Inconsistency

I sincerely believe that all life is sacred. Thus, I am opposed to the death penalty and abortion, and it is in regard to these points of cultural contention that I first noticed the inconsistent nature of some right-wingers. To me, the rule is simple: Thou shalt not kill.

It is true that many, if not most, modern translations of that rule supplant “kill” with “murder.” Thus, they are saying that the scholars who did the first translations of The Bible got it wrong. These first translations consisted of the two main competing churches, The Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church. The results we have today are the King James Version (KJV) and the Douay-Rheims version (DR), both of which use the word “kill” in that Commandment. The 21st Century King James Version still uses the word, as does the most recent Douay-Rheims.

Etymologically, the word “murder” had been in use in the English language for at least 300 years and was thus available for both the KJV and DR translators toward the end of the 1500s, yet they still chose “kill.” It seems to me that the use of “murder” by some fundamentalists and by modern translations is based more on political ideology. The Bible, after all, is a translation of a translation of a translation of an oral tradition handed down from father to son for many generations.

As I said, I believe all life is sacred be it in the womb or in a prison cell.

***
Another inconsistency I see in these political time is the constant call to restore the rights granted by the Constitution that the current administration has supposedly eviscerated, at least according to Fox News and their ilk. Yet is it these same people who see nothing wrong with violation of the Constitution’s 4th and 5th amendments be requiring drug testing for welfare recipients.

Yes, it is true that some jobs require drug testing. But it is by no means the majority of jobs, as some right-wingers would have us believe. And yes some jobs that involve public safety should indeed require testing to ensure that safety. Still, without probably cause of criminal activity, there is no reason to insist that welfare recipients submit, or indeed any worker or job seeker submit to testing. Further, the 5th amendment allows individuals the right to not incriminate themselves.

The right’s argument is fallaciously simple: if you’re not doing anything, you don’t have anything to worry about. That kind of reasoning allows the government to do anything under the guise of the public good. That kind of reasoning is people willingly giving up their rights, and when we do that, we lose them altogether.

***

Another long held tenet of the right is less government control in our lives and less taxes. The aforementioned drug-testing proposal is a clear example of where taxes will have to be raised as government intrudes on the personal lives of people. It seems that when the right wants to instill some type of moral ethic, it is perfectly okay for the government to step in, be it regarding the issue of contraception, abortion, or gay marriage.

While they may make a legitimate claim for religious freedom, it is indeed odd that GOP proposals and enacted state laws since at least 2000 have made the same requirement of insurance companies to provide contraception, they had no qualms about religious freedom when it was they who were introducing those requirements. Now that the current President has offered a legitimate compromise on the issue, they want nothing to do with it.

Last year, the Speaker of the House commissioned a report of solutions to the debt and deficit problems of the nation. That report, posted on the Speaker’s web site last year, noted that the best, most effective method to attack our nation’s problems was through a combination of both cuts and increases on revenues. The ratio the Speaker’s own report suggested was a ratio of 85 percent cuts in spending and a 15% increase in tax revenues. Yet, when the Democrats and the President suggested just that, they ignored their own experts.