As a published author, I began my work principally because of my concerns regarding the acts of our nations political leaders' and essentially all government agencies' continual invokations of religion in politics, while still, at the same time, claiming our government and religion to be separate. It is absolutely dishonest that they stand before this nation and make such a claim, while still yet they make the claim that we are a christian nation, also while addressing the nation.
Looking back over the history of those such politcal leaders, history tells and shows us that such men have long proven by their actions that they march to the beat of a different drum from what they preach from their mouths. I have to question, why would anyone even want to consider them as a leader?. The Constitution of America, the United States, is the best developed social governmental instrument ever developed in the workd, and in history. Yet, almost since it's incision, it has been trampled on like it was a piece of dirt by the very ones chosen to uphold its social determinations.
From my point of view, and in my opinion, there are many unanswered questions regarding "chrstianity" that, all to often, fall to avoidance by those who seek to impose it's literacy. Our constitution was deliberately developled that it would be self sufficient of the dependency on religion. And very well developed as such. But, even after those who participated in such development thoroughly explained the intentions of this self sufficinecy, there were those who continued to argue their religious antics, and for some odd reason, they won their arguements. Therfore, our constitution, as historically proven, has long been a failure. So, therfore, accordingly, our constitution has never in history been upheld according to the determinatons of it's writ.
How could ones be so blind as to so long enduringly not see that men claimed this to be a "free" nation, even as they themselves held others in bondage, while all along claiming to be a "christian" that lived according to the doctrines of christiananity? How could not ones recognize the obvious true intentions of the many men, women, and children who bestowed their such deceptions upon others, like a nightmare.
If the answers to these questions is not obvious to the reader, may I suggest further research, observation, and contemplation. And while fullfilling those acts, thorough concentration.
Our government people have a job to do. Do they fulfill those expectations? No, they do not. And have not for far too long now. Rather, they utilize those positions for self enrichment. For self fullfillment. For obscurity. For corruption. And all the while they portray themselves of this "christian" individual converging on the "blessings" of "God."
Must we continue on allowing such governmnet servants to conduct the fullfillments of governimg in such mannerisms? That is the queston everyone should be asking themselves concerning the election of 2008. And, are they, in reality, uphoding the Constitution of this land? The anwser to that queston is obvious. And, that answer is overwhelmingly, emphatically - NO - they are not, and have not been for far too long. The issues regarding the separation of church and state have long been, to this nation, as a plague upon the constitutional determinations regarding humanity.
So now, if you want to tallk about "change," where do you really suppose we should begin? Perhaps with the original intentions and determinations of the original "Constitution" would be the best beginning. Not a vote for more of the same, but with a twist of fate.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 29
In my opinion,if you are truly religious,you would work the laws as you see fit. If not
then you're not truly of your faith(whatever it may be).
The expression comes to mind, "nevermind now." Is it that broad to understand that people constantly go to jail, unconstitutionally? That people are deprived of their rights, daily, because of the constitution not being upheld? That the purpose of our government and laws, this being a "free county," is to govern, not dictate? And what makes you think Bill Clinton didn't impose his religion in politics, though it may have not been that noticeable to many, as it was not meant to be to those anticipated to be that naive? If you want to know what a gift horse saliva taste like you have to lick it right square in the mouth. If I could think of the word that describes when something is made to look one way, while all along it is another, just the opposite, that is the word I would use to desribe how the governing forces do still, emphatically in fact, impose religion. Including Bill Clinton. But by no means is it for the sake of justice, but just the opposite.
I almost agreed with you on parts of that, but I can't. I don't look to the government with my hands out. I look to the government to govern. That ideology does, however, stronly reflect on one of the most major causes of the failures of this country. And too, it refelcts on the most unrelentingly audaccious impositions resulting from the failures of upholding the contsitution. Promoting general welfare wasn't intended for providing income to greedy money hungry people who have no good morals or substantive motivation.
Cops are not among the ones with all the money, yet they uphold the laws that are unconstitutional, for the benefit of corruption. They have convinced themselves that they too are invinicible to punishment from a superenatural power of creation for such actions. That money does not create those corrupt laws, the corruption in itself does. If you want to stop aggression, just as has been done to such as Iran, you have to cut them off at their resources. For example, if all the mid and lower income would get together, as unions have them do, and go on strike, that puts the upper levels' resources in jeopardy. It doesn't come down to money it comes down to making some worthwhle scrifices in order to get into positon to cut the snake off at the head.
For the purpose of effecting "change" I propose greater dissemination of good information about mental health -- how to recognize it, how to keep it -- and treatment on demand. That way even if the populace does not understand the finer points of other things, we may at least not vote for as many lunatics and nut cases.
If a person truly has freedom of religion, then he/she is free to worship, to pray, to have the 10 Commandments on his/her office wall.
We'll never again have a world envisioned by our founding fathers. Not when so many people have their hands out for what they think they deserve.
Just this week, I received a survey in the mail. It reminded me that our Congress has thus far stolen $2.29 trillion from our social security money. To spend on what? Pork. Like...$50 million to build an indoor rainforest in Iowa. $223 million for that bridge to nowhere in Alaska. Money diverted from the Social Security Trust Fund has been spent on lots of special interest projects.
When people try to blame all the ills of the US on our current president, or even on our current Congress, I have to laugh. These things have been happening for years and years, and the American public has allowed them to happen.
Change is difficult when everyone wants it. It's impossible when some people want, want, want. And most do.
I take this to mean, practice as you see fit. Wherever you see fit. However you see fit (as long as no other law is broken in the practicing of said religion). If a group of children chooses to get together in a group before class and pray, the government cannot enact laws to stop this. If the pledge of allegiance is recited, it is my choice to say under God or not and to whichever god I choose.
The only problem with the Consitution is that because it was supposed to be effective for a conglomeration of peoples with different backgrounds, principles, and ideals it is very broad in its statements. This then allows what was written to be interpreted differently, manipulated to endorse one side or another, or even tossed aside as antiquated by those who cannot use what they have been given in a way that benefits them.
However, the fact that we are able to question, have discourse about, and even change our government tells me that our Constitution, as it is, is the best foundation for a government that encompasses so many different people. It is the people who need to change - to become more interested in their government. If the populace would be less apathetic towards the workings of government and become active, I believe there would be less corruption and exploitation.
I have to disagree that when the constitution was witten we were a "conglomeration of peoples". Comparatively speaking we were actually very homogeneous. But, I have a theory that the FF were intentionally vague when writing the constitution in order that it might be a document that would be able to bend and stretch with the times. Most of these men were well versed in history and philosophy (and actually many of their wives also, such as Abagail Adams) , and after the disaster of the "Articles of Confederation" I believe they would try to be specific about subjects but leave a little room for interpretation.
Additionally, James Madison who is of course the Father of the Bill of Rights, was a great friend and admirer of Thomas Jefferson. I am not an expert on TJ, but knowing a little about him I can see him being intentionally vague for future generations of americans to use to "refresh the tree of liberty". Maybe James Madison saw it the same way.
- There is a significant difference between faith (i.e. religion) and spirituality.
- Religion does sometimes lead to spirituality, but many times it does not.
- One does not require religion to become a spiritual person.
- One does not require religion to become a moral or ethical person.
- Faith is divisive and separates us.
- Spirituality is universal and unites us.
- It is our sense of spirituality, not religion or faith, that compels us to moral and ethical behavior.
I believe one should keep their religion and faith within the privacy of the home and their chosen place of worship. But by all means, DO bring your spirituality to the Public Square.
I was getting rather tired when I first read your comment. I didn't think, though, that you were implying a personal insinuation. I understood your point better the second time I read it. But I wanted to get the point across that government was meant for governing. And you are right, too many actually do, as I have witnessed firsthand, have their hands out to the government. I was just telling a friend today about a trip I once took to Ocean Beach, San Diego. I met a woman there that stopped me to talk. She was a social worker. She investigated government benefits recipients. She explained to me that about 90% of all those people that were on that extremely crowded beach were recipients. I was shocked. She pointed out to me that they were the same ones everyday, and how they sit down there consuming alcohol and drigs, daily. I thought she was just ranting at first, until she started naming names and other information. She was serious. She rambled off staticstical information, and told me about some of the cases she had worked on. She knew countless ones of thsoe people by name. And she explained to me the dilemma in San Diego regarding the work availablity and the unavailability. It was a situation, in part at least, where coutless tax dollars were going out to people who wanted to be an actor, but couldn't because there wasn't enough available parts for them to Play act. I was really shocked at some of the things she told me. And even skeptical about her government position in relation to it all. She knew those people like she knew the back of her hand.
I am not fond of eating pork. Just think of what I could do with just a small fraction of that amount of waisted dollars. Another thing too is the amount of our tax dollars that go to "entertainment" for the goverment service people. Much of that entertainment is such things as prostitutes there to entertain them. And that Clinton impeachment ordeal was nothing but a hoax on the public to make us pay for them to "entertain" us at our expense, with them being the only ones enjoying all the entertainment.