My comments, which have been and are too long for this discussion, have not been completely reflected due to either Data Base management errors or my own inabilities to use the system correctly. Two third of the response to Mr. Reason for Life were not published and the first third was duplicated. So I've addressed these matters, which deserve much more thoughtful discussion, on my own network. Moreover, these replies inspire additional responses; they also, to be faithful to the profound subject matter discussed here, require much more expression. But I'm only going to summarize what I've said in this post was missing from the last effort.
Adams was not a monarchists. Neither did he run as a Federalist. In fact, the Federalist Hamilton libeled Adams more so than did Jefferson. Dr. Rush is the person that brought Adams and Jefferson back together after almost two decades of separation due to the issues related to the sedition laws. The Sedition Act of 1918, another attempt to control espionage and criticisms of government during War made the 1798 control efforts pale in comparison. Whatever the case, the sedition acts are irrelevant to the core of this issue today, as we have no sedition acts to prosecute antagonists of the particular war policy. Sometimes objection to policy as manifested through free speech is correct and sometimes it is not. What you can be certain about is that the folks fighting ours in the trenches don't care. They just rely upon descent to win their position in the battlefield. We will all keep struggling with this issue, no doubt.o matter Marine's or other service men and women's fierceness or esprit de corps of their units, attacks on their personages hurt them profoundly both personally and professionally. You won't see it on the parade grounds, but their families and the VA will over the decades following the assaults. The systemic effects will also manifest in the barracks and homes of the affected service man or woman. When the attacks are contrived and orchestrated from within a policy of aggression, the effects on morale, also called the will to fight, are devastating. The same attacks, always through free speech, also takes its toll on public opinion, undermining its will to pursue its original goals and objectives. That's been going since Pericles. General Giap proved its value during both the French Indochinese and American Vietnam Wars. And just because this fact is recognized does not translate to the politicization of trauma as referenced here as victimization promotion. That is, exploitation of trauma to achieve a political or other end is not the meaning of trauma's influences in this discussion by me. Too bad - not enough time to go into this.
When evaluating service options in 1964, all branches, excepting the Marines, offered lots of inducements. The Marines gave one promise: "The only thing we'll guarantee you is an honorable military burial." That's been the tradition that no longer holds following this decision. That honor, no matter that you are unaware of its meaning, goes to the heart of a US Marine. Knowing, as we now do given this decision, that that honor has been besmirched by the new right to attack upon our families during the burial service, a time in which they are not only most vulnerable, but when they should be accorded respect, peace, privacy and the security in which to initiate mourning, which is what they must have to eventually to recover from the loss. That's why we have funerals.
The attacks on the families do and are no doubt contrived to cause that damage. Your allowance of those attacks by preventing the father from defending himself and his family and the honor his son as he successfully did through application of a tort in the state courts, abrogates this country's and the United States Marine Corps' oath to that Marine, and to the rest of us who've served accordingly. It's not about spinning their grief into a hysterical claim of political exploitation of victimization. The matter is about what you and the American people, and those eight justices owe that Marine and his family for having died for you all. That funeral, mourning process and duty of this country to that Marine are more important than the hypothetical alternative that if we stop antagonists from humiliating our dead and their survivors we might be over run by all instances of hurtful feelings experience by Islamists, Buddhists, Christians, Hindus, Zoastrians and even followers of Thomas Jefferson. Hurtful feelings from interpersonal dynamics like those are considerably different things than the necessity for people to be able to mourn in freedom and privacy the loss of a loved one in a real life devastating death of son who has given his life for this society. That decision, as do most legal abstractions, minimized that fundamental element of the human consciousness and its import to the definition of not just human ontology, but what it is to be an American.
This will have to end this discussion for me at this location even though there is much more to say. I will do it in another format and for a complete audience. I do appreciate all comments, even those which were personally ill directed toward me, as they spurred considerable feeling, demonstrating the depth of this matter to all Americans.
I donate when I can, by the way, to Geert Wilders legal and political activities. And I have my own anti-Islamist blog where I'm a little rougher on Muhammad than Thomas Jefferson.
Jesse W. Collins II