The U.S. has evolved, as all major societies, from green to brown (growth to groan). Societies built on solid principles of liberty and freedom are tainted by those least appreciative of it - the successive children of each generation.
Born already fat on the hard-earned prosperity of our forefathers without the corporate memories of the work required to get there only makes it worse for each next generation.
To truly forge a path back to the basic and everlasting princples our forefathers forged for us, it will take a rebirth of the unique, fighting spirits our ancestors brought with them to the US - the same spirit that forged the cowboys and wranglers, and sent us to the moon.
Now, that fighting spirit has been dampened by a communal need for universal mediocrity to prevent damaged self-images of those who are unwilling to fight for their own livelihood and unwilling to accept the harshness of reality.
Lack of responsibility is a major factor in our society. No one will take responsibility for what happens to them, or put it where it's due. Blaming the government for mother nature is irresponsible. Blame mother nature and the simple truth that life isn't fair.
To redeem our broken society, it will take a major social climate change that can be found only by the fruition of the negative results from current primary political taint. It's up to responsible Americans to rise and overcome the arrogance of current politics and be dedicated solely to destroyed the omnipresent power and tyranny the current federal government is exercising over the country.
In what ways can we infuse patriots with the will and determination it will take to destroy our current systems and be willing to revert a currently modern, socialist system into a purely capitalist and self-governing state?
Is it even possible? Are such a decadent people capable of positive reversion? What will it take short of nuclear fallout or decimating war in these 48 that will force mankind to a natural order of self-ruling parties, built on the powers of responsible self-interest?
Are there honest steps being taken or is this simply a flight of an intelligent fancy?
Johnathan Cross
Marietta
Monday, April 30, 2007
Saturday, April 28, 2007
A Call for a Change in Natural-Born Citizenry
To be born in this country should no longer solely be able to account for citizenship any longer. How many come to bear their children so that their children might have a better life, and in hope be able to tag along for the ride?
I understand the desire to have a better life, but as long as laws break no moral code, then there is yet a reason to break them, even in pursuit of a better life.
I think it prudent of the U.S. government to consider a new approach to citizenship by involving parental citizenship in determination for the children. If I'm born to American parents in Germany, I hope that I'm American. There can be statues of difference involved in parental intention. If my parents wished to change their citizenship to German, I hope that I as their child would be granted the same status they themselves have gained, even if they had spent 90 percent of the required time to gain new citizenship.
Otherwise, as has already been proven, our natural-born citizenship is left open for easy abuse.
Johnathan Cross
Marietta
I understand the desire to have a better life, but as long as laws break no moral code, then there is yet a reason to break them, even in pursuit of a better life.
I think it prudent of the U.S. government to consider a new approach to citizenship by involving parental citizenship in determination for the children. If I'm born to American parents in Germany, I hope that I'm American. There can be statues of difference involved in parental intention. If my parents wished to change their citizenship to German, I hope that I as their child would be granted the same status they themselves have gained, even if they had spent 90 percent of the required time to gain new citizenship.
Otherwise, as has already been proven, our natural-born citizenship is left open for easy abuse.
Johnathan Cross
Marietta
Friday, April 20, 2007
The War for the Soul of America
Welcome to the United States of America. We here are a diverse pot of folks, bound together through a common goal of freedom for none and indifference of all.
Don’t get me wrong. It’s not like we’re telling people what they are or are not allowed to believe, obviously. They just can’t express it in any way that might conflict with anyone else’s view. Conflict is not welcome in a country of neutral-hungry liberals, where argumentative discourse from anything but an indifferent, yet, All-Is-Acceptable-In-Your-Head-Not-Out-Of-Your-Mouth way of thinking is old-fashioned, out-of-date or simply narrow-minded.
We’re not allowed to disagree with those who unanimously tell us that “everyone is right,” and anyone who denies that is encroaching on someone else’s freedom not to choose a side in a war of morality – a war for the soul of America.
I tend to disagree. There are sides. This is not Switzerland – this is America. While I fully appreciate keeping your nose in your own business, the leg room to do just that gets smaller and smaller the more we close our eyes and ears to the ever-encroaching government – all due to men and women who think that to disagree with them is morally wrong. That’s because, in the end, they are their own moral authority, and are loud-mouthed enough to tell everyone just how wrong we are.
Johnathan Cross
Marietta
Don’t get me wrong. It’s not like we’re telling people what they are or are not allowed to believe, obviously. They just can’t express it in any way that might conflict with anyone else’s view. Conflict is not welcome in a country of neutral-hungry liberals, where argumentative discourse from anything but an indifferent, yet, All-Is-Acceptable-In-Your-Head-Not-Out-Of-Your-Mouth way of thinking is old-fashioned, out-of-date or simply narrow-minded.
We’re not allowed to disagree with those who unanimously tell us that “everyone is right,” and anyone who denies that is encroaching on someone else’s freedom not to choose a side in a war of morality – a war for the soul of America.
I tend to disagree. There are sides. This is not Switzerland – this is America. While I fully appreciate keeping your nose in your own business, the leg room to do just that gets smaller and smaller the more we close our eyes and ears to the ever-encroaching government – all due to men and women who think that to disagree with them is morally wrong. That’s because, in the end, they are their own moral authority, and are loud-mouthed enough to tell everyone just how wrong we are.
Johnathan Cross
Marietta
Overshooting the mark on race
Martin Luther King Jr. was a visionary.
Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are stationary. The only progression I see in their future is an attempt to either victimize the black man, or push him into a superiority race with the white – neither are things Martin Luther King Jr. advocated at all.
Dr. King spoke of two children of different race playing together. Together. Not separated by a fight of racial difference, even within a pretext of pressing toward racial harmony.
I don’t think racism can ever truly be wiped from the planet. For example, good people, white or black, in an argument with a person of a different race, will often grope for any differentiating factor they can belittle, often using racist remarks as fuel for the fight.
Are they racist? I would say the majority are not. I’d say it’s simply a man in a fight grabbing whatever tool he can to overcome the other, no matter how “politically incorrect,” or even futile, it may seem at the time.
My point is not that we should say racial division is not worth overcoming. A man is a man, regardless of his pigmentation, but if we sqwak so loudly when someone does something racist, does it not further racial divides? It rather works better as a parent correcting a child quietly, teaching them the error of their ways, and just-as-quietly correcting by advocating an apology.
In other words, there should have been few actual parties in the Imus fiasco. The offender, the target, and the monetarily affected – such as sponsors who would lose money due to his thoughtless words. I, joe schmo from round the corner need not hear Sharpton or Jackson explode, nor the news displaying every last detail when we have American service members fighting for the rights of women overseas not to be sexually mutilated at birth, among other things.
I fear Dr. King would weep to see what has become of his vision. This isn’t racial harmony. It’s a quiet standoff in a race war. And it’s not between whites and blacks, but segregationists and everyone else who’s already gotten over it – white or black.
Johnathan Cross
Marietta
Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are stationary. The only progression I see in their future is an attempt to either victimize the black man, or push him into a superiority race with the white – neither are things Martin Luther King Jr. advocated at all.
Dr. King spoke of two children of different race playing together. Together. Not separated by a fight of racial difference, even within a pretext of pressing toward racial harmony.
I don’t think racism can ever truly be wiped from the planet. For example, good people, white or black, in an argument with a person of a different race, will often grope for any differentiating factor they can belittle, often using racist remarks as fuel for the fight.
Are they racist? I would say the majority are not. I’d say it’s simply a man in a fight grabbing whatever tool he can to overcome the other, no matter how “politically incorrect,” or even futile, it may seem at the time.
My point is not that we should say racial division is not worth overcoming. A man is a man, regardless of his pigmentation, but if we sqwak so loudly when someone does something racist, does it not further racial divides? It rather works better as a parent correcting a child quietly, teaching them the error of their ways, and just-as-quietly correcting by advocating an apology.
In other words, there should have been few actual parties in the Imus fiasco. The offender, the target, and the monetarily affected – such as sponsors who would lose money due to his thoughtless words. I, joe schmo from round the corner need not hear Sharpton or Jackson explode, nor the news displaying every last detail when we have American service members fighting for the rights of women overseas not to be sexually mutilated at birth, among other things.
I fear Dr. King would weep to see what has become of his vision. This isn’t racial harmony. It’s a quiet standoff in a race war. And it’s not between whites and blacks, but segregationists and everyone else who’s already gotten over it – white or black.
Johnathan Cross
Marietta
Holding Bush accountable for long-term problems erroneous
Re: Hold Bush accountable for not enforcing immigration laws
Of course! It’s Bush’s fault immigrants are pouring in from a country who wants them to leave. While we’re at it, let’s go ahead and blame Bush for global warming, Islam and the death of Anna Nicole Smith.
Blaming Bush for such long-term issues is pathetic. This isn’t to say he hasn’t made mistakes, but if you’re going to blame him for a nationwide problem we’ve had since Mexico invaded Texas back in the 1800’s, you’re blisslessly ignorant.
If I remember correctly, this nation was built on a platform of united statehoods. And, though united, they still held a level of personal authority and responsibility for themselves and their citizens.
Since when does all the responsibility of a state failing to enforce its own laws suddenly get thrown on the shoulders of the president?
Let’s put the blame squarely where it belongs: on the cowardly politicians we never fail to re-elect because they somehow put money in our pockets or promise that they’ll use the government to take responsibility for our lives. Hold our governor, mayors and city councils accountable for enforcing our local laws. And if we don’t have any, let’s get our ELECTED officials to finally work for what we want, instead of waiting on an obviously convoluted national platform.
Johnathan Cross
Marietta
Of course! It’s Bush’s fault immigrants are pouring in from a country who wants them to leave. While we’re at it, let’s go ahead and blame Bush for global warming, Islam and the death of Anna Nicole Smith.
Blaming Bush for such long-term issues is pathetic. This isn’t to say he hasn’t made mistakes, but if you’re going to blame him for a nationwide problem we’ve had since Mexico invaded Texas back in the 1800’s, you’re blisslessly ignorant.
If I remember correctly, this nation was built on a platform of united statehoods. And, though united, they still held a level of personal authority and responsibility for themselves and their citizens.
Since when does all the responsibility of a state failing to enforce its own laws suddenly get thrown on the shoulders of the president?
Let’s put the blame squarely where it belongs: on the cowardly politicians we never fail to re-elect because they somehow put money in our pockets or promise that they’ll use the government to take responsibility for our lives. Hold our governor, mayors and city councils accountable for enforcing our local laws. And if we don’t have any, let’s get our ELECTED officials to finally work for what we want, instead of waiting on an obviously convoluted national platform.
Johnathan Cross
Marietta
Give peace a chance? How long are we supposed to wait?
I’ve heard many say that peace can only be fostered by offering peace; that there is no way we could gain peace by war in the Middle East. We should let them work out their problems in a peaceful manner and they’ll stop hating us …
Really? So … what, our turning blind eyes to numerous attacks against American embassies around the world wasn’t enough? Should we have offered to bring terrorists to America and set them up in lush hotels, give them suburban homes and SUVs? Would that have helped them see that America isn’t really decadent? Let them relax along our shorelines with women wearing practically nothing so that we don’t offend their beliefs?
Oh, that’s right. We should send our young children overseas so that their bloodlust is sated by their raising them as future terrorists. Of course, Americans would be too generous, at that point, for them to hate us more.
I say, for those of you who think that peace cannot be gained without shedding blood, that you should go live with them, offer your lives as slaves, and see if they still don’t seek your life. There is nothing that can sate the bloodlust of a thirsty radical. Only the destruction of anything that considers itself equal or above them will make them remotely satisfied with their own pathetic lives.
Johnathan Cross
Marietta
Really? So … what, our turning blind eyes to numerous attacks against American embassies around the world wasn’t enough? Should we have offered to bring terrorists to America and set them up in lush hotels, give them suburban homes and SUVs? Would that have helped them see that America isn’t really decadent? Let them relax along our shorelines with women wearing practically nothing so that we don’t offend their beliefs?
Oh, that’s right. We should send our young children overseas so that their bloodlust is sated by their raising them as future terrorists. Of course, Americans would be too generous, at that point, for them to hate us more.
I say, for those of you who think that peace cannot be gained without shedding blood, that you should go live with them, offer your lives as slaves, and see if they still don’t seek your life. There is nothing that can sate the bloodlust of a thirsty radical. Only the destruction of anything that considers itself equal or above them will make them remotely satisfied with their own pathetic lives.
Johnathan Cross
Marietta
The apology of Imus
Imus said a dirty word.
50 Cent said a dirty word.
Anne Coulter said a dirty word.
Jesse Jackson said a dirty word.
Ever considered turning off the television? Turning the newspaper page?
Public figures like these are fueled by those who support them – and by those who oppose them. Morality has little bearing in the matter more than how offended someone might be by an insensitive comment. What’s a quick solution?
Grow thicker skin.
Imus made a big mistake. I’m no Imus fan, but I don’t dislike him. The real question is, does one wrong nullify so many rights? While I don’t place Imus on a pedestal, from a nonpartisan standpoint, he must have made a lot of good points for people to put a radio show (a RADIO show, mind you) on TV. And I think most would agree that he has a face for radio, at that.
While I certainly don’t approve of Imus’ comment, I also don’t listen to him. The only people he should have apologized to were the Rutgers’ team, which he did, and they accepted it. He might also need to apologize to his boss, which I can almost certainly assume he did.
He could even owe an apology to Comcast, Charter and other cable companies for losing viewer-base because of his comment.
Does he owe us, the public an apology? Of course not. While my endorsement of cable may in some way trickle a thousandth of a cent into his paycheck, I did not choose what cable channels I’d receive (another issue I with the cable companies would modify), they did. I’d happily go without MSNBC. I prefer the History channel anyway.
Johnathan Cross
Marietta
50 Cent said a dirty word.
Anne Coulter said a dirty word.
Jesse Jackson said a dirty word.
Ever considered turning off the television? Turning the newspaper page?
Public figures like these are fueled by those who support them – and by those who oppose them. Morality has little bearing in the matter more than how offended someone might be by an insensitive comment. What’s a quick solution?
Grow thicker skin.
Imus made a big mistake. I’m no Imus fan, but I don’t dislike him. The real question is, does one wrong nullify so many rights? While I don’t place Imus on a pedestal, from a nonpartisan standpoint, he must have made a lot of good points for people to put a radio show (a RADIO show, mind you) on TV. And I think most would agree that he has a face for radio, at that.
While I certainly don’t approve of Imus’ comment, I also don’t listen to him. The only people he should have apologized to were the Rutgers’ team, which he did, and they accepted it. He might also need to apologize to his boss, which I can almost certainly assume he did.
He could even owe an apology to Comcast, Charter and other cable companies for losing viewer-base because of his comment.
Does he owe us, the public an apology? Of course not. While my endorsement of cable may in some way trickle a thousandth of a cent into his paycheck, I did not choose what cable channels I’d receive (another issue I with the cable companies would modify), they did. I’d happily go without MSNBC. I prefer the History channel anyway.
Johnathan Cross
Marietta
Another suggested apology
To everyone who thinks they deserve an apology about slavery: I’m sorry.
I’m sorry you’re stuck in the past. I’m sorry you think you’re entitled to anything you haven’t earned.
I’m sorry you believe that because certain children of slaves who feel condemned to a life of oppression by a “white” majority are entitled to something their great great parents earned.
I’m sorry you live life according to what other people “do to you,” rather than how you do for yourselves.
I’m sorry you think the government is in any, proper way, a moral standpoint in which to give an apology of any kind of magnitude, based on the temporal shirttail of a practice (slavery) held since the beginning of time.
I’m sorry you don’t fight your way out of ghettos and “hard-knock” lives because there’s no opportunities for you, neverminding how many more government programs there are for you than for other races, or even foreign nationalities.
I’m sorry there are so many in power, who stay in power only because you believe their lies; their panderings to your feelings.
I’m sorry you’re so sorry.
On second thought, I’m not sorry, because I have never, and will never, own another person. My life is not even mine, it belongs to my God. I have no right to own another, I will never advocate it and I will support those who fight to end it.
I’m not sorry you’re stuck worrying about yourselves while your fellow countrymen – black, white, yellow – are fighting for the freedoms and liberties of people they’ve never met in a land across the ocean.
I’m not sorry you’re selfish and ignorant.
I’m not sorry at all.
Johnathan Cross
Marietta
I’m sorry you’re stuck in the past. I’m sorry you think you’re entitled to anything you haven’t earned.
I’m sorry you believe that because certain children of slaves who feel condemned to a life of oppression by a “white” majority are entitled to something their great great parents earned.
I’m sorry you live life according to what other people “do to you,” rather than how you do for yourselves.
I’m sorry you think the government is in any, proper way, a moral standpoint in which to give an apology of any kind of magnitude, based on the temporal shirttail of a practice (slavery) held since the beginning of time.
I’m sorry you don’t fight your way out of ghettos and “hard-knock” lives because there’s no opportunities for you, neverminding how many more government programs there are for you than for other races, or even foreign nationalities.
I’m sorry there are so many in power, who stay in power only because you believe their lies; their panderings to your feelings.
I’m sorry you’re so sorry.
On second thought, I’m not sorry, because I have never, and will never, own another person. My life is not even mine, it belongs to my God. I have no right to own another, I will never advocate it and I will support those who fight to end it.
I’m not sorry you’re stuck worrying about yourselves while your fellow countrymen – black, white, yellow – are fighting for the freedoms and liberties of people they’ve never met in a land across the ocean.
I’m not sorry you’re selfish and ignorant.
I’m not sorry at all.
Johnathan Cross
Marietta
It never changes
Call me a young conservative. Call me a man who grew up in the South, with Southern pride and a home-grown soul. I’ve lived in Virginia, Georgia, South Carolina, Mississippi and central Florida (the front line to the Northern State of Florida, as everyone knows). I’ve seen the people, the smiles, the hearts, and the minds of Southernors in a broad swath of the Southeast U.S.
I’ve also lived in California, southern Florida and Maryland.
I’ve heard the left and the right, gained friends on both sides and even one who hated both – he was green. I love them all. But I can’t agree with them. I can’t support their ideas. I can’t help but feel many are misguided, but they have lived their lives as best they could. I respect that.
When I look at my experiences, and remember the people I’ve listened to, and times when I sat back and watched the world, I’m left with a sense of disappointment. I’m left wondering why people today think that “enlightened” values will get them any farther than it did the Romans, or the Greeks, or the Persians …
I look at the world, after having tried to ride the middle, and see a people that chooses liberality, a ‘giving away’ of responsibility, as a matter of overcoming humanity’s older, more ignorant side.
In the end, that’s how the left looks at the right. That’s how liberals look at conservatives.
The universality of healthcare, government subsidization and socialist enterprises are people stepping further away from the joys and pains of responsibility, and putting it in a group of people who pay for the lowest bidder and promote based on personal preference (the government). For all people complain about politics and bureaucracy, so many are willing to put all their trust into them to take care of them after they’ve grown too old to take care of themselves.
A pressing for the openness of homosexuality and acceptance of debaucherous lifestyles are exactly what happened in the late days of our “great” ancient empires. Are we more enlightened because we have cars or computers? Because we’ve been to space and can harness the power of the atom? Is it because after all this time, we obviously know more than they did?
Are you kidding me or are you high?
We, today, are no different than they were then. They wore skirts and we wear pants. We’re different? I don’t think so.
Our country is running headlong over the same cliff our ancient cousins did in the past. We think we know better, when we actually choose to ignore the hard truths more and more often.
Rulers lie, politicians deal, husbands filander, wives cheat, children rebel – it’s been this way since Adam and Eve or the monkey stopped sniffing its own butt, whichever you prefer to believe. And it will never change.
America was built on the foundation that you could be anything you wanted to be, because you were FREE to take the reins of your life and rise to the top. Abraham Lincoln certainly did. It was a situation of “I” can do it because “I” will put the work into it and “I” will fight for it, even by the blood “I” spill.
Now, it’s “me.” Now, people cry out for their government to help “me,” to take care of “me,” to make “me” feel less offended when my neighbor has different beliefs than “me,” or who works harder than “me.” It’s “mine.”
Abraham Lincoln would be ashamed of those who thank him for ending slavery but still demand the government owes them something. The government should owe its people nothing more than national defense and a common monetary currency. Through the federal government, state governments should be left to rule themselves and take care of their people’s individual needs, individually.
Why should a need in California constitute a law in northern Tennessee?
If California has a massive number of legal Hispanic immigrants – legal, mind you – and they want to change their ballots to Spanish, let them. I may not agree with it, but I’m Georgian. I demand of my officials NOT to follow the tide in California, and instead follow the greater majority here in the South and keep English as our official language. If there’s an INS problem in southern Texas, why should that prevent our officials here from working hard to find illegal immigrants – a danger to us all economically and potentially life-threatening – and deporting them as the law requires?
“Shame” is a word that comes to mind when I think of my politicians. I’m ashamed of governors and senators who only work hard enough to satisfy their paying constituency so they can win their seat another year. What happened to U.S. senataorial and house representatives being elected by state legislatures? In that day, those senators were forced to follow the needs of their entire state in the U.S. House and Senate. Now, they just need to satisfy their voter-few here in the state and can largely ignore their state governments.
No wonder the liberals hate America. They’re already ruining it.
Johnathan Cross
Marietta
I’ve also lived in California, southern Florida and Maryland.
I’ve heard the left and the right, gained friends on both sides and even one who hated both – he was green. I love them all. But I can’t agree with them. I can’t support their ideas. I can’t help but feel many are misguided, but they have lived their lives as best they could. I respect that.
When I look at my experiences, and remember the people I’ve listened to, and times when I sat back and watched the world, I’m left with a sense of disappointment. I’m left wondering why people today think that “enlightened” values will get them any farther than it did the Romans, or the Greeks, or the Persians …
I look at the world, after having tried to ride the middle, and see a people that chooses liberality, a ‘giving away’ of responsibility, as a matter of overcoming humanity’s older, more ignorant side.
In the end, that’s how the left looks at the right. That’s how liberals look at conservatives.
The universality of healthcare, government subsidization and socialist enterprises are people stepping further away from the joys and pains of responsibility, and putting it in a group of people who pay for the lowest bidder and promote based on personal preference (the government). For all people complain about politics and bureaucracy, so many are willing to put all their trust into them to take care of them after they’ve grown too old to take care of themselves.
A pressing for the openness of homosexuality and acceptance of debaucherous lifestyles are exactly what happened in the late days of our “great” ancient empires. Are we more enlightened because we have cars or computers? Because we’ve been to space and can harness the power of the atom? Is it because after all this time, we obviously know more than they did?
Are you kidding me or are you high?
We, today, are no different than they were then. They wore skirts and we wear pants. We’re different? I don’t think so.
Our country is running headlong over the same cliff our ancient cousins did in the past. We think we know better, when we actually choose to ignore the hard truths more and more often.
Rulers lie, politicians deal, husbands filander, wives cheat, children rebel – it’s been this way since Adam and Eve or the monkey stopped sniffing its own butt, whichever you prefer to believe. And it will never change.
America was built on the foundation that you could be anything you wanted to be, because you were FREE to take the reins of your life and rise to the top. Abraham Lincoln certainly did. It was a situation of “I” can do it because “I” will put the work into it and “I” will fight for it, even by the blood “I” spill.
Now, it’s “me.” Now, people cry out for their government to help “me,” to take care of “me,” to make “me” feel less offended when my neighbor has different beliefs than “me,” or who works harder than “me.” It’s “mine.”
Abraham Lincoln would be ashamed of those who thank him for ending slavery but still demand the government owes them something. The government should owe its people nothing more than national defense and a common monetary currency. Through the federal government, state governments should be left to rule themselves and take care of their people’s individual needs, individually.
Why should a need in California constitute a law in northern Tennessee?
If California has a massive number of legal Hispanic immigrants – legal, mind you – and they want to change their ballots to Spanish, let them. I may not agree with it, but I’m Georgian. I demand of my officials NOT to follow the tide in California, and instead follow the greater majority here in the South and keep English as our official language. If there’s an INS problem in southern Texas, why should that prevent our officials here from working hard to find illegal immigrants – a danger to us all economically and potentially life-threatening – and deporting them as the law requires?
“Shame” is a word that comes to mind when I think of my politicians. I’m ashamed of governors and senators who only work hard enough to satisfy their paying constituency so they can win their seat another year. What happened to U.S. senataorial and house representatives being elected by state legislatures? In that day, those senators were forced to follow the needs of their entire state in the U.S. House and Senate. Now, they just need to satisfy their voter-few here in the state and can largely ignore their state governments.
No wonder the liberals hate America. They’re already ruining it.
Johnathan Cross
Marietta
Humanity can ill-afford pillow-talk of half-measures
At the heart of American society is a core ignorance of humanness – a desire for enlightenment in a being where enlightenment is ill-attainable.
To consider the simple truth of it: Many people believe that because of our heightened forms of technology, the tenure of our species’ stay on this planet and a particular culmination of scientific understanding of our universe, we humans should be able to overcome petty things such as war and fighting, starvation and even disagreement, to be frank.
In this "hopeful world," everyone is perfectly happy with everyone else’s beliefs, little matter how much they differ, and that religion is a base of human history that has helped in the past, but has little to offer in our present day and age.
I offer, to this simplified argument of post-hippy-scientific theology, that humanity is just as base and ignorant today as the very first forms of modern homo-sapien, whether God-made or evolved. Humanity will never reach an all-inclusive state of enlightenment. We were not built for perfection, and to imagine that such imperfect beings could create a perfect society is exactly the kind of flaw that fouled Lenin’s socialist communism.
Peace is not made by laying down your gun, and the radical Islamists know this better than anyone. They want peace – after everyone but them is dead. There will be peace, alright. Just not the kind any civilized nation wants.
To prohibit arms is to create sheep for the slaughter.
To give into absolute tolerance is a marketing ploy for chaos. Order is created by rigidity, and kept by that rigidity being flexible - not taken away.
Humans will always be plagued by sins of moral debasement, greed for power, hunger for carnal pleasures … it takes firm hands of moral standing, in one form or another, to create a firm foundation to affirm a system that allows men and women to find their own paths in life, while still being able to define who they are, what is wrong, what is right, and how they fit in the grand scheme of things.
How is that done?
Finding a moral equivalency between all major forms of thought in a nation that demands religious freedom. Only problem with this is, it’s been tried and has now overflowed with claims that personal carnality is a universal religion unto itself and should therefore supercede any religious interference.
Tell me this: How enlightened are we now? Drugs do not make us more enlightened. Computers do not make us more enlightened. Building skyscrapers and bullet trains do not make us enlightened.
Watching PBS and listening to Sean Penn do not make us enlightened.
What must simplify our lives. Remove ambiguity from your beliefs, from your work, from your lives. Find dedication - to your wife, your husband, your work, your children and your community. Especially, to your God, whomever he may be.
Remove drama and those who cause it from your lives. If someone cannot stop picking at you or gossiping about others in your presence, stop letting them in it. You can be assured that if they talk about others behind their back, they talk about your behind yours.
Allowing people to choose their own morals is one thing, but condoning anything you don't agree with is a lack of definition on your part. Be defined. If you don't know who you are, stop asking others and look at yourself. Define who you are by what you like, what you don't, and who you want to be.
All too often people think they can't change. That's a crock. If you want to be a self-assured person, become a self-assured person. Make decisions and follow those decisions. If you're wrong, avoid making that decision again, learning from your previous mistake, and make the right decision next time. Just because you only have one run-through in this life doens't mean you have to do it perfectly, but it will serve you well to step out, learn quickly, and start being the person you admire, rather than hoping the person you admire will take care of you.
Morals have proven themselves a strong framework of a good life for thousands of years. You may not agree on where it comes from, but principals on murder, theft, adultery, pre-marital sex, godlessness, vagrancy, disrespect of elders and lying are but a few immoral actions the past has proven will do nothing to improve anyone's life, the practitioner or the environmental participants.
Societies with common morals of decency and responsibility have had their peace, and are abundant with good people.
Now can you see where America is fouling? A debasement of ourselves, a giving away of our moral definition, is degrading our nation. When I read the words of an ancient, wise Jewish king, I can't help but feel he was trying to tell the world that simplicity in life was best, because all we had, in the end, was the pleasure of each day; everything built crumbled, everything sought after came to nothing.
We can tell ourselves that allowing a loss of morality across the board won't affect us, even if we have morals, but to think that your environment cannot affect you is naive. Consider the World Wars and America's initial standpoint of non-involvement - the fight came to us.
Eventually, those will morals will no longer be awash in a neutral sea of others' immorality - we will be on the frontline in a fight against those who don't want to be shown how dark they really are. The presence of light always makes the dark angry. The dark wish to snuff out lights for fear of being revealed, and light, as truth, reveals all.
The time for half-measures is over. We can no longer stand idly by as our nation falls prey to the Dark. We cannot turn away and hope it passes over. Like weak Europe to radical Islam, it only makes the beast that much more hungry for our blood. Just as a no-gun zone becomes a prime target for a mass murder, so are those who are ill-prepared to fight for morality against one who is dedicated to wiping them away.
Start defining what you believe - not because of political correctness or fear of being ill-accepted for believing someone is doing something wrong - but because you feel it's the right thing to do, and your god (whomever or whatever that may be) leads you to it. (You can be your own god, though I wouldn't recommend it.)
Johnathan Cross
Marietta
To consider the simple truth of it: Many people believe that because of our heightened forms of technology, the tenure of our species’ stay on this planet and a particular culmination of scientific understanding of our universe, we humans should be able to overcome petty things such as war and fighting, starvation and even disagreement, to be frank.
In this "hopeful world," everyone is perfectly happy with everyone else’s beliefs, little matter how much they differ, and that religion is a base of human history that has helped in the past, but has little to offer in our present day and age.
I offer, to this simplified argument of post-hippy-scientific theology, that humanity is just as base and ignorant today as the very first forms of modern homo-sapien, whether God-made or evolved. Humanity will never reach an all-inclusive state of enlightenment. We were not built for perfection, and to imagine that such imperfect beings could create a perfect society is exactly the kind of flaw that fouled Lenin’s socialist communism.
Peace is not made by laying down your gun, and the radical Islamists know this better than anyone. They want peace – after everyone but them is dead. There will be peace, alright. Just not the kind any civilized nation wants.
To prohibit arms is to create sheep for the slaughter.
To give into absolute tolerance is a marketing ploy for chaos. Order is created by rigidity, and kept by that rigidity being flexible - not taken away.
Humans will always be plagued by sins of moral debasement, greed for power, hunger for carnal pleasures … it takes firm hands of moral standing, in one form or another, to create a firm foundation to affirm a system that allows men and women to find their own paths in life, while still being able to define who they are, what is wrong, what is right, and how they fit in the grand scheme of things.
How is that done?
Finding a moral equivalency between all major forms of thought in a nation that demands religious freedom. Only problem with this is, it’s been tried and has now overflowed with claims that personal carnality is a universal religion unto itself and should therefore supercede any religious interference.
Tell me this: How enlightened are we now? Drugs do not make us more enlightened. Computers do not make us more enlightened. Building skyscrapers and bullet trains do not make us enlightened.
Watching PBS and listening to Sean Penn do not make us enlightened.
What must simplify our lives. Remove ambiguity from your beliefs, from your work, from your lives. Find dedication - to your wife, your husband, your work, your children and your community. Especially, to your God, whomever he may be.
Remove drama and those who cause it from your lives. If someone cannot stop picking at you or gossiping about others in your presence, stop letting them in it. You can be assured that if they talk about others behind their back, they talk about your behind yours.
Allowing people to choose their own morals is one thing, but condoning anything you don't agree with is a lack of definition on your part. Be defined. If you don't know who you are, stop asking others and look at yourself. Define who you are by what you like, what you don't, and who you want to be.
All too often people think they can't change. That's a crock. If you want to be a self-assured person, become a self-assured person. Make decisions and follow those decisions. If you're wrong, avoid making that decision again, learning from your previous mistake, and make the right decision next time. Just because you only have one run-through in this life doens't mean you have to do it perfectly, but it will serve you well to step out, learn quickly, and start being the person you admire, rather than hoping the person you admire will take care of you.
Morals have proven themselves a strong framework of a good life for thousands of years. You may not agree on where it comes from, but principals on murder, theft, adultery, pre-marital sex, godlessness, vagrancy, disrespect of elders and lying are but a few immoral actions the past has proven will do nothing to improve anyone's life, the practitioner or the environmental participants.
Societies with common morals of decency and responsibility have had their peace, and are abundant with good people.
Now can you see where America is fouling? A debasement of ourselves, a giving away of our moral definition, is degrading our nation. When I read the words of an ancient, wise Jewish king, I can't help but feel he was trying to tell the world that simplicity in life was best, because all we had, in the end, was the pleasure of each day; everything built crumbled, everything sought after came to nothing.
We can tell ourselves that allowing a loss of morality across the board won't affect us, even if we have morals, but to think that your environment cannot affect you is naive. Consider the World Wars and America's initial standpoint of non-involvement - the fight came to us.
Eventually, those will morals will no longer be awash in a neutral sea of others' immorality - we will be on the frontline in a fight against those who don't want to be shown how dark they really are. The presence of light always makes the dark angry. The dark wish to snuff out lights for fear of being revealed, and light, as truth, reveals all.
The time for half-measures is over. We can no longer stand idly by as our nation falls prey to the Dark. We cannot turn away and hope it passes over. Like weak Europe to radical Islam, it only makes the beast that much more hungry for our blood. Just as a no-gun zone becomes a prime target for a mass murder, so are those who are ill-prepared to fight for morality against one who is dedicated to wiping them away.
Start defining what you believe - not because of political correctness or fear of being ill-accepted for believing someone is doing something wrong - but because you feel it's the right thing to do, and your god (whomever or whatever that may be) leads you to it. (You can be your own god, though I wouldn't recommend it.)
Johnathan Cross
Marietta
Government Rights
I am neither communist nor socialist. My life does not belong to the group, commune or collective. I demand freedom; freedom to do with my life as I see fit. There is no religion that should dictate how I can or cannot abuse myself that enforces itself through governmental action.
Who is the group to demand my life be preserved? By every right they claim to have to demand I preserve my life, will they not also demand the right to claim my life if they so determine it be best?
In a land of imperative democracy, the personal, God-given right of the citizen is stripped for a “greater good.”
Who’s greater good?
Suicide is considered a travesty by many, and I agree, it’s a terrible thing for a life to end itself. But who am I, or anyone, to dictate to someone else that they can or cannot end their own existence? I don’t believe in assisted suicide, but I believe that should I choose that life is no longer worth living, that I can end it and move onto the next.
Morality? I believe it’s immoral to kill oneself. But the government has no right to dictate my choice of morals, or mortality. The government is here to protect me in national defense and in regulation of national issues (and that would debatable dependant on which political party you might ally yourself to).
Seatbelts becomes another issue. While I understand why an insurance company may charge more if a person isn’t wearing a seatbelt, who is the government to make it mandatory?
A loose passenger in a car filled with seat-belted passengers could be knocked around during an accident and kill all of them. This is true. But what happened to the responsibility of those other passengers to ensure that said passenger was seat-belted?
Oh, sorry. That’s not a word anyone understands anymore: Responsibility.
“But suicide is selfish and would hurt more than just you! It would hurt your family and your children!”
You know what, that is absolutely true.
Know what else?
The government still has no right to dictate that to me.
Johnathan Cross
Marietta
Who is the group to demand my life be preserved? By every right they claim to have to demand I preserve my life, will they not also demand the right to claim my life if they so determine it be best?
In a land of imperative democracy, the personal, God-given right of the citizen is stripped for a “greater good.”
Who’s greater good?
Suicide is considered a travesty by many, and I agree, it’s a terrible thing for a life to end itself. But who am I, or anyone, to dictate to someone else that they can or cannot end their own existence? I don’t believe in assisted suicide, but I believe that should I choose that life is no longer worth living, that I can end it and move onto the next.
Morality? I believe it’s immoral to kill oneself. But the government has no right to dictate my choice of morals, or mortality. The government is here to protect me in national defense and in regulation of national issues (and that would debatable dependant on which political party you might ally yourself to).
Seatbelts becomes another issue. While I understand why an insurance company may charge more if a person isn’t wearing a seatbelt, who is the government to make it mandatory?
A loose passenger in a car filled with seat-belted passengers could be knocked around during an accident and kill all of them. This is true. But what happened to the responsibility of those other passengers to ensure that said passenger was seat-belted?
Oh, sorry. That’s not a word anyone understands anymore: Responsibility.
“But suicide is selfish and would hurt more than just you! It would hurt your family and your children!”
You know what, that is absolutely true.
Know what else?
The government still has no right to dictate that to me.
Johnathan Cross
Marietta
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
