The "holier than thou" Church of the Lying SOBs?
Want to take a guess who I'm talking about? Just take a stab at it. Unfortunately, if you are reading this you probably know to whom I am referring. Republican Conservative Evangelicals. The Republican part is probably a fairly new incarnation of the "holier than thou" Church of the Lying SOBs.
Sunday, October 7, 2012
The Chess Master
Lately I have come to see Mr. Obama as the Chess Master. Carefully moving the hearts and minds of the people through silent manipulation of those who seek to take his king. He moves his queen to his advantage as the power of his family takes the stage away from posers and fools who thought they had him cornered. He wins the battle of the Political Conventions with two strong knights and the support of his intelligent and faithful bishop. And all the time working with an army of pawns in every state in the Union, he removes any hint of opposition in the field of political battle.
Last night we might just have watched the most masterful move of all. Rachael Maddow had a segment tonight where she described the six times in our history of televised debates where the incumbent President faced his challenger. And in 5 of the 6 times, the incumbent was perceived if not proclaimed to have lost the first debate to his challenger. The only incumbent in all those debates who was proclaimed the winner was President Clinton. Now, the incumbent didn't necessarily lose the election, just the first debate. Five times out of six, the challenger, like Mitt Romney, left the sitting President in his dust. And I'm sure there was great rejoicing by the Romney team last night and today, but I'm wondering about the Chess Master.
Everyone who has commented on the debate has said how unlike himself was the President's performance--how slow and seemly reluctant to speak or challenge Mr. Romney. He didn't look at Romney much, he didn't look at the camera much and he seemed to be thinking more than responding. He was certainly not the man I have known for all these years and I could hear the disappointment in the voices of many who spoke of his failure to debate and his "obvious" loss to Mr. Romney. But what if this was just another move by the Chess Master: who knew how Romney would feel, thinking he had won, who knew that many would see weakness and charge in to challenge him as they approached the other debates? What if the Chess Master was not himself on purpose? What if the Chess Master wanted to be perceived as weak and unprepared so that Romney and his team would slack off as the other two debates approached. I think his actions last night were deliberate. History has shown that the first debate between an incumbent and a challenger has always (except once) gone to the challenger. The only way for that to happen, as I see it, would be if Mr. Obama was making a chess move that would signify his win of the game in the end. I think many people have underestimated Mr. Obama, and have lost the battle because they saw what he wanted them to see and not what was really happening. Mark my words. The Chess Master is only a few moves from Checkmate. And when the game is over, I believe he will be victorious! I wouldn't play chess with him and I don't think many people could and win the game.
Are you with me?
Capitalist Dreams
Spoken like a true Capitalist. Capitalist is just as dirty a word as Communist in my book. What they want is to keep their bottom line down--that would be those who work for them--the best way to keep profits up is to keep the # of workers down and those left, working harder for less. Those who actually do the work and make their success for them, THOSE who deserve to be paid a fair and living wage, to have health care and retirement programs through their employers and a decent amount of vacation days (time to recuperate from the long hours they work making HIS company successful).
Capitalists have all had help along the way and while a few give credit where credit is due, most want everyone to believe they did it all on their own. Like Romney. His claim to have made it on his own is ridiculous. When you come from a wealthy (at the time he grew up, they were--you don't go to private prep schools if you grew up like I did--no one in my family or my extended family of cousins crew up like that and I would say we were all raised in Middle Class families)....wealth and fame had come to his father and it brought advantages to Mitt that many people are not privy to nor would they even have thought it possible for them to be anything other than be comfortable unless struck by tragedy and unable to do much but survive. Doors open for those people that the rest of us don't even know exist! They get to go to the best schools, they get left out of the drafts, they get introduced to the right people and they get to borrow money from their parents (which is what Romney suggested that our kids do) Franklin Roosevelt saved the nation back then and put safety nets in place so that people wouldn't have to fear what happened to them would happen to their children. Social Security and now Medicare have been two of the most successful government programs ever created but Capitalist would have you believe that these kinds of social programs are actually Socialism with a capital S. Do you know what Capitalism has brought to this country---recession, after recession, one Great depression and a second almost Great depression (2008). And what were they telling all of us little people when they knew what was happening---they were all saying what John McCain said to us: "The fundamentals of our economy are strong"! It was BS, he knew it and they all knew it and suddenly when they couldn't lie their way out of it anymore--they told us the truth. The banks were going under because of poor or illegal practices, Wall Street was crashing for the same reasons and who was going to have to pay the freight? Not them----US! I'm tired of my tax dollars bailing out the Capitalists who are destroying this country from the inside. I'm tired of them blaming social programs when the truth is that without them, they would be going down even faster. Who buys their SHIT? WE DO and if we don't have the money to buy their SHIT, then how will they make ANY profits. We make their SHIT, then we buy their SHIT and they tell us to shut up and like it or THEY will fire our sorry ASSES (pardon my french). Every Capitalist and entrepreneur has gotten help from someone to get started. Their goods and services have been transported on public highways, paid for by US. They have gotten loans from the Small Business Administration (a government agency) or they got start up money from wealthy relatives, friends or business partners. NO ONE....and I mean NO ONE makes it on his own. And I'm tired of them putting down the people who are most responsible for their success. Did you see the debate? Romney seemed very happy at one point and very animated--what animated him at that moment, why, doing what he stated he liked to do best----FIRE PEOPLE. He looked right at Jim Lehr and told him PBS had to go, that he liked Big Bird and he even liked Jim but if he is elected President, he will have to get rid of that HUGE drain on the economy PBS. Jim had a sheepish smile on his face, the one everyone gets when their boss is telling them "Sorry, Jim---just business, nothing personal". PBS is such a small percentage of our annual budget that it's like a drop of water in the ocean. That is who the Capitalists are--who they will always be while they tell us we're fired or that we should still fear Communism (which is not now and I don't think ever was much of a threat). They want us to fear Communism so that we won't watch what they are doing behind the curtain. Who saved the country when it was gurgling down the drain---WE DID! It was our tax dollars that saved the Capitalists who had screwed up the country but didn't want us to know about it! They all want help from the government (which is us) when it comes to deregulation, lower taxes or no taxes--tariffs on foreign goods (that aren't ours) so they can make even larger profits--THOSE are what I call Entitlements. They use entitlement like it's a dirty word because they apply it to the social programs that help everyone else when they need it. But the real Entitlements (with a capital E) are those that the Capitalists get from the government including bailout dollars when they get in trouble. Real capitalism doesn't rely on government help. If a company fails, that's the FREE market at work! Or at least that's what they tell us, until it's one of their companies! Entitlement, as I've said before was always something that applied to Kings and Nobles, who were awarded lands and money based solely on their BIRTH. They were born into entitlement, they got what they believed they deserved while the peasants worked and starved and paid taxes and DIED! That is what the Capitalists in this country and probably everywhere by now believe--- they are entitled to get billions in profits AND government subsidies (our tax dollars). That's the problem.
Do you know that over the last 40 years (my generations working years) the pay for those at the top has increased by over 400% while the rest of us have been struggling from year to year because they told us they could only give us 3-4% increase in wages. I think it's time to crack down on these whiners who are behind this deep recession we are in and who are not lifting a finger to help the country get back on it's feet.
Then there's the Congress, whose leaders decided the night Mr. Obama was elected that he had to be a one term president and the way to do that was NOT WORK WITH HIM. So they haven't. Nothing got through the House except for fluff and stuff and the Senate filibustered everything to keep it from getting to the President's desk. The country is failing, the people need work, they need mortgage help, they need health care and food on their tables and the Republicans are saying we can't help you because we've got to stop Mr.Obama from helping you. Politics TRUMPS doing the right thing! And now they say Mr. Obama is a failed president--but not if you look at his record instead of listening to those who created the mess we're in. They made the mess (along with Bush--who they don't want to take the blame) and now they will do nothing to fix it---that, in my book, is no small thing---THAT is Tantamount to TREASON!
Most Capitalists are atheists like Ayn Rand. Of course, they are not really atheists---their GOD is MONEY! I sometimes wonder about the big Churches--looks like Money is their god too but I could never say that for sure--at least not as sure as I am about who (WHAT) Capitalists worship. They care nothing about the poor among us because they're like the royals of old who, when told the people have no bread to eat famously said----"Let them eat cake". So, they came and took the cake away from them and if these people aren't careful, there will be another revolution against the Oligarchs who run this country! I'd be careful if I were them about those lax gun laws too---but they won't because, they need to sell more to make more MONEY!
.
Wednesday, September 12, 2012
Kittens
A pretty little girl named Suzy was standing on the sidewalk in front of her home.
Next to her was a basket containing a number of tiny creatures; in her hand was a sign announcing FREE KITTENS.
Suddenly a line of big black cars pulled up beside her. Out of the lead car stepped a tall, grinning man. "Hi there little girl, I'm Mitt Romney. What do you have in the basket?" he asked. "Kittens," little Suzy said. "How old are they?" asked Romney. Suzy replied, "They're so young, their eyes aren't even open yet." "And what kind of kittens are they?" "Republicans," answered Suzy with a smile. Romney was delighted.
As soon as he returned to his car, he called his PR chief and told him about the little girl and the kittens. Recognizing the perfect photo op, the two men agreed that the candidate should return the next day; and in front of the assembled media, have the girl talk about her discerning kittens.
So the next day, Suzy was again standing on the sidewalk with her basket of "FREE KITTENS," when another motorcade pulled up, this time followed by vans from FOX News, ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN. Cameras and audio equipment were quickly set up, then Romney got out of his limo and walked over to little Suzy.
"Hello, again," he said, "I'd love it if you would tell all my friends out there what kind of kittens you're giving away." "Yes sir," Suzy said. "They're Democrats." Taken by surprise, the candidate stammered, "But...but...yesterday, you told me they were Republicans." Little Suzy smiled and said, "I know...but today, they have their eyes open ."
Are you with me?
Next to her was a basket containing a number of tiny creatures; in her hand was a sign announcing FREE KITTENS.
Suddenly a line of big black cars pulled up beside her. Out of the lead car stepped a tall, grinning man. "Hi there little girl, I'm Mitt Romney. What do you have in the basket?" he asked. "Kittens," little Suzy said. "How old are they?" asked Romney. Suzy replied, "They're so young, their eyes aren't even open yet." "And what kind of kittens are they?" "Republicans," answered Suzy with a smile. Romney was delighted.
As soon as he returned to his car, he called his PR chief and told him about the little girl and the kittens. Recognizing the perfect photo op, the two men agreed that the candidate should return the next day; and in front of the assembled media, have the girl talk about her discerning kittens.
So the next day, Suzy was again standing on the sidewalk with her basket of "FREE KITTENS," when another motorcade pulled up, this time followed by vans from FOX News, ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN. Cameras and audio equipment were quickly set up, then Romney got out of his limo and walked over to little Suzy.
"Hello, again," he said, "I'd love it if you would tell all my friends out there what kind of kittens you're giving away." "Yes sir," Suzy said. "They're Democrats." Taken by surprise, the candidate stammered, "But...but...yesterday, you told me they were Republicans." Little Suzy smiled and said, "I know...but today, they have their eyes open ."
Are you with me?
Saturday, September 8, 2012
Zen Sarcasm
No, I didn't write this but I love it!
Zen Sarcasm
1. Do not walk behind me, for I may not lead. Do not walk ahead of me, for I May not follow. Do not walk beside me either. Just pretty much leave me alone.
2 The journey of a thousand miles begins with a broken fan belt or a leaky tire.
3. It's always darkest before dawn, so if you're going to steal your
neighbor's' newspaper, that's the time to do it.
4. Don't be irreplaceable. If you can't be replaced, you can't be promoted.
5. Always remember that you're unique. Just like everyone else.
6. Never test the depth of the water with both feet.
7. If you think nobody cares if you're alive, try missing a couple of car
payments.
8. Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That
way, when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes.
9. If at first you don't succeed...Skydiving is not for you.
10. Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach him how to fish, and he will sit in a boat and drink beer all day.
And that's the truth! Are you with me?
Zen Sarcasm
1. Do not walk behind me, for I may not lead. Do not walk ahead of me, for I May not follow. Do not walk beside me either. Just pretty much leave me alone.
2 The journey of a thousand miles begins with a broken fan belt or a leaky tire.
3. It's always darkest before dawn, so if you're going to steal your
neighbor's' newspaper, that's the time to do it.
4. Don't be irreplaceable. If you can't be replaced, you can't be promoted.
5. Always remember that you're unique. Just like everyone else.
6. Never test the depth of the water with both feet.
7. If you think nobody cares if you're alive, try missing a couple of car
payments.
8. Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That
way, when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes.
9. If at first you don't succeed...Skydiving is not for you.
10. Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach him how to fish, and he will sit in a boat and drink beer all day.
And that's the truth! Are you with me?
Monday, August 27, 2012
Does God Exist
Does God Exist.
"This story came to me in an email:
This is one of the best explanations on the
nature of God that I have ever seen..
A man went to a barbershop to have his hair
cut and his beard trimmed. As the barber began to work, they began to have a good conversation.
They talked about so many things and various subjects.
When they eventually touched on the subject of God, the barber said: 'I don't believe that God exists.'
'Why do you say that?' asked the customer.
'Well, you just have to go out in the street to
realize that God doesn't exist.
Tell me, if God exists, would there be so many sick people? Would there be abandoned children?
If God existed, there would be neither
suffering nor pain.
I can't imagine a loving God who would
allow all of these things.'
The customer thought for a moment, but
didn't respond because he didn't want to
start an argument.
The barber finished his job and the customer left the shop
Just after he left the barbershop, he saw a
man in the street with long, stringy, dirty hair and an untrimmed beard.
He looked dirty and unkempt. The customer
turned back and entered the barbershop again and he said to the barber:
'You know what? Barbers do not exist.'
'How can you say that?' asked the surprised
barber. 'I am here, and I am a barber. And I
just worked on you!'
'No!' the customer exclaimed. 'Barbers don't
exist because if they did, there would be no
people with dirty long hair and untrimmed
beards, like that man outside.'
'Ah, but barbers DO exist! That's what happens
when people do not come to me.'
'Exactly!' affirmed the customer. 'That's the point! God, too, DOES exist! That's what happens when people do not go to Him and don't look to Him for help. That's why there's so much pain and suffering in the world."
I disagree with the premise of this story which is that people suffer because "god" is not in their lives, Or because they do not go to "god" for help when they are in trouble.
I believe in the existence of "god" as the power that lives inside of everything. The prophet Jesus teaches this very thing in his parable about the Last Judgement. (which can be found in Matt. 26 starting at vs 31) It's really the opposite of this email. Jesus says that you will be judged on how you treat others. He says, "You saw me hungry and gave me no food, you saw me thirsty and gave me no drink, I was naked and you did not clothe me, I was away from home and you gave me no welcome. I was ill or in prison and you did not come to comfort me. And they will ask the Lord, When did we see you hungry or thirsty or naked or away from home or ill or in prison and not attend to you? And He will answer them, As often as you neglected these least ones, you neglected to do it to me."
So you see, it's not those people who are sick and poor who do not have "god". We all have "god". But Jesus teaches that we should attend the needs of others because of the presence of "god" within them. Reaching out to them, says that you understand that when you give attendance to your fellow man, it is really "god" living within them who is honored and respected.
This story's moral is just the opposite: It says,
'That's the point! God, too, DOES exist! That's what happens when people do not go to Him and don't look to Him for help. That's why there's so much pain and suffering in the world.'
At least according to Jesus, there is pain and suffering in the world because we do not see "god" in everyone and everything that exists! We do not honor the world or the power that exists within it or within ourselves.
"This story came to me in an email:
This is one of the best explanations on the
nature of God that I have ever seen..
A man went to a barbershop to have his hair
cut and his beard trimmed. As the barber began to work, they began to have a good conversation.
They talked about so many things and various subjects.
When they eventually touched on the subject of God, the barber said: 'I don't believe that God exists.'
'Why do you say that?' asked the customer.
'Well, you just have to go out in the street to
realize that God doesn't exist.
Tell me, if God exists, would there be so many sick people? Would there be abandoned children?
If God existed, there would be neither
suffering nor pain.
I can't imagine a loving God who would
allow all of these things.'
The customer thought for a moment, but
didn't respond because he didn't want to
start an argument.
The barber finished his job and the customer left the shop
Just after he left the barbershop, he saw a
man in the street with long, stringy, dirty hair and an untrimmed beard.
He looked dirty and unkempt. The customer
turned back and entered the barbershop again and he said to the barber:
'You know what? Barbers do not exist.'
'How can you say that?' asked the surprised
barber. 'I am here, and I am a barber. And I
just worked on you!'
'No!' the customer exclaimed. 'Barbers don't
exist because if they did, there would be no
people with dirty long hair and untrimmed
beards, like that man outside.'
'Ah, but barbers DO exist! That's what happens
when people do not come to me.'
'Exactly!' affirmed the customer. 'That's the point! God, too, DOES exist! That's what happens when people do not go to Him and don't look to Him for help. That's why there's so much pain and suffering in the world."
I disagree with the premise of this story which is that people suffer because "god" is not in their lives, Or because they do not go to "god" for help when they are in trouble.
I believe in the existence of "god" as the power that lives inside of everything. The prophet Jesus teaches this very thing in his parable about the Last Judgement. (which can be found in Matt. 26 starting at vs 31) It's really the opposite of this email. Jesus says that you will be judged on how you treat others. He says, "You saw me hungry and gave me no food, you saw me thirsty and gave me no drink, I was naked and you did not clothe me, I was away from home and you gave me no welcome. I was ill or in prison and you did not come to comfort me. And they will ask the Lord, When did we see you hungry or thirsty or naked or away from home or ill or in prison and not attend to you? And He will answer them, As often as you neglected these least ones, you neglected to do it to me."
So you see, it's not those people who are sick and poor who do not have "god". We all have "god". But Jesus teaches that we should attend the needs of others because of the presence of "god" within them. Reaching out to them, says that you understand that when you give attendance to your fellow man, it is really "god" living within them who is honored and respected.
This story's moral is just the opposite: It says,
'That's the point! God, too, DOES exist! That's what happens when people do not go to Him and don't look to Him for help. That's why there's so much pain and suffering in the world.'
At least according to Jesus, there is pain and suffering in the world because we do not see "god" in everyone and everything that exists! We do not honor the world or the power that exists within it or within ourselves.
What the Tea Party Means
From the season finale of “The Newsroom” (August 26, 2012)
Ideological purity
Belief in scriptural literalism
Deny science
Unmoved by facts
Undeterred by new information
Hostile fear of progress
Demonization of Education
Need to control women’s bodies
Severe Xenophobia
Tribal Mentality
Intolerance of decent
Pathological hatred of the United States Government
These things define those who call themselves the Tea Party,
and they may call themselves Conservatives.
They can even call themselves Republicans (though Republicans certainly
shouldn’t).
But we should call them what they are: The American Taliban
Which cannot survive if YOU (insert character’s name) are
allowed to vote.
Disclaimer: This is
not the exact wording of the main character but comes as close as I can get
listening to the program several times.
This list, however, is correct as spoken by the character and cannot be
any clearer as to the nature of those who call themselves the Tea Party. And I do believe their correct name should be
the American Taliban. Their fear based
platform has disrupted our politics and done nothing to improve the working of
our government. They like to think of
themselves as Patriots but patriots to what cause is yet to be specified. I do not like what I am seeing or hearing
from their representatives. We have a
choice this fall and we should use our choice to remove them from any and all
offices: local, state or national before they can do any more harm to what we
have called democracy. The most
disturbing effect that we have been experiencing in almost every state is their
determination to prevent people from voting by changing laws that make it easy
for people to vote, by requiring identification that many people cannot afford
to get or by physically removing people from the voting rolls without any
reason other than their gender or race.
We must not only vote this fall, we must make sure that anyone who needs
help to get to the polls, gets the help they need. Are you with me?
Monday, July 30, 2012
Communist Party Endorses Obama!
I just receive one of "those" emails claiming that the Communist party endorses Mr. Obama. It was from the generation that was made to feel threatened by Communism and whose champion was a guy name Joe McCarthy who wasted tax payer money on a "witch" hunt for Communist infiltrators in our society, our government and anywhere they could exert their Communist influence. Turns out all he did was ruin decent people's lives and stir up a fear that had no basis in reality.
This was my answer to the email:
So, Communist party endorses Obama. So what?
That's the "fear" of your generation. Our fear is "terrorist" based thanks to the previous president.
Who cares if Communists endorse Obama. They have no agenda here except to be accepted as citizens who have the right like multi-billion dollar corporations, to "endorse" a candidate (either one) and believe me, the billionaires have more power in our political system than anyone belonging to any other group of people. Their influence is way more frightening to me than some small, inconsequential political party. You should be worried about the millionaires and billionaires who have a say that far outweighs you or me or even all of us together. What can they do....look at the Bush presidency and what happened at the end. They will run this country into the ground while you all sing their praises. There really is no cure for stupid but ignorance is a different story. When you are ignorant of the facts, you can easily become informed. But stupid people don't realize when they are being taken to the cleaners and often praise the people who hurt us all!
I just receive one of "those" emails claiming that the Communist party endorses Mr. Obama. It was from the generation that was made to feel threatened by Communism and whose champion was a guy name Joe McCarthy who wasted tax payer money on a "witch" hunt for Communist infiltrators in our society, our government and anywhere they could exert their Communist influence. Turns out all he did was ruin decent people's lives and stir up a fear that had no basis in reality.
This was my answer to the email:
So, Communist party endorses Obama. So what?
That's the "fear" of your generation. Our fear is "terrorist" based thanks to the previous president.
Who cares if Communists endorse Obama. They have no agenda here except to be accepted as citizens who have the right like multi-billion dollar corporations, to "endorse" a candidate (either one) and believe me, the billionaires have more power in our political system than anyone belonging to any other group of people. Their influence is way more frightening to me than some small, inconsequential political party. You should be worried about the millionaires and billionaires who have a say that far outweighs you or me or even all of us together. What can they do....look at the Bush presidency and what happened at the end. They will run this country into the ground while you all sing their praises. There really is no cure for stupid but ignorance is a different story. When you are ignorant of the facts, you can easily become informed. But stupid people don't realize when they are being taken to the cleaners and often praise the people who hurt us all!
Saturday, July 28, 2012
Right or Responsibility
Right or Responsibility?
The Second Amendment is about Right but it is mostly about Responsibility. The Amendment is a clarification of something in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution on the powers of Congress and one of those powers is, "To provide for calling forth the Militia (for 3 purposes), to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections, and repel invasions." This should now be followed by the 2nd Amendment which reads, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
In a sense the "idea" of a Militia is now obsolete since we have a well-armed professional military made up of branches of defined areas of service. The National Guard is as close to the "idea" of a Militia that remains. The 2nd Amendment tells all citizens that they have the right to bear arms because they have the responsibility to serve their country if called to do so by Congress. But we are now a Nation able to provide a standing army with the necessary weapons for the defense and security of a free State. Our "militia" is well regulated and well armed but I agree that if we are going to keep the 2nd Amendment then we need people to not only register their guns but to register to serve in any branch of the military they may choose should Congress call on them to do so.
The reason we no longer understand the Constitution or the 2nd Amendment is two fold. First it was written at a time when most people did have their own guns (they were necessary to provide food for the table as well as self-protection in a country not yet able to protect it's citizens from criminals or those dreaded native peoples who only wanted to live where they had always lived). So the Country called on them to serve by bringing their own gun to the fight. Unless they took up that responsibility, the country might have remained part of the British Empire. The Second reason is like the first, we are not familiar with the context in which it's written, interpretations have crept in to replace how it was understood by those who wrote the words.
So, if we keep the 2nd Amendment it only makes sense that those not qualified to be a Member of the Militia, should not keep and bear Arms. The 2nd Amendment defines our Right but mainly our Responsibility to serve our country.
The NRA fear-filled prognostications demean the Constitution as well as the intent of the 2nd Amendment. The NRA lobby's Congress for laws that protect, not gun owners, but gun SALES. And the government, which by the way is US (You know, We the people....), aids the gun salesmen by not regulating guns and ammunition as they should be regulated. The NRA promotes the "Right" only and ignores and wants you to ignore the "Responsibility" of gun ownership. Your ownership cannot be infringed because of the deep responsibility the amendment lays on that ownership.
The NRA has twisted the meaning for so long that I don't expect you to see it clearly but I hope that you will try for the sake of all of us.
Are you with me?
I'm adding this addendum because it's time to recognize the truth. A mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School on Friday, December 14, 2012, resulting in the deaths of 20 children, none older than 6 and 6 adults forces us to face once again the results of our gun-worshipping culture. When the Bush Administration let the Assault weapons ban expire in 2004, the door was opened to allow military grade weapons to be in the hands of non-military personnel. So now we must look at what we have done. No one stood up to try to stop this atrocity or if they did, the effort was weak and ineffectual so now what....well I want you to read an excerpt from an article by Cass R. Sunstein, the Felix Frankfurter professor of law at Harvard University which reads: "...Warren Burger was a conservative Republican appointed chief justice by President Richard Nixon in 1969. In a speech in 1992, six years after his retirement from the court, Burger declared that 'the Second Amendment doesn't guarantee the right to have firearms at all.' In his view, the purpose was only 'to ensure that the state armies---the militia---would be maintained for the defense of the state.'
A year before Burger went even further on MacNeil/Lehrer News Hour, Burger said the Second Amendment, 'has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud--I repeat the word fraud--on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.' "
Sunstein goes on to say, "It is striking that before the 2008 decision in District of Columbia vs Heller, the Supreme Court had NEVER held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to have guns. For almost seven decades the Court's leading decision was U.S. vs Miller. The 1939 case involved a ban on the possession of a saw-off shotgun. Sounding like Burger, the court unanimously said that the Second Amendment's 'obvious purpose' was 'to assure the constitution and render possible the effectiveness of'' the militia."
Professor Sunstein ends his article by saying, "It is past time to stop using the Second Amendment itself as a loaded weapon, threatening elected representatives who ought to be doing their jobs."
Personally I am glad to find that there is judicial support for my stand on the meaning of the 2nd Amendment. However, unless we as a people see the "fraud" perpetrated on us by special interest groups to misinterpret the 2nd Amendment to mean something it was never intended to mean, we will continue to face the horrors of mass shootings involving our children, our friends and our fellow Americans of all colors and ages. Is that what we want? I know I don't want it so....
Are you still with me?
Addendum: They have ALL forgotten or been taught to ignore the CONDITION upon which the "right" to bear arms is predicated..."A well-regulated Militia. being necessary to the security of a free state," Personally, since the "free state" now has money enough to arm any number of military personnel, the 2nd Amendment should be repealed. It is, in fact, a totally unnecessary Amendment to the Constitution. But the problem is that the common belief about the 2nd Amendment has now trumped it's original intent. And no one wishes to correct it because people believe the Constitution gives them the right to keep and bear arms, when in fact it doesn't, not for any reason. Does it restrict people from gun ownership? It does not but in this day and age, since it is apparent that quite a number of gun owners fear the government will take their gun rather than regulate, require registration, and licensing....we have a huge job of re-education ahead of us. Meanwhile, the police are going to have one heck of a job keeping these nuts and the rest of the nuts off the streets in order to protect citizens without guns.
The Second Amendment is about Right but it is mostly about Responsibility. The Amendment is a clarification of something in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution on the powers of Congress and one of those powers is, "To provide for calling forth the Militia (for 3 purposes), to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections, and repel invasions." This should now be followed by the 2nd Amendment which reads, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
In a sense the "idea" of a Militia is now obsolete since we have a well-armed professional military made up of branches of defined areas of service. The National Guard is as close to the "idea" of a Militia that remains. The 2nd Amendment tells all citizens that they have the right to bear arms because they have the responsibility to serve their country if called to do so by Congress. But we are now a Nation able to provide a standing army with the necessary weapons for the defense and security of a free State. Our "militia" is well regulated and well armed but I agree that if we are going to keep the 2nd Amendment then we need people to not only register their guns but to register to serve in any branch of the military they may choose should Congress call on them to do so.
The reason we no longer understand the Constitution or the 2nd Amendment is two fold. First it was written at a time when most people did have their own guns (they were necessary to provide food for the table as well as self-protection in a country not yet able to protect it's citizens from criminals or those dreaded native peoples who only wanted to live where they had always lived). So the Country called on them to serve by bringing their own gun to the fight. Unless they took up that responsibility, the country might have remained part of the British Empire. The Second reason is like the first, we are not familiar with the context in which it's written, interpretations have crept in to replace how it was understood by those who wrote the words.
So, if we keep the 2nd Amendment it only makes sense that those not qualified to be a Member of the Militia, should not keep and bear Arms. The 2nd Amendment defines our Right but mainly our Responsibility to serve our country.
The NRA fear-filled prognostications demean the Constitution as well as the intent of the 2nd Amendment. The NRA lobby's Congress for laws that protect, not gun owners, but gun SALES. And the government, which by the way is US (You know, We the people....), aids the gun salesmen by not regulating guns and ammunition as they should be regulated. The NRA promotes the "Right" only and ignores and wants you to ignore the "Responsibility" of gun ownership. Your ownership cannot be infringed because of the deep responsibility the amendment lays on that ownership.
The NRA has twisted the meaning for so long that I don't expect you to see it clearly but I hope that you will try for the sake of all of us.
Are you with me?
I'm adding this addendum because it's time to recognize the truth. A mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School on Friday, December 14, 2012, resulting in the deaths of 20 children, none older than 6 and 6 adults forces us to face once again the results of our gun-worshipping culture. When the Bush Administration let the Assault weapons ban expire in 2004, the door was opened to allow military grade weapons to be in the hands of non-military personnel. So now we must look at what we have done. No one stood up to try to stop this atrocity or if they did, the effort was weak and ineffectual so now what....well I want you to read an excerpt from an article by Cass R. Sunstein, the Felix Frankfurter professor of law at Harvard University which reads: "...Warren Burger was a conservative Republican appointed chief justice by President Richard Nixon in 1969. In a speech in 1992, six years after his retirement from the court, Burger declared that 'the Second Amendment doesn't guarantee the right to have firearms at all.' In his view, the purpose was only 'to ensure that the state armies---the militia---would be maintained for the defense of the state.'
A year before Burger went even further on MacNeil/Lehrer News Hour, Burger said the Second Amendment, 'has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud--I repeat the word fraud--on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.' "
Sunstein goes on to say, "It is striking that before the 2008 decision in District of Columbia vs Heller, the Supreme Court had NEVER held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to have guns. For almost seven decades the Court's leading decision was U.S. vs Miller. The 1939 case involved a ban on the possession of a saw-off shotgun. Sounding like Burger, the court unanimously said that the Second Amendment's 'obvious purpose' was 'to assure the constitution and render possible the effectiveness of'' the militia."
Professor Sunstein ends his article by saying, "It is past time to stop using the Second Amendment itself as a loaded weapon, threatening elected representatives who ought to be doing their jobs."
Personally I am glad to find that there is judicial support for my stand on the meaning of the 2nd Amendment. However, unless we as a people see the "fraud" perpetrated on us by special interest groups to misinterpret the 2nd Amendment to mean something it was never intended to mean, we will continue to face the horrors of mass shootings involving our children, our friends and our fellow Americans of all colors and ages. Is that what we want? I know I don't want it so....
Are you still with me?
Addendum: They have ALL forgotten or been taught to ignore the CONDITION upon which the "right" to bear arms is predicated..."A well-regulated Militia. being necessary to the security of a free state," Personally, since the "free state" now has money enough to arm any number of military personnel, the 2nd Amendment should be repealed. It is, in fact, a totally unnecessary Amendment to the Constitution. But the problem is that the common belief about the 2nd Amendment has now trumped it's original intent. And no one wishes to correct it because people believe the Constitution gives them the right to keep and bear arms, when in fact it doesn't, not for any reason. Does it restrict people from gun ownership? It does not but in this day and age, since it is apparent that quite a number of gun owners fear the government will take their gun rather than regulate, require registration, and licensing....we have a huge job of re-education ahead of us. Meanwhile, the police are going to have one heck of a job keeping these nuts and the rest of the nuts off the streets in order to protect citizens without guns.
Sunday, May 13, 2012
Separation of Church and State (Part II)
First, why would I want to belong to a Conservative Christian or Political organization if I did hold those views and the organization specifically called on me to uphold those views in order to join?
Second, Christianity in all its forms and denominations is the majority religion in the USA. It is ludicrous,therefore, to believe that the majority is being persecuted in any way, in any situation or in any form that it takes. My experience tells me that there is more animosity between different forms of Christianity than there is toward Christian groups by non-Christian groups.
Finally, when you attend a college or university you agree (like you do here on Beliefnet) to abide by the rules. If you form an organization which defies any of the rules, you are subject (as you are here on Beliefnet)to sanctions.
Since Christianity was born out of a political affiliation with a strong element of control, it is difficult for any group or denomination which now exists under the banner of Christianity to accept subjugation of any kind without believing itself to be persecuted.
Christians in general then, are more likely to view any legitimate sanctions as overt attempts at outright persecution rather than understand their true intent, the inherent right of any society to regulate those who choose to be a part of it.
The first amendment is equal parts freedom of religion and freedom from religious dictates masquerading as civil laws. Our forefathers experienced both of these intrusions into their lives and were determined to keep government and religion from becoming the force it had been in Europe. We really don’t understand the nature of the First Amendment and so, only see half of the equation.
A majority makes the rules and a government based on that majority will always make the rules in favor of that majority and against those who don’t agree or who are in the minority. There is no freedom of religion in a state whose laws are based on only one opinion! It is patently false to believe that the majority can be persecuted by a minority when only the majority has the power and authority to persecute anyone.
.
Second, Christianity in all its forms and denominations is the majority religion in the USA. It is ludicrous,therefore, to believe that the majority is being persecuted in any way, in any situation or in any form that it takes. My experience tells me that there is more animosity between different forms of Christianity than there is toward Christian groups by non-Christian groups.
Finally, when you attend a college or university you agree (like you do here on Beliefnet) to abide by the rules. If you form an organization which defies any of the rules, you are subject (as you are here on Beliefnet)to sanctions.
Since Christianity was born out of a political affiliation with a strong element of control, it is difficult for any group or denomination which now exists under the banner of Christianity to accept subjugation of any kind without believing itself to be persecuted.
Christians in general then, are more likely to view any legitimate sanctions as overt attempts at outright persecution rather than understand their true intent, the inherent right of any society to regulate those who choose to be a part of it.
The first amendment is equal parts freedom of religion and freedom from religious dictates masquerading as civil laws. Our forefathers experienced both of these intrusions into their lives and were determined to keep government and religion from becoming the force it had been in Europe. We really don’t understand the nature of the First Amendment and so, only see half of the equation.
A majority makes the rules and a government based on that majority will always make the rules in favor of that majority and against those who don’t agree or who are in the minority. There is no freedom of religion in a state whose laws are based on only one opinion! It is patently false to believe that the majority can be persecuted by a minority when only the majority has the power and authority to persecute anyone.
.
Thursday, March 15, 2012
Small Governement
Ask any Republican what they mean by shrinking government and they will usually hand you a list of government programs that need to be dissolved or reduced so they do nothing that people really need. They have forgotten who pays them and who pays for the programs we all need. My son observed years ago that it appears they are deliberately trying to dumb down Americans. Public education has become a primary target as we have been seeing with all the Republican leadership at the state level. They are screaming about Medicare and Social Security and Medicaid but without those programs poverty would be a raging epidemic--unstoppable and deadly. They don't want taxes increased on those who can most afford to pay their fair share because the wealthy would benefit the least from the 4 previous programs--however, they do benefit from fire, police, military, primarily National Guard, roads and other infrastructure that have been neglected because of efforts to restrict spending in all these areas. Shrinking government is not beneficial unless it's cutting things we can afford to do with out. When your home budget gets tight, you get another job to supplement the income and then you start cutting things from the budget that you can absolutely live without--either permanently or temporarily until you can go back to normal. What you don't do is cut the things you absolutely need like food, shelter and transportation. So why do they all seem to want to cut what is necessary, never supplement the income and remove agencies that protect our air, water and food supplies--not to mention medical prescriptions. I get what they are doing because they hint at it every day they get a chance to do it. They call these programs "socialism" and from the standpoint that we all give to these programs and generally speaking benefit from one or all of them at some time or other--they are social. What they aren't is "socialism" nor are they a good fit for a society that runs on capitalism.
Capitalism is the system our economics is based on. And Capitalism is good because it can provide a way for business to grow and provide jobs. Unfortunately, when greedy people take control and game the system to make profits for themselves and their friends, we have what happened in 2008. That didn't happen because people made mistakes. Oh no, that happened because people knew what they were doing and they didn't care about the consequences for our country. We were headed for a cliff (a depression not unlike what happened when the Great Depression hit in the 30's) but a wall was thrown up at the last minuet to keep everyone including those who got us into this mess from going over that cliff. Many Americans are still suffering because of the greed of the few. And while investigations are ongoing into what crimes were committed, no one was really punished. So we limp along with the few safety nets our social programs provide. Capitalism nearly killed us again but all hail the Capitalistic Society--we must not keep it from going forward or from preventing the criminals from doing it to us all over again!
So here we are in another election cycle and the Republicans are pointing fingers in all directions but themselves. They demand smaller government as if "big" government caused all our problems. And in nearly every state they are trying to cut everything people really need, especially education. Their solutions to "big" government seem to involve making laws that are invasive to our private lives, which is the big hypocrisy. Their definition of big government is taking our money and giving it to undeserving people. The truth is they want control over every part of our lives that is not the business of any government. Our government protects us from such intrusions, or at least it should. It's totally obvious that Republicans exercise their own kind of "big government" demanding that we give up our privacy, our right to collectively bargain in the market place, our right to make health care decisions with our doctors and our insurance providers and our right to keep any religion out of any private citizens daily concerns. So which is it? Is big government collecting taxes and helping us survive in emergencies or is it demanding to control every part of our private lives?
If government is "overspending" on programs that people really need, then let's cut things we need less of like Military spending (which is way more than we need). How about Congress getting a stipend instead of a pay check, no health insurance and no pensions based on how long they have been in Congress. For that matter, we need term limits for these people if we are going to get back to small government. Let mothers, who balance their budgets at home, take a wack at balancing the Federal Budget. These are supposed to be our best and brightest and I don't see them doing anything but what serves their own interests. If you are going to collect tax dollars from Americans then you need to use that money for things WE need--do you need a list?! And if you cut us off, then we'll cut you off...we'll provide the term limits come election day! Are you with me?
Capitalism is the system our economics is based on. And Capitalism is good because it can provide a way for business to grow and provide jobs. Unfortunately, when greedy people take control and game the system to make profits for themselves and their friends, we have what happened in 2008. That didn't happen because people made mistakes. Oh no, that happened because people knew what they were doing and they didn't care about the consequences for our country. We were headed for a cliff (a depression not unlike what happened when the Great Depression hit in the 30's) but a wall was thrown up at the last minuet to keep everyone including those who got us into this mess from going over that cliff. Many Americans are still suffering because of the greed of the few. And while investigations are ongoing into what crimes were committed, no one was really punished. So we limp along with the few safety nets our social programs provide. Capitalism nearly killed us again but all hail the Capitalistic Society--we must not keep it from going forward or from preventing the criminals from doing it to us all over again!
So here we are in another election cycle and the Republicans are pointing fingers in all directions but themselves. They demand smaller government as if "big" government caused all our problems. And in nearly every state they are trying to cut everything people really need, especially education. Their solutions to "big" government seem to involve making laws that are invasive to our private lives, which is the big hypocrisy. Their definition of big government is taking our money and giving it to undeserving people. The truth is they want control over every part of our lives that is not the business of any government. Our government protects us from such intrusions, or at least it should. It's totally obvious that Republicans exercise their own kind of "big government" demanding that we give up our privacy, our right to collectively bargain in the market place, our right to make health care decisions with our doctors and our insurance providers and our right to keep any religion out of any private citizens daily concerns. So which is it? Is big government collecting taxes and helping us survive in emergencies or is it demanding to control every part of our private lives?
If government is "overspending" on programs that people really need, then let's cut things we need less of like Military spending (which is way more than we need). How about Congress getting a stipend instead of a pay check, no health insurance and no pensions based on how long they have been in Congress. For that matter, we need term limits for these people if we are going to get back to small government. Let mothers, who balance their budgets at home, take a wack at balancing the Federal Budget. These are supposed to be our best and brightest and I don't see them doing anything but what serves their own interests. If you are going to collect tax dollars from Americans then you need to use that money for things WE need--do you need a list?! And if you cut us off, then we'll cut you off...we'll provide the term limits come election day! Are you with me?
Gossip is.....
If you were born and raised in a small town or were then or are now the brunt of it in High School, then you know where I'm going with this...plainly put, gossip is the preferred weapon of cowards. Yes, that's right, it is a weapon and one mainly used by the cowardly among us!
That includes those who receive it and pass it, maybe especially those because they are complicit in the LIE that is the basis for all gossip. What good does this lie do the perpetrators, especially those who just pass along what they've heard--they become the powerful (albeit in a very small way) over those who are libeled by the gossip. Who can stand against their lies? No one, because the lie is in effect asking the question "Have you stopped beating your wife ". You can answer neither yes or no! You cannot deny that which you have never done--for which you cannot possibly be named guilty except in the eyes of those who told the lie in the first place and those who pass it on thinking they are in on the dirty little secret given to them as the "truth". I have never been the brunt of such liars as far as I know, nor have I ever participated in the terrible game used against someone else. But I am old enough to recognize gossip when I hear and to advise people to seek the truth instead of trying to claim power by lying about someone else. It is a game with terrible consequences for both the lied about and the liars who perpetuate the lie even when forced to face the truth.
Those who have been the brunt of gossip live with the pain of knowing that their lives are being discussed by people who are lying about them. They, usually, don't know who these people are although today with computers and cell phones it's easy to see who might be behind it. That, however, doesn't help much nor does it seem to stop the use of this weapon by the cowards who use it. As a matter of fact, Gossip seems to have been lifted to an art in our society. There are news papers dedicated to gossiping about celebrities and gossip columns in other news papers that pry into people's private lives so the rest of us can feel superior to them. Gossip never starts innocently, it is a deliberate attempt to smear someone and now Gossip has been elevated to the status of "news". News is supposed to be the truth or at least the facts concerning an issue or what is happening in our world.
Unfortunately what we are getting especially from people at Fox News has nothing to do with facts or the truth. Just like personal gossips, their stories lead off with, "I heard..." "Did you hear..." "Did you know..." and then proceed to make sure you know the lie they are telling as if it were the truth. Their only intent is to make sure that you see things their way and pass it along to as many people as you can using the same phrase, "Did you hear....that Mr. Obama wasn't born in this country....he doesn't have a valid birth certificate...they can't find his certificate...it's not the actual certificate but one that has been tampered with...and on and on. Each time the gossiper wants you to know that they know something more about the lie, which they don't. If they did they would be telling you the truth and they would tell you that even if Mr. Obama was born in a foreign country, his Mother was an American and any of her children would be considered to be Americans too. We are or are becoming a culture of gossips, preferring the lies to the truth and condemning people who have no way of defending themselves against the lies---each defense is also condemned as an attempt to cover it up. Just like personal gossip, it asks a question about you or him for which no answer will suffice. You might say that the "news" people or commentators are right there in front of you---they wouldn't dare try to lie in such a public way! Really--REALLY? They are about power--and they use that power of "knowing what you don't know" to convince you that their lies ARE the truth. Once convinced of the lies, the listener then only hears the lies. "Obama is Un-American, a Muslim, a "terrorist" (coined by Palin for his paling around with them--untrue), he's an appeaser of our enemies (I hope you understand what that means--it's the same as treason but I hardly think the evidence shows that he gives in to our enemies in any way) not a Christian (REALLY?) a radical (also coined by Palin during her brief campaign--(Hope you've seen Game Change!); all being perpetuated among the professional radical Gossips as the truth.
The truth is out there but the gossips aren't listening or telling anyone anything but the lies they have come to believe as true. If you are with me then it is time to call them on what they are doing. If you know the truth, then tell them the truth--they probably won't believe you or may think that you have been blinded by liberal propaganda. Liberals don't use propaganda which is defined as telling a lie over and over until it is accepted as the truth--watch Fox for a day--each "story" is repeated with no deviation or variation. That is propagandizing the listener because they don't want you to think for yourselves!
The Founding Fathers were "liberals" coming from the same root word as LIBERTY. I am not ashamed of being called a liberal. It is also the root word of FREEDOM! Without liberals we would never have gained or kept our "freedoms". So I ask you, Are you with me?
That includes those who receive it and pass it, maybe especially those because they are complicit in the LIE that is the basis for all gossip. What good does this lie do the perpetrators, especially those who just pass along what they've heard--they become the powerful (albeit in a very small way) over those who are libeled by the gossip. Who can stand against their lies? No one, because the lie is in effect asking the question "Have you stopped beating your wife ". You can answer neither yes or no! You cannot deny that which you have never done--for which you cannot possibly be named guilty except in the eyes of those who told the lie in the first place and those who pass it on thinking they are in on the dirty little secret given to them as the "truth". I have never been the brunt of such liars as far as I know, nor have I ever participated in the terrible game used against someone else. But I am old enough to recognize gossip when I hear and to advise people to seek the truth instead of trying to claim power by lying about someone else. It is a game with terrible consequences for both the lied about and the liars who perpetuate the lie even when forced to face the truth.
Those who have been the brunt of gossip live with the pain of knowing that their lives are being discussed by people who are lying about them. They, usually, don't know who these people are although today with computers and cell phones it's easy to see who might be behind it. That, however, doesn't help much nor does it seem to stop the use of this weapon by the cowards who use it. As a matter of fact, Gossip seems to have been lifted to an art in our society. There are news papers dedicated to gossiping about celebrities and gossip columns in other news papers that pry into people's private lives so the rest of us can feel superior to them. Gossip never starts innocently, it is a deliberate attempt to smear someone and now Gossip has been elevated to the status of "news". News is supposed to be the truth or at least the facts concerning an issue or what is happening in our world.
Unfortunately what we are getting especially from people at Fox News has nothing to do with facts or the truth. Just like personal gossips, their stories lead off with, "I heard..." "Did you hear..." "Did you know..." and then proceed to make sure you know the lie they are telling as if it were the truth. Their only intent is to make sure that you see things their way and pass it along to as many people as you can using the same phrase, "Did you hear....that Mr. Obama wasn't born in this country....he doesn't have a valid birth certificate...they can't find his certificate...it's not the actual certificate but one that has been tampered with...and on and on. Each time the gossiper wants you to know that they know something more about the lie, which they don't. If they did they would be telling you the truth and they would tell you that even if Mr. Obama was born in a foreign country, his Mother was an American and any of her children would be considered to be Americans too. We are or are becoming a culture of gossips, preferring the lies to the truth and condemning people who have no way of defending themselves against the lies---each defense is also condemned as an attempt to cover it up. Just like personal gossip, it asks a question about you or him for which no answer will suffice. You might say that the "news" people or commentators are right there in front of you---they wouldn't dare try to lie in such a public way! Really--REALLY? They are about power--and they use that power of "knowing what you don't know" to convince you that their lies ARE the truth. Once convinced of the lies, the listener then only hears the lies. "Obama is Un-American, a Muslim, a "terrorist" (coined by Palin for his paling around with them--untrue), he's an appeaser of our enemies (I hope you understand what that means--it's the same as treason but I hardly think the evidence shows that he gives in to our enemies in any way) not a Christian (REALLY?) a radical (also coined by Palin during her brief campaign--(Hope you've seen Game Change!); all being perpetuated among the professional radical Gossips as the truth.
The truth is out there but the gossips aren't listening or telling anyone anything but the lies they have come to believe as true. If you are with me then it is time to call them on what they are doing. If you know the truth, then tell them the truth--they probably won't believe you or may think that you have been blinded by liberal propaganda. Liberals don't use propaganda which is defined as telling a lie over and over until it is accepted as the truth--watch Fox for a day--each "story" is repeated with no deviation or variation. That is propagandizing the listener because they don't want you to think for yourselves!
The Founding Fathers were "liberals" coming from the same root word as LIBERTY. I am not ashamed of being called a liberal. It is also the root word of FREEDOM! Without liberals we would never have gained or kept our "freedoms". So I ask you, Are you with me?
Saturday, February 25, 2012
NO Religious Test...Really?
I guess I'm reneging on my promise to cover another subject but I definitely have to address the continuing assaul BY (yes, that's exactly what I mean) religion on our President. I know, I know the claim is that he is the one doing the assaulting but that's clearly not the truth and I would like to remind all those Christians who follow the Judaic 10 commandments that "bearing false witness against one's neighbor" is definitely STILL a sin. The recent lies are not only being told by ordinary, run of the mill politicians but their surrogate leaders (Christian ministers of the Gospel) in this attempt not only to besmirch the Presidents identity as a Christian but to accuse him of not behaving like a GOOD Christian.
Before you ask, yes....I was a Christian. I studied the bible on my own and with scholars who wrote about their research on both biblical history and the history of the Christian religion. I do not believe this makes me an expert by any means but I do believe that I know a great deal more about Christianity than the ordinary practitioner of the Christian faith. I will address what's going on here as what is both historically correct concerning the Christian movement as well as my personal belief that while Christians are much more accepting of each other than in any other time in history, there are still those who wish to make it clear that there are REAL Christians and and there are those who claim to be followers of Jesus Christ while pursuing another, possibly a more sinful way. Those making the claims that Mr. Obama is not a true Christian are those who like to believe that they are TRUE and only those who believe as they do are REAL Christians.
Christianity, almost from the very beginning, began to TEST for who was a true follower or disciple of Jesus Christ. As the Church began to gain more secular power, these tests took on deadly consequences for those not true to what the Church had decided was the way of Christ. Most were called Heretics (which actually comes from the Greek meaning to see things differently). For those, determined to be heretics (by the leadership of the community), which ranged from Jews to other Christian groups, the punishment could be severe--banishment from the community or even death. Mr. Obama is being put to the test and it is a very true expression of the Christian movement. There are whole groups of believers that have gone into oblivion because of the Church's determination about their worthiness to the faith of Christ. While the Church no longer has that power, there are among certain believers and their ministers, the belief that these heretics must be rooted out because they are "dangerous" to the community of believers who ARE true. It is exactly why there are so many different denominations among Christians today. Each group splintered off another group because they believed there was a better way to BE Christian. Fortunately for most everyone else, this has kept them very busy for at least the last couple of centures and longer if you count the first successful splinter when the Eastern Orthodox split from the Roman Catholic around 1050.
Mr. Obama was first accused of being a Muslim by many Christians who realized that his name didn't sound very American--it sounded too much like the dictator we ousted in Iraq who was definitely not a Muslim even tho his name sounded like he was raised by Muslims. This assumption allowed them to bear false witness with impunity claiming that the birth certificate he released was not his true birth certificate. When many voices rose up to challenge this lie about the President, the Christian leaders kicked in their own problem by casting aspersions on his claim to be Christian. They assaulted his Health Care plan saying IT challenged the Catholic belief that artificial birth control should not and could not be practiced by good Catholics. Thus "forcing" a Church affiliated Hospital or School to comply with buying insurance which would give any employee (whether they were Catholic or not) access to its use; making it an assault on the Church's religious liberty. Are you still with me?
Christianity is not one set of rules for everyone, it is a different set of rules for each and every denomination so when Christian leaders attack the President's Christianity, they are really doing nothing out of the ordinary. In the very nature of the belief system is the need to pick out "those who see things differently" and condemn them. Thus preserving the sanctity of their particular set of dogmas and doctrines. As I said earlier, we are living in an era when Christians are more ecumenical (finding more ways to connect with one another) but it's clear, when you look at how they are dealing with the president, that they haven't forgotten their need to drive out the one who is perceived to be different. As a matter of fact, I am just old enough to remember another president who was attacked on the campaign trail by the some of the same groups of Christians because he was Catholic. They feared a Catholic president because they feared interference by the Pope in our internal affairs. It didn't matter that those days were long past, they "remembered" the Theocracy that drove them to seek out a place where they could practice their faith without fear of punishment or persecution. They railed against his Catholic upbringing, his Catholic beliefs, his Catholic wife and children and even his Catholic parents and brothers and sisters. But President Kennedy stepped over their fears as easily as a man steps over a crack in the sidewalk. And while the fear mongers among some Christian groups keep railing against him---others discovered that the Pope had no more influence over our internal affairs than a pesky nat!
But now the real meat of my argument lies in the Constitution of the United States of America. Perhaps the religious leaders don't realize what they are doing or perhaps they believe they can get away with it because "they are right"! But there are many political leaders who are allowing them to do their dirty work so THEY won't be accused of doing something that is patently UNconstitutional. What is that, you might ask? Well, my dears, pull out your copy of the constitution (if you don't have one, you can get one online or in any book store for just a few dollars--well worth the investment of time and or money) and open it to Article VI which says: ...."No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any Office or public trust under the United States". You might say that no religious test is being reequired but I say that while there is no official test of our President's religion--he is being tested by Christian leaders in the ultra-conservative media that has no problem skewing this man's Christian faith when they never challenged the idiotic claims that he was a secret Muslim or that he wasn't born in the United States (I guess they don't recognize Hawaii as a state). They let these false claims drag on and even contributed to them. But now it's time to stop. It's time to accept that whille no "official" religious test is being implemented, a very unofficial one is being used to drag him down. The official crowd stands back and watches with glee as the unofficial test grows. They can't be accused of anything but watching the people do what they know is unconstitutional. Maybe you saw them step around the questions about Obama's faith preferring to not step in it. But many of them are guilty of the sin of ommission--failing to counter the lies. Christians please don't allow yourselves to be used by these self-serving politicians who are leading you into "bearing false witness against your president".
Are you with me?
Before you ask, yes....I was a Christian. I studied the bible on my own and with scholars who wrote about their research on both biblical history and the history of the Christian religion. I do not believe this makes me an expert by any means but I do believe that I know a great deal more about Christianity than the ordinary practitioner of the Christian faith. I will address what's going on here as what is both historically correct concerning the Christian movement as well as my personal belief that while Christians are much more accepting of each other than in any other time in history, there are still those who wish to make it clear that there are REAL Christians and and there are those who claim to be followers of Jesus Christ while pursuing another, possibly a more sinful way. Those making the claims that Mr. Obama is not a true Christian are those who like to believe that they are TRUE and only those who believe as they do are REAL Christians.
Christianity, almost from the very beginning, began to TEST for who was a true follower or disciple of Jesus Christ. As the Church began to gain more secular power, these tests took on deadly consequences for those not true to what the Church had decided was the way of Christ. Most were called Heretics (which actually comes from the Greek meaning to see things differently). For those, determined to be heretics (by the leadership of the community), which ranged from Jews to other Christian groups, the punishment could be severe--banishment from the community or even death. Mr. Obama is being put to the test and it is a very true expression of the Christian movement. There are whole groups of believers that have gone into oblivion because of the Church's determination about their worthiness to the faith of Christ. While the Church no longer has that power, there are among certain believers and their ministers, the belief that these heretics must be rooted out because they are "dangerous" to the community of believers who ARE true. It is exactly why there are so many different denominations among Christians today. Each group splintered off another group because they believed there was a better way to BE Christian. Fortunately for most everyone else, this has kept them very busy for at least the last couple of centures and longer if you count the first successful splinter when the Eastern Orthodox split from the Roman Catholic around 1050.
Mr. Obama was first accused of being a Muslim by many Christians who realized that his name didn't sound very American--it sounded too much like the dictator we ousted in Iraq who was definitely not a Muslim even tho his name sounded like he was raised by Muslims. This assumption allowed them to bear false witness with impunity claiming that the birth certificate he released was not his true birth certificate. When many voices rose up to challenge this lie about the President, the Christian leaders kicked in their own problem by casting aspersions on his claim to be Christian. They assaulted his Health Care plan saying IT challenged the Catholic belief that artificial birth control should not and could not be practiced by good Catholics. Thus "forcing" a Church affiliated Hospital or School to comply with buying insurance which would give any employee (whether they were Catholic or not) access to its use; making it an assault on the Church's religious liberty. Are you still with me?
Christianity is not one set of rules for everyone, it is a different set of rules for each and every denomination so when Christian leaders attack the President's Christianity, they are really doing nothing out of the ordinary. In the very nature of the belief system is the need to pick out "those who see things differently" and condemn them. Thus preserving the sanctity of their particular set of dogmas and doctrines. As I said earlier, we are living in an era when Christians are more ecumenical (finding more ways to connect with one another) but it's clear, when you look at how they are dealing with the president, that they haven't forgotten their need to drive out the one who is perceived to be different. As a matter of fact, I am just old enough to remember another president who was attacked on the campaign trail by the some of the same groups of Christians because he was Catholic. They feared a Catholic president because they feared interference by the Pope in our internal affairs. It didn't matter that those days were long past, they "remembered" the Theocracy that drove them to seek out a place where they could practice their faith without fear of punishment or persecution. They railed against his Catholic upbringing, his Catholic beliefs, his Catholic wife and children and even his Catholic parents and brothers and sisters. But President Kennedy stepped over their fears as easily as a man steps over a crack in the sidewalk. And while the fear mongers among some Christian groups keep railing against him---others discovered that the Pope had no more influence over our internal affairs than a pesky nat!
But now the real meat of my argument lies in the Constitution of the United States of America. Perhaps the religious leaders don't realize what they are doing or perhaps they believe they can get away with it because "they are right"! But there are many political leaders who are allowing them to do their dirty work so THEY won't be accused of doing something that is patently UNconstitutional. What is that, you might ask? Well, my dears, pull out your copy of the constitution (if you don't have one, you can get one online or in any book store for just a few dollars--well worth the investment of time and or money) and open it to Article VI which says: ...."No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any Office or public trust under the United States". You might say that no religious test is being reequired but I say that while there is no official test of our President's religion--he is being tested by Christian leaders in the ultra-conservative media that has no problem skewing this man's Christian faith when they never challenged the idiotic claims that he was a secret Muslim or that he wasn't born in the United States (I guess they don't recognize Hawaii as a state). They let these false claims drag on and even contributed to them. But now it's time to stop. It's time to accept that whille no "official" religious test is being implemented, a very unofficial one is being used to drag him down. The official crowd stands back and watches with glee as the unofficial test grows. They can't be accused of anything but watching the people do what they know is unconstitutional. Maybe you saw them step around the questions about Obama's faith preferring to not step in it. But many of them are guilty of the sin of ommission--failing to counter the lies. Christians please don't allow yourselves to be used by these self-serving politicians who are leading you into "bearing false witness against your president".
Are you with me?
Friday, February 24, 2012
In the Beginning was the Word
So I begin a new journey in writing that will allow me to hopefully share my thoughts with a broader audience. Are you with me is my way of asking if you simply understand what I'm saying--not necessarily if you agree. I'm tired of not being able to express my thoughts and tired of hoping that someone will agree if I do. So sit back, hopefully you'll agree sometimes but if you don't that's OK too.
My concerns are and will continue to be the state of our nation. Politics is a big part of why I am so concerned about what is happening to us as a people since politicians seem to have little or no concern about what is happening to us in real time unless it is politically expedient for them to do so and then it is a simple nod in our direction. That sentence was too long but if you follow me, you'll see that I have a bad habit of doing that. Politicians are running for the right to represent our collective voices in the form our government takes. They often say they are listening to us. They often say they "know" what we want and occasionally they want us to believe they know what we need. But the truth is that they are so far removed from the common man that they don't remember that's where they started.
When was the last time a politician asked you what you thought? Or if you contacted your representative on either the state or federal level, when did you receive anything in return other than a courtesy return phone call from an aide saying that your message was passed along. Or maybe you received a letter from your representative telling you that they didn't agree with you followed by a long-winded reply of why they voted the way they voted. The disconnect, I think, began early in the formation of our government when it was the wealthy land owners and business owners who designed a government to represent the only people who counted--THEM. Women played a supportive role until their civil right to vote was given to them by the 19th Amendment to the Constitution on August 18, 1920 (to be seen but not heard). So I think we should expect the disconnect to continue until we raise our voices loud enough to be heard over the wealthy whose wealth makes them both the king-makers and the voice behind the curtain.
Truth be told they fear us. All of them fear us because WE are the power of the government and we can remove them at any time. Look how they are scrambling this year to restrict registration and voting, to redistrict voters to their benefit, to make us believe that voter fraud (voters who have already voted, voting under another name or group votes that are not based on legitimate registrations). They are working very hard to take the vote away from all of us. To remove what they have always said is the greatest freedom we have--freedom to choose and then to vote that choice. If they get their way, then there will be no freedom left for us to choose. Voter fraud is not and never has been the problem they try to make it out to be. But voter disenfranchisement has been on the rise since W faked his way through his first election. Voter disenfranchisement is PREVENTING people who are legally registered from voting or discounting their votes for some trumped up reason. We've already had one election decided by the Supreme Court. Was that legal? I don't think so.
We had to fight, many of us, to get the right to vote--during Vietnam, young men were drafted at age 18 to fight and die for their country BUT they could not vote. The voting age was not changed from 21 to 18 until 1992 when the 27th Amendment was ratified. It actually took 3 Amendments to the Constitution to get all of us the RIGHT to vote...15th, 19th and 27th. So you can see they need to do something now to restrict the power that we have to elect or not elect them to endless terms of lucrative service to the monied elite.
Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these Truths to be self-evident (doesn't take a genius to recognize) that all Men (and women) are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (originally property). That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among Men, deriving their JUST powers from the CONSENT of the GOVERNED, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ENDS, it is the RIGHT of the PEOPLE to ALTER or ABOLISH it, and to institute NEW Government..."
Unfortunately, what they believed was their right does not trickle down to us. But it is clear what they believed and how they acted to pursue the changes they needed to make a government that Lincoln would later proclaim was "of the people, by the people and For the people". They have words that are sometimes assuring but their actions offer neither real plans nor real assurances of any kind. So what can we do? We can make ourselves as knowledgeable of the issues as possible, as knowledgeable about the candidates as possible and that means more than listing to their TV ads. If they are not working for all the people then you'll know it soon enough. You'll find yourself seeking out magazines, books and TV exposes because you want to be an informed voter--especially since so many of your predecessors fought so hard to be granted that right in our Constitution.
And what you'll read here is mostly my opinion on those facts. I have one warning as far as getting correct information goes--do not watch FOX. Their opinions are not based on the truth and neither are their "facts". They are as they have been, pure political propaganda! And propaganda is simply repeating a lie over and over until people accept it as truth. We'll have enough trouble sorting out the truth from the politicians themselves!
Are you with me so far?
My concerns are and will continue to be the state of our nation. Politics is a big part of why I am so concerned about what is happening to us as a people since politicians seem to have little or no concern about what is happening to us in real time unless it is politically expedient for them to do so and then it is a simple nod in our direction. That sentence was too long but if you follow me, you'll see that I have a bad habit of doing that. Politicians are running for the right to represent our collective voices in the form our government takes. They often say they are listening to us. They often say they "know" what we want and occasionally they want us to believe they know what we need. But the truth is that they are so far removed from the common man that they don't remember that's where they started.
When was the last time a politician asked you what you thought? Or if you contacted your representative on either the state or federal level, when did you receive anything in return other than a courtesy return phone call from an aide saying that your message was passed along. Or maybe you received a letter from your representative telling you that they didn't agree with you followed by a long-winded reply of why they voted the way they voted. The disconnect, I think, began early in the formation of our government when it was the wealthy land owners and business owners who designed a government to represent the only people who counted--THEM. Women played a supportive role until their civil right to vote was given to them by the 19th Amendment to the Constitution on August 18, 1920 (to be seen but not heard). So I think we should expect the disconnect to continue until we raise our voices loud enough to be heard over the wealthy whose wealth makes them both the king-makers and the voice behind the curtain.
Truth be told they fear us. All of them fear us because WE are the power of the government and we can remove them at any time. Look how they are scrambling this year to restrict registration and voting, to redistrict voters to their benefit, to make us believe that voter fraud (voters who have already voted, voting under another name or group votes that are not based on legitimate registrations). They are working very hard to take the vote away from all of us. To remove what they have always said is the greatest freedom we have--freedom to choose and then to vote that choice. If they get their way, then there will be no freedom left for us to choose. Voter fraud is not and never has been the problem they try to make it out to be. But voter disenfranchisement has been on the rise since W faked his way through his first election. Voter disenfranchisement is PREVENTING people who are legally registered from voting or discounting their votes for some trumped up reason. We've already had one election decided by the Supreme Court. Was that legal? I don't think so.
We had to fight, many of us, to get the right to vote--during Vietnam, young men were drafted at age 18 to fight and die for their country BUT they could not vote. The voting age was not changed from 21 to 18 until 1992 when the 27th Amendment was ratified. It actually took 3 Amendments to the Constitution to get all of us the RIGHT to vote...15th, 19th and 27th. So you can see they need to do something now to restrict the power that we have to elect or not elect them to endless terms of lucrative service to the monied elite.
Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these Truths to be self-evident (doesn't take a genius to recognize) that all Men (and women) are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (originally property). That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among Men, deriving their JUST powers from the CONSENT of the GOVERNED, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ENDS, it is the RIGHT of the PEOPLE to ALTER or ABOLISH it, and to institute NEW Government..."
Unfortunately, what they believed was their right does not trickle down to us. But it is clear what they believed and how they acted to pursue the changes they needed to make a government that Lincoln would later proclaim was "of the people, by the people and For the people". They have words that are sometimes assuring but their actions offer neither real plans nor real assurances of any kind. So what can we do? We can make ourselves as knowledgeable of the issues as possible, as knowledgeable about the candidates as possible and that means more than listing to their TV ads. If they are not working for all the people then you'll know it soon enough. You'll find yourself seeking out magazines, books and TV exposes because you want to be an informed voter--especially since so many of your predecessors fought so hard to be granted that right in our Constitution.
And what you'll read here is mostly my opinion on those facts. I have one warning as far as getting correct information goes--do not watch FOX. Their opinions are not based on the truth and neither are their "facts". They are as they have been, pure political propaganda! And propaganda is simply repeating a lie over and over until people accept it as truth. We'll have enough trouble sorting out the truth from the politicians themselves!
Are you with me so far?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)