If something is said as truth enough times, many will assume that it is true.
However, regardless of how often it is said, the phrase separation of church and state is not in the Constitution. The phrase came from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Church, and is co-opted by those wishing to establish a secular, progressive state without God's love or wisdom.
The First Amendment simply states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." A prayer before a public meeting does not establish a religion, but prohibiting of prayer certainly is in conflict with the free exercise thereof. Why exactly is the ACLU so offended? Why is the left so adamant about removing any reference to God or our Creator from the public square?
Anyone who has studied the framing of our Constitution or the formation of our Country knows full well that God and religion had a huge part in determining the form of government we would have. Our Founders were not perfect, but they wished to form a more perfect union. They knew that men are not angels and needed the restraints of religion and morality to guide them. Writings from almost all the Founders show a deep commitment to God and morality, and knew that those precepts were needed for a nation of free men and women to survive. Can anyone argue that as we have drifted away from those guidelines that our Country has not drifted away from freedom and more toward serfdom and tyranny?
Often the left has taken the Bible or religion to boost its own agenda, cherry picking verses to back up their idea of social justice or fairness, all the while ignoring the parts not fitting their ideology.
How ironic it is that the ACLU would fight to remove the Ten Commandments from public places, but does not fight for those same principles of honesty and decency espoused therein. When did edicts like thou shall not steal, commit murder, lie, or covet become a threat? Perhaps when it was permissible to overlook the lying, stealing, coveting and adultery of our public officials. We don't like to be reminded of how far we have fallen away from decency and honor.
Is the USA to become like Europe: full of beautiful churches and empty people?
Agree: Yes
Showing posts with label morality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label morality. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
Saturday, June 11, 2011
Weinergate
June 11, 2011
What can I say about US Congressman Anthony Weiner (D-NY), the slimy politician who has spent weeks lying to cover up inappropriate sexual conduct? Nothing new here. He sex-texting 6 women over 3 years and admitted he wasn't even sure of their ages. Such reckless and predatory acts are the very thing we parents try to prevent our children from engaging in and falling victim to. And here we have a Congressman, a leading voice of the Democratic Party, who is guilty of the very behavior we try to protect our children from.
Earlier this year, Congressman Chris Lee (R-NY) was forced to resign from office after a shirtless photo he sent a woman on Craigslist became public. Lee was replaced by a Democrat after winning a special election on May 24. Only conservatives are forced to resign by their party. At least morality seems to be a character trait worth respecting by conservatives. Democrats claim no moral conscience so infractions are of no consequence and have no consequences. House rules say a member "shall conduct himself at all times in a manner that shall reflect creditably on the House." Repeatedly lying in the face of questions, having sex texts with girls he admits “did not know their ages,” and sending lewd photos to the same girls is not conduct becoming a US Congressman and it is definitely not conduct of a decent human being.
Remember the simple days (post-JFK) when Democrats just "lusted in their hearts" (Jimmy Carter). Now they lust every waking moment, including while on the job and serving the American people, and they use every available type of media. And then they lie.
How can we be successful parents when at every turn, society teaches us there are no codes of conduct?
Doug Rufino, Greenville
What can I say about US Congressman Anthony Weiner (D-NY), the slimy politician who has spent weeks lying to cover up inappropriate sexual conduct? Nothing new here. He sex-texting 6 women over 3 years and admitted he wasn't even sure of their ages. Such reckless and predatory acts are the very thing we parents try to prevent our children from engaging in and falling victim to. And here we have a Congressman, a leading voice of the Democratic Party, who is guilty of the very behavior we try to protect our children from.
Earlier this year, Congressman Chris Lee (R-NY) was forced to resign from office after a shirtless photo he sent a woman on Craigslist became public. Lee was replaced by a Democrat after winning a special election on May 24. Only conservatives are forced to resign by their party. At least morality seems to be a character trait worth respecting by conservatives. Democrats claim no moral conscience so infractions are of no consequence and have no consequences. House rules say a member "shall conduct himself at all times in a manner that shall reflect creditably on the House." Repeatedly lying in the face of questions, having sex texts with girls he admits “did not know their ages,” and sending lewd photos to the same girls is not conduct becoming a US Congressman and it is definitely not conduct of a decent human being.
Remember the simple days (post-JFK) when Democrats just "lusted in their hearts" (Jimmy Carter). Now they lust every waking moment, including while on the job and serving the American people, and they use every available type of media. And then they lie.
How can we be successful parents when at every turn, society teaches us there are no codes of conduct?
Doug Rufino, Greenville
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Please Read Before You Vote!
October 27, 2010
Letter to the Editor
Here is a very important question we should all ask ourselves. Why am I voting for a particular candidate? Perhaps a candidate supports programs that may benefit you and your family financially. Some folks vote strictly on party lines due to strong beliefs that one party is superior to another. Perhaps you are supporting candidates not because you necessarily like them, but because you don't like what the incumbents are doing. There are a multitude of reasons why people choose one candidate over another. I would argue, however, that there is a better way.
The Holy Bible tells us the answer plainly in Matthew 6:33, "But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and His righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you." Psalms 111:10 says, "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom; a good understanding have all they that do His commandments." We should all consider supporting candidates strictly on where they stand on moral issues. God will take care of the rest.
Here are two very good examples. Where does a candidate stand on abortion? How dare any person in government support such an abominable practice as abortion. Should we allow people to kill innocent babies in the name of convenience? Absolutely NOT. God has a plan for every life, according to His word. Calling it "a woman's right to choose" is baloney! How do the candidates you are voting for feel about abortion? Another issue is the gay rights agenda. God calls the practice of homosexuality an "abomination" (Leviticus 18:22). I know that is not a popular stance today, but God has not changed. Are you considering voting for a candidate that supports the so-called gay rights agenda?
God cannot lie. He tells us to seek first His kingdom and His righteousness. Consider voting solely on the basis of how candidates stand on moral issues. God's agenda is vastly more important than man's agenda in the long run. If we turn our backs on God, we won't even have a country. Please exercise your right to vote on November 2nd.
Keith W. Nixon, Edenton NC
Letter to the Editor
Here is a very important question we should all ask ourselves. Why am I voting for a particular candidate? Perhaps a candidate supports programs that may benefit you and your family financially. Some folks vote strictly on party lines due to strong beliefs that one party is superior to another. Perhaps you are supporting candidates not because you necessarily like them, but because you don't like what the incumbents are doing. There are a multitude of reasons why people choose one candidate over another. I would argue, however, that there is a better way.
The Holy Bible tells us the answer plainly in Matthew 6:33, "But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and His righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you." Psalms 111:10 says, "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom; a good understanding have all they that do His commandments." We should all consider supporting candidates strictly on where they stand on moral issues. God will take care of the rest.
Here are two very good examples. Where does a candidate stand on abortion? How dare any person in government support such an abominable practice as abortion. Should we allow people to kill innocent babies in the name of convenience? Absolutely NOT. God has a plan for every life, according to His word. Calling it "a woman's right to choose" is baloney! How do the candidates you are voting for feel about abortion? Another issue is the gay rights agenda. God calls the practice of homosexuality an "abomination" (Leviticus 18:22). I know that is not a popular stance today, but God has not changed. Are you considering voting for a candidate that supports the so-called gay rights agenda?
God cannot lie. He tells us to seek first His kingdom and His righteousness. Consider voting solely on the basis of how candidates stand on moral issues. God's agenda is vastly more important than man's agenda in the long run. If we turn our backs on God, we won't even have a country. Please exercise your right to vote on November 2nd.
Keith W. Nixon, Edenton NC
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
American Thinker: Why There's No There There for Obama and Pelosi
September 29, 2010
Why There's No There There for Obama and Pelosi
By Robin of Berkele
A young client, Jenny, came to see me this week in tears. She was outside her house when suddenly, a speeding Prius hit her cat. The driver slowed down, observed Jenny's horrified eyes, and then hightailed it out of there.
There's good news: the cat survived. But Jenny's belief in the goodness of people -- particularly hybrid-drivers -- did not.
I have my own tales to tell from my week in Berkeley. I was walking gingerly through a crosswalk (I have bad knees) when an impatient driver shot me the bird. His car was graced with a Coexist bumper sticker.
One more: I was meeting a friend at a cafe, and we needed another chair. A man, sitting alone and surfing the net, had his legs strewn on an extra chair. When I asked him nicely to borrow it, he refused. The guy was wearing a Free Tibet t-shirt.
I imagine that all of these people consider themselves noble and righteous. They support aggrieved nations, world unity, and a greener world. Apparently, this absolves them from having to actually be nice people. As long as they talk the talk, they don't have to walk the walk.
This phenomenon is not confined to Berkeley; each day we see the same hypocrisy on full display. Nancy Pelosi prays at mass, magnanimously spreads our (not her) wealth around, all the while cavalierly tarring opponents as Nazis. Obama views himself as gifted while he casually disses the Prime Minister of Israel. And most people on the Left suffer from Palin Derangement Syndrome, which allows for hideous, no-holds-barred utterances toward this good-hearted woman.
The examples are endless. Of course, conservatives can be hypocrites, too. But we on the right don't delude ourselves into believing that our voting patterns allow us to be dirty, rotten scoundrels.
Consequently, the Democratic Party is where we see people considering themselves virtuous while treating other living and breathing humans with utter disregard, if not downright abuse. Decades of moral relativism and secular humanism have transformed the Golden Rule for Progressives into this: I demand that you treat me well, and as long as I champion liberal issues, I'll treat you any damn way I want to.
How can people so easily let themselves off the hook? Is it denial? Yes, but that wouldn't fully explain things. Is it delusion, which means not only denying reality, but creating a completely new reality? Hmm...getting warmer here.
Are we seeing dissociation, where a person disconnects from himself and becomes, temporarily, a different personality? This phenomenon occurs only in the most disturbed. But I wouldn't rule this out among some of the more rabid and unglued.
But I think the best explanation for the behavior of Obama, Pelosi, et al. lay in a conversation that I had with an old flame, Peter, many years ago. We'd been dating for a few months when I was ready to have the conversation. I sat him down and told him I cared a lot about him. Did he see a future between us?
He looked at me as though I were from another galaxy. Then he uttered something that I have never forgotten. He said, "A relationship? I'm not capable of a relationship."
At first I shrugged it off to commitment-phobia. After all, Peter was an ardent progressive -- the first in line for any demonstration. He avidly read books by Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn.
But the more I got to know Peter, the more I realized that his self-appraisal was spot-on. While superficially engaging, there was a hollowness about him, a brokenness, even. He was unable to connect to me, to anyone, in a meaningful way. There just was no there there.
That conversation with Peter, though years ago, has always remained front and center in my mind. It has helped me to understand why some people look fully formed from the outside but are vacant inside.
The Peters of the world may not be withholding love or affection or even simple kindness. They may just be incapable of it. They are missing an essential ingredient to being a good and whole human being, and that is empathy, or putting oneself in another person's shoes.
Perhaps the reasons are genetic. Maybe it has to do with copious pot and alcohol use or overuse of prescription drugs. In places like Berkeley, it may be inbreeding. Mental illness, character defects, bad upbringing -- the culprits are endless.
In the realm of romance, the Peters (the Peter Pans?) are simply frustrating and disappointing. But when the empty shells of the world grab the reins of power, that is another story entirely; it can spell catastrophe.
And that's why we have been watching, spellbound, like my client Jenny, as a disaster movie unfolds before our horrified eyes. And this is why we must propel the intact and unbroken among us into office this November.
A frequent American Thinker contributor, Robin is a recovering liberal and a licensed psychotherapist in Berkeley. You can reach her through her website: www.robinofberkeley.com. Information in this article is designed for educational and entertainment purposes, not to offer diagnoses or treatment. Please note that Robin changes the names of persons on all of her articles for privacy purposes.
American Thinker: Why There's No There There for Obama and Pelosi
Why There's No There There for Obama and Pelosi
By Robin of Berkele
A young client, Jenny, came to see me this week in tears. She was outside her house when suddenly, a speeding Prius hit her cat. The driver slowed down, observed Jenny's horrified eyes, and then hightailed it out of there.
There's good news: the cat survived. But Jenny's belief in the goodness of people -- particularly hybrid-drivers -- did not.
I have my own tales to tell from my week in Berkeley. I was walking gingerly through a crosswalk (I have bad knees) when an impatient driver shot me the bird. His car was graced with a Coexist bumper sticker.
One more: I was meeting a friend at a cafe, and we needed another chair. A man, sitting alone and surfing the net, had his legs strewn on an extra chair. When I asked him nicely to borrow it, he refused. The guy was wearing a Free Tibet t-shirt.
I imagine that all of these people consider themselves noble and righteous. They support aggrieved nations, world unity, and a greener world. Apparently, this absolves them from having to actually be nice people. As long as they talk the talk, they don't have to walk the walk.
This phenomenon is not confined to Berkeley; each day we see the same hypocrisy on full display. Nancy Pelosi prays at mass, magnanimously spreads our (not her) wealth around, all the while cavalierly tarring opponents as Nazis. Obama views himself as gifted while he casually disses the Prime Minister of Israel. And most people on the Left suffer from Palin Derangement Syndrome, which allows for hideous, no-holds-barred utterances toward this good-hearted woman.
The examples are endless. Of course, conservatives can be hypocrites, too. But we on the right don't delude ourselves into believing that our voting patterns allow us to be dirty, rotten scoundrels.
Consequently, the Democratic Party is where we see people considering themselves virtuous while treating other living and breathing humans with utter disregard, if not downright abuse. Decades of moral relativism and secular humanism have transformed the Golden Rule for Progressives into this: I demand that you treat me well, and as long as I champion liberal issues, I'll treat you any damn way I want to.
How can people so easily let themselves off the hook? Is it denial? Yes, but that wouldn't fully explain things. Is it delusion, which means not only denying reality, but creating a completely new reality? Hmm...getting warmer here.
Are we seeing dissociation, where a person disconnects from himself and becomes, temporarily, a different personality? This phenomenon occurs only in the most disturbed. But I wouldn't rule this out among some of the more rabid and unglued.
But I think the best explanation for the behavior of Obama, Pelosi, et al. lay in a conversation that I had with an old flame, Peter, many years ago. We'd been dating for a few months when I was ready to have the conversation. I sat him down and told him I cared a lot about him. Did he see a future between us?
He looked at me as though I were from another galaxy. Then he uttered something that I have never forgotten. He said, "A relationship? I'm not capable of a relationship."
At first I shrugged it off to commitment-phobia. After all, Peter was an ardent progressive -- the first in line for any demonstration. He avidly read books by Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn.
But the more I got to know Peter, the more I realized that his self-appraisal was spot-on. While superficially engaging, there was a hollowness about him, a brokenness, even. He was unable to connect to me, to anyone, in a meaningful way. There just was no there there.
That conversation with Peter, though years ago, has always remained front and center in my mind. It has helped me to understand why some people look fully formed from the outside but are vacant inside.
The Peters of the world may not be withholding love or affection or even simple kindness. They may just be incapable of it. They are missing an essential ingredient to being a good and whole human being, and that is empathy, or putting oneself in another person's shoes.
Perhaps the reasons are genetic. Maybe it has to do with copious pot and alcohol use or overuse of prescription drugs. In places like Berkeley, it may be inbreeding. Mental illness, character defects, bad upbringing -- the culprits are endless.
In the realm of romance, the Peters (the Peter Pans?) are simply frustrating and disappointing. But when the empty shells of the world grab the reins of power, that is another story entirely; it can spell catastrophe.
And that's why we have been watching, spellbound, like my client Jenny, as a disaster movie unfolds before our horrified eyes. And this is why we must propel the intact and unbroken among us into office this November.
A frequent American Thinker contributor, Robin is a recovering liberal and a licensed psychotherapist in Berkeley. You can reach her through her website: www.robinofberkeley.com. Information in this article is designed for educational and entertainment purposes, not to offer diagnoses or treatment. Please note that Robin changes the names of persons on all of her articles for privacy purposes.
American Thinker: Why There's No There There for Obama and Pelosi
Monday, August 30, 2010
Randy's RIght
What Happened to Your Country’s Morality and Financial Stability?
http://randysright.wordpress.com/2010/08/30/what-happened-to-your-country%e2%80%99s-morality-and-financial-stability/
http://randysright.wordpress.com/2010/08/30/what-happened-to-your-country%e2%80%99s-morality-and-financial-stability/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
