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!
Monday, July 30, 2012
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)