Why do so many people think that more and more government is the answer? Government is what got us into this mess! It's been making our debts bigger and our system more and more bureaucratic since the Civil War! Do you think increasing it will magically make it less expensive and more reliable? NO! The answer is LESS government, people!
Seriously, the political idea that more government will help the problem is like when Galileo was criticized, persecuted and put under house arrest for PROVING that the earth wasn't the center of the universe! He proved it as a fact, and some people still rejected it.
The same is true with Government and Finances; history has PROVEN that more government makes the situation worse, and yet some people still choose to believe otherwise.
Days after his inauguration, President Barack Obama signed into effect plans to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility within the next year. What do you think should be done with its remaining detainees? Sponsored by “Inside Guantanamo” on National Geographic Channel. Premieres Sunday at 9P et/pt. |
If there is a God, a loving, merciful being who wants us all to become as full of joy and potential and happiness as He is, then I have a meaning in my life. Suddenly, all of the rules of justice, compassion, love and selfless service have a true, deep meaning, not just for myself, but for all of mankind. Suddenly I can go through my day filled with hope that I am more than an animal. I suddenly have hope that one day I can join the endless bliss of heaven as long as I remain chaste, benevolent and virtuous, full of charity and love for others.
My life gains meaning, and I gain strength, through my religious faith in God.
The lack of even brief mention of the religious aspect of our Nation's history in public schools reflects strongly in the declining test scores of our country's youth since the sixties, when such facts and ideas were originally removed from our public educational system.
Let's be clear, here; the removal of religion from public schools was originally motivated by a general concern for the equality of religious faiths in our nation. Nevertheless, I don't believe it is coincidence that although our nation was the highest scoring in primary education during the 1950's, there was a sudden and sharp drop in general academic excellence after the removal of theism from our educational institutions, a trend which has led our nation to becomming only the fifteenth to nineteenth smartest in today's world, despite the fact that our government spends more money on each student than any other.
What is the cause of this great decline? Simply put, I believe it is the lack of general faith in childhood education. But how, you may ask, can such an external issue like religion affect math, reading, writing, english, or science?
Let us hearken back to an age when the "too-cool-for-school" mentality did not exist among mainstream teenagers. Yes, there was once a time when going to public school and actually succeeding academically was a sign of acheivement, rather than social persecution and a lack of fitting in with the crowds. Don't get me wrong, there has always been resentment for having to go to school amongst youngsters, but prior to the revolutionary sixties, mediocrity in one's primary education was not heavily celebrated by the general media, and ergo, not by the general population either, not even those within the schools.
Today, many highschool students have a troublesome time imagining such a world of academic achievement, and then they go to college. Suddenly they are spending their own money, working for the chance to excell in an educational environment, and the social gatherings don't generally degrade them for doing so. In fact, there is genuine respect for those who work hard in anticipation of their futures whilst in college.
A belief in God and the basic moral obligations which stem therefrom which teach students to work hard, stay focused on what is important, and keep a genuine reverence and respect for academics is the only way to find true results in making our nation into the great country of schooling it once was.
In highschool and school before it, this motivation exists only among the socially "out." Why is that?
I believe that this media-epitomized attitude of avoiding excellence for social acceptance was spawned once religion was removed from the general educational system as a result of the ensuing lack of principle, respect and self-discipline. Religion is the only real source of moral obligation, as I have mentioned in other entries. Civilization is itself dependant on the idea of a higher power and an eternal reward for orderly behavior and proper conduct of one's self in this life. Although many children in our country recieve such an instillment of faith inside their homes, the typical school environment, when devoid of the presence of these religious principles, easily allows students to forget the teachings of their parents and the importance of them. Indeed, at those formative ages I remember centering my entire life around the events taking place inside the school, rather than the home.
Because of a lack of religious teaching in schools, students lose perspective on the importance of being self-driven and motivated to achieve in their various subjects, and instead worry only about the next date, dance or occasional glance from a certain cheerleader or football team captain. I am not saying such things would be completely ignored were an element of faith allowed in the classrooms, but at the very least they would not become such major distractions from the importance and need for excellence in one's education.
Sure, government can use up precious resources of the average tax-payer on needless facilities, equipment and unqualified teachers, but unless they can divert students feelings on what is truly a life-altering institution into those of hard work, ethical performance, and respect for true academic success among eachother's peers, they will never reverse the ever-discouraging trends.
Some effort has been made by the government and the educational system itself in achieving this great return to focus and perspective, but it has been done secularly and with sparing results. The only way that I can see anyone getting through to students on this issue is by returning to the textbooks and classrooms what should never have been taken out: a RELIGIOUSLY-MOTIVATED stressing of the importance of academic excellence and achievement, even at an early age.
What about all those offended by the inference of a God in our public schools? That is another, more deep issue to be addressed in a future entry, but suffice it to say that even if they are offended at the teaching, the teaching itself is still doing them more good than a lack of it would. If an idea which is known to help society offends some within that society, the rest should not have to suffer for the sake of those few.
Meanwhile, in England, a man in Parlaiment named William Wilberforce was leading the movement to abolish slavery in his own country and all of her colonies. After many years of hard effort, he succeeded in this aim, long before the United States had yet yeilded it's own slave trade to be abolished. To many, it was a supreme embarrassment that the mother country whom we had rebelled against in the Revolutionary War, the very nation whose chains we had thrown off in the name of liberty, had peacefully relinquished it's economic dependence on slaves before we, the greatest, most free nation on earth, had done so ourselves. Still, those in our country who felt strong enough of the evil nature of slavery pressed forward with their abolutionist agendas.
Our nation eventually became geographically divided over the slave issue, and this division was the underlying fuel to the political sparks which set off the Civil War. Still, it wasn't until Lincoln issued his famous Emancipation Proclamation that the war took on a brand new meaning, making the Union the moral right in the conflict, for now, under American Law, the slaves were finally free once and for all.
It took great men like Wilberforce and Lincoln to bring an end to the most dismal of human rights violations in our great country in their times. It will take great men to bring an end to the most dismal of human rights violations in modern times as well.
In 1973, the United States Supreme Court Decision "Roe vs. Wade" formally undid nationwide bans on the infamous practice of Abortion. In it's decision, the court ruled that until a child has completely left the uterus of the mother carrying it, it is lacking individual human rights and is still the private property of the mother to do with as she pleases. The Supreme Court made this decision despite the massively overwhelming voice of the American public who opposed it.
Let us step back for a moment and examine the history of Abortion as a practice for terminating pregnancy. From as early as 500 b.c., human beings were experimenting with drugs, herbs and tools for ending a woman's pregnancy prior to the birth of the mother's baby. The Chinese were some of the first of ancient peoples involved in this practice, and today they represent one of the most prevalent of nations employing it.
Abortion did not begin to seriously enter europe until the dark ages. Ancient monasteries of supposedly celibate monks and nuns have been unearthed with hundreds of infant skeletons proven to have been purposefully killed prior to, and sometimes after, birth, as a means of maintaining a virtuous public image for the Catholic Church.
In the early 18th and 19th centuries, abortion became heavily illegal in England and the United States, although the practice survived and went underground for many years. It finally found legality in England in the 1960s and in 1973, thanks to "Roe vs. Wade," was made legal in the United States as well. Since then most of europe and many other nations have accepted what is now a mainstream practice that has terminated literally millions of human lives.
There is no doubt in my mind that the same logic which allowed slavery to fester in our lands for so long is the same which the Pro-Choice movement(abortion supporters) use to internally and externally justify their stances on this horrendous scourge to humanity.
The prevailing wisdom among pro-choice advocates is not really a matter of giving everyone a choice, but rather a matter of to whom the ultimate choice belongs. Their rationale is that every citizen of this country has a right to privacy and to make their own decisions regarding the use and change of their bodies. They argue that a pregnant woman has the inherent right to terminate her unborn child because it is a part of her own body, or at the very least is under the jurisdiction of her decision-making, since she is the one caring for it's existence. They also sometimes argue that abortion is a neccesary evil in order to keep humanity from overpopulating the planet. The United Nations itself has released statements to this effect.
Earlier in this essay I mentioned that many early abolutionists were indeed slave owners themselves. As hypocritical as that may seem to us in the here and now, we need only to examine the arguments of the pro-choice community to find the same dispicable patterns of thinking. Slavery, it was once thought, was an economic foundation to our country's infrastructure. A sudden removal of the practice would bankrupt many families and businesses, and disrupt many off-shooting branches of the economy. This did indeed happen following the Civil War, but the nation survived, and it found new, honest ways of acquiring the goods it required. Ultimately, it turned out for the better, not just morally but economically as well, since a paid worker is much better at stimulating the economy than a forced laborer.
And though it ought to stand to reason that a live human being is a much better investment for a nation's infrastructure and success than a dead one, yet, every year hundreds of thousands of innocent children are disposed of systematically and without their own consent.
In the slave trade, it was widely argued that slaves were the private property of their owners, and that their owners had the inherent right to do with their property as they wished. Any intrusion into these private rights of ownership by the government was considered tyrrannical by the slave owners, and was angrily and violently opposed.
Today, the pro-choice movement uses the same logic to say that an unborn fetus is the private property of it's mother, and interference with this ownership is a tyrranical overreach by the government.
Well we all know the truth; the moral indecency of owning and compelling another human being against their will is the only real tyrranny. Likewise, and perhaps even more so, killing another human being, no matter what stage of life they may be at, is the most tyrrannical and indecent thing any person can ever do to another. Mothers ought to have only the right to terminate their own pregnancies when in danger of dying or becomming severely injured by their pregnancy, or when rape or incest is involved. Otherwise, they should accept the consequence of their actions and give live birth to their children, each of whom is a human being with inherent rights of their own, among which are the unquestionable and inalienable right to life.
One can rationalize just about anything when they are too obsessed, apathetic or addicted to their own vices or passions to let go of it, no matter how wrong it may be in the sense of moral correctness and human rights. Slave owners were doing it hundreds of years ago, and millions of women are doing it today. It is time to stop lying to yourselves. Today we can all say "slavery is wrong" without a second thought. It wasn't so easy back in it's hay day. Perhaps in the future our (living) children will be able to look back and say "abortion is wrong" with the same unquenstionable certainty that we have about slavery. I hope and pray for that day to come. Until then, I suggest we keep up the good fight against this reprehensible evil in the hopes of it's eventual collapse.
There is a HUGE debate going on in our country right now, the likes of which are unprecedented in human history. The debate is not new; it has just never had such a close match-up between it's two sides. Still, only one side can be right. But which is it?
On the one hand, you have various civil rights groups and the homosexual community claiming that the title of "marraige" should be free to any two individuals, no matter what their gender. Their argument is that any public title which gives public rights to individuals should be available to any two persons. They also argue that two parents of the same gender can raise children as effectively as traditional man-woman couples. As well, they claim that the mere title of marraige for same-se couples will not harm traditional families in any way.
On the other hand, you have traditional values supporters and the majority of Americans who operate under the assumption that homosexuality, a supposedly immorale romantic relationship, should not be allowed to infiltrate the sacred high-grounds of marraige. Their main argument includes the idea that marraige is not a right to any two interested individuals, but an exclusive title reserved only for those who qualify. They also argue that every child has a right to a father and a mother to give them the most complete learning experiences of growing up.
Both groups have potentially lawful arguments, and both go about presenting them incorrectly in my opinion, but if you ask me which of the two sides is correct, I will have to side with those who favor traditional marraige between a man and a woman.
The true argument here goes far deeper than a simple question of the meaning of the word "marraige." Although that is ultimately what the homosexual community is forcing the courts to consider and define, the reasoning for what the courts end up defining it as comes down to a very complicated issue: How religious is our nation?
No one on my chosen side has ever said that the government should restrict homosexuals from performing their homosexual acts, so long as it is out of the public eye. Of course we do not condone the behavior, but at least it is only affecting individuals who have elected to put themselves in those degrading situations. So why, then, do we now, when the issue of marraige is introduced, become so defensive of our social institution? Well, you could go into a lengthy, philosophical debate about how marraige would allow homosexuality to grow exponentially in this country(which is what the homosexual community wants), and that such an increase would drastically destroy the traditional family, allowing generations of innocent children to grow up under homosexual influence and lifestyles. You could say that such radical warping of our society would lead to population decreases, more addiction to vile behaviors and habits and the publicity of what is widely viewed as a crime against nature.
You could point out that not just any interested person can call themselves an American Citizen and have it be neccesarily true- they would have to qualify with tests and documents. You could explain that the marraige title is the same way- certain qualifications must be met before the title is given, among those being that it must be between a man and a woman as it always has been.
You could also go on to the facts of the law: That civil unions between homosexuals are granted all the same legal rights/exemptions/benefits as married couples, and that marraige is just a title which the homosexual community should not be so mysteriously interested in obtaining for themselves.
But the ultimate argument, which can never be fully employed in our current humanistic public eye, is that marraige is instituted by God as the only way to reproduce without sinning, and that homosexual reproduction activities are a vile sin in God's sight. Thus, we see just how guilty homosexuals must feel inside themselves about what they are doing, because they are trying to use God's own institution against Him. They are trying to make their homosexual activities no longer be sins, and they are using the marraige vows to do it. This kind of a practice is perhaps the greatest mockery of God and his laws in the entire history of sin, and as a God-fearing nation, we do not feel it right to allow our government to endorse it.
Of course, this last great argument means nothing to someone who is not religious. So, again I ask, how religious is our nation? Do enough of us still believe in a God? Do enough of us still believe that he created the marraige covenant as a lawful and right way to raise a family? Do enough of us still believe that homosexuality is an immoral and sinful practice?
If the answer is yes, than perhaps we can dodge this bullet. Perhaps we can show that America, a nation founded by righteous, god-fearing men, still clings to the roots which made her strong.
If the answer is no, than certainly our country will undergo very radical changes in the near future. Certainly our lack of faith in God will lead to our own twisting and warping as a nation which will ultimately leave us weaker than we can even imagine.
May we return to our religious roots and throw off the radical groups who are pushing for homosexual marraige in my country, I hope and pray.
2. The girl has no sense of humor whatsoever.
3. The girl is obsessed with shopping and city-stuff, and never likes fun outdoor activities.
4. The girl says "I'm Fat," and you don't know how to tell her she is right. Jk. :P
In a video game, you can "kill" as many characters as you feel like. Just whip out your cyber-bullets and have at it! They then "die." Some of the time you face cyber-consequences for your actions, but usually you are free to just KILL-KILL-KILL!! Why is that? Because in a video game, nothing is "real." Thus, there are no lasting consequences for any atrocity you commit.
In recent years, we have seen some virtual gamers who have lost touch with reality and have started using real bullets on real people. They just walk right into schools, homes or public places and have at it! They pull out their guns and KILL-KILL-KILL!! Why is that? Because, in their minds, their actions will have no lasting consequences for any atrocity they commit.
Even if they end up going to prison or being executed for their crimes, it means little to nothing to them because they usually don't believe that there is an afterlife, and thus, every punishment they may get will end after they die and they won't have to suffer anything more. In essence, there are no LASTING consequences for their atrocities, or so they think.
I hold to the notion that the concept of an afterlife is the only realistic way to make mankind think twice before he starts tearing himself apart. If one believes that there will be an eternal punishment for wrong-doing after one dies, then one will logically avoid wrong-doing Likewise, if one believes there will be an eternal reward for right-doing after one dies, then one will logically seek to do right.
Granted that right and wrong often very according to different religious opinions, but the prevailing concepts espoused by religious faiths have to do with unity. If they didn't espouse unity of their people's, religions would fall apart, victim to divisions among their people. Many modern atheists contend that the state can create a unified environment jst as easily as religion can. The problem is that the state lacks the conceptual idea of an afterlife. Should the state begin to teach this doctrine, it is possible that they could unify their peoples, but such a teaching would undermine the atheist's point: that there is no God and we don't need a God to stay unified.
I contend sharply that this is like trying to dig a very large building foundation without using a tractor, just to prove that you don't need the tractor's help. It is illogical and unreasonable to deny what works in building unified civilization, even if for some reason you personally don't like what it is.
I also contend that the ONLY way to have a reliable, responsible populace who dwell together in unity is through the religious philosophy of an afterlife with a judgement for our actions in this life. Removing this idea from your people leads to chaos and anarchy, with every man, woman or child feeling free to KILL-KILL-KILL one another, or other such malicious acts.
Civilization and relgion are mutual partners in a fused relationship. When you take away one, you lose the other.
You're packing your bag for that other desert island—the one with no electricity—what 5 books do you take with you? Submitted By |
1. The Scriptures
2. Survival Guide
3. Something I haven't read before
4. A pen and paper(so I can write my own)
5. A Clean Joke Book (to stay entertained)
Whilst Barak Obama has no qualms with throwing other people's hard-earned tax dollars at illogical avenues of economic recovery, Mitt Romney is a proven businessman and economist who would have been the ideal candidate for saving our faltering American economy. Unfortunately, as you know, the Republican Party in large rejected him early in the primary stages, opting for the more liberal candidate known as John McCain, who later passed up the opportunity of taking Romney with him as a Vice Presidential candidate, and instead selecting a lesser known Governor of Alaska Sarah Palin for the job. Many people have commented that that decision would prove fatal for McCain's campaign, but it seems he himself doesn't care since he has now fallen back into his liberal tendancies and is showing an outpouring of support for President Obama's foolish economic strategies.
Why do I bother pointing all of this out? Because, frankly, there was only one main reason the Republican Party rejected Romney, thus leaving us under the watch of a Washington freshman and his colleagues, and it was very unjust. It was predominantly a result of Romney's religious faith. Yes, the religious right wing rejected a good man with experience enough to handle the task at hand, thus allowing this country to sink into an infinitely deeper hole than it ever has before because he is a Mormon, a member of the LDS(Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints) church. How do I know this? Because whilst the media was often hostile enough towards his religious views, it did not begin to scratch the surface of what was happening behind the scenes. In the bible-belt states, an unprecedented number of so-called Christian preachers, pastors and the like maliciously and intentionally slandered Romney and, more pointedly, his religion, the LDS church.
What did they say about his religion? Well, just the usual points that are sure to sound confusing and shocking when taken out of context, as they always are by those who secretly harbor hateful feelings for the LDS church, despite their false pretenses of Christ-like love. Such doctrines of the LDS church which are frequently stretched in such manner include the idea of Jesus and Satan being brothers. To a "traditional" Christian, meaning those who still prescribe to the same doctrines which were decided in the Councils of Nicea and Anathasia in the third century A.D., such an idea may seem a shocking difference from the traditional view on the nature of God. The truth is that the full doctrine simply indicates that all of mankind are spiritual children of God, including Satan and God's son, Jesus Christ. It states that Satan and his demonic followers were cast out of heaven into hell after they rebelled against God, but that they still are original creations of God, just as Christ and all of us are as well. Such a doctrine is not so shocking or mind-boggling when interpreted in proper context. Most of the frequently attacked doctrines of the LDS church follow a similar pattern to the one above: Presented negatively, yet sensible and plausable when clarified. Indeed, most of the flack aimed at the LDS church consists of incomplete quotes and half-truths.
So why would so many supposed republicans be so hostile towards an able candidate merely because of his religion? Or, in other words, why HIS church of all religions? The answer isn't exactly simple. There are several reasons which could be cited. One such reason is that the LDS Church claims to have legitamate priesthood authority passed on to it's members from Jesus Christ, and furthermore believes that one can only be a leader or director in the Kingdom of God when they have this authority, ergo, to other religions whose leaders claim their authority to lead from degrees at universities or popular vote, this belief may seem to undermine their fundamental roles as leaders. Of course, this is not the case, but it still can feel as such by mainstream Christianity.
Another such reason may be the Book of Mormon, a volume of scripture claimed to have been recorded by ancient prophets on the American continents and to have been translated by Joseph Smith, the founder of the LDS Church, in the early 1800's. The problem alot of traditional Christians have with the Book of Mormon is that, whilst it only teaches the same words of Jesus Christ and ancient prophets of Israel, it is, to them anyways, a second bible, and they tend to believe that God would only give them one bible. In essence, the subject matter makes no difference to them; if any book other than the bible is claimed to be inspired by God, it is automatically false. They already have a bible, and they want no more bible. I would like to point out that if The Book of Mormon IS false, then I would say the bible itself would ALSO be false, because the teachings in both of them are nigh unto being identicle.
Another reason that mainstream "christians" would attack the LDS church's beliefs is because the LDS church tends to believe it is the only true church of God. Any external religion could possibly be insulted by this, but it is not an uncommon belief among religous denominations. Most churches are formed because of the belief that all the others are wrong. Why else make a new one? Even supposed 'non-demonational' Christians often believe that those christians who do belong to individual denominations are all wrong and that only they themselves are right.
Yet another reason, and perhaps the easiest to use when trying to shock and apall common christians, is the belief that every son and daughter of God has the potential, based on preconditions of righteous living and repentance for sins, to one day advance to become Gods themselves. A mainstream christian, who has always imagined a simple life of eternal happiness with God in heaven, might gasp at the concept. "No! There is only one God! To think that He might allow us to one day become Gods too is not just heresy; it's sacriledge!!!" And, by their religious beliefs, they might be right. You see, this particular point of doctrine is not one whose resultant shock is a result of ignorant or decieving interpretation/presentation; Mormons really do believe that the whole point of humanity's existence on earth is to pass a great test of faithfulness, thus proving that they are worthy to continue to advance and one day become like God. I personally do not find this in the least bit a disturbing concept. After all, if God really loves his children more than simple animals, even enough to die for their sins and give them a chance to repent, than of course he would give them a much greater inheritance in the eternity before them than he would to the mindless animals who were never had to overcome evil temptations or abide by eternal laws.
These and a few other doctrines are the sources of hate and ignorance which eventually got Mitt Romney's presidential ticket cancelled. The country is now paying a steep price. Of course the economic difficulties overwhelming us now would have started with or without Romney in the Oval Office, but instead of a corporate expert with real esperience in business recovery and survival running the show, we have a young, unproven "community organizer" who leap-frogged his campaign off of the promise to end the conflict in Iraq. It wasn't until too late in the election that American began to realize that every candidate was essentially going to handle Iraq the same way(with a responsible, timely withdrawal) and that the REAL issue wasn't going to be the Iraq War, but rather it was going to be handling a failing economy.
Well, the time came and went, America. Your religious right-wing has failed you miserably. They have failed me and my faith miserably. The numerous southern preachers and ministers who espoused such hateful remarks know who they are, they know what they did, and their irresponsibility is now contributing to billions of dollars being wasted by a political child in power who would just as soon burn the money as use it wisely.
The point of this particular entry is not to present a better economic solution to our current ills than the bailouts and stimulis's. Not yet, anyways. Instead, I hope Americans take a much deeper lesson from this article, and that is that when we scrutinize individuals as the ignorant bystanders we are and let misleading half-truths make our decisions for us, the consequences will be miserable, enduring trials of which we will be quite deserving. In the future, only our informed, rational understanding of the whole truth can keep us on the right track, and away from the anger and hate which always precedes our greatest falls. "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." -Thomas Jefferson. May we learn to be understanding and informed in all matters, whether religious, political, economical or otherwise, I hope and pray for all of our sakes.
Profile
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif)
fastestfalcon- fastestfalcon
Syndicate
