One of the great aspects of our democracy is the attention given to freedom and the rights of the people. The Bill of Rights is the cornerstone of our constitution, and we do a serious disservice to ourselves and to our country if we do not rigorously uphold them. But we face great danger, and a major dilemma, when enforcing the rights for some infringes on the rights of others. Sometimes we forget that “rights” must be enjoyed “responsibly” and the exercise of one’s rights cannot be at the expense of the rights of others. Yes, that can be a tough assignment, but essential to address.
For example, where is the line between ‘freedom of speech’ and ‘incitement to violence?’ This is being tested today in the indictment of former President Trump. Moreover and most worrying, it seems the definition of rights is being stretched to new boundaries, regrettably often for political reasons. There are too many cases when the word ‘comfort’ is taken to imply a ‘right’. With so many crucial national interest issues before us, it’s hard to believe that our esteemed legislative branch of government involves itself in “comfort” issues.
Three examples come to mind.
– To me there is way too much talk on the “right” of some in the LGBTQ community to use the bathroom facility in which they feel more ‘comfortable’. What about the comfort of the usual users of that bathroom? Where in the constitution does it say ” the right of the people to be comfortable shall not be infringed”? And why is our government even involved in something that should be the joint decision of the school and the parental community. What’s wrong with simply saying that your God-given equipment should determine which bathroom you use?
– Last year congress held several high profile, time consuming, and expensive hearings on the allegation that a Supreme court justice nominee, as a teenager 30 years ago, made a girl feel ‘uncomfortable’ when he jump on her at a teenage beer party at some house. What a colossal waste and needless embarrassment – – and misuse of the constitution itself.
– Separation of Church and State is a good thing, as long as we understand what that means and what are its limits. Is it not a “right” for a person to pray in public or should it be banned for risk of causing some to feel uncomfortable? Is it a violation or an infringement on government policy to have the ten commandments publicly displayed? Although not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, God is mentioned in every state constitution, over 200 times overall (Pew Research). It is mentioned three times in the Declaration of Independence. On the cap of the Washington Monument there is an inscription, “Laus Deo”, (Praise be to God). God figured prominently in the lives of the founding fathers and many public figures that followed them. How does the right of religious expression violate the principle of separation of Church and State? Is it the comfort thing again?
Today we face climate disasters around the world, raging pandemics, worldwide unrest and unending wars, the rise of autocracies, human rights abuses, multiple economic woes, domestic violence, deterioration of our primary educational system, massive illegal immigrants violating our borders. It seems ‘man’ has pretty much screwed up everything. It doesn’t seem like a good time to obsess on ‘comforts’ or to erase all mention of ‘God’ from public consciousness.
– Just the view of a common man
Views of a Common Man 
Love it, so well written and makes so much sense !!
Sent from my iPad
<
div dir=”ltr”>
LikeLike
Ollie
Good points all
Especially that thee is no equity in comfort rights
The loudest voice or the wealthiest or most politically powerful
Gets to determine what’s left for me
LikeLike
Rights claims have always been central to American political discourse.
Closer inspection of these claims reveals, however, that there has been
significant disagreement historically over who is entitled to what rights
and why. Thus the responsive comment of Mr. Melvin Pelletz and Ollie’s
comments about “comfort” and “responsibility” need to be considered
when entitlement to certain rights is claimed. Is “comfort” a “right”?
There seems to be a cultural assumption that we have a right to comfort,
which means we cannot tolerate conflict, particularly open conflict.
Right to comfort, power hoarding, and fear of open conflict are closely
aligned with another characteristic – the illusion of control.
First addressing Ollie’s comment about the line between “freedom of
speech” and “incitement to violence”, this is not a new debate. In the
most liberal judicial opinion of World War 1, Judge Learned Hand said,
“If one stops short of urging upon others that it is their duty or their
interest to resist the law, it seems to me one should not be said to have
attempted to cause its violation”. His approach left room for unlimited
criticism. The Supreme Court ultimately used the general principle of
“clear and present danger”. Would the words used bring about the
substantial evils that Congress has a right to prevent? This is one of
Trump’s defense arguments in Counts Two and Three of his indictment.
The statutes governing conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding and
obstruction of an official proceeding don’t apply here.
Rights and responsibilities are distinctly different. Rights are privileges
granted to individuals by governing bodies, and are generally written into
laws. They are based on an agreed set of behaviors and obligations, with
the expectation of mutual respect and cooperation. Every right manifests
itself through a series of obligations or duties that we commonly refer to
as responsibilities. Without responsibility nothing would ever be
accomplished. Both right and responsibility exist in a symbiotic
relationship that cannot be severed.
Ollie is correct that the Constitution does not provide a “right to comfort”.
The Fourteenth Amendment, however, does address many aspects of
citizenship and the rights of citizens. The most commonly used — and
frequently litigated — phrase in the amendment is “equal protection of
the laws”. When a statute or ordinance discriminates against an
individual or a class of individuals, and those individuals sue, the court
will apply one of three levels of scrutiny (rational, intermediate and strict)
to the law in question. As Archibald Cox, former U.S. Solicitor General,
has said, “Among a free people, both constitutionalism and the belief
in law require an extraordinary degree of tolerance and cooperation”.
LikeLike