Hundreds of Afghans swarmed a demonstration of more than 100 people protesting a conservative marriage law in Afghanistan on Wednesday. The law, passed last month, says a husband can demand sex with his wife every four days unless she is ill or would be harmed by intercourse. Critics say it legalizes marital rape. It also regulates when and for what reasons a wife may leave her home alone.
WSJ
In understand that we now have a duty to these people, but I often wonder why we waste our time and money on people who refuse to help themselves. Say what you want about diversity and tolerance, some people are simply backwards, and always will be. I feel for those who have the courage to stand up for change, only to be met with severe backlash. They are the only ones I am concerned with anymore.
Showing posts with label Religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Religion. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Wednesday, April 08, 2009
Marriage Becoming Obsolete
Nearly 40 percent of babies born in the United States in 2007 were delivered by unwed mothers, according to data released last month by the National Center for Health Statistics. The 1.7 million out-of-wedlock births, of 4.3 million total births, marked a more than 25 percent jump from five years before.
CNN
Do you think it is a coincidence that the problem is that marriage is not taken as seriously as it once was. With all the changes, legal and otherwise, that are being made to the definition of marriage, no wonder most Americans don't take the concept as serious as they should.
CNN
Do you think it is a coincidence that the problem is that marriage is not taken as seriously as it once was. With all the changes, legal and otherwise, that are being made to the definition of marriage, no wonder most Americans don't take the concept as serious as they should.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Only When it is Convenient
In the federal court suit filed last week, student Jonathan Lopez said that midway through his speech, when he quoted a dictionary definition of marriage and recited a pair of Bible verses, professor John Matteson cut him off and would not allow him to finish. He said Matteson also called him a "fascist bastard." A student evaluation form included with the lawsuit lacks a score for Lopez's speech, and reads "ask God what your grade is."
MSN Article
MSN Article
I am always amazed at how people claim to subscribe to certain ideologies and beliefs, and yet turn against their own tenets when it become less convenient. So called "liberal" academics claim to be all for diversity and open-mindedness, but as soon as someone expresses an opinion contrary to their own, that person no longer has the right to express anything. Now, I know that this is an extreme case, not necessarily representative of all liberal academics, but it just goes to show that no social, political, religious, or academic group is immune to hypocrisy. People need to learn that principles only mean something when you stand by them at all times, especially when it is inconvenient.
Monday, January 12, 2009
Obama Shows His Convictions...Or Lack There Of
The Obama Trasition team announced that Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson, the first openly gay minister ordained by a major church, will deliver the invocation at the kickoff event of inauguration week. gay rights activists were overjoyed to hear that President-elect Obama chose an openly gay minister to deliver the opening invocation, especially in light of who he chose to deliver the invocation at the actual inauguration. Rick Warren, the pastor of the evangelical megachurch, Saddleback Church.
Rev. Warren angered gay rights groups when he came out in support of California's Prop. 8, which would overturn California's law allowing same sex marriage. The fact that Obama would choose such a pastor to preside over his swearing in ceremony shocked and angered gay rights groups all over the United States. After 8 years of George Bush, the gay and lesbian community thought they were finally going to have a friend in the White House, only to have the man ask a man who opposed gay marriage to preside over his inaugural ceremony.
To be honest, this was the first decision Obama made that I thought should his individuality and willingness to follow hos own convictions rather than play to the crowd. Rev. Warren holds true to his faith, which does not condone same sex marriage. I love how people champion diversity, and freedom of expression, until someone expresses and idea or belief that they don't like. Well, enough of the left-wing activists made enough noise about the matter to convince the Obama team to balance Warren's invitation by selecting someone more palpable to that constituency to kick off the whole week's festivities.
Gene Robinson's 2003 election as a Bishop in the Episcopal church caused a rift in the denomination, provoking several dioceses and dozens of parishes to secede in protest. So while gay rights activists may still be angry with Warren's involvement with the inauguration, Robinson's selection is meant to placate them and give them an excuse to celebrate Obama's ascendancy, along with everyone else. All this did was prove to me that Obama is exactly what I thought he was: a politician, just like everyone else in Washington (including Bush).
Obama only chose Warren because his campaign actively worked to attract evangelical voters, and he wants to continue that effort in preparation for the 2012 election. Then, as damage control over the Warren fallout, his team chose Robinson in order to make sure he had appeased all groups involved. I applaud his effort as admirer of astute political maneuvering, but I am saddened as a man who was hoping for a new kind of leader, who governed by principle (much like I had hoped Bush would be). Even if I do not agree with your principles, I am usually impressed with any man who holds true to whatever principle he claims to hold. However, as is the case with most politicians, principles are not the commodity they once were. It appears that the ever dwindling optimist in me will continue to fade away due to continual disappointment.
Rev. Warren angered gay rights groups when he came out in support of California's Prop. 8, which would overturn California's law allowing same sex marriage. The fact that Obama would choose such a pastor to preside over his swearing in ceremony shocked and angered gay rights groups all over the United States. After 8 years of George Bush, the gay and lesbian community thought they were finally going to have a friend in the White House, only to have the man ask a man who opposed gay marriage to preside over his inaugural ceremony.
To be honest, this was the first decision Obama made that I thought should his individuality and willingness to follow hos own convictions rather than play to the crowd. Rev. Warren holds true to his faith, which does not condone same sex marriage. I love how people champion diversity, and freedom of expression, until someone expresses and idea or belief that they don't like. Well, enough of the left-wing activists made enough noise about the matter to convince the Obama team to balance Warren's invitation by selecting someone more palpable to that constituency to kick off the whole week's festivities.
Gene Robinson's 2003 election as a Bishop in the Episcopal church caused a rift in the denomination, provoking several dioceses and dozens of parishes to secede in protest. So while gay rights activists may still be angry with Warren's involvement with the inauguration, Robinson's selection is meant to placate them and give them an excuse to celebrate Obama's ascendancy, along with everyone else. All this did was prove to me that Obama is exactly what I thought he was: a politician, just like everyone else in Washington (including Bush).
Obama only chose Warren because his campaign actively worked to attract evangelical voters, and he wants to continue that effort in preparation for the 2012 election. Then, as damage control over the Warren fallout, his team chose Robinson in order to make sure he had appeased all groups involved. I applaud his effort as admirer of astute political maneuvering, but I am saddened as a man who was hoping for a new kind of leader, who governed by principle (much like I had hoped Bush would be). Even if I do not agree with your principles, I am usually impressed with any man who holds true to whatever principle he claims to hold. However, as is the case with most politicians, principles are not the commodity they once were. It appears that the ever dwindling optimist in me will continue to fade away due to continual disappointment.
Tuesday, September 02, 2008
Family Values
In her two years as governor of Alaska, and especially in the four months since her son was born with Down syndrome, Sarah Palin has been portrayed as the very model of a working mother: She answers her BlackBerry while pumping breast milk for her infant; keeps a playpen by her desk; and manages a state while cooking caribou hot dogs for her family. But some people, looking at that tableau, wonder whether it is possible to perform that juggling act on the highest wire of all, a heartbeat away from the presidency. Those questions came into higher relief on Monday as Gov. Palin, just days after she was introduced as the Republican vice-presidential pick, disclosed that her 17-year-old daughter, Bristol, is about five months pregnant. She said Bristol plans to keep the baby and marry the father.
WSJ Article
Let me start off by saying that I think Sen. McCain made a mistake choosing Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate. By trying to find a woman to appeal to Hilary supporters, McCain chose a candidate with too many holes in her public face. Her youth and inexperience will work against those same arguments McCain's campaign has made against Sen. Obama. The current investigation into Palin's alleged abuse of power, by trying to have her state trooper ex-brother in law fired, works against her credibility. Now, the fact that her 17 year old daughter is pregnant and may possibly marry the 18 year old father is being used to damage her belief family values. Regardless of how good of a person she may be, there are just too many problems for the McCain campaign to have picked her at this juncture.
Having said that, let me come out and say that I am appalled at the way the situation with her daughter is being handled, by both the media and the Democrats. For those families that are not in the public eye, such an event would be kept as quiet as possible, until the family was forced to acknowledge the pregnancy amongst their community. For a politician, especially one running for Vice President of the United States, every family matter becomes a matter of public record. The McCain campaign did not release the news until after they announced Palin as the VP candidate. However, to think that the campaign was unaware of the pregnancy is both naive and foolish. Any campaign consultant worth anything would know that it would be impossible to hide something of this nature. As such, McCain went ahead and chose Palin. That means he either believes in her ability to carry out her duties as VP, or that he believes her appeal to women will outweigh all the points against her, depending on how cynical you are.
Democrats are using Bristol's condition to try and paint Palin as a hypocrite who claims to support family values, but did not bother to instill such values in her daughter. This offends me on a deep level. Palin's attackers claim that because her daughter made a mistake, that she is a failure as a daughter, and Palin is a failure as a mother. I find this view repugnant. Bristol made a mistake. There is no way around that. She is young, still considered a minor in the eye of the law, and she engaged in sexual acts outside the bond of marriage, producing an unwanted pregnancy. However, not all mistakes end badly.
My older bother has a daughter, despite the fact that he has never been married. Granted, he was 23 when she was born, legally an adult, but age is only one factor in this debate. Despite the circumstance surround the birth of my niece, she has been nothing but a blessing to my family. My mother did not take the news well when my brother confessed that he had fathered a child. I am sure part of her felt that she failed in her parental duties. My parents raised their children in the church, working to instill Christian values in all of us. Obviously, my bother made some mistakes on his way to becoming a man. However, he is now raising the child, with the help of my parents and my sister. He works a job he does not particularly enjoy, so he can provide for his little girl, and still have time to spend with her each day when she gets home from school. This is evidence that those vary same values my mother worked to instill in our lives is very present in my brother. He owned up to his mistake, and is now working to raise a child as a single parent, hoping to instill those same Christian values in his daughter that our mother instilled in us.
My mother worked hard to raise her children right, teaching us to be God-fearing, upright American citizens. In the end, all a parent can do is teach their children how to live, and hope those lessons guide them through life. It was my brother's choices that led to my niece being born, not my mother's. Now, as the cycle continues, my bother is trying to teach his daughter how to live, knowing she will grow up to make her own choices along the way. Does this mean my mother or my brother do not support traditional family values? No, it means they believe in those values, which include the value of forgiveness. Human beings are not perfect. We are prone to make mistakes. But part of the blessed gift we receive from On High is the gift of forgiveness, for those who earnestly seek it. I am sure Bristol has asked for such forgiveness, and for her part, I am sure Gov. Palin has granted it.
So, before Obama supporters and the media offer up the Palin family for public sacrifice, maybe they should rethink their own values, and what it means to be human. That is just my opinion.
WSJ Article
Let me start off by saying that I think Sen. McCain made a mistake choosing Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate. By trying to find a woman to appeal to Hilary supporters, McCain chose a candidate with too many holes in her public face. Her youth and inexperience will work against those same arguments McCain's campaign has made against Sen. Obama. The current investigation into Palin's alleged abuse of power, by trying to have her state trooper ex-brother in law fired, works against her credibility. Now, the fact that her 17 year old daughter is pregnant and may possibly marry the 18 year old father is being used to damage her belief family values. Regardless of how good of a person she may be, there are just too many problems for the McCain campaign to have picked her at this juncture.
Having said that, let me come out and say that I am appalled at the way the situation with her daughter is being handled, by both the media and the Democrats. For those families that are not in the public eye, such an event would be kept as quiet as possible, until the family was forced to acknowledge the pregnancy amongst their community. For a politician, especially one running for Vice President of the United States, every family matter becomes a matter of public record. The McCain campaign did not release the news until after they announced Palin as the VP candidate. However, to think that the campaign was unaware of the pregnancy is both naive and foolish. Any campaign consultant worth anything would know that it would be impossible to hide something of this nature. As such, McCain went ahead and chose Palin. That means he either believes in her ability to carry out her duties as VP, or that he believes her appeal to women will outweigh all the points against her, depending on how cynical you are.
Democrats are using Bristol's condition to try and paint Palin as a hypocrite who claims to support family values, but did not bother to instill such values in her daughter. This offends me on a deep level. Palin's attackers claim that because her daughter made a mistake, that she is a failure as a daughter, and Palin is a failure as a mother. I find this view repugnant. Bristol made a mistake. There is no way around that. She is young, still considered a minor in the eye of the law, and she engaged in sexual acts outside the bond of marriage, producing an unwanted pregnancy. However, not all mistakes end badly.
My older bother has a daughter, despite the fact that he has never been married. Granted, he was 23 when she was born, legally an adult, but age is only one factor in this debate. Despite the circumstance surround the birth of my niece, she has been nothing but a blessing to my family. My mother did not take the news well when my brother confessed that he had fathered a child. I am sure part of her felt that she failed in her parental duties. My parents raised their children in the church, working to instill Christian values in all of us. Obviously, my bother made some mistakes on his way to becoming a man. However, he is now raising the child, with the help of my parents and my sister. He works a job he does not particularly enjoy, so he can provide for his little girl, and still have time to spend with her each day when she gets home from school. This is evidence that those vary same values my mother worked to instill in our lives is very present in my brother. He owned up to his mistake, and is now working to raise a child as a single parent, hoping to instill those same Christian values in his daughter that our mother instilled in us.
My mother worked hard to raise her children right, teaching us to be God-fearing, upright American citizens. In the end, all a parent can do is teach their children how to live, and hope those lessons guide them through life. It was my brother's choices that led to my niece being born, not my mother's. Now, as the cycle continues, my bother is trying to teach his daughter how to live, knowing she will grow up to make her own choices along the way. Does this mean my mother or my brother do not support traditional family values? No, it means they believe in those values, which include the value of forgiveness. Human beings are not perfect. We are prone to make mistakes. But part of the blessed gift we receive from On High is the gift of forgiveness, for those who earnestly seek it. I am sure Bristol has asked for such forgiveness, and for her part, I am sure Gov. Palin has granted it.
So, before Obama supporters and the media offer up the Palin family for public sacrifice, maybe they should rethink their own values, and what it means to be human. That is just my opinion.
Monday, August 18, 2008
Spirituality is Not a Political Commodity
"I also believe that talking too much about one's faith and religion, in my view, is something between me and God." - John McCain
CNN Article
Over the weekend, mega-church Pastor Rick Warren, made famous by his best selling book, "Purpose Driven Life," held a forum with the two Presidential candidates. This forum is one of the first times Republican Candidate John McCain discussed his faith in detail. Often one to deflect the question or change the subject (evident in the above quote), McCain very clearly spelled out his spiritual status when he told forum attendees that he is, "saved and forgiven."
This election marks one of the first times that evangelical Christian voters are considered a battleground between Republicans and Democrats. The media has been overwhelmingly interested in how young evangelicals may be leaving their GOP base to side with Democrats on a number of social justice and environmental issues. Ryan Messmore, the William E. Simon Fellow in Religion and a Free Society at the Heritage Foundation, addresses the way that the media has failed to accurately report this supposed shit, noting that these are topics that Christians have shown interest in for years (Heritage Foundation Article).
Sen. Obama has become such a popular candidate among his fellow party members because of his constant reference to his faith and to scripture. Democratic strategists are hoping that he can pull many young evangelicals away from the GOP. While I certainly do not fault Sen. Obama for speaking his faith, I do take issue with those politicians who use their faith as a political selling point. While a number of Republican strategists may have done so with President Bush, which I do not condone, the President himself has only ever mentioned his faith in personal ways and how his beliefs affect his decisions. As such, my problem is with Obama's handlers, not Obama himself (as of yet). Let me again point out that Republicans are often just as guilty, if not more so, when it comes to this.
I believe that all people, regardless of their political aspirations, should consider their beliefs when making any worthwhile decisions. I support those candidates that not only vote their conscience, but also factor in their spirituality. What I do not condone is political mercenaries who use a person's spiritual beliefs as a way to sell their candidate to the masses. You should not have to point out that this candidate is religious, or has views that coincide with certain religious subgroups. You should simply lay out your political views and your campaign platform, and rely individuals to decide if they agree with you or not. God is not a politician, and He is not selling point for your political aspirations. Follow Him, run your race, and see where it takes you.
CNN Article
Over the weekend, mega-church Pastor Rick Warren, made famous by his best selling book, "Purpose Driven Life," held a forum with the two Presidential candidates. This forum is one of the first times Republican Candidate John McCain discussed his faith in detail. Often one to deflect the question or change the subject (evident in the above quote), McCain very clearly spelled out his spiritual status when he told forum attendees that he is, "saved and forgiven."
This election marks one of the first times that evangelical Christian voters are considered a battleground between Republicans and Democrats. The media has been overwhelmingly interested in how young evangelicals may be leaving their GOP base to side with Democrats on a number of social justice and environmental issues. Ryan Messmore, the William E. Simon Fellow in Religion and a Free Society at the Heritage Foundation, addresses the way that the media has failed to accurately report this supposed shit, noting that these are topics that Christians have shown interest in for years (Heritage Foundation Article).
Sen. Obama has become such a popular candidate among his fellow party members because of his constant reference to his faith and to scripture. Democratic strategists are hoping that he can pull many young evangelicals away from the GOP. While I certainly do not fault Sen. Obama for speaking his faith, I do take issue with those politicians who use their faith as a political selling point. While a number of Republican strategists may have done so with President Bush, which I do not condone, the President himself has only ever mentioned his faith in personal ways and how his beliefs affect his decisions. As such, my problem is with Obama's handlers, not Obama himself (as of yet). Let me again point out that Republicans are often just as guilty, if not more so, when it comes to this.
I believe that all people, regardless of their political aspirations, should consider their beliefs when making any worthwhile decisions. I support those candidates that not only vote their conscience, but also factor in their spirituality. What I do not condone is political mercenaries who use a person's spiritual beliefs as a way to sell their candidate to the masses. You should not have to point out that this candidate is religious, or has views that coincide with certain religious subgroups. You should simply lay out your political views and your campaign platform, and rely individuals to decide if they agree with you or not. God is not a politician, and He is not selling point for your political aspirations. Follow Him, run your race, and see where it takes you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
