Who Will Be America's Next "One-Eyed Man"?

The evidence from the 2008 election clearly shows that the USA is truly the land of the blind... for "in the land of the blind the one-eyed man is King." Our current one-eyed man sees himself as King, but he is in the now underwhelming minority (no pun intended). Understand that - at best - the one-eyed man has no depth perception, and this one is in WAY over his head yet he continues to dig. But that's not really the main thrust of this blog post... it's really intended for those who practice or endorse 'religionism'.

For my entire life (well, up until 9/11/2001) I supported everyone's right to believe as they may choose, so long as their beliefs caused no indentifiable difficulties for anyone else. We KNOW who the Democrats will run for the office of POTUS, but who will oppose their one-eyed socialist-progressive? The only viable opposition is whoever the Republican Party nominates. There is no "third party" strong enough yet to overcome the political machines of either of the two established parties, much less the two combined. There is no single "write-in" candidate, with the national name recognition or personal popularity (with the possible exception of Justin Bieber - who doesn't meet the age requirement) to oust the incumbent. That leaves us with the Republican nominee - whosoever he or she may be - as our only hope to restore our Constitution and save our Republic!

I am politically non-aligned. Why? Because I don't believe either of our two predominant political parties have the best interests of our country in their collective minds! As of this writing the Republican field of potential nominees has been reduced to a single handful. Of these five, it appears that - at this time - Mitt Romney will prevail as the Republican nominee for POTUS. I'm not WILD about any of the offerings of either party, but I shall vote for any viable candidate who runs against NObama. What does Mitt have that is working against him as the successor to NObama? His personal arrogance (which is quite common among politicians), RomneyCare (which is only about a nickels difference from NObamaCare), and his religious belief system. The first two items are easily understood by most people. However, his religious belief system is not well-regarded by most mainstream Christians, simply because they don't understand it. Romney is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which many mainstreamers consider to be a cult.

I happen to live in Utah (aka: the Land of Zion), and I am not an active member of any religion - which allows me to be a bit more objective than many folks. Although I am not an "expert" on any religion, I have been exposed to many religious belief systems during my lifetime, and find that the LDS/Mormon Church differs from the Christian mainstream in only minor ways. (The following is anecdotal in nature, and is not the result of intense study or exhaustive statistial analysis...)
The Mormons are believers in Jesus the Christ, they are not Satan worshippers.
The LDS doctrine is Bible based, however, their "Bible" is a bit different from that of the mainstream Protestants and Catholics (which, btw, also differ from one another), as is their manner of worship. Although written by man (as are all books), they believe (as do all "Christians") that their bible - and the "Book of Mormon" - are "the inspired word of God" (nobody's "holy book" has ever been carved in stone by a lightning bolt).
They do not perform sacrifices of any kind - human, animal, vegetable, or mineral.
Neither the Mormon congregates nor their leadership have horns - which some people actually believe.
An LDS house of worship and "altar" is quite minimalistic compared to that of the Catholic Church, and impresses me as similar to those of the Baptists, Methodists and Evangelicals. There are no unnecessary decorations; no stained glass, no banners and no representation of the crucifixion of Christ on display. There are no frills or gee-gaws in a LDS Church.
IMHO, the Mormon Church - as an organized body - does a much better than "average job" of shepherding/guiding and caring for their own... and - frequently - assisting those who are not members of their church.
John F. Kennedy, a member of the Catholic Church, was elected President even though there were those who believed that - as a practicing Catholic - he could not win the election because his first allegiance was to the Pope.
On the whole, I see where the "gentiles" (those who are not of the LDS faith) really have nothing to fear from the LDS Church membership or leadership. They are generally responsible, good and caring neighbors who will lend a hand when needed.

We all have our personal faith-based belief systems, even if we put our faith in non-belief, and that's why these beliefs are referred to as our "faith". Mitt Romney may not be a "saint" in the generally accepted sense of the word, but then, "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone". We tend to fear that which we do not understand, and accept as fact those propositions which feed into those fears.
RomneyCare is virtually identical to NObamaCare, so there's no real point in discussing it. It's expensive on both ends, and - in violation of the Constitution - the government is telling us how we must spend our money. Where do we get the qualified medical personnel to effectively care for 50,000,000 (fifty million) additional patients in a timely manner... as in, before many of them die from lack of, or insufficient treatment?
That takes care of the few negatives surrounding Romney's campaign. What positives are there?
Romney is a successful businessman, he is an experienced state executive and he claims that he would seek to reduce the size of our government. The people of Massachusetts seem satisfied with his job performance, but that doesn't mean that the entire country would be equally satisfied with him at the helm of our "ship of state". And all politicians claim to want whatever it may be that their audience of the moment desires. Sadly, we are more-or-less forced to vote for the one whose lies are most in agreement with our own desires for our country. We will never find a candidate whose position is completely in agreement with ours... unless we run for the office ourselves!

My personal mantra for November of 2012 is:

ANYBODY BUT NOBAMA!

If NObama is re-elected, the United States of America LOSES!!

The preceding is just one man's opinion, and most of us know what opinions are like... if that's true, we have an "opinion" sitting in the Oval Office!

"UNITED WE STAND" - Is It Just A Motto, and Not A Creed?

I was out and about today when I noticed a bumper sticker... one that I have seen probably a thousand times in my life. It stated simply, "United We Stand", but, for some reason, it struck me as odd this time.

Odd that we have it as our national motto, odd that it appears on our money (in Latin, no less; "e pluribus unum" - which translates as "From the many, one"), and even more odd that some people actually choose to display that sentiment on a lowly bumper sticker. It may have applied during our War of Independence -also known as the Revolutionary War - when we had a population of approximately 497,000. But, this antiquated sentiment has little application in the 21st Century, and for reasons of pure selfishness. (How old is this sentiment? Its origins have been traced back to the Greek slave, Aesop, who lived in the 6th and 7th century B.C.)

The current administration is working diligently to undermine our laws by discounting Congress and usurping our Constitution - that document which (until recently) was the foundation of our country's management philosophy, and is the basis for all United States laws (English Common Law notwithstanding). This so-called "transparent" administration relies almost exclusively on smoke, mirrors, misinformation, disinformation and flat-out lies. Obama's attempts to destroy our culture and our economy, incorporates the core precepts of the Cloward-Piven Strategy (Google it if you have no idea how to destroy a country), and is divisive in its implementation.

The areas of division are many, including (but certainly not limited to) these few:

Class Divisions - the old "have-nots vs haves", the rich vs the significantly-less-than-rich

Employment Divisions - the labor unions vs supporters of the right to work, and workers vs the indolent

Religious Divisions - the atheists vs religious, Christianity vs Muslims, Muslims vs the World

Educational Divisions - the educated vs dropouts,

Sexual Preference Divisions - "gays" vs "straights"

Racial Divisions - the whites vs non-whites

and last, but certainly not least...

Political Divisions - Republicans and Democrats are obviously the two major political divisions, but there are several smaller - virtually impotent - political parties. These two parties control our legislative process, and both claim to want what's best for the country. However... their philosophies are diametrically opposed, so it follows that neither is 100% engaged in what is best for the United States. Each is so busy trying to undermine the plans of the other that, more often than not, each party is overlooking any good that the other may proffer! Who the hell is looking out for our Democratic Constitutional Republic?? If you chose "none of the above" as your answer, you're probably right.

The Obama administration is replete with left-wing, "redistribute the wealth", disarm the citizenry (except them), Socialist-Progressives and communists, as I reported in this blog on August 2, 2009. Let's look at the techniques they are implementing to facilitate the destruction of the United States of America as we know it.

Pitting the "have-nots vs the haves" has probably been going on since the beginning of time. The most successful of the hunters and gatherers were undoubtedly envied and/or resented by those who either lacked the requisite skills/sufficient motivation to develop/improve those skills. But, without lifting a finger (with the possible exception of the middle one), they were allowed to gnaw the residual meat from the bones the hunters discarded, and eat the nuts and berries accidentally dropped by the gatherers. However, the insufficient felt that they too should be able to feast on the flesh of the animals and sit close to the fire. Unfortunately for them, this was the time during which the biggest, strongest and smartest made the law. When the do-nothings complained about their place in the Neanderthal society, the tribe either beat them into submission and forced them to work in some capacity, or banished them from the safety and security provided by the tribal lifestyle. Harsh treatment was necessary in order to insure the survival of the many in those harsh times... it was primarily a PoP (Produce or Perish) social structure. The term "entitlement" had not yet been accepted by society.

The employment divisions are equally clear, and is simply a variation of "haves vs have-nots". However, the right to work class struggle, strangely enough, is initiated by those who have. In order to protect themselves, members of labor unions believe that all skill marketing should be strictly controlled within the domain of the union. As tribes expanded into villages, and villages grew into towns, there became a need for job specialization within the community. Initially the specialization process was one of hit-and-miss. Successes were rewarded, failures were not. Trade "guilds" (first formed in the 14th century) were the forerunners of labor unions, and the concept was quite simple then. A youngster was "apprenticed" to a skilled artisan, where he/she would learn that trade from the ground up - first doing the most menial of tasks (many of which were probably not job-related), and eventually developing the skills of the trade. During this apprenticeship the "pay" was provided in the form of room and board. After a period of several years, the master craftsman would recommend his apprentice to the local guild, which body then decided if the apprentice was qualified to set out on his/her own. Today, union membership is about keeping jobs and pay raises for the less-than-qualified and the totally incompetent. The important thing is continuing the influx of union dues. My personal belief is that we have an inherent right to profit from our individual labors... not from those of our neighbors.

Religious divisions are slightly more difficult to identify, but just as easily provoked by those who wish to pit one belief system against another. Each belief system is certain that theirs in the only true belief. Quite simply then, if any one belief is true, then all others are - by default - false. This creates an ideal condition for fomenting inter-religious and, by extension, interpersonal discord! And, by way of comparison, the Judeo-Christian system(s) are primarily ones of tolerance and acceptance of variations in doctrine, whereas the Muslim/Islamic system is one of intolerance toward, and total rejection of, all other belief systems. Even within the Judeo-Christian system there are those who preach divisiveness for a myriad of reasons - most of which have no basis in fact or reality. Nonetheless, they seem to be at least minimally effective in creating those divisions. Everyone in this country has the right to believe - or not believe - as they so choose.

Educational divisions are relatively easy to pinpoint. Those with advanced education are generally in executive and management positions within an organization, and those with insufficient education are more likely to be found in the labor intensive jobs. This does not mean that one is superior to the other as insofar as their worth as human beings is concerned. It just means that one has taken greater advantage of their educational opportunities to prepare them for a work experience that provides them with a higher standard of living. Unfortunately, the professors of academia are overflowing with left-wing liberal Socialist-"Progressives" who subscribe to the Marxist philosophy of "to each according to his needs, from according to his ability", and thus it is taught, provoking discord between liberals and conservatives. The proper philosophy for a Democratic Republic should be, "to each by his own means", reflecting that we may only prosper from our own labors.

The sexual preference division is a relatively new social partitioning, and has been accomplished via the granting of "special protections" which are above and beyond those provided to the general populace under the Constitution. These special protections put the minority "homosexual community" at odds with the majority heterosexual community. In essence, it places them on some type of "endangered species" list... which may be an accurate description, since they cannot reproduce strictly within their own community. The creation of "hate crime" laws was instrumental in creating this division, and it includes other minorities including but not limited to, racial, religious and ethnic minorities. Such laws are totally unnecessary, because any physically aggressive action is well-covered in previously existing laws. Laws against assault, battery, theft, maiming, manslaughter, homicide, etc., have been around for centuries, and provide for "equal protection under the law". "Hate crimes" cover the state of mind of a transgressor - or quite plainly put, how he/she felt about the group in which the victim is identified, and the reason they took criminal action against them. Reason makes no difference - a criminal act has taken place, and should be punished under the law based upon that fact alone!

Racial divisions are fairly obvious since identification is based upon stereotypical physical features such as skin color and facial features. According to our president (lower case "p" is intentional), apparently white people don't like anybody of color just because they are "of color". We especially don't like Blacks because of the high contrast, and illegal aliens because most of them are brown (certainly not because they violated our laws entering this country). But, as long as the government can benefit (somehow?) from portraying the majority (white Christians) as basically racist, they will continue to do so. The only possible "benefit" to the political party is at election time, when they capitalize on this strategy at the voting booth. This brings me to...

Political divisions. Political divisions are similar in one respect to religious divisions; we are greatly influenced in our choice of each by the authority figures in our life... mainly our parents. All parents want their children to be "more" than they are, so we intentionally try to pass along our traditional belief systems (which most of us inherited from our parents) to our children. This is not exactly fair of us, but it is "normal" human behavior. It diminishes, to some degree, the child's right to choose. But, to permit that total freedom of choice would imply that we were not strong in our own beliefs, so we indoctrinate our children.

I have a personal theory that we are each endowed by our creator (your choice here - intervention by a "Supreme Being" or the sperm donor's DNA) with a unique internal "blueprint" for our life. My theory goes on to postulate that this unique internal blueprint is socialized out of us, beginning almost at the moment of birth. This is the "Cookie Cutter Mentality" at work. (If you want to be a socially acceptable "cookie" you have to fit the same mold as all the other little cookies.) It has its good points, and a multitude of bad points. What would happen if we were allowed free reign, with the exception of say, physically aggressive behaviors? There would likely be little if any prejudice in the world, because prejudice is a learned behavior, and there is no innate dislike of the unlike.
Reducing learned prejudices from our repertoire of behaviors, would result in minimal racism and less "my belief system is better than your belief system". With little physical aggression, there would be fewer boundary disputes between neighbors, whether next door or across the national border. It's a nice theory, but given human nature, it is not practical to expect such radical changes. We humans are fallible creatures. On the whole, we are not solitary beings, and we do tend to "go along with the crowd" in order to insure and preserve our acceptance in the society into which we were born. And therein lies the rub - to get along, one must go along. But, I digress...

With so many divergent social paths available in a free society, is it any wonder that free societies can be torn asunder from within? Yet oppressive societies also suffer from a similar tearing apart, by the inherent yearning that all people have for certain freedoms, especially the freedom to choose.

The above is not meant to be a "lesson", but rather to provoke thought and perhaps stimulate social discourse. Most sentient beings find it enjoyable to simply think, and consider it good fortune to have someone to share their thoughts with. Try thinking outside the box... you may like it! And remember, "United we stand, divided we fall"... it must be more of a creed than an empty motto, or we shall surely perish!

EXACTLY WHAT IS A POLITICAL "CONSERVATIVE"?

Conservatism is a political and social term from the Latin verb conservare meaning to save or preserve. As the name suggests it usually indicates support for tradition and traditional values. According to my dictionary a political conservative is one who is:
1. disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.
2. cautiously moderate or purposefully low: a conservative estimate; avoiding unnecessary risk taking.
3. traditional in style or manner; avoiding novelty or showiness: conservative suit; conservative in speech or actions.
Now that I have defined the term for us, and we're all on the same page intellectually speaking, let's look at what makes a political conservative "tick". Everything from here on down is my personal world view, which may or may not be in agreement with the world view of anybody else... and it doesn't have to in order to be valid. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A conservative is one who believes that our culture, traditions and Constitutional guarantees are invaluable (that word means priceless - it does not mean without value, Bubba). The conservative believes that change may become necessary in many things, but holds culture, tradition, and the Constitution to be sacrosanct (consult Webster's). He believes that it is a personal responsibility for all true Americans to preserve those things so that future generations may enjoy them. Yes, you read that correctly. The conservative considers anyone who does not hold those same values in the highest esteem to be something less than a true American. The good news is that conservatives do not see those people as subhuman... just as terribly misguided and irrevocably ignorant.

Conservatives attempt to choose their words with reasonable care, so as not to unwittingly offend another person. They also see offending the sensitivities of others as acceptable when the ignorance of those "others" cannot be overcome by pure reason.

Conservatives believe in the sanctity of human life, perhaps to a fault. This belief includes all human life, from the moment of conception to the moment of unavoidable death . At the same time, they believe in the penalty of death for those who have committed crimes deserving of that penalty against others. A conservative's sympathies are with the victims of crime, not those who commit the crimes. They also believe that there are those among us whose characters are not salvageable, and therefore unfit to live among civilized persons. And why should one who has taken a life, other than in self-defense or in defense of the life of another, be allowed to live out their life to its natural conclusion at the expense of the honest citizen? A swift application of Mosaic Law (that's the "eye-for-an-eye" thing) would make the world a safer, better place. A lawful death sentence in the USA takes an average of 17 years to reach its conclusion.

Conservatives understand that children, who are the most innocent and defenseless among us, should be protected to the "nth degree" of the law, yet our liberal courts are (for the most-part) issuing judicial slaps upon the wrist to those who molest and murder children. We are not happy about that.

Conservatives believe that personal satisfaction comes from a job well done, and that a person should be able to reap the rewards of their own labors, skills and talents without having to support those who choose not to labor for the rewards our society can provide. Those who are physically and mentally capable of earning their own way should be required to do so. There is no birthright to success. Just a birthright to be afforded an opportunity to become successful through personal effort. You have no right to ask anybody to give you some of what they have earned because you are too lazy to work. The world owes you absolutely nothing. The fact that you are simply present on this planet is not a particular blessing to the rest of the occupants until you apply yourself, and become a productive member of the society in which you live.

Conservatives support energy conservation - and, by and large, we think that Political Correctness is a ridiculous waste of energy. How did Americans ever let it become incorrect to speak one's mind using the normal everyday words of the English language - including idiom, cant, colloquialisms and jargon? Why should we have to search our entire vocabulary inventory to avoid the possibility of offending somebody? Nowhere is it written that we have the right to go through life without ever being offended. If you should find yourself offended tell the other party "I find that offensive." (Then either stand your ground and prepare to argue against whatever it was that offended you, or turn on your heel and leave the area. After which you should just suck it up and get on with your life.) Other than that, we also support the conservative management of our natural energy resources! The natural transition from this point would be to explore...

"Hate crimes". Hatred is not a "crime" in the real world. Hatred is an emotion... an attitude... a state of mind... the end result of a thought process. It is the physical expression of that emotion, in some otherwise illegal manner, that may constitute a crime. Hatred is at the extreme negative end of the love-hate emotional continuum, and is a particularly unsatisfactory - but natural - emotion. Hatred is a learned emotion, and hatred of a person or thing may be learned from a very negative personal experience, or it may be unintentionally - or intentionally - taught. (Neo-Nazi's teach their children to hate "niggers and Jews" from an age that predates reason and the ability to fully understand. The children, seeking the approval and love of their parents, learn and recite these mantras of hate by rote.) The terrorist attack of 9-11 generated a significantly strong and wide-spread dislike for anything Muslim among the people of the United States. In some it instilled fear, in others anger, and in many it instilled hatred of the Muslim culture, all things Islamic, and anyone who even appeared to be of middle eastern descent. But, in almost all Americans, 9-11 instilled some degree of distrust! Human beings tend to be distrustful of anything out of the ordinary... especially if they can easily identify those "things" from their size, shape, manner of dress, speech, or color. Look upon that distrust as a survival mechanism.

Conservatives had a self-imposed "vow of silence". Until recently conservatives were the fabled "silent majority". You did not see conservatives rioting in the 1950s and 1960s. You did not see conservatives "dropping out" and running off to join the drug infested liberal "hippie" communes of the 1960s and '70s. However, in 2009, the "silent majority" realized they were not being heard over the tumultuous clamor of the socialist/Marxist liberals. The cacophonous whining of the "entitlement whores" (those who think the government owes them something for simply existing) and their "pimps" (the bleeding heart, liberal politicians who wish to increase their voter base by giving the first group anything they ask for) echo through the halls of the Congress, reverberating almost as loudly as the big money of corporate America and labor unions. We know that "money talks while....". Seeing the direction in which the NObama Administration was taking the country with bailouts, stimulus packages, increased entitlement programs, amnesty for illegal aliens, B.O.'s Global Apology Tour, and mortgaging the country to China (of all people), conservatives organized, mobilized, and gave birth to the 21st century version of the Boston Tea Party. For those of you who have never attended a Tea Party, it is a non-violent demonstration of the people's frustration with gargantuan government continuing to grow, and consuming everything in sight in order to keep the beast moving. There have been no calls for a revolution, or even a coup d'etat... yet. We are not happy with the government, and we see nothing on the horizon that might mollify us. We are, in typical conservative fashion, expressing our displeasure peacefully.

Conservatives generally accept and support everybody's religious beliefs, but without internalizing those beliefs or adopting them as their own... as long as there is no harm to man or beast in their "worship services". Conservatives may disagree with the practice of "Religion X", but they will not try to stop anybody else from the practice of that religion. Conservatives may believe that anyone without a religion is foolish, but they won't try to force their beliefs on others. If you have chosen to be an atheist, and someone approaches you to proselytize for "The First Church of XYZ", a simple "No thank you." should suffice. A loudly yelled "Get outta my face, Buttlips!" should work equally well, but that approach is a bloody nose looking for a place to happen... and may even initiate some hard feelings. You do not have a right to never see or hear something religious, but if you find it offensive you do have the right not to look or listen. Conservatives also don't believe that you have a right to try to ruin the holidays of those who do have religious convictions.

Conservatives are the folks who will literally stand up for the Constitution, when the left-wingers try to repeal it. Being conservative doesn't mean you have an insatiable desire to consume the seemingly interminable supply of male bovine excrement that political Washington D.C. keeps feeding the nation. We are not mushrooms... if we are kept in the dark and fed BS long enough we will turn bad!

Conservatives believe that our Constitution is the oldest "living" document in the world. But it is fully mature, and needs no further "growth". It is complete and perfect the way it reads today, just as it was 233 years ago. The bad news is that there hasn't been a true conservative in the White House since Ronald Reagan!

That may not be, as my heading claims, "exactly" what a conservative is, but it's close enough to get you thinking about conservatism!

Voter Intimidation Okay As Long As You Do It For The Favorite

According to the May 29,2009 issue of the Washington Times, the Obama "Department of Justice", headed by Eric Holder, has directed it's legal staff to drop the civil charges against three members of the "New Black Panther Party". If you recall, on November 3rd, 2008, there were complaints about one polling place in Philadelphia, where it was reported that the entrance to the building was being blocked by members of the NBPP.

The Obama administration won the case last month, but moved to dismiss the charges on May 15, at the direction of "unnamed political appointees". The three black panthers, Minister King Samir Shabazz, Malik Zulu Shabazz and Jerry Jackson were charged in a civil complaint in the final days of the Bush administration with violating the voter rights act by using coercion, threats and intimidation. (And what's with Jerry Jackson - how come he didn't get one of those really cool names? Or, was Shabbigg Shaddummy already taken?) Prosecutors also say Shabazz "supports racially motivated violence against non-blacks and Jews." Sounds like a thug to me!

My first question would be - why was this a "civil action" in the first place? Voter intimidation is civil rights violation, and a criminal act under federal law. Maybe that particular section of the United States Code is only enforced if you "encourage" people to vote for the wrong candidate.

I realize that it's not PC to imply that anyone outside the white race could possibly be a racist, but that is precisely my point. It's just that the media and others have an unwritten, informal, handshake agreement to ignore the fact that there are racists of all creeds, colors and ethnicities. Yes, folks, there are black, brown, red and yellow racists. "Whitey" does not have a corner on ignorance or prejudice. There are people who will hate you just for your skin color... or because you're a Jew, Muslim, Christian, or Atheist... or because you are a Liberal, Conservative, or politically non-affilliated. You can be hated for having a better job than somebody else - like it's your fault! And, if they can't find a better reason to hate you, they will hate you just because you are. You may rest comfortably in the knowledge that somewhere in the world there is somebody to hate everybody for any ridiculous reason.

Apparently though, racism is only bad when white individuals and private white organizations (KKK, Aryan Nation, Skinheads, the Council of Conservative Citizens, etc.) practice it. When the government practices racism (and yes, reverse racism and preferential racism is still racism), or minorities indulge in racist behaviors, it's expected to be acceptable. Racism is primarily a philosophy and practice of the ignorant. Nobody likes to look down the ladder of success, and see there are no lower rungs than the one upon which they are standing. Seeing oneself as being powerless (and perhaps, in reality, just too lazy) to do anything about improving their position, it prompts many people to create - if only in their mind - their own verison of "nigger". They do this using any/all of the preceding criteria, or perhaps additional/unmentioned criteria. Some people cannot stand being on that bottom rung - they then have to create what they see as an "inferior being" to look down upon. Their "nigger" isn't necessarily black, either - this "nigger" is an ego-saving concept, not a skin color or race. It could easily be folks that some people refer to as "white trash". And you don't necessarily have to be poor to be "white trash".

That's the truth as I see it. However, I could be completely wrong about this whole thing. What's your truth?

Ohio Teen Expects To Be Suspended For Trip To Prom

Thus reads the Associated Press headline, followed by:
"Sun May 10, 11:46 am ET

FINDLAY, Ohio – An Ohio teenager says he expects to be suspended from a Christian school for attending a public school prom with his girlfriend. Officials at Heritage Christian School in Findlay had warned 17-year-old Tyler Frost that he would be suspended and prohibited from attending graduation if he went to the Saturday dance. The fundamentalist Baptist school in northwest Ohio forbids dancing, rock music and hand holding..."

If Tyler has met the academic requirements for graduation, then there is no reasonable argument to deny him the graduation ceremony. The school can only deny him the activities of "dancing, rock music and hand holding" upon school grounds, as that is the limit of their authority over their students. In the real world, Tyler's rights are protected by our Constitution.

The Supreme Court has expressly recognized that a right to freedom of association and belief is implicit in the First, Fifth, and Fouteenth Amendments. The First Amendment protects his right to freedom of religion, freedom of association, and freedom of expression. If he chose to associate with somebody who did not follow his school's doctrinal teachings, it is his choice, and his right to do so. (The doctrine of most "Fundamentalist" religions - and, there are several besides Baptist fundamentalists - tends to be quite restrictive, in the belief that sacrificing certain "worldy ways" gets one closer to what Jesus the Christ desires of us, were he physically here to ask it of us. Which may explain the growth of the less demanding Evangelical Christian movement in the United States.) I am not a "Bible thumper", nor do I claim to be a theologian or a lawyer. I'm just a normal person trying to understand why things are the way they are. But, as best I can recall , nowhere in the Christian Bible is there a passage that reads; "Thou shalt not dance, listen to rock music, or hold hands."

Dancing, since time immemorial, has been an expression of joy and exhilaration. Are Christians not directed to express joy at the coming of their Savior and thanks for His sacrifice for them? Is music not a means to "make a joyful noise unto the Lord"? Where is it written that the only acceptable music is psalms? And, music inspires one to dance, thereby doubling the expression of joy! Holding hands is a physical expression of fellowship with another person or persons. Are Christians not encouraged by the Lord to join in fellowship?

However... (I hate it when I have to do this) the school has it's rules and requirements, but they are only enforceable by the school within the boundaries of the school. The boy has apparently met all the Ohio State academic requirements for graduation - let him graduate with his class. If the school has a doctrinal grievance against him, then let them - through the church - disfellowship Tyler. Or, perhaps Tyler could ask for dispensation and Christian forgiveness for being a young American exercising his God-given rights.

This is an excellent example of where, when and how, Church and State should definitely be separated. A church supported school, teaching state approved curricula for secondary education, has one overriding, principal function: to provide sufficient education to allow their students to meet the minimum state requirements for graduation. Doctrinal issues should not be a consideration in education unless the student is attending a theological seminary.

There is a distinct possibility I could be wrong about this... does my personal position seem extreme in either direction to you?

The U.N. ~ STILL Trying to Control the Sovereign Nations of the World!

From Reuters News Service, today, July 24th, 2008: "The United Nations human rights committee said on Thursday Britain should ease back on tough "anti-terror" measures and take firm action to combat "negative public attitudes" towards Muslims."

and

"In separate comment, the 9-member body, composed of legal experts from a range of countries, also called on Ireland to open up its largely Catholic primary school system to secular education, and to moderate tough abortion laws."

EXCUSE ME?? I'm not sure the Crown, or its subjects, would benefit greatly from lax anti-terror laws. As for "negative public attitudes", could it be that those attitudes have been earned by the Muzzies? The Muslim community has probably been responsible for more terrorist acts within England than has the IRA. And, inasmuch as Ireland's population is PRIMARILY CATHOLIC, could that have something to do with the fact that Ireland's school system is primarily Catholic? Ya think? Why shouldn't their school system reflect that? Has the U.N. even suggested that the Arabic nations modify their Islamic school systems (such as they are)? NO! They wouldn't want to "offend" the Muslims ... but to offend Christians, of any stripe, is fine with the U.N.. The curriculum of school systems is, and always has been, reflective of the national culture. In many countries, education always takes a back seat to theological and political indoctrination. Instead of providing "secondary education", education becomes secondary! That doesn't make it right, but it is the way it is.

I hope, for their own sake, that the British government summarily rejects the bogus U.N. Human Rights Committees recommendations, tells them "Piss off and mind your own business!", and then drops out of the United Nations. But, that's just the way I see things ...

Gil