What is the role of government
There are those that say the framework of the Constitution is not a living document, but I don't really agree. I think the Constitution is far more flexible than some think. It is obvious that the Supreme Court constantly changes the meaning of the document each time it writes an interpretation of what it says. Since THEY have that power, self given, not given by the Constitution, than the document lives and changes with time. Words hold no unchanging meaning, no matter how hard we pretend otherwise. All you have to do is talk to the next generation of Americans to realize that words take on different meanings on a regular basis.
But the real test of what is the role of government comes down to the statement that all powers not given to the central government are held for the states and the people. That does not say, nor can you truly interpret that it DOES say, that the states and the people can not give powers to the central government that they chose not to exercise. And in this manner, the central government CAN and DOES take on powers that were once reserved for the states and people.
I think it would be a very difficult "sell" under any circumstances, however, to say that the Constitution can give the central government the right to jeopardize the lives of all Americans, alive or yet to be born, by adventurous wars overseas, or by actively instigating unrest in foreign countries. It never gave the government the authority to wage war against Spain in the early 1900s, as an example, nor did it give the government the authority to wage wars on the European continent, in the middle east, in Asia, or in the Pacific. Although the government may declare war, it can truly only be legitimate if the people have accepted it as the right thing to do at the time. I don't even believe it should be declared by Congress without first giving the people the honest facts, and allowing them to demonstrate their desire. Of course, that won't happen since Congress, as does the President, believes that they know better than the people and can better make decisions for the people.
Although I very much like the liberty and freedom that the Constitution gives us, I do recognize the fact that the government does have to take steps that we might not want. However, those steps should never truly jeopardize the liberty and freedom we are given by God - by whatever name you chose to worship - and should impinge on those freedoms as little as possible. I do not consider, as an example, Homeland Security, a farcical name at best, should exist as it is anything but a department whose intent is to secure the homeland, whatever that word signifies. Its obvious intent from the beginning was to secure the central government from the people, and certainly, through the agency of some of its departments, it goes far in that direction - at a grievous cost to liberty and freedom.
Functionally, the concept of the Department of Education makes sense to me. I truly believe that a nation comprised of multiple jurisdictions, such as the 50 states, needs a central government component to develop a guideline for the various states so that those educated in, say, Montana, are able to move to Georgia, as an example, and have the necessary educational background to be successful there. True, they might not have the same knowledge of state history, but they should expect to have an equivalent education in the normal curricula to be able to blend in. I think that this might well be a "power" that the people and states might well give back to the central government for just that purpose. However, there is no doubt that what we call the Department of Education has gone far beyond establishing a minimum curriculum to guarantee interchangeability, and has started dictating things that fall outside of what should reasonably be the extent of their power.
This topic will be continued at a later time and will cover more areas of control that the central government exercises that are probably outside of the Constitutional limits as well as those limits of what the people and states may have given back to it.
Showing posts with label newage.alternative. Show all posts
Showing posts with label newage.alternative. Show all posts
Friday, September 28, 2012
Sunday, September 23, 2012
Who can judge?
One of the worst things that happens these days is how information is presented to us at any given time. Is it just my imagination, or does it seem that we never actually get real information about anything any more? That is, something happens - say a new tropical storm forms - and all you hear is opinions and judgments of what it is, where it is going, how strong it is, etc. Now there are those that would say that is what forecasting is all about, but the problem is, typically, the information that you should be getting is salted in amongst things like comparison to some other storm that started at this time, or followed this track. You don't get what you need to make your own decisions - judgments, if you will - because you are passed on the judgments of every person that reports the information, not just the facts.
When we look at religions, it is the same thing. Climate? Same thing. World events? ditto. We don't get facts and raw data, we get judgments. If you are looking at information about ice extent at the poles, you get judgments, not information half of the time. "The ice extent in the Arctic has shrunk to the lowest amount in modern history" screams the story. Is that information that you can judge by or is that a judgment with, actually, no information at all? If you said the first, I think you are in real trouble, but if you realized it was the second, that means you still can think for yourself.
The first thing that catches my eye in a statement like that is what does it mean by modern history? Are we talking about the the last 30 years of satellite data or are we talking about the last 200 years where people have visited the region, or exactly WHAT is modern history? Did it start yesterday? Last month? Last year? Last decade? Last century? Do I need to continue? And of course, relative to what data set has it shrunk? Against the total area, the thickness, total volume? These could easily yield confusing and conflicting data. Information needs to be defined, offered clearly without prejudice, and then WE can judge it for ourselves.
This process should apply to everything we see, really. Should we be passed "judgments" by those reporting, say, what is happening in Iran regards its nuclear program, or should we require real data to support the statements being made? The same for the consulate attack in Libya. Or the run up to war in Syria. Or anything else that you can think of. Perhaps we should have been passed facts in the so called presidential debates instead of "judgments" by the media as to who should be running. Too often, we are passed judgments, not information, and because of that, we are a poorer informed nation than we should be. And that probably applies to every other nation as well. All I ever ask of the media is to give me unprejudiced information so that I can conclude for myself - God DID give me a brain, too, you know - and should you wish to write a conclusion to your report, that is fine, but say "in my opinion this means" instead of presenting that opinion as if it was a fact.
When we look at religions, it is the same thing. Climate? Same thing. World events? ditto. We don't get facts and raw data, we get judgments. If you are looking at information about ice extent at the poles, you get judgments, not information half of the time. "The ice extent in the Arctic has shrunk to the lowest amount in modern history" screams the story. Is that information that you can judge by or is that a judgment with, actually, no information at all? If you said the first, I think you are in real trouble, but if you realized it was the second, that means you still can think for yourself.
The first thing that catches my eye in a statement like that is what does it mean by modern history? Are we talking about the the last 30 years of satellite data or are we talking about the last 200 years where people have visited the region, or exactly WHAT is modern history? Did it start yesterday? Last month? Last year? Last decade? Last century? Do I need to continue? And of course, relative to what data set has it shrunk? Against the total area, the thickness, total volume? These could easily yield confusing and conflicting data. Information needs to be defined, offered clearly without prejudice, and then WE can judge it for ourselves.
This process should apply to everything we see, really. Should we be passed "judgments" by those reporting, say, what is happening in Iran regards its nuclear program, or should we require real data to support the statements being made? The same for the consulate attack in Libya. Or the run up to war in Syria. Or anything else that you can think of. Perhaps we should have been passed facts in the so called presidential debates instead of "judgments" by the media as to who should be running. Too often, we are passed judgments, not information, and because of that, we are a poorer informed nation than we should be. And that probably applies to every other nation as well. All I ever ask of the media is to give me unprejudiced information so that I can conclude for myself - God DID give me a brain, too, you know - and should you wish to write a conclusion to your report, that is fine, but say "in my opinion this means" instead of presenting that opinion as if it was a fact.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
And in the beginning was another post
Have you ever set out on a walk with the intent to really discuss things with God? I mean, really. I used to take long walks in the desert for that specific reason. I would end up standing next a cactus and discussing the meaning of life, the origin of space, and what exactly free will really was. It was one of those many discussions that I came to realize that I could no longer whine and say "God, why do you allow children to starve to death? Why do you allow people to be horribly maimed by the machines of war? Why do you allow hatred and greed to run rampant on this beauty blue and green ball?" And the reason I had to let Him off the hook was simple - I finally got it through my head what it really meant to have "free will."
No, you don't get free will from an attorney, that's for sure. You get it only from God. And you probably noticed in the paragraph above, that I referred to God as Him. Yes, I am a true believer in that God is masculine. Why? Probably because I use the word god, but with a capital, since it is being used as a title. After all, had I thought God was feminine, I would be using the title Goddess, right? Why don't I use God's name, you might ask? Could it possibly be that I am not sure what His name really is? Well, if you believe that, then you truly are a perceptive person and probably should be writing this Blog in the first place! You would be correct in that assumption, for I do not accept the current list of names used as His name as likely to be correct. It's also why I have a hard time with interpretations of the Bible, and some of the things that have sprung from it.
By the way, don't necessarily expect these ramblings to be "on topic," whatever that might conjure up in your mind. For you see, my mind skips about from subject to subject, some times with lightning speed, and as such, the "links" between subjects may not be obvious to anyone other then those that can get into my head - small space there, so not many will be able to at any one time. Thus the thoughts may be coherent, but not necessarily cohesive.
Getting back to whining and free will might be a good thing at this time. See, even from the beginning, God gave Man "free will." When he placed Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, so to speak, he supposedly admonished them not to eat from that one tree that He placed off limits. Of course, had He truly not wanted them to eat of its fruit, He would not have placed the tree there in the first place. After all, He knew all and would have known that at some point in time, when all other fruits had been sampled, the day would come when they would taste it to see how it was different from the rest. ALL children are like that, and Adam and Eve certainly qualified as children, regardless of their state of physical adulthood.
No, there is NO doubt that it was EXPECTED by Him that they would eat of the fruit. It wasn't a case of IF, but WHEN. My guess is that they went slower then they were expected, thus the need to send the serpent to entice them into it. Sounds a little different from the normal line of thinking, doesn't it? But do you REALLY believe that God was surprised in any way by this "original sin?" Hardly.
Nor was it a sin, since it was expected to happen in the first place. Fact is, the concept of "original sin" is one of those great mysteries of the mind - right up there with "the big bang" for man made nonsenses. Let's face it. Why would God have created Adam and Eve in perfectly functional bodies, fully capable of procreation, if it wasn't intended that they were going to breed and start a population explosion? If He REALLY planned on them being just two simple samples living out an existence on planet Earth for time eternal, he probably would have made them sexless in the first place. There would have been no need to give Adam a female companion if they were only to live peacefully in the Garden of Eden for all eternity. He could have given Adam a male companion instead. That would have prevented population as well. No. It was God's intent that Adam and Eve would not only eat of the fruit of the one tree they weren't supposed to, thus realizing that they were a breeding pair and let's just wait and see what happens next.
So you might guess from the above, that I don't place great stock in the Bible. If that was your reaction, then you would be wrong. I do, however, "moderate" my beliefs in that I interpret the meanings of what is said, and "filter out" the portions that are obviously written with religious controls in mind. That is, consider the New Testament. I believe in Jesus Christ and I take seriously to heart what I believe are his teachings. I do not, however, take seriously to heart the extrapolations to them that are obviously made with the church taking control of the "congregation," if you will. I have little faith in "hellfire and brimstone" being the fate of those that do not follow the teachings of the church, but I do believe that eternal life may not be in the future of those that do not follow the teachings of Christ.
One of the greatest puzzles to me is the apparent belief that you can go to war for Christ or kill for God. How does a a group of people that say they believe in a ministry of love and sharing actually get to the point of thought that they are doing Christ's work by slaughtering their fellow man? The theory that we are a civilized society, thus think with our upper brain rather then our lower brain, yet are able to justify torture, slaughter, and maiming of innocent people "in the name of all that is holy and good," makes about as much sense as saying you are saving a man by killing him. All I know is that a "Christian" could not do the things that too many of these "born again Christians" take as gospel. But then there is that "free will" we were given in the first place, so until the time comes that we are held accountable for our personal actions by Him, well like I said, I had to let Him off the hook for the crap that we do to each other with our "free will."
Well enough for this time. More to follow in other posts, but for now, love and light in your path.
No, you don't get free will from an attorney, that's for sure. You get it only from God. And you probably noticed in the paragraph above, that I referred to God as Him. Yes, I am a true believer in that God is masculine. Why? Probably because I use the word god, but with a capital, since it is being used as a title. After all, had I thought God was feminine, I would be using the title Goddess, right? Why don't I use God's name, you might ask? Could it possibly be that I am not sure what His name really is? Well, if you believe that, then you truly are a perceptive person and probably should be writing this Blog in the first place! You would be correct in that assumption, for I do not accept the current list of names used as His name as likely to be correct. It's also why I have a hard time with interpretations of the Bible, and some of the things that have sprung from it.
By the way, don't necessarily expect these ramblings to be "on topic," whatever that might conjure up in your mind. For you see, my mind skips about from subject to subject, some times with lightning speed, and as such, the "links" between subjects may not be obvious to anyone other then those that can get into my head - small space there, so not many will be able to at any one time. Thus the thoughts may be coherent, but not necessarily cohesive.
Getting back to whining and free will might be a good thing at this time. See, even from the beginning, God gave Man "free will." When he placed Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, so to speak, he supposedly admonished them not to eat from that one tree that He placed off limits. Of course, had He truly not wanted them to eat of its fruit, He would not have placed the tree there in the first place. After all, He knew all and would have known that at some point in time, when all other fruits had been sampled, the day would come when they would taste it to see how it was different from the rest. ALL children are like that, and Adam and Eve certainly qualified as children, regardless of their state of physical adulthood.
No, there is NO doubt that it was EXPECTED by Him that they would eat of the fruit. It wasn't a case of IF, but WHEN. My guess is that they went slower then they were expected, thus the need to send the serpent to entice them into it. Sounds a little different from the normal line of thinking, doesn't it? But do you REALLY believe that God was surprised in any way by this "original sin?" Hardly.
Nor was it a sin, since it was expected to happen in the first place. Fact is, the concept of "original sin" is one of those great mysteries of the mind - right up there with "the big bang" for man made nonsenses. Let's face it. Why would God have created Adam and Eve in perfectly functional bodies, fully capable of procreation, if it wasn't intended that they were going to breed and start a population explosion? If He REALLY planned on them being just two simple samples living out an existence on planet Earth for time eternal, he probably would have made them sexless in the first place. There would have been no need to give Adam a female companion if they were only to live peacefully in the Garden of Eden for all eternity. He could have given Adam a male companion instead. That would have prevented population as well. No. It was God's intent that Adam and Eve would not only eat of the fruit of the one tree they weren't supposed to, thus realizing that they were a breeding pair and let's just wait and see what happens next.
So you might guess from the above, that I don't place great stock in the Bible. If that was your reaction, then you would be wrong. I do, however, "moderate" my beliefs in that I interpret the meanings of what is said, and "filter out" the portions that are obviously written with religious controls in mind. That is, consider the New Testament. I believe in Jesus Christ and I take seriously to heart what I believe are his teachings. I do not, however, take seriously to heart the extrapolations to them that are obviously made with the church taking control of the "congregation," if you will. I have little faith in "hellfire and brimstone" being the fate of those that do not follow the teachings of the church, but I do believe that eternal life may not be in the future of those that do not follow the teachings of Christ.
One of the greatest puzzles to me is the apparent belief that you can go to war for Christ or kill for God. How does a a group of people that say they believe in a ministry of love and sharing actually get to the point of thought that they are doing Christ's work by slaughtering their fellow man? The theory that we are a civilized society, thus think with our upper brain rather then our lower brain, yet are able to justify torture, slaughter, and maiming of innocent people "in the name of all that is holy and good," makes about as much sense as saying you are saving a man by killing him. All I know is that a "Christian" could not do the things that too many of these "born again Christians" take as gospel. But then there is that "free will" we were given in the first place, so until the time comes that we are held accountable for our personal actions by Him, well like I said, I had to let Him off the hook for the crap that we do to each other with our "free will."
Well enough for this time. More to follow in other posts, but for now, love and light in your path.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)