More on hypocrisy....I guess I'm on a roll tonight.
I have posted before on this. The subject of Marriage and what should and should not be legal. The more I have thought about this and talked it through with Jenn I have a greater clarity on my thoughts.
My bottom line is that the Government has zero place in "marriage". A marriage is something that a Church has the right to ordain. If the Government has to be involved, which I think for taxes, and to allow the rights of people to be fairly accounted for it probably does there should be another legal term. Civil Union, sounds hokey, but, it is the best I can do.
All the arguments we hear political are totally based on hypocrisy. A marriage is between one man and one woman and that is all that should be legal, because that is how God created it. Ok. A Church can say that. the Government not (separation of Church and State for one.)
Now, looking into the issue deeper. Those that espouse this "legal marriage, as I will describe it because that is how it is today claim that, as I said, the only marriage should be between a man and woman. Ok. But, and there is a very big but, you are going to use a legalized Scripture approach as your definition of a marriage the chances are there would be very few, if any marriages that would meet such high standards. Why? No sex before marriage, no lustful thoughts, no divorce (except abuse), no adultery, no sexual impurities, one sexual partner. In the Old Testament many of these could lead to being cast out of society or even stoned to death. If this was the criteria for marriage this would be mute point, because like I said so few, if any would qualify. An even crazier situation is those who are Atheists or Satanists can get married and everyone is happy with that as long as they are the same sex. Get the point? Hypocrisy, hypocrisy, hypocrisy.
Now, some would say we are no longer doing this because we were "living in Sin" and because we got married we now aren't, or have repented. All good. Now, come to the New Testament and Jesus teaching. He came to move a way from the legalistic establishment or a Jewish Country to teach on Love, forgiveness and peace, just to name three. So, great you have repented of your sins (although going from a non-married sexual relationship to a married one seems to be a very weak justification) what about Christs love for everyone? He loved the major sinners in His day, in fact spent his time with them not the religions elite. Above all, what about the commandment not to judge unless you have no sin yourself? Heck, I wish I was perfect and truly sanctified, but, alas I am not. Also, who has the right to be God and say really what He wants? It is simple really. Love everyone, be peaceful, gentle, kind, patient displaying all the fruits of Christlike life. Only God Himself has the right to judge and condemn. This has got so lost in the modern day Church. It makes me angry.
I am not a theologian and may be Utopian, but, the hateful rhetoric of so many right-wing, Conservative Christians does not represent me or the teaching of Christ. They have the right to their opinions and I try very hard every day not to judge and to love them, but, that is tough because of the misrepresentation of Jesus' life and as I have already stated make me very, very angry. The best analogy I can come up with is what would you do if someone denigrates the person you love most in the World. Yup, very, very angry.
-Richard
Friday, September 14, 2012
Does the religion of a candidate in an election matter? In the United States General election it seems to, at least from one side.
I have heard, read, seen posted time and time again how this Country needs to move back to God, Satan is in charge, The President is a Muslim, we need to move back to our Christian roots, the President is a false prophet or anti-Christ and on and on and on. Unbelievable hate and ignorance.
I have heard, read, seen posted time and time again how this Country needs to move back to God, Satan is in charge, The President is a Muslim, we need to move back to our Christian roots, the President is a false prophet or anti-Christ and on and on and on. Unbelievable hate and ignorance.
- The President claims to be a professing Christian. That is not for I or any one else to judge. If he was Muslim and followed the Constitution would it matter?
- This Country was founded on the Separation of Church and State. Many of the founding fathers were NOT Christian, certainly nor practicing, believing Christians.
- Those that create the biggest noise on this are the so called right-wing evangelical Christians. The Christ of the new Testament quite clearly time after time teaches not to judge, pay to Caesar (a secular Government) what is theirs to love and not hate and I can go on and on. This group are the new Pharisees.
- Finally.... these folks who are so anti- the President and make these claims have a Candidate for President who is of course an Evangelical Christian. NO!! He is of the Mormon faith recognized by all major religious scholars and theologians to be a cult. If they have a problem with Islam why not Mormons who have changed the Bible to their interpretation claiming it is Christian. Islam have their own Holy Book, but, never made those claims. If there is to be a false prophet or a great deception by Satan perhaps it could be argued that this acceptance of the Mormon faith to be mainstream could be it?
Let's keep it real and say it as it is. You hate the President because he is different, has a different political ideology and perhaps you just hate. Stop misrepresenting my faith, my God and the Bible. Have a different opinion I'm all for that, but, ignorance and fear is hypocrisy of the highest order.
For the record as Christian I would love a true Christ centered President, but, it is not essential by any means. My vote will always go to those who stand for tolerance, peace, fairness and the people. Whatever religion they claim to be, that, is Christlike policies.
-Richard
Saturday, September 8, 2012
America
They
call it the land of milk and honey,
But
life is fast and furious,
Children
brought up priorities wrong,
Money
and possessions are number one.
Your
love, however is still there
That
people dedicated to spreading
The
right aspects of life
Teaching
the kids that You are first.
Thank
you Lord for Your workers.
I
pray that You’ll keep them safe
As
year by year they strive
To
share You to this land.
August
1989, Camp Tecumseh, NJ, USA.
-Richard
Thursday, July 26, 2012
I may be perhaps a bit more sensitive right now because with the heroics of Andy Murray and Bradley Wiggins and the UK in center stage with the Olympics I am probably the most homesick I have been for a long time and certainly most patriotic and sensitive I have been for my homeland for long time. Therefore, perhaps these comments can be taken more into context.
In comes Mitt. His first foreign visit as a potential President. He goes to the Country that has over the last few decades been the US's biggest ally and has a Conservative Prime Minister who would undoubtedly would be an ally. What does he do? Criticize before he even does research. In two days makes two huge blunders. You know what the UK ain't perfect by any stretch, but, what does it say when a Potential President does this? This scares me to death. I wonder what he might say to the Russian, Chinese, Iranians etc and what foreign policy a may do... A very rude and insensitive man!!!!
As an aside comparing the Summer Olympics to the Winter Olympics is like comparing Major League to AAA's in terms of scale and to compare a City as busy and as large as London to Salt Lake City and therefore an exponentially larger scale of problems is asinine. I quote from David Cameron (who I don't really care for - he may get my vote after this!!) "He pointed out that the 2012 Olympics were taking place in a busy city rather than “the middle of nowhere” – a remark was widely seen as a reference to the 2002 Winter Games in Salt Lake City, Utah, which Mr Romney was in charge of organising."
Even if the Olympics end up being a disaster he should keep his nose out and leave the issues to the IOC. So much for smaller Government Conservative he can't keep out of another Country's Government.
-Richard
In comes Mitt. His first foreign visit as a potential President. He goes to the Country that has over the last few decades been the US's biggest ally and has a Conservative Prime Minister who would undoubtedly would be an ally. What does he do? Criticize before he even does research. In two days makes two huge blunders. You know what the UK ain't perfect by any stretch, but, what does it say when a Potential President does this? This scares me to death. I wonder what he might say to the Russian, Chinese, Iranians etc and what foreign policy a may do... A very rude and insensitive man!!!!
As an aside comparing the Summer Olympics to the Winter Olympics is like comparing Major League to AAA's in terms of scale and to compare a City as busy and as large as London to Salt Lake City and therefore an exponentially larger scale of problems is asinine. I quote from David Cameron (who I don't really care for - he may get my vote after this!!) "He pointed out that the 2012 Olympics were taking place in a busy city rather than “the middle of nowhere” – a remark was widely seen as a reference to the 2002 Winter Games in Salt Lake City, Utah, which Mr Romney was in charge of organising."
Even if the Olympics end up being a disaster he should keep his nose out and leave the issues to the IOC. So much for smaller Government Conservative he can't keep out of another Country's Government.
-Richard
Sunday, July 22, 2012
I have take some time before posting about the horror of the events in Aurora, Colorado this week. My heart is breaking for those who have suffered so much pain and loss. My prayers are with them all.
I didn't want to politicize this, because, I think it is insensitive at this time, but, I just want to make one comment. I am not an expert on the constitution by any stretch, but, I think there has to be a rethink on the second amendment. The right to bear arms is one thing, but, multiple weapons including high-powered assault rifles is in my opinion taking it way to far. I am not one to take stock in what celebrities say in such situations as, well, just because they are famous, does not make them an expert. However, Jason Alexander wrote a blog post that I am copying from below. The whole blog can be found here: http://www.twitlonger.com/show/if2nht
He says:
..."This morning, I made a comment about how I do not understand people who support public ownership of assault style weapons like the AR-15 used in the Colorado massacre. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15
That comment, has of course, inspired a lot of feedback. There have been many tweets of agreement and sympathy but many, many more that have been challenging at the least, hostile and vitriolic at the worst.
Clearly, the angry, threatened and threatening, hostile comments are coming from gun owners and gun advocates. Despite these massacres recurring and despite the 100,000 Americans that die every year due to domestic gun violence - these people see no value to even considering some kind of control as to what kinds of weapons are put in civilian hands.
Many of them cite patriotism as their reason - true patriots support the Constitution adamantly and wholly. Constitution says citizens have the right to bear arms in order to maintain organized militias. I'm no constitutional scholar so here it is from the document itself:
As passed by the Congress:
"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."
As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:
"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."
So the patriots are correct, gun ownership is in the constitution - if you're in a well-regulated militia. Let's see what no less a statesman than Alexander Hamilton had to say about a militia:
"A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss."
Or from Merriam-Webster dictionary:
Definition of MILITIA
1
a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency
b : a body of citizens organized for military service
2
: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service
The advocates of guns who claim patriotism and the rights of the 2nd Amendment - are they in well-regulated militias? For the vast majority - the answer is no."
I didn't want to politicize this, because, I think it is insensitive at this time, but, I just want to make one comment. I am not an expert on the constitution by any stretch, but, I think there has to be a rethink on the second amendment. The right to bear arms is one thing, but, multiple weapons including high-powered assault rifles is in my opinion taking it way to far. I am not one to take stock in what celebrities say in such situations as, well, just because they are famous, does not make them an expert. However, Jason Alexander wrote a blog post that I am copying from below. The whole blog can be found here: http://www.twitlonger.com/show/if2nht
He says:
..."This morning, I made a comment about how I do not understand people who support public ownership of assault style weapons like the AR-15 used in the Colorado massacre. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15
That comment, has of course, inspired a lot of feedback. There have been many tweets of agreement and sympathy but many, many more that have been challenging at the least, hostile and vitriolic at the worst.
Clearly, the angry, threatened and threatening, hostile comments are coming from gun owners and gun advocates. Despite these massacres recurring and despite the 100,000 Americans that die every year due to domestic gun violence - these people see no value to even considering some kind of control as to what kinds of weapons are put in civilian hands.
Many of them cite patriotism as their reason - true patriots support the Constitution adamantly and wholly. Constitution says citizens have the right to bear arms in order to maintain organized militias. I'm no constitutional scholar so here it is from the document itself:
As passed by the Congress:
"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."
As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:
"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."
So the patriots are correct, gun ownership is in the constitution - if you're in a well-regulated militia. Let's see what no less a statesman than Alexander Hamilton had to say about a militia:
"A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss."
Or from Merriam-Webster dictionary:
Definition of MILITIA
1
a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency
b : a body of citizens organized for military service
2
: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service
The advocates of guns who claim patriotism and the rights of the 2nd Amendment - are they in well-regulated militias? For the vast majority - the answer is no."
As Jesus said in His teaching: "Blessed are the Peacemakers" and "Love your enemy:... Let's proclaim the word of Christ and claim it back in this Country and the World.
-Richard
Saturday, July 7, 2012
So, in the run up to the General Election in the US Mitt Romney's campaign announced that they had raised over one hundred million dollars in a single month. How crazy is that? I haven't seen the numbers for President Obama, but, I would expect it to also be a large sum of money. Add this to all the money already raised and spent, plus that off the super PAC's leads to an obscene amount of money.
We are in the process of a record deficit, high unemployment and people complaining over the yet to be determined slight increase in health cost. Think what a difference this money raised could do. By the end of the Presidential election my guess is will exceed $1million per man, woman and child in this Country. Everyone has the right to do as they see fit with their money, but, this is excessive. The question also has to be asked what favours does this lead to, or, at least been promised too. I propose that a limited budget is set so all candidates can play on a level playing field. It certainly is not democracy when someone who has a larger financial clout or reach gets a huge advantage. That is how the Republican primary ended up working out. The average Joe who wants to take an active role in politics just has no chance.
The other point is that the Presidency is only one third of the branch's of Government and yet takes such a way higher profile. Ultimately, the President, no matter what he promises and claims cannot do anything if Congress does not approve. Yes, there is a veto, but, that is a limited power. I think it's about time we as a country and media focus on the other two branches and give them the higher profile they deserve and at least when it comes to elections pay an equal, if, not greater attention to the Congress elections.
-Richard
We are in the process of a record deficit, high unemployment and people complaining over the yet to be determined slight increase in health cost. Think what a difference this money raised could do. By the end of the Presidential election my guess is will exceed $1million per man, woman and child in this Country. Everyone has the right to do as they see fit with their money, but, this is excessive. The question also has to be asked what favours does this lead to, or, at least been promised too. I propose that a limited budget is set so all candidates can play on a level playing field. It certainly is not democracy when someone who has a larger financial clout or reach gets a huge advantage. That is how the Republican primary ended up working out. The average Joe who wants to take an active role in politics just has no chance.
The other point is that the Presidency is only one third of the branch's of Government and yet takes such a way higher profile. Ultimately, the President, no matter what he promises and claims cannot do anything if Congress does not approve. Yes, there is a veto, but, that is a limited power. I think it's about time we as a country and media focus on the other two branches and give them the higher profile they deserve and at least when it comes to elections pay an equal, if, not greater attention to the Congress elections.
-Richard
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)