Archives for category: Religion

Let us be represented by men with no respect or regard for women except as baby-making housekeeping machines who never question men.
Let us roll back protections so that our air and water are filled with pollutants.
Let us upturn all land so that oil and gas companies take everything they can out of the land without repairing the damage.
Let us kill animals indiscriminately if they insult our existence in any way. Not even to hunt them and give them a chance to survive, but to go after them in their dens while they are sleeping and hunt from moving conveyances after tiring them out.
Let us reward people who inherit their money or make it on the backs of others without giving credit to or sharing with those who allowed them to make their money.
Let us distrust anyone not lily white or with family in this country for generations. Oh, wait, we have to make exceptions for the president whose grandfather who came here to make his fortune and couldn’t return home because he was considered a draft-dodger there. Just like a man with money and bone spurs can avoid the draft while men without money but flat feet and poor vision get drafted.
Let us not learn from history, or anything except a certain version of the Bible, and then wonder why we are not competitive on the world stage
Let us abdicate our position as a world leader by turning inward and demanding everything be done for our benefit.
Let us antagonize our friends, undermine other democratic nations, and praise oligarchs and autocrats who are anathema to everything America represents.
Let us insult those who have made our country better by giving backhanded compliments when honest acknowledgement of achievements should be made.

If this is what it takes to Make America Great Again, I really have to wonder why were so well respected by the rest of the world for so many years.


So long as the women do what the men feel they should be doing.

Representative Buddy Carter of Georgia said on live television appearance on MSNBC that he wants to “snatch a knot” in Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski’s “ass”. In other words, he feels beating a female member of Congress is acceptable because she didn’t vote for something that would have hurt her constituents.

This followed Representative Blake Farenthold of Texas, speaking of Senator Susan Collins’ vote against the quickly and secretly drafted repeal and replace bills, telling a local radio station that, “If it was a guy from south Texas, I might ask him to step outside and settle this Aaron Burr-style.” Again, the threat that violence is acceptable, although he stopped short of saying that it was appropriate to attack a woman. Those two at least had the decency to offer and accept one another’s apologies for statements made.

I’m not surprised by Buddy Carter. Georgia Republicans have a long history of charming their constituents with all the right words, but then working to cut the legs out from under those same constituents. Georgia, one of the red states that did not expand Medicaid “because it would be too costly”, has a high percentage of workers living under the poverty level. While expanding Medicaid would have helped reduce that, the Republican legislature all rejected it. But what can you expect from a state that will not submit disability applications to the federal agency making those decisions, despite the examining doctors confirming to the patient that they should be on disability, unless an attorney forces the issue?

Back to the non-war on women. It is Republican-dominated legislatures that are now trying to force raped women wanting an abortion to get the permission of the rapist. I guarantee that if it was the men who had to go through the experience, it would be shot down immediately. Generally speaking, men are competitive and have to be winners, while women are more cooperative and try to do what is best for their community. Taking that to the political arena, I’ve been noticing that most of the (too few) women in Congress are often shut out of secret meetings and are more likely to consider what is best for their constituents while the men are more interested in making a name for themselves amongst their constituents rather than helping all but a few who can help them retain power and enrich themselves.

Men who cheat on their wives, serially marry, or beget children off multiple women are praised and looked up to, while mothers who have been abandoned and try to get on with their lives are sluts and worse. Heaven forbid a working woman tries to assert herself and her expertise, as she is usually considered, at least among much of corporate management, to be aggressive and bitchy. If, as the Bible says, Eve was created to be an equal and helpmate to Adam, why do men consider women to be no better than chattel, and have to restrict their actions and liberty.

I have yet to hear of Democratic Congressmen inciting violence against women, so I find it hard to believe reports of Democrats having a war on women. Democrats have other problems, but they pale in comparison to the way Republicans are currently acting against half the population (and I am not just considering women in that statement).

Once again betraying a portion of the population that he previously assured he would support, we see that transgender people are not worthy in the eyes of the President or his administration.

I suppose once all the details are worked, the next group he will ban from military service is women. After all, they are just supposed to be eye candy and don’t have opinions or ideas on a par with any man, unless they are President Trump’s daughter.

After that, considering all his expertise in foreign relations, we will obviously need to reinstitute the draft because we won’t have enough servicemen with the elimination of our current and future transgender and female service people to support the size of the military we are going to need to protect ourselves.

I sure do hope that the President’s sons and son-in-law, as well as the male children and grandchildren of all our Congressmen, will be willing to serve their country in the place of all those others willing but not allowed to.

The full, accepted quote is “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s”.

Caesar represents the law of the land. In the USA, the law of the land starts with locally elected officials, with the absolute authority resting in a legislature that makes the law, an executive who promotes and enforces the law, and a judiciary that ensures that laws do not go against the words and intent of our foundation framework.

In other words, once the Supreme Court has made a decision regarding the rights of a group of its citizens, any citizen defying that decision is subject to the law. No one has asked Kim Davis “render unto Caesar” anything that is not due to Caesar. Her defiance in fulfilling the duties for which she is handsomely paid by “Caesar” on the basis of it being against her belief is in no way paying homage to God. God’s laws are to teach us not only what is due to God, but how we are supposed to behave and treat other people, all of whom are for him to judge in the end.

No one asked Mrs. Davis to have any kinnd of relationship with people she deems unworthy, but the fact of the matter is that her job is to uphold the laws of the land, and if those laws say that she is to issue a marriage license that has been applied for correctly to a same-sex couple, then that is what must be done. Perhaps God is testing her ability to do the right and lawful thing when she considers it wrong. Does she do was expected of her, or does she become prideful in stating that she is standing for God’s laws over Man’s laws.

The Bible (and just what documents specifically does she refer to as the Bible) does not approve of homosexual acts, but does that make the person any less a person for it in God’s eyes? I thought God loved all his children, and he is the one who renders his judgment upon them. Can they not be forgiven later in life if they feel they have made bad decisions? Mrs. Davis, of all people, should be less judgmental of others, considering her own past, but we all know that, generally speaking, people who have undergone a religious “conversion” are much more zealous and judgmental of others, rather than accepting of those people’s failures to live up the convert’s new standards.

As for Governor Huckabee, or maybe he would prefer Pastor Huckabee, as a long time politician he should be aware of how the above quote fits into daily life. Most people have no big problem rendering unto “Caesar”, but “Caesar” cannot and should not dictate the laws of God and how individuals relate to and render unto God. Huckabee’s support of Davis undermines the law of this country and indicates that no matter his service to it, he is tripping himself up on religious grounds and not separating Caesar from God. While I agree with Gov. Huckabee on some grounds, I am not a person who will be preached to as to what I should believe and how to render what is due to God to God. God provided us with the ability to rule ourselves, so long as we acknowledge what He has done for us, and therefore Caesar must get his due just as God gets his due.

As more and more Republican candidates are hopping on the bandwagon to put religion “back” into government, I have to wonder what they, and all the people claiming that (pick your disaster) is because of lack of belief in biblical “principles”, learned in school.

I have watched specials that offered reasonable and scientific explanations for the plagues of Egypt, various Great Flood theories, and logical and scientific explanations of why floods, earthquakes, and even diseases happen when and where they do. The people who are adamant that these things are caused by our acceptance of women’s control of their own bodies or acceptance of same sex relationships have no supportive facts, but eagerly quote words written long ago by unverifiable people who had no understanding of the world around them.

When we place our faith and trust in God, and develop a relationship with Him, it means we obey His laws, which means we treat His creations with respect and honor. It also means, if we were indeed made in His image, that we have unlimited potential to learn about our environment and improve ourselves and those around us.

Unfortunately, too many politicians and religious figures feel that what they believe is right and proper, although they are judging everyone else by their standards, and not necessarily by God’s. I always thought that God would provide the final judgment, and man’s place is to observe the laws and leave judgment to God. That is certainly not going to happen if one of the several “religious” Republican candidate gets elected to be the next president of the US.

I predict that under a Republic presidency anyone who is not a practising Christian will be singled out and treated contemptuously (or more correctly, more contemptuously). I predict tax dollars will be spent on teaching a single religion and its concomittant theory of creationism in public schools (as opposed to comparative religion and scientific theories that can be documented by research and replicated). Our educational standards are already so far below the standards of most developed countries that we really can’t afford to teach our children to parrot what they are told is right and wrong, and lose all ability to reason for themselves. It would be different if the role models were honorable and righteous men and women, but too often those in positions of authority have no empathy for others, and they treat women and anyone of a different color or heritage as inferior beings who are only useful as servants. I predict scientific advances will not only be frowned upon, but reversed.

In other words, if things continue the way they are, with members of the christian majority complaining that there is a war on christianity and that the church should not be separated from the State, we can expect to see the same lack of advancements (except in the areas of warfare and oppression) that were evident in (predominantly European) history in the second half of the first millenium and the first half of the second millenium, when the Churches and the States were tightly allied and the word of the Church as law. It basically would be the same lack of advancements seen in the countries that have been under strict islamic law. Strange how similar christianity and islam could become, and how the wars would never end. The minute a religion stops heeding the laws that enable a society to function, it becomes self-righteous and close-minded.

Poor Kim Davis. Imagine being held in contempt and being thrown in jail because you’re an elected official who will not uphold the law of the land because you disagree with it on religious principles. No one is asking you to support the law as a private citizen, but once you take an oath of office, you are expected to do the job. If not, you should step down. People quit jobs that go against their principles and beliefs all the time. For a government official, the only options are to do the job or let someone else do it.

Hint to Rand Paul, Mike Huckabee and Ted Cruz, and those who will agree that Christian beliefs are under attack: Once something is the law of the land, you are required to support it. If you want to make changes, do it within the legal system, don’t just unilaterally say its not right and proper and therefore you won’t do it.

While you’re at it, take note that the amendments to the US Constitution expanded rights to citizens, not restricted them. (Notice that prohibition had to be repealed because restrictions don’t always work as planned.) We may not like certain laws, but laws still have to be followed until and unless they are legally overturned. Crying and tantrums in the media will not change laws.

Pardon my naiveté, but I don’t understand why christians, who are supposedly non-judgmental and forgiving, are so up in arms about the Supreme Court’s decision to legalize same sex marriage. The basic reason behind the legalization was that gay couples, many of whom are more committed and monogamous than their heterosexual counterparts, were being denied the same legal rights as their straight counterparts. Can you imagine being told that you had no legal right to see your partner in the hospital because you are not family? Or being able to provide health insurance for the person with whom you have shared your life? What about when the person with whom you have lived for 30 years dies and his/her family comes in and takes everything they want because they are family and you are not, even though you purchased the items together or they have sentimental value to you? Civil unions did not uniformly provide protections, and weren’t even legal in all states. Is the attitude toward same sex marriage that different from the old attitudes toward interracial marriages? As far as clergy being forced to officiate at same sex marriages, they would no more be forced to do that than they are forced to perform marriages between couples of different religions. Nor would they have to officiate for anyone not of their congregation if they chose not to. A simple refusal to perform a ceremony is not going to result in any lawsuit. After all, if one minister won’t perform my ceremony, I would want to find someone else who was willing. In fact, I wouldn’t even ask a minister if I didn’t respect and honor him or her enough to want that minister to share in my special day. As far as other service providers, such as florists and caterers, if they have a storefront that is open to the public, they should not be allowed to say that because I don’t approve of your behavior I will not serve you. Especially in a case where the provider had provided services in the past when they were unaware of the person’s sexual orientation. If the business owner does limited business, why can’t they simply beg off saying that they already have something scheduled and wouldn’t have time? Remember also that if you are being offered the opportunity to provide flowers, catering or some other service, it is because your abilities are appreciated by someone, not because they are trying to antagonize you. As a final comment, while the laws of this country are based on the ethics and morality that are rooted in religion, religion is not the final law of his country. Religion does not seem to profess that all should be treated equally, and that is what the laws of this country attempt to do. Many of the earliest immigrants came in order to practice religion as they saw fit, so why should religion now dictate what other men and women should be able to do?