This morning I read the AP article outlining the recent developments in the Montana court case regarding the statue of Jesus at a ski resort. Below is an excerpt from the article.
“A lawsuit seeking the removal of a Jesus statue near a Montana ski resort will go on after a national group of atheists and agnostics produced a local member who says he is offended by the religious symbol whenever he swooshes down the slopes.”
Published November 29, 2012
A couple of weeks ago I blogged about the true spirit of “the seperation of church and state.” After reading this article I want to add a point or two and raise a couple of questions.
First of all if you believe in “nothing” why would you care what kind of statue was anywhere? Does this mean Mickey Mouse, Bugs Bunny, or Spiderman would also offend you? I know that is a little silly, but follow this logic for a moment. To anyone who doesn’t recognize Jesus as anything other than a “character” in a book or even “just another human being” his statue should not be offensive. Would those same people be offended by a life-sized replica of any of the other aforementioned “characters”?
I am a little amazed (although less each day) by some who seem to constantly be looking for a fight for causes which cost others money and in the end really don’t accomplish anything.
I would also say to those of you who claim to believe in nothing or don’t believe in God… Study in order to make informed decisions about these things. If after that you still feel the same way, there is no reason to make such a big deal of it. No one is trying to force you to believe by having a Jesus statue, putting up a Christmas tree or nativity, or displaying the ten commandments (which is actually a pretty good set of rules to live by whether you agree with the origin or not).
At what point will the people of Israel be able to react to terrorism and not be condemned for it? For over a decade Hamas has fired Rockets into Israel. What would we (The United States of America) do if Rockets were being fired by terrorist into our cities from just across the border? I believe we would first end the Rocket attacks immediately using any force necessary. Then we would hunt down any and all those responsible for US casualties and “bring them to justice”.
Many, apparently feel our friends in Israel should not be afforded the same rights we would allow ourselves. Some have suggested it is Israel’s fault, others that Rockets being fired into Israeli cities has only psychological effects. I would laugh at someone actually saying that if the reality of it weren’t so sad. People have been killed (civilians including children), but so many are looking for a reason to blame Israel they ignore everything terrorist have done to them over the years. It is truly unbelievable that we have people on television who would even suggest such things and worse that they don’t have to answer for it.
We need to start looking at things from the proper perspective. Walk a mile in someone’s shoes and imagine what we would do.
Is there any wonder what would happen if Iran was located in Mexico and was developing nuclear capabilities? We would never allow this to happen. Especially if Iranian leaders had so openly displayed such hate for us. This is essentially the position Israel is in right now. A country that wishes to wipe them off the face of the earth is working to develop nuclear weapons. Terrorists are firing Rockets into its cities killing its citizens. And other countries in the region seem to be joining its foes rather than helping stop the attacks
Americans and the world need to take a long look at what is going on and take a moment to consider what we would expect from our government and everyone else if in the same situation.
Today I read through several online articles, blogs, etc. covering several issues. What a day for information! While I enjoy reading different views and comments, I have been dizzy the past hour trying to take it all in.
Let’s start with the obvious. Former CIA director, General Petraeus is visiting capitol hill today and giving testimony. It is obvious there are many pieces to this puzzle and we can expect an almost daily revealing of new facts related to just the Benghazi part of the story. Not to mention what may be learned in the coming days related to his personal life and national security.
Today General Petraeus apparently stated he felt all along there was a terrorist element involved in the Benghazi attack. He also said that he had nothing to do with the final talking points used by UN ambassador Rice on the Sunday shows. And in fact what he had given the administration was much different from what was used. We will eventually get to the truth in all of this as long as the two congressional committees involved ask the pressing questions and get answers.
Secondly, this is the day states were to make a decision regarding implementing “The Affordable Care Act” (ObamaCare). There are many places to get information on this topic and even more places to get opinion. What I find a little amusing is the use of words like fair, healthier, and more prosperous to describe the effect Obamacare will have on states and the nation. Really??? More prosperous??? So, here is my challenge to the supporters of Obamacare. Give me an example of a country using a similar system (socialized medicine) that we would consider prosperous. Especially if there is one that wouldn’t be more prosperous if it didn’t have that type of program. I could say much more about healthier and fair, but today I’ll leave it right here.
Finally, I want to address campaign promises. Is it not odd that 2008 promises regarding the federal deficit and jobs were not kept, but we can all rest assured the promise of a tax increase on the wealthy will be. It doesn’t take a political (or otherwise) genius to see what things are important to our President. I hope he will work with everyone he can in order to improve things, but at this point hope is about all we have and there isn’t much of that left.
Perhaps the weekend will give us all a chance to rest. Monday will no doubt be as busy as today!
Each year as we approach the holiday season some small town or rural principality has a group from the “big city” come out to be sure the constitution is being followed to the letter with regard to “separation of church and state”. While I don’t believe the intent of our forefathers was to keep the nativity from being displayed in front of municipal buildings, this broad interpretation has been widely accepted over the past thirty years. The 1st amendment actually reads “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” It has absolutely nothing to do with the manger scene. It is in the simplest terms, a way to keep from having a “religion of the state” or a particular religion endorsed by the government. Escaping government imposed religion was one of the reasons for founding our country. The separation was intended to be from the side of the State not that of the church. Without a broad and liberal interpretation, we would not be seeing the things we do today.
The question that comes to me now is why are the people who claim to believe in nothing those who are offended by anything representing belief in something? What we now have are groups who set out to find ways to prove they can make sure you don’t have any religious affiliated material anywhere near any public property. For what? Are they saving America? Are they protecting our children? From what?
Let’s get back to using the constitution as a guide for freedom and stop using it to tell one another why one freedom is more important than another.
It would be impossible today to turn on the television or radio without hearing something about the 2012 Presidential election. Newspapers and online publications revealing the voting numbers for states and a variety of demographics. Facts lead to opinions of how and why one candidate won and the other lost. Great campaign strategy, leadership, the economy, and foreign policy are all thrown out as possible reasons voters swung one way or the other.
In the end, what was the issue that really guided your vote? It must not have been the economy. Unemployment is still much higher than we were promised it would be by this time. The Federal deficit is almost double rather than half, as Mr. Obama predicted he would achieve. Perhaps it has more to do with strong leadership in matters over seas? possible, but unlikely. While Osama Bin Laden was killed by US forces during the President’s first term, the attack in Benghazi which left four Americans dead is the latest display of leadership abroad on the mind of informed voters. Not to mention the “story” the administration told the country and the world in the weeks following. How about the candidate most likely to work with the other party? Again, unlikely. Gov. Romney was able to get things done when he worked with a state legislature made up of good people who were 85% or more from across the aisle. The President, on the other hand, slammed “Obamacare” through with little regard for thoughts of representatives from the opposing party or the American people at large.
I believe it was some great campaigning mostly. The Obama camp was able to get some folks to come out and vote solely on social issues such as abortion, gay marriage, and/or contraception. These were little talked about issues (especially by the republicans) since a week after the DNC, but resonated with some voters who were more likely to vote for Mr. Obama if they made it to the polls.
Now that the election is over, I hope the President will enlist some of the brilliant strategists who orchestrated such a clever campaign to help with the important issues affecting all of us.