Showing posts with label Constitution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Constitution. Show all posts

Wednesday, October 19, 2011

In God we trust...unless you're offended by that of course.

Okay...I stirred up more than one lengthy comment thread on various social media sites with my last post. Good. That was my intent.

When it comes to public office, I'm a firm believer that all issues concerning a given candidate running for office are fair game. Do I like seeing or reading dirty laundry? Absolutely not. But we all own the actions or words we chose daily, so why should political candidates be any different?

Choosing to ignore a candidate's view on matters of faith is only adding to the marginalization of faith already dominating this country. Now I'm being completely transparent on this issue. There's no hidden agenda. I'm a Christian voter who places a lot of emphasis on the adjective in that label. Removing my Christian values from any decision-making process is counter intuitive at best...blatant disregard for my faith at worst (Romans 12:2 among others)...so I shouldn't  feel pressure from the political correctness police to wave off or disregard the issue when it comes to voting.
Apparently, I'm far from alone when it comes to Romney. This past weekend, Pew Research conducted a survey of 1007 voting adults that included an open-answer description giving one-word responses-


Given the amount of negative connotations associated in the survey with the other two candidate's names, Herman Cain should be lauding these results. I don't know if I'm more intrigued by Perry's list or Cain's...but I had to chuckle that 19 people associated pizza with Cain. Once a pizza-chain mogul always a pizza-chain mogul...I suppose.

It was really good pizza.

So what's my point in all of this? Believe me, I'm not trying to steer people away from Mitt Romney. All things considered, he is a highly qualified candidate. Also, that is a personal matter for each individual voter.  I just don't want the left-leaning media, the out-of-control train called political correctness, or any political caucus for that matter telling me I shouldn't consider the faith of a candidate running for the highest office in our Nation...or any other office for that matter.

That's a clear contradiction to my individual right to practice my religion which is actually in the Constitution. Try finding the words separation of church and state in the same document...  

Thursday, October 13, 2011

Hang on! We're in for a bumpy ride...

Most people knew it was coming, but I have to admit I'm surprised a Baptist pastor fired the shot and not the liberal-leaning, Godaphobes in the media. But then again...


Personally, I have very divided feeling about my subject matter today. As a conservative, I really like a lot of what Mitt Romney brings to the table. He's just center-right enough to appeal to a broad base of the voting public, and frankly, his platform is pretty solid when compared to the other Republican candidates in my opinion.

Let me pause right here for a moment for a disclaimer. If you're new to this blog, please note I'm not a R-party or D-party kind of guy. I have numerous issues with BOTH parties, there just happen to be fewer of them with the R's at the moment. I'm not a "dang you!" Barrack Obama flag waver either (or finger waver for that matter). My issues are with his policies...not his persona. Now back to the show...

As a constitutionalist, I understand the grave importance of keeping religion and politics separate issues. That's not saying that religion doesn't have part in matters of politics. Democratic governments are obligated to protect any one's right to practice their faith without risk or threat of persecution. Religion just shouldn't run the state as you see in some Muslim countries. Faith is a matter of choice by God's design...not mandated by legislation.

As a Christian...my position gets a bit more muddled. Having declared the first two positions as a conservative and a constitutionist, it almost seems hypocritical to say I have a problem voting for a candidate who is a known Mormon....but honestly...I do. Above every other adjective, attribute or modifier that can be used to categorized me, I'm a follower of Jesus first and foremost. Period.

That's just how I roll...

Should it matter what faith the leader of our country professes and follows?  Absolutely. As a man of faith and an advocate for Christ, I don't see how it could be any other way if I truly believe what I claim to believe. I can't wholeheartedly trust in and share the Holy Bible while voluntarily supporting someone who believes that same Bible is flawed and incomplete. If you're curious exactly what Mormonism teaching, here is an excellent overview.

Before you start throwing the 'judge not lest you be judged' spears at me, this isn't a matter of rendering eternal damnation judgement on anyone. Not my call, and believe me, I'm cool with that. This is about choice. This is about principles. For me, it boils down to this...does my confidence in the man's ability to effectively lead this nation become overshadowed by my complete sadness at his choice to put his faith in a deluded religion?

Would I vote for a Muslim? An atheist? How about a Scientologist?


Yes...that is a very personal matter. But it's also a fundamental question Christians better reflect upon before casting what could be a decisive vote in any election.

Tuesday, March 15, 2011

Freedom of speech is unfortunately protective of stupidity...


There are a couple of disturbing stories sliding under the radar this week due to the focus on Japan... and rightfully so. The world should collectively be reaching out to the island nation with acts of compassion and vows of action to support whatever they might need to regroup. The devastation is crippling. The images horrifying. Just last night watching replayed news footage of the tsunami making landfall, I realized what we were actually watching was real people dying in captured moments from last week's events.

The 3-year old was sitting in the floor staring up at the television, then suddenly got up without a word and ran back into the hallway to kick a ball and play. I watched her leave and wondered what was going through her innocent, immature mind. Conversations saved for a later date...

One of the stories I mentioned involves the events in Japan. Apparently, Gilbert Gottfried found the need to poke fun of the situation and tweet a string of very distasteful one-liners. Okay. He's known for his offensive brand of humor, but he's obviously not very bright either (I personally think the two attributes go hand-in-hand).  Gottfried, besides being a washed up comedian, is the voice of the AFLAC duck...let me restate that...was the voice of the AFLAC duck. His employer didn't find the humor being directed at a damaged nation that is, by industry estimates, 25 percent insured with their company. They fired him.

The second story involves another agitating comedian, this one turned demogogue, in Bill Maher. On his show On Real Time, Maher interviewed Congressman Keith Ellison, a muslim from Minnesota, and blasted into him about the Kor'an being a “hate-filled holy book…which is taken very literally by its people.”

Bill O'Reilly (a non-comedic demogogue...well, to a certain degree) called Maher out on the issue last night on his show and said the media was giving Maher a pass because he's a liberal.  O'Reilly claimed when an issue with Islam is sighted by a conservative commentator (i.e Juan Williams of Fox News), they become demonized by the media as intolerant. He also threw in a dig that it also might have been ignored because nobody watches Maher's show...as if that's a relevent point.

So, a liberal agitator is talking bad about Muslims as if he's suddenly Rush Limbaugh, a conservative agitator who also hates Muslims, and is called out by yet another conservative agitator, who hates Muslims too, because he thinks the whole thing is so unfair when compared to Juan Williams, a conservative demogogue, who got into trouble because he's was very clear on the air that he hates Muslims.

Everyone clear?

Of course, all parties involved are standing and spewing their venom-fillled messages while positioned under their First Amendment umbrellas that protects each of them from any censoring repercussions. After all...this is America.

Back to my 3-year old. She will grow up in a loving home. She will develop her own political ideas and principles while living in a conservative environment, guided by Christian values. The importance of both character and education will be stressed to her regularly. She will be taught she is responsible for her words as well as her actions. At some point in the future, she will find her own way out of our home and into the world. She will never be demeaned for thinking independently from me or her mother. She will answer for herself, and only herself,  to God.

I say all that to say this...I would rather any one of my daughters sit and watch the tragedies of life unfold under the guiding, comforting direction of her mother or myself than be subject to the idiotic rantings of political talking heads in the media. Liberal and conservative demogogues alike all have a motive tied to ratings and not enlightenment. To sensationalism and not education. I've blogged before about the dangerous seeds these hypnotist sow.

What troubles me most is the flippant manner in which they throw around the First Amendment to disguise and protect their vile statements. I don't believe our nation's Founding Fathers ever intented for the right of free speech to be protective of indiscriminate, loathesome language aimed carelessly among ourselves. Their focus was on keeping a restrictive government from forming in our new nation. We've twisted and perversed one of our most treasured priviledges into a dichotomy opinion so divisive and polarizing that the resulting political quagmire has incapcitated our ability to effectively govern. To protect and serve the common good.

I'm not a Muslim, and I don't agree with the basis of that religion.   I'm not a liberal, and I don't agree with the basis of that ideology. I'm not a _________, you could finish that with hundreds, maybe thousands, of things. And while I'm completely free to express my opinion on any opposing point of view to my own here, at home or even in some other form of media, I'm still bound by the principles of common courtesy and decency. There is a self-policing community standard that keeps things neat and orderly...civil...but it seems to be somehow breaking down. That scares me. Just as much as the other end of the spectrum called political correctness scares me when it becomes mutated to an extreme.

How do we get back to some ground of normalcy before this all goes too far? I think it starts by at least discounting the Mahers, Limbaughs, Olbermanns and O'Reillys for what they really are...entertainers. Each one has a motive for what they say and that motive is not the common good or making society better. In the most utopian of scenerios, their job is to find that public raw nerve that provokes emotions (justified or not) which generates attention, thus ratings, and draws sponsorship dollars. Their payday.

For the Gottfried's of the world...the comedians, commentators, talking heads and yes, bloggers, who think anything and everything can be said without consequence because this is the United States, and we have rights...think again. You are liable for what you say, and you will be held accountable when you go too far either in a court of law or the court of public opinion. Both end up being costly when catching up to you...just ask the duck.

Monday, May 10, 2010

I love the smell of political activism in the mornings...


You woke up in a different country today and probably didn't even realize it...

Despite the efforts of the Republican party to make-believe pander to them and the liberal left to dismiss them as irrelevant and even vile, the Tea Party revolution managed to oust three-term Senator from Utah, Robert Bennett, in the state's primary on Saturday.

He was a Republican.

While you chew on that a moment, shaking your head trying to connect the Tea Party with a effort to remove a conservative Republican Senator, add this to the processor...just because you claim to be Republican doesn't make you a conservative. At least, not by the definition of the Tea Party revolution.

Senator Bennett's undoing was two-fold. First, he voted for a stimulus package that was initiated under the Bush regime and passed under Obama's watch. People were paying attention. Second, his attempt to work out a bipartisan compromise on health-care reform and subsequent vote to make health care mandatory under the new law was on his legislative record. Again, people were paying attention.

Career politicians, lobbyist, special interest groups and the media need to take notice. Despite efforts to invalidate, scoff and even villanize the conservative revolution's movement to end the completely insane actions of Washington (i.e. tax and spend, outlandish debt, and a swelling government payroll), people are paying attention to the actual issues, the real votes cast by politicians, and following the money of influence that flows so freely within the Washington beltway.

It's not about Republicans. It's not about Democrats. Not the talking-head buffoons on radio and television.

It's about real people. Grassroots. Common Sense. How long can the world's largest debtor nation continue to be the world's leader? Where in the Constitution does it imply I should be required by the federal government to have health insurance? Save greed-ridden financial institutes and poor performing manufacturers with tax dollars?

People are paying attention Washington...bet that scares the hell out of you.

Thursday, April 29, 2010

Dick Clark should be a U.S. Supreme Court Justice...

Since I've been on the 'Know Your Civics' soapbox of late, here's an interesting tidbit about our Supreme Court and the soon to be replaced Justice John Paul Stevens:


Thursday, April 22, 2010

At some point...all this talk needs to go somewhere.

A good friend (Finding Michelle) turned me onto the below Born Again American video this week. I've watched it a dozen times at least....it speaks to me in a big way. So, I checked out the Born Again American website and movement. Turns out this is exactly the soapbox I've been on the past few weeks!

I hope you will not only watch the video, which features real people the recent economic downturn has touched, but you will also check out the Born Again American website. All you have to do then is get involved.

This is our country, built by our ancestors. How could we every forget that and grow apathetic...

Born Again American from Born Again American on Vimeo.

Monday, April 12, 2010

Revisionist only succeed if the majority remain silent...


After receiving a couple of emails and comments from folks in person, I believe I left a point unclear in my Knowledge is Important series (previous three post). My point of contention wasn't that Christianity didn't play a big part in the founding of our Nation...facts are just the opposite. Christians and Christian principles were a dominant underlying force in the shaping and developing of a governing framework. Revisionist would be hard pressed to rewrite that fact out of our history.

The problem is trying to fit those prominent square pegs into round holes. Some of the more famous characters in our illustrious history were not Christian men, and we do a great disservice not only to our history but to our claim that this Nation was founded on principles of Christ if we argue from the position that they were. I have great respect for Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and John Adams, but they were not Christian men (although all three believed in a Supreme Being).

Most scholars agree on a list of 204 unique individuals that make up the group we refer to as our 'Founding Fathers'. These are men who did one or more of the following:
  • Signed the Declaration of Independence
  • Signed the Articles of Confederation
  • Attended the Constitutional Convention of 1787
  • Signed the Constitution of the United States of America
  • Served as Senators or U.S. Representatives in the First Federal Congress
The breakdown of the religious affiliation for the 204 Founding Fathers falling within the above criteria is:
  • 88 Episcopalian/Anglican
  • 30 Presbyterian
  • 27 Congregationalist
  • 7 Quaker
  • 6 Dutch Reformed/German Reformed
  • 5 Lutheran
  • 3 Catholic
  • 3 Huguenot
  • 3 Unitarian
  • 2 Methodist
  • 1 Calvinist
  • 29 unknown (does not necessarily mean no religious affiliation)
Jefferson and Franklin fall under Episcopalian...but as Deist. John Adams and Robert Paine are two of the three Unitarians. What this list doesn't account for, however, is the fact numerous members of this list changed affiliation during the course of their lifetimes. But, it is still plainly apparent that the vast majority of our Founding Fathers were influenced by the Christian faith.

One side note (for my historically-challenged faithful): The early Episcopal Church was formed during the American Revolution after the church was forced to break ties with the Church of England because clergy were required to swear allegiance to the British monarch and faced the penalty of treason.

Of course...breaking from England was the point of the entire American Revolution...but we all know church people have their own way of doing things.

"For my own part, I sincerely esteem [the Constitution] a system which without the finger of God, never could have been suggested and agreed upon by such a diversity of interests."
Alexander Hamilton -1787 after the Constitutional Convention

I would love to hear more of your thoughts. Do you feel there is a concerted effort to rewrite our Nation's history and downplay the role of the Christian faith in the forming of our Nation and subsequent Constitution?

Wednesday, April 7, 2010

I don't care what you think...just please do it for yourself.

So, where am I going with my rants on our responsibility to know our national history and also know our Constitution? Quite simply...I just want people to think for themselves!

We don't for a single second have to all agree on any particular issue to be good Americans. What we do need is for everyone to be able to develop and express an opinion based on the most accurate information available. As I stated at the end of the first post in this series... an intelligent, rational debate requires the element of intelligence.

Please don't misinterpret that statement. I'm not saying that only highly intelligent people are capable of rational debate. Actually, I feel that each and every citizen has a civic obligation to participate in matters of government...whether that means being loquaciously verbal or just by casting a vote alone in a booth on election day. However you chose to participate in our democratic process, please do so from a position that is informed.

Knowledge. That's what motivated me to write this series because without a basic understanding of our shared history and without a working knowledge of the Constitution that is the foundation of what makes the United States so unique, we are left to rely on the untrustworthy sources of a profit driven media, self-promoting pundits/talking heads, or worst yet...politicians themselves...for information.

I'm not real comfortable with that prospect...are you?

Let me provide two recent examples. I was watching a clip of interviews with people right after Glenn Beck's American Revival in Orlando. It does my heart good to see people passionate about our federal government on either side of the argument, and everyone seemed charged as they left the rally (I personally know someone who was there and said it was very challenging and uplifting). The person conducting the interviews stopped one particular, enthusiastic lady and ask if she had come away better informed. Her response without hesitation was she better understood about our Founding Fathers, God's role in the development of our country, and how we were going down the wrong path with Obama, bailouts, and health care reform. I'm shaking my head in agreement and anxious to see what she says next...

The reporter ask the women if she opposed the recently past Health Care Reform bill, and again she immediately responded with emphasis, 'I absolutely do!' When ask why, 'Because it's socialized medicine, and I don't believe in socialism!' Then came the question if she was happy with her current health insurance and feared it might be changed, 'Well I'm on Medicare, and I'm sure my benefits will change because of Obamacare.'

So much for the infusion of entertainment and enlightenment on her part...

Next we have U.S. Congressman Phil Hare from Illinois who was busted cold stating when it came to Americans receiving health care, he doesn't care about the Constitution. After being pressed by several media in attendance on the statement, he then quotes the Declaration of Independence thinking he's quoting the U.S. Constitution (see YouTube clip here).

Did I mention this was a United States Congressman?

His YouTube rebuttal is weak and pathetic as he tries to explain he was quoted out of context. Apparently he's ignoring the fact the words are coming directly from his own mouth and not paraphrased by a jaded journalist. He also references his military service and commitment to 'this constitution' several times. You just can't make stuff like this up...that's what's scary.

My point truly isn't to degrade Glenn Beck, his fans, or even Congressman Hare. I just want people to realize how foolish it is to let someone else do your thinking for you. Politicians and media types, especially talk show types, are demagogues that thrive most in hostile environments. That's how they make money...and lots of it. You will never, and I mean never, get objectively presented facts from either source. Right, left, red, blue, up or down doesn't matter...each side needs the dichotomy in order to thrive.

Do your homework. Brush up a little on our Nation's history. Know at a minimum the framework of our Constitution. Get involved in the democratic process, but do so armed with knowledge. Our federal government is completely out of control, and we have nobody to blame but us...and our own apathy and ignorance.

Thursday, April 1, 2010

Remember why we never 'assume'...for both our sakes.

Often during a discussion concerning the safeguards of keeping church and state separate or a rant over the intrusiveness of the ACLU, I throw out the question in which article or amendment is the separation of church and state mentioned by our Constitution. Most people, especially younger ones, struggle to recall exactly where the constitutional right is located...

They struggle because it's not there.

If you're surprised by that statement and are now frantically web searching to prove me wrong...sorry. My intent isn't to make anyone feel foolish. Not by a long shot. The principle of separation of church and state is a classic example of two problems that I see have developed in our country.

First, we just don't know our own Constitution. What most people know about the very principles that are the foundation of our Nation they learned in a civics class in middle school. I refer back to my last post about our nation's history, and again I'm amazed at the level of apathy when it comes to people actually knowing the Constitution. If you were to limit yourself to knowing one critical item about the United States...shouldn't it go a little further than rote memorization of the Preamble?

Second, we again take what other pundits or talking heads say about the Constitution as fact without any effort on our part to check those facts. It is far too easy to pull up an actual copy of the U.S. Constitution online for more people not to be doing it. Let's go back to my example of separation of church and state. The Founding Fathers only saw a need to establish in the First Amendment:

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.

The phrase separation of church and state is derived from a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Dansbury Baptist in 1802 and was made public. In the letter, Jefferson contends:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.

The concept has been expanded to what we have today through interpretation of the Constitution by our court system...to include the Supreme Court. That's why our children no longer pray in public schools. Don't blame it on our Founding Fathers...well, not all of them.

Just a quick sidebar. Thomas Jefferson was not a man of Christian faith as many people presume. Please check that fact out for yourself. The Jefferson Bible was his attempt to take all the teaching of Jesus he liked while eliminating the 'supernatural events' surrounding Christ (i.e. healing, miracles, Son of God, and oh yeah...the Resurrection).

This is just one example of how the principles of our Constitution (and National history) are being distorted and misrepresented, but only because We the People allow it to be. My post today is a plea that you not be complacent or apathetic about your Constitutional knowledge. I think it is crucial in today's political climate that we each know the scope of the Constitution and Amendments as they were written, ratified and adopted.


It's not nearly as complex as our ridiculous tax code...but a little more in depth than the Schoolhouse Rock lessons.



To be continued...(no, I'm not done yet)