Anyone want to read the article put forth by Answers in Genesis go to this link:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2007/0327or-teacher.asp
To get the secular paper, a link is listed at the bottom of the article from the The Oregonian.
By sticking to the "goal" of the Oregan public school system of "any genuinely scientific evidence for or against any explanation of life may be taught", Mr. Helpinstine merely gave articles that showed how bias affected science. He used two articles from a Creationist author BUT removed anything speaking about God or the Bible in the article. As such, he never taught Creationism, but was setting out to show how some modern science can be molded by bias rather than pure scientific observation. He was also bashed for showing slideshows that shows how Nazi's and eugenics were linked to evolution (which there is a strong connection between the two). Science is not perfect because man is behind the interpretation. The Nazi's were huge advocates of evolution. ONe doesn't have to look far as to why when they know the actual WHOLE title of Darwin's book, "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life." Did Darwin say "favoured" races? Evolution is definitely a racist theory.
In any case, it is a tragedy and an outrage that this teacher was fired as a result of all of this. There are vastly MORE FACTS AND EVIDENCES on the process of human history and origins than just the THEORY of evolution presented in school textbooks. There are brilliant works. Anyone hear of Biochemist Michael Behe's book Darwin's Black Box? It's awesome!
Bottomline:
Science is the pursuit of truth. Brilliant Christian SCIENTISTS (believe it or not) have actual SCIENTIFIC reasons for claiming Creationism over evolution. How about people be more "open-minded" towards the facts and theories presented by the other side???????
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
A forum for debate and dialogue
I think it would be fun to have all the cousins contribute to the current debate on their blogs. I suggest that everyone states their thesis on the matter of justice vs. charity, and then each of us can comment according to that thesis. (anyone not yet up to date can look at my past blog and the growing number of comments following).
First, the question is what would you rather choose, justice or charity?
My thesis was:
"ALL virtues are bound together as a systematic whole, making their function and existence dependent on their interaction with one another."
Some support:
The idea of "social justice" could simply not exist without the fusing of justice and charity. This does not mean that law or the justice system per se could not exist. The discussion is dealing with "virtues" which manifest themselves in different forms (i.e., justice and charity). Justice as law enforcement could exist, but by that definition alone it is nothing more than "control" or "stability" of society. That is hardly a system of justice people would want to exist. Thus what we understand to be justice would not exist without charity. Similarly, charity suffers if our concept of justice is not adequately dealing with the problems of society.
My conclusion:
"It is impossible to choose one particular virtue over another as it would negate whichever virtue remains."
post script: I LOVE MY WIFE!!!
First, the question is what would you rather choose, justice or charity?
My thesis was:
"ALL virtues are bound together as a systematic whole, making their function and existence dependent on their interaction with one another."
Some support:
The idea of "social justice" could simply not exist without the fusing of justice and charity. This does not mean that law or the justice system per se could not exist. The discussion is dealing with "virtues" which manifest themselves in different forms (i.e., justice and charity). Justice as law enforcement could exist, but by that definition alone it is nothing more than "control" or "stability" of society. That is hardly a system of justice people would want to exist. Thus what we understand to be justice would not exist without charity. Similarly, charity suffers if our concept of justice is not adequately dealing with the problems of society.
My conclusion:
"It is impossible to choose one particular virtue over another as it would negate whichever virtue remains."
post script: I LOVE MY WIFE!!!
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Justice vs. Charity
Jamie, in a previous post of hers, shared how her professor asked the question of whether they would choose Justice or Charity. I have been debating in my head of when I wanted to reply to the question and, if I did, how would I answer. I believe the question is unfair because it is asking to abolish one virtue in order for another to remain. Choosing between virtues is in itself, neither charitable to the understanding of virtues (giving room for all virtues to exist as they are necessary as a whole for a better humanity) nor does it give justice to their qualities (exterminating one by attributing impurities to it that are only manifested when compared to others). The problem occurring with a topic like this is to place in one's own mind a subconscious tenet of hierarchal virtues. Moreover, hierarchal establishments of virtues contradict (what I believe to be the harmony within virtues) their systematic formula of unity. Isolation is detrimental to those principles we hold so dear in human relations.
Furthermore, I believe in the correspondence theory of epistemology that says what we can know about truth has to relate (in some form or another) to reality. This begs the question of whether a world without justice could exist (or charity for that matter)? A world without justice is one I can only imagine. Every group of people has some form of justice, even if it is not sophisticated or placed in written form. Without Justice, every society would experience total anarchy, destruction, and violence. Similarly, without charity, poverty would overrun our streets, deaths would increase (no blood drives, no charities for discovering new diseases), and a vast amount of other atrocities would occur.
Under my comprehension of the essence and purpose of virtues, I believe the questions collapses within itself.
Furthermore, I believe in the correspondence theory of epistemology that says what we can know about truth has to relate (in some form or another) to reality. This begs the question of whether a world without justice could exist (or charity for that matter)? A world without justice is one I can only imagine. Every group of people has some form of justice, even if it is not sophisticated or placed in written form. Without Justice, every society would experience total anarchy, destruction, and violence. Similarly, without charity, poverty would overrun our streets, deaths would increase (no blood drives, no charities for discovering new diseases), and a vast amount of other atrocities would occur.
Under my comprehension of the essence and purpose of virtues, I believe the questions collapses within itself.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Tolerance continued...
This new post is to clarify my position on tolerance based on Toby's comment. In regards to the situation with Kelly, Toby said wouldn't I be in error to adhere to watching horror films (which contain elements such as violence which are not supported by my faith) just because I find them interesting, while not choosing Brokeback mountain based on "faith-principles"? In other words, it seems I am being unfair to not watch Brokeback Mountain based on certain principles while not applying them to other movies just because I find those movies interesting. This is an excellent point and I will respond accordingly:
[Before I say anything else I must make one thing clear. Although I am a Christian, this doesn’t deny the fact that I am human and a sinner. I continually need the grace of the Lord Jesus and His mercy and forgiveness. I do not claim to be, in any shape or form, a perfect person. Far from it, I am always discovering more and more flaws about myself. As a result, I do not claim what I do watch is actually what I SHOULD or SHOULD NOT be watching. Some movies, I am sure, as a Christian God would not want me to watch. Some movies that I now think are acceptable, I could find out later in life that God disapproves of them. It is possible that a reader could point out a movie that might genuinely conflict with what I claim and I apologize in advance.]
I believe it is appropriate to begin with my "faith principles" as I have called them. The two principles are the condemnation of the sins of violence and homosexuality. A Christian is not to commit violence unless on the grounds of self-defense or for an act that produces a greater good (such as joining the Army in WWII to stop the extermination of the Jews). Homosexuality, most specifically the BEHAVIOR of homosexuality, is also a sin that God condemns. Under no circumstance is homosexuality a behavior that finds pleasure in God’s eyes nor is can it ever be seen as an “okay” behavior.
Following these two ideas, a Christian is not to SUPPORT, ENCOURAGE, nor PARTICIPATE in such acts. The former two are the particular actions that are under examination.
When I watch the movie The Ring, am I “supporting” or “encouraging” the actions of violence? This question demands almost exclusively on the nature of the movie. The "nature" of the movie Brokeback Mountain and the "nature" of the movie The Ring are vastly different. But before I analyze this thought, it is important to understand the relationship between the events of a movie and the reviewer watching the events. To state a person is supporting violence by watching a violent movie, as a proposition is a hard position to defend. This type of logic leads someone to supporting Adolph Hitler’s extermination of the Jews just because they watch Schindler’s List. Or because someone watches Black Hawk Down, they are supporters of Clinton’s political action in sending the Rangers into combat. This is obviously a false notion. Without a doubt, people watch movies to be entertained, but based on the “nature” of the movie, the issue of supporting the contents immediately come under scrutiny. This brings us back to the original statement that Brokeback Mountain and The Ring have two different “natures”. Brokeback Mountain is “advocating” a particular action I believe to be sin, while The Ring is telling a story for the sake of terrorizing the audience. I know this is up to debate, but I believe that the “nature” of Brokeback Mountain is to tell a story FOR THE SAKE of supporting the act of homosexuality. I do not believe the motive of the director and writer was merely to tell a story for the sake of telling a story. Schindler’s List was telling a story for the sake of revealing the horrors of the holocaust. The Ring was telling a story for the sake of scaring the audience, and Brokeback Mountain was telling a story for the sake of supporting homosexual behavior. If The Ring was made for the purpose of advocating the acceptability of violence, then I would have a different opinion about The Ring. Considering The Ring does not contain that “nature”, I do not believe I am being unfair by watching The Ring, while not watching Brokeback Mountain. Therefore, I am not being close-minded by not watching Brokeback Mountain, as I am not being unfair in how I treat it and other movies for having strong reasons for refraining from watching it (this does not include my reason that I find it extremely disgusting and that alone would repel me from the movie. Nor does it include how I do not find the story line interesting enough to spend two hours watching it).
I am showing tolerance by respecting the reasons why Kelly watched the movie. I am being open-minded to why people made the movie (they want homosexual behavior to be accepted) although I disagree and have my own reasons that justify my belief and justify why I chose not to watch that particular movie.
Post script: I LOVE MY WIFE!!!
[Before I say anything else I must make one thing clear. Although I am a Christian, this doesn’t deny the fact that I am human and a sinner. I continually need the grace of the Lord Jesus and His mercy and forgiveness. I do not claim to be, in any shape or form, a perfect person. Far from it, I am always discovering more and more flaws about myself. As a result, I do not claim what I do watch is actually what I SHOULD or SHOULD NOT be watching. Some movies, I am sure, as a Christian God would not want me to watch. Some movies that I now think are acceptable, I could find out later in life that God disapproves of them. It is possible that a reader could point out a movie that might genuinely conflict with what I claim and I apologize in advance.]
I believe it is appropriate to begin with my "faith principles" as I have called them. The two principles are the condemnation of the sins of violence and homosexuality. A Christian is not to commit violence unless on the grounds of self-defense or for an act that produces a greater good (such as joining the Army in WWII to stop the extermination of the Jews). Homosexuality, most specifically the BEHAVIOR of homosexuality, is also a sin that God condemns. Under no circumstance is homosexuality a behavior that finds pleasure in God’s eyes nor is can it ever be seen as an “okay” behavior.
Following these two ideas, a Christian is not to SUPPORT, ENCOURAGE, nor PARTICIPATE in such acts. The former two are the particular actions that are under examination.
When I watch the movie The Ring, am I “supporting” or “encouraging” the actions of violence? This question demands almost exclusively on the nature of the movie. The "nature" of the movie Brokeback Mountain and the "nature" of the movie The Ring are vastly different. But before I analyze this thought, it is important to understand the relationship between the events of a movie and the reviewer watching the events. To state a person is supporting violence by watching a violent movie, as a proposition is a hard position to defend. This type of logic leads someone to supporting Adolph Hitler’s extermination of the Jews just because they watch Schindler’s List. Or because someone watches Black Hawk Down, they are supporters of Clinton’s political action in sending the Rangers into combat. This is obviously a false notion. Without a doubt, people watch movies to be entertained, but based on the “nature” of the movie, the issue of supporting the contents immediately come under scrutiny. This brings us back to the original statement that Brokeback Mountain and The Ring have two different “natures”. Brokeback Mountain is “advocating” a particular action I believe to be sin, while The Ring is telling a story for the sake of terrorizing the audience. I know this is up to debate, but I believe that the “nature” of Brokeback Mountain is to tell a story FOR THE SAKE of supporting the act of homosexuality. I do not believe the motive of the director and writer was merely to tell a story for the sake of telling a story. Schindler’s List was telling a story for the sake of revealing the horrors of the holocaust. The Ring was telling a story for the sake of scaring the audience, and Brokeback Mountain was telling a story for the sake of supporting homosexual behavior. If The Ring was made for the purpose of advocating the acceptability of violence, then I would have a different opinion about The Ring. Considering The Ring does not contain that “nature”, I do not believe I am being unfair by watching The Ring, while not watching Brokeback Mountain. Therefore, I am not being close-minded by not watching Brokeback Mountain, as I am not being unfair in how I treat it and other movies for having strong reasons for refraining from watching it (this does not include my reason that I find it extremely disgusting and that alone would repel me from the movie. Nor does it include how I do not find the story line interesting enough to spend two hours watching it).
I am showing tolerance by respecting the reasons why Kelly watched the movie. I am being open-minded to why people made the movie (they want homosexual behavior to be accepted) although I disagree and have my own reasons that justify my belief and justify why I chose not to watch that particular movie.
Post script: I LOVE MY WIFE!!!
Sunday, March 11, 2007
America's "godly" virtue
If someone were to walk up to me and ask what I believe the most important virtue in American culture was, I would say “tolerance”. I personally believe that tolerance is a great thing, yet I’m a little uncertain to what degree of a virtue it actually is. What is it about tolerance that America likes so much? I can conjecture a few things. For one, America has a plethora of different races, religions, and philosophical standpoints. A nation containing such “variety” requires tolerance in order to have proper dialogue and functioning in everyday living. Secondly, America esteems education as the foundation of happy, respectable, and noble living. Thus our universities are growing in number and size as the years progress. And considering we believe that healthy learning involves the interacting with other beliefs, tolerance is the beautiful wrapping holding it all in place. But what exactly IS tolerance? Webster defines it as such:
“A sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with ones own. Or B) the act of allowing something.”
Basically, tolerance means one must allow the other belief to exist. However, I didn’t notice it saying a person must conform to the belief. The reader might be asking why I mentioned this. Let me explain.
Over the past couple of years I have encountered people who have declared other persons not open-minded (a.k.a, tolerant) for not adhering to what they believe. Here are some examples:
The first incident I recall so clearly was when I was at Cyrus’ house and he had some of his friends over for hanging out. I was in Cyrus’ room playing Halo, and his friend, Kelly, was on the bed behind us reading a magazine. For reasons I do not recall she mentioned how she had recently watched the movie “Brokeback Mountain.” She then proceeded to mention how there were some people who didn’t want to watch it with her because they “were not as open-minded” as her. A little alarm went off in my head at my awareness of the logical fallacy she just made. I called her on it, “So what you are saying is considering they didn’t see the movie, they are being closed minded as a result? And the fact that you went and saw the movie means you are open-minded?” Her obvious answer was “yes”. *Sigh*
I didn’t press the issue any further. Halo was on my mind, Cyrus needed to get whipped, and I honestly didn’t care to debate. I ask myself now, what was wrong with that picture? What logical fallacy did Kelly commit? According to the implications Kelly made by locking out certain persons as close-minded for not watching the film, she herself became “closed-minded” (or intolerant).
To clarify, lets say person A went to go do action X while person B did not do action X. Person A declares that all who do not do X is close-minded. Person B simply believes that X is not desirable and does not do X accordingly. Person B believes A has a right to do X, but personally will not do X. Therefore, Person A is close-minded for not tolerating Person B’s reasons for not doing X.
Bottom line, Kelly’s logic is a trap set up for all who do not support her view. Those who won’t actually watch the film, although they may have their reasons, are not tolerated for their reasons and are labeled close-minded. In the end, it’s a label to help make Kelly feel good about her own belief, when she is actually close-minded for not respecting others. But this isn’t the only case I’ve encountered. An almost EXACT scenario happened with my friend Ian over the same movie. Plus, on the show Friends, Mrs. Geller told Ross and Rachel that some of their family were not as “open-minded” with the idea of them having a child out of wedlock. This translates into “Because our other family do not like people having children out of wedlock, they are close-minded for not agreeing and conforming to our view that it is okay.”
I must emphasize that all of this does not mean that people can’t have views that says others are completely wrong. The person who claims that (as do I with many of my convictions and principles in accordance with my Christian Faith) would be intolerant if they did not respect the other’s opinions by granting them the right to have such opinions. Stating a view that claims all others are wrong is a “view” nonetheless. If someone were to tell me that Hell did not exist, I would quickly respond with “you’re wrong.” But, the person has a right to believe such things. Likewise, people are welcome to say I’m wrong, ignorant, or even foolish for what I believe.
But the exclusive nature of my Faith and convictions are my right to cherish and believe. So don’t be close-minded, be open-minded by tolerating my views as well as others.
Let’s not succumb to a new definition of tolerance/open-mindedness:
The necessity to AGREE and CONFORM to another persons belief regardless of ones own reasons for believing differently, or B) People with beliefs of an exclusive nature sacrificing their reasons/beliefs for the person(s) demanding an all inclusive belief system.
post script: I LOVE MY WIFE!!!
“A sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with ones own. Or B) the act of allowing something.”
Basically, tolerance means one must allow the other belief to exist. However, I didn’t notice it saying a person must conform to the belief. The reader might be asking why I mentioned this. Let me explain.
Over the past couple of years I have encountered people who have declared other persons not open-minded (a.k.a, tolerant) for not adhering to what they believe. Here are some examples:
The first incident I recall so clearly was when I was at Cyrus’ house and he had some of his friends over for hanging out. I was in Cyrus’ room playing Halo, and his friend, Kelly, was on the bed behind us reading a magazine. For reasons I do not recall she mentioned how she had recently watched the movie “Brokeback Mountain.” She then proceeded to mention how there were some people who didn’t want to watch it with her because they “were not as open-minded” as her. A little alarm went off in my head at my awareness of the logical fallacy she just made. I called her on it, “So what you are saying is considering they didn’t see the movie, they are being closed minded as a result? And the fact that you went and saw the movie means you are open-minded?” Her obvious answer was “yes”. *Sigh*
I didn’t press the issue any further. Halo was on my mind, Cyrus needed to get whipped, and I honestly didn’t care to debate. I ask myself now, what was wrong with that picture? What logical fallacy did Kelly commit? According to the implications Kelly made by locking out certain persons as close-minded for not watching the film, she herself became “closed-minded” (or intolerant).
To clarify, lets say person A went to go do action X while person B did not do action X. Person A declares that all who do not do X is close-minded. Person B simply believes that X is not desirable and does not do X accordingly. Person B believes A has a right to do X, but personally will not do X. Therefore, Person A is close-minded for not tolerating Person B’s reasons for not doing X.
Bottom line, Kelly’s logic is a trap set up for all who do not support her view. Those who won’t actually watch the film, although they may have their reasons, are not tolerated for their reasons and are labeled close-minded. In the end, it’s a label to help make Kelly feel good about her own belief, when she is actually close-minded for not respecting others. But this isn’t the only case I’ve encountered. An almost EXACT scenario happened with my friend Ian over the same movie. Plus, on the show Friends, Mrs. Geller told Ross and Rachel that some of their family were not as “open-minded” with the idea of them having a child out of wedlock. This translates into “Because our other family do not like people having children out of wedlock, they are close-minded for not agreeing and conforming to our view that it is okay.”
I must emphasize that all of this does not mean that people can’t have views that says others are completely wrong. The person who claims that (as do I with many of my convictions and principles in accordance with my Christian Faith) would be intolerant if they did not respect the other’s opinions by granting them the right to have such opinions. Stating a view that claims all others are wrong is a “view” nonetheless. If someone were to tell me that Hell did not exist, I would quickly respond with “you’re wrong.” But, the person has a right to believe such things. Likewise, people are welcome to say I’m wrong, ignorant, or even foolish for what I believe.
But the exclusive nature of my Faith and convictions are my right to cherish and believe. So don’t be close-minded, be open-minded by tolerating my views as well as others.
Let’s not succumb to a new definition of tolerance/open-mindedness:
The necessity to AGREE and CONFORM to another persons belief regardless of ones own reasons for believing differently, or B) People with beliefs of an exclusive nature sacrificing their reasons/beliefs for the person(s) demanding an all inclusive belief system.
post script: I LOVE MY WIFE!!!
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
fear factor
After watching V for Vendetta again for the first time in a long time, I was struck by the grim realities of its proximate foreshadowing. “Fear” is a definitive word in American culture, a word pulsing subtly in the media, the minds, and homes of everyday people. I’ve begun to understand that fear doesn’t have to equate to its extreme definition of conscious awareness of immediate harm. Fear comes in different shapes and forms and in various degrees of intensity. The 20th century experienced a half a century worth of sterilization of over 60,000 “mentally ill” people to help eliminate crime. For some reason America thought this was a solution to the increasing crime rate, and their fear drove them to make a horribly drastic preventative (although I believe it to be a pathetic preventative at that). In America today, I conjecture that our most prized possession is our health. Nothing can be more blatantly obvious due to billions of dollars being used for diet programs. Anything not labeled “natural” is almost abhorred as being detrimental to our health. The rise in various diseases pressures man to point blame at anything capable of suggesting bad health. I see propaganda that says “second hand smoking kills” and I’m having a hard time finding anything that PROVES a child was lost to second hand smoking. Now the big enemy is Trans fats! Instead of individuals choosing to limit foods with trans fat, the people of New York gave the government the power to OUTLAW trans fats! Does this not bother anyone? The government is now telling us what to eat!! We are infected with fear (mostly unaware). For the sake of “security” (if I can even call outlawing trans fat much of a secure law), votes placed power in the governments hand to outlaw a certain food (hmmm, McDonald’s fries).
In V for Vendetta, “real” butter was outlawed because it was unhealthy. Solution? Power was passed on to the government. Now California is facing having the government tell people how to raise their children. Anyone recall a woman crying out to have a law passed for people to not spank their children? Psychologists are afraid that spanking will “damage the psyche” of the child. WHAT?!
Fear gives power to the hungry. Is the “global warming” issue really a “moral” issue, as Al Gore put it? First off, any “smart” politician recognizes the last presidential election was won over “moral” issues. Gore recognizes this and labels global warming a “moral” issue. Tell me, Mr. Gore, what is really a moral issue here: Tens of thousands of children dying every year due to starvation, or the ONE “INTERPRETATION” you choose to believe that equates to “global warming”?
Global warming is an issue of power, not morality. The person who gets elected for his agenda to “cure” supposed “global warming” will be placing massive power in his hands. Industries will have to comply with “global” friendly regulations and civilians will eventually have to get rid of their cars after 50,000 miles. Every company, building going under construction, and national park will have to yield to the laws being passed by the “Global Warming Committee” (or whatever they might call themselves). Misleading facts have been so implanted in our minds, we actually succumb to thinking global warming is a real threat (notice there are TWO sides to the debate for reasons we usually ignore), thus out of fear we give up some of our freedom for “security”. Security always comes at a price: freedom.
The government needs to stay out of affairs that are none of their business. But it is everyday people like us who are ultimately responsible for the power governments get. Governments are the ones to be afraid of the people, hence why they should serve them.
There is talk in Massachusetts saying that kids should be brought into school at age three to determine (through some psychological analysis) of whether they should be put on Ritalin! Plus there is talk about how kids should be taught in school how homosexuality is okay and that they should accept it. DAMN ANY GOVERNMENT WHO DARES TO EXERCISE SUCH TYRANNICAL LEGISLATION!!! I will raise my child in the way I believe is right, not by some “policy”. I can’t stand by and watch some of these things happen any more. I will do my part as best I can.
My rant and ravings sounds very much like our Founding Fathers who fought against "Tyranny". But we seem to be blind to it in America because it is slowly drifting in our midst, gently turning our heads in the other direction. I can't believe how blind I've been to it.
In the words of V when telling the public who was responsible for the tyranny of the government................“You only have to look in the mirror”.
post script: I LOVE MY WIFE!!!
In V for Vendetta, “real” butter was outlawed because it was unhealthy. Solution? Power was passed on to the government. Now California is facing having the government tell people how to raise their children. Anyone recall a woman crying out to have a law passed for people to not spank their children? Psychologists are afraid that spanking will “damage the psyche” of the child. WHAT?!
Fear gives power to the hungry. Is the “global warming” issue really a “moral” issue, as Al Gore put it? First off, any “smart” politician recognizes the last presidential election was won over “moral” issues. Gore recognizes this and labels global warming a “moral” issue. Tell me, Mr. Gore, what is really a moral issue here: Tens of thousands of children dying every year due to starvation, or the ONE “INTERPRETATION” you choose to believe that equates to “global warming”?
Global warming is an issue of power, not morality. The person who gets elected for his agenda to “cure” supposed “global warming” will be placing massive power in his hands. Industries will have to comply with “global” friendly regulations and civilians will eventually have to get rid of their cars after 50,000 miles. Every company, building going under construction, and national park will have to yield to the laws being passed by the “Global Warming Committee” (or whatever they might call themselves). Misleading facts have been so implanted in our minds, we actually succumb to thinking global warming is a real threat (notice there are TWO sides to the debate for reasons we usually ignore), thus out of fear we give up some of our freedom for “security”. Security always comes at a price: freedom.
The government needs to stay out of affairs that are none of their business. But it is everyday people like us who are ultimately responsible for the power governments get. Governments are the ones to be afraid of the people, hence why they should serve them.
There is talk in Massachusetts saying that kids should be brought into school at age three to determine (through some psychological analysis) of whether they should be put on Ritalin! Plus there is talk about how kids should be taught in school how homosexuality is okay and that they should accept it. DAMN ANY GOVERNMENT WHO DARES TO EXERCISE SUCH TYRANNICAL LEGISLATION!!! I will raise my child in the way I believe is right, not by some “policy”. I can’t stand by and watch some of these things happen any more. I will do my part as best I can.
My rant and ravings sounds very much like our Founding Fathers who fought against "Tyranny". But we seem to be blind to it in America because it is slowly drifting in our midst, gently turning our heads in the other direction. I can't believe how blind I've been to it.
In the words of V when telling the public who was responsible for the tyranny of the government................“You only have to look in the mirror”.
post script: I LOVE MY WIFE!!!
Saturday, March 03, 2007
The all-time famous quote from "V for Vendetta"
who are you?
"This visage, no mere veneer of vanity, is it vestige of the vox populi, now vacant, vanished, as the once vital voice of the verisimilitude now venerates what they once vilified. However, this valorous visitation of a by-gone vexation, stands vivified, and has vowed to vangquish these venal and virulent vermin vanguarding vice and vouchsafing the violently vicious and voracious violation of volition.
The only verdict is vengeance; a vendetta, held as a votive, not in vain, for the value and veracity of such shall one day vindicate the vigilant and the virtuous. Verily, this vichyssoise of verbiage veers most verbose vis-a-vis an introduction, and so it is my very good honor to meet you and you may call me V."
post script: I LOVE MY WIFE!!!
Thursday, March 01, 2007
tightening loose bolts
It has come to my attention that some people may have been interpreting me and Toby's "feud" as an actual serious fight. I wish to remedy that and let everyone know there is no ACTUAL feud going on. For the sake of keeping confusion from happening in the future, a premise will be laid out letting the audience know of the fictional, joke-oriented goal of the text following it.
I love Toby. He is a great cousin and a man I truly admire! Nothing will change that....not even my pathetic jokes.
post script: I LOVE MY WIFE!!!
I love Toby. He is a great cousin and a man I truly admire! Nothing will change that....not even my pathetic jokes.
post script: I LOVE MY WIFE!!!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
