was connected with Grossman Marketing Group, formerly Massachusetts Envelope Company, a company with a great liberal tradition.
What bad PR from the convention? (1 Reply)
The convention ended a primary fight, gave a great boost to Elizabeth Warren, and allowed the formation of various coordinated campaigns. If there was bad PR, it must have been limited to the DeFranco campaign.
I love it. (0 Replies)
Senator Barney Frank. There’s a good ring to it. Let’s do it.
Clarification (0 Replies)
I did not intend to include the second sentence. Sorry about that.
Ask and you shall receive. (1 Reply)
I will answer your inquiry by stating that a statewide property tax is one of the worst ideas I have heard in a long time. It is not in any way related to a gas tax. Giving credence to a state-wide property tax is only topped by your belief that it may not be “possible or desirable to try to do anything about where businesses locate or what they offer.”
It's easy to write; hard to pass (0 Replies)
I actually have my own list of statutes that should be repealed. In addition, to M.G.L. Ch. 272, Sec. 36, the blasphemy statute, my list includes:
Ch. 71, Sec. 30 (Requiring the teaching of piety and sacred virtues)
Ch. 71, Sec. 31 (Requiring bible reading in the public schools)
Ch. 264, Sec. 16A (Communist Party Outlawed)
Ch. 272, Sec. 14 (Adultery – Felony)
Ch. 272, Sec. 18 (Fornication – Misdemeanor)
Ch. 272, Sec. 26 (Immorality in Restaurants and Taverns – Misdemeanor)
Ch. 272, Sec. 29 (Disseminating obscenity – Felony)
Ch. 272, Sec. 34 (Committing abominable and detestable crime against nature – Felony)
Ch. 272, Sec. 35 (Committing unnatural and lascivious acts – Felony)
Ch. 272, Sec. 36A (Criticizing sports officials too strongly – Misdemeanor)
These statutes is the low-hanging fruit that is easy to draft and should be easy to pass, but it isn’t. There are several other statutes, but I haven’t included them here because they need to be amended rather than repealed. For example, M.G.L. Ch. 233, Sec. 15 requires that oaths be administered with the hand in the air and the words “so help me God” added at the end. That statute has to be amended, not repealed.
Some, but not all of them, can be included in one comprehensive bill. And, yes, the process is quite simple. It’s getting the votes that is difficult.
It's called civil rights. (1 Reply)
Evidently Christopher would bring back the poll tax and miscegenation laws, only from a quaint heritage standpoint, of course. It’s not very difficult to file a bill which states: “M.G.L. Ch. 272, Sec. 36 is hereby repealed.” And there are many other such laws that need to be repealed in the name of civil rights, which, for Christopher, is not a worthy endeavor.
Unenforceable and Unconstitutional Laws Should Be Repealed. (0 Replies)
There are many absurd, unenforceable and unconstitutional laws that remain on our books simply because cowardly legislators are afraid to offend a few simple-minded constituents. But the crime of blasphemy strikes me as being particularly insane. M.G.L. Ch. 272, Sec. 36 states:
In Massachusetts, non-Christians, atheists, and agnostics are advised to remain silent about God, Christ and the Holy Ghost lest they be placed on a public pillory.
Global Cooling (2 Replies)
The Globe is certainly not the paper it used to be. One only has to read yesterday’s editorial entitled, “Obama should utilize Romney as a special economic adviser.” Even its endorsement of Warren was, in my opinion, surprisingly weak and uninspiring.
Violation of Pact banning unauthorized ads (1 Reply)
Would someone please tell me why the shameful Mass. GOP Cherokee ad is not a violation of the pact between Brown and Warren, which banned unauthorized ads purchased outside of the campaign. If it is a violation, shouldn’t Brown’s campaign pay to a named charity 1/2 the cost of the ad within three days? And shouldn’t that violation become a campaign issue?
Marisa, not Melissa (0 Replies)
Er, that’s Marisa. Sorry about that.
Know when to leave (0 Replies)
Melissa DeFranco, who I like very much personally, has made one of the biggest mistakes a person running for public office can make — she has failed to recognize when to leave a race. Stubbornly hanging on after it is clear that she has no ability to beat either Warren or Brown says to me loudly and clearly that she does not yet have the maturity necessary to be a serious state-wide candidate. She is not only hurting her future political career, she is inadvertently helping Scott Brown and jeopardizing our chances to gain another liberal champion in the Senate.
It is what it is (0 Replies)
Most non-believers are neither blind nor stupid. They generally recognize a religious symbol when they see one. And when it is on public property maintained by the taxpayers, they also know what that signifies despite the outpouring of obfuscation justifying its display on public property.
(0 Replies)
And a lighted cross is just two intersecting lighted boards that symbolize nothing.
Turning our back on the Establishment Clause (0 Replies)
I’m very disappointed to see the number of contributors to this discussion that have expressed little understanding of the meaning of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Until now, I was under the impression that liberals believed in the wall of separation between Church and State and what that meant. Apparently I was wrong.
In the landmark Supreme Court case of Everson v. Board of Education (1947) all nine justices subscribed to the following minimal definition of the Establishment Clause:
“The ‘establishment of religion’ clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between Church and State.’”
There can be no getting around it – allowing a Nativity scene to be erected on government property supported by the taxpayers is a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, particularly when it stands alone. We are not talking about placing a wreath or a lighted tree on government property. We are talking about placing the most sacred symbol of Christianity on public property. What is it about religious indoctrination that makes it impossible for some people to understand this? What is it about religion that compels religious leaders to express their religion on government property? As somervilletom states, allowing such a sacred religious symbol to be erected on government property implies government endorsement. And that is just not acceptable.
It does hurt -- a lot! (0 Replies)
First, the Unitarian Universalist Association does not believe in the divinity of Christ. Many of its members consider themselves Christians, but the UUA is not a Christian Church. Also many of its members consider themselves Jews, Agnostics, Atheists or something else other than Christian. Therefore, the Unitarian Universalist Association is not likely to agree to place a Nativity Scene on its property, especially knowing how uncomfortable that would be to many of its membership.
Second, contrary to popular belief, the Establishment Clause does not merely prohibit government from establishing a religion or favoring one religion over another. It prohibits government from even giving the appearance of favoring religion over non-religion.
Third, the Nativity Scene is the most religious symbol of Christianity. It is properly placed on church or other private property, not government property. Violations of the First Amendment are harmful. One violation always leads to another and another. Look the other way regarding Nativity Scenes on our public commons and the next thing we know we will be supporting parochial schools via a system of vouchers. Now that really hurts. In the words of Wendell Phillips, “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.”
It's still about power and control (0 Replies)
I agree that requesting a permit for a Satanist or an atheist display would accomplish the goal of getting rid of future religious displays, but that is not something I prefer to do. I would normally feel more comfortable instituting a civil rights action against the Town. However, the makeup of the present Supreme Court is radically different from what this country has seen in the past. The Court of Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy is not representative of the thinking of mainstream constitutional scholars and this Court seems ready to make a radical shift regarding the long-standing Jeffersonian-Madison doctrine of the separation between church and state. I don’t want to be part of that. Until the make-up of the Court changes, the law is what it is and needs to be understood and enforced by our government bodies.
But my main point was that the planting of religious symbols on public property has little to do with religion. To the contrary, it is about power and control. It is a powerful statement by mostly Christians that their religion is more powerful than those who believe differently. The arrogance of such thinking is both aggravating and divisive. Even if the Constitution did not prohibit such symbols on private property, it would still be inappropriate because such symbols are offensive to so many persons.
There is no disagreement that the purpose of the Bill of Rights was to protect the rights of minorities from the tyranny of the majority. Pandering to that majority is what politicians do. That’s exactly what the Bill of Rights is there to prevent. Pandering to the majority has no constitutional basis and when politicians succumb to unconstitutional demands of the majority, it is generally out of fear of losing the next election. There are very few politicians who have the courage to stand up to popular religious pressure. If politicians did, they would be willing to draw the constitutional line, and we would then likely call them something more admirable than politicians.
It's about power and control (2 Replies)
For several years, I have publicly expressed my opposition to the granting of a Permit to erect a Nativity scene on the Framingham Town Common and I can tell you that much of the reaction to my opposition was downright mean-spirited. I opposed the erection of the Nativity scene on Town property based on my familiarity with the history and cases concerning the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The Nativity scene, like the Cross, is an inherently religious symbol and, from my reading of the cases, the allowance of an inherently religious display on governmental property should be considered a violation of the principle of separation of church and state. At best, it is constitutionally questionable and, without any doubt, unconstitutional when it stands alone. Of course, like all civil libertarians, I worry about what the current majority of our Supreme Court justices would rule on this subject today.
A request to use governmental property to display inherently religious symbols is not unique to either Westford or Framingham. Such requests have occurred in communities all over the country. I used to wonder why followers of certain religions, usually the Christian religion, but more recently those of the tiny Lubavitcher faction of Judaism, continually insist on erecting their inherently religious symbols on governmental property. What is the motivation for doing so? Certainly, it is not inappropriate to erect such displays on church property or other private property. Why, then, the need to erect such displays on governmental property? I long ago attributed the reason to a desire by religious institutions to demonstrate their power and control in order to force the state to honor religious faith in general and, in particular, their brand of religious faith. They know all too well that there aren’t many politicians who are willing to support the Establishment Clause against the demands and obfuscations of the local religious community. The religious community’s power and control was demonstrated just two years ago when, after I publicly opposed the erection of the Nativity Scene on Town property, the church that erected it didn’t remove it until almost a month after its permit expired, and no town official publicly objected. I see the failure to remove it as another statement of power and control directed, this time, at me and others who in the future may think about speaking out against violations of our constitution, more particularly, the principle of separation of church and state.
To those who see little or no harm in such displays and believe that persons like me should shut up and get a life, try to appreciate that some of us see the allowance of such inherently religious displays on governmental property as another chip taken from the Establishment Clause. If the meaning of separation of church and state continues to be blurred by continued violations coupled with the fear of speaking out against such violations, it may someday become politically acceptable for governments to do things that it couldn’t get away with now. For example, issuing school vouchers for private schools, including parochial schools; permitting the erection of large lighted Crosses, Stars of David and other inherently religious symbols on governmental buildings and land; enforcing existing criminal laws against blasphemy; plowing church parking lots; and so on and so on and so on.
My hope is that some day a Board of Selectmen will find the courage to say “no” to all requests to display inherently religious symbols on Town property. That’s the one answer that every expert on the First Amendment should agree is constitutional.
(0 Replies)
You ran a wonderful campaign that anyone should be proud of. Those of us who support Elizabeth Warren knew you were a class act. I wish you well and hope there will be a next time. I’ll be with you then for sure.