Our Constitution never once uses the word "moral," yet huge debates center on the morality of issues, while completely ignoring the Constitutional basis of our republic.

Moralizing endlessly won't change the Constitutional protections, nor the extent of its intent as noted in the Declaration of Independence: "...endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Much has been made, lately, of Joint Chiefs Chairman, General Pace's comments about the immorality of homosexual behavior.

Constitutionally speaking, we recognize that the natural rights of the individual extend only as far as to where they would infringe on the rights of other individuals. That's not as fine a line as it might seem; especially in matters that only affect the individual, such as sexual preferences.

What transpires privately of a sexual nature -- either alone or between consenting adults -- is nobody else's business. We used to accept that in a society that still understood the Constitution...and polite behavior.

However, proselytizing of the once-private sexual business in the public venue -- such as through sexually oriented parades, programs in schools, etc. -- intrudes on the rights of those who do not embrace the same preferences.

I, like many, do not want to see sexual exhibitions, whether gay, straight or between animals, in the street. Nor do I want sexually oriented lifestyles -- of any nature -- taught in the public school system, which uses my tax dollars.

The latter point is an especially important distinction while kids are still under the guardianship of their parents, those whom should be the major influence on their children; not teachers.

Schools are natural venues for teaching procreation-sex but not for teaching sex-oriented lifestyles. Obviously, this limits public-school sex education to heterosexual topics.

General Pace's comments and actions, within their own context, are two separate issues.

His comments are protected by the First Amendment, and others are equally free to openly disagree.

But as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, he alone is responsible for his decisions. If he feels gays shouldn't be in the action, it's his call, not ours.

Instead of debating from a moral standpoint, perhaps we would move closer together by providing for everyone's Constitutional rights. Moralizing serves little except to avoid acknowledging those rights.

© 2007 Nonin Stone— All rights reserved

Here's more to illustrate the de-facto and gradual pluralism of applying Shari'a concepts, if not actual law.

This 3/24/07 article in ABC International online reflects the Euro-trends regarding Islamic matters.[1]

German divorce court judge Christa Datz-Winter saw fit to reject an application for a speedy divorce by referring to a passage of the Koran.

In a letter to the wife's lawyer, Barbara Becker-Rojczyk, who had applied for such a speedy divorce to be granted to her client Najat L., the judge pointed out that the couple came from a Moroccan cultural background in which is not uncommon for husbands to beat their wives.

“The exercise of the right to castigate does not fulfill the hardship criteria as defined by the German Federal Law,” she wrote. “It must be taken into account here, that both man and wife have Moroccan backgrounds.”

How nice. Lucky she wasn't from northern Nigeria.

Even though this will not, or rather, should not hold up in the German court system, it provides evidence of the de-facto approval of Shari’a in Europe.

And, this past September, a Dutch Justice Minister riled a lot of citizens within these statements, which appeared in an article in the Dutch online magazine Expatica:[2]

“It is a sure certainty for me: if two thirds of all Netherlanders tomorrow would want to introduce Sharia, then this possibility must exist. Could you block this legally? It would also be a scandal to say 'this isn't allowed!

“The majority counts. That is the essence of democracy.”

His remarks are contrary to the stance taken by MP Maxime Verhagen, leader of the CDA in parliament. Verhagen had expressed concern Sharia Law could be introduced in city districts where Muslims are already in the majority.

While other members were vehemently resistant to the idea of “barbarous Sharia Law,” one still must recognize that the Dutch Constitution could be changed by an Islamic majority.

Europe has become the model for incremental religious takeover. Even without intimidation, its unstainable less-than-1.5 fertility rate (i.e. average 1.5 children born of every woman), will demographically guarantee that the European Union will become an Islamic state.

While it's too late for Europe, there's still a short time for Americans to pull their collective head out of the sand...unless of course, one cherishes the five-prayers-per-day routine, women in burkhas and taking orders from your local imam.

Part Two, tomorrow.

Sources -----

[1] German Judge Stirs Anger for Citing Koran -- ABC Int'l, Mar. 24, 2007

Click here to read entire ABC article

...or copy link below and paste into your browsers...

http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=2976740&page=1&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312

[2] Sharia could come via democracy: Dutch minister—13 September 2006 Expatica.com (click on reader comments for added perspective)

Click here to read entire Sharia by democracy article

...or copy link below and paste into your browsers...

http://www.expatica.com/actual/article.asp subchannel_id=1&story_id=33017

© Nonin Stone 2007 — All rights reserved

Recently, a Roanoke, Virginia newspaper—under the old "public's right to know" guise—published the list of concealed-carry weapons (CCW) permit holders. The entire database, including known inaccuracies and confidential information, was posted online. The public, after all, had access to child-molester databases so, the paper's editor reasoned, they right to know if their neighbor or people with whom they car-pooled were armed.

Do tell.

In California—at least in my area—we have to sign an acknowledgment that our permits are public record and could be disclosed upon request by a third party.

Providing advanced intelligence of this nature to thugs, needlessly places armed individuals in harms way by provoking attacks on them for the sole purpose of stealing their weapon.

Wouldn't the gun-haters love to bolster their fictitious case about people being shot with their own guns, or that it's legitimate gun owners responsible for providing the guns on the street?

And that, my friends, is exactly the ploy of the anti-gun media and America-haters (i.e. those who gleefully want us to lose in Iraq). Look for more of it in the future.

Most street attacks on individuals begin with seemingly innocent encounters. It's the one or two unseen guys who will create your problem while their buddy or girlfriend is schmoozing you.

Many years ago, I stopped an armed robbery that was just such a scenario as two guys tried to rob a guy in a well-lit apartment parking lot around 11:30 PM. As the intended-victim described it to me, one guy had approached and engaged him in a friendly manner, while the other who had been hiding nearby grabbed him from behind. The guy in front then produced a pistol, struck the victim in the forehead with it and demanded money.

Experienced carry-permit holders train to recognize potential threats from unseen forces, learning how to position themselves to avoid being disarmed. However, being expressly targeted by thugs who are after our weapons adds a whole new level of danger, thanks to left-wing lunacy.

Since I'm not the one robbing convenience-stores or doing drive-by shootings, the public has been made potentially less safe through the irresponsibility of the lunicrats who publish these names and addresses.

By incrementally invalidating the Second Amendment, gun-haters would only systematically create a whole nation of angry armed citizens whose tolerance will have been pushed too far.

Those who create law-enforcement and military weapons technology are part of that group. Does the left really want to anger this group?

© Nonin Stone 2007 — All rights reserved

In a recent article, someone pointed out that during the 1940s and '50s, there were Democrats and Republicans but all were unquestionably Americans.

As a child in those days, my impressions were probably unclear but I recall one thing for certain: no one would dare talk bad about America. People were unabashedly pleased that they were lucky enough to be Americans.

Immigrants strove to be as American as they could be, to speak the language, to participate in the uniquely American culture. Rich or poor, Americanism was never lacking.

I no longer get that sense, particularly from politicians who seem to believe that winning politically is more important whether or not it harms America's image to its own people or to foreigners.

It's true that "the ugly American" image was born during my kid years. Still it was not an image that America had itself done anything dastardly but rather stemming from the lack of humility exhibited by only a few, as they traveled abroad. Not really a big deal.

Today, America-bashing borders on treasonous acts, and comes from those who enjoy her protection and highest standard of living on the planet.

The older wannabe revolutionaries of the 1960s and '70s now pump their young full of the same vitriol previously found only in organizations such as the Weather Underground, who were the front-running terrorists of those days.

Their self-righteous moral indignation over the Viet Nam war was no different than what we see today except in those days they were considered extremists.

Today, it has become acceptable behavior on the left. Rioting in the streets is allowed...even encouraged by the failure to prosecute those who do. The left's misguided sense is that setting fires and breaking windows is protected by the First Amendment.

Now, conservatives are throwing in the towel by arguing over who's conservative enough to represent Republicans in the 2008 election.

I urge conservatives to stop worrying about what is on TV -- we have on/off switches -- and attend to ending the practice of accepting antisocial behavior. Please stop harping on the G-d issues to the point of sounding absurdly self righteous.

And pardon me for saying so but could we prioritize and give more weight to the death of someone killed in a drive-by shooting than that of a fertilized embryo?

Abortion is also an important issue, but I submit that there are far more important issues to address that affect all of us. Besides, families are still the first line of defense against abortion. Insist on parental responsibility and involvement and watch abortions in this country diminish.

Instead of worrying about G-d and prayer in the schools, how about more concern about education in the schools.

And what about law and order? Does that require a church affiliation?

Could we maybe put more energy into going after parents who don't stop their teenage kids from smoking pot? Their enlightened mentality rationalizes that "at least they're not into cigarettes." Yeah, okay.

I'm far more concerned about being attacked by either gang-bangers or by some wound-to-tight road-raging jerk in traffic. In either case, the attacker would probably die of his injuries while I'd become the evil gun-totin' cowboy, in a courtroom either fighting for my freedom, or against a civil suit.

If some Islamic terrorist decides to go on a shooting spree in a mall, I can deal with that. Let's just concentrate on my right to carry.

We blame everything and everyone but the person who exhibits bad behavior. Can we turn that around?

We have come to this because we incrementally let civility slip away. We shrugged instead of condemning and standing against bad behavior.

American Idol, which I don't watch, celebrates rudeness, condescension and outright stupidity; mirroring the behavior of our society.

I agree with conservative pundit J.B. Williams, who states that there can be no reconciliation with liberals. The gulf is too wide.

But conservatives, regardless of spiritual beliefs, can damned sure focus on restoring a civil society. Until we do that, we won't ever have a decent discussion with those of differing views.

© 2007 Nonin Stone— All rights reserved

Yes, I'm fed up:

...with citizens who demand poorly-thought solutions based on the TV nightly news testimony delivered by some talking-head "expert."

...with voters who demand and allow legislation, the contents of which they are not even remotely familiar.

...with Americans being cast as the bad guys; especially by those citizens who enjoy the freedoms bestowed by this great nation. I am unashamedly proud and lucky to be an American.

...with the general population's ignorance of fundamental economics, the kind that kids used to begin learning at around elementary school third-grade level. It's frightening to realize how few people know the difference between socialism and capitalism.

...with the notion the creation of more laws is the cure for violent crime, and with the liberal gun-hater's idea that armed law-abiding citizens are the problem.

...with teachers who teach kids what to think, instead teaching students how to think. The throw-more-money-at-education mentality championed by the teachers' unions and administrators groups also gets my goat.

I'm fed up with the general lack of interest in our nation's history, its foundations, and in its struggles along the way that have brought us to modern times where we enjoy the highest standard of living and most freedom in the world. Any sincere historical interest would foster enough knowledge to keep us off our current dangerous path.

And fed up:

...with the race exploiters, who turn any issue in which one of the participants has a darker skin color, into a "race" issue. I do not place stock in such entities as the "latino" community, the "black caucus" and hyphenated-Americans.

...with those who try to make their sexuality and sexual preferences my business. I don't care. It's not my business. Please leave your lisp and limp wrist at home. A life defined by sexual preference is the shallowest of existence.

In the succeeding days, these are a few of the topics on which I hope to touch. My writing will not always be articulate, sometimes even seeming incoherent. Please bear with me.

In embracing my First Amendment rights, I choose my words to say what I mean. From time to time, some may find that offensive. Not my problem.

This is my very first blog. Through it, I hope I can add some clear water to today's muddied thinking, and perhaps nourish some roots of reason.