I am going to start this blog post with a rather entertaining letter published in the 12 September 2012 Coeur d’Alene Press:
DEMS:Some expensive wind
A couple of weeks ago we had a hurricane that cost millions of dollars in damage to the gulf coastal area. It was a strong wind and a lot of rain. Now for just a few hundred mils, we had the Democratic convention that was full of hot air and B.S. and will cause trillions of dollars of damage to the U.S.A.
So let us pretend that the Republican National Convention did not happen during the course of Hurricane Isaac, was indeed full of hot air and B.S. and even further, past GOP domestic and foreign policies which Romney and Ryan want to simply repeat would indeed cost this country trillions of dollars in damage. No, we’ll just look for Democratic scapegoats instead.
Mike Ruskovich had, I thought, an excellent “My Turn” editorial in the same paper. it only involved politicians and yes, interest groups hell-bent on lying about what they really mean when they say this or that. Of course he mentioned Paul Ryan’s fibbing so much that it even caught the attention of Fox Noise, but also took note that Ryan is hardly the exception to the rule. Regrettably, he isn’t. But if the GOP wanted to proclaim a need to be “the better party” to the Democrats, lying to people is not a good way to prove it. Mr. Owens, I’d suggest you look in the mirror.
Atheists responded to a letter chastising them for their way of thinking. Now, from Hans Neumann and Dortha Herby, atheists and agnostics don’t have a “right” to believe what ever they choose as selected biblical scriptures are immediately trotted out to “prove” it. Apparently, Mr. Neumann for one doesn’t care to recognize that “freedom of religion” is applicable to all Americans regardless of faith, lack there of, or even of creed itself. And “God’s judgment” isn’t solely going to be based on the idea that there are people around who don’t believe or think like Neumann and Herby. That is, if Neumann and Herby were actually right to think as they do. Then again, what was that about leaving the judging to God? Or of forgiving the debts of ones’ neighbors? Loving even one’s enemies? Loving one’s neighbors? It just may be that agnostics and atheists could go to a spot in Hell reserved for them, but that doesn’t mean that “Christians” who fail to follow the word of God will find a spot in heaven.
Continuing on with the Ruskovich column, Mr. Ruskovich some what narrow focuses on the abortion “debate” as being either pro-birth (but not “pro-life”) or anti-choice. Which is certainly true enough. Politicized religious activists want this birth to be forced on women and further forced on society by government intervention. However, to take care of humanity after that from a cradle to grave type of approach, besides being expensive, will there is also a disconnect, as Mr. Ruskovich declares. True enough, a government that actually intervenes to take care of its people from the cradle to the grave, is typically called “socialist.” Apparently, it isn’t to be called that when it intervenes to make women have children regardless of the costs or consequences. And the bible to be selectively trotted out in order to justify why “we” want the government to regulate individuals. Or to force them to think or believe a certain way. Never mind the limits on government at this stage or even the constitutional constraints on government that must immediately apply to the opposition (but not to “us”). When it comes to “us,” “we” want government to immediately come through and satisfy this agenda.
Remember when Christ said something about you can either worship God or you can worship mammon (material gains/secular power) but that you can’t hope to worship both. Seems to me that highly ambitious people claiming this association with Christ decided to abandon what he did teach in favor of finding their mansions and fortunes here in the material world (and with government). Or we wouldn’t have this history of “Christians” taking violent and literary offense at the idea that they can be disagreed with in (by sect or denomination) how the bible is presented. Or for that matter, being disagreed with politically. Nor would they need to take issue with the idea that people can be free to thing what they will. Apparently, this whole idea of freedom of faith or lack thereof shakes the mansions at their foundations and even further, rocks their hold on material power. How else would you explain the pure hatred of this difference of opinion, politics, and beliefs as expressed by the Neumanns, Herbys, and Owens of this world? Pretty sad, really.