Islam,and the Outrage of Terrorism:

Americans are outraged at the way we're being treated in the Arab media, and by those bastards, the terrorists. But we're not the only ones' being mistreated by muslim fundementalists. It now appears the right to free speach in Italy about Islam does'nt exsist. According to CNN theres an author who is being charged with a felony for defaming Islam. This is outrageous. Its' fine for terrorists to cut people heads' off but its' wrong for someone to write something bad about Islam? Something screwy here. I'm all for religous tolerance, but when religion becomes a tool for terrorists as a excuse to carry out vilonce in the name of Allah, then I've got issues. Whares' the Arab out rage over the viloent actions of the extremeists? Islum is being hijacked by these terrorists. Whares' the outrage over that? Its' fine to show Americans being mistreated on Al Jazeera, but heaven forbid that they ever show Saddam in his tighty whiteys'. I wonder what about all the good that the American soldiers have been doing in helping the Iraqis rebuild their counrty? Does Al Jazeera ever show that stuff? The Arab street gets mad when the Qran is mishandled, but its fine to mishandle a bible? If Mulums want religous tolrance, then they must start by showing some themselves, and they also need to start standing up to these radicals in their midst. I don't hate Arabs or Muslums, I hate these terrorists who use religion and Allah as a excuse to murder people. I remember a time in the history of the west when Islam was civilizeing, it produced some of the most beautiful architecture of all time. But now all that is at risk, at being over shadowed by these extremeists. The outrage ought to be about those who use hate as a tool within a a context of religion, and in the name of Allah. Hate breeds hate. Evil feeds on evil.Chaotic and self destuctive forces. This is the real nature of terrorism.

The Supreme Court and the Senate Fillibuster:

While no one realy came out ahead in yesterdays comprimise, except Senator Mcain, the deal by the senator might be good for the country and democracy in long term. If John Mcain is a traitor to the republican party then he proved he is a faithful supporter of democracy. After all thats what politics' is all about, comprimise. So what if the nuclear option is off the table? Whats to say in the future that it comes up to the fore again?Especialy when a nominee for the Supreme Court comes before the senate. Fillibuster no, supermajority yes? Whats wrong with requireing sixtyone votes for approval to any of the courts. Take the fillibuster off the table for all court nominations and change the senate rule requireing a super majority. Its' still fair an democratic, its' an up or down vote and its' a super majority. The same number of votes reqireing an end to the fillibuster. If someone down there in D.C. had any smarts or guts, this should've been the comprimise struck, instead of the deal Senator Mcain got done.

Abortion and Parental Consent: A Reasoning

The morality of this issue lies in the middle ground of moral law. The question is the right of parents to have to parental consent. When do the parents have the right to having their daughter ask them for their consent for an abortion? With regard to abortion does the girl even have to ask her parents for an abortion. Technicality the girl is a minor until she is eighteen, therefore as a minor she is the ward of her parents, who must care and provide for her. But in regard to abortion she has the right to decide what to do with her body. Another side to this argument is who pays for the procedure? Should the girls parents be forced to pay for it even though they might object to abortion on moral grounds? Does the state even have a right to step in and force the parents to pay for the abortion? If the state has no right compel the parents to pay for the procedure, and if the girl then turns to the state for aid it would seem natural then that girl then becomes a ward of the state if the state is asked to pay for the girl. The parents then loose all rights to child since the state must now come in make those choices that parent would normally make for the girl. I must argue that the state has no right to compel the parents to pay for procedure that they might not agree with on moral grounds. Therefor the girl if she decides to continue with having the abortion could turn to the state for aid if the state so agrees to provide that aid, or she must find a way to pay for it herself. If she pays for it herself then she alone bears the burden and responsibility of the act. However if she turns to the state for help then she must agree to become a ward of the state until the date of her eighteen birthday. I suggest advise and consent. The girl should by law advise her parents of her desire for an abortion, the parents have the right to express their objection to the procedure. However the girl has the right to choose for herself. With all this considered what then is the obligation of the state in the case of abortion? Does the state have an obligation to pay for a procedure that one person might want but yet cannot afford? Or is the states place merely to enforce and protect the rights of its citizens? It ought to be in my view the role of government to merely protect and enforce the rights of its citizens and not to pay for something that they cannot afford. Thus the girl has a right to get an abortion and yet the state has no obligation beyond the fact of protecting her right to do so. If people are so concerned that the girl should have the funds made available to her then let them pay for it as a charitable cause and not place that burden on the state. For the state has no place in providing services that not considered essential. 

A Voice of Caution: On The Role of The Media

In the wake of the Newsweek scandel from last week, I urge caution, and not to get overly critical of the media. They serve a important role in sniffing out wrong doing by government officials. A free press with the right to keep anonymous sources acts as check on government. Thus serving a valueaable role in democracy. So before anyone starts proposeing tougher regulations on the media, I suggest they stop and think about the exact crime if any committed by the media.
The media it should also be pointed out is also at the mercy of the the free market in that they are out to make a profit to off the news. Which in its self seems fine. But if a story breaks from a major news organizetion, and the public backlash is negative towards the news organization then they risk looseing a audience for its' news. They risk looseing creditablity with both the public and private sectors. They thus risk loosing going out of buiseness. So lets keep this in mind when a fire storm breaks over a major news story that nobody likes and the passions run high with disgust.

Cloneing and Birth Control: The Morality

What is morality? How can something be judged to be moral? Right vs. wrong. Left vs. right. The idea that something is moral ought to be thought of as what is an honorable able action vs. what is a shameful action. There can be no shame unless a person feels guilty for the digraceful action. What is better, to let nature take its' course and be the decideing factor in the pregenacy proceses, or to take control over that which science allows us to control? Women have a right to believe that since its' their body that is being used for the process of birth, that they have a right in, the out come in the use of their bodies. But is it fair? In birth the woman is one part of nature in that life ushers forth from her womd to the world of the liveing. What happens when nature isnt' allowed its place in the world? What is being denied? What is being denied is the objectivity that nature brings to the birthing process. By letting nature run its' course, the woman remains neutral in so far that she has no choice in the sort of child she brings into this exsistance. What then becomes moraley wrong then is that the science that allows the woman the choice to over ride the objcetivity of nature. The sacrifice of not haveing a choice is then lost. It is when a person can be objective in decideing to make a sacrifice that honor and noblity are maintained. Thus makeing the pregnacy process a noble and honorable endevor. But all that is lost when we insert the freedom of choice in decideing prematurely the fate of the unborn.
As for birth control it is less of a moral issue because it lacks the significance of the decisions regarding the fate of a devloping fetus. Thus any loss of honor, or feelings of shame ought to be minimal in comparison to the larger issues around cloneing and abortion.
We are free to choose between good and evil. But by chooseing evil we are often choosing what we feel is our right to choose. Thus evil often deceptive in showing the easy way out, instead of makeing the hard choice for what we know to be the right, and often the good way of doing something.

A correction: On The Draft

In my post on my thoughts concerning the draft I unfairly took aim at Congress for not not doing enough in calling for higher troop levels. I was mistaken in my criticism of Congress, because I was not aware of all the facts. My apology for the mistake. In fact Congres has been at war with the military over troop levels. But lets not forget that in a democratic society the people will not join the ranks of the military unless theres a sence of a dire threat to the nation. I'm for Congress to provide more money for higher troop levels, but keep in mind that the military should remain all volunteer,and not made up of draftees.

The Mistake in Returning the Draft

An article has appeared in Usatoday and it got me thinking of the draft."http://www.usatoday.com/news/opionion/wikham/2005-16-wikham"

This ariticle has gotten me thinking about the place of the draft in American society. There isnt' one. Unless you think that the military is what rules the government. Conspiracy theory time. Not. Fact is the U.S. Military does not meddle in in politics, cept maybe for its budget needs. But in a free society, what right does the government have to impose consription on the people? Government forgets that it gets its legitmacy from the people, and it is the people who bestow authority onto the government, to act and make laws' for the people. To bring back the draft would be an act of desperation on the part of the politcians and the generals as a recognition of the fact that support for the war in Iraq isnt' very high, amoung the American people. The politicians have led America to afar afield in this appreant American imperailism, are the ones to blame because they have chosen to stretch the armed forces way to thin to the point of causeing stress in the pipeline of the armedforces. Congress is also to blame by not takeing the lead in odering the exective branch to increase the number of infantry divisions in both theMarines and Army. Poor war planning. To me the intial invasaion of Iraq was a brillant piece of work by General Franks and his staff. But the biggest mistake that was made, was the planning for the after the war, and the blame to me lies' with the politicians who gave the military their orders. The politicians are failing in selling the continueing American presance in Iraq to the American people. By bringing back the draft the administration risks looseing all support for the American presance in Iraq. One word.Vietnam. In a society based on personal freedom, virtue, and the spirit of patroitism, to bring back the draft would run counter to those values and virtues on which this nation was so founded. The politicians and the generals need to examine carefully the way in which America fights wars. America will only support a war if they are told that a dire evil threatens the good of the nation, and the world. The draft should not be used a cover for the failure to execute the war and the post war conflict correctly.

America and the Use of Torture

Is America any better than the rest of the world when it uses torture to get infomation from so called prisoners of war? Americas' stature a world leader takes a hit becuase we as nation give into the desire for revenge, thus the desire to use torture as a means to an end. America as one of the worlds leading democracies should not stoop to the level of barbarians by useing torture, or pressure tactics to glean intelligence from suspected terrorists. Torture, or pressure tactics are not the tools of a noble and honorable people. Does America loose its luster as a country in the pursuit of happiness and freedom? It does when virtue is thrown out the window to satisfy the passions of the people. In this case revenge is not something that can be or should rushed into. Revenge is a dish best served cold. Revenge when it is rushed into is often foolish in nature, since its' not given careful thought, often enough. By our use of torture and pressure tactics in the interrogation of terror suspects, America fails to up hold the legacy of rights, due process, and freedom, with virtue the that the nations founding fathers left us. I argue that the nation needs to remember that patinence and fortitude are also necessary in being a loveing and virtous people. We as a people, need to be a strong people in the face of terrorism,and religious extemeism. By giveing into fear, and the demands of terrorists,we let them win. Finely should we use torture, or pressure tactics on suspected terrorists? I say no, because it shows that as a nation we are no better than the barbarians who attacked us first.

Whares' The Republican Party?

Has anyone seen the Republican Party? I think it got lost somewhare. Hello! Have you seen the Republican Party? I have'nt seen the real Republican Party since George W. became president, and some people called congress got taken over by a group of neoDemocrats calling themselves Republicans. Whats up with that ? Honestly I have'nt seen real group of Republuilcans in Congress since Newt Gingrich tried to rally the to troops to storm the WhiteHouse with that revolution of his back in '94. Whare is he now? They ought to send VH1 out to find him and do one of those, whare they are stories. Oh wait, this is politics aint' it, ok. What about the Daily Show? Is John Stewart busy ? If you want fair and balanced ok what about Fox News Kirk Camron? I'm sure he'd have no problem in trackling Newt down and asking the realy serious stuff like is he jealous that Hillary has better popuralaity rateings than he ever did?Is he also envious that the former first lady looks' like a shoein to be the Democratic nominee for president in '08? What does he think about the president messing up Iraq like he has? If Newt were still in Congress would he storm the Whitehouse now over the budget? What would he do about the base closeing fiasco? To save money? Please. I have not heard one honest way on how to cut government waste since the ol' boy left, excuse me got tossed by Clintons' cronies. But if Newt realy wants to be found then he ought to beg to get on Hard Ball with Chris Matthews, because then he would be talking to the belt way. Besides no one gets' taken seriously inside the beltway, unless you've been on either Sunday morning with Tim Russert, or you've been on Hard Ball, recently. Then maybe he could get some momentom to stage a comeback on the hill. Come on Newt the country needs you. Delay is in the ropes, the president cant' get an ambassador confirmed, never mind the judges'. But above all the Republicans need you, oh wait the neoDemocrats. Sorry Senator Mcain, I was'nt includeing you. Seriously when was the last time you heard about government reform? Um? Before W. got elected? Oh wait I know what happend, those so called modedrate Republicans got a president whom they could follow to the feeding bowl, its' called tax payer money. Pork, its' the color of money. Its what politicians have for dinner. If any one finds a real republican let me know please. Also please dont' say Senator John Mcain thats' too easy.

Afghanaistan and Muslum Extremeism

The protests in Afghanaistan over an article in Newsweek about flushing the Quran down the toilet at Gitmo, continues to prove my point that religous extremeism lacks the virtue of a patient and forgiveing religion. These protests also serve to prove that a unenlightend people lack the understanding to worship the Lord in a peaceful manner. Yes the Quran is a holy book, and no it should not be disrespected. But as the Lord says in the Hebrew bible, that revenge shall be his and not his followers. If the Lord felt his holy Quran was dissed then it should've been left to him, to exact puinishment, if any. The protests in Afaghanistan are uncalled for, if only the people had left it alone. How many are now dead because of senceless violence? These violent protests are not the actions of a virtuous people, but of ignorant, unenlightend barbarians. The greater problem in Afghanistan is not only the ingorance of the Afghani people, but also the hatered of Muslum Extremeism. It is Muslum Extremeism that inflames the passions of a ignorant people. Such extremeism is a form of evil which seeks to undermine society by breeding hate, fear, and encourageing revenge through violent means.

Islam: and the Extremeism of Orthodox Religion

The way of orthodox religion is to be intolerant to any view that runs counter to the orthodox view of religion. Any intolrance in religion goes against the very nature of religion. Religion is the way in which the higher power is worship,honored and revered. Religion is not just view point of philosophy or theology, religion also becomes a way of life to those devoted to their spiritual life as well. Intolerance is a form of hatered, and it must be resisted by those who desire toworship the higher goodness of this world. Those who are strong in internal fortitude are also capable of being strong in chairity. To define charity one ought to look in the book "MY DAILY BREAD", by the CONFRATERNITY OF THE PRECIOUS BLOOD, pg.284, subtitled The Effects of Charity in Daily Life. This whole chapter deals with the ideal of charity in daily life, and is a exllent lesson in the very virtue of charity in life.
Islam has recently recieved alot of negative news because of the violent actions of extremeists through out the world. This is unfair to Islam because according to the Koran it is not meant to be a religion intent on the violent destruction of the world. If we look at the time period in which Mohammed wrote the holy book we'll see that it was a time of great social upheaval, the world was rife with violent clashes between the last remanats of the Roman empire, and various migrateing tribes, violent tribes who were pagans in their beliefs. It was these infidels of whom Mohammed spoke of, and not those in their own way worshiped the same Lord God. To me Mohammed was a prophet and holy man whose intent was to convert the pagan peoples of the Arab pennisula, to the worship of the Lord God, of supreme goodness. In my view he did quite well considering that he was such a lowly and humble man. But as is the way with human nature, greed for power got the best of man, thus the fighting for the role as Mohammeds' successor. Its' fine to debate the finer points of the teachings of a great teacher like Mohammed, but quite another to get violent over such differences. Todays' Muslum extemeists' are not only misguided, but they also misjudge the role Islam should be playing in this world. If a theology does not help in guideing people to better understand the role of religion in life, and to better worship the God of goodness then it fails to understand its own existance. It also can be corrupted by its followers who misinterpit its meaning.
None of the three major religions, Christianity,Hebrew ,or Islam was ever intended to become violent reliogions. Nor were they ever meant to be religions of intolrance and hate. Such things are the corruption of evil influencing the emotions and passions of the followers of the lord God. Religion should two main purposes. First it should be able to focus the will of the people to the worship of the Lord God. Second it should provide the tools and ablitiy for the faithful to learn and to be enlightend about the Lord and his divine nature. I dont' think that the Lord wants followers who cant' think for themseleves. I think that the Lord wants faithfull followers who can understand who it is that they worship, to do so one must seek out the learning, the education necessary to properly follow the divine will. All which requires people to become enlightend not just about their own religions but those of others'. In the end the road to martydom lies not in violence, but in the enlighted mind of a educated person.
Violent religious extremeism runs counter to the very nature of the Lord, it also runs counter the nature of charity which is so important in everyone getting along.

Homosexuality: A Reasoning

What is homosexuality? Is it love? Desire? Passion? Is it to love another of the same sex? Is it the desire to love another of the same sex? (I am not here to condem people who consderthem selves homosexual but to explore the idea of homosexuality in terms of a reason as to why people are. That is philosophy, to explore the reasoning of human actions and emotions. Though I do condem the act of homosexuality.) Could homosexsuality be all those things? To me it could. But in light of this weeks news that homosexuality could be the result of a malfunction in the brain it could also be physical problem. If as it appears that homosexality is a result of some malfuntion in the brain then it becomes possible for science to find a way to fix it. Its' been argued that homosexuality is a result of love for another, just of the same sex. But that begs to ask the question what then is the nature of love? Is love an emotion? Is it a desire? Or is it a passion? I think most would agree that love is defined as an emotion. Love then must be a very powerful emotion to evoke strong feelings of protection for what is seen as part of the natural order. I am refering to the fact that some see homosexuality as part of the natural order of life. Homosexuality then the reasoning goes is part of a natural order of life, comeing from the emotion of love. But is it? If homosexuality is a result of some malfunction in the brain, and it can be fixed then the idea that homosexuality is part of the natural order of life falls apart. Its one thing to think of homosexuality in terms of love, its another to think of it terms of the physical.
But what is sex? Is it a way to satisfy earthly desires? Is it a way to communicate love? What is the natural purpose of sex in life? It seem seems that sex serves to functions. First it serves to satisfy desire, which is what attracts people to others, and is what mainly drives people to haveing sex in the first place. Second sex is the physical way to communicate that love to another person. So if you have the two functions of the physical way, which sex is used in nature, then what is the emotion that bridges the emotional and physical parts of life? Love. Could it be that love is such a powerful emotion, that it is the driveing force behind desire, and passion? Or do people mistake desire for the emotion of love? What then drives the role of passion? Could it be that both love and desire drive passion? I say yes. Furthermore I would argue that yes love is such a powerful force in life that it can be perverted if it is not properly controlled. But how powerful is love? Its possibly so powerful that it takes the strongest of people to control it. But is it? Or is love mistaken for what is realy desire? I think it can be mistaken for desire as is often the case. To me love is one of the most powerful forces of nature, it is also one of the most pure forces. As such when people distort nature by certain actions they also can distort and change the charater of that force of nature, as is the case with homosexuality. I believe that homosexuality as an act is impure. I believe that the soul becomes tainted and soiled by the acts of homosexuality. I believe that homosexulaity distorts the pureity of love thus canceling out any way that love can be called a purifying force of nature. Also I dont' believe in civil rights just for people who consider themselves homosexual. That brings me to another argument. I beleieve that all people regardless of race,creed, gender, sexuality, are all equaly enititled to the natural rights of humanity, and to all thus protections therein. I dont' belive we need a special set of rights just for a people of a cetain sexual affiliation.

Rethinking the minimum wage:

The minimum wage today does not work. As a security net for those at the low end of the wage scale it does not adequetly address the needs of the working poor. The minimum wage should be flexable enought to provide the security of a liveing wage, and yet not have significant economic impact. I propose that the defination of part time work be defined as working no more than thirty hours a week. A minimum wage be set for those working the thirty hours a week. To answer those critics who say that its mainly teenagers who work part time, I respond by saying fine lets have a seperate minimum wage for those, for the sake of argument, younger than nineteen. To help those over the age of nineteen who work part time I further propose that if they work more than thirty hours a week then they ought to be paid the equivalent of part time over time, say a dollar and quarter more an hour. The very idea of part time needs to be thought of differently than as being merely temporary work. For some its a way of life. Work forty hours a week yet be paid part time wages.

The Lost Focus of America:

America has lost its' focus becuase the poor leadership shown by the President and members of congress. America has been busy as the worlds policeman and has put not enough focus in matters of trade and social issues. It appears that the military machine is driveing foreign policy, though I know that it is not. American leadership has strayed from whats important to Americans. Whats important to Americans'? Jobs, security, education, the desire to feel safe and secure in the golden years that includes knowing that social security and medicaid are going to be safe. The social contract that Americans' have with their government has few stipulations. They are: keep government small, no one like to see government waste. Don't think of touching social security, unless the changes you make are small and incremental. Keep America safe from terrorists and extremeists who threaten the security, safety,and freedom of all Americans. Finally jobs, jobs, jobs. People want to work, people want to prosper, people will feel happy if they feel government is keeping the contract. America has lost the confidence in it's president the president lost focus as to whats' important to the American people. The president duped the American people by feeding off their desire for revenge, after the events of 9/11/01, and by trying to tie Saddam Hussien to the subsequent war on terror. America has thus shown that its desire for revenge only goes so far, so to does its' stomach for war, and the risk of American casualties in the hell of war.
History has shown that America will mobilize, and gird for war only in when it sees the threat of evil approaching. Thus the president lost the support of the American people when the threat of immenent attack from a evil foe did not materialize. The president lost his focus on whats' important to the American people in his desire to take out Saddam Hussien.

Vietnam and Iraq: The Compairson

Alot has allready about the compairson between Vietnam and Iraq. But I'm not sure adequet argument has been made between the two. The most important thing that is different this time around is the point in history, the point in time in which these wars have taken place. The 1960's was a time of revolutionairy upheaval in the social fabric of America. There were these social tensions in society that came to the for and sparked a revolution in the social fabric of America. You top that with Americans' hatred for a war that did not fight the larger evil force in the world at the time, the Soviet Union. The Vietnam war, was a stategic war that was picked by the belief that communism needed to be blocked from spreading, and that the only way to stop it was to attack it on a small scale without direct confrontation with the Soviet Union. It was a failure of understanding that communism can only be stopped by a confrontation with the larger foe, the Soviet Union. Of the social issues at the time, beside the race issue, was the issue of the draft. This was a crititcal issue that that influenced support for the war in Vietnam. In a democracy you need the continued support of the people if you are to have any polilitcal capital to prove sussesful in either trying to pass legislation or by trying to sell a war to a reluctant people. LBJ made a crucial mistake by following the advice of the generals, and leading the country into war that he could not provide a reasonable explanation for. What was the pressing threat from the force of evil, in place like Vietnam, that scared the military into believeing that it had to act against it in a back water country like Vietnam?
So how does that compare to the war in Iraq today? First theres' no social revolution fueling the passions if the people. Second the president has not touched the draft issue thus keeping support for the armedforcess, steady. Third the case for war in Iraq was not made as a stratiegic argument against a ideaology as was the case against communism. But as an argument against tyranny supporting terrorism. Activly. Finaley America today is a older and wiser society and it has not lost the lessons of the past. The only thing lost in America today is a clear argument and reasoning of the national agenda.

The Keys of Wise Leadership:

The keys to being a wise leader are found inthe nature of wisdom. To be wise one must have knowledge, understanding, imagination, and perception. The ablitiy to percieve comes through by haveing understanding and experiance(history), to see what the results might be. Perception is the greatest ability of the wise to understand clearly in the choices they make.

The Nobility of American Democracy:

Democracy requires that the general public be of a certain character, that being nobility. But democracy in its' intial stages of developement can be chaotic and unrulely. There is thus a need for leaders int he comunity at large, to educate the masses for them need to live a vitueous life, for the common good. How might this be explained? The people need to hear clear reasons as to why their virtue is important for the sucess of democracy in their community. Debate needs occur to allow for opinions to be expressed, and for consenses be reached on the issues of importance. However, consenses can never be reached if people are not willing to make a sacrifice for the common good, through careful and reasonable discusion of the various issues. Time and again it has been the very act of sacrifice that has made America a noble Democracy. In fact it is the idea for the common good that leads people to make the ultimate sacrifice in war.
However when democracy fails it is th result of a number of factors. These factors include the lack of educated leadership, and a desire for revenge, the greed for power, the lack of virtue and the lack of common cause. Also when democracy fails, then mob rule is bound to ensue. Mob rule is a chaotic force ruled by the passions of the moment. When the mob desires revenge it often often acts from the passions of the moment. The problem with democracy is that it is by its' nature a chaotic and unruley force, allowing for at times unscrupoulus leaders rise to power, adding to the mobs' desire for revenge. Thus the virtue of society is undermined for this rash desire revenge. But there is hope for democracy. When the people can come together and decide to act for the good of all, either in the creation of a new democracy, or in the restoration of order, then democracy can emerge from the chaotic forces of the mob.
Today a person has to wonder about the state of nobility in American Democracy. Do the people realy understand the heritage that it inherited from the nations founding fathers? Special interest groups hold sway in Washington, the problem of soft money is wide spread. The nature of American politics has led to the development of a politcal class the relies on the monied interest to stay in power. All this is widely known. But what if it were thought of in the terms of sacrifice for the greater good? Then we could theorize about the role of greed plays in the role of motivator for what ailes American Democracy. Greed as a motivator in politics, the corupting force that under mines the inspireing higher ideals of virtuous and oder of democracy. Which would be the result from a people enilightend on the importance of virtue in society.

The Three Keys of Enlightenment:

There are three keys to enlightenment, and they are knowledge, understanding,and wisdom.

Sacrifice and the idea of nobility:

Nobility,what is it? Is it something that only a king or duke might possess? Nobility is a state of being that is of the highest moral caliber. No, kings and dukes are the sole possessers of this quality. Nobility is the result of a person exemplifying a character that is of the highest human virtue. Nobility has a few required characteristics. Amoung them is humility, the ablity of self sacrifice, patience, fortitude, forgiveness. The greatest of these is the ablity to sacrifice ones' self for the greater good. Foolish? Is it? Nope, to put the needs of others before ones' own, proves the ablitiy to set aside all greed, fear, or desire for self presevation, for the greater good. This in turn leads to another charatceristic called courage. Courage is the strength of character to set aside fear and do what is required. It is the nature of the action that requires sacrifice, which determines the the quality of being in nobility.
What then is honour? Respect. To have honour is to have respect of peers or of the general populace. It is allso something a person gains when they are recognized by a head of state for some exemplary action.

In Defense of a Celebate Priesthood

In recent years the Catholic church has come under fire because it will not allow priests' to marry. However it is the very act of celebacy that this the church its' moral authority. What act is more noble and honorable, than to forsake the chance to ever marry or to ever fall in love with a wonderful woman. It is the vow of celebacy that commits a person to the responseablity of serving the Lord in the community. The vow to God is a vow of sacrifice. It is one of the greatest sacrifices a man can make in his life. Those who hear the call but don't answer because they would much prefer to marry instead, lack the strength and the will to devote themselves to God. It is only those who have the internal fortitude to serve with absolute devotion, that take the vow of celebacy. Why is it that those who are celebate give the church its' moral authority? Becuase its' the nature of the of the sacrifice of man giveing his life to God in service through his church. Think of it this way, hell in the sence that it is a place of punishment, and enslavement, is also a very lonely place. By vowing to be celebate, a priest is vowing to deny himself the love and compaionship that a marriage would bring to him. He is takeing the risk of being forever alone in this exsistance. The risk is feeling the pain of being all alone, which is like feeling the fires' of hell. So what must a man do to over come the pain of loneliness? To seek out with his whole mind and being the comfort and grace of God. By doing this he accomplishes two things, first he shows faith, and devotion to God by seeking him out in his time of need, second he becomes a example to the community at large by this act of faith in God. Despite all this I will concede a need for married priests in the community. I will also concede that being both married and a priest is a sacrifice on both time and family, thus no less honorable or noble in any way. The problem with priests' marrying lies in the very vow of celebacy. The vow is to God and is not something that should be taken lightly. It is solemn vow of devtion to the Lord, a vow of sacrifice, and humility. What should the church do? I recommend that the church allow for permanent deacons who have allready married, who have served at least seven years, and who have been married at least ten years to become priests. Further I propose that those priests wishing to marry, and break their vow to God, be asked to leave the priesthood for a period of seven years. Such men ought to become permanent deacons. The seven years becomes a punishment for breaking a most solemn vow. The seven ten rule. Ten years married, seven years as deacon.
Continueing my line of thought, under my proposed rules should women be allowed to become priests? Yes. But I would add so long as any parrish would accept a woman as a priest or pastor at their church. The church hierachy seems to have forgotten that it is the people whom it serves also and not just the Lord. If a parrish wishes to have a woman preist then let it. So long as the woman is held to the same standards as the men, then whats the big deal? The big deal might be the role of Christ as the ultimate human sacrifice, and the tradtion of the church of haveing men represent that sacrifice through the priesthood. I would argue here that women can aslso represent a form of human sacrifice, on the female side. A female Christ? Are not women allowed to suffer as well? Hersay? Everyday woman around the world suffer because of what is is percieved as male superioty. Women in my view are just as likey to suffer and feel the pain of loneliness, just like men. Thus to allow women to serve in the role of priests is no less honorable or noble, than for men to be priests. We all worship a the same God.
Peace of God be with you.

Abortion: Question of intent

In my last post I tried to explore both sides of the abortion debate, here I wish to explore the meaning of intent to have an abortion and the ramifications it has on people. What is the intent for the abortion? Is it to avoid raising a child with disablities? Is the desire to have a child with specific looks? Is the child totaly unwanted by one or both of the parents? Is the woman under pressure to have the abortion performed? To me it is the nature of the intent that determines the severity of evil that is being chosen. To choose to have an abortion because the fetus is diformed, or has a disease like downsyndrome is a most hideous of reasons for an abortion. For a teenage girl to have an abortion because shes' too young to properly care for the baby,and the father might not be supportive of the girl if she chose to carry the baby the full term of the pregancy, then one must be more forgiveing in this light. I would not judge a woman for haveing an abortion because I am not aware of her circumstances. How can people judge a woman for haveing a abortion when they themselves are not aware of all of the facts? Abortion is yes an appalling act. But it is an act that is hard to be critical of because its' such a personal and emotional choice. This world was created, it is my belief, to allow a speices, humans, a choice between good and evil. Abortion, and the choice between it, and birth exemplifies the choice between good and evil that we all must make at some point in our lives. I believe that choice is guaranteed as a natural right of all humanity. Thus as appalling as it might seem the state has an obligation to defend, to protect the natural rights of everyone. With that said when does life begin and when are the rights of the baby to protected? At the moment of birth, the begining of life.

Abortion: A Reasoning

I find most people who are prolife seem to be quite unforgiveing when it comes to the issue of abortion. But abortion is a issue whare too many poeple get to hot headed, and loose all common sence. Abortion in simple terms is action that a woman deems nessary to keep contol over her life, and not be saddled with a burden she may not want. Is abortion murder? To use the word murder is to insinuate the deliberate takeing of life that allready exsits. I do believe that yes abortion is a choice between the actions of good vs. evil. But let me define the various terms used in connection with pregancy and birth. First pregnacy ought not to be seen solely as a state of being for a woman, but a process in the creation of life. Second the starting point for life is at birth, not before. When does life begin? At birth. Why? Life begins at birth because that is the end of the state of being known as pregnacy. More precisly let me ask when is it that our parents name us?Usualy its at birth or shortly there after. Not only are we named but thats' when we get our first documents recognizieing our exstitance in the form of the birth certificate. Now let me ask what is the meaning of fetus?Is it a state of being or is it a process of birth? Fetus usualy refers to the baby in the womb, thus to me it is a state of being, but not yet a complete being, since the state of the fetus is one of creation. When does it become a baby? At birth? Yes. When a woman carries the pregnacy the nine months, then gives the child up for adoption, she is being noble in being and spirit. The action of abortion ought to be seen as being shameful,disgraceful, and a act of cowherdly wickedness. The whole process of either birth or abortion in traditional Jewish sence is a impure prosess spiritualy, though in birth the noblity of the act cancels out the impureity. Thus the woman who has the abortion risks not only physical trauma, mental trauma, but also a spiritual trauma. The woman might choose to have the abortion done to retain control over her life, but she risks grave injury in three different ways. I believe that abortion being in simple terms a choice between good or evil, should allways be the womans choice no matter her age. If she chooses to have sex and the result is pregnacy then the choice, it seems to me is hers by right of nature. I believe this world about the freedom of choice between the forces of good or evil. I believe that women who have abortions also need love and forgiveness the most. I am highly critical of the Catholic Church for not being more forgiveing of those who have abortions. I believe that Catholic Church as one of the most out spoken and critical of all religous dominations, which understands the issue quite well is lacking the love and humiltiy to over come its own hatred of abortion, and become more forgiveing. Not only should it be more loveing and forgiveing but it needs to profess such belief in public, and do all it can to change not only the minds of women considering haveing abortions, but their followers as well.

The Nature of Evil

What is the nature of evil? What is evil? The nature of evil is universal, its like a dark inky mass that travels the universe seeking to corrupt the nature of the universe to its' likeing. Evil is spirt in a phsysical being, by its' very nature it is a dirty, filthy,chaotic, being, that in other words is impure. Evil might also be seen as a God that is the exact opposite of a God that is of pure goodness. A God that by its' nature is loveing, careing,orderly,who in his or her holy being as part of the universe encompasess all that is good and pure of the universe. To me, simply put is a impure, corrupting,subversive, spirit that seeks to corrupt, not just earth, but the whole universe out of desire to rule over all.