Civil Rights and civil liberties: a discussion that begins and ends with the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights was a noble, pyrrhic attempt to limit the “tyranny of the national government,” however it says nothing about limiting state’s rights. An individual state’s ability to ignore or refuse to legally implement federal laws is at the very heart of all of the issues which follow.

The concept of freedom of religion is a perfect example. Speaking as someone who supports greater separation of Church and State and freedom from religion, this country doesn’t seem all that secular.

America is supposedly a “Christian nation” in spite of our distinctly un-Christian behavior most of the time. Unfortunately, the Bill of Rights doesn’t directly address the many problems caused by the undue influence religious organizations have on our current political process.

The Establishment Clause, school vouchers, and prayer in the schools are still being hotly debated, including the controversy surrounding the posting of the Ten Commandments in public places and the teaching of Creationism in public schools alongside evolution.

The mentality of this type of thinking was brought home to me the first time I ever watched The Colbert Report and the guest was Georgia Representative Lynn Westmoreland. He had co-sponsored a Bill that would require the Ten Commandments be displayed in both the House and the Senate of that state. When Colbert asked him to name one of the Ten Commandments, Westmoreland couldn’t quote a single one.

I guess that’s why they need to be posted!

In each of these cases, individuals are trying to impose their religious views upon others who may or may not agree with them. Protection of commercial and symbolic speech, “clear and present danger” and other restrictions on unprotected speech are critical. These include definitions of obscenity, protections for children, slander, libel, and defamation of character. This leads to the very touchy issues of personal privacy and how they ultimately relate to (gasp) abortion and the ghost of Roe vs. Wade.

Abortion is a very personal issue and any interference with this decision is an invasion of privacy. Seems like a pretty clear violation of Civil Rights to me, although obviously a lot of people would disagree…but those people are mostly men, religious fanatics, women who have already had abortions, or all of the above. So, fuck them anyway.

And what about a person’s right to die, and the ability to make one’s own decision on when to stop treatment for a terminal condition? It’s  outrageous that in a so-called ‘free’ society a person doesn’t even have the legal right to die with dignity. This is further proof of religion’s undue influence in what should be a democracy.

Of course, these same religious fanatics have no problem killing their fellow humans via the death penalty – as long as it’s sanctioned by the state.

Before we get to that, however, a very brief mention of the Homeland Security Act: the gravest danger to our Civil Liberties yet. It’s amazing to me how people who claim to be the most patriotic are willing to do the most un-patriotic things for what they consider to be our ‘national interests.’ Including treason, apparently.

The Exclusionary Rule is a further safeguard against unlawful search and seizure, but I have yet to see a truly meaningful criminal case over-turned due to police malfeasance; or at least very rarely. The death penalty is applied arbitrarily and is clearly racially motivated.

The evidence is clear. The number of black prisoners on death row outnumbers whites by more than 2 to 1. Study after study by human rights organizations both here and abroad have proven this fact. It is cruel and unusual punishment and for the reasons stated above should be abolished.