"Today, there is a growing and increasingly widespread movement inside
mainline and Evangelical churches which attempts to join Islam and
Christianity. Based on the premise that both religions worship the same
deity, "Chrislam" is gaining followers and becoming a favorite among the
politically correct. But is the basis of this movement correct? Do the
Bible and Qur'an harmonize? Is Allah actually Jehovah God? Why are those
claiming to be Evangelicals involved with this misguided idea?" Eric Barger
Have you heard of this? The movement is apparently a few years old, but it is news to me. I had two thoughts when I heard the definition of the concept. Well, actually, my first thought was, "That doesn't make sense." But then there were two thoughts.
First of all, while I do promote tolerance between people, accepting each other's beliefs and non-beliefs, this is not really the same thing as merging. Tolerance means, "I don't agree with you, but I support your feelings and your right to believe as you do." I am FOR Interfaith activities, seeking understanding as they work together to address the needs of the world, and learning to get along through increased understanding of each other. But tolerance doesn't mean adapting the other's beliefs as your own, just allowing them to continue. You can merge oil and water all day but as soon as you stop stirring, you're back to separate oil and water. And that's not a bad thing - we need both.
My other thought, thinking of some of the newer mainline Evangelical churches, is, "I am not surprised." It seems that some of the mega-churches in particular, have gotten all excited about "Church" and left out the real meat of the faith. It's the feel-good, scratch-the surface part that has concerned me for years. Some churches refuse to discuss the Crucifixion because, "it's just too sad." Well, yes, being killed is not a good thing. As a matter of fact, it was gruesome, all the worse because it was knowingly done to an innocent person. Did you know that some of these churches don't even display a cross for this reason? For some the cross is an obstacle, a reminder that they don't "like" church. Others say it is a reminder of the Crucifixion. Yet, how can one celebrate the Resurrection if not for the Crucifixion? (But this is a topic for another day...)
I've long known that simply feeding people slick messages that don't address in-depth feelings couldn't satisfy them. Messages on financial planning and raising children are fine - especially if you're addressing the PTA but that isn't what we were told to share. We once attended a church where the pastor used the word "I" more than the word "God" and spoke from his thoughts, not scripture. (we didn't stay there)
What happens when there is a situation that is beyond the message about putting your money into a financial plan or sunny day thoughts? What happens when you dig down into the Word and realize there is much more than this leader is sharing? When topics are "thoughts of the day" without even mention of scripture, it is nothing more than a social gathering of people that seek to be a part of something. When Evangelicals are more interested in politics than faith, pushing their own beliefs on everyone else and controlling political realms, it makes one question the level of faith compared to the dogma of politics.
When you have thousands of people without a real internal connection to God and others with the same lack of connection to Islam, it becomes a social merger. It's not the "One true Church" but a white-washing of both. It seems to weaken both, reducing them to a politically correct merger., in a world where social justice trumps true faith.
This is not to say that there are not similarities. There are - many more than some would like to admit.
Both begin the basic set of instructions with the admonition that there is only one God... and that is a significant similarity, I admit. Both profess treating others well. Both expect the believer to put his faith into action, to do good works. Both tell the believer to pray. One thing I do admire about the majority of Muslim people I know is that they do pray more often than the majority of Christians I know. However, I don't know the basis of these prayers, nor whether it is obedience to the act or communication itself. But nonetheless, there aren't many Christians so devout.
How is merging two religions honoring either one?
To me, seems that this can only be done by those so weak in either faith
that neither matters. Is this what God wants? There has always been a part of me that has considered that since God has many names... that possibly, each separate group, whether Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or hundreds of other religions, when praying to God is praying to the same God.
Yet, never have I felt they should merge. No, it's not the "separate but equal" mentality of segregation, but a recognition that they are all separate faiths and that unlike segregation of races in days past tried to insist, they are equal as people. I honestly believe that Jesus Christ is the path to God, to eternal life. Yet, while I support missionaries telling others of this, there's a part of me that has always been a little uncomfortable with it as well. As followers of Christ, we are to love all people. This isn't just "a good idea," but a commandment from Jesus Himself. But I'm not getting a "create a new church, a believe whatever you want" church from this at all.
It will be interesting to watch this develop. What are your thoughts?
Please go to my facebook blogpage and share with others. Consider This
Sunday, May 5, 2013
Sunday, April 14, 2013
545 vs. 300,000,000 People
I came across an interesting article shared on someone's facebook wall. As I always do when I read things, especially if I'm considering sharing it, I do a search for the original source and check for accuracy. It was supposedly a journalist's last column but it not only wasn't his last, but the version being circulated has been updated and changed slightly. The original, written
in 1984, listed Tip O Neill as Speaker of the House and Reagan as President, and was revised and
reused in 1995, but still relevant today; I notice that this version has
been updated and changed slightly. I've left it as is. The original title was, "The Gang of 585." It wasn't his final column as I read
his archives - the final column talked about how the newspaper business
had changed. Still... the column is good, even if others have been slightly inaccurate in
description.
In July 2011, Mike Lafferty interviewed the author of the original piece, Charlie Reese. Lafferty wrote, "Charlie Reese wrote his last column for the Orlando Sentinel on July 29, 2001.You wouldn't know it from surfing the Internet. In fact, you wouldn't even get his last column. You'd most likely find a version that the popular columnist wrote for the Sentinel back on Feb. 3, 1984. It still resonates with the public -- maybe more today than 27 years ago - as Congress and the president wrestle with spending and debt." Charlie is aware of the online endurance of his "545 people" column, and its manipulation at the hands of users. "I call it the Frankenstein column," he said. "That's one of the problems with the Internet. Once something goes on the Internet, people rewrite."
Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them. Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?
Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?
You and I don't propose a federal budget. The President does. You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does. You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does. You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.
One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one President, and nine Supreme Court justices equates to 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country. I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.
I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a President to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.
Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.
What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits. (The President can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.)
The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? [John Boehner.] He is the leader of the majority party. He and fellow House members, not the President, can approve any budget they want. If the President vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to. [The House has passed a budget but the Senate has not approved a budget in over three years. The President's proposed budgets have gotten almost unanimous rejections in the Senate in that time]
It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts - of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.
If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair. If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red.
If the Army & Marines are in Iraq and Afghanistan it's because they want them in Iraq and Afghanistan ..
If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.
There are no insoluble government problems.
Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation," or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.
Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible. They, and they alone, have the power.
They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses. Provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees... We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!
Tax Poem and List
In July 2011, Mike Lafferty interviewed the author of the original piece, Charlie Reese. Lafferty wrote, "Charlie Reese wrote his last column for the Orlando Sentinel on July 29, 2001.You wouldn't know it from surfing the Internet. In fact, you wouldn't even get his last column. You'd most likely find a version that the popular columnist wrote for the Sentinel back on Feb. 3, 1984. It still resonates with the public -- maybe more today than 27 years ago - as Congress and the president wrestle with spending and debt." Charlie is aware of the online endurance of his "545 people" column, and its manipulation at the hands of users. "I call it the Frankenstein column," he said. "That's one of the problems with the Internet. Once something goes on the Internet, people rewrite."
545 vs. 300,000,000 People
-By Charlie Reese
Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them. Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?
Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?
You and I don't propose a federal budget. The President does. You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does. You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does. You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.
One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one President, and nine Supreme Court justices equates to 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country. I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.
I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a President to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.
Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.
What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits. (The President can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.)
The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? [John Boehner.] He is the leader of the majority party. He and fellow House members, not the President, can approve any budget they want. If the President vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to. [The House has passed a budget but the Senate has not approved a budget in over three years. The President's proposed budgets have gotten almost unanimous rejections in the Senate in that time]
It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts - of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.
If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair. If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red.
If the Army & Marines are in Iraq and Afghanistan it's because they want them in Iraq and Afghanistan ..
If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.
There are no insoluble government problems.
Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation," or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.
Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible. They, and they alone, have the power.
They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses. Provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees... We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!
Tax Poem and List
Tax Poem and List
this goes with the post, 545 -vs- 300,000,000 People
A
Tax Poem
Tax
his land, Tax his bed, Tax the table, at which he's fed.
Tax his tractor, Tax his mule, Teach him taxes are
the rule.
Tax his work, Tax his pay, He works for peanuts
anyway!
Tax his cow, Tax his goat, Tax his pants,Tax his
coat.
Tax his ties, Tax his shirt, Tax his work, Tax his
dirt.
Tax his tobacco, Tax his drink, Tax him if he tries
to think.
Tax his cigars, Tax his beers, If he cries, tax his
tears.
Tax his car, Tax his gas, Find other ways to tax
his ass.
Tax all he has then let him know that you won't be done 'till he has no dough.
When he screams and hollers; Then tax him some more, Tax him 'till he's good and sore.
Then tax his coffin, Tax his grave, Tax the sods in which he's laid.
Put these words upon his tomb, "Taxes drove me to my doom."
When he's gone, do not relax, It is time to apply the inheritance tax.
TAXES
Accounts
Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
CDL license Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Dog License Tax
Excise Taxes
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
Fuel Permit Tax
Gasoline Tax (currently 44.75 cents per gallon)
Gross Receipts Tax
Hunting License Tax
Inheritance Tax
Inventory Tax
IRS Interest Charges IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
Liquor Tax
Luxury Taxes
Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Personal Property Tax
Property Tax
Real Estate Tax
Service Charge Tax
Social Security Tax
Road Usage Tax
Recreational Vehicle Tax
Sales Tax
School Tax
State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Telephone Federal Excise Tax
Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax
Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Taxes
Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax
Telephone Recurring and Nonrecurring Charges Tax
Telephone State and Local Tax
Telephone Usage Charge Tax
Utility Taxes
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft Registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax
STILL THINK THIS IS FUNNY?
Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago, & our nation was the most prosperous in the world. We had absolutely no national debt, had the largest middle class in the world, and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.
Building Permit Tax
CDL license Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Dog License Tax
Excise Taxes
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
Fuel Permit Tax
Gasoline Tax (currently 44.75 cents per gallon)
Gross Receipts Tax
Hunting License Tax
Inheritance Tax
Inventory Tax
IRS Interest Charges IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
Liquor Tax
Luxury Taxes
Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Personal Property Tax
Property Tax
Real Estate Tax
Service Charge Tax
Social Security Tax
Road Usage Tax
Recreational Vehicle Tax
Sales Tax
School Tax
State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Telephone Federal Excise Tax
Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax
Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Taxes
Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax
Telephone Recurring and Nonrecurring Charges Tax
Telephone State and Local Tax
Telephone Usage Charge Tax
Utility Taxes
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft Registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax
STILL THINK THIS IS FUNNY?
Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago, & our nation was the most prosperous in the world. We had absolutely no national debt, had the largest middle class in the world, and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.
Friday, March 22, 2013
When Politicians and Governments Cut Costs, The First Thing to Go is Common Sense!
It's official. Politicians just don't have common sense. They also do things in the most public, most stressful way, just to get attention. Watching the news report just gave several examples of their narrow-mindedness.
There are budget problems in every city and state. Cutting out all of the air traffic controllers in small airports, rather than some of them at different size airports just seems spiteful. (It's probably cheaper to hire the contractors than the federal employees that have such expensive benefit packages.)
Closing schools in cities (such as Chicago, Detroit, etc) is not the solution to budget problems. There are bound to be plenty of ways to cut costs - cut out the top heavy administrators, cut out the unneeded programs. As much as I hate to say it, cut out on buying materials such as new textbooks. Chicago is closing schools in order to save money, a move that affects 30,000 students. While it might be necessary to do this, I'd want to take a look at the budget first. The money "saved" from closing a school increases the cost to transport these students elsewhere. From my experience in school systems, EVERY district I've seen has highly paid consultants and various administrators. They spend their time creating paperwork, writing more guidelines, and over-supervising. Most of them could be removed, and allow teachers to actually spend time teaching, not documenting strategies used, and not only would they save money, they'd educate more students!
There are thousands of odd research projects paid for by government grants. Some of them are the ones that go to great lengths to prove something everyone already knew. Others are special projects that make absolutely no impact on anything, but it did provide a paycheck for a friend of the person that donated to the politicians re-election campaign. In state government, and actually, in federal as well, there are a lot of trips to conventions and for meetings to talk with other people in similar jobs. If they want to communicate, they can send emails, or even video conference. Of course then they can't stay in expensive hotels on the beach, but such is life.
When families cut back, they cut out the extras, not the things that impact them the most. There are a LOT of ways to save money that aren't as painful. Somehow, I think the politicians would rather cause pain, just so they can blame the other guy for it!
There are budget problems in every city and state. Cutting out all of the air traffic controllers in small airports, rather than some of them at different size airports just seems spiteful. (It's probably cheaper to hire the contractors than the federal employees that have such expensive benefit packages.)
Closing schools in cities (such as Chicago, Detroit, etc) is not the solution to budget problems. There are bound to be plenty of ways to cut costs - cut out the top heavy administrators, cut out the unneeded programs. As much as I hate to say it, cut out on buying materials such as new textbooks. Chicago is closing schools in order to save money, a move that affects 30,000 students. While it might be necessary to do this, I'd want to take a look at the budget first. The money "saved" from closing a school increases the cost to transport these students elsewhere. From my experience in school systems, EVERY district I've seen has highly paid consultants and various administrators. They spend their time creating paperwork, writing more guidelines, and over-supervising. Most of them could be removed, and allow teachers to actually spend time teaching, not documenting strategies used, and not only would they save money, they'd educate more students!
There are thousands of odd research projects paid for by government grants. Some of them are the ones that go to great lengths to prove something everyone already knew. Others are special projects that make absolutely no impact on anything, but it did provide a paycheck for a friend of the person that donated to the politicians re-election campaign. In state government, and actually, in federal as well, there are a lot of trips to conventions and for meetings to talk with other people in similar jobs. If they want to communicate, they can send emails, or even video conference. Of course then they can't stay in expensive hotels on the beach, but such is life.
When families cut back, they cut out the extras, not the things that impact them the most. There are a LOT of ways to save money that aren't as painful. Somehow, I think the politicians would rather cause pain, just so they can blame the other guy for it!
Tuesday, March 12, 2013
Religion & Prayer at School Events - Yes or No?
What do you think about prayer in school? When I was in school, there was a "moment of silent meditation" every morning with the announcements. Even though I'm a Christian, I don't recall ever using that minute to pray. However, I did savor the moment of quiet, a rare moment in school. Over the years, there has been a big issue about what should and should not be allowed in school. In most middle and high schools, the students are allowed to participate in faith-based groups either before or after school. The guiding principle has been that it's student-led, not teacher-led. In other words, students are allowed their rights to free speech, peaceable assembly, and freedom of religion and no teacher is forcing their own views on them. In reality, it's usually a Christian teacher, the group is "Fellowship of Christian Athletes" (which is for everyone, no longer just athletes) so it's freedom of religion if you happen to be Christian. But being outside of school hours, other kids were not forced to attend.
Somewhere along the line, prayers were eliminated at public events such as football games and graduation ceremonies. Advocates for prayer have decried this as interfering with their rights and leading to moral decline. Opponents argued that being forced to hear a prayer interfered with their rights to not have religion, taking the "government shall not support a religion" to it's limit.
The state of Mississippi recently passed a law that allows school prayers as a part of the morning announcements, at football games, and at graduations. This law was supported by many large Christian churches in the state.
How are you feeling now? positive? negative?
While I understand their point of view, surprisingly (to some) I don't support it. Sure, I think it's fine to pray before a football game. They used to do that, praying for sportsmanship, safety, and other nice things... even though I wouldn't be surprised if there were a few other prayers..."Hey God, about that score..." as if God cares who wins the games. But who is to say WHAT prayers should be said? What about the week that a Catholic child prays in the small town where the majority of the population goes to either the Baptist or Methodist Church? They'll be okay with a prayer mentioning Mary? Or what about the week that a Buddhist child prays? the Muslim child? Will people join them in prayer? What about when the Atheist gets up to share a few words? We're still "okay," right? Freedom of religion is freedom for all?
A year or so ago, a locate magistrate got a law passed in her community (I believe it was in Tennessee? perhaps in Arkansas) that allowed parents to get a stipend from the government to help pay for their children's private religious school education. It is basically modeled after the school choice issue. Her reasoning was that parents paid school taxes for public school but didn't get any return on that. It was assumed that all of the funds from the city would go to the only local Christian School which just happened to be operated by her church.
Imagine her surprise when a Muslim family sent in the paperwork for the funding to go to their Islamic School! She even denied the request and tried to fight it when they protested. Of course, the ACLU got involved, and while I don't often agree with them, this woman was in the wrong.
Yes, I definitely believe in and practice praying. It's important to me. However, just as I expect people to respect this, I also respect their views. Some claim that this lack of public prayers is leading to the moral decline of the country. Are you kidding me? Since when is it the public school's duty to guide the moral development of students? Obviously, as more and more responsibilities are piled on, from dealing with bullying, drug use, homelessness, and other social ills in the classroom - things such as morality should be taught at home. If you don't think students have the "right" morals, then talk to their parents.
As far as I'm concerned, I do NOT want religion taught in public school, other than a neutral, "this is what this group believes" comparison. That kind of study is interesting and is a part of learning about other cultures. Most families do not want their children taught a religion other than the one taught at home. A Buddhist student should not have a Muslim teacher telling him he's wrong. A Christian student shouldn't be told by an Atheist that there is no God. THAT is why religion should be taught at home. If it's not important enough to the parents to teach them, then the school surely shouldn't do it.
There are religious and free speech rights. Occasionally, these rights get tangled. Somewhere along the line, common sense, respect, and tolerance need to come to the surface! Your thoughts?
article about the Mississippi law
Somewhere along the line, prayers were eliminated at public events such as football games and graduation ceremonies. Advocates for prayer have decried this as interfering with their rights and leading to moral decline. Opponents argued that being forced to hear a prayer interfered with their rights to not have religion, taking the "government shall not support a religion" to it's limit.
The state of Mississippi recently passed a law that allows school prayers as a part of the morning announcements, at football games, and at graduations. This law was supported by many large Christian churches in the state.
How are you feeling now? positive? negative?
While I understand their point of view, surprisingly (to some) I don't support it. Sure, I think it's fine to pray before a football game. They used to do that, praying for sportsmanship, safety, and other nice things... even though I wouldn't be surprised if there were a few other prayers..."Hey God, about that score..." as if God cares who wins the games. But who is to say WHAT prayers should be said? What about the week that a Catholic child prays in the small town where the majority of the population goes to either the Baptist or Methodist Church? They'll be okay with a prayer mentioning Mary? Or what about the week that a Buddhist child prays? the Muslim child? Will people join them in prayer? What about when the Atheist gets up to share a few words? We're still "okay," right? Freedom of religion is freedom for all?
A year or so ago, a locate magistrate got a law passed in her community (I believe it was in Tennessee? perhaps in Arkansas) that allowed parents to get a stipend from the government to help pay for their children's private religious school education. It is basically modeled after the school choice issue. Her reasoning was that parents paid school taxes for public school but didn't get any return on that. It was assumed that all of the funds from the city would go to the only local Christian School which just happened to be operated by her church.
Imagine her surprise when a Muslim family sent in the paperwork for the funding to go to their Islamic School! She even denied the request and tried to fight it when they protested. Of course, the ACLU got involved, and while I don't often agree with them, this woman was in the wrong.
Yes, I definitely believe in and practice praying. It's important to me. However, just as I expect people to respect this, I also respect their views. Some claim that this lack of public prayers is leading to the moral decline of the country. Are you kidding me? Since when is it the public school's duty to guide the moral development of students? Obviously, as more and more responsibilities are piled on, from dealing with bullying, drug use, homelessness, and other social ills in the classroom - things such as morality should be taught at home. If you don't think students have the "right" morals, then talk to their parents.
As far as I'm concerned, I do NOT want religion taught in public school, other than a neutral, "this is what this group believes" comparison. That kind of study is interesting and is a part of learning about other cultures. Most families do not want their children taught a religion other than the one taught at home. A Buddhist student should not have a Muslim teacher telling him he's wrong. A Christian student shouldn't be told by an Atheist that there is no God. THAT is why religion should be taught at home. If it's not important enough to the parents to teach them, then the school surely shouldn't do it.
There are religious and free speech rights. Occasionally, these rights get tangled. Somewhere along the line, common sense, respect, and tolerance need to come to the surface! Your thoughts?
article about the Mississippi law
Friday, March 8, 2013
UK Basketball Team: What Happened?
They've got multiple All-Americans, with 3 or 4 kids planning to do the NBA draft this year. The coach is paid close to $4 MILLION per year - Recipe for success, right? Sadly, the UK Kitty seems to have choked on a hairball.
The University of Kentucky basketball team is in danger of not even being in the NCAA tournament unless they do well in the SEC tournament, which they certainly could win. The rest of their league is down this year, which sadly, is one reason they've won some of the games they won. But this could work in their favor come tournament time, especially since it may be "do or die" for them.
What happened? Part of it is the players are used to being stars and didn't know how to be a team. This was the case at the beginning of the season, and frankly, like most people, I did not think it would be a big problem. After all, they'd get it together and by Christmas, they'd be winning all of their games. But that never happened.
To hear the coach talk, it's an un-coachable team. They don't want to do what he says. You know what I think? I think that the problem is that despite being paid big bucks, John Calipari simply isn't as good a coach as people thought he was. It would take a superstar to match his ego, but even the casual fan assumed they'd have a great season with that line-up. I've never coached a basketball team older than middle school, but I'm not sure I would've done a whole lot worse. If nothing else, I'd have bribed them with chocolate chip cookies.
A GOOD coach takes even mediocre players and motivates them to try hard. He teaches them the basics and teaches them to work his style of play. If they don't cooperate, he disciplines them by putting them on the bench and letting someone else play. That has been proven to work wonders. I've seen other coaches (such as Rick Pitino with last year's UL team) take worse players and get them ready to play. UK's coach doesn't seem to be interested in doing this. In interviews after games, he throws the team under the bus. (Way to build loyalty, Coach)
Not long ago, a star player was hurt. But you know what? They were down by 12 points halfway through the 2nd half with him in the game. They'd been losing games before he got hurt. Losing him is NOT what caused their problems. But I thought that it might encourage the others to step up their game a bit. I've seen other teams do that, but for whatever reason, UK players just don't seem to care this year.
At this point, it's a ridiculous situation with sportstalk shows speculating on how many UK players are drafted in which round of the NBA and at the same time, wondering if the team will even play in the NCAA tournament. Does this go together? Did the players just decide to skip this season because they're already mentally cashing checks next season? If I were an NBA coach, I'd be wary of recruiting someone that didn't even know how to play college ball. (NOT choosing them could be the best thing that happens to them. They'd get off their high horse and work next year, giving UK the team they expected this year.)
Part of me feels sorry for the dedicated UK fans because frankly, they just plain aren't used to losing, especially at Rupp. Another part of me is reminded that this is partly their fault as well. The desire to get "the best of the best" players, those headed to the NBA, leaves you with teams that are almost always young players. True, their "inexperienced" players could supposedly (until this year, anyway) out-play any seasoned team full of seniors in the country. The "one and done" philosophy has come around to bite UK this year.
The real unfair thing is that even though the fans are suffering through a miserable season, the players will go on to get multi-million dollar contracts in a few months, and the coach cashes his check no matter what. I'm not a UK fan, though I'm not an enemy either. I'm just objectively pointing out the obvious. I've been spoiled. My team, while they may not win it all, almost always plays with heart. They enjoy playing basketball.
Don't give up Wildcats. Your season is still salvageable. I suspect the prospect of not making the NCAA might finally motivate your prima dona players into playing to win. And once there, it's just a game at a time.
What happened? Part of it is the players are used to being stars and didn't know how to be a team. This was the case at the beginning of the season, and frankly, like most people, I did not think it would be a big problem. After all, they'd get it together and by Christmas, they'd be winning all of their games. But that never happened.
To hear the coach talk, it's an un-coachable team. They don't want to do what he says. You know what I think? I think that the problem is that despite being paid big bucks, John Calipari simply isn't as good a coach as people thought he was. It would take a superstar to match his ego, but even the casual fan assumed they'd have a great season with that line-up. I've never coached a basketball team older than middle school, but I'm not sure I would've done a whole lot worse. If nothing else, I'd have bribed them with chocolate chip cookies.
A GOOD coach takes even mediocre players and motivates them to try hard. He teaches them the basics and teaches them to work his style of play. If they don't cooperate, he disciplines them by putting them on the bench and letting someone else play. That has been proven to work wonders. I've seen other coaches (such as Rick Pitino with last year's UL team) take worse players and get them ready to play. UK's coach doesn't seem to be interested in doing this. In interviews after games, he throws the team under the bus. (Way to build loyalty, Coach)
Not long ago, a star player was hurt. But you know what? They were down by 12 points halfway through the 2nd half with him in the game. They'd been losing games before he got hurt. Losing him is NOT what caused their problems. But I thought that it might encourage the others to step up their game a bit. I've seen other teams do that, but for whatever reason, UK players just don't seem to care this year.
At this point, it's a ridiculous situation with sportstalk shows speculating on how many UK players are drafted in which round of the NBA and at the same time, wondering if the team will even play in the NCAA tournament. Does this go together? Did the players just decide to skip this season because they're already mentally cashing checks next season? If I were an NBA coach, I'd be wary of recruiting someone that didn't even know how to play college ball. (NOT choosing them could be the best thing that happens to them. They'd get off their high horse and work next year, giving UK the team they expected this year.)
Part of me feels sorry for the dedicated UK fans because frankly, they just plain aren't used to losing, especially at Rupp. Another part of me is reminded that this is partly their fault as well. The desire to get "the best of the best" players, those headed to the NBA, leaves you with teams that are almost always young players. True, their "inexperienced" players could supposedly (until this year, anyway) out-play any seasoned team full of seniors in the country. The "one and done" philosophy has come around to bite UK this year.
The real unfair thing is that even though the fans are suffering through a miserable season, the players will go on to get multi-million dollar contracts in a few months, and the coach cashes his check no matter what. I'm not a UK fan, though I'm not an enemy either. I'm just objectively pointing out the obvious. I've been spoiled. My team, while they may not win it all, almost always plays with heart. They enjoy playing basketball.
Don't give up Wildcats. Your season is still salvageable. I suspect the prospect of not making the NCAA might finally motivate your prima dona players into playing to win. And once there, it's just a game at a time.
You're invited to "like" my facebook page and comment on other issues as well.
Thursday, March 7, 2013
Rand Paul and The Filibuster
Filibuster (/ˈfiləˌbəstər/)
Noun: The use of obstructive tactics, especially prolonged speech-making for the purpose of delaying legislative action such as a vote.
Verb: Act in an obstructive manner in a legislation, especially by speaking at inordinate length.
The record for the longest filibuster goes to U.S. Sen. Strom Thurmond of South Carolina. He spoke for 24 hours and 18 minutes against and to prevent the vote for the Civil Rights Act of 1957.
To me, the filibuster is an example of what's
wrong in DC. The attitude of obstruction at all cost.... and it IS at a
cost to the American people - is much like bullying. Make your point.
Take a stand and vote against what you feel is wrong. Deal with
consequences. Change things. But don't just keep people from voting.
Game playing with people's lives should not be a political sport, but it
is.
Last night, Sen. Rand Paul filibustered and spoke for almost 13 hours against the use of drones in order to prevent the vote for John Brennan. (It could be said that he droned on and on but that might be a little too corny!) One thing he said during his tirade was to ask if the President has the authority to use a weaponized drone against American citizens on American soil that aren't doing anything wrong. NOT that the President or anyone has ever said that was the case.
SOMEONE
has to lead the CIA. The vote was whether or not John Brennan is the
right person. Rather than vote yes or no, he blocked the vote to discuss
drones, a topic for another debate. It'd be quite appropriate (and
smart) to draft legislation with guidelines
for drone use by the CIA. That is actually something the Congress can and should do. But rather than try to solve a problem, he
just blocked the process. It's like being offered an orange or an apple
and responding by protesting grapes.
When I pointed out that his filibuster was not good, in my opinion, several
people accused me of supporting drone attacks on US citizens without due
process. For the record, I'm against the use of drones to kill people
without due process, UNLESS of course they are indeed terrorizing. Not
stopping someone in the act of terrorism
would be like saying it's okay to stand by and watch someone shooting
kids and not stop them because they haven't had their due process rights
followed. Perhaps this puts gun rights advocates in a twisted pretzel
position. CAN you actually shoot someone without giving them a trial?
Oh, it's okay if they're doing something wrong. Kinda like killing
someone, even an American citizen, if he's attacking?
But for all his grandstanding, and claims of winning, today they held the vote for John Brennan as head of the CIA. He was confirmed. In addition, the Attorney General sent Rand Paul a note addressing his midnight tirade. "It has come to my attention that you have now asked an additional
question: 'Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized
drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?' The
answer to that question is no."
So, unlike Strom Thurmond's misguided filibuster that stopped the vote on the Civil Rights Bill - for that time anyway - Rand Paul's filibuster seems to have all been for naught since the vote went forward a few hours later. The issue of drone strikes has also been addressed, and will most likely continue to be. In his eyes it was a success though, as he got what he was probably out to get in the first place - national attention.
Sunday, February 3, 2013
Rule by Special Interests
Special Interest Group: A group of people with a narrow focus on one area of an interest.
This could be a shared interest in a sport, issue. or condition.
On the surface, a special interest group might be a "good" thing, as they might bring the interest up to others in order to educate them about the issue. This often leads to requesting support for the cause. An example might be parents of autistic kids sharing information about autism and how their children can be successful in school. That's a good way of tapping into sharing with others by special interest groups.
But sometimes, special interest groups head into the murky waters of ceasing to work for "the common good," but lean towards supporting a group simply for profit or other personal gain. One of the prime examples of this are the lobbyist that present their special interest before Congress, hoping to sway votes on issues in ways that help their cause. As you know, sometimes this leads to questionable and unfair practices, including those with legal problems.
Sadly, special interest groups seem to have gone away from unity for the sake of educating others or improving life, but promoting their views if it's for the best interests of others or not. These special interests are usually a minority but bully the majority into bowing down. Politics, long an arena of strife, have become saturated with special interests.
When does it become too much? Or more accurately, when will we stand up and say, "Stop bullying everyone!" It's fine to share your interest with others, and if you are sincere, you'll want to convince others that your way is the way things should be done, whether medical, educational, religious, or political issues.
This has been bothering me for a long time, but guess what finally prompted me to protest? Super Bowl ads. Seriously. I haven't watched an NFL game in years and couldn't care less who is in the Super Bowl, much less care which one wins the game. The ads shown during the Super Bowl cost $3.8 million dollars for a 30 second spot!!! This doesn't include the money spent creating just the "right" ad to do this.
But special interests have reared their ugly heads and spoken out against some of the ads. If they were really insulting or dangerous, I could understand it. But that's not the case. There are several ads that won't be shown due to protests.
For instance, the Vegetarian Special Interest groups have given Taco Bell such a hard time that they pulled their ad. It advertised their 12 pack of tacos as a good choice for a Super Bowl Party food. It made fun of the guest that brought the veggie tray. It was an AD! Yes, people have veggie trays for super bowl parties - but they dip them in decadent sauces and eat hot wings, and high calorie cheese dips. Super Bowl parties are land mines for dieters.
Last I checked, a taco has vegetables - tomatoes, lettuce, and probably some onions. So rather than saying, "Yay Taco Bell - you're featuring a food with vegetables!" Noooo... they had a little temper tantrum because of the comments made about the veggie tray. Result? Taco Bell pulled the ad! Well, the jokes on you Veggies - people are now watching the Taco Bell ad on you-tube and seeing it on TV - all without the company having to pay the $3.8 million for the ad spot!
It's a sad state of affairs when special interest groups tie up our effective processes - but it's just plain silly when it determines the ads shown during a football game!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)