The only necessary entities within the federal executive branch are the Department of State, and Defense.
Every other entity that doesn't involve our defense and foreign relations should be controlled by the individual states with congressional oversight.
U.S. Code not dealing with defense, foreign affairs, and commerce should be turned over to the states and they can decide if they want to enforce them or not.
This is in line with the tenth amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
18 November 2007
Repeal Income Tax
Abolish the IRS.
Have each state adopt a sales tax.
Have each state give a portion of their tax earnings to congress. The amount would be dependent on the revenue of each state.
housing would be exempt
farmed food would be exempt (meats, dairy, grain, fruit, vegetable), primary housing would be exempt
Have each state adopt a sales tax.
Have each state give a portion of their tax earnings to congress. The amount would be dependent on the revenue of each state.
housing would be exempt
farmed food would be exempt (meats, dairy, grain, fruit, vegetable), primary housing would be exempt
Or better yet
adopt voluntary funding.
Each person donates funds to specific government programs.
The problem with taxation is it is money taken by coercion.
Taxes should be taken by explicit consent.
Each person should have a direct say in where their money goes.
Even if I agree to taxation, I may not agree to what my money is being used for
adopt voluntary funding.
Each person donates funds to specific government programs.
The problem with taxation is it is money taken by coercion.
Taxes should be taken by explicit consent.
Each person should have a direct say in where their money goes.
Even if I agree to taxation, I may not agree to what my money is being used for
Marriage
Marriage should be left to the religious (or non-religious) institutions. Marriage should not be recognized by the State. Married people should not receive any special legal rights or privileges.
Marriage as a civil institution should be replaced by Family contracts. Contracts in which the participants are seen as immediate family members; and, are allowed whatever rights and privileges inherent in that title. That includes declaring a person to be a dependent of another.
I have no problem with marriage in it's basic form. An institution among people that says "We are joining families and we are creating a family."
The only good reason to get married is to have children.
And most people in bad marriages never should have been married to begin with.
Marriage as a civil institution should be replaced by Family contracts. Contracts in which the participants are seen as immediate family members; and, are allowed whatever rights and privileges inherent in that title. That includes declaring a person to be a dependent of another.
I have no problem with marriage in it's basic form. An institution among people that says "We are joining families and we are creating a family."
The only good reason to get married is to have children.
And most people in bad marriages never should have been married to begin with.
10 April 2007
blind faith
Blind faith. I don't like how this term is thrown around and applied to everything religious. There is a reason behind all faith; it may not be properly examined; but it's there. Be it tradition, acceptance, a crutch, intuition, or those events in your life that lead you to your faith. My faith as undergone great examination and still is. Some may not care to examine it because it serves its purpose without conflict or they're just not that serious about it.
If religious faith were so blind, why are there so many different religions and denominations? Dissension is antithetical to blind following. Our pluralistic world is a testament to the rarity of blind faith.
If religious faith were so blind, why are there so many different religions and denominations? Dissension is antithetical to blind following. Our pluralistic world is a testament to the rarity of blind faith.
Science Vs. Religion
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
Albert Einstein, "Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium", 1941 ...
"Science investigates; religion interprets. Science gives man knowledge which is power; religion gives man wisdom which is control. Science deals mainly with facts; religion deals mainly with values.
The two are not rivals. They are complementary.
Science keeps religion from sinking into the valley of crippling irrationalism and paralyzing obscurantism. Religion prevents science from falling into the marsh of obsolete materialism and moral nihilism."
Martin Luther King Jr.
Ridiculous. That's what I think of the "debate"
Science deals with objective facts. Religion deals with subjective perceptions. Two totally different things that need not be argued about. Both exist harmoniously in the human experience.
First, after actually enjoying my science classes and taking the time to read various sacred texts by myself; I think the science/faith argument is rather silly. I may be simplifying this too much; but, science is objective and faith is subjective. How do you use a text written by poets to determine the age of the universe? How can science actually prove/disprove God (the worldview not just a specific religious diety)? I see two different realms of existence that don't need to piss on each other.
Albert Einstein, "Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium", 1941 ...
"Science investigates; religion interprets. Science gives man knowledge which is power; religion gives man wisdom which is control. Science deals mainly with facts; religion deals mainly with values.
The two are not rivals. They are complementary.
Science keeps religion from sinking into the valley of crippling irrationalism and paralyzing obscurantism. Religion prevents science from falling into the marsh of obsolete materialism and moral nihilism."
Martin Luther King Jr.
Ridiculous. That's what I think of the "debate"
Science deals with objective facts. Religion deals with subjective perceptions. Two totally different things that need not be argued about. Both exist harmoniously in the human experience.
First, after actually enjoying my science classes and taking the time to read various sacred texts by myself; I think the science/faith argument is rather silly. I may be simplifying this too much; but, science is objective and faith is subjective. How do you use a text written by poets to determine the age of the universe? How can science actually prove/disprove God (the worldview not just a specific religious diety)? I see two different realms of existence that don't need to piss on each other.
Religion and today's society
Does religion have a useful role in today's society?
I see this question a lot and I'm starting to have issues with it. It's almost like asking if art, marriage, and prostitution are worthwhile. Bad associations, I know; I mean, it seems to be a moot point. Religion is so rooted in the world just like art and prostitution. It's a function of culture. It'll never be eradicated; it just changes right along with the rest of society.
It seems like people think that if everyone would just learn to think scientifically and logically, then religion would vanish. I think this notion fails to acknowledge some key factors in the human experience; like emotion, subjectivity, and intuition. I'm saying that there are fundamental cultural traits that will always feed religion; positively and negatively.
Religion is a man-made institution. An organized group with common supernatural ideas. It is subject to the same fame and faults of any organization. It depends on those who created it and those who participate.
It's been argued that religion is not needed as a moral guideline. My spiritual ideas about myself, others, and this world greatly affect my principles, my conscience, and my actions. No one can invalidate the basis for my values because those basis don't apply to them.
As long as a majority of charitable organizations are founded by religions; I'd say religion will remain worthwhile.
Of course, I have to quote the bible: James 1 v 26,27
"If anyone considers himself religious and yet does not keep a tight rein on his tongue, he deceives himself and his religion is worthless. Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world."
I see this question a lot and I'm starting to have issues with it. It's almost like asking if art, marriage, and prostitution are worthwhile. Bad associations, I know; I mean, it seems to be a moot point. Religion is so rooted in the world just like art and prostitution. It's a function of culture. It'll never be eradicated; it just changes right along with the rest of society.
It seems like people think that if everyone would just learn to think scientifically and logically, then religion would vanish. I think this notion fails to acknowledge some key factors in the human experience; like emotion, subjectivity, and intuition. I'm saying that there are fundamental cultural traits that will always feed religion; positively and negatively.
Religion is a man-made institution. An organized group with common supernatural ideas. It is subject to the same fame and faults of any organization. It depends on those who created it and those who participate.
It's been argued that religion is not needed as a moral guideline. My spiritual ideas about myself, others, and this world greatly affect my principles, my conscience, and my actions. No one can invalidate the basis for my values because those basis don't apply to them.
As long as a majority of charitable organizations are founded by religions; I'd say religion will remain worthwhile.
Of course, I have to quote the bible: James 1 v 26,27
"If anyone considers himself religious and yet does not keep a tight rein on his tongue, he deceives himself and his religion is worthless. Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world."
05 January 2007
Doctrine of Inclusion
Leader of the New Dimensions Center, Carlton Pearson says God inspired him to rehash an old doctrine.
Basically, the doctrine says that God sent Jesus to save the world; therefore, no one will go to hell.
I heard about this on NPR a while back.
Surprisingly, a very unpopular doctrine.
Viewed as heresy
I'm not quite sure I agree; sounds nice though. I like his shiney website and suit.
Whether or not it's a good product, he's selling it; but, who's buying it?
Basically, the doctrine says that God sent Jesus to save the world; therefore, no one will go to hell.
I heard about this on NPR a while back.
Surprisingly, a very unpopular doctrine.
Viewed as heresy
I'm not quite sure I agree; sounds nice though. I like his shiney website and suit.
Whether or not it's a good product, he's selling it; but, who's buying it?
My thoughts on hell
First I need to say that I think heaven is actually a metaphor for becoming one with God.
If we hold on to this illusion of individuality, how can we become ONE? I think this is the point of hell. If someone dies not realizing that they are ONE, they will die in their illusion.
A popular theme in Christianity is the war between the Spirit and the Flesh. Eventually the Spirit always wins because the flesh dies.
There are many references to sacrificing ourselves or dying in order to become one with the Spirit.
If we do not do this before we die, our spirit is in turmoil because the vessel of our individuality (or body) is gone and our soul is still living in the illusion of individuality, therefore our soul is lost.
This is not only a Christian idea, the idea of reincarnation proposes that we are doomed to live this life continuously unless we become enlightened and throw off the illusion of individuality.
It may be a state of being (instead of a place) that we can choose to be in throughout life and onto death.
It maybe a matter of free-will. If one knows about God and does not want be with God; God must accept that.
In half-ass conclusion, this all leads me to believe that Hell is a necessary place or process to deal with our separation from God.
If we hold on to this illusion of individuality, how can we become ONE? I think this is the point of hell. If someone dies not realizing that they are ONE, they will die in their illusion.
A popular theme in Christianity is the war between the Spirit and the Flesh. Eventually the Spirit always wins because the flesh dies.
There are many references to sacrificing ourselves or dying in order to become one with the Spirit.
If we do not do this before we die, our spirit is in turmoil because the vessel of our individuality (or body) is gone and our soul is still living in the illusion of individuality, therefore our soul is lost.
This is not only a Christian idea, the idea of reincarnation proposes that we are doomed to live this life continuously unless we become enlightened and throw off the illusion of individuality.
It may be a state of being (instead of a place) that we can choose to be in throughout life and onto death.
It maybe a matter of free-will. If one knows about God and does not want be with God; God must accept that.
In half-ass conclusion, this all leads me to believe that Hell is a necessary place or process to deal with our separation from God.
Sick and Tired of Politics
I don't think I'm asking much when I expect our representatives to do their jobs. Maybe we have conflicting views on what their job is.
I may be generalizing; but I thought it had something to do with forming "a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity". Frankly, I don't see that happening.
I see a lot of rich dudes (and chicks) arguing over some bullshit; but nothing getting done.
Maybe I'm a bit delusional. I think that when everyone has a home, a job, good healthcare, food on the table, and a secure future after retirement, then we can worry about who swore an oath on the Quran.
I'm thinking about writing to my representatives and basically telling them that if ever I catch them in the media blabbering about some crap that doesn't secure my rights, they'll lose my vote.
Or, that in their next campaign, if I hear anything besides how they're going to secure my life, liberty and property, they can forget it. That means bashing their opponent and telling me what a great person they are.
I'll add giving me some emotional crap about the problems in our country and how you're going to solve it; but never telling me What you're going to do.
I may be generalizing; but I thought it had something to do with forming "a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity". Frankly, I don't see that happening.
I see a lot of rich dudes (and chicks) arguing over some bullshit; but nothing getting done.
Maybe I'm a bit delusional. I think that when everyone has a home, a job, good healthcare, food on the table, and a secure future after retirement, then we can worry about who swore an oath on the Quran.
I'm thinking about writing to my representatives and basically telling them that if ever I catch them in the media blabbering about some crap that doesn't secure my rights, they'll lose my vote.
Or, that in their next campaign, if I hear anything besides how they're going to secure my life, liberty and property, they can forget it. That means bashing their opponent and telling me what a great person they are.
I'll add giving me some emotional crap about the problems in our country and how you're going to solve it; but never telling me What you're going to do.
Are they passing them out like candy?
After reading this report from the Family Research Institute, the letters "Ph.D" mean nothing to me now.
How can you try to use data to support your claims when the numbers you provide clearly refute it?
Maybe I'm reading it wrong.
When I read the numbers he sites, I see that in every case (except Ottowa ) heterosexual men made up over 60% of molestors. Which means homosexuals are less likely to be molestors.
As I understand it, even that statement isn't true. By definition, pedophilia is a sexual orientation in itself.
Check this shit out:
"If 2% of the population is responsible for 20% to 40% of something as socially and personally troubling as child molestation, something must be desperately wrong with that 2%. Not every homosexual is a child molester. But enough gays do molest children so that the risk of a homosexual molesting a child is 10 to 20 times greater than that of a heterosexual."
I say WTF???
This prompted me to research Mr. Paul Cameron. Yeah, the duck goes quack.
How can you try to use data to support your claims when the numbers you provide clearly refute it?
Maybe I'm reading it wrong.
When I read the numbers he sites, I see that in every case (except Ottowa ) heterosexual men made up over 60% of molestors. Which means homosexuals are less likely to be molestors.
As I understand it, even that statement isn't true. By definition, pedophilia is a sexual orientation in itself.
Check this shit out:
"If 2% of the population is responsible for 20% to 40% of something as socially and personally troubling as child molestation, something must be desperately wrong with that 2%. Not every homosexual is a child molester. But enough gays do molest children so that the risk of a homosexual molesting a child is 10 to 20 times greater than that of a heterosexual."
I say WTF???
This prompted me to research Mr. Paul Cameron. Yeah, the duck goes quack.
04 January 2007
Decline of Families... It's the economy stupid!
You can't have it both ways.
Raising children is a full time job. Providing for a family is a full time job also.
There are a few men out there who are willing to take the role of the stay at home dad; but they are few and far between. Women are out making a living.
Now children are being raised by daycare centers or the nanny.
Research shows that children in single family households (with father or mother) fair worse than those with two parents;
this is because a single parent cannot provide the attention a child needs, so they can learn how to function properly in society. This is also true of two working parents.
Children are human beings. Human beings learn by example. You can't leave them to their own devices and hope for the best; more than likely chaos will ensue.
I've seen too many adults say they wouldn't have made the mistakes that they made if their parents had paid more attention.
The daycare worker or the nanny don't love your child. Children must be surrounded by loving adults at all times.
So I ask, who is able to stay at home with their children while the other parent makes enough to support the entire family?
What's more, what providers can come home soon enough to enjoy time at home with the family before the kids have to go to sleep?
This is not a post against single mothers. Child neglect can occur in a two parent household.
I've heard fathers say that they just let the mother nurture the children because as men, well, they're not wired that way.
I hope they realize they are doing a great disservice to their children; especially their daughters. Men need to start spending some real intimate time with their children. You wonder why your daughter is dating a jerk; because all she saw was how a man can go to work, make money, eat, and sleep. Funny how fathers flee when a girl is going through puberty. Realize that your input is just as important as her mother's. You are a great influence on who she is going to end up with when she seeks relationships.
Raising children is a full time job. Providing for a family is a full time job also.
There are a few men out there who are willing to take the role of the stay at home dad; but they are few and far between. Women are out making a living.
Now children are being raised by daycare centers or the nanny.
Research shows that children in single family households (with father or mother) fair worse than those with two parents;
this is because a single parent cannot provide the attention a child needs, so they can learn how to function properly in society. This is also true of two working parents.
Children are human beings. Human beings learn by example. You can't leave them to their own devices and hope for the best; more than likely chaos will ensue.
I've seen too many adults say they wouldn't have made the mistakes that they made if their parents had paid more attention.
The daycare worker or the nanny don't love your child. Children must be surrounded by loving adults at all times.
So I ask, who is able to stay at home with their children while the other parent makes enough to support the entire family?
What's more, what providers can come home soon enough to enjoy time at home with the family before the kids have to go to sleep?
This is not a post against single mothers. Child neglect can occur in a two parent household.
I've heard fathers say that they just let the mother nurture the children because as men, well, they're not wired that way.
I hope they realize they are doing a great disservice to their children; especially their daughters. Men need to start spending some real intimate time with their children. You wonder why your daughter is dating a jerk; because all she saw was how a man can go to work, make money, eat, and sleep. Funny how fathers flee when a girl is going through puberty. Realize that your input is just as important as her mother's. You are a great influence on who she is going to end up with when she seeks relationships.
Definition of Marriage
For Better, For Worse
By Stephanie Coontz
"The origins of modern marital instability lie largely in the triumph of what many people believe to be marriage's traditional role -- providing love, intimacy, fidelity and mutual fulfillment. The truth is that for centuries, marriage was stable precisely because it was not expected to provide such benefits. As soon as love became the driving force behind marriage, people began to demand the right to remain single if they had not found love or to divorce if they fell out of love."
"Such demands were raised as early as the 1790s, which prompted conservatives to predict that love would be the death of marriage. For the next 150 years, the inherently destabilizing effects of the love revolution were held in check by women's economic dependence on men, the unreliability of birth control and the harsh legal treatment of children born out of wedlock, as well as the social ostracism of their mothers. As late as the 1960s, two-thirds of college women in the United States said they would marry a man they didn't love if he met all their other, often economic, criteria. Men also felt compelled to marry if they hoped for promotions at work or for political credibility."
By Stephanie Coontz
"The origins of modern marital instability lie largely in the triumph of what many people believe to be marriage's traditional role -- providing love, intimacy, fidelity and mutual fulfillment. The truth is that for centuries, marriage was stable precisely because it was not expected to provide such benefits. As soon as love became the driving force behind marriage, people began to demand the right to remain single if they had not found love or to divorce if they fell out of love."
"Such demands were raised as early as the 1790s, which prompted conservatives to predict that love would be the death of marriage. For the next 150 years, the inherently destabilizing effects of the love revolution were held in check by women's economic dependence on men, the unreliability of birth control and the harsh legal treatment of children born out of wedlock, as well as the social ostracism of their mothers. As late as the 1960s, two-thirds of college women in the United States said they would marry a man they didn't love if he met all their other, often economic, criteria. Men also felt compelled to marry if they hoped for promotions at work or for political credibility."
Altruism
Can anyone think of any examples of true altruism?
There are consequences for every action.
I read about a dog in London who escaped from his cage and freed other dogs.
Why did he free the other dogs? Was he just being altruistic? Or did he want playmates?
Did Mother Teresa and Gandhi live their lives in order to get brownie points with God?
Does a firefighter save others due to a hero complex?
Does a person sacrifice themselves for others for a reward in the afterlife.
We can always think of favorable consequences to benevolent actions.
Are the actors aware of those consequences? Did the promise of favorable outcome cause their actions?
I find that True altruism has to reside in the moment,
An action without prior thought.
Can one train oneself to be thoughtlessly benevolent?
Having long ago contemplated the consequences of good acts and resigned oneself to act benevolently in the future without thought.
Can a person act without motivation?
Personally, if benevolent opportunity arises; I ask myself if there's any good reason to pass it up.
I realize that, in most cases, deeds aren't an inconvenience. There's no good reason not to be benevolent.
I'm sometimes plagued by thoughts of the times I could have helped someone but didn't.
I feel like a big asshole.
Maybe i do good to ward off guilt.
Maybe it's a gene.
There are consequences for every action.
I read about a dog in London who escaped from his cage and freed other dogs.
Why did he free the other dogs? Was he just being altruistic? Or did he want playmates?
Did Mother Teresa and Gandhi live their lives in order to get brownie points with God?
Does a firefighter save others due to a hero complex?
Does a person sacrifice themselves for others for a reward in the afterlife.
We can always think of favorable consequences to benevolent actions.
Are the actors aware of those consequences? Did the promise of favorable outcome cause their actions?
I find that True altruism has to reside in the moment,
An action without prior thought.
Can one train oneself to be thoughtlessly benevolent?
Having long ago contemplated the consequences of good acts and resigned oneself to act benevolently in the future without thought.
Can a person act without motivation?
Personally, if benevolent opportunity arises; I ask myself if there's any good reason to pass it up.
I realize that, in most cases, deeds aren't an inconvenience. There's no good reason not to be benevolent.
I'm sometimes plagued by thoughts of the times I could have helped someone but didn't.
I feel like a big asshole.
Maybe i do good to ward off guilt.
Maybe it's a gene.
What am I here for?
To love.
What's love?
It's a process where you look deeply into another person, seeking to understand them. By understanding, you see their suffering; and, by compassion you seek to help alleviate their suffering.
It is to realize that the suffering of all life is ultimately your suffering.
By looking deeply and understanding, you see a person as a being with unfathomable potential; and through loving kindness, you nurture them so that they are able to reach that potential.
Knowing that, if you live to help others, you will reach your highest potential.
True love is extended to all.
You are the tool, the miracle, the blessing in someone else's life. Every one you have encountered has had some impact on your life and vice versa. That is the way of Unity.
The most important question asked in the bible:
Am I my brother's keeper?
I say yes.
What's love?
It's a process where you look deeply into another person, seeking to understand them. By understanding, you see their suffering; and, by compassion you seek to help alleviate their suffering.
It is to realize that the suffering of all life is ultimately your suffering.
By looking deeply and understanding, you see a person as a being with unfathomable potential; and through loving kindness, you nurture them so that they are able to reach that potential.
Knowing that, if you live to help others, you will reach your highest potential.
True love is extended to all.
You are the tool, the miracle, the blessing in someone else's life. Every one you have encountered has had some impact on your life and vice versa. That is the way of Unity.
The most important question asked in the bible:
Am I my brother's keeper?
I say yes.
The Cursed
There are people who are cursed before they are even conceived.
What are we doing to break the curse?
Abortion is too late.
Birth will inevitably bring a life of pain.
So many who are damned before they are even thought of.
Who's to say that they aren't better off not seeing the outside of a reluctant womb?
When labor is thought of as slavery or a child is considered a parasite.
Thrown in the garbage after birth.
Beaten by a parent who feels trapped.
Scorned by a father who isn't seeing the carbon copy of himself in his 14 year-old's eyes. Or worse yet, scorned by the father who does see himself in his child.
Neglected by a woman who can't see passed her own needs.
Forced to live the same desolate life as the father they visit in jail
or the mother stuck behind the haze of drugs.
Taking their own lives because no one cares enough to see the pain in their eyes.
People kill every day.
People kill to defend their country, the people they love, their own lives.
Or just out of fear, anger, misery.
Abortion has become justifiable, just like self-defense, temporary insanity, or what needs to be done on the battlefield.
And humans aren't so special.
Abortion is a high tech form of the most animalistic instinct.
Self-preservation.
Animals kill their infants for many reasons.
Males kill because they feel threatened.
A deformed calf left behind to die because it can't keep up with the herd.
Others left to starve because their mother can't support them.
Infanticide runs rampant in the animal kingdom; for the same reasons that humans do it.
Is it right or wrong?
What does it matter?
It is.
And it always will be.
Many people are destined to die at the hands of others.
Whether premeditated and quick, or neglectfully and over the course of a lifetime.
If no one is doing anything to stop the curse, maybe an early death is the best option.
What are we doing to break the curse?
Abortion is too late.
Birth will inevitably bring a life of pain.
So many who are damned before they are even thought of.
Who's to say that they aren't better off not seeing the outside of a reluctant womb?
When labor is thought of as slavery or a child is considered a parasite.
Thrown in the garbage after birth.
Beaten by a parent who feels trapped.
Scorned by a father who isn't seeing the carbon copy of himself in his 14 year-old's eyes. Or worse yet, scorned by the father who does see himself in his child.
Neglected by a woman who can't see passed her own needs.
Forced to live the same desolate life as the father they visit in jail
or the mother stuck behind the haze of drugs.
Taking their own lives because no one cares enough to see the pain in their eyes.
People kill every day.
People kill to defend their country, the people they love, their own lives.
Or just out of fear, anger, misery.
Abortion has become justifiable, just like self-defense, temporary insanity, or what needs to be done on the battlefield.
And humans aren't so special.
Abortion is a high tech form of the most animalistic instinct.
Self-preservation.
Animals kill their infants for many reasons.
Males kill because they feel threatened.
A deformed calf left behind to die because it can't keep up with the herd.
Others left to starve because their mother can't support them.
Infanticide runs rampant in the animal kingdom; for the same reasons that humans do it.
Is it right or wrong?
What does it matter?
It is.
And it always will be.
Many people are destined to die at the hands of others.
Whether premeditated and quick, or neglectfully and over the course of a lifetime.
If no one is doing anything to stop the curse, maybe an early death is the best option.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)