A few posts ago, Northwest Minuteman pointed me to the blog Freedom's Fight
Freedom's Fight is a regularly updated, thoughtful blog and reading it has been a joy. You should *really* go over and check out Freedom's Fight. I've added them to my "Found on the Blogosphere" section.
Please feel free to comment with links to other good blogs. Because of past "flaming" I now moderate comments so it may take a few hours before your comment shows up."We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately." Benjamin Franklin in the Continental Congress just before signingthe Declaration of Independence, 1776.
Before you start ranting about the virtues of "democracy" just take 10 minutes and Watch This Video.
Hint: We (the USA) are NOT a democracy.
In September 2006 (shortly before his forty-sixth birthday), Professor Randy Pausch was diagnosed with metastatic pancreatic cancer. In August 2007 he was told that it had metastized to his liver and spleen and he was terminal with only a few months to live. He has acheived worldwide fame for his "Last Lecture" entitled "Really Acheiving Your Childhood Dreams" which was delivered September 18, 2007 at Carnegie-Mellon University.
The original speech (linked above on Google Video and here on YouTube) runs a little over an 1 hr. October 22, 2007 Professor Pausch was invited onto the Oprah Winphrey show and delivered an inspiring but abbreviated (10 minute) speech. At that time, despite his advanced cancer, he appears to be in better physical shape than most of the United States population. (Most of us cannot do the hand-clap push ups)
A PET scan taken May 2, 2008 showed that the cancer had spread to his lungs, some lymph nodes in his chest and that he had some metastases in his peritoneum and retroperitoneum, evidence that the disease has begun to take over.
On May 19, 2008 he appeared on Good Morning America still looking better than most and looking forward to Father's Day this year.
Here is a link to the March 19th entry of TimesOnline blog. It has a YouTube video of Sir Arthur C Clarke on the occassion of his 90th birthday (December 2007) and a lot of good links to stories about his death.
Here's a good article about his life. By the way, if you've never read his 1953 book Childhood's End, you should.
Since my good friends Johnny & Amanda have moved to California, I have been forced to re-think my opinion of "Californians". While searching the internet "to see if there's any more gold in them thar hills", I ran across the blog California Conservatives for Truth .
It looks like it was a good site but, sadly, it appears that it hasn't been updated in over a year. But, true to my mission, I scanned through the archives to get an eye for the content - it does have a lot of links - I gotta give 'em that.
Anyway, I found a humorous piece that the blog author pulled from dumblaws.com :
Idiots may not vote.
CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
ADOPTED JANUARY 21, 1911
Article VII. Elective Franchise
Section 1. [Qualifications of voters; absentee voting; school elections; registration.]
Every citizen of the United States, who is over the age of twenty-one years, and has resided in New Mexico twelve months, in the county ninety days, and in the precinct in which he offers to vote thirty days, next preceding the election, except idiots, insane persons and persons convicted of a felonious or infamous crime unless restored to political rights, shall be qualified to vote at all elections for public officers. The legislature may enact laws providing for absentee voting by qualified electors. All school elections shall be held at different times from other elections.
Personally, I think this law is a great idea but it presents a logistical nightmare. To be able to justy say that idiots cannot vote, you would be faced with the monumental task of getting the idiots out of Congress. I have to agree with Mark Twain on this one: "Reader, suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." [Mark Twain, c.1882] Some people would say that this would extend to the White House but George Bush is no idiot. Crazy like a fox, maybe, but not an idiot.
"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."
Let's take it phrase by phrase - feel free to rip my analysis to shreds.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
This is referred to as "The Establishment Clause" and, simply stated, the Founding Fathers wanted to make sure that there was not a "Church of America". Just a quick look at English history will show abuses by the Church of England. The Church of England is arguably the only major denomination that was started so a King could get a divorce. I'm not trying to throw stones but this is NOT the best reason to start a church and this kind of start will put you on shakey ground morally.
If by "Founding Father of the USA" you use the criteria that the person 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 in the First Federal Congress (1789-1791)
- served as U.S. Representatives in the First Federal Congress
(a total of 204 individuals) then this group pretty much covers the Western religious spectrum existing at that time. Heck, Thomas Jefferson himself is claimed by Anglicans, Unitarians, Deists and Episcopalians and is often quoted by atheists.
So there's no way that you would get this crowd to agree on one government sponsored church. Where all the hay gets made is when folks start saying that "X" or "Y" constitutes a "state sponsored church". When anything about public schools comes up, I like to point to the history of "public education" and how it was started in this country and say "The question is not whether or not we should have prayer in public schools. The real question is whether or not we should have public schools." But you knew I would say that, didn't you? :-)
More later.
Two reasons for this particular post:
1)A couple different times I've had one friend or another ask me something to the effect of "Do you have to be so political?" or they've just come right out and said "You're too political." But it has been my experience that once people understand why I feel the way I do, then, oftentimes they no longer see me as being "too political". (This doesn't work 100% of the time but most people get it)
2) Several people close to me either are in the long process of legal immigration / naturalization or they have already come through the arduous process of legal immigration /naturalization to the USA. Interestingly enough, my acquaintances who are legal first generation immigrants rarely question my political zeal. Go figure.
So to remind myself (and for the benefit of my friends who may not understand) how our system of government is supposed to work here in the US of A, and why our system of government works so well (even though it doesn't look like it sometimes), I will be presenting a series of posts on the Constitution, traditions and some of the reasons behind our patriotic ideals.
Happy (early) Fourth of July!!
Right Honorable Sir Winston Leonard Spencer-Churchill, KG, OM, CH, TD, FRS, PC (Can) , British politician and statesman, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom (1951-1955), soldier in the British Army, orator, and strategist, winner of the Nobel Prize in Literature, on Islam:
"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of prosperity exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property-either as a child, a wife, or a concubine-must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men."
"Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen: all know how to die. But the influence of the religion paralyzes the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytising faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science-the science against which it had vainly struggled-the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome."
John Quincy Adams (1767-1848) international diplomat and 6th President of the United States, on Islam:
"In the seventh century of the Christian era, a wandering Arab of the lineage of Hagar [i.e. Muhammad], the Egyptian, combining the powers of transcendent genius, with the preternatural energy of a fanatic, and the fraudulent spirit of an impostor, proclaimed himself as a messenger from Heaven, and spread desolation and delusion over an extensive portion of the earth. Adopting from the sublime conception of the Mosaic law, the doctrine of one omnipotent God; he connected indissolubly with it, the audacious falsehood, that he was himself his prophet and apostle. Adopting from the new Revelation of Jesus, the faith and hope of immortal life, and of future retribution, he humbled it to the dust by adapting all the rewards and sanctions of his religion to the gratification of the sexual passion. He poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind. THE ESSENSE OF HIS DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST; TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE....Between these two religions, thus contrasted in their characters, a war of twelve hundred years has already raged. The war is yet flagrant...While the merciless and dissolute dogmas of the false prophet shall furnish motives to human action, there can never be peace upon earth, and good will towards men." (Emphasis in the original)
Alexis de Tocqueville (1805-1859) French political thinker and historian, and author of Democracy in America, comments on Islam:
"I studied the Quran a great deal. I came away from that study with the conviction that by and large there have been few religions in the world as deadly to men as that of Muhammad. So far as I can see, it is the principal cause of the decadency so visible today in the Muslim world and, though less absurd than the polytheism of old, it's social and political tendencies are in my opinion more to be feared, and I therefore regard it as a form of decadency rather than a form of progress in relation to paganism itself."
Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) British philosopher, logician, mathematician and prolific writer, comments on Islam:
"Bolshevism combines the characteristics of the French Revolution with those of the rise of Islam. Marx has taught that communism is fatally predestined to come about; this produces a state of mind not unlike that of the early successors of Mahommet. Among religions, Bolshevism is to be reckoned with Mohammedanism rather than with Christianity and Buddhism. Christianity and Buddhism are primarily personal religions, with mystical doctrines and a love of contemplation. Mohammedanism and Bolshevism are practical, social, unspiritual, concerned to win the empire of this world."
More later.
