Are American Troops violateing the constitution?

Are American troops viloateing the consitituion by takeing over homes in Iraq for missions?Accordingto amendment3 of the U.S. Constitution troops cannot be quatered or take over private homes without consent of the home owner. Does'nt that mean includeing military actions on foreign soil as well? If it does we have American troops disregarding American laws because they are abroad. This might be nit picking, but I'm trying to be fair, all American laws ought to apply to all American citizens whether they are serving the country in foreign lands, or traveling abroad. My rational might be a bit flawed, but I would like to see all American laws applied fairly, and not when its' convienent. But is it any wonder that America is seen as a Colonial power, and that's why people hate us? We ignore our own laws that ought to be seen in an universal light. Article three ought to be seen in that light. We ought to be admired through out the world for believeing that the rights we seek to protect of American citizens are universal rights that ought to be copied around the world. President Bush is a disgrace, he ignore's not only our laws, but the history for haveing those laws in the first place, all because it was'nt convienent.

No guts, no glory.

The President should've rejected the with drawl of Harriet Miers nomination. If she became a swing vote on the supreme court, good. That means she was bringing a measure of reason to the high court. Heck we did'nt even have a hearing. Not fair. There should've more discussion over the nomination of Ms. Miers. It's unfortunate that this this is what America has become, whare open and fair debate is stifled due to the howls of partisans. So what we have is a President who's showing that he's weak. He's got no guts' by not sticking with the Harriet Miers' nomination. Thus he fails in getting the glory of haveing his pick get onto the Supreme Court.

Earth to Bush,Democracy is not Liberty:

To stay the course? Why to create a democracy in America's image? How about to defend and protect liberty abroad? The president continues to fumble when it comes to defineing what the distiction is between democracy and liberty. Or maybe he believe's in the idea of democracy first, and liberty second? But liberty cant' come in second since deomcracy is a product of liberty.There has been no debate by the talking heads about liberty, it's all been about whether we should bring democracy to a region that is still to unstable, for the instituions of democracy. Sure the Iraqis' have a constitution, but that's still no guarentee that the counrty won't suddenly burst into civil war, or that we'll have a smouldering low grade type of civil war going on. Thus the need for American troops on the ground. To sustain democracy first and liberty second. Wrong move. We should be argueing for defence of liberty first, then democracy second. It's this misguided thinking that continues to get America into trouble abroad. The idea that we as Americans' have to spread democracy abroad in hope that it sawns peace, is flawed when it is liberty that creates peace and prosperity. But I question the idea that Americans support the notion of spreading and defending liberty around the world when others see no value in it. If we as a nation are led to war, in another country to defend and protect liberty, would we as a nation support our leaders who believe it is our obligation as being Americans, beacuse our past history, and role in the defense, and pursuit there of, for liberty? I don't believe the time has come nor a case made strong enough, that we as a Americans must sacrifice ourselves for the idea of liberty, in another country. American's are selfish, the nation does not see it being in our best interest to pursue the goal of liberty in a place like Iraq. The president has lost support because his arguements for war in Iraq do not impart a sence of importance to the idea as to why we have to pay with American blood for liberty in a place like Iraq. American foreign policy should be based on the interest of America spreading the idea of liberty across the globe, and not as President mistakeinly points out to promote democracy abroad. Let me take take Venezuela as an example. Look at Venezuela, see how they have a tyrant as president now. A democraticly elected tyrant mind you. The country is going down hill because of the actions of one man, Chavez. What do you think ought to be our interest there? Oil? Democracy? Liberty? We as a people should desire to see all people across the globe to be free and have the right to pursue liberty. Thus the situation in Venezuela bears watching, should government dprive the people of their freedom, then we ought to open discussions with Chavez to allow for more freedom. But it is not in Amreicas' interest to alineate a people, so as to islolate, and punish a tyrant. A tyrant might be useful if he can guarentee peace and security, while allowing for the pursuit of liberty. Such a tyrant in the middle ages was considered noble, even a King, if he maintained soverignty, yet allowed for the freedom of his people. In the case of Venezuela it is not in America's interest to isolate a nation through sanctions, but to maintain the status quo in hopes of one day of allowing a people to decide their own fate. We can as Americans can encourage this, but nothing more. The reason why the Bush presidency ought to be considered a failure is because the president chose war instead of diplomacy. But this is a sign of a leader being an incompantant in, the use of diplomacy, in the pursuit of national interests.

Democracy and Liberty:

Today we hit a milestone in the number of American dead, who died as part of the ongoing operations in Iraq. It smells like Nam all over again. But in a way its' not. The basic questions remain the same. Why are we there? Whats the strategy? When are we pulling the troops out? It's a hot there. It's allways the same bitch, by the soldiers about the climate. The president, just like LBJ, has failed to sell this conflict to the American people. The why is never easy and invloves a bit of philosophy. But what the president fails to see is the other side of the question. We have another why? The failure of the president is in his inability to explain the first why, and to see the importance of the second why. The first why is centered on the argument for democracy in a region that through time has proven socialy unstable. The second why is centered in the reasoning for American troops. Why must it allways be Americans? Why are we allways going to war?What are we fighting for? It is not enough that American leaders say it is for the good of the world. It is not enough to say because we are a free people that we have anobligatgion to help another country thro the chains of tyrany off. No Americans' are selfish, Americans are protective of their children who they see leave for a conflict in which they have nothing at stake. What is at stake for Americans that we have to ask our young and brave children to sacrifice themselves in a conflict that is seemingly without any value to the nation? The president can preach about the value of spreading democracy through out the world, but America the nation, the cradle of liberty and democracy, sees no point, no value to a conflict in a nation that has no value to Americans themselves. The president has failed in makeing his case to the American people, about the war in Iraq. What the president has failed to do is in the manner of which he has tried repeatedlly failing, to allow for a debate on the virtues of going to war in another country, for the purpose of creating and establishing a democratic form of government after over throwing a tyrant. Here we have the crux if the problem. A failure of the American people to understand, and a failure of a president to teach to the American people, what the ideas and concepts of liberty are, and their importance to all Americans, and the need to share them with others in foreign lands held hostage by tyrants. Democracy can not be attained in ignorance, nor can it be attained in a land torn apart by conflict. Democracy can only arise when a people, social groups see the benifits of peacefull self through democracy. Democracy should not be confused by the idea of liberty, which if man must sacrifice himself for an idea then it should be this one. It is through liberty that a people are able to find the road to self determination best by themselves. It is not Democracy that we are striveing to bring to the people of Iraq but the idea of liberty. America is not fighting Al-queda because of relgion, but to protect the idea the virtue of liberty. Liberty, this noble virtue of which all of humanity's oppressed seek to attain is the real reason why we fight wars like the one in Iraq, and Vietnam. What is ignoble is the manner in which the argumant for war is made because it lacks the clear understanding for the need of of noble virtue in the pursuit of liberty. Live free or die. Give me liberty or give me death. For it is in being free to have liberty that man can live, experiance the joy, and happiness that life can bring. Unfortunetly the oppressed of this world have no hope in experianceing the greatness of being free, to express themselves, or to the right of self dtermination, either of their own lives or the direction of their nation, in how it protects and guards that precious idea called liberty. The purpose for the conflict is to finaley bring to an oppressed region the right, the virtue of liberty. We ask Americans to sacrifice themselves, to put themselves in harms way so that others might have chance to experiance, and taste that idea called liderty.Thus the sacrfice of American soldiers is a noble one, because we ask them to die in the name of liberty, freedom. Thus the twin failures, of a nation to understand, and a president to remind the nation of the value of liberty. Semper Fi. Let freedom ring.

The worship of Mary over God:

It seems that the worship and devotion to Mary has taken presedence over the worship of God. I know the thinking that the devotion to Mary is a path to salvation. But the Catholic church in my mind has gone over board in its' devotion to Mary. I understand the thinking that it seems because of the story of God takeing Mary a virgin and makeing her concieve his son. Not nessary. People who think this way don't know, don't understand the power of God. People allso fail to understand Gods' plans. The love and devotion people show to Mary should be showing it to God. Why not create a prayer that can be recited to the Lord multiple times for the purpose of salvation, just like the Hail Mary? The Catholic Church should show more devtion to the Lord and less to Mary. Who sits in ultimate judgement? The Lord that's who. The problem with the devotion to Mary is that people don't seem to reach out to God in either times of praise, but mainly in times of need. The mass should be a combonation of both the worship and praise of God, and rememberance of Christ's suffering as he went to hell to wrestle with the devil for three days', in what must have seemmed like years' instead. The Catholic Church has two types of masses, one for holidays', and speacial occaions, they are called high masses. The low mass is the daily mass and the Sunday mass. The church needs a high mass solely devoted to the worship of the lord. The people need to learn to pray and devote them selves to God alone, minus the saint's and Mary. A renewel to the worship of God as a single being, like in the Jewish tradtion. Whether people realize it or not their recitation of the rosary is not realy helpng their faith, but hindering their growth in faith to God. The way to salvation is following the path of Christ, but this allso includes the worship and devtion of God as a single being not includeing the worship of the holy spirit, or worshiping Christ as though he is one with God, though he is, but to worship God, and God alone, as being a supreme being.
On the issue of saints, what good are saints if they do not live amoung us helping us aleve the pain and sufering of all humans'? Those claiming miracles are in most cases' disillusioning themsleves. Since who are the most powerful saints? The archangels are more powerful than the strongest saint. But the point here is that prayers and devotion to heaven should be solely made to God and not to the angels, saint's, or Mary. Semper Fi ought to mean to the Lord alone. Amen.

Homosexuals and the Priesthood:

Word has come that the Jesuits intend on petitoning the Pope to allow openly homosexaul men to be priests. I have a problem with this. First what the heck are the Jesuits doing petitoning the Pope on this issue in the first place? The Jesuits are suppose to be these loyal followers of the Pope and Church doctrine. They have reputation of being amoung the most orthodox of Roman Catholics. Second homosexuals do not belong in the priesthood for the simple reason that their actions run counter to the normal moral standards of humanity. They as priests would be tainting the alter of the lord. They are unworthy to be priests. Priests are expected to live up to a higher moral standard then the rest of humanity. Priests are role models for the community in liveing a moraly sound life. So when we have gay priests at the alter it says that its' okay to be weak and wilt under the pressure of temptation. I don't think so. I think the lord wants' men of strong character who can show to the community of the possiblity in resisting temptation. I am not saying that gays are not welcomed to worship the lord. I am saying that their place, their role is not as a priest. If an openly gay person wants to devote themselves to the lord in the form of a vocation then let them pursue it as a brother monk. But the person needs to realize that, because of the preception of their unworthiness to be priests they are expected to be more repentant than most. They should attend mass at every chance, pray to the lord for strength in resisting temptation, and fight off the compulse feelings of homosexuality. Third let me make clear a point of men as priests. Men who lead a moral and noble life are more likely to experiance the spirit of holiness alot sooner and easier than those who lead unacceptable immoral lives. It is harder, and near impossible for those of immoral virtue, to experiance the spirit of holiness if they do not live their lives in full accordance to the will of the lord. That being said it is not impossible for the temptations of homosexuality to be over come and the the forgiveness of the lord to be given, but a person must first try, and practice, time after time the resistance to temptation. Only after alot of time and practice can virtue be attained. It's like lifting weights you start with the lightest weight and then as you grow stronger you add more weight. In resisting temptation you keep fighting it off time after time until it becomes second nature.

An Arrogant Church:

The archbishop of Boston has done it again. He's made another parrish angry with him. This time it's the parrishoners of Our Lady Help of Christians Church, in Newton Mass. It seems that the archbishop decided to remove the pastor Father Walter Cuenin over some fraudulent accounting irregularities in regard to car leased with a stipend from the parrish. The archdioese just took the chance on trumped up charges to remove a priest that was'nt toeing the official church line. It seems that Father Cuenin was not suppose to be reaching out to homosexuals, estranged and ailenated catholics trying to find their way back, and also divorced and remarried couples. You get the idea. He was'nt suppose to be reaching out to those whom the church deems unworthy of salvation. But boy is the church so wrong on this one. Especialy in Boston whare the infamous priest scandel started. Here we have a man of God doing what he feels is right, and he had the backing of the parrish! Not only that but the parrish because of this pastor was flourishing. But the archdiocese felt that Father Cuenin was'nt orthodox enough for it's likeing so it sacked him for alleged "finacial irregularities".
What the church seems to have forgotten, or fails to recoginize is that those who attend mass are performing an act of contrition. The mass because it recount the suffering and death of Jesus on the cross is a act of pennence by all those who attend mass. So while the church condems others it is condeming its self by not acting with understanding and mercy. It is reasonable that the church believe in a certain set of trueths that form the basis for it's doctrine. One of those trueths could be that homosexuality is not of the highest form of human virtue. That homosexuality is a corrupt form of humanity. Another trueth that the church shuold hold is that while abortion is choice of grave seriousness, the church repects the right of a person to choose between good or evil. It ought to maintain that abortion is a act of murder, thus an evil act it, but it welcomes those who seek redemption through attendance at mass and doing other acts of pennance. The Church as a teacher of morality ought to teach just why the act of marriage is so important. It ought to explain that marriage and the vow of fidelity are of the most solom vows that people can make. Marriage ought to be seen in the light of a couple vowing to be faithful and loveing of one another through the worst and best of times. Other wise the cermony of marriage lacks the depth and power that makes it such an important vocation. The church ought to teach that people, should they choose to rermarry need to recomit themselves to being faithful spouses. The church needs greater patience, mercy and understanding in this regard.
What Father Cuenin seems to inderstand is that theres a place for all different types of people within the Catholic Church, within the kingdom of heaven, and he was acting in way he thought best served his parrish. This man ought to be praised, and not prosecuted for alleged "financial irregulairities". What has become obvious is that the Church has forgotten it's role as understanding and merciful counsler to the sinners.