Socio-Politico-Economical Rants of the time that is now. . . (repost from MySpace)
Now this is probably the first and the middle blog that I will post about these subjects or maybe not who knows. . .I just think they need to be said and I intend to finally say them. . .at least from my point of view. . .and if you don't like it then go write your own damn blog!!
Anyways the first thing is Separation of Church and State related. . .First Amendment Freedom of Relgion vs Freedom from Religion. . .
It seems in this country that we have departed from the intent of our first amendment. The first amendment is there so that the state (the government) does not condone one religion over another or does not mandate that everyone be of a certain faith. Its intention is not to remove every and all reference of religion from anything remotely related to the government or its various institutions. My take on it is this. . .one the phrases on our money, in our courthouses, etc. are not statements of favoritism by the government. They are examples of the heritage of this country. So you're not a "Christian" who cares, the people who founded the country were and it was their ideals that we are celebrating when we post those pieces of history around. If you cannot enjoy the freedom that those ideals have granted you perhaps you belong in a different country. . .
Prayer - I say either we allow EVERYONE to pray regardless of their faith or we allow NO ONE to pray. We cannot pick and choose and frankly I am for everyone being able to express their various faiths regardless of what those faiths are. . . by limiting a person's expression of faith because of some potential of offense whether real or imagined is hokey bull crap. If the person who has a problem with it cannot respect your freedom to express your faith then again perhaps they are in the wrong country.
Legislation and Judiciaries - Now here is where I will piss a lot of people off. Congress has no right legislating "religious morals" and nor do judges have the right to enforce their own "religious" beliefs from the bench. It is Congress' job to create laws which benefit the majority. If the MAJORITY decide to vote for something that smacks of religiousity then it is their right. . .however they should not be all knocked out of sorts when the Judiciary branch knocks it down because it violates some constitutional right. That is what they are there to do and I would expect nothing less. Now back to judges, they should ONLY judge according to the laws as stated and COMMONLY interpreted, not as they would wish those laws would be, and not as they, through some linguistical trickery, make it out to be.
Part two Marriage. . . .it is my opinion that there should be two forms of marriage available in this country. One is state-sponsored and generic. It is basically a contract between adult peoples that enter into a binding agreement of union. The numbers and sexes of those involved should not be a consideration. The reason for this is if you are going to allow EQUAL rights for all sexual preferences then you cannot dictate who can or cannot get married. Now some would say well what about age. . .its just a number it does not really mean anything. . .bullshit. . . .age is important to an extant, and that extant is the person must be an adult. Why? Because children are not equipped and should not be saddled with marriage. Yes there are mature children who may be able to handle it, just as there as many immature adults who cannot but we should not infringe upon our children's formative years with something as potentially traumatic as marriage and all that it may entail. Our children should be free to "grow up" in their own time and decide once the horomones have cleared and their brains return to something of a "normal" state. Speaking from personal experience I would not want the "responsibility" of being a married person as a teen . . . and marriage should be kept somewhat sacred in the sense that if you're going to commit to others for some period of time (life being optimal) then you should do it with the intent to fully engage into that commitment.. . .
Now the second type of marriage would be a religious marriage - this would be an extension of the state-sponsored marriage but would allow various religious institutions to stipulate their own rules for marriage. . .if you do not like their rules you are free not to get married there. . .people should not be able to demand that various institutions should make "exceptions" for them because they want to be married there. . .if you really intended to be married there then you would obey their rules. . .end of story. . . get over it.
And that is all the crap that I have to say at this time. . .I know its somewhat brief in spots but I did not have a very long time to go and do this and I really hate talking about political crap like this because it forces me to confront some of the idiots and their ideas in the general public. . . .and that is icky. . . .so if you have a question leave it here and I will answer it and if you don't like my opinions . . .oh well. . . they are mine and not yours you do not have to like them =P
Oh and I apologize for any spelling or grammatical errors that may be present. . .
Anyways the first thing is Separation of Church and State related. . .First Amendment Freedom of Relgion vs Freedom from Religion. . .
It seems in this country that we have departed from the intent of our first amendment. The first amendment is there so that the state (the government) does not condone one religion over another or does not mandate that everyone be of a certain faith. Its intention is not to remove every and all reference of religion from anything remotely related to the government or its various institutions. My take on it is this. . .one the phrases on our money, in our courthouses, etc. are not statements of favoritism by the government. They are examples of the heritage of this country. So you're not a "Christian" who cares, the people who founded the country were and it was their ideals that we are celebrating when we post those pieces of history around. If you cannot enjoy the freedom that those ideals have granted you perhaps you belong in a different country. . .
Prayer - I say either we allow EVERYONE to pray regardless of their faith or we allow NO ONE to pray. We cannot pick and choose and frankly I am for everyone being able to express their various faiths regardless of what those faiths are. . . by limiting a person's expression of faith because of some potential of offense whether real or imagined is hokey bull crap. If the person who has a problem with it cannot respect your freedom to express your faith then again perhaps they are in the wrong country.
Legislation and Judiciaries - Now here is where I will piss a lot of people off. Congress has no right legislating "religious morals" and nor do judges have the right to enforce their own "religious" beliefs from the bench. It is Congress' job to create laws which benefit the majority. If the MAJORITY decide to vote for something that smacks of religiousity then it is their right. . .however they should not be all knocked out of sorts when the Judiciary branch knocks it down because it violates some constitutional right. That is what they are there to do and I would expect nothing less. Now back to judges, they should ONLY judge according to the laws as stated and COMMONLY interpreted, not as they would wish those laws would be, and not as they, through some linguistical trickery, make it out to be.
Part two Marriage. . . .it is my opinion that there should be two forms of marriage available in this country. One is state-sponsored and generic. It is basically a contract between adult peoples that enter into a binding agreement of union. The numbers and sexes of those involved should not be a consideration. The reason for this is if you are going to allow EQUAL rights for all sexual preferences then you cannot dictate who can or cannot get married. Now some would say well what about age. . .its just a number it does not really mean anything. . .bullshit. . . .age is important to an extant, and that extant is the person must be an adult. Why? Because children are not equipped and should not be saddled with marriage. Yes there are mature children who may be able to handle it, just as there as many immature adults who cannot but we should not infringe upon our children's formative years with something as potentially traumatic as marriage and all that it may entail. Our children should be free to "grow up" in their own time and decide once the horomones have cleared and their brains return to something of a "normal" state. Speaking from personal experience I would not want the "responsibility" of being a married person as a teen . . . and marriage should be kept somewhat sacred in the sense that if you're going to commit to others for some period of time (life being optimal) then you should do it with the intent to fully engage into that commitment.. . .
Now the second type of marriage would be a religious marriage - this would be an extension of the state-sponsored marriage but would allow various religious institutions to stipulate their own rules for marriage. . .if you do not like their rules you are free not to get married there. . .people should not be able to demand that various institutions should make "exceptions" for them because they want to be married there. . .if you really intended to be married there then you would obey their rules. . .end of story. . . get over it.
And that is all the crap that I have to say at this time. . .I know its somewhat brief in spots but I did not have a very long time to go and do this and I really hate talking about political crap like this because it forces me to confront some of the idiots and their ideas in the general public. . . .and that is icky. . . .so if you have a question leave it here and I will answer it and if you don't like my opinions . . .oh well. . . they are mine and not yours you do not have to like them =P
Oh and I apologize for any spelling or grammatical errors that may be present. . .