Ms. Ann Thrope

( 2:37 AM ) sisoflexx

There is a crap book being talked about a lot these days called "The Purpose Driven Life", which is little more than the Bible re-written for fast food Herd consumption. The first line in it say's "It is not about you"! Oh yeah? If it isnt about me, then why should I care?

Is it supposed to be about "them"? If it is, then "they" can lick my selfish asshole! Winston Churchill wrote that you "should not become the passive matrix upon which others hang their own schemes", and that is what all of this selfless stuff is really all about.

I have no respect for selfless people. They cannot find reason to live within themselves, and rush to others to find self esteem, and call it selflessness; how about a little more honesty? The only selfless person is a dead person.

The truth is this:

- IT IS ALL ABOUT YOU -

Ignore what the Herd is saying, for when it's mouthpiece say's "It is not about you", they are preparing you for sacrifice.....sacrifice to their causes! Do not fail to detect the parasitic power lust of the herd that motivates the call to "selflessness".

IT IS ALL ABOUT YOU!

- Why else would you bother? If it is not about You, then why seek improvement at all? What causes you to seek value, fullfilment, purpose, even - happiness? Do not those who honestly wish to serve others find satisfaction within it? How can individuals without the resources of a very personal happiness and Joy ever expect to spread it to others?

They cannot!

Those who desire to serve others hope to find value and purpose within it, and this quest for value and purpose affirms the Self that seeks it.

Love requires self love. Without it other individuals become objects to be manipulated for the purpose of acquiring a self esteem that cannot be found in others, but only within oneself.

One must have balance within to promote balance. One must have love within to radiate love without. Only those who love themselves can bring balance and love to the world.

Let Yourself be in your thoughts and deeds as the highest expression of life, and the source of it's greatest value.

Of course it's all about you....who else would it be about? What would this "person" or "being" that it IS about possibly mean to you - without You?

It all begins and ends with You, so you might repeat with Me -

"I am the Alpha and the Omega. I do not come to life, happiness, or salvation except through Me."

Werbinox

This archive...

( 6:29 AM ) sisoflexx

In his editorial entitled "Educational Roots of Culture Conflict" (March 17th) Robert Williamson states that "the scientific method arose in the west because of the Judeo - Christian conception of God..." With all due respect, nothing could be further from the truth.
The foundations for science were established long before the emergence of Judeo - Christian culture by the philosophers of ancient Greece, and both Realism and Idealism, which Mr. Williamson writes about, originate with them as well. Many of these philosophers suggested that a "true" reality existed behind the "apparent" reality we see, and they set out to discover what that reality was. Thales theorized that the primary substance of all creation was water, whereas Heraclitus, who saw a world of endless flux, posited a central fire that burned within all things. Pythagoras, who is credited with not only the famous theorem that bares his name, but also a system of musical scales that is still in use today, posited mathematics as the central reality, while Democritus was the first to propose that tiny things called atoms compose all matter. Despite the primitiveness in the details of their theories, these ideas prefigured the ideas of modern science by centuries. By searching for reality in the material world rather than in the unverifiable concepts of a spirit realm, these earliest known thinkers became the first materialists. What is remarkable about them is that they attempted to analyze and explain the world without first thinking of, or resorting to, the concept of God. Did they perhaps realize that "God" is not an answer, but the lack of one?

Idealism begins with another Greek philosopher by the name of Plato, the Great Grand-daddy of all Idealists. His concept of Universals, which was very influential on later Christian ideology, contends that all manifestations of life, whether a leaf or a horse or a human, are variations and replicas of Universal forms that already exist in the fabric of nature long before their physical manifestations ever appear. According to this idea every leaf, horse, and human is merely a variable replication of a Universal form, and it is the Universal form (or the Idea of a form) that is the ultimate reality, rather than the physical copies that keep appearing. This concept places the emphasis of reality on an "Idea" of form (which cannot be tested) instead of on the physical form that we see (which can be tested) and in doing so elevates an abstract world of ideas and forms above the actual material world - hence the birth of Idealism. Soon after Plato came Aristotle, who helped to invent the categories of knowledge that later became known as Metaphysics (literally after - physics) which dealt with concepts such as cause and effect, and the differences between potentiality and actuality.
It was Aristotle who postulated God as the "Immovable Mover".

Later generations of Christian thinkers, charged with advancing Christian doctrine throughout the world, were heavily influenced by Plato and Aristotle. These thinkers and writers appropriated the ideas of Plato and Aristotle and cast them into the mold of harbingers and preludes to the Christian religion (inventing Neo - Platonism and Scholasticism in the process) Plato's Universals were turned into thoughts in the mind of the Judeo - Christian God before he created the world. Unbeknownst to poor Plato, he had become the world's first Proto - Christian!

Eventually the two approaches of Materialism and Idealism split into two directions, with Materialism heading off towards science (though with a foot still in philosophy i.e. Marx) and Idealism heading off almost exclusively into the realms of Metaphysical philosophy (Kant and Hegel) and Religion.

In his article, Mr. Williamson asserts that "western civilization is based on realism" and that "Judeo - Christian, monotheist heritage rests on this premise." Not only is this an erroneous statement, it is a gross oversimplification of epic proportions. Western civilization is built upon a panoply of different influences, many of them contradictory, such as the differences between materialist Realism and Idealism, Christian Altruism and the Rational Self Interest of Capitalism, the search for Peace and Brotherhood and the inclination towards War, the ideals of Community and the spirit of Individualism, and scientific experimentation and religious faith. To state that Judeo - Christian culture, a religion, rests on the premise of realism, which is scientific, is to completely ignore the differences between science and religion.

Science and religion can be compatible only in the sense that a scientist can have a personal religious faith, and a man of faith can be scientific; both can exist within an individual's life, yet to be true to both, an individual must respect the line where one begins and the other ends. As pure disciplines, science and religion contain areas that are inaccessible to each other by their very nature.

What truly distinguishes the religious mindset from the scientific one concerns the role of faith, and the supposed "necessity of belief". In pure science, belief has no role whatsoever. Hypotheses are made, which are provisional theories that attempt to explain phenomenon based on observable evidence. These hypotheses are then tested to see how valid they are. If a hypothesis bears up to testing and experimentation, it will be held to be a generally valid scientific theory, and in the world of science theories are being challenged and defended all of the time. The point of departure with religion occurs with the scientific attitude that never demands people to accept a hypothesis or theory on "faith". Faith is by definition an attempt to believe in something that cannot be proven, and is therefore an admission that knowledge is lacking. When a true scientist confronts something that cannot be explained, he will hypothesize and theorize, yet will never demand that anyone accept these theories on faith. A scientist might respect the artistry that has gone into the creation of the Bible, and a psychologist might applaud certain truths of human nature that are revealed within the creation myths of all religions, but they will consider the idea that they are supposed to "believe" in such things ludicrous.

Religion not only abounds in supernatural explanations of an incredible nature, it's explanations are not verifiable by the standards of science, and this is an insurmountable obstacle to the harmonious blending of science and religion. The religious adherent does not experience the countless possibilities in the search for truth as stimulating, but rather as exhausting. A sense of certainty is sought so that the tug of war of confusion might end, and belief plays a powerful role in creating this sense of certainty. The endless exploration of philosophy and science is precisely what many religious seekers desire to put an end to, and religion, whether it be Islam or Christianity, promises to give them answers so that the search may end. This is fine for those who need it, but the "safe harbor" security of religious faith is precisely what the philosopher and scientist seek to stay clear of, for the endless exploration of possibilities is what they thrive on.

Science in it's purest form is an open minded exploration of countless possibilities, and the attempt to test and verify these possibilities. The more science discovers, the more questions it has, therefore the exploration goes on without ever coming to a final resting place. Religion, on the other hand, aims in the opposite direction, and claims to bring the search to an end in a final resting place where all important questions are finally answered. These answers can not be known in any scientific sense, and they may be entirely contrary to all sense experience, so faith steps in to bridge the gap between knowledge and the desire to believe in something that cannot be known.

Science is the art of hypothesis, experimentation, and open minded exploration of possibilities. Religion, which allows questioning only within the parameters of a specific doctrine, uses fear to scare it's adherents away from challenging these parameters, and demands faith in, and obedience to, it's "revealed" truths which frequently flaunt the empirical evidence of the world in which we live. These differences show that science and religion, in their purest forms, are incompatible.

Religion makes many attempts to show that it is compatible with science, and does this from ulterior motives designed to make science serve it's predetermined theological notions. Science ceases to be science the moment "faith" steps in, for this "need to believe" runs counter to it's entire spirit. The latest attempt to make science a handmaiden to religion appears in the form of "Intelligent Design", which is nothing more than Creationism under a new name. Intelligent Design as a "process of discovery" is no different than seeing sexual images in inkblot tests, the face of Jesus in a wall stain, or the Virgin Mary in a cheese sandwich. Religious minded people project their psychological imagery onto the world around them and see what they have already decided they will see. Order can be viewed within chaos, and the degree to which our inventive minds create order within random patterns, and actually detect and discover order, must always be checked by healthy caution and skepticism, which is the role of science. Just because order exists in nature does not mean there is an entity that orders it. The science of fractal geometry and Chaos shows us that random natural processes can create incredibly complex order by themselves.The existence of an "Intelligent Design" does not prove the existence of an "Intelligent Designer". It is not by any stretch of the imagination scientific to jump to the conclusion that because there is order, a "divine being" must order it; that behind every "deed" there is a "doer"; and that within every natural process works the singular will of a "higher power". To use nature's observable order to support a predetermined religious belief simply demonstrates how little the religious mind understands the scientific mind.

Let us leave religion to religion, and science to science. To promote harmony between the two I propose a cultural Restraining Order: religion must keep 100 cubits from science at all times!

Werbinox

This archive...

( 12:17 AM ) sisoflexx

In a editorial entitled "Educational Roots of Culture Conflict" ( White County Telegraph / March 17th) Robert Williamson states that "the scientific method arose in the west because of the Judeo - Christian conception of God..." With all due respect, nothing could be further from the truth.

The foundations for science were established long before the emergence of Judeo - Christian culture by the philosophers of ancient Greece, and both Realism and Idealism, which Mr. Williamson writes about, originate with them as well. Many of these philosophers suggested that a "true" reality existed behind the "apparent" reality we see, and they set out to discover what that reality was. Thales theorized that the primary substance of all creation was water, whereas Heraclitus, who saw a world of endless flux, posited a central fire that burned within all things. Pythagoras, who is credited with not only the famous theorem that bares his name, but also a system of musical scales that is still in use today, posited mathematics as the central reality, while Democritus was the first to propose that tiny things called atoms compose all matter. Despite the primitiveness in the details of their theories, these ideas prefigured the ideas of modern science by centuries. By searching for reality in the material world rather than in the unverifiable concepts of a spirit realm, these earliest known thinkers became the first materialists. What is remarkable about them is that they attempted to analyze and explain the world without first thinking of, or resorting to, the concept of God. Did they perhaps realize that "God" is not an answer, but the lack of one?

Idealism begins with another Greek philosopher by the name of Plato, the Great Grand-daddy of all Idealists. His concept of Universals, which was very influential on later Christian ideology, contends that all manifestations of life, whether a leaf or a horse or a human, are variations and replicas of Universal forms that already exist in the fabric of nature long before their physical manifestations ever appear. According to this idea every leaf, horse, and human is merely a variable replication of a Universal form, and it is the Universal form (or the Idea of a form) that is the ultimate reality, rather than the physical copies that keep appearing. This concept places the emphasis of reality on an "Idea" of form (which cannot be tested) instead of on the physical form that we see (which can be tested) and in doing so elevates an abstract world of ideas and forms above the actual material world - hence the birth of Idealism. Soon after Plato came Aristotle, who helped to invent the categories of knowledge that later became known as Metaphysics (literally after - physics) which dealt with concepts such as cause and effect, and the differences between potentiality and actuality.
It was Aristotle who postulated God as the "Immovable Mover".

Later generations of Christian thinkers, charged with advancing Christian doctrine throughout the world, were heavily influenced by Plato and Aristotle. These thinkers and writers appropriated the ideas of Plato and Aristotle and cast them into the mold of harbingers and preludes to the Christian religion (inventing Neo - Platonism and Scholasticism in the process) Plato's Universals were turned into thoughts in the mind of the Judeo - Christian God before he created the world. Unbeknownst to poor Plato, he had become the world's first Proto - Christian!

Eventually the two approaches of Materialism and Idealism split into two directions, with Materialism heading off towards science (though with a foot still in philosophy i.e. Marx) and Idealism heading off almost exclusively into the realms of Metaphysical philosophy (Kant and Hegel) and Religion.

In his article, Mr. Williamson asserts that "western civilization is based on realism" and that "Judeo - Christian, monotheist heritage rests on this premise." Not only is this an erroneous statement, it is a gross oversimplification of epic proportions. Western civilization is built upon a panoply of different influences, many of them contradictory, such as the differences between materialist Realism and Idealism, Christian Altruism and the Rational Self Interest of Capitalism, the search for Peace and Brotherhood and the inclination towards War, the ideals of Community and the spirit of Individualism, and scientific experimentation and religious faith. To state that Judeo - Christian culture, a religion, rests on the premise of realism, which is scientific, is to completely ignore the differences between science and religion.

Science and religion can be compatible only in the sense that a scientist can have a personal religious faith, and a man of faith can be scientific; both can exist within an individual's life, yet to be true to both, an individual must respect the line where one begins and the other ends. As pure disciplines, science and religion contain areas that are inaccessible to each other by their very nature.

What truly distinguishes the religious mindset from the scientific one concerns the role of faith, and the supposed "necessity of belief". In pure science, belief has no role whatsoever. Hypotheses are made, which are provisional theories that attempt to explain phenomenon based on observable evidence. These hypotheses are then tested to see how valid they are. If a hypothesis bears up to testing and experimentation, it will be held to be a generally valid scientific theory, and in the world of science theories are being challenged and defended all of the time. The point of departure with religion occurs with the scientific attitude that never demands people to accept a hypothesis or theory on "faith". Faith is by definition an attempt to believe in something that cannot be proven, and is therefore an admission that knowledge is lacking. When a true scientist confronts something that cannot be explained, he will hypothesize and theorize, yet will never demand that anyone accept these theories on faith. A scientist might respect the artistry that has gone into the creation of the Bible, and a psychologist might applaud certain truths of human nature that are revealed within the creation myths of all religions, but they will consider the idea that they are supposed to "believe" in such things ludicrous.

Religion not only abounds in supernatural explanations of an incredible nature, it's explanations are not verifiable by the standards of science, and this is an insurmountable obstacle to the harmonious blending of science and religion. The religious adherent does not experience the countless possibilities in the search for truth as stimulating, but rather as exhausting. A sense of certainty is sought so that the tug of war of confusion might end, and belief plays a powerful role in creating this sense of certainty. The endless exploration of philosophy and science is precisely what many religious seekers desire to put an end to, and religion, whether it be Islam or Christianity, promises to give them answers so that the search may end. This is fine for those who need it, but the "safe harbor" security of religious faith is precisely what the philosopher and scientist seek to stay clear of, for the endless exploration of possibilities is what they thrive on.

Science in it's purest form is an open minded exploration of countless possibilities, and the attempt to test and verify these possibilities. The more science discovers, the more questions it has, therefore the exploration goes on without ever coming to a final resting place. Religion, on the other hand, aims in the opposite direction, and claims to bring the search to an end in a final resting place where all important questions are finally answered. These answers can not be known in any scientific sense, and they may be entirely contrary to all sense experience, so faith steps in to bridge the gap between knowledge and the desire to believe in something that cannot be known.

Science is the art of hypothesis, experimentation, and open minded exploration of possibilities. Religion, which allows questioning only within the parameters of a specific doctrine, uses fear to scare it's adherents away from challenging these parameters, and demands faith in, and obedience to, it's "revealed" truths which frequently flaunt the empirical evidence of the world in which we live. These differences show that science and religion, in their purest forms, are incompatible.

Religion makes many attempts to show that it is compatible with science, and does this from ulterior motives designed to make science serve it's predetermined theological notions. Science ceases to be science the moment "faith" steps in, for this "need to believe" runs counter to it's entire spirit. The latest attempt to make science a handmaiden to religion appears in the form of "Intelligent Design", which is nothing more than Creationism under a new name. Intelligent Design as a "process of discovery" is no different than seeing sexual images in inkblot tests, the face of Jesus in a wall stain, or the Virgin Mary in a cheese sandwich. Religious minded people project their psychological imagery onto the world around them and see what they have already decided they will see. Order can be viewed within chaos, and the degree to which our inventive minds create order within random patterns, and actually detect and discover order, must always be checked by healthy caution and skepticism, which is the role of science. Just because order exists in nature does not mean there is an entity that orders it. The science of fractal geometry and Chaos shows us that random natural processes can create incredibly complex order by themselves.The existence of an "Intelligent Design" does not prove the existence of an "Intelligent Designer". It is not by any stretch of the imagination scientific to jump to the conclusion that because there is order, a "divine being" must order it; that behind every "deed" there is a "doer"; and that within every natural process works the singular will of a "higher power". To use nature's observable order to support a predetermined religious belief simply demonstrates how little the religious mind understands the scientific mind.

Let us leave religion to religion, and science to science. To promote harmony between the two I propose a cultural Restraining Order: religion must keep 100 cubits from science at all times!

Werbinox

This archive...

( 2:24 PM ) sisoflexx

Todays Funny

An Irish priest is driving down to New York and gets stopped for speeding.
The state trooper smells alcohol on the priest's breath and sees an empty
wine bottle on the floor of the car. He says, "Sir, have you been
drinking?"
"Just water," says the priest.
The trooper says, "Then why do I smell wine?"
The priest looks at the bottle and says, "Good Lord! He's done it again!"

This archive...

( 2:19 PM ) sisoflexx

Courtesy of Ameena

This archive...

( 7:56 AM ) sisoflexx

Last night at work I discovered a website called "The Religious Movements Homepage Project". If you go there and click on "profiles of religious movements" you will get, in alphabetical order, an impressive list of old, current, and fairly new religious movements, which allows you to read an overview of their histories and beliefs and current status. It is quite a resource. I read about Falun Gong, Scientology, the Process, Heaven's gate, etc. I read about Course in Miracles, and learned quite a lot about that I didnt know, as well as older movements such as the Shakers, and Quakers. They even listed quasi or para - religious groups like Amway. It is a non - judgemental site dedicated to giving info to those who seek it, and all info has references to the sites and sources from which it was obtained.

I got the following about the Church of Satan:

The Church of Satan can best be described as a religion that mixes a hedonistic philosophy with the rituals of black magic. The Church of Satan does not promote the belief of Satan as a supernatural being; rather, it uses Satan as a symbol of defiance and rebellion against a conformist, God-fearing society. However, LaVey felt that it was necessary to build a church in the religious sense because he believed that humans still needed rituals and symbolic worship to reach a deeper level of meaning. In his own words, "People need ritual, with symbols that they may find in baseball games or church services or wars, as vehicles for expending emotions they can't release or even understand on their own" 5 .
There are 9 satanic statements 6 which convey the beliefs of the Church of Satan:

Satan represents indulgence, instead of abstinence!
Satan represents vital existence, instead of spiritual pipe dreams!
Satan represents undefiled wisdom, instead of hypocritical self-deceit!
Satan represents kindness to those that deserve it, instead of love wasted on ingrates!
Satan represents vengeance, instead of turning the other cheek!
Satan represents responsibility to the responsible, instead of concern for psychic vampires!
Satan represents man as just another animal, sometimes better, often worse than those that walk on all fours, who, because of his "divine spiritual and intellectual development," has become the most vicious animal of all!
Satan represents all of the so-called sins, as they all lead to physical, mental, or emotional gratification!
Satan has been the best friend the church has ever had, as he has kept it in business all these years!

The Church of Satan proposes that emotions such as greed, lust, and hatred are natural instincts and the denial of these feelings is utterly incorrect. They point out the hypocrisy that stems from people worshipping laws that they can't possibly follow, then feeling better again once they have confessed their sins and repented. Members would descibe themselves not as beings full of hatred and sin, but normal people who have come to grips with the carnal nature of humanity.
The Church makes a point of keeping a clean public image and steering away from unlawful activities. Following the Church's formula of "nine parts respectability to one part outrageousness," the Church of Satan has discouraged illegal activites, and has even banished grottoes associated with unethical or illegal behavior. LaVey also strongly discouraged the use of illegal drugs, not only for legal issues, but because they cause people to lose control over their lives. Church membership consists largely of respectible citizens in their middle ages, as opposed to the wayward teens that are often characterized as Satanists in the media.

-An offshoot of the Church of Satan is the Temple of Set.

The Temple of Set points out that a lot of the more negative myths about Set came about after factions supporting the worship of rival deities, primarily Osiris, came into power. Setians focus more on the aspect of Set that deals with chaos, which does not necessarily have immoral implications 6 . They will argue that chaos is a consequence of exploration and expansion. Setians believe strongly in a quest for knowledge and self-improvement, which they contrast with the Judeo-Christian ideal of perfection embodied in the tale of an innocent Adam and Eve being reliant on an all-powerful God.

I also read about L Ron Hubbard. There is a book out about him called "Messiah or Madman?" written by a former follower. Hubbard purchased a small navy, made himself an Admiral, and formed what is called "Sea Org." All members sign thousand year contracts, for as Theta's (eternal souls) they will be around for it. Here is some info I got about the Scientology "Enforcement Arm" called the Guardian's Office. Check it out.

In the past, action against perceived "threats" to Scientology has even been extra-legal. In 1980, Scientologists from the para-military Guardian's Office , including L. Ron Hubbard's wife, were convicted and sent to federal prison after infiltrating, bugging, and stealing thousands of Scientology-related documents from federal agencies, foreign embassies, and other organizations critical of Scientology in Washington, D.C. 44 Scientology often coordinates litigation and harassment of its most vocal critics through its Office of Special Affairs, the "enforcement" arm of the movement that succeeded the old Guardian's Office. Scientology's harassment of critics and apostates (which has in many cases only made them fight harder) is the logical extension of a doctrine formulated by Hubbard in the 1960s, which he called " Fair Game ." 45 Very simply, this doctrine declares that enemies of the Church "May be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologists. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed" (from Hubbard's original Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter). Though the Church officially states that it no longer advocates "fair game," its actions continue to prove otherwise.

Werbinox

This archive...

( 8:16 AM ) sisoflexx

Fresh from his crusade against smoking, our Mayor, George Wangemann, has decided to tackle the next great evil - caffeine!

With all of the things we Americans are supposed to be fearful of, from Terrorism and Nuclear Proliferation, to Global Warming and some future asteroid strike, now we are supposed to worry about our two cups of morning coffee? Sorry, Mr. Mayor, but many of us are not puritans, and we have no wish to be.

One has to wonder if this is all really about health, or if it is about something else.

We are right now in the midst of a public health crisis that threatens the future of our entire country - a pandemic of politicians, bureaucrats, and government figureheads spawning ordinances and legislation designed to control every aspect of our lives. Fueling this wildfire of expanding government control is a raging herd mentality that aims for nothing less than having everyone conform to a narrow and singular idea of what a citizen is, and should be. Welcome to new Fascist America, where everyone had better be on the same page! Lest anyone laugh at me for being paranoid, I must point out that totalitarian movements always utilize a strong group spirit in order to pressure the recalcitrant into lock step behind a "common vision", and it's proponents always claim to know what is best for us. It is not a mystery that the mass beheadings of the French Revolution were conducted by a group that called itself The Committee for Public Safety.

Yet that was then and this is now, and what we have in America today is a secret political party that crosses partisan boundaries. Some might call it the Nanny Party, though I do not, for that term has been overused. I prefer to call it the Mother Hen Party. I mean no disrespect to the sacred role of motherhood, nor to hens for that matter, but when it comes to politics a catchy name is necessary to attract attention. The Mother Hen Party has an agenda, and if you stick around long enough, you might get to see it unfold. Their attack against smoking continues unabated, and soon you might get fined or even lose your job if you smoke in your own home, especially if someone reports you for smoking in front of your children. Speaking of children, laws will be passed to limit what they can eat, how much soda they can drink, how much TV they can watch, and how much they are allowed to weigh. If you as a parent do not follow these laws you may get fined, and be forced to attend state mandated counseling sessions. The government just has your children's welfare at heart, and who can oppose that? In case you think that you yourself are off the hook, think again, for if a neighbor thinks you might have added on a few too many pounds, a quick call can lead to a visit from the health police, who will issue you an obesity warning. Later, after everyone has gotten used to this intrusion, the Mother Hen Party will add teeth to the law which will call for fines and a brief stay in a state mandated fitness camp....and oh, yeah, caffeine intake must be targeted as well. Get ready for the media barrage advocating only one cup of coffee a day, followed by new laws that fine coffee shop owners who serve any customer more than the legal limit of two.

Gadz! Is anyone else sick of these finger wagging moralistic scarecrows? Am I the only one who is ready to take up smoking just to have the thrill of blowing smoke into a health Nazi's face? What happened to the good ol' spirit of American rebellion? Whatever happened to the concept of freedom, self government, and personal responsibility? What happened to the common sense that inspires an American to laugh at the very notion of a politician telling us how we should live, and what we should eat and drink?

In the spirit of American defiance I propose that we contrarians should smoke on every single anti smoking day, eat meat during every vegan week, and drink an extra cup of Joe in honor of our Mayor. Better yet, let us invent a new day of recognition. How about a National Leave-Me-Alone-and-Worry-About-Your-Own-Self Day? Or even better, a National Shut-Up-and-Mind-Your-Own-Damn-Business-Day!

We can throw a parade, and I for one will be at the front. I hope I am not alone.

Werbinox

This archive...

( 2:20 AM ) sisoflexx

Governor Sonny Perdue's spokesman Dan McLagan has apparently learned the accepted technique for framing complex political issues in today's new fascist America; dehumanize your opponent, malign their motives, call them "zealots" and "bigots", suggest that they "throw poor people into the streets" and "kick Cub Scouts to the curb", and paint them as a "shameless bunch" who are anything but fellow hard working Americans with legitimate concerns.

I understand that Dan McLagan and Governor Perdue are products of their time, and are only going with the flow of the current political trend. They see only this moment, and are oblivious to the coming counter trend to today's political climate. Every trend produces a reaction against it, and reaction to the present growth of government intrusion into every sphere of our lives will eventually roll in like a tsunami against our current batch of leaders. If this backlash does not materialize our nation is doomed.

The AJC Editorial position on state funding of religious-based and secular charities is that these groups should be compensated by taxpayers for their services, but that taxpayer money should not fund religion. The Perdue Administration's position is that government already "allows faith-based organizations to compete for state dollars" despite the fact that it is illegal, so we might as well go ahead and legalize it. With respect to both views, I propose a third: start shrinking the size and cost of government (an approach the GOP used to insist they stood for) This will allow us citizens to keep the money we are actually earning, and then we will be better able to fund these religious-based and secular charities ourselves, without having to go through power hungry self-righteous politicians who love to play the role of Do-Gooder with everyone else's money. How is that for common sense?

With respect to Mr. McLagan's article, many Georgia citizens oppose the Governor's proposed amendment, and most of us have never thrown a poor person into the street, nor kicked a Cub Scout to the curb. One can oppose government funding of religion without being an abuser of the young and a tosser of the poor. Mr. McLagan and Governor Perdue know this, too, but they are just doing their job - pandering to the growing herd mentality that labels as an enemy anyone who holds a position that they deem to be "Off-Script". Welcome to new fascist America, where everyone had better be on the same page!

Most of our elected leaders are unable to stand against this growing chorus of control, and all too many are running to join it. Those who are standing against it probably feel very alone. We contrarians need to let them know that help is on the way. The Tide ebbs as well as flows, and No Trend is Forever.

Many Georgia citizens oppose a Constitutional Amendment allowing the state to contract business with religious-based organizations not because we are mean, but because history shows us that allowing Government to merge with religion produces results that are dangerous, and even disastrous to the maintenance of a free society. Religious organizations provide immense help to those who need it, yet since the spread of a specific message is central to all religious efforts, the promotion of that message to those who receive this assistance is inevitable. If government funds a religious organization for any reason it is effectively funding the promotion of that religion, which amounts to state sponsored religion, which is unconstitutional for a good reason. Many citizens adhere to many different religions, and many do not adhere to any religion at all. Many of us have legitimate concerns that this proposed amendment, far from being a common sense effort to help people, is actually another tactical move in a general strategy that aims to not only advance an agenda that promotes an intolerant, judgmental, and hypocritical version of Christianity, but to enshrine it into our laws as well. Mr. McLagan's mention of Same Sex Marriage and the Ten Commandments within the context of his article promoting a Constitutional Amendment only increases this concern.

Government needs to get out of the charity business completely. Private charities can help people in a far more comprehensive way than any government program ever can, or ever will. To help these organizations operate with greater funding and efficiency we must have less government, not more of it. This will allow Georgia citizens to keep more of the money they actually earn. With this we have the privilege of funding the charities of our choice as generously as we choose. Without the governmental confiscation of our money through taxation, and it's subsequent redistribution, this controversy would not even exist.

For now, though, the constitutional ban on state funding of religious organizations should remain. Not only must we keep this ban intact, we must actually enforce it. We must not abandon it.

Werbinox

This archive...

( 2:15 AM ) sisoflexx

This archive...

CURRENT MOON

about the moon

Ms. Ann Thrope

Fodder of sisoflexx

Soft Scorn

I'm Banned from:

Non-Blog Sites: