Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Questioning the Religious Beliefs of Candidates
Is this not the way things are today in the US?
The average voter really does try to find out something concrete about the person or persons he is voting for, and the MSM is most often of little help, or even far too much help! The blast of propaganda from all sides may or may not influence this voter. However, his interest picks up significantly when the candidate’s religion is brought up, since that is a major criterion that will be used by him to vote yea or nay, just as many voters do in sizing up any stranger.
Does this man believe in God? Does he make a serious attempt to follow the moral teachings of his religion, and if that religion is not well known to the voter, what are the similarities and differences from the voter’s own religion and morals? Can the man be trusted to follow the fundamental tenets of the majority of citizens, or does he bring a skewed view of the majority religion to the table? The further from the majority religion the candidate stands, or the further from the voters religion, the more the candidate’s views must be probed before he earns the vote–or not.
I suspect that any candidate that is not a Christian will receive considerably more attention to his statements about his beliefs than would an avowed Christian candidate. I also suspect that, regardless of qualifications, a candidate for the presidency that states he is an Atheist or an Agnostic will not receive a majority of votes in the US for some time to come. Then too, if the candidate ducks the question of his religious affiliation, he will become suspect until the issue is clarified satisfactorily. Of course, if the candidate professes an acceptable religion, but does not practice it, or even violates the moral code, this may have to be corrected dramatically downstream.
The average voter really does try to find out something concrete about the person or persons he is voting for, and the MSM is most often of little help, or even far too much help! The blast of propaganda from all sides may or may not influence this voter. However, his interest picks up significantly when the candidate’s religion is brought up, since that is a major criterion that will be used by him to vote yea or nay, just as many voters do in sizing up any stranger.
Does this man believe in God? Does he make a serious attempt to follow the moral teachings of his religion, and if that religion is not well known to the voter, what are the similarities and differences from the voter’s own religion and morals? Can the man be trusted to follow the fundamental tenets of the majority of citizens, or does he bring a skewed view of the majority religion to the table? The further from the majority religion the candidate stands, or the further from the voters religion, the more the candidate’s views must be probed before he earns the vote–or not.
I suspect that any candidate that is not a Christian will receive considerably more attention to his statements about his beliefs than would an avowed Christian candidate. I also suspect that, regardless of qualifications, a candidate for the presidency that states he is an Atheist or an Agnostic will not receive a majority of votes in the US for some time to come. Then too, if the candidate ducks the question of his religious affiliation, he will become suspect until the issue is clarified satisfactorily. Of course, if the candidate professes an acceptable religion, but does not practice it, or even violates the moral code, this may have to be corrected dramatically downstream.
Labels: Christianity, Morality, Natural Law, Religion
Saturday, August 20, 2011
The Universe?
Where did the Universe come from? We Don’t Know!
It seems to me that many if not most creationists and cosmologists are stuck in one or more ruts:
1. The Universe was created ex nihilo by God via the Big Bang or;
2. The Universe created itself, somehow, according to Stephen Hawking, following some sort of unknown cosmic disturbance (in the nothingness!), or;
3. There are many universes stretching back to infinity; ours just happens to be one that is well-suited for life. So there is a sort of steady state of universes forming and dissolving from minus infinity to plus infinity.
These, of course are not truly scientific theories since they cannot be observed or tested. One might simply label them “Just So” stories.
4. Along comes Superstring Theory that purports to show that the Big Bang came from the collision of two M-branes in existence prior to the Big Bang. This is pure mathematical speculation that cannot have an iota of truth to it that we can verify using the scientific method, not to mention asking where the M-branes came from in the first place!
There is nothingness to begin with, or else there is a plethora of universes to begin with. Either way, no proof is possible. The main reason to create an ex nihilo Big Bang is to support the existence of God the Creator, the First Cause, The Architect. The main reason to create a self-starting Universe or a Multiverse stretching to infinity is to deny the existence of God the Creator, and to support scientific materialism.
We cannot know what was in existence, or was not in existence, before the Big Bang. So it is a matter of taste or faith, take your pick.
Where did the Universe come from? We Don’t Know!
It seems to me that many if not most creationists and cosmologists are stuck in one or more ruts:
1. The Universe was created ex nihilo by God via the Big Bang or;
2. The Universe created itself, somehow, according to Stephen Hawking, following some sort of unknown cosmic disturbance (in the nothingness!), or;
3. There are many universes stretching back to infinity; ours just happens to be one that is well-suited for life. So there is a sort of steady state of universes forming and dissolving from minus infinity to plus infinity.
These, of course are not truly scientific theories since they cannot be observed or tested. One might simply label them “Just So” stories.
4. Along comes Superstring Theory that purports to show that the Big Bang came from the collision of two M-branes in existence prior to the Big Bang. This is pure mathematical speculation that cannot have an iota of truth to it that we can verify using the scientific method, not to mention asking where the M-branes came from in the first place!
There is nothingness to begin with, or else there is a plethora of universes to begin with. Either way, no proof is possible. The main reason to create an ex nihilo Big Bang is to support the existence of God the Creator, the First Cause, The Architect. The main reason to create a self-starting Universe or a Multiverse stretching to infinity is to deny the existence of God the Creator, and to support scientific materialism.
We cannot know what was in existence, or was not in existence, before the Big Bang. So it is a matter of taste or faith, take your pick.
Labels: Religion, Science, Universe
Monday, August 15, 2011
Let Us Justify Government Organizations Anew
A Radical Approach to Government Review and Citizen Approval
At last report, the number of organizations in our government has exceeded 1,177 according to the LSU government accounting group. This includes the major departments, agencies, commissions, boards, committees and the like, and the number is growing by hundreds under Obama! The idea I believe to be highly worthwhile would be to put each of these organizations under the public spotlight by law, and force them to justify their existence to the public, and then to their congressional representatives. By justification I mean a thorough review of their purpose, mission, leadership, staffing, plans, budget, contractor involvements, long-term commitments, principal accomplishments over the past five years, and projections for the future. In order to be fair, every organization should be scheduled for review, thus stopping political influence from omitting favorite groupings.
To do any major part of 1,177 oganizations would take a very long time. We have a mammoth government! If we could do 100 a year by using, first the filled out forms from each organization stating their case justifying their existence, budget and staffing, and then by using multiple objective teams analysing each one of the organizations and then presenting their findings for approval by public vote after allowing for a period of study by the public. This would easily require about 12 or more years, or 3 presidential terms, 2 Senatorial terms, and 6 Representative terms! There may be a few shortcuts available by referring to the Constitution for guidance in each case, by accepting the defining law for the organization, by accepting the organization's written case, or by a combination of these justifications, thus reducing the workload and time.
The order in which each organization is scheduled would be a significant battle in the Congress (as would the entire idea of course), but perhaps the order of their establishment in law would be the appropriate sequence. Thus older and perhaps antiquated organizations would go first.
The recommendations of the teams would be presented for voting in a series of national referendums, and the line item recommendations to be voted on for each organization would be to either:1. keep or dissolve the organization over an appropriate time frame.2. reduce the budget of the organization, and cut its mission and staff appropriately over time..3. hold the budget, mission and staff steady as it is.4. raise the budget, and add to the mission and staff appropriately.5. consolidate two or more organizations and reduce administrative staff and budget.6. or other possible changes to be determined.
The results of the referendums would supercede current law governing the organizations in question, unless Congress and the President take specific steps to alter the recommendations in the law. The only other appeal would be to the Supreme Court, or a number of Courts convened by the Supreme Court for the specific purpose of review, because of the probable heavy volume of challenges that would ensue (presumably 100 a year or so!).
While we are at it, we could also form referendums to justify or reject the formation of unions in the government, justify or reject the use of earmarks, justify or reject term limits for Senators and Congressmen, and justify or reject the need for a balanced budget each year, among other possible reforms of the government. It is perhaps the case that such a legislative approach to reforms would be far preferable to a Constitutional Convention, since such a convention could not be controlled as to subjects and conclusions, which might lead to objectionable results.
A Radical Approach to Government Review and Citizen Approval
At last report, the number of organizations in our government has exceeded 1,177 according to the LSU government accounting group. This includes the major departments, agencies, commissions, boards, committees and the like, and the number is growing by hundreds under Obama! The idea I believe to be highly worthwhile would be to put each of these organizations under the public spotlight by law, and force them to justify their existence to the public, and then to their congressional representatives. By justification I mean a thorough review of their purpose, mission, leadership, staffing, plans, budget, contractor involvements, long-term commitments, principal accomplishments over the past five years, and projections for the future. In order to be fair, every organization should be scheduled for review, thus stopping political influence from omitting favorite groupings.
To do any major part of 1,177 oganizations would take a very long time. We have a mammoth government! If we could do 100 a year by using, first the filled out forms from each organization stating their case justifying their existence, budget and staffing, and then by using multiple objective teams analysing each one of the organizations and then presenting their findings for approval by public vote after allowing for a period of study by the public. This would easily require about 12 or more years, or 3 presidential terms, 2 Senatorial terms, and 6 Representative terms! There may be a few shortcuts available by referring to the Constitution for guidance in each case, by accepting the defining law for the organization, by accepting the organization's written case, or by a combination of these justifications, thus reducing the workload and time.
The order in which each organization is scheduled would be a significant battle in the Congress (as would the entire idea of course), but perhaps the order of their establishment in law would be the appropriate sequence. Thus older and perhaps antiquated organizations would go first.
The recommendations of the teams would be presented for voting in a series of national referendums, and the line item recommendations to be voted on for each organization would be to either:
1. keep or dissolve the organization over an appropriate time frame.
2. reduce the budget of the organization, and cut its mission and staff appropriately over time..
3. hold the budget, mission and staff steady as it is.
4. raise the budget, and add to the mission and staff appropriately.
5. consolidate two or more organizations and reduce administrative staff and budget.
6. or other possible changes to be determined.
The results of the referendums would supercede current law governing the organizations in question, unless Congress and the President take specific steps to alter the recommendations in the law. The only other appeal would be to the Supreme Court, or a number of Courts convened by the Supreme Court for the specific purpose of review, because of the probable heavy volume of challenges that would ensue (presumably 100 a year or so!).
While we are at it, we could also form referendums to justify or reject the formation of unions in the government, justify or reject the use of earmarks, justify or reject term limits for Senators and Congressmen, and justify or reject the need for a balanced budget each year, among other possible reforms of the government. It is perhaps the case that such a legislative approach to reforms would be far preferable to a Constitutional Convention, since such a convention could not be controlled as to subjects and conclusions, which might lead to objectionable results.
Labels: Government, Will of the People
Friday, August 12, 2011
Our Socialist Neighbors
What is it that turns people towards socialism and communism?
Here are a few possible reasons:
1. They are poor and need all the assistance they can get; and, they have the vote. So they flock to the party that promises, promises, and promises a better life. They forget, however, that the same promises were made in the last election, and the one before that, and still remain unfulfilled.
2. They are not so poor but see turning socialist as a way to a more plush, exciting and event-filled life, with lots of confrontations, and lots of marching militantly around with signs, and they see that paying for entitlements with other people’s money is no sacrifice for them.
3. They are reasonably well off, but their hearts bleed for the not so well off. They believe in the infinite perfectibility of Man and Utopia, so they work for these (unrealizable) ideals. Often these people are well educated by our progressive universities, have atheistic leanings, and come out swinging for socialist programs, not having the leavening of hearing the other side of the story—ever!
4. They are reasonably well off and see turning socialist as a means to increase their personal power. They thirst for the power of office to do something for the downtrodden, which the downtrodden gladly accept at the 10 cents on the dollar appropriated that manages to filter down to them.
5. They are very well off, and do not need government assistance, nor is their wealth easily attacked by the government, so they have the time, energy, and means to indulge themselves in progressive movements, mostly for the power trip it entails, and for the ideal of a Utopia at the end of the day(while they know very well that it has been proven that Utopias can never be realized!). Thus, they are first class hypocrites, mouthing such empty slogans as Hope and Change!
What is it that turns people towards socialism and communism?
Here are a few possible reasons:
1. They are poor and need all the assistance they can get; and, they have the vote. So they flock to the party that promises, promises, and promises a better life. They forget, however, that the same promises were made in the last election, and the one before that, and still remain unfulfilled.
2. They are not so poor but see turning socialist as a way to a more plush, exciting and event-filled life, with lots of confrontations, and lots of marching militantly around with signs, and they see that paying for entitlements with other people’s money is no sacrifice for them.
3. They are reasonably well off, but their hearts bleed for the not so well off. They believe in the infinite perfectibility of Man and Utopia, so they work for these (unrealizable) ideals. Often these people are well educated by our progressive universities, have atheistic leanings, and come out swinging for socialist programs, not having the leavening of hearing the other side of the story—ever!
4. They are reasonably well off and see turning socialist as a means to increase their personal power. They thirst for the power of office to do something for the downtrodden, which the downtrodden gladly accept at the 10 cents on the dollar appropriated that manages to filter down to them.
5. They are very well off, and do not need government assistance, nor is their wealth easily attacked by the government, so they have the time, energy, and means to indulge themselves in progressive movements, mostly for the power trip it entails, and for the ideal of a Utopia at the end of the day(while they know very well that it has been proven that Utopias can never be realized!). Thus, they are first class hypocrites, mouthing such empty slogans as Hope and Change!
Labels: Communists, Liberalism, Progressivism, Socialists
Tuesday, August 09, 2011
DoubleSpeak 2011
This was destined for 1984, but it is flowering late in 2011!
Tea Party = Terrorists.Fair Share of Taxes = 60% Pay None, Let Top 2 % pay 90% of all taxes.Republicans = Throw Grandma Out The Window.The Only Way Ahead = Obama's Way or No Way.Reduce Spending I = Take a Symbolic 1% Cut Now, and Raise it back in 2012 (after the election).Obamacare Will Save Money = Projected 15% Increase per year in Medical Spending Through 2016.Reduce Spending II = Cut Defense by Half, we don't need so many troops or weapons, despite two wars, and a bunch of nations getting very hostile: China; Iran; Russia; Pakistan; NK to mention a few, all nukers!Reduce Spending III = Make it up in reduced fraud and theft in government programs (why only now?).Free Speech = Approved by the Administration Only. Cut out Fox.Have a Nice Dinner = Only with approved ingredients.Your Child is Being Educated = In the Socialist Way, and forget American History and Ideals.New Car? = Buy Government Motors!Friendly Foreign Nations? = Who Needs Them!Economy Fix? = Government Control of the Means of Production. (Marx is alive and well)Unions in Government? = How Else Will They Achieve Pay One and a Half to Two Times the Private Sector Average? Get rid of government unions!More Government Employees? = Well aren't they off the dole?Only 9.1% Unemployed! = Forgetting about the 14% that have stopped looking! Reality = 23.1%Raise Taxes = They need to spend more?Islamic Terrorist Threat? = Aw, just a few kooks in ragheads; don't worry about it!National Borders? = Who needs them? Stop the fence, it is too expensive!National Sovereignty? = Who needs it? Let the UN run us.National Budget? = Who needs it? We have gotten along without one for two years!Make Your Fortune? = Beware of Redistribution of Wealth programs and taxes
This is definitely not my America!
This was destined for 1984, but it is flowering late in 2011!
Tea Party = Terrorists.
Fair Share of Taxes = 60% Pay None, Let Top 2 % pay 90% of all taxes.
Republicans = Throw Grandma Out The Window.
The Only Way Ahead = Obama's Way or No Way.
Reduce Spending I = Take a Symbolic 1% Cut Now, and Raise it back in 2012 (after the election).
Obamacare Will Save Money = Projected 15% Increase per year in Medical Spending Through 2016.
Reduce Spending II = Cut Defense by Half, we don't need so many troops or weapons, despite two wars, and a bunch of nations getting very hostile: China; Iran; Russia; Pakistan; NK to mention a few, all nukers!
Reduce Spending III = Make it up in reduced fraud and theft in government programs (why only now?).
Free Speech = Approved by the Administration Only. Cut out Fox.
Have a Nice Dinner = Only with approved ingredients.
Your Child is Being Educated = In the Socialist Way, and forget American History and Ideals.
New Car? = Buy Government Motors!
Friendly Foreign Nations? = Who Needs Them!
Economy Fix? = Government Control of the Means of Production. (Marx is alive and well)
Unions in Government? = How Else Will They Achieve Pay One and a Half to Two Times the Private Sector Average? Get rid of government unions!
More Government Employees? = Well aren't they off the dole?
Only 9.1% Unemployed! = Forgetting about the 14% that have stopped looking! Reality = 23.1%
Raise Taxes = They need to spend more?
Islamic Terrorist Threat? = Aw, just a few kooks in ragheads; don't worry about it!
National Borders? = Who needs them? Stop the fence, it is too expensive!
National Sovereignty? = Who needs it? Let the UN run us.
National Budget? = Who needs it? We have gotten along without one for two years!
Make Your Fortune? = Beware of Redistribution of Wealth programs and taxes
This is definitely not my America!
Labels: 1984
