Our government, above all else, is a Western democracy. In our country, a person may believe in God, many gods, or no divinity at all, but those sentiments do not keep them from participating in politics. Again, true Western democracy is value neutral in that matter. Why? By allowing government-local, state, or federal-to plant the monument of a particular creed or officially recognize the values of any one religious sect, government injects the seeds of democracy’s destruction. Fundamentally, the inalterable Word of God does not lend itself to compromise. But so many people have so many different inalterable Words of God. Whose is superior? That of the one packing the most heat? Religious dogma in public discourse cannot be challenged by the non-believer. Only secular-rational arguments-something both believer and non-believer can understand-are able to bridge the gap between them. Without rationality, political discourse breaks down, as seen on campus with the labeling, vandalism, and hate-speech. In short, compromise and rationality are the keys to our heterogeneous democracy.

The Democratic Party defaults to the US Supreme Court, which holds that convictions should be held and cherished, as they do form the basis of people’s morality, but they can only be presented overtly in official settings as “historical symbols,” honoring official traditions. We believe our religious beliefs can and should lead to secular rationale in our secular political system. We believe that individuals of any creed, or no creed, should be allowed to openly express their personal beliefs in all settings outside areas of government officialdom, where such words can be used to oppress the spirit of those who believe differently. Our democracy relies upon ideas winning out over others based upon their rationality and common sense, not the coercion embodied in government sanction. Religious ideals should be treated no differently.

#1.884029:1661942133.jpg:Goetz, Justin.jpg:Justin Goetz, From the Left:

If there is one issue on which the “Do-Nothing Congress” is aptly termed, it is the immigration issue. Both Republicans and Democrats can’t seem to stop the bickering in their respective houses as both parties have internal factions which either support “no amnesty” or are willing to “compromise.”

There are 12 million illegal immigrants currently residing in the United States. Yes, each and every one of these people did indeed break the law. However, we cannot feasibly deport one million souls, let alone twelve. Nor can a $1.2 billion wall covering only 700 miles of our 1400 mile border with Mexico be the solution the Bush Administration continues to crow about. A $1.2 billion measure that can be thwarted with a $.50 shovel. Good one, Georgie.

So here’s my take. Let’s start our prosecutorial furor with the businesses throughout America that exploit these people hoping for a better life. Duplicate social security numbers are already on file with the IRS-information that can be used to easily find and break up these illicit operations. Levy a heavy enough fine, and not even Wal-Mart would think of employing illegal immigrants. Moreover, increasing the number of border agents will prove to be far more effective at deterrence and apprehension than any wall. Finally, for illegal immigrants already in the country, work visas should be granted to these individuals. They, in no way, allow for any path to citizenship, as these visas are not documents that allow for permanent status, but they do allow these individuals to work legally under protective U.S. wage and occupational standards while allowing them the same chance all foreign nationals have to apply for permanent status and, eventually, citizenship.

But then again, what do I know? I’m not running for my political life this election cycle. I’m just a guy with a weird newspaper picture.

#1.884029:1661942133.jpg:Goetz, Justin.jpg:Justin Goetz, From the Left:

The Bush Administration supposedly holds terrorism as its first priority. Yet, with all the rhetoric used by the Administration, it can only prove “success” by stating “the homeland hasn’t been attacked since 9/11.”

Let’s put this statement into context. It took eight years for al-Qaeda to plan two attacks on America. It took al-Qaeda only five years post-9/11 before the London plot to explode eleven planes over the Atlantic was crafted, and then we were only saved because the British had superior intelligence assets.

If anything, the attacks are getting more elaborate and frequent. For 2005, the National Counter-Terrorism Center held that over 11,000 attacks occurred worldwide. Added to this is an April 2006 State Department report, which depicted Iraq as a “breeding ground for terrorists.” Iraq has caused us to lose focus on Afghanistan, leading to a resurgent Taliban-so much so that Republican Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist stated that Afghanistan cannot be won militarily but only by “incorporating the Taliban into the government.” The Republican leader in the Senate giving up against the only “government” that could be linked to 9/11? Wow.

Here is the Democratic plan. Invest more in human intelligence. Develop military resources that are mobile enough to respond to terrorist flare-ups worldwide. Develop benchmarks for Iraq withdrawal. Invest money to protect our ports, power plants and chemical factories.

Finally, one fights an ideological war with ideas. Ideas like giving Middle-Easterners more of a stake in modern society through the funding of microfinancial institutions for business start-ups. Also, invite more Middle Eastern youth to study in the U.S. for a solid education and greater appreciation of America.

These aren’t all the answers, but they might help the “Great Satan” smell a little less sulfuric in the Muslim World.

#1.884029:1661942133.jpg:Goetz, Justin.jpg:Justin Goetz, From the Left:

The only time judicial activism is used as a term is when someone describes a court’s ruling that they do not agree with, especially if the Right does not agree with it. No one even knows a true definition of this “activism.” Some say that it is a court ruling on a controversy based purely upon its political agenda, or it’s when a court overrules a law of Congress as unconstitutional.

But the courts have used, in every modern court case ever decided, some court precedent or element of English legal tradition which they applied as justification for their case decision. They aren’t pulling this stuff out of their behinds.

Just look at the most purely “activist” court decision ever decided – Brown v. Board of Education (1954) – the case that made school segregation unconstitutional. The U.S. Supreme Court threw out all previous court law on the issue for what was termed at that time to be “a liberal political agenda,” going against the Congress’ wishes, and scaring the holy hell out of American bigots everywhere.

Yet today, both the Left and the Right herald that decision as being one of the most important, and beneficial, ever made by the Court.

So let us be honest, judicial activism is a red herring. If you do not like the way in which a court case is decided, do not just call it “judicial activism.” Understand the law, read the court’s opinion, see where they are coming from, and then give a LEGAL REASON why you disagree beyond a two-word derogatory.

Of course, we could make the problem go away and just allow the Right to create legislation that blocks courts from even hearing cases regarding particular political issues, like civil unions and the Pledge of Allegiance, under the idea of combating activism. Oh, but that would be “activism” too, wouldn’t it? Shucks …

#1.884029:1661942133.jpg:Goetz, Justin.jpg:Justin Goetz, From the Left:

To begin, a bit of reality-there has never been a non-religious reason for homosexuals to be given lesser rights as others in secular society. So try as they might, the Right’s only response to homosexuals being made equal members of our society is two-fold-God deplores homosexuality, and equal rights for homosexuals will upset the definition of marriage.

I could call the first in question by pointing to the original Greek texts, but this isn’t theology class. On the second point, this is the finest example of Rightist scare tactics-government cannot, and will not, change the definition of marriage that churches dictate to their faithful.

The only risk of government dominating religion is had by the Religious Right’s vision that arbitrarily changes these definitions of SECULAR marriage with a constitutional amendment.

The official position of the Democratic Party is simple-we cannot and will not dictate the definition of marriage to people of differing faiths, so we advocate a SECULAR recognition of civil unions. Democrats feel this way because we do not believe that homosexuals, as human beings, should be denied the ability to see their partner on their death bed, be provided health insurance or certain tax benefits.

One last note to the Religious Right-get to know gays and lesbians. They don’t spit fire. They too have hearts, minds and dreams.

Until you recognize that this is who they are, maybe we can stop with the conversion nonsense and remember that Gospel which arches over all Christian denominations without modification-that Christ called upon us to love our neighbor, and turn the other cheek.

#1.884029:1661942133.jpg:Goetz, Justin.jpg:Justin Goetz, From the Left:

On abortion, everyone beyond the talking heads knows that the left and the right are both trying to achieve the same ends-making abortion as rare as possible. It is how we get there where we fundamentally differ.

First, those of us who know women who have had abortions know that no law can stop it from happening. Why? Look back at the precedent that spawned Roe v. Wade and abortion’s legalization in much of America throughout the 18th and 19th century-our lawgivers knew we could not stop a decision that was plainly made in the bedroom.

Look at HB 1215-it targets the doctors making the procedure safe, and not the women who make the choice. This selectivity stems from society’s inability to practically intervene-unless government monitors all our bedrooms. Laws can’t stop it. The world, instead, has the answer-lowest abortion rates are in Western Europe (not the U.S.) where legalized abortion and the best education/greatest availability of contraceptives can be had; highest abortion rates are found predominantly in Africa and Latin America, where many countries have draconically banned the practice, and education for both men and women is low and sectarian-biased. Realizing this, the left advocates for open sex education-abstinence as the safest bet, but other forms of contraception as well-so that both men and women know of the consequences and know to be responsible.

For some of us who love life, we know that as complex as it is, one cannot be a proponent of it in such shallow terms as using the “pro-life” moniker for political gain, especially in balancing the life interests of mother and fetus. Sure, it’s morally easy. But, life is all-encompassing. Which is why-on the death penalty, the poor, health care, preemptive war and abortion-I believe the left is truly pro-life.

#1.884029:1661942133.jpg:Goetz, Justin.jpg:Justin Goetz, From the Left:

The facts levied against the death penalty are simple and telling. The death penalty does not deter murder. Instead, states that have the death penalty see the highest per-capita murder rates in the country, a trend that hasn’t changed over time. The most murders and 80 percent of all executions occur in the South. The Northeast had only 1 percent of all executions, and has the least amount of murders per capita nationwide. Simply put, if a person is going to murder, they do not think about the lives of those they kill, let alone the judicial consequences.

Moreover, the costs of housing and convicting a death row inmate are greater than life imprisonment. In Texas, the average cost of a death row inmate is three times the cost of a prisoner in maximum security for 40 years-and that’s the most cost-effective system in the country. It costs us more as taxpayers, and it doesn’t protect us.

What does it do? Execution provides only one “benefit” for society-revenge. Millions of dollars ($114 million in California alone) are wasted on this reprisal. It solves nothing, it doesn’t bring back the victim, and it doesn’t provide society or the victim’s family with full recompense. Really, the death penalty shouldn’t even appeal to crass revenge seekers. Life behind bars is a hell on earth, and lethal injection is but dying in your sleep.

The heart of the death penalty debate does not revolve around the death row inmate. Instead, this issue is about who we are as a society, and whether we can join all other industrialized countries in condemning this foolish act.

#1.884029:1661942133.jpg:Goetz, Justin.jpg:Justin Goetz, From the Left: