Politicians while running for government office tend to say things that appeal to the morality to specific groups that they feel will give them the most votes while shunning and sometimes outright puts those groups down. The politicians would have us believe that their sense of morality is our morality for our government.
The groups that politicians tend to ignore or put down are part of their voter base as well and what they are doing is a form of bullying by belittling their desire to be part of the process. In some venues, they are an influential part of the voter base which means that they need to put their morality aside if they want to get elected.
The thing is, we each have our own sense of morality that may be different than that of the politicians and the politicians know that and it is why they change their tune when then get elected. Some do try to do what they believe while others do end up doing things that go against their campaigning, when it comes to morality.
There are some people who believe that there is no separation of church and state where the U.S. Constitution does not have the exact phrase "separation of church and state" even though there are provisions prohibiting the union of the two. Granted we cannot totally take our belief systems out of our daily lives which means some of the beliefs will spill over into our government even if it is inadvertently.
There are some people who would take a specific part of a religious text and through it in peoples faces, what they will not show is, the full text of the religous text which also includes a bunch of things that society considers normal and many politican past and present pursue as if it was a badge of honor instead of adhering to the text which goes against what they are doing.
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Sunday, October 17, 2010
the recent suicides due to bullying in the public eye
The recent suicides in the gay community that have happened due to the individuals being bullied, shows how intolerant individuals can be towards individuals that are different than them, especially when the difference is something like sexual preference. Our society has shown through the use of written language that homosexuality has been around for thousands of years and that it wasn't liked even then. the problem is that people are using such texts to justify attacking and sometimes killing individuals that identify themselves as gay, even though some of the texts also say that attacking and killing goes against the belief systems
when it comes to beliefs, we as a society have to live up to those beliefs that we are capable of living up to rather than picking and choosing which beliefs to live up to.
when it comes to beliefs, we as a society have to live up to those beliefs that we are capable of living up to rather than picking and choosing which beliefs to live up to.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
where does it end?
The writers of the United States Constitution made an honest attempt at trying to separate religion from government. Granted you cannot complete separate the two but you can set up clear boundaries for which the writers tried to do with article 6 of the constitution and with the first amendment.
Even though Article 6 states multiple things, it does expressly state that religion cannot be used to attain any government office. As written it may not constitute a separation but a number of congregations in a couple religions have decided to use their churches as a way to influence politics.
It has gotten to the point that in some instances the leaders of those specific congregations have become strong enough to challenge our politicians with being ousted from office or by not getting elected through by getting their congregations to go for or against a specific politician, which does constitute a religious test to attain office or to keep office.
with that said, proposition 8 which passed in California, in my opinion was allowed onto the ballot due at least in part to the politicians not wanting to cause problems for themselves since it was an election year.
Granted the first amendment does state that government cannot interfere with a persons right to practice religion but at the same time we must allow our government to do its job without interference from outside sources that would turn this country into a religious state.
I am all for religion but I feel that it has no business in politics and vise versa.
Where will religion stop when it comes to trying to put one view point of religious doctrine into governmental law?
Will it stop after gays do not have the right to marry through out the country?
Will it continue causing religions to try to outlaw gay relationships?
Which doctrine will these religious congregations bring forward next; how about outlawing premarital sex or outlawing blasphemy or even forcing people to go to their respective houses of worship on their Religions Sabbath?
Even though Article 6 states multiple things, it does expressly state that religion cannot be used to attain any government office. As written it may not constitute a separation but a number of congregations in a couple religions have decided to use their churches as a way to influence politics.
It has gotten to the point that in some instances the leaders of those specific congregations have become strong enough to challenge our politicians with being ousted from office or by not getting elected through by getting their congregations to go for or against a specific politician, which does constitute a religious test to attain office or to keep office.
with that said, proposition 8 which passed in California, in my opinion was allowed onto the ballot due at least in part to the politicians not wanting to cause problems for themselves since it was an election year.
Granted the first amendment does state that government cannot interfere with a persons right to practice religion but at the same time we must allow our government to do its job without interference from outside sources that would turn this country into a religious state.
I am all for religion but I feel that it has no business in politics and vise versa.
Where will religion stop when it comes to trying to put one view point of religious doctrine into governmental law?
Will it stop after gays do not have the right to marry through out the country?
Will it continue causing religions to try to outlaw gay relationships?
Which doctrine will these religious congregations bring forward next; how about outlawing premarital sex or outlawing blasphemy or even forcing people to go to their respective houses of worship on their Religions Sabbath?
Tuesday, January 1, 2008
Can God and Darwin Co-exist?
Can God and Darwin Co-exist?
Everyone by nature takes sides on the subject of God and Darwin based on what they have grown to believe. Everyone regardless of whether they believe in religion or not feels that there is some type of higher power that keeps everything together.
Religion by nature is the belief in a higher power for which we call God. Those who believe in one of the various religions feel that they have to have faith in him or her and some to the point that the faith is so strong that they do not want to hear that God had to adhere to the laws of the universe when creating the Earth. The one problem with that type of faith is that no one actually has a real understanding of Gods power so we have no real understanding of what God is capable of.
Darwin, a scientist when on his voyages showed that there are plants and animals that were essentially the same plants and animals that he was use to seeing but with sometimes unique variations based on where he found them, this prompted him to create a theory called creationism. This theory is basically shows that over time plants and animals change based on their surroundings creating new and unique versions of existing plants and animals.
We show creationism with objects we make we do this through creating an object of some sort and then try to recreate it in ways that may make it work better for the job or jobs we want that object for. Each time we recreate the objects we provide a version of creationism that we can see and trace back to a source.
In my own opinion, there is a God who created everything we understand for which he may have had powers that work outside of the laws of physics to create us or could have created everything we understand through the laws of physics and taking the time to perfect us over time. The Bible has allotted for either due to the fact that it states that God created the heavens and the Earth in six days and that our concept of time is far shorter than Gods concept of time.
Given that we have no understanding of God’s power or knowledge, who, is to say that he created the heavens and the Earth outside the laws of physics or has knowledge of physics that is far beyond our current comprehension of physics that would have permitted him to create us.
Even though I call myself a religious person, I am not about to blindly accept what the Bible states given what we know about science and math. I feel that we can learn more about God if we forego blind acceptance of him as being all powerful and learn from what he created. This would mean accepting Darwinism and other forms of creationism as a way of learning about the material aspect of the universe.
I think that given the fact we are capable of creating things of our own and re-engineering living organisms to some degree we should not be so quick to say that science is good or bad but rather another way of backing up the claims of religion. Unfortunately those who take religion solely on the written word don’t open their minds up to learning how God could have made what we understand, which is a sorry state of being in my opinion.
If God didn’t want us to find out how he created us he would not have give us the ability to learn how to understand how the math and science work to the degree we have or the ability to see that even with slight variations that would permit us to show that things re-engineer themselves over generations no matter where you go and in many cases these changes are based on the local environment.
Although I believe in religion, I will not close my mind to what is out there to learn just because I am told to do so by people who feel that we cannot meet God until we die. I believe that over the next handful of generations we will gain the ability to meet God while still alive, it may not be in the bodies that we are accustomed to seeing ourselves in. For all we know the God may have given us the ability to understand math and science and the ability for our minds to adapt and grow beyond each generations comprehension of the natural world which would provide a natural leap in how we perceive the teachings of the bible.
Everyone by nature takes sides on the subject of God and Darwin based on what they have grown to believe. Everyone regardless of whether they believe in religion or not feels that there is some type of higher power that keeps everything together.
Religion by nature is the belief in a higher power for which we call God. Those who believe in one of the various religions feel that they have to have faith in him or her and some to the point that the faith is so strong that they do not want to hear that God had to adhere to the laws of the universe when creating the Earth. The one problem with that type of faith is that no one actually has a real understanding of Gods power so we have no real understanding of what God is capable of.
Darwin, a scientist when on his voyages showed that there are plants and animals that were essentially the same plants and animals that he was use to seeing but with sometimes unique variations based on where he found them, this prompted him to create a theory called creationism. This theory is basically shows that over time plants and animals change based on their surroundings creating new and unique versions of existing plants and animals.
We show creationism with objects we make we do this through creating an object of some sort and then try to recreate it in ways that may make it work better for the job or jobs we want that object for. Each time we recreate the objects we provide a version of creationism that we can see and trace back to a source.
In my own opinion, there is a God who created everything we understand for which he may have had powers that work outside of the laws of physics to create us or could have created everything we understand through the laws of physics and taking the time to perfect us over time. The Bible has allotted for either due to the fact that it states that God created the heavens and the Earth in six days and that our concept of time is far shorter than Gods concept of time.
Given that we have no understanding of God’s power or knowledge, who, is to say that he created the heavens and the Earth outside the laws of physics or has knowledge of physics that is far beyond our current comprehension of physics that would have permitted him to create us.
Even though I call myself a religious person, I am not about to blindly accept what the Bible states given what we know about science and math. I feel that we can learn more about God if we forego blind acceptance of him as being all powerful and learn from what he created. This would mean accepting Darwinism and other forms of creationism as a way of learning about the material aspect of the universe.
I think that given the fact we are capable of creating things of our own and re-engineering living organisms to some degree we should not be so quick to say that science is good or bad but rather another way of backing up the claims of religion. Unfortunately those who take religion solely on the written word don’t open their minds up to learning how God could have made what we understand, which is a sorry state of being in my opinion.
If God didn’t want us to find out how he created us he would not have give us the ability to learn how to understand how the math and science work to the degree we have or the ability to see that even with slight variations that would permit us to show that things re-engineer themselves over generations no matter where you go and in many cases these changes are based on the local environment.
Although I believe in religion, I will not close my mind to what is out there to learn just because I am told to do so by people who feel that we cannot meet God until we die. I believe that over the next handful of generations we will gain the ability to meet God while still alive, it may not be in the bodies that we are accustomed to seeing ourselves in. For all we know the God may have given us the ability to understand math and science and the ability for our minds to adapt and grow beyond each generations comprehension of the natural world which would provide a natural leap in how we perceive the teachings of the bible.
Sunday, December 30, 2007
the up coming primary/caucus season
The up coming Caucuses and primaries for the U.S. Presidential election will undoubtedly heat up after the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary. At this point in time the candidates are still trying to woo the voters while acting as if their a shoe in to win regardless of the latest poll numbers even if they are nail biting in the shadows.
There is one thing that a couple candidates more than the others are playing to and that is the religious beliefs of the voters especially in Iowa, which is in the Bible Belt of the nation. Unfortunately no one will take them to task on the separation of church and state even though the could be taken to task and they know that no one will call them on it either.
The law clearly states in article VI of the U.S. Constitution, that no religious test can be required to attain an appointed or elected office in the federal government. The first amendment also states that the government can make no laws an establisment of religion or prohibiting the exercise there of.
Unfortunately, over time these two things even though they state in no unclear terms have been pushed aside by people who wish to push their religious beliefs onto others and state that these lines in the constitution does not constitute a separation of church and state.
chances are one of the candidates that are playing to the religious beliefs of the Iowa voters will win the caucus it is just a question of by what margin.
There is one thing that a couple candidates more than the others are playing to and that is the religious beliefs of the voters especially in Iowa, which is in the Bible Belt of the nation. Unfortunately no one will take them to task on the separation of church and state even though the could be taken to task and they know that no one will call them on it either.
The law clearly states in article VI of the U.S. Constitution, that no religious test can be required to attain an appointed or elected office in the federal government. The first amendment also states that the government can make no laws an establisment of religion or prohibiting the exercise there of.
Unfortunately, over time these two things even though they state in no unclear terms have been pushed aside by people who wish to push their religious beliefs onto others and state that these lines in the constitution does not constitute a separation of church and state.
chances are one of the candidates that are playing to the religious beliefs of the Iowa voters will win the caucus it is just a question of by what margin.
Saturday, December 8, 2007
Mitt Romney's speech
Presidential candidate Mitt Romney in a way had to give a speech concerning his religion and politics due to people making necessary due to faith issues.
I do not agree with what he is doing based on his past political experience in Massachusetts but he did make at least one point that I have been trying to state in message boards and in letters to the editor of multiple newspapers which is the fact that there is a distinct separation of church and state.
that is a great point but given the circumstances surrounding his gubernatorial campaign and subsequent election as the Massachusetts governor, he has shown that even though he has now stated publicly that there is a separation of church ands state he becomes a hypocrite given what he said in his campaign and subsequent tenure in Massachusetts.
in his gubernatorial campaign he expressed that his faith would not interfere with his job as governor, yet a few months into his first year as governor he started showing that he could not leave his religion at the front door of the statehouse by stating that he would not support different laws based on his religious beliefs.
given his past record with massachusetts, I cannot believe that he will not bring his religion to the table as the president regardless of how polished his campaign speeches are.
I do not agree with what he is doing based on his past political experience in Massachusetts but he did make at least one point that I have been trying to state in message boards and in letters to the editor of multiple newspapers which is the fact that there is a distinct separation of church and state.
that is a great point but given the circumstances surrounding his gubernatorial campaign and subsequent election as the Massachusetts governor, he has shown that even though he has now stated publicly that there is a separation of church ands state he becomes a hypocrite given what he said in his campaign and subsequent tenure in Massachusetts.
in his gubernatorial campaign he expressed that his faith would not interfere with his job as governor, yet a few months into his first year as governor he started showing that he could not leave his religion at the front door of the statehouse by stating that he would not support different laws based on his religious beliefs.
given his past record with massachusetts, I cannot believe that he will not bring his religion to the table as the president regardless of how polished his campaign speeches are.
Monday, November 26, 2007
the peace talks in annapolis maryland
Everyone knows that both the Israelis and the members of the Arab states are willing to talk peace, this has been shown that they have talked about different things until they were blue in the face on both sides but when it comes to actually living up to what they promised each other is a different story.
The problem lies with the fact that both sides have been fighting each other for many generations going back hundreds if not thousands of years over the same plot of land. this one plot of land is where three major religions were born and each religion that is still a dominate force over in that region insists that they are owed that land citing the same reasons.
The only way both sides are going to actually do what it takes to attain peace there is to acknowledge that both can co-exist there as equals since they share the same family tree, they started at the same place with the same family but the family members chose a different path in the way they practiced their religious beliefs, therefore creating multiple religions.
They need to have faith in their common beliefs even if practicing those beliefs are different before they can move forward with the peace process for the middle east.
The problem lies with the fact that both sides have been fighting each other for many generations going back hundreds if not thousands of years over the same plot of land. this one plot of land is where three major religions were born and each religion that is still a dominate force over in that region insists that they are owed that land citing the same reasons.
The only way both sides are going to actually do what it takes to attain peace there is to acknowledge that both can co-exist there as equals since they share the same family tree, they started at the same place with the same family but the family members chose a different path in the way they practiced their religious beliefs, therefore creating multiple religions.
They need to have faith in their common beliefs even if practicing those beliefs are different before they can move forward with the peace process for the middle east.
Saturday, September 1, 2007
a political question
given all of the talk about family and religious values that American politicians are suppose to have, why is it that the republicans are the ones that get caught with their britches down?
just wondering due to the sexual scandals that have rocked the Republican Party the past few years even though I know it happens in both parties.
just wondering due to the sexual scandals that have rocked the Republican Party the past few years even though I know it happens in both parties.
Thursday, August 23, 2007
the hypocrisy of religion
How can you tell people that you haven't lost your faith in religion or a belief system?
How do you tell people that you have faith in religion but have lost faith in the people who practice the religion?
How do you show the hypocrisy that people have when it comes to living up to the doctrine while they are preaching the doctrine at the same time?
How do you not feed into the hypocrisy that now has hold of segments of religion?
How do you tell people that you have faith in religion but have lost faith in the people who practice the religion?
How do you show the hypocrisy that people have when it comes to living up to the doctrine while they are preaching the doctrine at the same time?
How do you not feed into the hypocrisy that now has hold of segments of religion?
Sunday, June 24, 2007
embryonic stem cell research, politics and religion
When it comes to medical research, more specifically embryonic stem cell research and presidential politics, the current president is playing to what our country calls the “Christian Conservatives” and their views on religious beliefs. The problem with that is the fact that some issues that the “Christian Conservatives” rather than looking at all beliefs they run with a specific belief on an issue that they either agree or disagree with and try to have a one sided debate with it.
The current president has made it a point to side with the “Christian Conservatives” on the embryonic stem cell research debate even though there are beliefs that to some degree contradict their stance.
Stem cells from my understanding are the cells that designate what is what in our body and we can use these stem cells to recreate pieces of that specific type of tissue. Embryonic stem cells are unspecified stem cells that haven’t been assigned a specific type of tissue to make and therefore have the ability to be told to create any type of tissue in the body. This gives us the opportunity to learn how stem cells work in general before they become specific to a type of tissue and to see what can and does go wrong in the creation of the different types of tissue so we can learn how to correct it.
The problem isn’t the research itself but rather the mentality of the people setting the public policy in government concerning medicine and research. These people who include the president try to put medicine and religion at odds with each other even though they go hand in hand due to religious doctrine. Religion states that it is our duty to heal the sick, which is were medicine comes into play.
It is understandable that many of the “Christian Conservatives” take a stance against embryonic stem cell research based on their religious beliefs. This is due to Christianity stating that life begins at conception and that we are not supposed to kill. At the same, there is a flip side to those as well. Religious doctrine not only states that we are not supposed to kill religious doctrine also states that we are supposed to learn, to heal the sick and to gain wisdom.
We cannot gain the wisdom needed that comes from learning if we place restrictions on what we learn or how we learn due to it going against one specific religious belief. By placing limits on what we learn and how we learn it when it comes to medical research we are hindering our ability to allow the medical community to do its job and in some cases we essentially are killing the people who we are in charge of healing because we are choosing to stand around and watch them die rather than learning how to heal them.
Where we are taught religion long before we are taught about government and politics we inherently put our religious beliefs into our politics. The people who were trusted to right the foundation of our country knew this and when they were writing the United States Constitution, they tried to limit the influence of both religion and government over each other. There will always be people including politicians who feel that there is no such writing in the constitution and others that feel that religion has no place in government at all.
Presidential politics is about running the country as effectively as the individual can run it given both domestic and international issues that relate to the people and the government, not using the Presidential podium as a pulpit to preach religious doctrine and limiting what we can do based on his own views on religious doctrine. The president if he uses the podium as a pulpit on the subject of embryonic stem cell research, belittles the researchers trying to do their jobs and he is forgetting that at one time many of the medical advancements we have achieved have come about even with religion being against it and how these advancements have helped us everyone including the people who didn’t believe in the advancement of medicine.
The has to be some sort of medium between secularism and religion when making decisions for the country as a whole since the country is a melting pot of cultures and religions rather than treating the country as if there is one culture and one religion.
Yes, in essence religion doesn’t permit us to kill, but at the same time if we choose not to do the Embryonic stem cell research then we are choosing to kill far more people that have illnesses we have no treatment for that may have had a cure stemming from that research.
The current president has made it a point to side with the “Christian Conservatives” on the embryonic stem cell research debate even though there are beliefs that to some degree contradict their stance.
Stem cells from my understanding are the cells that designate what is what in our body and we can use these stem cells to recreate pieces of that specific type of tissue. Embryonic stem cells are unspecified stem cells that haven’t been assigned a specific type of tissue to make and therefore have the ability to be told to create any type of tissue in the body. This gives us the opportunity to learn how stem cells work in general before they become specific to a type of tissue and to see what can and does go wrong in the creation of the different types of tissue so we can learn how to correct it.
The problem isn’t the research itself but rather the mentality of the people setting the public policy in government concerning medicine and research. These people who include the president try to put medicine and religion at odds with each other even though they go hand in hand due to religious doctrine. Religion states that it is our duty to heal the sick, which is were medicine comes into play.
It is understandable that many of the “Christian Conservatives” take a stance against embryonic stem cell research based on their religious beliefs. This is due to Christianity stating that life begins at conception and that we are not supposed to kill. At the same, there is a flip side to those as well. Religious doctrine not only states that we are not supposed to kill religious doctrine also states that we are supposed to learn, to heal the sick and to gain wisdom.
We cannot gain the wisdom needed that comes from learning if we place restrictions on what we learn or how we learn due to it going against one specific religious belief. By placing limits on what we learn and how we learn it when it comes to medical research we are hindering our ability to allow the medical community to do its job and in some cases we essentially are killing the people who we are in charge of healing because we are choosing to stand around and watch them die rather than learning how to heal them.
Where we are taught religion long before we are taught about government and politics we inherently put our religious beliefs into our politics. The people who were trusted to right the foundation of our country knew this and when they were writing the United States Constitution, they tried to limit the influence of both religion and government over each other. There will always be people including politicians who feel that there is no such writing in the constitution and others that feel that religion has no place in government at all.
Presidential politics is about running the country as effectively as the individual can run it given both domestic and international issues that relate to the people and the government, not using the Presidential podium as a pulpit to preach religious doctrine and limiting what we can do based on his own views on religious doctrine. The president if he uses the podium as a pulpit on the subject of embryonic stem cell research, belittles the researchers trying to do their jobs and he is forgetting that at one time many of the medical advancements we have achieved have come about even with religion being against it and how these advancements have helped us everyone including the people who didn’t believe in the advancement of medicine.
The has to be some sort of medium between secularism and religion when making decisions for the country as a whole since the country is a melting pot of cultures and religions rather than treating the country as if there is one culture and one religion.
Yes, in essence religion doesn’t permit us to kill, but at the same time if we choose not to do the Embryonic stem cell research then we are choosing to kill far more people that have illnesses we have no treatment for that may have had a cure stemming from that research.
Wednesday, June 6, 2007
an opinion on Iraq
Regardless of what went on concerning Iraq and the months leading up to our Invasion of Iraq, I feel that the decision to invade was forced down the Senates throat. I have thought that from the start of President Bush pushing for the war with Iraq based on CIA information that had been presented to him concerning Iraq. If the media outlets are correct and I stress if they are correct then the CIA had asked President Bush to hold off on asking for a declaration of war so that way the agency could verify the intelligence in the report that went to his desk.
Now that we have been there for four years there is no easy way out of Iraq because the innocent people trying to live their daily lives don't deserve to have their country occupied but at the same time there are people who are hiding behind the dominate religion there and they are also perverting it to get people to do their bidding that would seize control of the country.
If you notice the masterminds behind the perversions that they are perpetrating onto the religion are not the ones going off and killing themselves to prove their point they are using the people hat they had sucked into the mess to kill themselves after getting them to believe that it is the only way to attain the goals of the masterminds behind the attacks.
I do not blame the religion, I blame the individuals that are perverting the religion to fit their agenda's. We cannot resolve the issues unless we can negate the religion factor in the whole situation.
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
The Middle East
at the moment the whole question of whether or not we should pull out of that region and in particular Iraq, is a paradox in of itself. Regardless of how we got there, we are technically an occupying force that is forcing our rule onto the people who are the innocent people in Iraq that didn't ask for their former dictator or our occupation, but at the same time we have to be there to prevent genocide based on the different sects and sub sects of the dominate religion.
Religion is a major part of their lives over there and there are outside forces in that region that would prefer to manipulate the religion so they can manipulate people like a puppet-master does with a puppet. The reclusive masterminds would have us believe it is all about religion, but in the end it really isn't about religion, it is really about the masterminds wanting to control people.
If we were to leave Iraq we would be like opening up the hen house to a pack of wolves, but at the same time if we were to stay much longer we would be unintentionally proving the terrorist organizations points, due to having the patience to wait us out.
Religion is a major part of their lives over there and there are outside forces in that region that would prefer to manipulate the religion so they can manipulate people like a puppet-master does with a puppet. The reclusive masterminds would have us believe it is all about religion, but in the end it really isn't about religion, it is really about the masterminds wanting to control people.
If we were to leave Iraq we would be like opening up the hen house to a pack of wolves, but at the same time if we were to stay much longer we would be unintentionally proving the terrorist organizations points, due to having the patience to wait us out.
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
religion and politics
I will not fault anyone for having religion or politics as their driving force in their lives. I feel that they both have their place but should not be mingled together as deeply as some would want us to do.
Unfortunately, with the founding of the Moral Majority, by Jerry Falwell more than two decades ago we have more people trying to make Christian Doctrine into governmental law. For somethings I can understand why people would want it or feel it is needed but other things I feel it is an intrusion into the private lives of people who don't practice any of the Christian faiths or don't agree with religion being force fed to them from strangers that don't have anything to do with them personally.
Jerry Falwell had the best of intentions when trying to open peoples eyes to what you can do when it comes to government, but he should have made every effort to seperate his religous teachings from his political views due to the fact that even though we do put the two together to some degree we should never put them together on a large scale like what has happened. Religion is based on beliefs and values that are suppose to be based in the home, the respective places of worship and the respective local communities that they are in.
given that religion has tried to intrude into politics, how would a religious service take to a politician trying to turn their service into a political forum?
Unfortunately, with the founding of the Moral Majority, by Jerry Falwell more than two decades ago we have more people trying to make Christian Doctrine into governmental law. For somethings I can understand why people would want it or feel it is needed but other things I feel it is an intrusion into the private lives of people who don't practice any of the Christian faiths or don't agree with religion being force fed to them from strangers that don't have anything to do with them personally.
Jerry Falwell had the best of intentions when trying to open peoples eyes to what you can do when it comes to government, but he should have made every effort to seperate his religous teachings from his political views due to the fact that even though we do put the two together to some degree we should never put them together on a large scale like what has happened. Religion is based on beliefs and values that are suppose to be based in the home, the respective places of worship and the respective local communities that they are in.
given that religion has tried to intrude into politics, how would a religious service take to a politician trying to turn their service into a political forum?
Sunday, April 29, 2007
medicine and religion
when it comes to medicine and medical research I feel that it is an integral part of our society to the degree that healing people even shows up in religious text. There are many who mean well but end up choosing one side of the issue of medical research over the other due to either religious grounds or due to not believing that medicine should work that way.
I feel that even though my own religious beliefs state that killing is not allowed, the belief to heal supersedes the belief against killing due to the fact that if we do not learn to heal the sick we are essentially killing the very people we need to heal.
In the United States there is a moratorium on using federal money to do embryonic stem cell research even though it is legal. Even though the wording does not specifically state that it is due to religious beliefs, it was made clear in statements that religious beliefs were at the heart of the issue. I think that it is a view that is far too rigid to be acceptable in mainstream religion and mainstream medicine.
If everyone held that view we would still be practicing medicine like it was practiced at the time of the plague. At one time it was blasphemous, open up the human body to perform any type of medical procedure. Until the Vietnam war American medicine prohibited different types of medical treatments from being tried. During that war techniques that had, had a moratorium on them became common place in the MASH units and are not common place in society.
Now we are in a similar situation as right before the Vietnam war with a moratorium on specific things that could potentially help the sick, more specifically the embryonic stem cell research.
In order to heal the sick and to protect life, we must learn to find out why we get sick and die so we can learn how to heal and to protect. to tell someone that is deathly ill that it is against your beliefs to do the research to keep them from dying is basically telling them you are killing them which also goes against beliefs.
I feel that even though my own religious beliefs state that killing is not allowed, the belief to heal supersedes the belief against killing due to the fact that if we do not learn to heal the sick we are essentially killing the very people we need to heal.
In the United States there is a moratorium on using federal money to do embryonic stem cell research even though it is legal. Even though the wording does not specifically state that it is due to religious beliefs, it was made clear in statements that religious beliefs were at the heart of the issue. I think that it is a view that is far too rigid to be acceptable in mainstream religion and mainstream medicine.
If everyone held that view we would still be practicing medicine like it was practiced at the time of the plague. At one time it was blasphemous, open up the human body to perform any type of medical procedure. Until the Vietnam war American medicine prohibited different types of medical treatments from being tried. During that war techniques that had, had a moratorium on them became common place in the MASH units and are not common place in society.
Now we are in a similar situation as right before the Vietnam war with a moratorium on specific things that could potentially help the sick, more specifically the embryonic stem cell research.
In order to heal the sick and to protect life, we must learn to find out why we get sick and die so we can learn how to heal and to protect. to tell someone that is deathly ill that it is against your beliefs to do the research to keep them from dying is basically telling them you are killing them which also goes against beliefs.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Religion an Politics in the U.S.
For as long as I can remember, every adult around me always told me that religion and politics do not mix. As I grew up I found that the people who ad always told me about religion and politics not mixing, were telling the truth.
Religion has its own set of rules and standards on what is acceptable and politics has almost a totally different set of rules and standards. Unfortunately, we have politicians who are trying to be clergymen and clergymen trying to be politicians.
By no means does it show a lack of wanting to do what is right by the politicians and clergymen, but it does show a lack of respect for the code of conduct for the U.S. Government and for the respective religions involved. It also shows that the politicians and clergymen cannot differentiate between what should be kept as personal and what should be done for the betterment of country.
If this trend continues we will no longer be a democracy due to the encroachment of Christian doctrine into our government to the point that it will be a theocracy based on segments of Christian doctrine. At Present we are fighting a war on the other side of the world supposedly to promote our form of government. At the same time there appears to be a segment of our country that is trying to transform our form of government into the type of government we are fighting against based on the national level politicians actions more specifically the current presidency.
We as a country cannot survive if we keep allowing our politicians to act like preachers and comming across with the attitude of "Do as I say, not as I do".
Religion has its own set of rules and standards on what is acceptable and politics has almost a totally different set of rules and standards. Unfortunately, we have politicians who are trying to be clergymen and clergymen trying to be politicians.
By no means does it show a lack of wanting to do what is right by the politicians and clergymen, but it does show a lack of respect for the code of conduct for the U.S. Government and for the respective religions involved. It also shows that the politicians and clergymen cannot differentiate between what should be kept as personal and what should be done for the betterment of country.
If this trend continues we will no longer be a democracy due to the encroachment of Christian doctrine into our government to the point that it will be a theocracy based on segments of Christian doctrine. At Present we are fighting a war on the other side of the world supposedly to promote our form of government. At the same time there appears to be a segment of our country that is trying to transform our form of government into the type of government we are fighting against based on the national level politicians actions more specifically the current presidency.
We as a country cannot survive if we keep allowing our politicians to act like preachers and comming across with the attitude of "Do as I say, not as I do".
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
In my experiences growing up in the United States I have found that I could never be what is considered a liberal or a conservative that is portrayed by the American media. this is because All I have ever heard and seen was both sides whining about who is correct in the way the country should be governed.
I have noticed that in the mainstream media the people who claim to be "ultra conservative" act as if there is no wording stating that there is a seperation of church and state, granted that specific line does not appear in the U.S. Constitution but there is a specific line in the constitution that states that belief in religion cannot be a requirement to be nominated for or given a government job posting. In the "bill of rights" for the U.S. Constitution states that we have freedom of religion among other things in the United States.
I have also noticed that in the mainstream media that liberals are more concerned with debunking conservatives and trying to have a government that would rather have this country be a country of entitlements.
my opinion is such that I believe that if the conservatives get their way the United States will eventually be a Theocracy based in Christian teachings instead of a Democracy but at the same time if the liberals get their way we would have a country that has no soul.
there are some that feel that religion has or should have a major roll in the U.S. government, while others feel that there should be no sign of religion in the U.S. government.. Personally, I feel that since we get our code of ethics from religion, we cannot completely take out religion from government but that we should be using that code of ethics to help decide how to do something rather than legislating specific religious text into governmental law because it makes religious doctrine from a specific religion a government law that everyone has to live up to even if the people follow a different religion.
religion cannot be totally absent from the U.S. government due to the fact that we would have to ignore our ethics when dealing with how to run this country. we get our sense of ethics from religion which basically governs how we live our private lives, but religion in general doesn't always agree with nationalism depending on the circumstances.
the above are my opinions on religion and government and I will end this entry with these two things:
there are some things that are mutual between religion and government and some things that are specific to religion or to government for which we must learn the difference.
In the absence of knowledge there is misunderstanding; where there is misunderstanding, there is contention.
I have noticed that in the mainstream media the people who claim to be "ultra conservative" act as if there is no wording stating that there is a seperation of church and state, granted that specific line does not appear in the U.S. Constitution but there is a specific line in the constitution that states that belief in religion cannot be a requirement to be nominated for or given a government job posting. In the "bill of rights" for the U.S. Constitution states that we have freedom of religion among other things in the United States.
I have also noticed that in the mainstream media that liberals are more concerned with debunking conservatives and trying to have a government that would rather have this country be a country of entitlements.
my opinion is such that I believe that if the conservatives get their way the United States will eventually be a Theocracy based in Christian teachings instead of a Democracy but at the same time if the liberals get their way we would have a country that has no soul.
there are some that feel that religion has or should have a major roll in the U.S. government, while others feel that there should be no sign of religion in the U.S. government.. Personally, I feel that since we get our code of ethics from religion, we cannot completely take out religion from government but that we should be using that code of ethics to help decide how to do something rather than legislating specific religious text into governmental law because it makes religious doctrine from a specific religion a government law that everyone has to live up to even if the people follow a different religion.
religion cannot be totally absent from the U.S. government due to the fact that we would have to ignore our ethics when dealing with how to run this country. we get our sense of ethics from religion which basically governs how we live our private lives, but religion in general doesn't always agree with nationalism depending on the circumstances.
the above are my opinions on religion and government and I will end this entry with these two things:
there are some things that are mutual between religion and government and some things that are specific to religion or to government for which we must learn the difference.
In the absence of knowledge there is misunderstanding; where there is misunderstanding, there is contention.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
