I am not arguing for an imposition or an elimination of another's religious practices upon another group. This has cause countless deaths. Stalin enforced secularism caused the deaths of millions of his own people. Stalin's enforced secular society was more violent and not less than many religious societies.
I am not arguing that religious beliefs due to historical tradition or the perceived beliefs of the founding fathers should be given special treatment. What I am arguing is equal opportunity under the law. That all beliefs regardless of source should have the right to petition the government.
In the past communists in the US argued that blacks should have civil rights but they generally dismissed that blacks should have civil rights. Civil rights is a noble idea but because the source of the ideology (communism) anyone working for civil rights was considered a communist. All people have a right to petition the government according to the dictates of their own conscience and not be censured due to the source of their beliefs.
Its like I said not a elimination of ideas or one source of ideas but a plurality of ideas. And let the Darwinian conflict of ideas take its course.
If you are arguing that a person religious beliefs (as opposed to a persons religious practices) do not belong in politics you are essentially arguing for censorship.
A person has no right to impose religious practices upon another. But all laws impose ideas upon another. If the source of our laws comes from Marx so be it from Socrates so be it from Jesus Mohamed or Buddha so be it. It the best ideas that should win not just the best secular ideas that should win.
Wednesday, December 6, 2006
Monday, December 4, 2006
Politics and Religion do Mix
In public life there is often talk of people of faith imposing what they view as right on others. They think that it violates a long standing tradition of separating church and state. While this phrase separation of church and state is not found anywhere in the US Constitution it does say that "the government shall make not establishment of religion. Thomas Jefferson in 1803 argued that there should be a wall of separation between church and state.
But Thomas Jefferson also penned the immortal words " We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men 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." Thomas Jefferson's religious beliefs that god was the source of certain unalienable rights, or rights that cannot be given or taken away, led him to declare those rights into law. Thomas Jefferson connects his religious beliefs to the belief of government when he stated "That to secure these rights, (divinely given political rights) Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed," Jefferson codified his religious beliefs into secular law. So if Jefferson wanted a complete separation of religious belief and from the public life, why was his religious belief in one of our most hallowed documents?
But the same man who wrote that all men have should have life liberty and the pursuit of happiness had slaves. I do not view him as a hypocrite I view the founding fathers as having such high ideals that even they could not reach the ideals. Many were opposed to slavery personally but were not opposed to others having slaves. According to the law slaves were property and it was not right for another man to dictate what he should do with his property.
But those who opposed slavery organized in churches. They preached from the pulpit the immorality of slavery and the need for political action. Their religious beliefs the equality of all men that Jesus taught led them to believe that slavery was wrong. Not in just in the North but universally. It was the work of these Christians that led to the over turning of slavery. In the Northern New England Christians imposed on the Southern Christians a belief that came from a religious doctrine.
But these former slaves had rights by law but not rights in practice. While they had the right to vote in theory they were denied in many ways. A voter registration official could ask any question he wanted to the applicant questions such as how many bubbles in a bar of soap were perfectly legal questions. To confront this injustice the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. started organizing political action through his religious congregations. He used the pulpit to the immorality of segregation much like the abolitionist movement a century before.
Now the great debates in our society rage on. Abortion whether one person can dictate the life or death of another. As it stands right now women have as much control over another individuals life as a slave master had over his property. Both a slavery and abortion are protected by law. It is not enough for people to say that they are personally opposed abortion but will allow others such a right. That is like saying think that murder is wrong but I if others want to murder that is their right because we can't impose our beliefs on them. We must stand for what we believe in.
the anti-abortion movement is organized the same way the abolitionist and the civil rights movement were organized through churches. They preach the immorality of abortion gay rights and other immoral plagues of our time. It is not enough to say to each his own. We must put our religious beliefs and codify them into action. Impose as all laws do our beliefs of what is right and just and true. If we allow such laws to occur than they are imposing on us their values and their beliefs.
Religion in politics is not the bane of American politics but has been blessed by it. When people with religious speak out and stand up for what they believe in America benefits from it. Why are beliefs that originate from Jesus not acceptable in 21st century public life but views from Karl Marx are acceptable? Why does the source of a belief matter? Religious extremists think that well if all people thought like me there would be no conflict. Secularists have the same fallacy if you divorce yourself from all religious thought, become a secular thinker, then there would be no conflict in the world. So what we need is not a divorcing of religious and the political beliefs but an embracing of them.
But Thomas Jefferson also penned the immortal words " We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men 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." Thomas Jefferson's religious beliefs that god was the source of certain unalienable rights, or rights that cannot be given or taken away, led him to declare those rights into law. Thomas Jefferson connects his religious beliefs to the belief of government when he stated "That to secure these rights, (divinely given political rights) Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed," Jefferson codified his religious beliefs into secular law. So if Jefferson wanted a complete separation of religious belief and from the public life, why was his religious belief in one of our most hallowed documents?
But the same man who wrote that all men have should have life liberty and the pursuit of happiness had slaves. I do not view him as a hypocrite I view the founding fathers as having such high ideals that even they could not reach the ideals. Many were opposed to slavery personally but were not opposed to others having slaves. According to the law slaves were property and it was not right for another man to dictate what he should do with his property.
But those who opposed slavery organized in churches. They preached from the pulpit the immorality of slavery and the need for political action. Their religious beliefs the equality of all men that Jesus taught led them to believe that slavery was wrong. Not in just in the North but universally. It was the work of these Christians that led to the over turning of slavery. In the Northern New England Christians imposed on the Southern Christians a belief that came from a religious doctrine.
But these former slaves had rights by law but not rights in practice. While they had the right to vote in theory they were denied in many ways. A voter registration official could ask any question he wanted to the applicant questions such as how many bubbles in a bar of soap were perfectly legal questions. To confront this injustice the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. started organizing political action through his religious congregations. He used the pulpit to the immorality of segregation much like the abolitionist movement a century before.
Now the great debates in our society rage on. Abortion whether one person can dictate the life or death of another. As it stands right now women have as much control over another individuals life as a slave master had over his property. Both a slavery and abortion are protected by law. It is not enough for people to say that they are personally opposed abortion but will allow others such a right. That is like saying think that murder is wrong but I if others want to murder that is their right because we can't impose our beliefs on them. We must stand for what we believe in.
the anti-abortion movement is organized the same way the abolitionist and the civil rights movement were organized through churches. They preach the immorality of abortion gay rights and other immoral plagues of our time. It is not enough to say to each his own. We must put our religious beliefs and codify them into action. Impose as all laws do our beliefs of what is right and just and true. If we allow such laws to occur than they are imposing on us their values and their beliefs.
Religion in politics is not the bane of American politics but has been blessed by it. When people with religious speak out and stand up for what they believe in America benefits from it. Why are beliefs that originate from Jesus not acceptable in 21st century public life but views from Karl Marx are acceptable? Why does the source of a belief matter? Religious extremists think that well if all people thought like me there would be no conflict. Secularists have the same fallacy if you divorce yourself from all religious thought, become a secular thinker, then there would be no conflict in the world. So what we need is not a divorcing of religious and the political beliefs but an embracing of them.
Saturday, December 2, 2006
The Immigrants are stealing all of our jobs!!!!
I can't believe the state of the world today. Because the Federal Government is not doing its job to many immigrants are coming into the United States and taking away jobs from hard working Americans.
This problem is not a new one. In the 1930's Albert Einstein who was not born or educated here just came to the United States and stole a professors job from some hard working American at Princeton. We really don't need foreign intellectuals we have the best University system in the world. Like what did Albert Einstein ever do for the world anyway?
Even today Sergi Brin came to the United States stole an admission spot at Stanford that could have been given to a hard working American. Then he had the nerve to start a company called Google. Immediately Google started to steal jobs from Microsoft a hard working American company. Everyone knows that Microsoft is a monopoly and why doesn't Google let them act like one?
In addition we should reduce the number of h1b visas given to Ph.d and graduate students down from the ridiculously high number of 65,000 a year to zero. I think that this country would be a whole lot better if there were less smart people in it. We are Americans and all of our schools are fine and we don't need import intellectuals from overseas to come and create wealth for us.
We are the richest country in the world. We have so much money and are so far ahead of the world we can do nothing for two years before they catch up. If we want to stay in the lead what we need to do is reverse what put us there in the first place. We need to have tight borders and not let any immigrants in and have zero trade with other countries. Withdraw from the World Trade Organization NAFTA and anything that restricts American sovereignty. So what if we lose billions of dollars in trade and our economy collapses. It will be totally worth it to protect the low skill jobs that are going overseas.
This problem is not a new one. In the 1930's Albert Einstein who was not born or educated here just came to the United States and stole a professors job from some hard working American at Princeton. We really don't need foreign intellectuals we have the best University system in the world. Like what did Albert Einstein ever do for the world anyway?
Even today Sergi Brin came to the United States stole an admission spot at Stanford that could have been given to a hard working American. Then he had the nerve to start a company called Google. Immediately Google started to steal jobs from Microsoft a hard working American company. Everyone knows that Microsoft is a monopoly and why doesn't Google let them act like one?
In addition we should reduce the number of h1b visas given to Ph.d and graduate students down from the ridiculously high number of 65,000 a year to zero. I think that this country would be a whole lot better if there were less smart people in it. We are Americans and all of our schools are fine and we don't need import intellectuals from overseas to come and create wealth for us.
We are the richest country in the world. We have so much money and are so far ahead of the world we can do nothing for two years before they catch up. If we want to stay in the lead what we need to do is reverse what put us there in the first place. We need to have tight borders and not let any immigrants in and have zero trade with other countries. Withdraw from the World Trade Organization NAFTA and anything that restricts American sovereignty. So what if we lose billions of dollars in trade and our economy collapses. It will be totally worth it to protect the low skill jobs that are going overseas.
Friday, December 1, 2006
Unlike many east coast cities DC has plenty of trees and Republicans
On thing that i have realized about Washington DC is how green it is. Some people out west have this perception of East Coast cities as gritty cavernous megapolis where trees are as scarce as Republicans. In DC no building can be taller than the capitol building so there are strict height requirements.
But DC is really green they have huge forests in the middle of the city and through out the city. It ranges from the Capitol Mall Where the US Capitol Smithsonian and the Lincoln Memorial is. To the Mt Vernon area and the Rock Creek Parkway. Combine the greenbelt with the river that runs through the heart of the city and I makes some really pretty drives through the city especially in the fall which it is right now. My favorite drive is the George Washington Memorial Parkway. Everyone needs to see it in the fall.
A few months ago I visited a friend we were less half mile from the subway and this deer ran past me ran down the street. In the greenbelts they its not like Central Park that has which has squirrels a few raccoons a lot of birds and not much else. But D.C. in the heart of the city places like Georgetown Arlington and the National Zoo area has genuine and growing wildlife.
Lobbyists and Cockroaches Separated at Birth?
On Capitol Hill the office buildings are small places and you never can tell who you going to run into. Well on one elevator trip down I ran into two lobbyists from Louisiana. I asked what issues they are working for and whether its easier to get money from Republicans or the Democrats? He said that they advocate all types of issues and both Republicans and Democrats give money but for different reasons.Then he asked me what state I was from? I replied Arizona. What he said was classic ... Arizona well their Congressmen are not known for their largess. At that moment I was really proud of my State. But I got the impression that if we every experienced a dirty bomb attack (Let us pray that it never happens) in the Washington DC area two things will remain. Lobbyists and Cockroaches.
Borders Books: Unfair and Biased
One of the my favorite places to hang out is the Borders Books in Friendship Heights. I have gone there several times and in their political section their end caps (the end part of the isle) all of their books where not just liberal but crazy anti-conservative. Books like "Worse than Watergate" "Theocons" "Fiasco" there were around 12 books and all anti-conservative. I have been in the store several times and the outcome is always the same.
I went up to the manager and asked do you have a bias that you are trying to push? He disagreed that they did but they were just trying to promote the books that were selling and crazy anti-conservative sell well in blue state Maryland. If I wanted a bookstore with a conservative bias you should go south to Virginia.
I don't think that they should stop selling or promoting anti-conservative books what i did think that the should have is to be like Fox News be "Fair and Balanced." Its hard for me to believe that there isn't a bias (whether intentional or unintentional) when all the books that they prominently display have a decidedly anti-conservative and far left slant.
I went up to the manager and asked do you have a bias that you are trying to push? He disagreed that they did but they were just trying to promote the books that were selling and crazy anti-conservative sell well in blue state Maryland. If I wanted a bookstore with a conservative bias you should go south to Virginia.
I don't think that they should stop selling or promoting anti-conservative books what i did think that the should have is to be like Fox News be "Fair and Balanced." Its hard for me to believe that there isn't a bias (whether intentional or unintentional) when all the books that they prominently display have a decidedly anti-conservative and far left slant.
Dumpster Diving
Well the Congressmen that weren't reelected have to leave to day and that means one thing .. dumpster diving. I can't believe some of the things that people throw out. I got a laptop bag with the House of Representatives Seal on it cups books all kind of things.
I also have a 10 copies of Ronald Reagan Memorial Tribute books. The books are gorgeous a black cover with gold lettering and the Congressional seal. They were going to toss them when I saved them from being landfill. I e-mailed the ward on the list serve and there were a few takers. Considering the hassle of transporting the books and that they are rare and quite valuable I am going to sell them.
The former Republican offices are now empty and the plaques on the door are gone. Things are a lot lonelier here for the GOP.
I also have a 10 copies of Ronald Reagan Memorial Tribute books. The books are gorgeous a black cover with gold lettering and the Congressional seal. They were going to toss them when I saved them from being landfill. I e-mailed the ward on the list serve and there were a few takers. Considering the hassle of transporting the books and that they are rare and quite valuable I am going to sell them.
The former Republican offices are now empty and the plaques on the door are gone. Things are a lot lonelier here for the GOP.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
