As promised, I will now tell you of some of the things that go bump in the night. These things will keep you awake at night, if you fully comprehend what they mean.
The Bogeyman
First, feel free to go to the Dept. of Justice argument as to why they claim it's perfectly legal for President Bush to wiretap anyone without a court order. Try not to fall asleep. I would also recommend a very objective editorial today, titled Questions About Wiretaps Require Answers, Not Criticism.
But when you boil it all down, the bones of the problem remain: if the President of the United States is allowed to wiretap anyone at any time as long as we're in a war situation, then it would behoove an unethical President to always be at war; even if it's with a small tribe in Africa. He would then be allowed to pursue his powers, unchecked.
For those of you who consider George Bush a saint, this may be no problem. But, say the next president who comes into power is diametrically opposed to you. For Republicans, let's say this bogeyman is Hillary Rodham Clinton or Ted Kennedy. For Democrats, he'll be Pat Robertson. Or let's take it a step further and say that in 20 years, the first Muslim fundamentalist is elected. ...Now how do you like giving the President free reign?
Don't think it's not possible. If we eventually end up with multiple parties (as there are in some other countries) we could end up with multiple candidates - let's say 5, for this example. That means the vote is diluted and suddenly all a particular candidate would need would be a little more than 1/5 of the vote to win!
Please don't forget that the original founders always felt there was a serious need for checks and balances. If a President was to have complete authority under certain situations (which could be expanded to unlimited authority) then we would have a classical monarchy, wouldn't we?
The Big Bad Wolf
I don't know what you're seeing in your little neck of the woods, but we have some strange goings-on over here. Florida seems to be the Destination of Choice for terrorists, an ignoble distinction at best, and something that the Economic Development Board isn't really touting on their website. Nah, we're not the Middle East by a long shot, but we do seem to attract them as much as Madonna attracts the news media.
Let me preface what I'm about to say by telling you that I don't embrace terrorists. I see them as scuzzy, opportunistic swine that are indulging in hate crimes just as the Nazis did, and with the same self-justifications. In fact, I'm a lot more hardline that Bush is. If *I* had been President during the entire Iraqi scandal (with the same information he was given) I would have most likely bombed the heck outta Iraq (not stopping until I got Saddam & Sons) and then withdrawn.
I will be completely truthful and tell you that I don't care in the least about civilian casualties in other countries (though I would attempt to limit them). All I care about is protecting the U.S. If another dictatorship that is anti-U.S. arises, then "rinse, repeat," as the shampoo bottles say. I say this, because the United States is not the world's policemen. We cannot save each and every country, nor can we afford to. Go ahead and call me calloused. I am pragmatic and I would get the job done with a minimum of cost in American lives and dollars. I don't have the time or patience to be a "bleeding heart".
But here is a frightening article about a man (Sameeh Hammoudeh) who was accused of terrorism locally, locked away for almost three years, and finally acquitted by jury after a 6-month long trial. After that trial, he was kept another 8 weeks because "Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials said they did not agree with the jury's decision."
Hammoudeh says "I don't understand. Even if you are acquitted, the government is like wild wolves picking at you - this in a country with people full of love and mercy."
Could Hammoudeh still be guilty? Sure! After all, O.J. was guilty and was acquitted by jury. However, O.J. was then immediately released, regardless. The government cannot be allowed to make their own choices as to how to treat someone, if the laws of the land have been satisfied.
Hammoudeh is moving back to the West Bank (in the Middle East).
The Inquisition
We're against censorship, right? We don't approve of banning books (as they did during the Inquisition), right? I have always firmly believed that everyone should be allowed full access to most materials unless they're children and the materials are blatantly sexual or violent. After all, if your point is the correct point, it should be easy to argue - so why would you be threatened? And if your enemy's material is accessible to everyone, it's so much easier to refer to when you deliver the stinging death's blow to their ideas.
Lewis Carroll very effectively poked fun at the government and the practices he didn't approve of. So did Jonathan Swift in "Modest Proposal", where he sarcastically proposed that the poor were such a burden that the only thing they were good for was producing babies. Therefore, instead of continuing to aid them, we should encourage them to sell their babies as food to be eaten (and he suggested they might be quite tasty). It was a powerful piece.
Neither writer would have been very effective if they were making fun of something that no one knew about, due to censorship.
And America is the land of the free, and free-speech must be treasured by all. Right? Wrong, according to people who are opposed to exposing children to the concept of Intelligent Design (ID).
(Please note: This is not the time or place for a thorough argument of ID and I can't enter into one. That will have to wait for another time. And ID is not creationism. There are plenty of creationism texts out there, but ID is simply evidence which shows the flaws in evolution. Some people mistakenly confuse ID with creationism. I am here to tell you that the two are viewed as separate entities to scholars, if not the common man - although opponents to ID would like to paint ID as a thinly-disguised attempt to promote religion. Additionally, ID really addresses the Origin of Life questions, and doesn't discount further evolution, at least to some degree.)
I wouldn't want to see a poorly thought-out ID textbook in the schools any more than I would want a poorly executed evolutionary one. But to completely rule out all ID textbooks (when they are not promoting a particular religion, but simply ideas that are contrary to the concept of pure evolution) is as wrong as banning Catcher in the Rye.
If ID is so idiotic, then fine! Allow full access to the books so that you can easily discount the concept. If you continue to scream for censorship, it is not only hypocritical; it is also apparently a sign of fear.
Please don't bother telling me that a belief in God is "silly." We might think you atheists are a pretty silly lot, too. But if it's so "silly", it is surely nothing to be afraid of. In fact, if you are opposed to a particular ID book, I would highly recommend you sharpen your pencil and start a counter-argument to it. You'll easily find a publisher, I can guarantee it. Make sure it holds up to scientific scrutiny; that's all *I* ask.
Check it out! I think I've just published a post that NO one will like! All I ask is that you stifle the knee-jerk reaction that we all can get sometimes, and really mull over my points first.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
41 comments:
When you said no one will like it, you mean apart from me, as you know I share with you these beliefs.
You raise a good point with the censorship of ID books but I must say, when it comes to education you can't have a system where all texts are allowed, things have to be vetted for the academic and intellectual rigour and ID does not hold any water so it has no place in schools.
For example, I release an educational book that says we are all made from glue and wood, it would not be censorship if this educational tome was not allowed anywhere near a child, because its rubbish.
ID has to be seen in that context, I know it can seem like censorship but it has no place in a science lesson.
Daniel, beautifully and sanely said. I understand your point of view, but ID is a much more scientic argument than "the earth is flat" sort of argument. It points out things that are unfalsifiable hypothesises.
Just wanted to make a comment about our two party being system being less diluted than a multi-party system. I would say our election process is already very diluted but because we have only a two party system, people like me who have never voted for a president that they really like end up voting for the lesser of two evils. Break us out along with others who are more centrists than the extremists that get elected, and I see a very diluted vote.
Your wire tapping reasoning is spot on in my opinion.
Ed Abbey, you're correct... and yet not correct about the 2 party system.
You see, I'm a moderate too, who chooses to be a Republican. Why? Because there is no effective, dynamic party that represents us. If it ever arose, and people truly left the Democrats and Republicans to join (or even started to vote in the first place) then we'd see a major impact. As it is, the disenfranchised voter is easily ignored...for now.
People have tried to start other parties, but they have never really taken off, yet (Perot, The Green Party, etc.)
I think that someday soon a couple truly moderate parties will emerge. Each will have very specific platforms which will be exclusionary to others.
For instance, have you heard of the Log Cabin Republicans? They're Republican all the way, except they're gay. What if they eventually strike out on their own?
Or how about people who are fiscally conservative but liberally social? Or the purely take-no-prisoners-anti-gay-anti-abortion-anti-womans rights Repubs? Or the purely take-no-prisoners-anti-conservative Dems?
I see a world of possibilities.
Bravo. A post with some real substance. Thomas Jefferson once said, "Those who give up freedom for security have neither".
The gentleman who replied that ID has no scientific basis is completely wrong. It is evolutionary thought which has been totally discredited, yet it is still taught as fact in most schools. All we are asking for is equal time. Let people make up their minds for themselves.
If he is interested, here is a site which I recommend: http://www.answersingenesis.org/
And another interesting site: http://www.s8int.com/sophis1.html
I'm one who actually does believe there is a conspiricay to implement a one world government. Yet I don't understand why some Christians have difficulty beleiving this. Of course there is a conspiricay; it's been going on since the Garden of Eden and the Devil is behind it. Would it then be that much more of a stretch to believe that the Devil, in this day and age, has human beings who do his bidding on a global scale?
I'm reminded of the scripture where Jesus was taken to a high place and shown all the kingdoms of the world by the Devil, and if Jesus would bow down and worship him, they would be given to Him.
Lu 4:5
And he led him up, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.
Lu 4:6 And the devil said unto him, To thee will I give all this authority, and the glory of them: for it hath been delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it.
Lu 4:7 If thou therefore wilt worship before me, it shall all be thine.
Notice that Jesus didn't rebuke the Devil for his claim to the kingdoms of the world because Jesus very well knew that the Devil's claim was true.
May I offer some quotes as to why I think we are losing our freedoms and which organizations are behind it. These are just a few; there are many, many more, including quotes from William Jefferson Clinton. But it's your blog and I didn't want to rant too much.
"Today Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful. This is especially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead with world leaders to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well being granted to them by their world government." -- Henry Kissinger speaking at Evian, France, May 21, 1992 Bilderburgers meeting. Unbeknownst to Kissinger, his speech was taped by a Swiss delegate to the meeting
"We need a common enemy to unite us." - Condoleeza Rice, March 2000
If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator.
-- President G. W. Bush
"The interests behind the Bush Administration, such as the CFR, The Trilateral Commission - founded by Brzezinski for David Rockefeller - and the Bilderberger Group, have prepared for and are now moving to implement open world dictatorship within the next five years. They are not fighting against terrorists. They are fighting against citizens." - Dr. Johannes B. Koeppl, Ph.D., former German defense ministry official and advisor to former NATO Secretary General Manfred Werne
"We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order. " -David Rockefeller
Bryan, Wow! I really appreciate your contributions. They're a wonderful addition. I'm not a conspiracy theorist myself, but I do see the possibility. I tend to think that if Revelations is correct, we will almost naturally go toward a New World Order with little-to-no conspiracy. It's almost a natural move given the ease of interaction between countries now. :P
I appreciate reading the posts of a thinking person. It is impossible to group this entire country into two groups of thought...democrat or republican. It seems to imply that if you call yourself one or the other, you agree with everything that goes on within that party.
Wow, when did Bush say that "dictator" quote?
A person who is willing to question the validity of evolution should read Darwin on Trial by Phillip E. Johnson. He is a professor at Berkeley.
Jenn, I actually know Phillip E. Johnson; a very nice man. He's not a scientist, but a lawyer who started doing some research into the trial and was astounded by what he discovered. It's a good book.
I, too, would be interested in knowing when the 'dictator' quote was made. Bryan?
Hey, very cool that you know him. I love the lawyer perspective of the book. He separates himself from "Creation Scientists," but does he consider himself a Christian? He is not clear about that in the book.
Jenn, he is a born-again Christian now but wasn't when he started. He actually set out to discredit the Christians as loonies.
Mike, :D Thanks!
Saur - you are absolutely right. I keep hoping for another strong middle of the road candidate to run who doesn't run off the deep end like Perot. I find myself drawn to the platform of the Constitutional Party but so far, they get little to no publicity.
Ed, Interesting! I just explored their site. They are in complete agreement with what I believe, which is refreshing. However, when I called the headquarters, the girl who answered it couldn't tell me how many members were in the party. Additionally, she confessed that she was from a small office down the hall and was temporarily covering the phones... The Constitutional Party appears to be VERY small, indeed. They need a good PR person and some strong candidates. ;o)
thanks for the link :)
"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator.
-- President G. W. Bush "
This is nothing of value here. This was taken from a Q & A and I believe he was explaining how things work and used this as an example and said the dictator thing as tongue in cheek. I remember listening to the conference. This was taken out of context. I would like to hear from Bryan where he got this quote.
Kathleen, Jenn, et all:
The quote from George Bush is in a transcript here from when he had not assumed office yet.
Whether or not it is pertinent to the current State of the Union is irrelevant. It shows a state of mind. After all, do men who are faithful to their wives joke about screwing someone else?
He may have been trying to be funny, but I do believe it's also indicative of a mind-set that includes never apologizing for mistakes (which he is famous for doing).
Let's face it; like him or dislike him, we can't get around the facts. He can either be a charming geek with foibles or a scheming idiot with luck (or somewhere in-between) but the facts remain. How we interpret them may differ, but after a while, when the evidence mounts up, it's hard to dismiss easily.
Katie, ;o)
Let's see: I like part of this post. Guess which part? No, not that one; the other one.
Old Hoss, you're weaseling out on me. ;o)
GWB's "tongue in cheek" personality is precisely what get's him INTO so much trouble. It's hard to believe in a man when he has his butt in his mouth most of the time.... that's like believing in the class clown. Class clowns are ok, but not as leaders OR Presidents.
I can think of another book that I wouldn't like to see out there:
"The Anarchists Cookbook".
I don't find that building a bomb out of bleach is necessary information, as there are too many crazies out there already.
Ellen, granted. That's like yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater.
Some see ID as a threat. It isn't. It is just another theory that is just as deserving of study as the theory of evolution.
The President should not have unchecked power to listen to domestic calls from one US citizen to another US citizen within the United States. If, however, people within the US are known to be making calls/receiving calls with terrorists outside the US, then those calls should be monitored. I wish this would have been happening before 911 when terrorists here were in contact with terrorists abroad. Also, if they are here, but are not US citizens, I have no qualms with them being monitored domestically if they have ties to terror of any kind.
I simply disagree with you on this point.
What we need is a proportional representative system. But, it would take more than 1/5 of the vote if five candidates are running. What usually happens is a 50% threshold is required. If none of the five candidates meet that hurdle, the top two face off, and the winner emerges from the narrowed field.
I really have no problem with anything you've said. I believe a president should have the authority to wiretap. However, it should not be unilateral; it needs to be run through channels to make sure it's not out of control. What bothers me is that I think we have those safeguards in place and Bush has chosen to ignore them.
Jamie Dawn, an excellent point! But if they're in contact with terrorists abroad, it would be very easy to get a court order for a wire tap.
It's only if there's no way of knowing that the gov't would wish to get around a court order. And that leaves too many other loopholes for me to be comfortable with.
I retrieved the quote made by former President Bush from a CD which I've had for at least five years now. I originally copied it from some Internet source. Sorry, but I don't remember the source. The next time I post a quote on your blog I'll be sure to have the source available for review.
You've posted some great subjects on your blog and I have a lot more to say, but not enough time to compose tonight. Your post entitled The Dangerous Encroachment Upon Our Liberties I'd also like to make some comments on at some point. Great post.
There is so much in me that I want to be able to express in clear, concise detail, that I don't believe I could do it in a day or two. Your posts have sparked something in me and I don't want to do the subject matter an injustice by hurriedly typing out a sloppy reply.
When one studies these Secret Societies, one should always be aware that there are certainly sources of misinformation out there which cannot be relied upon. This is why, if you're going to take on such a task, you should approach it with prayerful diligence, asking for the illuminating power of the Holy Spirit to help you separtarate fantasy from reality.
I do believe that we are living in the end times spoken of in the Bible. I also believe that the art of deception has reached such a high degree of perfection in our present, modern world that even most Christians have difficulty telling the difference between what is true and what is not, especially regarding what our politicians are telling us. I also believe one reason why the majority of people have a hard time accepting such things as globalist conspiracies and secret societies is because it is simply too uncomfortable to deal with, too diabolical to think about. It is easier to bury our heads in the sand and pretend that everything is black and white, as it should be. But, unfortunately, it won't be that way until Jesus Christ comes back to set things right here on planet Earth, or a massive revival takes place.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but somewhere, at some public event, didn't G.W. Bush say something to the effect that we all worship the same God, both Muslims, Christians and Jews? And don't forget, G.W. is also a member of the order Skull & Bones, as is Al Gore. Bill Clinton was a member of the Rhodes Society, which educates and then places globalist movers and shakers into the fields of politics, academia, big business, the arts, religion, etc.
I don't mention these things to put fear into people, but to remind them, especially Christians, that we are in a war:
1pe 5:8 Be sober, be watchful: your adversary the DEVIL, as a roaring LION, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour,
2co 11:13 For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, fashioning themselves into apostles of Christ.
2co 11:14 And no marvel; for even Satan fashioneth himself into an angel of light.
2co 11:15 It is no great thing therefore if his ministers also fashion themselves as ministers of righteousness, whose end shall be according to their works.
Mt 24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders; so as to lead astray, if possible, even the ELECT.
More on this subject later.
Excellent post and I too agree with you on all points!!!!
Correction: Apparently the Rhodes Scholars are educated (indoctrinated) with regard to service in the public arena. Not the arts or religion.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/1995/vo11no04/vo11no04_rhodes.htm
Here's a hyperlink to the page for those folks who are copy and paste challenged. :D
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/1995/vo11no04/vo11no04_rhodes.htm
Wow! You said a lot. I can say that in some areas we agree, and some not so much. What I can say is no matter what, I respect your opinion.
I don't like sheep. We have become a nation of sheep. We blindly follow the masses and the masses are directed by those in power combined with a sensationalistic media.
Therefore, I will listen to any carefully considered, well thought out and open minded position. In other words, those that can think for themselves. Therefore, after considering your stance, I won't dismiss it out of hand as so much propoganda. I know when smoke is being blown up my a** and there's no smoke on this blog.
PS: Thanks for blogrolling me! ;->
Mike
I don't have the time or patience to be a "bleeding heart".
Me neither. If we kill all these terrorists, we'd live in a better world. They do nothing good for anyone.
As for protecting our liberties, that's part of my future platform. :)
Sorry, I have read many things on ID and evolution and one is based on a religious belief that we were made by big baby Jesus and the other is a science.
ID should be taught in RE lessons not science.
Looks like my book about glue and wood people would go down well...
As for those who seemingly defending the walking accident that is Bush jnr, I can only point to the long list of gaffs, errors of judgement, bad fiscal policy and terrible ability to govern a lovely nation.
Can I also point out that not only is it physically impossible to 'kill all these terrorists' it is also not the most forward thinking appraoch to dealing with them, for that you have to talk and one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter so I'd be steady with the idea that they do nothing good for anyone.
I am one of those folks that beleives ID has no place in a classroom. I think that if we are telling our children that the things we dont know how to explain had an "intelligent designer" behind it all, then that sort of inherently means some sort of All-powerful, all-knowing entity..some sort of...God. That is not science. The theory of evolution is just that..a theory. But it is the theory with the most scientific evidence to back it up. And one of the first things you learn in science class is what a Theory is. It is a "best guess". Based on facts, evidence, etc. I think if we want our children to be taught about other possibilites besides the scientific ones, then that is the job of the parents and churches to provide. Not the school system.
Other than that...I am with you on everything else. Well written. :)
Really? Then if you don't believe religion has any place in the classroom, can you please explain why evolution is taught in the classroom? Because you see, evolution embraces something called secular humanism, which is a religion as you'll see from the quotes below:
Many people do not realize that the teaching of evolution propagates an anti-biblical religion. The first two tenets of the Humanist Manifesto II (1973), signed by many prominent evolutionists, are:
1.Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created.
2.Humanism believes that Man is a part of nature and has emerged as a result of a continuous process.
This is exactly what evolution teaches. Many humanist leaders are quite open about using the public schools to proselytize their faith. This might surprise some parents who think the schools are supposed to be free of religious indoctrination, but this quote makes it clear:
I am convinced that the battle for humankind’s future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being. These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of the educational level—preschool day care or large state university. The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new—the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism … .
It will undoubtedly be a long, arduous, painful struggle replete with much sorrow and many tears, but humanism will emerge triumphant. It must if the family of humankind is to survive.10
Oh, and I almost forgot to mention that even the Supreme Court has ruled that secular humanism is a religion:
When secular humanists remove religion from schools, they fill the vacuum they create with their anti-god, anti-Christ philosophy. They merely replace one religion with another.
Although some would deny that secular humanism is a religion, even the Supreme Court has recognized it as such. In Torkoso v. Watkins (1961), the Supreme Court said that "among religions ... are Buddhism ... and secular humanism," etc.
If you don't think religion has any place in the classroom, then evolution has to go.
Frankly, I wouldn't want an atheist to be forced to teach ID, either. Somehow I think it would end up being mangled. But if evolution is to be taught in the public schools, then so should ID.
And finally, you say evolution has the most scientific evidence to back it up. Please show me.
There is strong evidence to suggest that God does indeed exist--scientific evidence. If you are interested in knowing what that evidence is, then please visit the Answers in Genesis web site. It's loaded.
To me, to say that there is Evidence that God does indeed exist seems to contradict the idea of Faith. If there was such overwhelming evidence that God exists, then why are we having this debate? I remember being taught from a young age in church to "take it on Faith", and thats what God's all about. Faith, not proof.
When I was in science class, my teachers never once tried to seem "anti-biblical" in their teaching of the theory of evolution (and the big-bang theory as well) THey were all very clear that this is just a theory, and that other theories do exist, but these are the ones with the least amount of religios overtones. I have recently been asking the people i work with what there experiences have been in there science classes (some of the folks where i work are as young as 16) and so far not one of them has felt alienated by these theories they are being taught. (And many of them beleive not in evolution but in some form of ID.) To say that all who embrace evolution are embracing some religion called Humanism or whatever....I dont think so. The vatican has even said that one can be a christian and believe in evolution at the same time. (dont have the link now sorry)..
Are you supposing then that evolution should be preached in church as an alternative to creation by God? That would be fair to me.
No not you, Susie. It was kind of confusing I know.
I was addressing Kristied, though I meant no disrespect to her opinions. Just wanted to give her some food for thought.
Here's my last reply to Kristied. I thought it worth the effort.
http://bryansspace.com/evolution.htm
Bryan: it is clear you are a very religious man, therefore you are trying to pass off the theory of evolution as a religion to somehow justify the teaching of the frankly silly ID in schools.
It is a wee bit transperant and utterly wrong. Evolution is not a religion, it is not an idea that belongs to secular humanism, it belongs to science, which is not a religion.
Your Christian beliefs are clouding the rationale behind what is science and religion.
I've said my peace, Daniel. I hope you and Kristied have a great week.
And I've said mine, I suppose with me having no faith and you plenty, finding agreement will be difficult.
Peace.
Post a Comment