|
"Government is not a solution to our problem, government is the problem." ~ Ronald Reagan
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
But it's not my fault.....
Not the Hope and Change We wanted ????
____________________________________________________________
|
Atheists angry with street sign honoring 9-11 firefighters
In a neighborhood in New York City a new street sign has been erected to pay tribute to and to honor seven firefighters from Engine 202 and Ladder 101 firehouse who died on September 11, 2011; this sign is very near that firehouse. The new street sign is "Seven in Heaven Way."
Atheists in NYC are angered and are citing the United States Constitution and its "separation of Church and state" as a means to question the legality of the street sign. They go on to state that the concept of Heaven is "specifically Christian" and that the victims of the 9/11 attacks were not solely Christians.
Let's break all of this down:
- Of course the victims of 9/11 were not solely Christians. The attacks on the United States killed people from all backgrounds and religions and even, I suppose, some atheists.
- Heaven is not a specifically Christian concept. Many of the religions of the world have some concept of an afterlife whether it is called Heaven or Paradise or something else. Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all directly refer to Heaven.
- Separation of Church and state isn't really a part of our United States Constitution. The first amendment in the Bill of Rights reads, in its entirety, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
- The street sign does not compel one to adapt a religion but rather the sign simply honors those seven heroes, all from this one firehouse.
There is a misconception that the United States Constitution forbids religion in public areas.
The first amendment does not say that - it says (reading it again) that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. It also says we can't have laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion. What has been interpreted as a ban on religion was actually a ban on a state religion such as what was in place in England in the 18th Century. In other words, Congress can not say that all citizens must be a member of a specific church. For instance, we don't all have to be Methodists. We can choose to be Baptists, or Catholic, or Jews, or Muslims, or Buddhists, or even Atheists. We are not to be forced into joining a particular religious group but on the other hand we are free to express our religious beliefs (the second part of that first amendment - the freedom of speech part).
So is this street sign in New York City violating the Constitution? Of course not. No one is coercing anyone to convert to Christianity or even mention the word Heaven. The atheists are free to look the other way if it offends them and since the street in question has another name, they are free to use "Richards Street" rather than "Seven in Heaven Way" when giving directions.
~ Patty
Sunday, June 19, 2011
Another Great Opinion
I didn't write this, but see nothing wrong with it.
Put me in charge of food stamps. I'd get rid of Lone Star cards; no cash for Ding Dongs or Ho Ho's, just money for 50-pound bags of rice and beans, blocks of cheese and all the powdered milk you can haul away. If you want steak and frozen pizza, then get a job.
Put me in charge of Medicaid. The first thing I'd do is to get women Norplant birth control implants or tubal ligations. Then, we'll test recipients for drugs, alcohol, nicotine and document all tattoos and piercings. If you want to reproduce or use drugs, alcohol, smoke or get tats and piercings, then get a job.
Put me in charge of government housing. Ever live in a military barracks? You will maintain our property in a clean and good state of repair. Your "home" will be subject to inspections anytime and possessions will be inventoried. If you want a plasma TV or Xbox 360, then get a job and your own place.
In addition, you will either present a check stub from a job each week or you will report to a "government" job. It may be cleaning the roadways of trash, painting and repairing public housing, whatever we find for you.
Put me in charge of Medicaid. The first thing I'd do is to get women Norplant birth control implants or tubal ligations. Then, we'll test recipients for drugs, alcohol, nicotine and document all tattoos and piercings. If you want to reproduce or use drugs, alcohol, smoke or get tats and piercings, then get a job.
Put me in charge of government housing. Ever live in a military barracks? You will maintain our property in a clean and good state of repair. Your "home" will be subject to inspections anytime and possessions will be inventoried. If you want a plasma TV or Xbox 360, then get a job and your own place.
In addition, you will either present a check stub from a job each week or you will report to a "government" job. It may be cleaning the roadways of trash, painting and repairing public housing, whatever we find for you.
Before you write that I've violated someone's rights, realize that all of the above is voluntary. If you want our money, accept our rules.
Before you say that this would be "demeaning" and ruin their "self esteem," consider that it wasn't that long ago that taking someone else's money for doing absolutely nothing was demeaning and lowered self esteem.
If we are expected to pay for other people's mistakes we should at least attempt to make them learn from their bad choices. The current system rewards them for continuing to make mistakes and bad choices.
AND while you are on Government subsistence, you no longer can VOTE! Yes, that is correct. For you to vote would be a conflict of interest. You will voluntarily remove yourself from the voting rolls while you are receiving a Government welfare check. If you want to vote, then get a job.
If we are expected to pay for other people's mistakes we should at least attempt to make them learn from their bad choices. The current system rewards them for continuing to make mistakes and bad choices.
AND while you are on Government subsistence, you no longer can VOTE! Yes, that is correct. For you to vote would be a conflict of interest. You will voluntarily remove yourself from the voting rolls while you are receiving a Government welfare check. If you want to vote, then get a job.
Assuring Obama is a One-Term President
The race is on. Several people have stepped forward and expressed an interest in or have already filed papers to run for the Republican nomination and be the candidate that will challenge Barack Obama in 2012.
After watching the two televised debates thus far, I can tell you that all who participated in debates, either in South Carolina or New Hampshire, would make a much better president than what Obama has been so far, and, truthfully, I don't see him improving in the next 18 months.
I also really liked the debate participants attacking Obama and his policies and not each other. Any ammo used by Republicans against Republicans is ammo the Democrats can also use against Republicans.
If we all agree that we don't want to see Obama in the White House until January of 2017 then we must stand behind whatever candidate is chosen by the voters in the primaries. In 2008 there were many who were upset with either John McCain or Sarah Palin or both. There were some who sent a message and voted for Barack Obama simply because they didn't like the Republican ticket. I ask you "how did that work out for you?"
Everyone has issues. The job of an intelligent electorate is to chose the best candidate, not the perfect candidate.
~ Patty
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)