Wednesday, February 4, 2009
My apologies...
First Amendment? Anyone?
This story is a great indication of where our rights are going. We all know what the First Amendment says:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
There is one section I want to focus on:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
Is this not prohibiting free worship? Taking away funding for universities that have official campus ministries?
"'This provision upholds constitutional standards established by the U.S. Supreme Court and in no way affects student groups that meet on public school campuses,' said the Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State."
Bull crap.
The very law itself states that "funds are prohibited from being used for the 'modernization, renovation, or repair' of facilities that allow 'sectarian instruction, religious worship or a school or department of divinity.'"
My dorm building has a Campus Crusade group that meets. Does this mean that my dorm can't receive government funding for upkeep? What will that do to prices in the future?
People miss out on the whole point of the First Amendment. Groups like "American United for the Separation of Church and State" forget the the First Amendment was intended to protect the rights of the religious. It was created to encourage religious worship, not hinder it. You don't want to worship any God? Great. Don't. But don't hinder those of us that do. It's our right as American citizens.
Oh, and this Blogger input form annoys me. I don't know what version of HTML it's using, but it's definitely not what I learned in school.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Is you is, or is you ain't my constituents?
I want to begin by crediting the title. That is a quote from the 2000 movie, “O Brother, Where Art Thou?” Now that credit is given where credit is due, let me continue into a disclaimer. I am not a Republican. This essay is not in any way an attack on our new president, nor should it be taken as a blanket statement about all of his supporters. This is simply a critical look at certain camps of thought within the movement for change. All political movements have those whom the politicians would rather not be associated with. The Libertarians have Anonymous, the Socialists have the skinheads, and the Republicans have Bush. I’ve noticed several disturbing trends among President Obama’s supporters that I feel need addressed.
Certain supporters of Mr. Obama have very condescending attitudes towards those groups with differing views on the issue of welfare. We hear all the time about the “greedy Republicans.” How terrible do you have to be to get rid of welfare? That’s how some people survive. How could anyone take away a family’s only income? The fact that some fail to realize is that that poor family’s income is coming out of our income. It’s understandable that, in these hard economic times, some people would temporarily need welfare to survive after a job loss or the death of a provider. But welfare didn’t used to be permanent. People used to shamefully take welfare as a last resort to feed their children until they were hired somewhere else. It’s not that the Republicans are right and the Democrats are wrong; it’s just not as simple as certain groups make it out to be.
The war in Iraq, and the broader war on terror, is a major cornerstone of the Obama campaign. Some of the President’s constituents carry too simplistic views on the war. In today’s America, ruled by the ever-present demon of bipartisanism, battle lines were drawn and citizens took sides. It was Republicans for and Democrats against. Many of the Democratic supporters of Obama took the stance that the President should immediately order the troops home. Of course, this thinking is ridiculous in its simplicity. Notice that the troops aren’t home yet. Obama has set a withdrawal date, but he hasn’t pulled out yet. He knows that the war is not as straightforward an issue as that. If we stay in, more Americans die and our economy goes further into the abyss. Pull out, and the psychopathic killers we went in to defeat will simply be bolder. So all this talk (from both sides) of pulling out and staying in is just too simple. Mr. Bush really got us stuck between a rock and a hard place. Anyone who thinks there’s an easy answer needs to reevaluate.
The one thing that worries me the most about Obama’s supporters is that they have given him a celebrity-like status. The president himself had nothing to do with that. He hasn’t really done much yet. So no one can know if he really is “just a celebrity,” as some contend. What worries me is the way that Americans flock to him, cheer fanatically at his speeches, and elevate him to the level of some sort of Messianic figure. The Beatles didn’t have so many screaming collegian girls at their events. Indiana State had classes cancelled so people could watch the inauguration. People lost their minds over an event that may happen again in 4 years. They flipped over a persuasive speaker. It worries me that someone could take America by storm and rise so quickly to the Presidency just based on the fact that people liked him. Many of those who voted for him didn’t even know the issues. Many just jumped on the bandwagon because it was the popular thing to do. To be fair, a good portion of voters didn’t fall into that category. A lot really did thoughtfully consider all sides of the issues before pushing the button on the voting machine. But an alarming number just voted for the most persuasive speaker.
Another issue that has come up with this election is racism. This is a touchy subject, but here’s something that may be shocking: a lot of people who voted for Obama are the very definition of racist. In his most famous speech, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. stated, “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” This illustrates quite succinctly Dr. King’s views on race: it shouldn’t be an issue. Race shouldn’t even come up in an election. Dr. King didn’t consider himself a Black man; he considered himself a man, equal in status to every other man on the face of this great Earth. People say, “Isn’t it great that we have our first Black president?” I say, “No, we have our 44th president. He’s a man, just like you and I.” The judgment of a president should come after he leaves office, not four years prior by the color of his skin.
This is not meant to be an attack on President Obama. Take notice that I didn’t bring up the issues of gun control, health care, abortion, or gay marriage, all of which I have very strong views on. This is not a criticism of Mr. Barack Obama, but of some disturbing trends among his followers. I hope that by reading this, people’s minds can be open to the fact that issues aren’t always as simple as the masses often think.
So, if anyone just read that whole thing, you're probably thinking I'm a gun-toting, Bible-thumping conservative. Don't go jumping to conclusions. Although I do like my Second Amendment rights, and I do hold a high view of the Bible, I would definitely fit more into a Libertarian view when it comes to politics. It's not that I don't have morals. It's just that I don't trust the government to tell me what those morals are. But that could be another blog entirely. In fact, it most likely will be. Ah, so many blogs to write, and so much procrastination on my part.
