The Necessity of Religion

I was not a Mitt Romney supporter in this last primary process. Some of the things he said rubbed me the wrong way. That aside, I do agree with him on some matters. One of them was a sentiment he expressed in his notable speech on religion. In that speech he said, "Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom." Religion isn't necessarily the word I would have used, but I agree with the sentiment. Romney's quote hearkens back to one of my all time favorite John Adams quotes that says, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

There was an article posted back in January of this year at American Thinker that talks about Mitt's speech and whether religion really is necessary. It is a quick read and I found it to be very thought provoking. Here's a great excerpt:

Self governance cannot function without morality. As morals decline, laws expand and freedoms necessarily contract. This is because no law is perfect. The perfect application of law is only possible if the lawmaker and judge are omniscient, knowing every reason a law exists and every detail, even the thoughts, of the alleged law-breaker.

Since this is impossible, the best situation is to have the fewest laws possible, to avoid illegalizing proper behavior under legislation's inevitably wide swath. The more self-regulating (or moral) a nation is collectively, the fewer laws needed to maintain order.

As national morality declines, inducing governments and citizens to favor more laws, the less plausible our Constitutional system becomes.

I encourage you to go read the article in full. It made me really consider how we have gotten to the point in our society that we have to defend our rights when those who originally pushed for our constitution's ratification felt that the enumeration of such rights was wholly unnecessary, as expressed in the Federalist Paper No. 84, written by Alexander Hamilton:

I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted.

For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power.

Feel free to leave your thoughts in the comments.

The Camel's Nose and Your Tent

Via CNN.com, there is a report of a push for legislation that would require anyone who owns/operates a wireless internet network to keep a log of all users for two years to aid police investigations.

This is the technological equivalent of the government, say 12 years ago, requiring you to keep an accurate log of everyone who uses your phone for the last 2 years.

Sorry, but this is wrong. This is the government sticking it's nose into your private life. If they want to get a warrant for the records you do have, that's one thing but this is different. You don't have to keep a log of where your car goes and who drives it to aid an investigation about whether it was used in a crime. You aren't required to keep a log of all video purchases and what movies are watched on your television/DVD player to make sure you aren't pirating movies. There is no reason to force you to keep a record of who uses your internet connection.

Contact your legislators and let them know that you want the government to keep out of your business.

Unstoppable force, meet immovable object

A very quick post. I would love to research this more and write up a big long post, but I just do not have the time right now.

First, a quick intro to "Good Samaritan" laws. They are laws enacted to protect those coming to the aid of another from prosecution for any harm that may come to a person due to emergency care rendered. These laws vary from state to state regarding whom they protect and in what ways. Here is an excerpt from California's via this article from the LA Times whic has a story about the incident I am going to bring up:

"No person who in good faith, and not for compensation, renders emergency care at the scene of an emergency shall be liable for any civil damages resulting from any act or omission"

Enter a case out of California. Lisa Torti saw her coworker in a car crash. Her coworker, Alexandra Van Horn, was paralyzed in the car crash. Torti claims to have seen smoke and liquid coming from the vehicle and feared an imminent explosion[1]. She ran to the car and pulled an unconscious Van Horn from the vehicle, yanking her from the car "like a rag doll"[2].

Van Horn sues. Torti appeals. They end up at the state supreme court. The court hears both sides and concludes in a 4-3 decision that the above law did not protect Torti because pulling Van Horn from the car did not qualify as "medical care."

In a dissent written by Justice Marvin Baxter, the minority deemed “illogical” recognition of legal immunity for nonprofessionals administering medical care while denying it for nonmedical actions, like saving a person from drowning or carrying an injured hiker to safety.

"One who dives into swirling waters to retrieve a drowning swimmer can be sued for incidental injury he or she causes while bringing the victim to shore, but is immune for harm he or she produces while thereafter trying to revive the victim," Baxter wrote. "Here, the result is that defendant Torti has no immunity for her bravery in pulling her injured friend from a crashed vehicle, even if she reasonably believed it might be about to explode."

I gotta say that I side with the dissent here. But the problematic aspects of this ruling aren't why I am writing this.

Let's contrast this with Vermont's Good Samaritan's law:

A person who knows another is exposed to grave physical harm shall, to the extent that the same can be rendered without danger or peril to himself or without interference with important duties owed to others, give reasonable assistance to the exposed person unless that assistance or care is being provided by others.

In case you didn't catch it, Vermont requires you to help. Remember Seinfeld's series finale? Yeah, that kind of requires.

So let me ask, what would happen California had the same type of requirement? Or what if Vermont had a judge who ruled similarly to this California ruling?

You can't not help but you can be sued if you do.

Think it can't happen? I wouldn't hold my breath...

So what do you think about mandatory help laws? The California ruling?

*****
[1] Chances are that what she saw was some liquid, probably antifreeze and the "smoke" was actually steam from the antifreeze hitting the hot engine. Doubtful if there was any real danger of explosion at all, but I used to be in emergency services and have learned about this stuff. The general public has not and only knows what they see on TV. I could talk for a while about the ways in which ridiculously unrealistic cinematic special effects have warped the ability for the public at large to react to real life situations, but that is a different subject entirely.

[2] I heartily object to this phrase as it implies carelessness. How easily and carefully could you be when pulling an unconcscious adult from a car? Would they be limp and flop around?