By Craig
Last year the Supreme Court made a ruling that I knew was going to be trouble. Although some news stations covered, and pundits tried to beat it to death, I don't feel the true message about what just happened ever truly struck home with the American public. What ruling you may wonder? The Property Seizures ruling that allowed local government to take at will privately owned property and use it for their own use.
Now the law is actually not all that new. Almost all railroads, highways, and interstates all dealt with eminent domain. And for those issues, I understand how they can benefit all the public by the sheer use those modes of transportation. Back on June 23, 2005 when the Justices Affirm[ed] Property Seizures, they effectively said that local government always knows the most effective way to use the land on which you live or own. Therefore, since they know more than you, you are forced to surrender your private property.
There was some outrage when the ruling was handed down, but nearly enough for exactly what this would mean. In fact, I heard very little from anyone locally. Well now the issue has hit the town flat in the face. This past week, the Evansville City Government started their tyrannical use of force in adding private properties on the riverfront onto the Redevelopment Acquisition list.
The City of Evansville as well as the Supreme Court defend this ruling by saying that this allows "urban revitalization". Although eminent domain only satisfies the Fifth Amendment by allowing seizures for public use only, they claim that by revitalizing a part of a town or city, that it will bring jobs, which is a public use. But, that isn't a public use, that is a private use. Giving people work through the city is public use, not taking someone's private property, selling it to a company, and allowing them to do what they want with it, hiring who they want.
So what is the real reason this ruling came from the Supreme Court, and why was is it so sought after? Taxes. By building bigger buildings, increasing employment in that one area, but adding companies that would probably not be located there, the city increases their tax revenue. So since you are a private citizen and are pretty much tapped in the amount of tax you can pay, the city can remove you and tax someone else. Looks like the Supreme Court certainly had the constitution in mind when they made that ruling!
This is a dangerous ruling. In essence, although I may be dramatizing this a tad, what is to stop the local government to come to my neighborhood, decide that a mall would bring more jobs and more tax dollars to this area, and force all the residents to leave their homes? There isn't. Given their reasoning for this ruling, public use applies. The Shriner's here in town are the first victim. I just hope they do a better job of fighting this transgression better than the people in New London, CT.
Note: To view the article in the Courier and Press, you will need to sign up, but I recommend the time.
Tags: Eminent Domain , Supreme Court , Evansville, IN
January 24, 2006
December 01, 2005
Pope "Out"laws Gays
Pope Benedict XVI has only been the chief pontiff for seven months, but he is wasting no time in ruling. He has been a controversial figure since he was selected, and from what we have seen, has no intention of denying that charge. On November 29, 2005, the Pope ruled that homosexuality would not be tolerated in the Catholic Church.
Not being Catholic, I can only muse from the outside of this long-standing religion. But at the same time, the debates that rage on within it's confines have become much more visible for all. The recent child molestation and abuse scandal that has gripped Americans for all of 5 years has opened the church to more critical debate, and may be the reason that prompted the new decree.
Just hours after the new ruling, moderates in the UK were somewhat pleased with the ruling. The actual ruling from the Congregation for Catholic Education stated that'
The fact that this ruling did completelyetly ban gays from the church, or the preisthood, was taken as somewhat good news due to the fact that Pope Benedict has used phrases to describe homosexuality as a “tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil” while head of the the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. To further explain the ruling The Archbishop of Westminster, Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor explained that in this ruling,
But not everyone was as optimistic. Peter Tatchell, of the gay rights group OutRage!, said it was “bigoted and hypocritical”. He said:
What is this guy thinking? Does he actually believe that requiring those men who wish to be priests to simply prove that they have forsaken sex, of any and all kinds, is outlandish? Tatchell believes that instead of attacking gays, the church should take a harder line on those who molest children. How can anybody not see that molesting children and being gay are in no way even close to being related? The reason nothing has been handed down about the child molestation cases is that it seems obvious that this should not happen, but with homosexuality, the line is not so clear. This ruling is just trying to darken that line for all to see.
But for those in America, don't worry too much, because nothing can get passed some wacko comment from our own. 'The Human Rights Campaign, a gay pressure group based in the US, said gays were being used as scapegoats . . .'We urge them to consider what Jesus would do if he saw his neighbor treated this way,' the group said." What a great way to twist the words of a man you reject anyway. Let me tell you what Jesus would do, although I am sure you think you already know. Jesus was a man of the people. He loved to congregate and dwell among the least of these. He would not forsaken those who wish to follow him, but at them same time, he wound not accept all that they did.
The most famous of stories that I can use for comparison, although I know it may be far fetched, is that of Nicodemus. The tax collector Nicodemus wanted to be a part of the crowd to see Jesus as he came through town. Jesus spotted Nicodemus and asked to take party with him. This surprised all the people as Nicodemus was well hated and the people could not believe that Jesus would choose to spend time with a man that could be so cruel. But he did. Not because he shared the same passions, but simply because he wanted Nicodemus to know that he cared. Although it is not known if Nicodemus quit his tax collection, but it is clear that Jesus did not condone his activities, but simply love his neighbor for who he was, a living creature.
I think this ruling will be hotly contested in years to come. As moderates give way to radicals, debate will heat up. But for now, this is what the church needs to reclaim its strength in the world. For speaking purely in religious terms, acts of homosexuality is considered a sin. But being a homosexual is not. I try to live by the motto that you should love the person but not always love their actions. So to the question posed by The Human Rights Campaign, I believe that is what Jesus would do.
by Craig
TAGS: Pope Benedict , Time Magazine , Newsweek , Catholics Gay
Not being Catholic, I can only muse from the outside of this long-standing religion. But at the same time, the debates that rage on within it's confines have become much more visible for all. The recent child molestation and abuse scandal that has gripped Americans for all of 5 years has opened the church to more critical debate, and may be the reason that prompted the new decree.
Just hours after the new ruling, moderates in the UK were somewhat pleased with the ruling. The actual ruling from the Congregation for Catholic Education stated that'
"[O]rdination was not permissible for men with “deep-seated” gay tendencies but was permissible for those who could show they had overcome “transitory” homosexuality for three years. It does not apply to those already ordained."
The fact that this ruling did completelyetly ban gays from the church, or the preisthood, was taken as somewhat good news due to the fact that Pope Benedict has used phrases to describe homosexuality as a “tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil” while head of the the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. To further explain the ruling The Archbishop of Westminster, Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor explained that in this ruling,
“The instruction is not saying that men of homosexual orientation are not welcome in the priesthood. But it is making clear that they must be capable of affective maturity, have a capacity for celibacy and not share the values of the eroticised gay culture. This is especially important because seminaries are all-male environments.”
But not everyone was as optimistic. Peter Tatchell, of the gay rights group OutRage!, said it was “bigoted and hypocritical”. He said:
““If these ruleshad existed in the past, many existing archbishops and cardinals would have never been allowed to enter the priesthood. Given the high proportion of gay clergy in senior positions in the Vatican, this new policy is rank hypocrisy.
“Given that about a third of Catholic clergy in Britain are gay, the new rules are [a] goal that could result in hundreds of churches being left without priests.”
What is this guy thinking? Does he actually believe that requiring those men who wish to be priests to simply prove that they have forsaken sex, of any and all kinds, is outlandish? Tatchell believes that instead of attacking gays, the church should take a harder line on those who molest children. How can anybody not see that molesting children and being gay are in no way even close to being related? The reason nothing has been handed down about the child molestation cases is that it seems obvious that this should not happen, but with homosexuality, the line is not so clear. This ruling is just trying to darken that line for all to see.
But for those in America, don't worry too much, because nothing can get passed some wacko comment from our own. 'The Human Rights Campaign, a gay pressure group based in the US, said gays were being used as scapegoats . . .'We urge them to consider what Jesus would do if he saw his neighbor treated this way,' the group said." What a great way to twist the words of a man you reject anyway. Let me tell you what Jesus would do, although I am sure you think you already know. Jesus was a man of the people. He loved to congregate and dwell among the least of these. He would not forsaken those who wish to follow him, but at them same time, he wound not accept all that they did.
The most famous of stories that I can use for comparison, although I know it may be far fetched, is that of Nicodemus. The tax collector Nicodemus wanted to be a part of the crowd to see Jesus as he came through town. Jesus spotted Nicodemus and asked to take party with him. This surprised all the people as Nicodemus was well hated and the people could not believe that Jesus would choose to spend time with a man that could be so cruel. But he did. Not because he shared the same passions, but simply because he wanted Nicodemus to know that he cared. Although it is not known if Nicodemus quit his tax collection, but it is clear that Jesus did not condone his activities, but simply love his neighbor for who he was, a living creature.
I think this ruling will be hotly contested in years to come. As moderates give way to radicals, debate will heat up. But for now, this is what the church needs to reclaim its strength in the world. For speaking purely in religious terms, acts of homosexuality is considered a sin. But being a homosexual is not. I try to live by the motto that you should love the person but not always love their actions. So to the question posed by The Human Rights Campaign, I believe that is what Jesus would do.
by Craig
TAGS: Pope Benedict , Time Magazine , Newsweek , Catholics Gay
November 21, 2005
This Is What We Get To Listen To?
I was awoken Thursday morning, November 10th much like every morning. My clock radio went off at 6:30, alerting me to the upcoming day. And much like every morning, I either listen to the local radio station, or turn on the TV to catch up. This day, I choose to listen to the local radio station personalities, and what I hear has not sat well with me for days.
The radio was tuned to Hot 96 WSTO out of Evansville. The morning personalities of Booker and Sarah were on like normal. Booker usually has some wisecrack to say and some topic he chooses to discuss, while Sarah tries her best to act cute. For me on that day, it was anything but.
It was only three days after the horrific and terrifying tornado has swept through the area, killing 25 people. Many of people has visited the hardest hit areas, some news, a lot of police, and even politicians. Governor Mitch Daniels, Sen. Evan Bayh, Democratic hopeful for 2006 congressional seat Brad Ellsworth, but to that date, no John Hostettler, the area's Republican Represenative in the U.S. Congress.
He had made a statement that although he was to be in the area the coming weekend, we would not be able to tour the damage.
That statement apparently offended radio personality Booker, because he went on a dia-tribe for about 10 minutes about how bad a guy Hostettler was/is, how much he should be there, how he is turning his back on his constituents, and more. Sarah added her pithy comments where she could.
But guess what, a local reporter with Fox 7 found out something many did not know. Hostettler was helping the tornado victims by actually working and picking up debris, he just choose to turn away from the spotlight. And how did the reporter, Chris Williams find out? Hostettler ended up at his house Saturday morning cleaning up debris with a local church when Williams' father found about Hostettler's presence. Williams found out that he had been as the mobile home park that had been destroyed on Friday and was working in Newburgh on Saturday. The only people that knew were the local church and the Courier and Press which agree to keep the event private.
Hostettler's publicist said that, "Congressman Hostettler and his wife were volunteering privately and for purposes of publicity."(Courier and Press) Hostettler said himself in a interview with local TV station WFIE that' "The governor . . . asked for a state of emergency; and that was done. And while some turned it into a photo op[Sen. Evan Bayh], we tried to do what we could as fast as we could to turn around that situation."(Courier and Press)." Because of Hostettler's presence at Congress instead of interfering with recovery efforts, the federal money available to those suffering lost was approved in three days. But then again, a picture is worth a thousand words, but does it really help anyone?
To this date, I have heard no such apology from the morning personalities from 96 WSTO, but to be fair, I haven't had that much desire to hear their babble anyways. People will always have their opinions, and there is nothing wrong with being a free thinker. But when you have a position that you can affect a great number of an audience, and persuade their feelings, it is better to think before you speak. Booker's comments that morning were rude and unjustified. He could have mentioned that he thought it wrong that Hostettler had not made plans to visit, but save judgment until after the weekend was over. Unlike Booker, some people choose not to have the spotlight on them all the time.
It is unfortunate that our politicians are not allowed the opportunity to do good deeds without a media presence hovering over. To me, it cheapens the experience a little. How can we be certain they are doing it because it is the right thing to do, or because they just earned 5 percentage points in the polls. Much debate has raged on about Bush and 9/11, but at that event, and with him such a high-profile person, it is hard to sneak out of the camera's eye. Bayh choose not to duck the camera, but then again, Bayh has a presidential run to prepare for, and devastation always brings the best poll numbers.
By Craig
Tags: Evansville Tornado , Evan Bayh , John Hostettler , FOX 7NEWS , WFIE 14 , Evansville Courier and Press
The radio was tuned to Hot 96 WSTO out of Evansville. The morning personalities of Booker and Sarah were on like normal. Booker usually has some wisecrack to say and some topic he chooses to discuss, while Sarah tries her best to act cute. For me on that day, it was anything but.
It was only three days after the horrific and terrifying tornado has swept through the area, killing 25 people. Many of people has visited the hardest hit areas, some news, a lot of police, and even politicians. Governor Mitch Daniels, Sen. Evan Bayh, Democratic hopeful for 2006 congressional seat Brad Ellsworth, but to that date, no John Hostettler, the area's Republican Represenative in the U.S. Congress.
He had made a statement that although he was to be in the area the coming weekend, we would not be able to tour the damage.
That statement apparently offended radio personality Booker, because he went on a dia-tribe for about 10 minutes about how bad a guy Hostettler was/is, how much he should be there, how he is turning his back on his constituents, and more. Sarah added her pithy comments where she could.
But guess what, a local reporter with Fox 7 found out something many did not know. Hostettler was helping the tornado victims by actually working and picking up debris, he just choose to turn away from the spotlight. And how did the reporter, Chris Williams find out? Hostettler ended up at his house Saturday morning cleaning up debris with a local church when Williams' father found about Hostettler's presence. Williams found out that he had been as the mobile home park that had been destroyed on Friday and was working in Newburgh on Saturday. The only people that knew were the local church and the Courier and Press which agree to keep the event private.
Hostettler's publicist said that, "Congressman Hostettler and his wife were volunteering privately and for purposes of publicity."(Courier and Press) Hostettler said himself in a interview with local TV station WFIE that' "The governor . . . asked for a state of emergency; and that was done. And while some turned it into a photo op[Sen. Evan Bayh], we tried to do what we could as fast as we could to turn around that situation."(Courier and Press)." Because of Hostettler's presence at Congress instead of interfering with recovery efforts, the federal money available to those suffering lost was approved in three days. But then again, a picture is worth a thousand words, but does it really help anyone?
To this date, I have heard no such apology from the morning personalities from 96 WSTO, but to be fair, I haven't had that much desire to hear their babble anyways. People will always have their opinions, and there is nothing wrong with being a free thinker. But when you have a position that you can affect a great number of an audience, and persuade their feelings, it is better to think before you speak. Booker's comments that morning were rude and unjustified. He could have mentioned that he thought it wrong that Hostettler had not made plans to visit, but save judgment until after the weekend was over. Unlike Booker, some people choose not to have the spotlight on them all the time.
It is unfortunate that our politicians are not allowed the opportunity to do good deeds without a media presence hovering over. To me, it cheapens the experience a little. How can we be certain they are doing it because it is the right thing to do, or because they just earned 5 percentage points in the polls. Much debate has raged on about Bush and 9/11, but at that event, and with him such a high-profile person, it is hard to sneak out of the camera's eye. Bayh choose not to duck the camera, but then again, Bayh has a presidential run to prepare for, and devastation always brings the best poll numbers.
By Craig
Tags: Evansville Tornado , Evan Bayh , John Hostettler , FOX 7NEWS , WFIE 14 , Evansville Courier and Press
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
