|
December 14, 2004
Some cures are worse than the disease
And now for something from someone I'd not ordinarily cite (and who probably wouldn't like this blog) . . . Phyllis Schlafly has a fascinating piece reflecting on (among other things) gender proportionality in women's sports: Gender quotas are created by the invention of an informal regulation called the "proportionality test," which means that the male-to-female ratio on competitive sports teams must equal the male-to-female ratio of college enrollment. About 56 percent of college students today are women, yet only a fraction seek to compete in intercollegiate sports.Women should be made to play sports? Because they don't know what they want? What should men be made to do? Stop wrestling because women don't like to wrestle? I don't know how accurate Schlafly's allegations are, but if they're even half right, the situation is outrageous. But two wrongs do not make a right. And in my opinion, what's more wrong than misguided feminism is Ms. Schlafly's idea (shared by many others) that Congress should strip the Supreme Court of appellate jurisdiction: Don't let anybody tell you that Congress can't tell the federal courts what cases they can and cannot hear.While she's certainly correct in her citation of the Constitution, I don't think removal of the safeguard of judicial review is a good idea. The advocates of these bills (called "The Constitution Restoration Act") want to start by removing the right of the courts to review cases involving certain religious issues, such as the display of the Ten Commandments, or pledge of allegiance cases. Here's the partial text of one such statute: Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any matter to the extent that relief is sought against an element of Federal, State, or local government, or against an officer of Federal, State, or local government (whether or not acting in official personal capacity), by reason of that element's or officer's acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.As interpreted by the Constitution Party's Chuck Baldwin, the statute means the following: This means, that the federal judiciary would be prohibited from interfering with any expression of religious faith by any elected local, state, or federal official. In other words, federal judges could not prevent the Ten Commandments from being displayed in public buildings or Nativity Scenes from appearing on court house lawns or "under God" from being recited in the Pledge of Allegiance or prayers being spoken in public schools, etc. This bill would limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts in these matters.Well, suppose a government official decided to violate his statutory duty, or a judge decided cases based on religious views he claimed were derived from God, and based his action on his "acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government?" Suppose a fundamentalist Muslim police officer refused to arrest a man for wife beating, or prosecutor refused to prosecute him for it, or a judge set aside his conviction? Would the battered wife be without constitutional recourse if the government impropriety was based on religious belief? I'm sure (at least I hope) the proponents of these statutes would argue that the laws exempt only statements of belief, but not action, but what about religious bias? Religious compulsion? Even if my concerns about the statutes proposed are unfounded, once the precedent is there, what's to stop other limitations on judicial review? Why not stop all criminal appeals in death penalty cases, for example? Or tax cases? For now, I guess we should be more worried about blasphemy laws. (Via InstaPundit, who has another blasphemy-related link.) Blasphemy laws are becoming politically correct. I guess if they pass blasphemy laws again, we shouldn't expect much help from "The Constitution Restoration Act." (I'm wondering whether a better name might be "The Constitution Deconstruction Act.") MORE: Voluntary praying is one thing, but I mentioned "religious compulsion" because the First Amendment guarantees that there be no compulsion in matters of religion. Suppose a public school principal decided that in his view, children should be forced to recite the Apostles' Creed or the Shahada? There are a number of people who believe that compelling others to believe what they believe is not only an expression of their religion, but a religious obligation. The idea that a parent would be unable to stop such state action is simply outrageous. To the extent the "Constitutional Restoration Act" blocks parents from suing in such cases, it violates freedom of religion. posted by Eric on 12.14.04 at 03:10 PM
Comments
It's a simple fact that women don't need sports to get into college. Alexa · December 15, 2004 12:20 AM Extremely interesting spectrumologically. Many, many tie-ins.... Wanda has proved that women's athletics are not Scientifically Correct. Dawn is athletic -- and is extremely superstitious! ha! ha! "The duel between atheism and polytheism...." Wanda: "My brain, mind, intellect, science, atheism vs. your muscles, 'soul', 'holiness', myth, theistic lunacy...." Dawn: "The Two Worlds: The One World, a Godless, soulless, flat, levelling ant-heap, opposed by the Free World, the Individual soul, self, ego, striving eternally upward toward the Divine, both a God [the Trinity, Christ, Osiris] and a Goddess [Isis, the Queen of Heaven]...." Equality (Left, horizontal) vs. Religion (Right, vertical). I'm absolutely against equality, levelling. As Dawn would say: for Woman to be strong, she must strive upward and be _superior_, _dominant_, _powerful_ -- _not_ equal. Transcendental Femocracy.... Back in 6th grade, a girl once wrestled me and pinned me to the ground. I still love to think about that. The _style_ of that law is interesting. The "Constitution Restoration Act". "....acknowledgement of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government" The _style_ of that! Yet I must oppose it because of all the subversive ramifications you mentioned. Would it Conserve our Western, Gothic, Catholic-style Civilization? Or would it open the door to Protestantish or Muhammedan influences? Adultery?.... Adultery presupposes adults. Yes, adultery is Hellenic, ancient -- as is the jealousy of the other spouse. Adultery is as old as marriage -- and, conversely, marriage is as old as adultery. Indeed, adultery, by definition, presupposes marriage. Jealousy is as old as lust, indeed, is integral to lust. Therefore, there is, has always been, always will be, the eternal tension between the tight bondage of holy wedlock and the lust, the temptation to adultery. Holy Dawn must eternally struggle between wicked Wanda and her holy Negro wife Norma. The eternal triangle: Offissa Pupp, Ignatz Mouse, Krazy Kat......... Steven Malcolm Anderson (Cato theElder) the Lesbian-worshipping man's-man-admiring myth-based egoist · December 15, 2004 01:49 AM |
|
March 2007
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
March 2007
February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
War For Profit
How trying to prevent genocide becomes genocide I Have Not Yet Begun To Fight Wind Boom Isaiah Washington, victim Hippie Shirts A cunning exercise in liberation linguistics? Sometimes unprincipled demagogues are better than principled activists PETA agrees -- with me! The high pitched squeal of small carbon footprints
Links
Site Credits
|
|
In ridiculing the senselessness of gender quotas, the University of Kansas college newspaper published this ironic comment. "College sports for women should be compulsory. Granted, many women may insist they don't want to play sports, but after generations of patriarchal oppression, it isn't realistic to think women really know what they want. The goal of perfectly equal gender ratios is more important than what anybody 'wants.'"
Very funny, but many "four year feminists" talk exactly like this during their college careers.
Stephen (I know you are reading this), don't you think that adultery is Hellenic?