I talk about my grandfather a lot in my posts and what a grandfather teaches. I use this format because there was a time when the elders of a family were honored for their wisdom knowing that they had the knowledge of many years of experience. In today’s world especially in societies as ours, we seem to forget that and have a tendency to treat them as if they were children needing to be cared for.
To me that is one of the pitfalls of an egalitarian society. It results in a belief that wisdom is shared by all although I also believe that it was not an intentional result. People need to be needed and they need to feel they have something to contribute and that need goes beyond the idea of someone to go to for money when in a financial bind or a baby sitter to save money.
I also use the farm as the place in my format and I do it for a reason. It offers a setting that, in today’s society, a city cannot offer, a place to do one of the most basic responsibilities of life and that is to raise children to become responsible adults. The rules are far different on a farm than they are in the city.
On the farm, you learn that there are no guarantees in life from an early age. In the city, you learn that there are safety nets regardless of the problem. In the city, where a safety net is not provided there is a demand that government provide it.
On the farm, a child learns discipline for he is given chores to do that require daily work on his part. Moreover, he learns early that his chores are an important part of being a member of a family. For the family is depending upon him to do his share. You cannot find that in city life.
On the farm you learn early to respect all life for you learn to realize just how much you depend upon it for your own life. In the city that is impossible for only people is the important life there. All other life is considered a nuisance meant to be exterminated or tossed away if no longer wanted.
On the farm you learn that each season has a purpose and adjust your life accordingly to fit that season and to make it productive. In the city the change of seasons only determines what you will do with your free time, summertime is the season for the beach and wintertime the season for the slopes.
On the farm, you learn to have faith in yourself and those that are close to you for they are the ones you must depend upon in order to succeed. In the city, you need to have faith in others and know that those who are close depend upon you in hopes that you will succeed. Failure on the farm is a family affair, in the city it is a personal affair.
On the farm, the laws of nature are the important laws to abide by and man’s laws are secondary. In the city, it is the laws of man that one must pay attention to first and foremost by the nature of its being. For it is by abiding in one that life is respected in the seed, born, tended to, and in the end, value is determined of that seed. By abiding in the other only life has value, the seed has no value and the end marks the finish of any value possessed.
What is written is of a time past and has no meaning anymore, this I know. There will be some that would say that to glorify the past is to seek to bring back a time when many wrongs were also a glaring part of it, this I know also. It is not my intent to bring back the past but only to reveal that we should remember that it contained many benefits that no longer exists. We should also think about the fact that when comparisons is made that comparison is dependent upon what we use to compare one with other is and cannot do either justice for it never can be compared in respect of the totality of either’s existence.
WELCOMES YOU to his little home in cyberspace.
Friday, May 30, 2008
Sunday, May 25, 2008
A friend died This Morn
He looks at each of his visitors as they enter and he whispers to each,
“This is a day of deep sorrow for me. A dear friend of many years passed away this morn. A friend who was always there when I needed. A friend who always beckoned to my call whenever I needed . I could always tell this friend my problems and that wonderful friend would listen silently and wisely.
This friend was never jealous but would lead me to wherever I wanted to go. This friend served me well each and every day whenever I asked and did so without complaint. Even upon its death bed it still tried to serve me. This friend never demanded that I speak the words of gratitude nor the words of love.
This friend will be missed very much for how can you forget a companion of so many years. I was stunned as I looked at this friend’s face and knew that all I saw was death as all old friends must eventually do. It was a quick death and for that I am grateful.
A friendship of nearly fifteen years was lost to me this morn. My monitor died on me. It has served me through two computers and I cannot help but think that my computer is about ready to follow it to Electronics heaven.
“This is a day of deep sorrow for me. A dear friend of many years passed away this morn. A friend who was always there when I needed. A friend who always beckoned to my call whenever I needed . I could always tell this friend my problems and that wonderful friend would listen silently and wisely.
This friend was never jealous but would lead me to wherever I wanted to go. This friend served me well each and every day whenever I asked and did so without complaint. Even upon its death bed it still tried to serve me. This friend never demanded that I speak the words of gratitude nor the words of love.
This friend will be missed very much for how can you forget a companion of so many years. I was stunned as I looked at this friend’s face and knew that all I saw was death as all old friends must eventually do. It was a quick death and for that I am grateful.
A friendship of nearly fifteen years was lost to me this morn. My monitor died on me. It has served me through two computers and I cannot help but think that my computer is about ready to follow it to Electronics heaven.
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Decisions and Leadership
One day I had a decision to make and I didn't want to make that decision. Grandpa saw my dilemma and smiled but wouldn't help me in making that decision. All he said was,
Boy, as you grow up you will learn one thing whether you like it or not. That one thing is the idea of making decisions whether it is for yourself or for others. Some decisions may appear hard to make. There will be decisions that you will not like to make. There will be decisions that you will not want to make. Nevertheless, they will have to be made and you will have to make them, right or wrong.
The making of decisions is probably the one of the things that we have to do in life and do without choice in the matter. Now, that may seem like an oxymoronic statement yet it is true. What makes decision making hard is not the idea of making a good decision but the idea of making the correct decision.
A good decision may not always be the correct decision and I call this a mistaken decision. These decisions are correctable. A bad decision definitely is not a correct decision but it is not correctable and they are decisions we must live with. Once a bad decision has been made, the only thing that can be done is to make the end a good end to make that decision appear to have been a good decision.
Leaders are called leaders because the decisions they make have an effect on those who follow them. Those who follow a leader have a very important role. They have the role of being the support that a leader needs in regards to the decisions he makes. The problem here is the fact that not every decision a leader makes will have a positive effect on each and every one of his followers.
When a leader makes a decision that has a negative effect on his followers, he will lose their support. Whether or not he deserves the loss of support is another question to be answered. The loss of support is rarely justified. Just because a decision may have a negative effect on a follower does not necessarily justify not supporting a leader. Even the best of decisions that a leader may make will have a negative effect on some of his followers.
A leader may make a bad decision but he is not the only one that can make bad decisions. His followers can and will make bad decisions in regards to their support. It is when a leader makes a bad decision that he needs the support of his followers the most. For it is then that with the support of his followers that a leader can pursue a good ending.
Only the strongest of leaders is capable of pursuing that good ending without the support of his followers for he must pursue it without their help. In fact, they will even try to hinder that pursuit. Once hindered the end is prolonged unnecessarily and can end in a way that is not desired or hoped for.
Leadership is a quality that is possessed by few men in a society. Some will say that it is a quality given by God. Others will say that it is learned. Either way, the acceptance of the role of a leader is not one to be looked upon lightly. For it is a role only the thick-skinned can endure if he hopes to be a good leader. And we, who are called followers, should take a good look in the mirror and think twice before declaring a loss of support for our leaders.
So, boy, grow up to be a leader but know also there will be times you will stand alone.”
I just nodded and then thought to myself, “Why would anyone want to be a leader of men if they lead those who are so fickle in their loyalty?”
Boy, as you grow up you will learn one thing whether you like it or not. That one thing is the idea of making decisions whether it is for yourself or for others. Some decisions may appear hard to make. There will be decisions that you will not like to make. There will be decisions that you will not want to make. Nevertheless, they will have to be made and you will have to make them, right or wrong.
The making of decisions is probably the one of the things that we have to do in life and do without choice in the matter. Now, that may seem like an oxymoronic statement yet it is true. What makes decision making hard is not the idea of making a good decision but the idea of making the correct decision.
A good decision may not always be the correct decision and I call this a mistaken decision. These decisions are correctable. A bad decision definitely is not a correct decision but it is not correctable and they are decisions we must live with. Once a bad decision has been made, the only thing that can be done is to make the end a good end to make that decision appear to have been a good decision.
Leaders are called leaders because the decisions they make have an effect on those who follow them. Those who follow a leader have a very important role. They have the role of being the support that a leader needs in regards to the decisions he makes. The problem here is the fact that not every decision a leader makes will have a positive effect on each and every one of his followers.
When a leader makes a decision that has a negative effect on his followers, he will lose their support. Whether or not he deserves the loss of support is another question to be answered. The loss of support is rarely justified. Just because a decision may have a negative effect on a follower does not necessarily justify not supporting a leader. Even the best of decisions that a leader may make will have a negative effect on some of his followers.
A leader may make a bad decision but he is not the only one that can make bad decisions. His followers can and will make bad decisions in regards to their support. It is when a leader makes a bad decision that he needs the support of his followers the most. For it is then that with the support of his followers that a leader can pursue a good ending.
Only the strongest of leaders is capable of pursuing that good ending without the support of his followers for he must pursue it without their help. In fact, they will even try to hinder that pursuit. Once hindered the end is prolonged unnecessarily and can end in a way that is not desired or hoped for.
Leadership is a quality that is possessed by few men in a society. Some will say that it is a quality given by God. Others will say that it is learned. Either way, the acceptance of the role of a leader is not one to be looked upon lightly. For it is a role only the thick-skinned can endure if he hopes to be a good leader. And we, who are called followers, should take a good look in the mirror and think twice before declaring a loss of support for our leaders.
So, boy, grow up to be a leader but know also there will be times you will stand alone.”
I just nodded and then thought to myself, “Why would anyone want to be a leader of men if they lead those who are so fickle in their loyalty?”
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
The Power of Another
Wind, one of the four great powers of life
In its warmth it can be the hug we need, the kiss we yearn
In its chill, a reminder that we be but human, not a God
‘Tis from the wind we know ourselves, ‘tis life it gives.
Fire be the force of our lives but touch it not
Warmth be its gift, the heat to kindle our hearts
It be a reminder that love is not to be smothered
For love needs it freedom if it be known as given.
Water we have to quench our thirst, to make us clean
It be there to hold us up though we may feel we be drowning
In the beauty of its turbulence, we know that peace will follow
From this, we know our strengths, we know our weakness.
Earth be the last but yet it be not the least
From within its soul comes the fruit of its labor
That we may know the cycle of life, short it may be
A reminder to know it well, to know it be deep.
The wind might cease, the fire may go out,
The earth may suckle the water dry but this I know
They be gone not long, they be there just the same
For life is ever here, they each have a need.
For as the grain of earth we be, a drop of water
A spark from the flame, the slightest of breeze
‘Tis in our insignificance that we be important
For we be one, we be alone, and alone we be of need.
‘Tis of need we seek for another, of need, we follow the wind
‘Tis of another we seek to be enflamed, to know the fire
For only another may quench the thirst of the unsatiable need
Only with another can the fruit of our labor come forth.
This be the end of my story, the end of my tale
Twas the story of one as each may be
Twas the story of all as each must seek
For it be the union of two that we know we be but one.
In its warmth it can be the hug we need, the kiss we yearn
In its chill, a reminder that we be but human, not a God
‘Tis from the wind we know ourselves, ‘tis life it gives.
Fire be the force of our lives but touch it not
Warmth be its gift, the heat to kindle our hearts
It be a reminder that love is not to be smothered
For love needs it freedom if it be known as given.
Water we have to quench our thirst, to make us clean
It be there to hold us up though we may feel we be drowning
In the beauty of its turbulence, we know that peace will follow
From this, we know our strengths, we know our weakness.
Earth be the last but yet it be not the least
From within its soul comes the fruit of its labor
That we may know the cycle of life, short it may be
A reminder to know it well, to know it be deep.
The wind might cease, the fire may go out,
The earth may suckle the water dry but this I know
They be gone not long, they be there just the same
For life is ever here, they each have a need.
For as the grain of earth we be, a drop of water
A spark from the flame, the slightest of breeze
‘Tis in our insignificance that we be important
For we be one, we be alone, and alone we be of need.
‘Tis of need we seek for another, of need, we follow the wind
‘Tis of another we seek to be enflamed, to know the fire
For only another may quench the thirst of the unsatiable need
Only with another can the fruit of our labor come forth.
This be the end of my story, the end of my tale
Twas the story of one as each may be
Twas the story of all as each must seek
For it be the union of two that we know we be but one.
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Homosexual Marriage
Grandpa took me to the monthly town hall meeting one evening. He usually just sat there quietly as he listened to others rant and rave about a particular peeve they had with certain departments of government. Nevertheless, this night he had something to say and at the end when time was about up he stood up sought permission to speak. Given permission this is what he spoke of,
“California has just joined those states in declaring it unconstitutional to prohibit homosexuals from marrying. But, have they really? There was no law that I know of that prevented a homosexual from marrying. In fact, as far as I knew the laws were gender based not sexually based. In fact, there are many cases where it was reported that a homosexual was married and the father or mother of children. Therefore, the reasoning for it can’t be based on the fact that it was against the law for a homosexual to marry.
Equality? If everyone has the equal opportunity to marry and that includes homosexuals, then where is inequality at, even at the class level? What the Supreme Court has done is make marriage a sexually based relationship rather than a gender based one as accepted on a universal basis. Equality is sexually based now rather than gender based in regards to this issue. Sodomy has been given the status of equality with sexual intercourse.
Some will argue that there are benefits to marriage that homosexuals cannot take advantage of without the right to marry. This is a poor argument also. First, no person who is not married can take advantage of those benefits including heterosexuals either. Second, most of those benefits they are claiming to seek can be designated. There is no law that declares only the spouse enjoys any of those benefits and that includes any decision-making necessary by another person.
As for those laws that do specifically designate the spouse as beneficiary, I have only one thing to say about them, change those laws. There is no need to change the laws of marriage for them. By changing those laws instead of the laws of marriage, all the people benefit not just the few. By changing the laws of marriage, you have created a sense of inequality by allowing the homosexual to participate in society in the capacity of two worlds, the heterosexual world and the homosexual world.
Upon marriage two persons accept the responsibility of two new roles in life, that of husband and wife. Furthermore, it is of marriage that gives meaning and purpose to these new roles. Without marriage these roles are non-existent and without meaning or purpose to any person.
The word spouse is often used as a substitute for the words husband or wife but should only be understood in terms that the person in question took the vows of marriage. It should never be used as an identifying term of the role. The word spouse is closely linked to the words bride and groom not to husband and wife.
Giving homosexuals the right to marry based of preference of sex destroys the total meaning and purpose of marriage. It no longer values the intricacies of the relationship that is involved. A two-man or two-woman relationship is an entirely different type of relationship than a relationship involving a man and woman.
Family is the recognized foundation of any society. Dilute the meaning of family and you weaken the foundation. Marriage is an integral part of the meaning of family. Over the years and within my own lifetime I have seen the meaning of family practically dissolved of its meaning and intent. In addition, with this dissolution I have seen another phenomena, greater dependence on government to provide for the needs of the family.
In closing, I do not ask you all here tonight to judge whether it is wrong or right. I only ask that you think on it as you go home and look at your families and then determine just how important that family is to you”
With this he looked down to me and said “Let’s go home, boy. Your grandmother awaits our return”
“California has just joined those states in declaring it unconstitutional to prohibit homosexuals from marrying. But, have they really? There was no law that I know of that prevented a homosexual from marrying. In fact, as far as I knew the laws were gender based not sexually based. In fact, there are many cases where it was reported that a homosexual was married and the father or mother of children. Therefore, the reasoning for it can’t be based on the fact that it was against the law for a homosexual to marry.
Equality? If everyone has the equal opportunity to marry and that includes homosexuals, then where is inequality at, even at the class level? What the Supreme Court has done is make marriage a sexually based relationship rather than a gender based one as accepted on a universal basis. Equality is sexually based now rather than gender based in regards to this issue. Sodomy has been given the status of equality with sexual intercourse.
Some will argue that there are benefits to marriage that homosexuals cannot take advantage of without the right to marry. This is a poor argument also. First, no person who is not married can take advantage of those benefits including heterosexuals either. Second, most of those benefits they are claiming to seek can be designated. There is no law that declares only the spouse enjoys any of those benefits and that includes any decision-making necessary by another person.
As for those laws that do specifically designate the spouse as beneficiary, I have only one thing to say about them, change those laws. There is no need to change the laws of marriage for them. By changing those laws instead of the laws of marriage, all the people benefit not just the few. By changing the laws of marriage, you have created a sense of inequality by allowing the homosexual to participate in society in the capacity of two worlds, the heterosexual world and the homosexual world.
Upon marriage two persons accept the responsibility of two new roles in life, that of husband and wife. Furthermore, it is of marriage that gives meaning and purpose to these new roles. Without marriage these roles are non-existent and without meaning or purpose to any person.
The word spouse is often used as a substitute for the words husband or wife but should only be understood in terms that the person in question took the vows of marriage. It should never be used as an identifying term of the role. The word spouse is closely linked to the words bride and groom not to husband and wife.
Giving homosexuals the right to marry based of preference of sex destroys the total meaning and purpose of marriage. It no longer values the intricacies of the relationship that is involved. A two-man or two-woman relationship is an entirely different type of relationship than a relationship involving a man and woman.
Family is the recognized foundation of any society. Dilute the meaning of family and you weaken the foundation. Marriage is an integral part of the meaning of family. Over the years and within my own lifetime I have seen the meaning of family practically dissolved of its meaning and intent. In addition, with this dissolution I have seen another phenomena, greater dependence on government to provide for the needs of the family.
In closing, I do not ask you all here tonight to judge whether it is wrong or right. I only ask that you think on it as you go home and look at your families and then determine just how important that family is to you”
With this he looked down to me and said “Let’s go home, boy. Your grandmother awaits our return”
Saturday, May 17, 2008
New Blog
Sorry,folks about being lax in my posting. Heat is getting to me here and besides I've been a little busy adding a new element to my site. I've added a new blog archiving all the music videos that I've been putting up here for your entertainment. I thought it might be niice to allow all of you good folks that have been enjoying the music to hear them again, especially the ones you particularly liked to listen to.
It will be a blog that contains nothing but music, music, music. You can find it in "Personal Blogs" and the name of the site is Music of my Youth
It will be a blog that contains nothing but music, music, music. You can find it in "Personal Blogs" and the name of the site is Music of my Youth
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Gen. W.T. Sherman's reply to Anti-Victors
My fellow Americans:
I have read your posts, in the nature of a petition to revoke the orders of sending all the troops to Iraq. I have read them carefully, and give full credit to your statements of distress that have and will be occasioned, and yet shall not agree to the revocation of those orders, because they were not designed to meet the humanities of the cause, but to prepare for the future struggles in which millions of good people outside of Iraq have a deep interest.
We must have peace, not only in Iraq, but in all the world. To secure this, we must stop the war that now desolates this once happy and favored country. To stop war, we must defeat the insurgency which are arrayed against the laws and Constitution that all must respect and obey. To defeat this insurgency, we must prepare the way to reach them in their recesses, provided with the arms and instruments which enable us to accomplish our purpose.
Now, I know the vindictive nature of our enemy, that we may have many years of military operations from this quarter; and, therefore, deem it wise and prudent to prepare in time. The use of Iraq for warlike purposes in inconsistent with its character as a home for families. There will be little manufacturers, commerce, or agriculture here, for the maintenance of families, and sooner or later want will compel the inhabitants to go.
Why not support the war now, when all the arrangements are completed for the transfer, instead of waiting till the plunging shot of contending armies will renew the scenes of the past years? Of course, I do not apprehend any such things at this moment, but you do not suppose that the troops will be there until the war is over. I cannot discuss this subject with you fairly, because I cannot know what is proposed to be done, but I assert that our military plans makes it necessary for the inhabitants to live with it, and our troops can only renew their effort of services to make their lives in any way as easy and comfortable as possible.
You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war into this country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out. I know I had no hand in making this war, and I know that our troops make more sacrifices to-day than any of you to secure peace. But you cannot have peace and a division of a country.
If the United States submits to a division now, it will not stop, but will go on until Iraq suffers the fate of many countries, which is eternal war. The government of Iraq does and must assert its authority, wherever it once had power; for, if it relaxes one bit to pressure, it is gone, and I believe that such is the national feeling. This feeling assumes various shapes, but always comes back to that of Union. Once admit the Union, once more acknowledge the authority of the national Government, and, instead of devoting their houses and streets and roads to the dread uses of war, the leaders and the army and police become at once their protectors and supporters, shielding them from danger, let it come from what quarter it may.
I know that a few individuals cannot resist a torrent of error and passion, such as swept some into rebellion, but you can point out, so that we may know those who desire a government, and those who insist on war and its desolation. You might as well appeal against the thunder-storm as against these terrible hardships of war. They are inevitable, and the only way the people of Iraq can hope once more to live in peace and quiet at home, is to stop the war, which can only be done by admitting that it began in error and is perpetuated in pride. We don't want their oil or their businesses, or their lands, or any thing they have, but we do want and will have a just obedience to the laws of Iraq. That they will have, and if it involved the destruction of their improvements, it cannot be helped.
I have read your posts, in the nature of a petition to revoke the orders of sending all the troops to Iraq. I have read them carefully, and give full credit to your statements of distress that have and will be occasioned, and yet shall not agree to the revocation of those orders, because they were not designed to meet the humanities of the cause, but to prepare for the future struggles in which millions of good people outside of Iraq have a deep interest.
We must have peace, not only in Iraq, but in all the world. To secure this, we must stop the war that now desolates this once happy and favored country. To stop war, we must defeat the insurgency which are arrayed against the laws and Constitution that all must respect and obey. To defeat this insurgency, we must prepare the way to reach them in their recesses, provided with the arms and instruments which enable us to accomplish our purpose.
Now, I know the vindictive nature of our enemy, that we may have many years of military operations from this quarter; and, therefore, deem it wise and prudent to prepare in time. The use of Iraq for warlike purposes in inconsistent with its character as a home for families. There will be little manufacturers, commerce, or agriculture here, for the maintenance of families, and sooner or later want will compel the inhabitants to go.
Why not support the war now, when all the arrangements are completed for the transfer, instead of waiting till the plunging shot of contending armies will renew the scenes of the past years? Of course, I do not apprehend any such things at this moment, but you do not suppose that the troops will be there until the war is over. I cannot discuss this subject with you fairly, because I cannot know what is proposed to be done, but I assert that our military plans makes it necessary for the inhabitants to live with it, and our troops can only renew their effort of services to make their lives in any way as easy and comfortable as possible.
You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war into this country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out. I know I had no hand in making this war, and I know that our troops make more sacrifices to-day than any of you to secure peace. But you cannot have peace and a division of a country.
If the United States submits to a division now, it will not stop, but will go on until Iraq suffers the fate of many countries, which is eternal war. The government of Iraq does and must assert its authority, wherever it once had power; for, if it relaxes one bit to pressure, it is gone, and I believe that such is the national feeling. This feeling assumes various shapes, but always comes back to that of Union. Once admit the Union, once more acknowledge the authority of the national Government, and, instead of devoting their houses and streets and roads to the dread uses of war, the leaders and the army and police become at once their protectors and supporters, shielding them from danger, let it come from what quarter it may.
I know that a few individuals cannot resist a torrent of error and passion, such as swept some into rebellion, but you can point out, so that we may know those who desire a government, and those who insist on war and its desolation. You might as well appeal against the thunder-storm as against these terrible hardships of war. They are inevitable, and the only way the people of Iraq can hope once more to live in peace and quiet at home, is to stop the war, which can only be done by admitting that it began in error and is perpetuated in pride. We don't want their oil or their businesses, or their lands, or any thing they have, but we do want and will have a just obedience to the laws of Iraq. That they will have, and if it involved the destruction of their improvements, it cannot be helped.
Gen. Sherman's reply, continued.
You have heretofore read public sentiment in your newspapers, that live by falsehood and excitement; and the quicker you seek for truth in other quarters, the better. I repeat then that, by the original compact of government, the United States had certain rights in Iraq, which have been relinquished; that the insurgents began the war by seizing of funds, persons, etc., etc., long before Mr. Maliki was installed, and before the insurgents had one jot or title of provocation.
In Iraq and Afghanistan, we fed thousands and thousands of the families of insurgents left on our hands, and whom we could not see starve. Now that war comes to you, you feel very different.
You deprecate its horrors, but did not feel them when you sent car-loads of soldiers and ammunition, tanks and planes, to carry war into Afghanistan, to desolate the homes of hundreds and thousands of good people who only asked to live in peace at their old homes, and under the Government of their inheritance.
But these comparisons are idle. I want peace, and believe it can only be reached through union and war, and I will ever conduct war with a view to perfect an early success. But, my dear sirs, when peace does come, you may agree or disagree with me on any thing. Then, will I share with you the last tidbit of thought, and stand with you to shield your rights and privileges against danger from every quarter.
Now the troops must fight, never forgetting the old and feeble, feeding and nursing them, and rebuilding for them, in more quiet places, proper habitations to shield them against the weather until the mad passions of men cool down, and allow the Union and peace once more to settle over their old homes in Iraq.
Yours in haste,
W.T. Sherman, Major-General commanding (The Griper)
Footnote:
This is my rendition of General Sherman's response to those who would pull our troops out of Iraq now.
In Iraq and Afghanistan, we fed thousands and thousands of the families of insurgents left on our hands, and whom we could not see starve. Now that war comes to you, you feel very different.
You deprecate its horrors, but did not feel them when you sent car-loads of soldiers and ammunition, tanks and planes, to carry war into Afghanistan, to desolate the homes of hundreds and thousands of good people who only asked to live in peace at their old homes, and under the Government of their inheritance.
But these comparisons are idle. I want peace, and believe it can only be reached through union and war, and I will ever conduct war with a view to perfect an early success. But, my dear sirs, when peace does come, you may agree or disagree with me on any thing. Then, will I share with you the last tidbit of thought, and stand with you to shield your rights and privileges against danger from every quarter.
Now the troops must fight, never forgetting the old and feeble, feeding and nursing them, and rebuilding for them, in more quiet places, proper habitations to shield them against the weather until the mad passions of men cool down, and allow the Union and peace once more to settle over their old homes in Iraq.
Yours in haste,
W.T. Sherman, Major-General commanding (The Griper)
Footnote:
This is my rendition of General Sherman's response to those who would pull our troops out of Iraq now.
Sunday, May 11, 2008
HAPPY MOTHER'S DAY
Three little words on this day so special.
This day so special yet but a fraction of the days
we can say those three little words.
Though we celebrate it but one day a year
She be one my whole life and yours too.
This day so special yet but a fraction of the days
we can say those three little words.
Though we celebrate it but one day a year
She be one my whole life and yours too.
So, my friends take this day and remember it always
Take this day and the words that go with it
Remember these words you say in humility and pride
Take this day and the words that go with it
Remember these words you say in humility and pride
Whether they be one or they be the other
Make this day the first of every day that you say
HAPPY MOTHER’S DAY
I LOVE YOU.
Make this day the first of every day that you say
HAPPY MOTHER’S DAY
I LOVE YOU.
Saturday, May 10, 2008
More on Honor Killing
After allowing my brain to fry a bit in thoughts, grandpa continued talking and explaining to me of the concept of honor killing. Here are his continuing words.
"As I was saying the idea of honor can be a complex situation. It is the attribute of the male species primarily and society demanded that he defend his own honor. If he dishonored himself then the only honorable thing to do was to commit suicide. If it were another who dishonored him in some way falsely, he was to show his honor by his willingness to die for it.
Dishonor of the family followed along these same lines. We must remember that the man’s family determined the family name. The wife took on his last name and the children inherited it. As the head of the family, he was to be honored by all members of his family. Obedience to his ways was imperative on all members.
Women have, historically, never has been viewed as being the equal of men. An argument could be made, and justifiably so, that they were seen as being property meant to be owned. Now, this does not mean that the term property was necessarily given to them it only means that based on the norms of societies that they were treated as such. It was a way of life and accepted as the normal relationship.
Given this attitude, it is understandable why virginity was expected and valued of the female but had no bearing on the reputation of boys. In fact, a boy’s reputation was enhanced once virginity was lost and he was looked upon as a man. I have often wondered if that might be the reason of the choice of colors once used in a wedding, white being a sign of purity for the bride and a black tux being a sign of impurity for the groom.
We must also consider the fact that at one time the father of the girl to be married was given certain assets that determined the value of the girl. The word dowry is a derivative of this practice. The idea of alimony was another means that could be seen that women were to be treated as property that the man was responsible for until another man took over responsibility for her keep. There still are many norms that have been handed down to indicate that women are still treated as property even in the most civilized of nations.
Given this attitude we can see why women and girls are the victims of honor killings. For by their sexual behaviors they disgraced the family name and it was up to the man, whose name was disgraced, to regain his reputation in society. He accomplishes this by ridding her from the family as if she never was a part of his family. The same could be applied to a community where stoning was the punishment.
Now, granted, in Western societies, death by stoning or other means has not been the penalty for awhile now in regards to women’s sexual behavior but we need not go very far back in history to see that it still was dealt with severely. We need not go back very far to hear of the feel of the lash of a whipping upon the back of a woman. We have heard many times in recent history of a father disowning a girl from the family if she came home pregnant. Shot gun weddings are joked about now days but a very real occurrence at one time. A common but hidden and very dangerous occurrence was practiced that has created a big controversy even today, abortion.
Back alley abortions was used to hide the disgrace of a pregnancy. Women or girls were willing to chance it before chancing the wrath of a father who considered himself as being dishonored.
So, while we may see honor killings as being a despicable act and don’t get me wrong I certainly do, boy, we as a society better take a good look at our own history. We don’t have the moral high ground to call it despicable in righteous indignation of being a better society than another, both religiously or culturally on this issue.
Roe Vs Wade only goes back to the year 1973, which was our solution to these back alley atrocities. Furthermore, the attitude in this nation in regards to unwed pregnancies and our attitude towards women themselves only has changed since then also. though I do think that the pendulum of a just society has swung a bit to far to the left and I believe your grandmother will agree on this"
When he had finished I glanced over at grandma who had kept quiet all this time while grandpa was talking and I could only feel a greater appreciation of what being a woman meant in this world.
"As I was saying the idea of honor can be a complex situation. It is the attribute of the male species primarily and society demanded that he defend his own honor. If he dishonored himself then the only honorable thing to do was to commit suicide. If it were another who dishonored him in some way falsely, he was to show his honor by his willingness to die for it.
Dishonor of the family followed along these same lines. We must remember that the man’s family determined the family name. The wife took on his last name and the children inherited it. As the head of the family, he was to be honored by all members of his family. Obedience to his ways was imperative on all members.
Women have, historically, never has been viewed as being the equal of men. An argument could be made, and justifiably so, that they were seen as being property meant to be owned. Now, this does not mean that the term property was necessarily given to them it only means that based on the norms of societies that they were treated as such. It was a way of life and accepted as the normal relationship.
Given this attitude, it is understandable why virginity was expected and valued of the female but had no bearing on the reputation of boys. In fact, a boy’s reputation was enhanced once virginity was lost and he was looked upon as a man. I have often wondered if that might be the reason of the choice of colors once used in a wedding, white being a sign of purity for the bride and a black tux being a sign of impurity for the groom.
We must also consider the fact that at one time the father of the girl to be married was given certain assets that determined the value of the girl. The word dowry is a derivative of this practice. The idea of alimony was another means that could be seen that women were to be treated as property that the man was responsible for until another man took over responsibility for her keep. There still are many norms that have been handed down to indicate that women are still treated as property even in the most civilized of nations.
Given this attitude we can see why women and girls are the victims of honor killings. For by their sexual behaviors they disgraced the family name and it was up to the man, whose name was disgraced, to regain his reputation in society. He accomplishes this by ridding her from the family as if she never was a part of his family. The same could be applied to a community where stoning was the punishment.
Now, granted, in Western societies, death by stoning or other means has not been the penalty for awhile now in regards to women’s sexual behavior but we need not go very far back in history to see that it still was dealt with severely. We need not go back very far to hear of the feel of the lash of a whipping upon the back of a woman. We have heard many times in recent history of a father disowning a girl from the family if she came home pregnant. Shot gun weddings are joked about now days but a very real occurrence at one time. A common but hidden and very dangerous occurrence was practiced that has created a big controversy even today, abortion.
Back alley abortions was used to hide the disgrace of a pregnancy. Women or girls were willing to chance it before chancing the wrath of a father who considered himself as being dishonored.
So, while we may see honor killings as being a despicable act and don’t get me wrong I certainly do, boy, we as a society better take a good look at our own history. We don’t have the moral high ground to call it despicable in righteous indignation of being a better society than another, both religiously or culturally on this issue.
Roe Vs Wade only goes back to the year 1973, which was our solution to these back alley atrocities. Furthermore, the attitude in this nation in regards to unwed pregnancies and our attitude towards women themselves only has changed since then also. though I do think that the pendulum of a just society has swung a bit to far to the left and I believe your grandmother will agree on this"
When he had finished I glanced over at grandma who had kept quiet all this time while grandpa was talking and I could only feel a greater appreciation of what being a woman meant in this world.
Friday, May 09, 2008
Honor Killing
I was reading an entry of one of the blogs that grandpa permitted me to visit and a post there was commenting on the honor killing in Texas. I turned to grandpa as he was reading his newspaper and asked
"Grandpa, what is an honor killing?"
"Boy, in our society it is a very despicable act but before we can understand what it means we first must understand the meaning of honor. There are many ways people will define honor whether it is personal, family, institutional or cultural. However, regardless of how it is defined it has one characteristic that is common with any definition. That characteristic is the fact of that it means being looked up to.
What makes this characteristic so important results from understanding what it means to be dishonored. Dishonor results from being looked down upon, deservingly, because of some behavior. It is with this understanding that honor is to be protected even if it means dying for.
Honor seems to be a characteristic that is more important to the male population than the female. Moreover, it appears to be a characteristic of men without regard to culture, religion, or time. Men are willing to die or kill for it. It involves living by a certain code, a very strict code of behavior. A man’s reputation and good name as known within the community is determined by how he is seen as living by this code of honor.
While I said that it is a characteristic without regard to culture or religion, the code of honor is dependent on both. It is the predominate religious beliefs of the culture that help to make up this code of honor. The reason for this is that it is our religious beliefs that determine the justification of our willingness to die or kill. Furthermore, it is those beliefs translated into the laws of a culture that determine our outlook of it.
Another aspect of honor it seems is that a man could be taken at his word. A man whose word was his bond is considered an honorable man and one to be honored. Moreover, the man who did not keep his promise dishonored himself along with the other who accepted his word of honor. This is exemplified in the term "honor system" that we hear so often in our school systems in regards to test taking or used in other institutions of society.
Historically, honor was an attribute a man should be willing to die for rather than kill for. The Japanese had the practice of what is commonly known as hara-kiri. Kamikaze pilots were another example of dying for honor. In the western cultures, duels were fought to protect one’s honor. Even in the old west, a man would die before he would allow his good name and reputation be tarnished. A handshake was all that was needed to consummate an agreement of business between men of honor.
Cultures treated women differently than what was expected out of men where honor was concerned historically. Even here there was a common thread between cultures. A woman’s sexual behavior determined her reputation. To a very real extent, it still does even to this day in all cultures. How a woman reacts to being raped shows how ingrained this is in her psyche along with how society is perceived to see her after she was raped. She is still a woman whose reputation has been tarnished.
Furthermore, it covers more than one religion. Even in the New Testament of the Bible, we see an example of this. Remember the words of Jesus, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." That was an example of an honor killing that was to happen but never occurred. The death of Jesus himself can be characterized as a death of and for the sake of honor.
Honor is an attribute, boy, which still is a very important one although in this society it is very seldom thought of in terms of its meaning except when we hear of these honor killings. May be it is time that we as a society did think about it more for if we don’t it will lose any meaning at all in time. There are times we use the term respect when in fact the term honor would be the more correct usage. Think about this for awhile."
I just nodded and could feel the wheels burning up my brain as it started thinking faster than it should.
"Grandpa, what is an honor killing?"
"Boy, in our society it is a very despicable act but before we can understand what it means we first must understand the meaning of honor. There are many ways people will define honor whether it is personal, family, institutional or cultural. However, regardless of how it is defined it has one characteristic that is common with any definition. That characteristic is the fact of that it means being looked up to.
What makes this characteristic so important results from understanding what it means to be dishonored. Dishonor results from being looked down upon, deservingly, because of some behavior. It is with this understanding that honor is to be protected even if it means dying for.
Honor seems to be a characteristic that is more important to the male population than the female. Moreover, it appears to be a characteristic of men without regard to culture, religion, or time. Men are willing to die or kill for it. It involves living by a certain code, a very strict code of behavior. A man’s reputation and good name as known within the community is determined by how he is seen as living by this code of honor.
While I said that it is a characteristic without regard to culture or religion, the code of honor is dependent on both. It is the predominate religious beliefs of the culture that help to make up this code of honor. The reason for this is that it is our religious beliefs that determine the justification of our willingness to die or kill. Furthermore, it is those beliefs translated into the laws of a culture that determine our outlook of it.
Another aspect of honor it seems is that a man could be taken at his word. A man whose word was his bond is considered an honorable man and one to be honored. Moreover, the man who did not keep his promise dishonored himself along with the other who accepted his word of honor. This is exemplified in the term "honor system" that we hear so often in our school systems in regards to test taking or used in other institutions of society.
Historically, honor was an attribute a man should be willing to die for rather than kill for. The Japanese had the practice of what is commonly known as hara-kiri. Kamikaze pilots were another example of dying for honor. In the western cultures, duels were fought to protect one’s honor. Even in the old west, a man would die before he would allow his good name and reputation be tarnished. A handshake was all that was needed to consummate an agreement of business between men of honor.
Cultures treated women differently than what was expected out of men where honor was concerned historically. Even here there was a common thread between cultures. A woman’s sexual behavior determined her reputation. To a very real extent, it still does even to this day in all cultures. How a woman reacts to being raped shows how ingrained this is in her psyche along with how society is perceived to see her after she was raped. She is still a woman whose reputation has been tarnished.
Furthermore, it covers more than one religion. Even in the New Testament of the Bible, we see an example of this. Remember the words of Jesus, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." That was an example of an honor killing that was to happen but never occurred. The death of Jesus himself can be characterized as a death of and for the sake of honor.
Honor is an attribute, boy, which still is a very important one although in this society it is very seldom thought of in terms of its meaning except when we hear of these honor killings. May be it is time that we as a society did think about it more for if we don’t it will lose any meaning at all in time. There are times we use the term respect when in fact the term honor would be the more correct usage. Think about this for awhile."
I just nodded and could feel the wheels burning up my brain as it started thinking faster than it should.
Thursday, May 08, 2008
More on Honor by Dishonor
PEOPLE WHERE ARE YOU? I HEAR NOTHING FROM YOU YET ABOUT THE KILLING OF TWO LOVELY GIRLS WHO DIED AT THE HANDS OF THEIR FATHER. A FATHER WHO RAPED THESE GIRLS. A FATHER WHO BEAT THESE GIRLS BEFORE KILLING THEM. A MAN WHO DISHONORED ALL WE BELIEVE IN AS A NATION YET HAS THE GALL TO THINK HE HAS HIS OWN HONOR BACK.
THE JACKSONS AND SHARPTONS OF THIS WORLD, MEN WHO CALL YOURSELVES MEN OF GOD SEEKING JUSTICE, WHERE ARE YOU WHERE THESE TWO GIRLS ARE CONCERNED? IS JUSTICE FOR YOU DETERMINED ONLY BY RACE?
MURDER AND RAPE ARE NOT JUST POLICE ISSUES THEY ARE COMMUNITY ISSUES. WHERE IS THE COMMUNITY OUTCRY THAT WE SHOULD BE HEARING? ARE WE A COUNTRY THAT CONSIDERS BOYS MORE IMPORTANT THAN GIRLS? IT SURE SEEMS SO.
A NATION ROSE UP WHEN THEY HEARD LITTLE BOYS WERE BEING MOLESTED BUT I HEAR NOTHING WHEN LITTLE GIRLS ARE RAPED THEN KILLED. APPARENTLY WE ARE A COMMUNITY THAT ONLY MOUTHS EQUAL TREATMENT BUT DOES NOT PRACTICE WHAT WE PREACH.
THE SON OF THIS MAN HAS THREATENED HIS AUNT NOW BECAUSE SHE WAS WILLING TO SPEAK OUT. AND HE DOES SO WITHOUT ANY FEAR OF RETRIBUTION. WHERE IS THE COMMUNITY PROTECTION SHE DESERVES?
AND ALL YOU BLOGGERS WHERE ARE YOU ON THIS? YOU YELL ABOUT JIHADISTS YET NOT A WORD OUT OF YOU WHEN IT OCCURS IN OUR OWN COUNTRY. YOU YELL OF PATRIOTISM BUT PATRIOTISM BEGINS AT HOME. YOU YELL OF THE ABUSES OF DICTATORS BUT SAY NOTHING ABOUT IT HERE IN A FAMILY. THIS MAN IS AS DESPICABLE AS SADDAM WAS. AND HIS SON IS AS BAD AS THE SONS OF SADDAM. AND WE HAVE A MOTHER WHO SAYS THAT THIS SON IS THE BEST OF HER CHILDREN.
BLOGGERS ITS TIME WE STOOD UP. ITS TIME WE STOOD BESIDE THOSE WHO ARE BRAVE ENOUGH TO CRY OUT. ARE WOMEN BRAVER THAN US MEN? IT SEEMS SO. FOR IT APPEARS THAT THEY ARE THE ONLY ONES CRYING OUT FOR JUSTICE FOR THESE GIRLS, WOMEN LIKE "DCAT" AND "PAMELA" OVER AT ATLAS SHRUGS.
MEN ALWAYS YELL OF HONOR AND HOW MUCH THEY VALUE IT. WELL. ITS TIME YOU PROVE IT. IT IS TIME MEN STOOD UP AND YELLED THAT HONOR DOES NOT COME FROM THE RAPING AND KILLING OF OUR WOMEN. HONOR ONLY COMES FROM THE PROTECTION AND CARE OF OUR WOMEN. AT LEAST THAT IS WHAT BOTH MY FATHER AND GRANDFATHER TAUGHT ME.
I HEAR MANY OF YOU CRYING OUT THAT WE HAVE SENT OUR BOYS OVER TO IRAQ TO DIE FOR NOTHING. WERE THESE GIRLS BIRTHED FOR NOTHING? WERE THESE GIRLS LIVES LIVED FOR NOTHING? APPARENTLY SO, SINCE I SEE NONE OF YOU OUT PROTESTING THEIR DEATHS. I SEE NONE OF YOU CAMPING OUT SEEKING JUSTICE FOR THESE GIRLS AS YOU WERE WILLING TO BECAUSE YOUR SON DIED. IS THE LIFE OF A SON MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE LIFE OF A DAUGHTER?
ONLY COWARDS SAY NOTHING. ONLY COWARDS ARE UNWILLING TO DO ANYTHING. IS THAT WHAT WE HAVE TURNED INTO, A NATION OF COWARDS?
THE JACKSONS AND SHARPTONS OF THIS WORLD, MEN WHO CALL YOURSELVES MEN OF GOD SEEKING JUSTICE, WHERE ARE YOU WHERE THESE TWO GIRLS ARE CONCERNED? IS JUSTICE FOR YOU DETERMINED ONLY BY RACE?
MURDER AND RAPE ARE NOT JUST POLICE ISSUES THEY ARE COMMUNITY ISSUES. WHERE IS THE COMMUNITY OUTCRY THAT WE SHOULD BE HEARING? ARE WE A COUNTRY THAT CONSIDERS BOYS MORE IMPORTANT THAN GIRLS? IT SURE SEEMS SO.
A NATION ROSE UP WHEN THEY HEARD LITTLE BOYS WERE BEING MOLESTED BUT I HEAR NOTHING WHEN LITTLE GIRLS ARE RAPED THEN KILLED. APPARENTLY WE ARE A COMMUNITY THAT ONLY MOUTHS EQUAL TREATMENT BUT DOES NOT PRACTICE WHAT WE PREACH.
THE SON OF THIS MAN HAS THREATENED HIS AUNT NOW BECAUSE SHE WAS WILLING TO SPEAK OUT. AND HE DOES SO WITHOUT ANY FEAR OF RETRIBUTION. WHERE IS THE COMMUNITY PROTECTION SHE DESERVES?
AND ALL YOU BLOGGERS WHERE ARE YOU ON THIS? YOU YELL ABOUT JIHADISTS YET NOT A WORD OUT OF YOU WHEN IT OCCURS IN OUR OWN COUNTRY. YOU YELL OF PATRIOTISM BUT PATRIOTISM BEGINS AT HOME. YOU YELL OF THE ABUSES OF DICTATORS BUT SAY NOTHING ABOUT IT HERE IN A FAMILY. THIS MAN IS AS DESPICABLE AS SADDAM WAS. AND HIS SON IS AS BAD AS THE SONS OF SADDAM. AND WE HAVE A MOTHER WHO SAYS THAT THIS SON IS THE BEST OF HER CHILDREN.
BLOGGERS ITS TIME WE STOOD UP. ITS TIME WE STOOD BESIDE THOSE WHO ARE BRAVE ENOUGH TO CRY OUT. ARE WOMEN BRAVER THAN US MEN? IT SEEMS SO. FOR IT APPEARS THAT THEY ARE THE ONLY ONES CRYING OUT FOR JUSTICE FOR THESE GIRLS, WOMEN LIKE "DCAT" AND "PAMELA" OVER AT ATLAS SHRUGS.
MEN ALWAYS YELL OF HONOR AND HOW MUCH THEY VALUE IT. WELL. ITS TIME YOU PROVE IT. IT IS TIME MEN STOOD UP AND YELLED THAT HONOR DOES NOT COME FROM THE RAPING AND KILLING OF OUR WOMEN. HONOR ONLY COMES FROM THE PROTECTION AND CARE OF OUR WOMEN. AT LEAST THAT IS WHAT BOTH MY FATHER AND GRANDFATHER TAUGHT ME.
I HEAR MANY OF YOU CRYING OUT THAT WE HAVE SENT OUR BOYS OVER TO IRAQ TO DIE FOR NOTHING. WERE THESE GIRLS BIRTHED FOR NOTHING? WERE THESE GIRLS LIVES LIVED FOR NOTHING? APPARENTLY SO, SINCE I SEE NONE OF YOU OUT PROTESTING THEIR DEATHS. I SEE NONE OF YOU CAMPING OUT SEEKING JUSTICE FOR THESE GIRLS AS YOU WERE WILLING TO BECAUSE YOUR SON DIED. IS THE LIFE OF A SON MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE LIFE OF A DAUGHTER?
ONLY COWARDS SAY NOTHING. ONLY COWARDS ARE UNWILLING TO DO ANYTHING. IS THAT WHAT WE HAVE TURNED INTO, A NATION OF COWARDS?
Wednesday, May 07, 2008
Answers of Government
"Grandpa, from the way you sound lately one would think that you do not have any respect for the state of our country as it is governed now."
Grandpa just looked down at me and it seemed as he was sadly nodding his head as he said,
Yes, boy, one might get that impression from the things I say. Moreover, in truth, there are times when I wonder of that also. Then there are times while in church and the good reverend is speaking of forgiveness that I wonder if it shouldn’t be applied here also. Maybe there isn’t really anything to forgive either.
History has shown that many have risen to the top then taken a great fall. That could be our fate also. The ever seeking of greater power of those within government seems to bring this about without any help from the outside. I would like to think that our founding fathers were wise enough to institute a government meant to avoid this fate.
I have often wondered what the founding fathers would say if there was some way to bring them back and ask them of their thoughts of government as it be now. Would they approve or disapprove? I have even wondered what changes they would have made, if any, if they could have had the foresight to see what we have done with what they have given us.
There are those who declare we are still a country where the people have greater freedom than any other people do in the world. I really don’t know for I only know the freedom I possess now and have never experience any other type of freedom. I have often wondered what freedom as possessed by our forefathers would feel like.
Science has done wonders. It has made our lives easier. It has allowed us to explore where we have never been before. It has even given us the opportunity of better quality of life. The question that bothers me though is whether we have become better persons because of it. Life is filled with wonders, boy, but along with those wonders are the wonderings also. Can we say we are now living in a more perfect society?
There is religion. Have we, as a society, pushed religion to the back burner and replaced it with something else to guide our lives? I have often asked myself what kind of world would this be if no one believed in God. What is it about believing in God that people would prefer that He be not allowed to be an influence in the decisions of government?
We must remember that if we do not allow religious beliefs to be an influence on government then only atheist beliefs can influence governmental decisions. Is that the preferable belief system for government? It is impossible for government to deny one influence without silently acknowledging the other.
I don’t know the answer, boy. The answer to these questions would have to come from someone with far greater knowledge than I possess."
Then grandpa went silent and as I gazed upon his face it appeared that there was a sadness in it that if revealed to the world it would reveal a heart broken by what it saw and knew it could do nothing anymore. Yet it revealed a love that demanded that it continue to try.
Grandpa just looked down at me and it seemed as he was sadly nodding his head as he said,
Yes, boy, one might get that impression from the things I say. Moreover, in truth, there are times when I wonder of that also. Then there are times while in church and the good reverend is speaking of forgiveness that I wonder if it shouldn’t be applied here also. Maybe there isn’t really anything to forgive either.
History has shown that many have risen to the top then taken a great fall. That could be our fate also. The ever seeking of greater power of those within government seems to bring this about without any help from the outside. I would like to think that our founding fathers were wise enough to institute a government meant to avoid this fate.
I have often wondered what the founding fathers would say if there was some way to bring them back and ask them of their thoughts of government as it be now. Would they approve or disapprove? I have even wondered what changes they would have made, if any, if they could have had the foresight to see what we have done with what they have given us.
There are those who declare we are still a country where the people have greater freedom than any other people do in the world. I really don’t know for I only know the freedom I possess now and have never experience any other type of freedom. I have often wondered what freedom as possessed by our forefathers would feel like.
Science has done wonders. It has made our lives easier. It has allowed us to explore where we have never been before. It has even given us the opportunity of better quality of life. The question that bothers me though is whether we have become better persons because of it. Life is filled with wonders, boy, but along with those wonders are the wonderings also. Can we say we are now living in a more perfect society?
There is religion. Have we, as a society, pushed religion to the back burner and replaced it with something else to guide our lives? I have often asked myself what kind of world would this be if no one believed in God. What is it about believing in God that people would prefer that He be not allowed to be an influence in the decisions of government?
We must remember that if we do not allow religious beliefs to be an influence on government then only atheist beliefs can influence governmental decisions. Is that the preferable belief system for government? It is impossible for government to deny one influence without silently acknowledging the other.
I don’t know the answer, boy. The answer to these questions would have to come from someone with far greater knowledge than I possess."
Then grandpa went silent and as I gazed upon his face it appeared that there was a sadness in it that if revealed to the world it would reveal a heart broken by what it saw and knew it could do nothing anymore. Yet it revealed a love that demanded that it continue to try.
Sunday, May 04, 2008
A Secular nation or A nation under God
As grandpa and I were walking out to the back 40 one morning to do some cleanup of trees that blew over during the last winds I thought of something my teacher said.
"Grandpa, what does it mean when people say we are a secular nation?"
Without even slowing his step, he responded this way.
"That is a good question, boy. There are times I wonder that also. This is another issue of principles and I never really understood what the principles of a secular nation are. However, I will admit to the fact that those who advocate this thought are men of good intentions.
It is an attempt to declare that our nation is not associated with any particular religion. For the founding fathers saw this as a cause for religious persecution. They wanted to create a government that would protect the people of all faiths and not force anyone to abide by the religious viewpoint of a singular faith that the government was associated with. There is one problem though. In declaring we are a secular nation, we have achieved just that.
Declaring that we are a secular nation is declaring that the government abides by worldly principles rather than by religious principles. Worldly principles are the principles that conform to the beliefs of atheism. Atheism is as much a religious belief as any other religious belief whether that belief be Jewish, Christian, Islamic or Hindu.
So, when they say we are a secular nation they are advocating for a nation that goes against the very intent of what they were trying to achieve. Secularism, in regards to this issue, is synonymous to atheism. That was not the intent of those who founded this nation as far as I can see.
The federal government was set up to be the representative government of the states. That was why they named this nation the United States. It was also set up so that the states were to be the dominant power while the federal government was to be the subordinate government. Now, if the states recognizes God and declare they be under Him how can the nation be any less under God? If this were so, how can we be, as a nation, a secular nation?
There may be those that would agree but do not agree that the government should advocate this belief. That may be debatable but one thing should not be debatable, the recognition of this belief by government. We need to remember that the words advocate and recognize are not synonyms. This is true although in recognition of something we may appear to be advocating it also.
We are a nation declared to be under God. That is a fact. To declare that we are not is a corrupted viewpoint of our nation. For a branch of our federal government not to recognize this is to advocate that the founders of this nation were fools to think so. For a branch of our federal government not to recognize this is to advocate that they are right and it does not matter what the states of this nation declares.
To declare that we are a secular nation rather than a nation under God is to declare that 5 men knows better than all of the men who created 51 constitutions along with all of the men in Congress who added it to the pledge we take. When those men of Congress added that small phrase to the pledge they were not declaring anything new. They were only making what was already known clearly understood.
There are some who declare that our government should reflect the beliefs of the people. They will sit and adamantly declare that government should subordinate itself unto the people over which it rules in regards to what it does. Yet it is these same people who advocate that we are a secular government when the people themselves declare they are under God. Then they wonder why I will not subordinate myself unto their political ideology."
I just nodded and said, "I agree gramps. That was why I asked the question"
"Grandpa, what does it mean when people say we are a secular nation?"
Without even slowing his step, he responded this way.
"That is a good question, boy. There are times I wonder that also. This is another issue of principles and I never really understood what the principles of a secular nation are. However, I will admit to the fact that those who advocate this thought are men of good intentions.
It is an attempt to declare that our nation is not associated with any particular religion. For the founding fathers saw this as a cause for religious persecution. They wanted to create a government that would protect the people of all faiths and not force anyone to abide by the religious viewpoint of a singular faith that the government was associated with. There is one problem though. In declaring we are a secular nation, we have achieved just that.
Declaring that we are a secular nation is declaring that the government abides by worldly principles rather than by religious principles. Worldly principles are the principles that conform to the beliefs of atheism. Atheism is as much a religious belief as any other religious belief whether that belief be Jewish, Christian, Islamic or Hindu.
So, when they say we are a secular nation they are advocating for a nation that goes against the very intent of what they were trying to achieve. Secularism, in regards to this issue, is synonymous to atheism. That was not the intent of those who founded this nation as far as I can see.
The federal government was set up to be the representative government of the states. That was why they named this nation the United States. It was also set up so that the states were to be the dominant power while the federal government was to be the subordinate government. Now, if the states recognizes God and declare they be under Him how can the nation be any less under God? If this were so, how can we be, as a nation, a secular nation?
There may be those that would agree but do not agree that the government should advocate this belief. That may be debatable but one thing should not be debatable, the recognition of this belief by government. We need to remember that the words advocate and recognize are not synonyms. This is true although in recognition of something we may appear to be advocating it also.
We are a nation declared to be under God. That is a fact. To declare that we are not is a corrupted viewpoint of our nation. For a branch of our federal government not to recognize this is to advocate that the founders of this nation were fools to think so. For a branch of our federal government not to recognize this is to advocate that they are right and it does not matter what the states of this nation declares.
To declare that we are a secular nation rather than a nation under God is to declare that 5 men knows better than all of the men who created 51 constitutions along with all of the men in Congress who added it to the pledge we take. When those men of Congress added that small phrase to the pledge they were not declaring anything new. They were only making what was already known clearly understood.
There are some who declare that our government should reflect the beliefs of the people. They will sit and adamantly declare that government should subordinate itself unto the people over which it rules in regards to what it does. Yet it is these same people who advocate that we are a secular government when the people themselves declare they are under God. Then they wonder why I will not subordinate myself unto their political ideology."
I just nodded and said, "I agree gramps. That was why I asked the question"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
