Say, how many worms are in that can?

Americans like words like Freedom and Liberty and perhaps because those ideas scare us so much. We are terrified of coercion by a government we all choose but we love to coerce those who disagree with us and deny them the right to choose.  We certainly are rarely in agreement as to what it means to be a free country and I might dare to say that question is still central to political argument today.  How do we define freedom?

• " It's a free country and I can do what I want." 
• " It's a free country and I don't have to do anything I don't want to do."

Some would equate those statements, others would point out that the first is true within limits and the second isnot, but the idea that freedom carries no obligation and indeed that in a free country it never should seems common amongst extremists.  Unfortunately extremists have a stranglehold on the Supreme Court and perhaps on Congress.  The recent decision regarding the ACA mandate that employers provide insurance coverage for contraception shows that the court sides with the second example and that when it comes to the concept of  freedom of religion and perhaps freedom of speech, personal beliefs convey personal privilege, but because this is such a limited ruling, the inherent hypocrisy becomes apparent.

If  I believe interfering with the implantation of a fertilized egg is murder, it's because of a religious interpretation of murder other people do not share and an interpretation of humanity and human rights that borders on the ludicrous. Citing a definition of freedom I do not believe the Constitution shares, the God Squad on the court allows me to opt out of  having my corporation pay for insurance that might pay for a "morning after" medication and perhaps any form of contraception. That court and indeed all courts do not provide immunity for other religious or other personal opinions and specifically not to opt our of paying for wars and executions and that is proof that one specific belief is being given special rights and others are not.  This violates the constitutional prohibition against establishment.

How will we see yesterday's ruling when other religious groups decide they don't want indirect participation in executing prisoners, bombing foreign countries and a host of other activities?  Will the court have to say this opinion is privileged and that one is not?  Haven't they just done that?  Does an aversion to contraception become an excuse to opt out of  an obligation only if  it's tied to some organized faith or is a personal dislike sufficient?  That question was answered during the years we had the draft.  It was damned hard to establish personal aversion to war without showing long term affiliation with a pacifist religion and not just a pacifist philosophy.

There can be little doubt that our government is in the business of establishing religious belief and assigning special privileges, special rights to members thereof.  There isn't a damned thing we can do seeing that the independence we make a fuss about every July was so limited.  We severed ties with the United Kingdom but not with Christianity as a force that legitimizes government and those who demand and assert the "Christian Nation"  idea are no more patriots or advocates for freedom than the Hessian troops George II hired to kill our revolutionary patriots.

It will be very hard to cite this decision as limited to the case that prompted it, and there are so many worms in that can that everyone will be able to fish for whatever special dispensation from any obligation he dislikes and our reputation for sanity, if we ever had one, won't need any bit of lead to make it sink to the bottom.

Gun Nutz in the First Degree

This Stephen Colbert video features Doug Varrieur, a rogue homeowner in Big Pine Key, Florida, whose backyard target practice range is tormenting neighbors.  Every day, neighbors endure the discharge of firearms - living in fear of stray bullets and in fear for their lives. Neighbors consider him “inconsiderate, obnoxious, a wacko” and a menace to the neighborhood.  When asked about the safety of local children or boaters, “I don’t care,” replies the imperturbable Doug Varrieur.

Are there are no laws to prevent Rambo wannabes from menacing our neighborhoods? Doug Varrieur may challenge anyone to stop him, but he should think again.  Most municipalities have "anti-menacing laws" defined as:

‘A crime governed by local or state laws, which vary by region, but typically involve displaying a weapon or a course of conduct that intentionally places another person in reasonable fear of physical injury or death.’

All rights have limits.  Free speech does not confer a right to defame a neighbor or broadcast crazy rants at 100 decibels in the middle of the night.  There are laws that cover slander and disturbing the peace.

Property rights do not mean you can operate a strip joint in a residential neighborhood or within proximity to schools or houses of worship.  Zoning laws prevent rogue operators from despoiling neighborhoods.

Freedom without responsibility is not freedom, and rights without reasonable limits are not rights when any self-styled fanatic turns himself into a public nuisance.

When the NRA pushes gun rights to this extreme, what recourse do you have? Call law enforcement and invoke the laws of your municipality.  You can also vote out lawmakers on the NRA dole who support unconscionably bad bills that turn formerly safe and peaceful communities into a torment. Here is an example of extremism gone too far.  Enough is enough!