The Bible records that the scribes and Pharisees, the educated "priestly class" of New Testament times, constantly hounded Jesus Christ with the question, "By what authority do you preach?" (Matthew 21:23-24). Jesus Christ was by profession a mere carpenter, who learned that trade from His earthly father. By comparison to the theology-educated scribes and Pharisees, He hardly had any formal credentials by which to recommend Himself. Yet, He in his youth astounded the chief priests of the temple, as He taught with authority.
The Bible also records that He authorized His twelve apostles to preach in His name, saying "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every living creature." (Mark 16:15). He also is recorded as sending out His twelve apostles (Matthew 10:5-7) to tell the lost sheep of the house of Israel that the kingdom of God is at hand. Yet those apostles, like Jesus Christ Himself, were not formally-educated professional theologians, but were of humble worldly professions. Several, for example, were mere fishermen. Here was the beginning of the notion of a lay clergy. Indeed, Jesus said that the hireling cares not for the sheep of the flock, and runs away when the wolves come to attack them(John 10:12-13).
At the time of the Protestant reformation, when Martin Luther stood before the Diet of Worms to answer to the Catholic church authorities of his day for his accusations against the established church, he refused to recant his ideas, saying, "Here I stand! I can do no other!" Based on the scriptures, Martin Luther established the proposition of infallibility resting with the Bible scriptures themselves, rather than with a professional church hierarchy. He also therefore established the notion of the universal priesthood of all Bible believers.
Today, followers of Jesus Christ preach by inspiration of the Holy Spirit revealed through Bible scripture, and not by academic certificates awarded by theological seminaries and colleges. "By their fruits you will kinow them", said Jesus Christ, in acknowledgement that deeds are a stronger witness than mere words in the proliferation of His gospel(Matthew 7:15-20).
-LKM
Monday, December 14, 2009
Whatever Happened to Superman and John Wayne?
Thanksgiving, not Christmas or Easter, should be our favorite holiday of the year. It is the time to recall to our collective national memory our reliance upon both Almighty God and upon one another, for all that we are and all that we have, and the paramount importance of expressing gratitude for the same.
Among my fellow Christians at least, all too many will pray to God only when they are on the "down" side of life, to say, "Help, God! Get me out of this mess!" All too many will neglect and even refuse to pray to God when on the "up" side of life, to thank Him for placing them upon their proverbial mountain-top.
Our society has placed much value upon self-reliance. But how realistic is this social mantra? Is it not true, that somebody else somewhere contributes to all that we are, and all that we have? Some men, in their arrogance of pride, will deny their need for anybody else. "I'm a rock-'em sock-'em John Wayne-Chuck Norris-Arnold Schwarzenegger machismo man", they will say, "I can make it on my own, and if anybody gets in my way, I'll terminate them!" But the only problem here, Superman, is that the invention of cell phones has resulted in a deplorable dearth of telephone booths to which our mild-mannered news reporter Clark Kent can make a quick dash if necessary!
But wait! The story does not end there! You say Superman evolved from some one-celled low life in the remote past, just by godless random chance? Then, how does the path of evolution move ever-upward towards greater complexity in the face of sheer random chance? No, if we put Superman under an electron microscope and study his genetic DNA, we will see a vast myriad of amino acid molecules comprising his proteins, all lined up in a precise order. If even one amino acid is missing or out of order, guess what, folks? We do not have life! And what are the odds that the thousands of amino acid molecules would line up in precise order, just by random chance? Mathematicians have asked computers this same question repeatedly, and the answer has always come back as virtually zero! This phenomenon is called "irreducible complexity", and could God be trying to tell us something here? Given that birth defects have occurred, is it not then a miracle that most babies are born normal and healthy, with a million possibilities for something DNA-wise to go wrong? Indeed, the fool has said in his heart, "There is no god, to whom I should be thankful."
Yes, my fellow Americans, we must learn again to count our blessings and name them one-by-one. Today, the average American home could pass for the Prime Minister's residence in many foreign countries, and how many of us have the skills to single-handedly build such a home? President Abraham Lincoln was correct, to say we have become all too complacent in taking the Lord's choicest blessings upon this nation all too much for granted.
Finally, there is the issue of gratitude to one another. Who of us could single-handedly grow our own food, make our own clothes, construct our own automobiles we drive, and even extract from petroleum the gasoline necessary to move that automobile forward? Could John Wayne, Chuck Norris or Arnold Schwarzenegger do all that by themselves?
-LKM
Among my fellow Christians at least, all too many will pray to God only when they are on the "down" side of life, to say, "Help, God! Get me out of this mess!" All too many will neglect and even refuse to pray to God when on the "up" side of life, to thank Him for placing them upon their proverbial mountain-top.
Our society has placed much value upon self-reliance. But how realistic is this social mantra? Is it not true, that somebody else somewhere contributes to all that we are, and all that we have? Some men, in their arrogance of pride, will deny their need for anybody else. "I'm a rock-'em sock-'em John Wayne-Chuck Norris-Arnold Schwarzenegger machismo man", they will say, "I can make it on my own, and if anybody gets in my way, I'll terminate them!" But the only problem here, Superman, is that the invention of cell phones has resulted in a deplorable dearth of telephone booths to which our mild-mannered news reporter Clark Kent can make a quick dash if necessary!
But wait! The story does not end there! You say Superman evolved from some one-celled low life in the remote past, just by godless random chance? Then, how does the path of evolution move ever-upward towards greater complexity in the face of sheer random chance? No, if we put Superman under an electron microscope and study his genetic DNA, we will see a vast myriad of amino acid molecules comprising his proteins, all lined up in a precise order. If even one amino acid is missing or out of order, guess what, folks? We do not have life! And what are the odds that the thousands of amino acid molecules would line up in precise order, just by random chance? Mathematicians have asked computers this same question repeatedly, and the answer has always come back as virtually zero! This phenomenon is called "irreducible complexity", and could God be trying to tell us something here? Given that birth defects have occurred, is it not then a miracle that most babies are born normal and healthy, with a million possibilities for something DNA-wise to go wrong? Indeed, the fool has said in his heart, "There is no god, to whom I should be thankful."
Yes, my fellow Americans, we must learn again to count our blessings and name them one-by-one. Today, the average American home could pass for the Prime Minister's residence in many foreign countries, and how many of us have the skills to single-handedly build such a home? President Abraham Lincoln was correct, to say we have become all too complacent in taking the Lord's choicest blessings upon this nation all too much for granted.
Finally, there is the issue of gratitude to one another. Who of us could single-handedly grow our own food, make our own clothes, construct our own automobiles we drive, and even extract from petroleum the gasoline necessary to move that automobile forward? Could John Wayne, Chuck Norris or Arnold Schwarzenegger do all that by themselves?
-LKM
Saturday, December 12, 2009
LKM On Love and Marriage
The four-letter word "love" has been widely bandied-about in society over the decades, to mean many different things to many different people. In this connection, the notion and institution of marriage is deeply involved: today, America is witness to a shameful(shameless?)50% divorce rate, signaling a break-down in the institution of marriage.
Understandably, divorcing couples will emphatically claim that the undoing of their marital relation is strictly their own private business, and nobody elses. But when our national divorce rate stands at 50%, resulting in several adverse economic and socio-political impacts upon the public-at-large, whose business is the integrity of marriage then?
True love is to say that we value other people, for a possible variety of reasons. It also means that the basis of our value in relation to other people is not fleeting or transitory, but is rooted in eternal religious and other absolute truths, no matter how inconvenient they may be to us at the spur of the moment. True love, like God's word and the U.S. Constitution, must continue even when it pinches, as well as when it comforts. Otherwise, we have no word of God, no U.S. Constitution, and worst of all, no true love.
Divorce is no less than a signal failure to ascribe to the moral standard demanded by true love. It most likely is symptomatic of an attitude of "what is in this marriage for me?", rather than an attitude of "what can I give to this marriage to improve it?" Contrary to popular opinion, marriage never autonomously and automatically "works out" for anybody; rather, married people must constantly work at it, as a life-long project. This does not give license to regard one's marriage partner as their "extreme make-over project", although striking a balance between corrections and compliments is certainly very desirable.
Most likely, marriages fail because one partner has unrealistically high expectations from the other. We do not live in a perfect world; rather, the Bible tells us truthfully that we live in a sinful and fallen world. Given that fact, the Bible counsels us to forgive other people their sins to the same extent we would like to be forgiven our sins. "Mr. Perfect" and "Mrs. Perfect" exist in fairy-tale stories only, and not anywhere in the real world. While we may expect any one person chosen at random to meet some of our demands and desires, in no way can any one other person meet all of our demands and desires, to our satisfaction. Why then do we demand that of marriage partners, whom we regard as special? Jesus Christ counseled His disciples to pray with the words, "forgive us our sins, AS WE FORGIVE THOSE WHO SIN AGAINST US". This means we are not asking God for carte blanche blank-check uconditional forgiveness of our own sins and failures. Rather, we petition Him to use the same measure of mercy upon us that we use in our evaluation of other people--including our marriage partners.
This writer has his own marital standards he expects in any marriage partner. These are: 1)Understands and values what I have to offer her, to make her life better. Does not compare me with other men, to insist that I be like them. 2)Does not ever use tobacco, alcoholic beverages or narcotic drugs. 3)Socializes with other people outside the family within limits of modesty and decency, without being sexually promiscuous. Is not an "every man's woman". 4)Accepts financial responsibility, lives within her own financial means and never has debts. 5)Being of my own race is preferable, but is not absolutely required. 6)Instructs me and builds me up tactfully and diplomatically without tearing me down in abject contempt. 7)Is of Christian ethos and understanding, but exact church denomination or membership is not important. 8)Highly values education, sees self as a life-long learner. 9)Is approximately of my generation, not either a mother or a daughter, chronologically or spiritually. 10)Being a great cook is "a consummation devoutly to be wished"(to borrow words from William Shakespeare), but is not an absolute requirement. Still, women should honor the old adage that the way to a man's heart is through his stomach.
If we divorce our marriage partners for having personal failures ABC which we do not like, and marry another, that second marriage partner may well not have failures ABC, but could well have personal failures XYZ, which we also do not like. Nobody anywhere "has it all, says it all and does it all" perfectly at all times, from A to Z. The same as what President Abraham Lincoln once said about fooling people, should also be said about pleasing people: "You can please some people all the time; you can please all people some of the time, BUT YOU CAN'T PLEASE ALL THE PEOPLE ALL THE TIME." Persons considering divorce should keep this thought always in the forefront of their minds.
When Richard Nixon was this nation's President, there occurred a vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court. To fill that vacancy, President Nixon chose judge G. Harrold Carswell of Florida. But as the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee was looking over his record as a judge and a lawyer, they said it was mediocre. Yessirree, MEE-DEE-OCRE!--whereupon, Senator Roman Hrushka of Nebraska, a committee member, said with an apologetic demeanor, "THERE ARE A LOT OF MEDIOCRE JUDGES AND LAWYERS IN THE COUNTRY! GIVE MEDIOCRITY A LITTLE REPRESENTATION!"
Divorce results when we say, "My husand/my wife is MEE-DEE-OCRE!", and we refuse to give mediocrity any representation in them. Then-news anchorman Eric Sevareid has the answer to this: if you have a baseball game in progress, and the batter hits the ball into the out-field, and the out-fielder always catches the ball, THATS BORING! On the other hand, if you have an out-fielder who sometimes misses the ball, THAT MAKES THE GAME MORE INTERESTING! So it also is, with the game of marriage.
-LKM
Understandably, divorcing couples will emphatically claim that the undoing of their marital relation is strictly their own private business, and nobody elses. But when our national divorce rate stands at 50%, resulting in several adverse economic and socio-political impacts upon the public-at-large, whose business is the integrity of marriage then?
True love is to say that we value other people, for a possible variety of reasons. It also means that the basis of our value in relation to other people is not fleeting or transitory, but is rooted in eternal religious and other absolute truths, no matter how inconvenient they may be to us at the spur of the moment. True love, like God's word and the U.S. Constitution, must continue even when it pinches, as well as when it comforts. Otherwise, we have no word of God, no U.S. Constitution, and worst of all, no true love.
Divorce is no less than a signal failure to ascribe to the moral standard demanded by true love. It most likely is symptomatic of an attitude of "what is in this marriage for me?", rather than an attitude of "what can I give to this marriage to improve it?" Contrary to popular opinion, marriage never autonomously and automatically "works out" for anybody; rather, married people must constantly work at it, as a life-long project. This does not give license to regard one's marriage partner as their "extreme make-over project", although striking a balance between corrections and compliments is certainly very desirable.
Most likely, marriages fail because one partner has unrealistically high expectations from the other. We do not live in a perfect world; rather, the Bible tells us truthfully that we live in a sinful and fallen world. Given that fact, the Bible counsels us to forgive other people their sins to the same extent we would like to be forgiven our sins. "Mr. Perfect" and "Mrs. Perfect" exist in fairy-tale stories only, and not anywhere in the real world. While we may expect any one person chosen at random to meet some of our demands and desires, in no way can any one other person meet all of our demands and desires, to our satisfaction. Why then do we demand that of marriage partners, whom we regard as special? Jesus Christ counseled His disciples to pray with the words, "forgive us our sins, AS WE FORGIVE THOSE WHO SIN AGAINST US". This means we are not asking God for carte blanche blank-check uconditional forgiveness of our own sins and failures. Rather, we petition Him to use the same measure of mercy upon us that we use in our evaluation of other people--including our marriage partners.
This writer has his own marital standards he expects in any marriage partner. These are: 1)Understands and values what I have to offer her, to make her life better. Does not compare me with other men, to insist that I be like them. 2)Does not ever use tobacco, alcoholic beverages or narcotic drugs. 3)Socializes with other people outside the family within limits of modesty and decency, without being sexually promiscuous. Is not an "every man's woman". 4)Accepts financial responsibility, lives within her own financial means and never has debts. 5)Being of my own race is preferable, but is not absolutely required. 6)Instructs me and builds me up tactfully and diplomatically without tearing me down in abject contempt. 7)Is of Christian ethos and understanding, but exact church denomination or membership is not important. 8)Highly values education, sees self as a life-long learner. 9)Is approximately of my generation, not either a mother or a daughter, chronologically or spiritually. 10)Being a great cook is "a consummation devoutly to be wished"(to borrow words from William Shakespeare), but is not an absolute requirement. Still, women should honor the old adage that the way to a man's heart is through his stomach.
If we divorce our marriage partners for having personal failures ABC which we do not like, and marry another, that second marriage partner may well not have failures ABC, but could well have personal failures XYZ, which we also do not like. Nobody anywhere "has it all, says it all and does it all" perfectly at all times, from A to Z. The same as what President Abraham Lincoln once said about fooling people, should also be said about pleasing people: "You can please some people all the time; you can please all people some of the time, BUT YOU CAN'T PLEASE ALL THE PEOPLE ALL THE TIME." Persons considering divorce should keep this thought always in the forefront of their minds.
When Richard Nixon was this nation's President, there occurred a vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court. To fill that vacancy, President Nixon chose judge G. Harrold Carswell of Florida. But as the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee was looking over his record as a judge and a lawyer, they said it was mediocre. Yessirree, MEE-DEE-OCRE!--whereupon, Senator Roman Hrushka of Nebraska, a committee member, said with an apologetic demeanor, "THERE ARE A LOT OF MEDIOCRE JUDGES AND LAWYERS IN THE COUNTRY! GIVE MEDIOCRITY A LITTLE REPRESENTATION!"
Divorce results when we say, "My husand/my wife is MEE-DEE-OCRE!", and we refuse to give mediocrity any representation in them. Then-news anchorman Eric Sevareid has the answer to this: if you have a baseball game in progress, and the batter hits the ball into the out-field, and the out-fielder always catches the ball, THATS BORING! On the other hand, if you have an out-fielder who sometimes misses the ball, THAT MAKES THE GAME MORE INTERESTING! So it also is, with the game of marriage.
-LKM
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Sports: A Politically-Incorrect Christian Perspective
The Bible says in Romans 12:2, "Be ye not conformed to this world, but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind."
The objective of sports contests is to beat out other individuals or teams of persons in some athletic endeavor, in order to confer prestige upon the self at the expense of the repute of others. It is no less than an attempt to prove before men, WHO one is. One of the Ten Commandments is: THOU SHALT HAVE NO OTHER GODS BEFORE ME. Self-deification is therefore a sin against this divine mandate.
For the Christian, once it is proven, both to one's self and to other people, WHOSE one is, it is of virtually no importance by comparison, to prove WHO one is. Inasmuch as supremacies of physical strength and prowess can be used for wicked evil, as well as for noble virtue, Christians should not give much moral priority to this kind of self-identity in the opinion of other people. And indeed, as salvation is all His work and none of our own, we have nothing in ourselves about which to boast, concerning our salvation. Indeed, God chooses the lowly, to bring down the high and mighty of this world, so NONE will boast before Him. I Corinthians 1:18-31.
It is a disgraceful shame, that most Christian churches in America today end their worship services some time between noon and 1 PM, so that congregants can arrive home just in time to turn on Sunday afternoon sports contests on TV. This is most definitely conformity to the world, and indicates that most people who call themselves "Christians" are not truly saved. Were all Christian churches to hold Sunday worship services in the afternoons(and some thankfully do), it would be interesting to see how many church congregants would THEN show up for worship services.
Jesus Christ warned that not everyone saying to Him "Lord, Lord" will inherit His kingdom, but just those who do His will. He also warned that the road to destruction is broad, and many go therein; but, narrow is the road to salvation, and few there be who find it. Surely, self-deification is on the broad road to destruction, contrary to the will of God.
-LKM
The objective of sports contests is to beat out other individuals or teams of persons in some athletic endeavor, in order to confer prestige upon the self at the expense of the repute of others. It is no less than an attempt to prove before men, WHO one is. One of the Ten Commandments is: THOU SHALT HAVE NO OTHER GODS BEFORE ME. Self-deification is therefore a sin against this divine mandate.
For the Christian, once it is proven, both to one's self and to other people, WHOSE one is, it is of virtually no importance by comparison, to prove WHO one is. Inasmuch as supremacies of physical strength and prowess can be used for wicked evil, as well as for noble virtue, Christians should not give much moral priority to this kind of self-identity in the opinion of other people. And indeed, as salvation is all His work and none of our own, we have nothing in ourselves about which to boast, concerning our salvation. Indeed, God chooses the lowly, to bring down the high and mighty of this world, so NONE will boast before Him. I Corinthians 1:18-31.
It is a disgraceful shame, that most Christian churches in America today end their worship services some time between noon and 1 PM, so that congregants can arrive home just in time to turn on Sunday afternoon sports contests on TV. This is most definitely conformity to the world, and indicates that most people who call themselves "Christians" are not truly saved. Were all Christian churches to hold Sunday worship services in the afternoons(and some thankfully do), it would be interesting to see how many church congregants would THEN show up for worship services.
Jesus Christ warned that not everyone saying to Him "Lord, Lord" will inherit His kingdom, but just those who do His will. He also warned that the road to destruction is broad, and many go therein; but, narrow is the road to salvation, and few there be who find it. Surely, self-deification is on the broad road to destruction, contrary to the will of God.
-LKM
Saturday, December 5, 2009
LKM New American Flag Proposal
Down with political correctness! This pernicious doctrine is of Communist origin, Mao Tse-T'ung wrote of it in his Little Red Book, calling it "right thinking". Its purpose is to politically intimidate people out of speaking their honest minds, especially concerning those "hot-button" topics about which we all care so profoundly. This political phenomenon is most relevant in the discussion of mankind's five universally-favorite topics: money, sex, politics, sports and religion.
The notion of political correctness has become such a pervasive threat to American Constitutional freedom, that it is high time America adopted a new flag in rebuttal to it. I suggest we continue to have the fifty white stars on the blue field in the upper left-hand corner, even as we have with the current American flag. However, in place of the red and white stripes, we should have a white field, upon which is emblazoned the red letters "PC" inside of a red circle. A blue diagonal stripe should be placed across the red PC letters, signifying American collctive rejection of the political correctness doctrine.
This flag is completely consistent with American historic tradition. This nation was founded by dissenters who were looked upon by the rulers of their Old World countries of origin as being "politically incorrect". Our Constitution, accordingly, makes provision for dissent from popular opinion under the ruberic of the First Amendment. The Bill of Rights is to be extended to individuals, to exercise as they see fit, free of coercion to the contrary either by government or by collective majority opinion.
Thomas Jefferson was totally correct in saying that timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the boisterous sea of liberty. Let us Americans not be cowards, to prefer that boisterous sea of liberty today. Freedom begins at home, and we must practice at home the same ideals for which we expend American lives and resources on behalf of foreign countries abroad.
-LKM
The notion of political correctness has become such a pervasive threat to American Constitutional freedom, that it is high time America adopted a new flag in rebuttal to it. I suggest we continue to have the fifty white stars on the blue field in the upper left-hand corner, even as we have with the current American flag. However, in place of the red and white stripes, we should have a white field, upon which is emblazoned the red letters "PC" inside of a red circle. A blue diagonal stripe should be placed across the red PC letters, signifying American collctive rejection of the political correctness doctrine.
This flag is completely consistent with American historic tradition. This nation was founded by dissenters who were looked upon by the rulers of their Old World countries of origin as being "politically incorrect". Our Constitution, accordingly, makes provision for dissent from popular opinion under the ruberic of the First Amendment. The Bill of Rights is to be extended to individuals, to exercise as they see fit, free of coercion to the contrary either by government or by collective majority opinion.
Thomas Jefferson was totally correct in saying that timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the boisterous sea of liberty. Let us Americans not be cowards, to prefer that boisterous sea of liberty today. Freedom begins at home, and we must practice at home the same ideals for which we expend American lives and resources on behalf of foreign countries abroad.
-LKM
Monday, November 16, 2009
God Also Is "Politically Incorrect"
"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways", saith the Lord. "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts higher than your thoughts." (Isaiah 55:8-9)
"If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you. If ye were of the world, the world would love its own: but because I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. Remember the word that I said unto you, 'The servant is not greater than his lord.' If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also. But all these things will they do unto you for my name's sake, because they know not Him Who sent me. If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now, they have no cloak for their sin. He that hates me hates my Father also. If I had not done among them the works which no other man did, they had not had sin; but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father. But this comes to pass, that the Word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, 'They hated me without a cause.'" (John 15:18-25)
"And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect will of God. (Romans 12:2)
The Bible makes it perfectly clear that God is of a totally different mind that that of mortal men. This is because man is by basic nature sinful, a morally fallen creature who was not originally in this state: in the Garden of Eden, man was spiritually at one with God until the evil tempter destroyed this unity. Man, not God, caused this spiritual gap between the two. The Bible reveals to the reader God's plan to restore this fellowship with Him.
Politics is a human invention. By comparison, through the lens of human spiritual reference, God appears to be out-of-line with human desires, ambitions, and objectives. But it is the obligation of man, and not that of God, to modify his will to meet that of God. In no way can man bargain with God, in such a way as to persuade God to compromise. In his natural morally-fallen state, man by his powers alone simply cannot accomplish reconcilliation with God on His terms. (Romans 9:13-23) The humanly-incorrigible incorrectness is that of man, not that of God.
The notion of "political correctness" is one of Communist origin. China's late Chairman Mao Tse-T'ung wrote of it in his Little Red Book, calling it "right thinking". It is born of a human ideology which incontrovertibly denies God and His word. In this sense of human reference, God's Word, in its infinitely disparate state from it, is seen by mortal men as being extremely "politically incorrect". But men's ideas are merely temporary, while God's Truth is eternal, and thus forever divinely correct! Amen!
-Lawrence K. Marsh
"If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you. If ye were of the world, the world would love its own: but because I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. Remember the word that I said unto you, 'The servant is not greater than his lord.' If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also. But all these things will they do unto you for my name's sake, because they know not Him Who sent me. If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now, they have no cloak for their sin. He that hates me hates my Father also. If I had not done among them the works which no other man did, they had not had sin; but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father. But this comes to pass, that the Word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, 'They hated me without a cause.'" (John 15:18-25)
"And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect will of God. (Romans 12:2)
The Bible makes it perfectly clear that God is of a totally different mind that that of mortal men. This is because man is by basic nature sinful, a morally fallen creature who was not originally in this state: in the Garden of Eden, man was spiritually at one with God until the evil tempter destroyed this unity. Man, not God, caused this spiritual gap between the two. The Bible reveals to the reader God's plan to restore this fellowship with Him.
Politics is a human invention. By comparison, through the lens of human spiritual reference, God appears to be out-of-line with human desires, ambitions, and objectives. But it is the obligation of man, and not that of God, to modify his will to meet that of God. In no way can man bargain with God, in such a way as to persuade God to compromise. In his natural morally-fallen state, man by his powers alone simply cannot accomplish reconcilliation with God on His terms. (Romans 9:13-23) The humanly-incorrigible incorrectness is that of man, not that of God.
The notion of "political correctness" is one of Communist origin. China's late Chairman Mao Tse-T'ung wrote of it in his Little Red Book, calling it "right thinking". It is born of a human ideology which incontrovertibly denies God and His word. In this sense of human reference, God's Word, in its infinitely disparate state from it, is seen by mortal men as being extremely "politically incorrect". But men's ideas are merely temporary, while God's Truth is eternal, and thus forever divinely correct! Amen!
-Lawrence K. Marsh
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Tongue-Tied America: A True National Crisis In Education
Today, we live in a world constantly shrinking, brought about by vastly-improving communications and transportation. Persons of language- and nation- backgrounds of which many of the rest of us knew decades ago but vaguely, if at all, are now becoming our near neighbors. Those of us descended from forefathers who also lived on this soil generations ago, are baffled to hear of such languages as Tamil, Aymara, Guarani, Yoruba, Zulu, etc. At the same time, first-generation foreign immigrants to America are equally-baffled, if their nation had no previous historic relation to other nations, and are not inclined to learn the other's language for the sake of getting acquainted in this salad-bowl land called America: The Hispanic will learn Hindi, the Chinese will learn Arabic, and and the Frenchman will learn Malay-Indonesian when pigs fly. Yet every one of these afore-mentioned languages are major in the world scene, being used by well over one hundred million people.
The computer virtually assures to English the number-one position as the world's premier international language. Furthermore, that position is further-guaranteed by the vast number of languages from which English borrows. Nevertheless, this fact does not presage the disappearance of other languages from the face of this earth any time soon, especially those languages which are written, have a long tradition of literature, and whose speakers number in the several or many millions. Therefore, living in a multi-lingual world and knowing only one language is like living in a huge multi-chambered mansion and yet staying only in one room.
Thinking in terms of another language is not just an idle exercise in lexical translation only. It is looking at the world around us through a different prism, a different perspective, from that which we know in terms of our own language. Very often, any given language will have vocabulary items not precisely translatable into other languages, because said vocabulary items refer to experiences more-or-less unique to the society of speakers of the language in question. Sometimes, too, ideas common to all people may be expressed differently from one language to the next, as the society may have a unique perspective on the matter. For example, there are several Asian languages which have two distinct personal pronouns for the first person plural "we": listener included, or listener excluded. In Tamil, the notion of possession is differentiated between whether the possessor is actually the owner of the item possessed, or whether a third party possesses the item, and it is just temporarily in the possessor's keeping. In Hindi, possession is indicated in three ways: is the thing possessed an abstract concept? Is the thing possessed readily transferable from one person to another, or not? In Russian, if you care to announce your success in accomplishing a particular task, you use a separate verb to indicate that you got it accomplished within a time limit, as distinguished from saying you had the physical strength and/or mental acumen to accomplish the task. Especially fascinating is the phenomenon of gematria in Arabic and Hebrew: this is the assignment of numerical values to each letter of their respective alphabets, and is associated with messaging in religious concepts. For example, Hebrew: the gematria of "KHAY"(the word for "life") is 18. We live best when we are closest to God. If we add up the number of festive days commanded by the Torah, we find for the Passover, 7 days; for the Shavuot, one day; for Rosh Hashanah, one day; for Yom Kippur, one day; for the Sukkot, 7 days; and for Shemini Atzeret, 1 day. Total of all holy days=18. They are both life on this earth and a preview of life to come, as we live closest to God on those days.
So, speakers of other languages do not all look at the world the same way. This creates a serious communication gap which may not always be successfully bridged by English alone. Decades ago, there was a standing joke about computer translation of one language to another. Enter into the computer in one language, "the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak". Translation into the other language: "The liquor is great but the meat is atrocious." Can computers be programmed to have the same contextual intuition the human mind has? Maybe. But many jobs requiring such intuition, now occupied by human beings, will not be totally filled by computers any time soon.
At the present time, many universities and colleges are making progress in the quality and quantity of foreign languages they teach. But the preparatory public junior high and high schools are a very different story. This is just at the crucial time when younger people are more capable than older adults to learn a foreign language; and yet, for the 21st century, the foreign language instruction curriculae in most secondary schools is altogether inadequate and unsatisfactory.
All too often, the justifications given for studying foreign languages in educational institutions are negative: some other country is a military/ideological threat to us, or else it is a major economic competitor. An institution truly interested in academic excellence for its own sake should offer study of language for reason of positive scientific, technological and cultural contribution a particular peoples and civilization have made to the world scene. What can we learn, too, by examination of the literature of other languages? What, even, can we learn about the history of peoples, by comparison of historically-related or geographically-proximate languages? For example, the Western Romance languages--French, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese and Catalan--evolved from ancient Latin more-or-less together. But "that other" Romance language--that Eastern one called Romanian--while also definitely of Latin origin, is distinctly different in grammar from the Western languages. What does this tell us about the history of the Roman Empire? And why do two closely-related Western Romance languages--Italian and Spanish--have the same words for "father" and "mother"(i.e. padre and madre), and yet have divergent words for "brother", also a familial kinship word: "fratello" in Italian, but "hermano" in Spanish? And how do the two languages have the same word for "sky"--"cielo"--albeit pronounced slightly differently--and yet their words for "bird"--that animal which flies through the sky--is different between the two languages: "uccello" for Italian, and "pajaro" for Spanish. From whence come these lexical divergences, if both languages are derived from Latin? And why divergence on these vocabulary items and not on others? Investigation into such scholarly questions as these, for what light they can shed on past human history, ought to be the real , positive reasons justifying the study of various languages in public schools, and not the negative reasons relating to politics and economics.
America misses many opportunities for improved relationships with the rest of the world, through its collective non-acquaintance of various foreign languages. Even our own English would be given a great lift of appreciation through the study of foreign languages, when the extent of foreign language contribution to it is seen. Honey attracts more flies than vinegar, and were America to sell its manufactured products abroad in the language of the local folks, they may get more customers, once the prospective customers understand in their language properly, what is the purpose of the item being sold. This, as opposed to the linguistic and cultural embarrassments American corporations have faced abroad in the past, by not packaging their products in terms of correct linguistic jargon of the local populace. To be sure, proper language packaging of American products alone does not guarantee a sale abroad, the item itself might be culturally offensive to other societies. For example, no reference to pigs and alcoholic beverage in Islamic countries, please! Some American TV shows sent to Islamic countries have had to thusly modify their content, in order to be popular there.
In summary, the ability to communicate through knowledge of other languages is crucial to the ability of the American nation to live in good harmony with the rest of the world. Even though English is the linguistic "king of the world", it is still true that the more languages each of us knows, the more access to knowledge and understanding of the perspectives of other peoples in the world we have. It should be added that mere understanding between governments is not sufficient to create a true climate of friendship between nations: the ordinary common people of the various countries, too, must take some degree of responsibility for the creation of good will between the denizens of the various countries through foreign language-learning.
The United States of America is not by far and away the only country failing to acceed to all possibilities in international relations improvement through knowledge of other languages: other nations are also undoubtedly just as guilty, and there is universally a certain amount of "Archie Bunker" in everybody. The author of this article, for example, is not holding his breath for a definitively scholarly book on the history of the United States to be written by a Chinese or a Japanese any time soon, despite the fact that both East Asian peoples in significant numbers have chosen to make America their home. Nevertheless, America and the American people, as the world's last standing global power, would do well to take the initiative to set the example to the rest of the world.
-Lawrence K. Marsh
The computer virtually assures to English the number-one position as the world's premier international language. Furthermore, that position is further-guaranteed by the vast number of languages from which English borrows. Nevertheless, this fact does not presage the disappearance of other languages from the face of this earth any time soon, especially those languages which are written, have a long tradition of literature, and whose speakers number in the several or many millions. Therefore, living in a multi-lingual world and knowing only one language is like living in a huge multi-chambered mansion and yet staying only in one room.
Thinking in terms of another language is not just an idle exercise in lexical translation only. It is looking at the world around us through a different prism, a different perspective, from that which we know in terms of our own language. Very often, any given language will have vocabulary items not precisely translatable into other languages, because said vocabulary items refer to experiences more-or-less unique to the society of speakers of the language in question. Sometimes, too, ideas common to all people may be expressed differently from one language to the next, as the society may have a unique perspective on the matter. For example, there are several Asian languages which have two distinct personal pronouns for the first person plural "we": listener included, or listener excluded. In Tamil, the notion of possession is differentiated between whether the possessor is actually the owner of the item possessed, or whether a third party possesses the item, and it is just temporarily in the possessor's keeping. In Hindi, possession is indicated in three ways: is the thing possessed an abstract concept? Is the thing possessed readily transferable from one person to another, or not? In Russian, if you care to announce your success in accomplishing a particular task, you use a separate verb to indicate that you got it accomplished within a time limit, as distinguished from saying you had the physical strength and/or mental acumen to accomplish the task. Especially fascinating is the phenomenon of gematria in Arabic and Hebrew: this is the assignment of numerical values to each letter of their respective alphabets, and is associated with messaging in religious concepts. For example, Hebrew: the gematria of "KHAY"(the word for "life") is 18. We live best when we are closest to God. If we add up the number of festive days commanded by the Torah, we find for the Passover, 7 days; for the Shavuot, one day; for Rosh Hashanah, one day; for Yom Kippur, one day; for the Sukkot, 7 days; and for Shemini Atzeret, 1 day. Total of all holy days=18. They are both life on this earth and a preview of life to come, as we live closest to God on those days.
So, speakers of other languages do not all look at the world the same way. This creates a serious communication gap which may not always be successfully bridged by English alone. Decades ago, there was a standing joke about computer translation of one language to another. Enter into the computer in one language, "the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak". Translation into the other language: "The liquor is great but the meat is atrocious." Can computers be programmed to have the same contextual intuition the human mind has? Maybe. But many jobs requiring such intuition, now occupied by human beings, will not be totally filled by computers any time soon.
At the present time, many universities and colleges are making progress in the quality and quantity of foreign languages they teach. But the preparatory public junior high and high schools are a very different story. This is just at the crucial time when younger people are more capable than older adults to learn a foreign language; and yet, for the 21st century, the foreign language instruction curriculae in most secondary schools is altogether inadequate and unsatisfactory.
All too often, the justifications given for studying foreign languages in educational institutions are negative: some other country is a military/ideological threat to us, or else it is a major economic competitor. An institution truly interested in academic excellence for its own sake should offer study of language for reason of positive scientific, technological and cultural contribution a particular peoples and civilization have made to the world scene. What can we learn, too, by examination of the literature of other languages? What, even, can we learn about the history of peoples, by comparison of historically-related or geographically-proximate languages? For example, the Western Romance languages--French, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese and Catalan--evolved from ancient Latin more-or-less together. But "that other" Romance language--that Eastern one called Romanian--while also definitely of Latin origin, is distinctly different in grammar from the Western languages. What does this tell us about the history of the Roman Empire? And why do two closely-related Western Romance languages--Italian and Spanish--have the same words for "father" and "mother"(i.e. padre and madre), and yet have divergent words for "brother", also a familial kinship word: "fratello" in Italian, but "hermano" in Spanish? And how do the two languages have the same word for "sky"--"cielo"--albeit pronounced slightly differently--and yet their words for "bird"--that animal which flies through the sky--is different between the two languages: "uccello" for Italian, and "pajaro" for Spanish. From whence come these lexical divergences, if both languages are derived from Latin? And why divergence on these vocabulary items and not on others? Investigation into such scholarly questions as these, for what light they can shed on past human history, ought to be the real , positive reasons justifying the study of various languages in public schools, and not the negative reasons relating to politics and economics.
America misses many opportunities for improved relationships with the rest of the world, through its collective non-acquaintance of various foreign languages. Even our own English would be given a great lift of appreciation through the study of foreign languages, when the extent of foreign language contribution to it is seen. Honey attracts more flies than vinegar, and were America to sell its manufactured products abroad in the language of the local folks, they may get more customers, once the prospective customers understand in their language properly, what is the purpose of the item being sold. This, as opposed to the linguistic and cultural embarrassments American corporations have faced abroad in the past, by not packaging their products in terms of correct linguistic jargon of the local populace. To be sure, proper language packaging of American products alone does not guarantee a sale abroad, the item itself might be culturally offensive to other societies. For example, no reference to pigs and alcoholic beverage in Islamic countries, please! Some American TV shows sent to Islamic countries have had to thusly modify their content, in order to be popular there.
In summary, the ability to communicate through knowledge of other languages is crucial to the ability of the American nation to live in good harmony with the rest of the world. Even though English is the linguistic "king of the world", it is still true that the more languages each of us knows, the more access to knowledge and understanding of the perspectives of other peoples in the world we have. It should be added that mere understanding between governments is not sufficient to create a true climate of friendship between nations: the ordinary common people of the various countries, too, must take some degree of responsibility for the creation of good will between the denizens of the various countries through foreign language-learning.
The United States of America is not by far and away the only country failing to acceed to all possibilities in international relations improvement through knowledge of other languages: other nations are also undoubtedly just as guilty, and there is universally a certain amount of "Archie Bunker" in everybody. The author of this article, for example, is not holding his breath for a definitively scholarly book on the history of the United States to be written by a Chinese or a Japanese any time soon, despite the fact that both East Asian peoples in significant numbers have chosen to make America their home. Nevertheless, America and the American people, as the world's last standing global power, would do well to take the initiative to set the example to the rest of the world.
-Lawrence K. Marsh
Sunday, July 26, 2009
The Gender Relationships Question
This will be the shortest of articles in LKM Speaks Out. That is because all that needs to be said on this issue was once succinctly said by the famous late-great Hollywood movie star, John Wayne. The Duke had this to say on gender relations: "Women can do anything they want to----as long as they have supper ready for us men when we come home from work." Amen!
Saturday, July 18, 2009
The U.S. Supreme Court: Not So Very Supreme
The United States Supreme Court, a supposedly auguste and grim symbol of the nation's highest and best justice, bears the words EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW on its front doorway entrance, to tell all who would look upon this noble mantra that the high court means business, in the business of righting all of society's wrongs of Constitutional significance. There, the casual visitor also sees the magnificent godess of justice, with her blindfold over her eyes, holding a sword in one hand, and a set of balance-scales in the other, to accomplish this task with the utmost of impartial finesse.
There exists a great chasm between image and reality, however. Are highly-educated judges, very humanly fallible despite their impressive backgrounds in legal-eagledom, up to the task for which they were supposedly appointed and confirmed? Are they truly proverbial shadows of God on earth? Former New York governor Al Smith once said, "Let's look at the record." So, let us, the American people, not fear to judge the judges!
To begin with, it costs $3000, just to file a case with the high court. The court justices agree to hear only 1% or fewer of all petitions presented to it, usually only on appeal from a series of lower courts. This represents a financial expense prohibitive to the average American citizen, with odds most likely that the cost of filing a petition to the high court will be for nought. Not many of us have that kind of money to just throw away, and this presents great discouragement to those who may even rightly deserve by constitutional standards to have their cases heard. Justice before the nation's highest bar of justice is only for rich people, and for wealthy institutions, organizations, and for various political entities.
Some justices of the Supreme Court believe it acceptable, even desirable, to sacrifice American sovereignty by traitorously looking to foreign law, as a guide to decide issues of U.S. Constitutional importance. Would that such justices had been among the first brave American patriots who knew what it meant, to take up the gun and fight for this nation's independence from Great Britain in the latter half of the 18th century. The blood of such noble patriots cries out for divine revenge against those on the high court bench, who would betray that for which the same-said courageous souls gave their lives at Cambridge, the Boston Commons, Lexington, Concord, Valley Forge, Yorktown and elsewhere, so that this fledgling young nation might be free of all foreign control.
Other justices of the Supreme Court believe the Constitution should be played with, like a piece of legal Silly-Putty, as they read into that founding document values and concepts not explicitly stated in its text, per se. Perhaps the most infamous example of this legislating from the bench is the pernicious doctrine of "separation of church and state". It is to be granted that our ability today to discern the original intent of the Constitution's authors is very limited. It is also to be granted that the wording of certain provisions of the Constitution may be applied to modern contemporary situations not foreseen at the time by the founding fathers. Indeed, they provided for an amendment process, acknowledging their own inability to foresee the nation's future, and know at the time, what would be most beneficial to future generations of Americans. Nevertheless, the words "separation of church and state" appear nowhere in the text of the Constitution, to suggest that high court decisions should be made only after a thorough inspection of the Bible, to insure that no Biblical values and concepts should be included therein. The First Amendment mandates that legislatures shall make no law which interferes with religious freedom per se. That is very different, from attempt to kick God completely out of all public consciousness, and out of all public life. Instead, government is mandated to remain neutral towards, not hostile towards, religion, i.e. refraining from using its coercive powers to come between a man and his conscience, between a man and his god. In short, any area of human legal concern not explicitly addressed in the text of the U.S. Constitution is to be left to the legislatures to resolve. Judges are not to legislate from the bench, injecting into their rulings their personally-felt preferences in place of the Constitution's textual requirements. Indeed, even with words explicitly present in the text of the Constitution, judges still say words mean only what they, the judges, say they mean, and at least in this sense, they remain guilty of judicial activism.
Congress is often grievously egregious, in its attempt to destroy the independence of the judiciary, and make it a mere auxilliary adjunct to the legislature. That is, when the U.S. Senate considers a presidential appointment to the high court, it will usually try to coerce the judicial nominee to promise in advance to rule a certain way on certain issues(most notably, abortion), as a corrupt quid-pro-quo of winning the Senator's confirming vote. Such practice in the U.S. Senate should not be tolerated by the American people. Rather, the job of the Senate should be confined to the ascertainment of the nominee's academic excellence in jurisprudence, as well as a record of previous legal service demonstrating unquestionable impartiality.
In summary, the American people are thoroughly justified to feel a complete lack of confidence in their ability to get justice from the highest court in the land. Its historic record reveals decisions which have done more socio-political damage to America, than any bomb-throwing college campus terrorists. Perhaps it is best, that we leave the slogan, "IN GOD WE TRUST" on our money, as we certainly cannot trust men for anything even vaguely approaching His absolute divine justice.
-Lawrence K. Marsh
There exists a great chasm between image and reality, however. Are highly-educated judges, very humanly fallible despite their impressive backgrounds in legal-eagledom, up to the task for which they were supposedly appointed and confirmed? Are they truly proverbial shadows of God on earth? Former New York governor Al Smith once said, "Let's look at the record." So, let us, the American people, not fear to judge the judges!
To begin with, it costs $3000, just to file a case with the high court. The court justices agree to hear only 1% or fewer of all petitions presented to it, usually only on appeal from a series of lower courts. This represents a financial expense prohibitive to the average American citizen, with odds most likely that the cost of filing a petition to the high court will be for nought. Not many of us have that kind of money to just throw away, and this presents great discouragement to those who may even rightly deserve by constitutional standards to have their cases heard. Justice before the nation's highest bar of justice is only for rich people, and for wealthy institutions, organizations, and for various political entities.
Some justices of the Supreme Court believe it acceptable, even desirable, to sacrifice American sovereignty by traitorously looking to foreign law, as a guide to decide issues of U.S. Constitutional importance. Would that such justices had been among the first brave American patriots who knew what it meant, to take up the gun and fight for this nation's independence from Great Britain in the latter half of the 18th century. The blood of such noble patriots cries out for divine revenge against those on the high court bench, who would betray that for which the same-said courageous souls gave their lives at Cambridge, the Boston Commons, Lexington, Concord, Valley Forge, Yorktown and elsewhere, so that this fledgling young nation might be free of all foreign control.
Other justices of the Supreme Court believe the Constitution should be played with, like a piece of legal Silly-Putty, as they read into that founding document values and concepts not explicitly stated in its text, per se. Perhaps the most infamous example of this legislating from the bench is the pernicious doctrine of "separation of church and state". It is to be granted that our ability today to discern the original intent of the Constitution's authors is very limited. It is also to be granted that the wording of certain provisions of the Constitution may be applied to modern contemporary situations not foreseen at the time by the founding fathers. Indeed, they provided for an amendment process, acknowledging their own inability to foresee the nation's future, and know at the time, what would be most beneficial to future generations of Americans. Nevertheless, the words "separation of church and state" appear nowhere in the text of the Constitution, to suggest that high court decisions should be made only after a thorough inspection of the Bible, to insure that no Biblical values and concepts should be included therein. The First Amendment mandates that legislatures shall make no law which interferes with religious freedom per se. That is very different, from attempt to kick God completely out of all public consciousness, and out of all public life. Instead, government is mandated to remain neutral towards, not hostile towards, religion, i.e. refraining from using its coercive powers to come between a man and his conscience, between a man and his god. In short, any area of human legal concern not explicitly addressed in the text of the U.S. Constitution is to be left to the legislatures to resolve. Judges are not to legislate from the bench, injecting into their rulings their personally-felt preferences in place of the Constitution's textual requirements. Indeed, even with words explicitly present in the text of the Constitution, judges still say words mean only what they, the judges, say they mean, and at least in this sense, they remain guilty of judicial activism.
Congress is often grievously egregious, in its attempt to destroy the independence of the judiciary, and make it a mere auxilliary adjunct to the legislature. That is, when the U.S. Senate considers a presidential appointment to the high court, it will usually try to coerce the judicial nominee to promise in advance to rule a certain way on certain issues(most notably, abortion), as a corrupt quid-pro-quo of winning the Senator's confirming vote. Such practice in the U.S. Senate should not be tolerated by the American people. Rather, the job of the Senate should be confined to the ascertainment of the nominee's academic excellence in jurisprudence, as well as a record of previous legal service demonstrating unquestionable impartiality.
In summary, the American people are thoroughly justified to feel a complete lack of confidence in their ability to get justice from the highest court in the land. Its historic record reveals decisions which have done more socio-political damage to America, than any bomb-throwing college campus terrorists. Perhaps it is best, that we leave the slogan, "IN GOD WE TRUST" on our money, as we certainly cannot trust men for anything even vaguely approaching His absolute divine justice.
-Lawrence K. Marsh
Monday, July 13, 2009
Ethnic Minority America Cuts Its Own Political Throat
It is no secret, that most Hispanics and black African Americans vote knee-jerk for liberal Democrats, in hopes of being able to secure their own civil rights and prosperity. They make a faulty presumption that ever bigger government will give them more personal freedom. NOT SO!
Former President Ronald Reagan once said that government has a tendency not to solve problems, but merely to re-arrange them. This is true of slavery. It was supposedly abolished with the passage of the 13th amendment to the Constitution, when in fact, slavery was not abolished, but merely re-arranged. In 1900, "tax freedom day"--the day when Americans stop working to earn money to pay their taxes in support of their governments and start working to keep the fruits of their labor for themselves--came at the end of January. Today, it does not come for most Americans until the end of April, and "tax freedom day" threatens to be pushed back ever later into the year, as government grows and becomes ever-more expensive. Americans of all races and colors are thus to an increasing extent denied the right to keep the fruits of their own labors for themselves, and use them according to their own wishes. It is indeed a basic civil right, for people to be able to dispose of the fruits of their own labors as THEY see fit, rather than as government sees fit.
Ethnic minority persons very rightly clamor for and demand their God-given rights, they are altogether justified to do this. However, their approach towards this goal is all wrong. By voting for liberal politicians--mostly Democrats, but RINOs too--they are voting for the continuation of one of America's most sinful and egregious practices: ABORTION.
It is known, that most Planned Parenthood abortion clinics are set up in black and Hispanic neighborhoods. It is also known, that proportionately, more black and Hispanic babies are aborted, than are white babies. Planned Parenthood was started originally by Margaret Sanger, a woman who was an admirer of Adolf Hitler and his race theories. The original purpose behind abortion had nothing to do with women's rights; rather, Margaret Sanger had in mind the limitation of reproduction of races of people deemed "not fit to live", because they were allegedly diseased and/or defective one way or another. Today, under the pretense of supporting women's rights, the liberal Democrats--and RINOs too--support this shameful practice of abortion, even to the extent of compelling the tax payer to support it with tax money, even if for reason of religious belief the tax payer opposes abortion.
Again, black and Hispanic America is absolutely right to see their rights as God-given, not man-given, and thus not negotiable with any men anywhere. But if we do not have, first and foremost, the right to life, we can just forget about all the other rights ethnic minority persons might otherwise enjoy. Ethnic minority America makes a most grave mistake, to fail to realize this truth, and continue to perennially put into office with their votes those politicians who are pro-abortion. There is no doubt about it, abortion devalues and depriviledges all human life. With human life thus cheapened, there is no way those races of people most heavily victimized by abortion can possibly feel themselves to be worth anything.
The institution of marriage is also under severe attack from Democrats and RINOs, as quick-easy divorce laws enacted by them encourage the dissolution of marriage for light and transient causes. What is badly needed for ethnic minority America is re-commitment to strong family values, beginning with a solid and uncompromising commitment to the institution of marriage. Much of the source of ethnic minority social troubles can be summed up in three words: DAD NOT HOME. Ethnic minority America definitely votes to cut its own political throat, by voting for liberal politicians who sneer at traditional Bible-based marriage and other associated family values.
It is time for black America to come off the liberal Democrat plantation. Agreement to the proposition that government knows best, rather than I know best, what is best for me, is merely a warmed-over version of the "yassuh, massuh" response of the black slave to his white master prior to the Civil War. By voting for "liberal" politicians, black and Hispanic America is cutting its own collective political throat. It is a universal truism that as government power waxes, human freedom wanes. The sooner ethnic minority America awakens to this reality and starts voting at the polls accordingly, the better.
-Lawrence K. Marsh
Former President Ronald Reagan once said that government has a tendency not to solve problems, but merely to re-arrange them. This is true of slavery. It was supposedly abolished with the passage of the 13th amendment to the Constitution, when in fact, slavery was not abolished, but merely re-arranged. In 1900, "tax freedom day"--the day when Americans stop working to earn money to pay their taxes in support of their governments and start working to keep the fruits of their labor for themselves--came at the end of January. Today, it does not come for most Americans until the end of April, and "tax freedom day" threatens to be pushed back ever later into the year, as government grows and becomes ever-more expensive. Americans of all races and colors are thus to an increasing extent denied the right to keep the fruits of their own labors for themselves, and use them according to their own wishes. It is indeed a basic civil right, for people to be able to dispose of the fruits of their own labors as THEY see fit, rather than as government sees fit.
Ethnic minority persons very rightly clamor for and demand their God-given rights, they are altogether justified to do this. However, their approach towards this goal is all wrong. By voting for liberal politicians--mostly Democrats, but RINOs too--they are voting for the continuation of one of America's most sinful and egregious practices: ABORTION.
It is known, that most Planned Parenthood abortion clinics are set up in black and Hispanic neighborhoods. It is also known, that proportionately, more black and Hispanic babies are aborted, than are white babies. Planned Parenthood was started originally by Margaret Sanger, a woman who was an admirer of Adolf Hitler and his race theories. The original purpose behind abortion had nothing to do with women's rights; rather, Margaret Sanger had in mind the limitation of reproduction of races of people deemed "not fit to live", because they were allegedly diseased and/or defective one way or another. Today, under the pretense of supporting women's rights, the liberal Democrats--and RINOs too--support this shameful practice of abortion, even to the extent of compelling the tax payer to support it with tax money, even if for reason of religious belief the tax payer opposes abortion.
Again, black and Hispanic America is absolutely right to see their rights as God-given, not man-given, and thus not negotiable with any men anywhere. But if we do not have, first and foremost, the right to life, we can just forget about all the other rights ethnic minority persons might otherwise enjoy. Ethnic minority America makes a most grave mistake, to fail to realize this truth, and continue to perennially put into office with their votes those politicians who are pro-abortion. There is no doubt about it, abortion devalues and depriviledges all human life. With human life thus cheapened, there is no way those races of people most heavily victimized by abortion can possibly feel themselves to be worth anything.
The institution of marriage is also under severe attack from Democrats and RINOs, as quick-easy divorce laws enacted by them encourage the dissolution of marriage for light and transient causes. What is badly needed for ethnic minority America is re-commitment to strong family values, beginning with a solid and uncompromising commitment to the institution of marriage. Much of the source of ethnic minority social troubles can be summed up in three words: DAD NOT HOME. Ethnic minority America definitely votes to cut its own political throat, by voting for liberal politicians who sneer at traditional Bible-based marriage and other associated family values.
It is time for black America to come off the liberal Democrat plantation. Agreement to the proposition that government knows best, rather than I know best, what is best for me, is merely a warmed-over version of the "yassuh, massuh" response of the black slave to his white master prior to the Civil War. By voting for "liberal" politicians, black and Hispanic America is cutting its own collective political throat. It is a universal truism that as government power waxes, human freedom wanes. The sooner ethnic minority America awakens to this reality and starts voting at the polls accordingly, the better.
-Lawrence K. Marsh
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Prejudice and Stereotyping Are Normal
On first glance, this essay title would be outrageously immoral and inexcusable to most people. Yet, a closer, dispassionate examination of facts in this matter would verify the truth of the title's assertion.
Firstly, a distinction should be made between "normal" and "just". Most people would agree that for the most part, we live in an unjust world, where lack of fairness is the unfortunate norm. Every disparity between people always comes across as unfair, to those on the "short end of the stick".
It is human, to attempt to interpret and discern all that which we see and hear around us, and attempt to make sense of it in terms of our own expereiences. But when it comes to judging members of a particular group of people--be the grouping based upon race, gender, religion, age or national origin--we make our assessments of other people based upon very limited knowledge and experience with that other group of people. More often than not, this is because the entire group of said people is composed of several millions of people, with all of whom we cannot possibly be closely familiar. We therefore draw our conclusions about entire groupings of people, based upon the few with whom we have had some kind of experience, PLUS what we read and hear of them through the national news media. It is to be admitted that the news media is a very powerful opinion-shaper.
Every individual person likes to show his best side to the rest of the world, in order to win its approval. This author remembers, as a boy, frequently going to a men's clothing store, in the which he always bought his clothes. In that clothing store was a three-way panel mirror, which afforded those who stood before it an opportunity to see themselves from six different sides and angles. It is not every day that each of us gets to see himself/herself from the same sides and angles from which others see us. Therefore, in some cases, it may take us by shock surprise, to understand that somebody else sees us as being something somehow less than noble, when all along, we ourselves wanted to project a glorifying and even deifying image of ourselves.
This author also remembers, long years ago, reading about the training of FBI agents at their Quantico, Virginia training base. An instructor would be lecturing to a class of prospective agents, when suddenly, a completely strange man would frantically crash into the classroom, look wildly around the room, grab an object in the room, and make a quick dash to the exit. All this would take place within a ten-second time frame. The instructor would know in advance that this incident was scheduled to happen, but he did not tell the class about it in advance. Afterwards, each student is asked to describe to the best of his ability, the man he saw, and what he saw him to do during his brief presence in the classroom. Very often, there would be considerable disparity, between what the students saw, and what they THOUGHT they saw.
Likewise, when each of us sizes up another person for the first time, there is usually a considerable gap, between what we see, and what we THINK we see.
We can all observe the outward actions and behaviours of other people; but more often than not, their motives for said actions and behaviours is anybody's guess.
Yes, prejudice and stereotyping are normal, based on a primitive human need to make sense out of the world around us. There is nobody who feels no such need and so does not act accordingly. Otherwise, people would not feel prepared at all, to respond to and deal with the world in which they live. Yet, it is to be admitted always, that our information upon which we act is both flawed and incomplete. It is all like the story of five blind men, who touched five different parts of an elephant's body, and came to five different conclusions, as to what it is that they are touching.
One dark night, when the moon was bright, two dead boys got up to fight. Back-to-back they faced each other, drew their swords and shot each other. The deaf policeman heard the noise, came and killed the two dead boys. If you don't believe this story is true, ask the blind man--he saw it, too!
-LKM
Firstly, a distinction should be made between "normal" and "just". Most people would agree that for the most part, we live in an unjust world, where lack of fairness is the unfortunate norm. Every disparity between people always comes across as unfair, to those on the "short end of the stick".
It is human, to attempt to interpret and discern all that which we see and hear around us, and attempt to make sense of it in terms of our own expereiences. But when it comes to judging members of a particular group of people--be the grouping based upon race, gender, religion, age or national origin--we make our assessments of other people based upon very limited knowledge and experience with that other group of people. More often than not, this is because the entire group of said people is composed of several millions of people, with all of whom we cannot possibly be closely familiar. We therefore draw our conclusions about entire groupings of people, based upon the few with whom we have had some kind of experience, PLUS what we read and hear of them through the national news media. It is to be admitted that the news media is a very powerful opinion-shaper.
Every individual person likes to show his best side to the rest of the world, in order to win its approval. This author remembers, as a boy, frequently going to a men's clothing store, in the which he always bought his clothes. In that clothing store was a three-way panel mirror, which afforded those who stood before it an opportunity to see themselves from six different sides and angles. It is not every day that each of us gets to see himself/herself from the same sides and angles from which others see us. Therefore, in some cases, it may take us by shock surprise, to understand that somebody else sees us as being something somehow less than noble, when all along, we ourselves wanted to project a glorifying and even deifying image of ourselves.
This author also remembers, long years ago, reading about the training of FBI agents at their Quantico, Virginia training base. An instructor would be lecturing to a class of prospective agents, when suddenly, a completely strange man would frantically crash into the classroom, look wildly around the room, grab an object in the room, and make a quick dash to the exit. All this would take place within a ten-second time frame. The instructor would know in advance that this incident was scheduled to happen, but he did not tell the class about it in advance. Afterwards, each student is asked to describe to the best of his ability, the man he saw, and what he saw him to do during his brief presence in the classroom. Very often, there would be considerable disparity, between what the students saw, and what they THOUGHT they saw.
Likewise, when each of us sizes up another person for the first time, there is usually a considerable gap, between what we see, and what we THINK we see.
We can all observe the outward actions and behaviours of other people; but more often than not, their motives for said actions and behaviours is anybody's guess.
Yes, prejudice and stereotyping are normal, based on a primitive human need to make sense out of the world around us. There is nobody who feels no such need and so does not act accordingly. Otherwise, people would not feel prepared at all, to respond to and deal with the world in which they live. Yet, it is to be admitted always, that our information upon which we act is both flawed and incomplete. It is all like the story of five blind men, who touched five different parts of an elephant's body, and came to five different conclusions, as to what it is that they are touching.
One dark night, when the moon was bright, two dead boys got up to fight. Back-to-back they faced each other, drew their swords and shot each other. The deaf policeman heard the noise, came and killed the two dead boys. If you don't believe this story is true, ask the blind man--he saw it, too!
-LKM
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
LKM On The National Immigration Issue
There can be no doubt that immigration from various countries of the world has enriched the cultural fabric of the United States of America. Some people say the racial and cultural diversity associated with immigration makes socio-political conflict inevitable, but the history of both America and other nations proves that war and conflict did occur even when their racial composition was more-or-less homogenous. In the American Civil War, for example, men of more-or-less similar racial background from both North and South engaged each other in horrific mortal conflict. It was after that dark chapter in American history came to an end, that immigration to the United States from foreign countries began in earnest.
Associated with the immigration issue is the problem of cultural assimilation, i.e. assimilation on whose terms? What shall be the cultural, spiritual and moral values of the emerging immigrant society? There is often conflict in this arena between those whose ancestral families have also lived in America for several generations, and newly-arrived foreign immigrants. It is to be admitted that the former group has a sense of ownership of the land not possessed by the latter, simply because men's historic roots are meaningful to them. Furthermore, people coming to America from foreign countries still retain in their hearts at least a latent loyalty to their former homeland, of which the native-born American is completely incapable. Many immigrants seek not a completely new life in America, but rather, a replication of their Old World habits and customs in a new physical land. With the presence of a multiplicity of nations in America, the national challenge will be to come to a common concensus of values, with which everyone can comfortably live.
The problem of illegal immigration is especially difficult. America was founded on the proposition of equal justice under law, a blind and impartial law, not recognizing distinctions of such considerations as race, sex, religion, national origin, or other non-merit factors. Amnesty for illegal immigrants threatens to destroy this notion and turn us back to an arbitrary government of men, rather than one controlled by the rule of impartial law. Most foreigners come to America from countries whose social and political institutions do not understand this concept, so it will be a major task, to persuade the new immigrants of the notion of constitutionalism, i.e. explicitly ordered government with precisely-enumerated powers and authorities.
Granting that America's core populace, i.e. those descended from the Pilgrims and the Puritans, is not completely without sins and vices of its own, the fact of increased crime and the cost it brings to America, from certain immigrant nationalities, cannot be denied or ignored in the name of political correctness. A visit to our nation's prisons would convince the most casual and impartial of observers that some ethnic groups of people are more inclined towards criminal and other anti-social behaviour than are other ethnic groups. Members of certain racial and nationality groups frequently populate American jails, while members of certain other racial and nationality groups almost never do. A serious study of this disparity and its causes is long overdue. All immigrant groups which came to America after the core populace settled here, initially came to America economically poor, linguistically challenged, culturally disadvantaged and often victimized in their new land by racial discrimination from earlier nationality groups of immigrants. Still today, there is considerable disparity of outcome between the different immigrant groups, after a century and half of being here, in terms of being societal successes or failures.
The 1970s and 1980s world of TV featured a very popular program called All In The Family, depicting the life of a socially-dysfunctional and all-too-typical lower middle-class "red-neck" American family. It very strongly resonated with millions of Americans, while deeply offending millions more. In both cases, the reason for strong emotional reaction is identical: IT HIT HOME WITH VIEWERS! Many more people are deeply offended and hurt by truth, than they are by lies. But a casual observation of various peoples all over the world will reveal a certain amount of "Archie Bunker" personality in everyone. Reconcilliation of nationality and race differences in America will thus be a major task, to which all Americans must be committed. Cultural sensitivity and appreciation must be a two-way street, not just a one-way street only.
Can a new-comer to America from a foreign land ever be "one of us"? This is certainly possible, but it would entail full understanding of who "us" is, and of the full range of sacrifices and modifications necessary for the foreign immigrant to reach that goal.
-Lawrence K. Marsh
Associated with the immigration issue is the problem of cultural assimilation, i.e. assimilation on whose terms? What shall be the cultural, spiritual and moral values of the emerging immigrant society? There is often conflict in this arena between those whose ancestral families have also lived in America for several generations, and newly-arrived foreign immigrants. It is to be admitted that the former group has a sense of ownership of the land not possessed by the latter, simply because men's historic roots are meaningful to them. Furthermore, people coming to America from foreign countries still retain in their hearts at least a latent loyalty to their former homeland, of which the native-born American is completely incapable. Many immigrants seek not a completely new life in America, but rather, a replication of their Old World habits and customs in a new physical land. With the presence of a multiplicity of nations in America, the national challenge will be to come to a common concensus of values, with which everyone can comfortably live.
The problem of illegal immigration is especially difficult. America was founded on the proposition of equal justice under law, a blind and impartial law, not recognizing distinctions of such considerations as race, sex, religion, national origin, or other non-merit factors. Amnesty for illegal immigrants threatens to destroy this notion and turn us back to an arbitrary government of men, rather than one controlled by the rule of impartial law. Most foreigners come to America from countries whose social and political institutions do not understand this concept, so it will be a major task, to persuade the new immigrants of the notion of constitutionalism, i.e. explicitly ordered government with precisely-enumerated powers and authorities.
Granting that America's core populace, i.e. those descended from the Pilgrims and the Puritans, is not completely without sins and vices of its own, the fact of increased crime and the cost it brings to America, from certain immigrant nationalities, cannot be denied or ignored in the name of political correctness. A visit to our nation's prisons would convince the most casual and impartial of observers that some ethnic groups of people are more inclined towards criminal and other anti-social behaviour than are other ethnic groups. Members of certain racial and nationality groups frequently populate American jails, while members of certain other racial and nationality groups almost never do. A serious study of this disparity and its causes is long overdue. All immigrant groups which came to America after the core populace settled here, initially came to America economically poor, linguistically challenged, culturally disadvantaged and often victimized in their new land by racial discrimination from earlier nationality groups of immigrants. Still today, there is considerable disparity of outcome between the different immigrant groups, after a century and half of being here, in terms of being societal successes or failures.
The 1970s and 1980s world of TV featured a very popular program called All In The Family, depicting the life of a socially-dysfunctional and all-too-typical lower middle-class "red-neck" American family. It very strongly resonated with millions of Americans, while deeply offending millions more. In both cases, the reason for strong emotional reaction is identical: IT HIT HOME WITH VIEWERS! Many more people are deeply offended and hurt by truth, than they are by lies. But a casual observation of various peoples all over the world will reveal a certain amount of "Archie Bunker" personality in everyone. Reconcilliation of nationality and race differences in America will thus be a major task, to which all Americans must be committed. Cultural sensitivity and appreciation must be a two-way street, not just a one-way street only.
Can a new-comer to America from a foreign land ever be "one of us"? This is certainly possible, but it would entail full understanding of who "us" is, and of the full range of sacrifices and modifications necessary for the foreign immigrant to reach that goal.
-Lawrence K. Marsh
Monday, June 29, 2009
Those "With Intent To Commit...." Laws
Should the state be granted a presumptive power to read people's minds, in order to discern the intentions of their actions? Or should criminal suspects, upon conviction, be penalized for their outward actions only?
There is always a tendency for government powers to grow, at the expense of individual liberty. Often, a previous power exercised by government will serve as a pretext to arrogate unto itself further logical extensions of that previous power. Should society exchange its liberty for its security, by condoning government pre-emptive and pro-active prior restraint of criminal behaviour, based on presumption of government to read people's minds, and act on their mere thoughts in advance?
All freedom is inherently risky business: so long as other people are free, each of us feels insecure, as to what those other people might do to us. America was not established by cowards, and its very national anthem contains the words "the land of the free and the home of the brave" to describe it. Certainly, if our neighbor points a loaded gun at us, we wish the government would exercise prior retraint upon him, to stop him from shooting us. But should the government prohibit all gun ownership, absenting any proof of intent by would-be gun owners to use the guns for clearly-illegal purposes, simply because they "might do so" otherwise? Some people say "yes", while others say "no".
Our system of law and government is based upon a presumption of innocence until guilt is clearly proven. Under such a system, the burden of proving criminal intent(mind-reading) is always upon the claimant; in most cases, the government. In absence of hard physical evidence, the thoughts of the human mind are at least difficult, if not impossible, for other men to accurately discern. Herein lies the controversy behind the passage of "hate crimes" laws.
To the extent we permit the government to arrest and penalize people just for the thoughts of their minds, to that same extent we will give up freedom. This is a system of government which bases itself upon fear, rather than upon trust. On the other hand, American law does recognize, for example, differing degrees of murder, based upon perception of the degree of intent on the part of the accused to actually take other human lives. Should this notion continue in the law, or should it be scrapped? Surely, in all cases, people are fully accountable for actions which contributed towards or led up to, the taking of other human lives. This would argue in favor of abandoning all consideration of intent in murder cases, and punishing equally for all murder, regardless of the state of mind, or even the external context, in which the murder occurs. Still, we cannot forget the horrors of a Nazi Germany or a Communist-Stalinist Russia, wherein citizens were arrested, tried and executed for allegedly "thinking thoughts against the state".
Every power afforded to government is a two-edged sword which can be used either to our benefit or to our detriment. Suppose we consider a portrait of a naked human person, should the intent context in which the portrait was created make a difference in the eyes of the law, as to whether or not the creator of the portrait is penalized? Should the law consider, whether the portrait showed up in Larry Flynt's "Hustler" magazine, as opposed to being displayed in a respectable public art gallery, and the painting is that of a famous Classical artist, who says he wishes to show man as God sees man? If we consider intent in such matters, we may risk coming to a point of saying the end justifies the means, in all matters of human behaviour. It is OK to break the law, if one is of honorable intention in doing so, we would then be saying. Indeed, the U.S. Supreme Court defined pornography as an appeal to prurient interests, "without any redeeming qualities". The problem of who defines redemption, and by what criteria, still remains.
So long as the American people wish to maintain a free society, it would be best to disregard motive, in the issue of separating legal from illegal behaviour. A society based upon the empowerment of government to read people's minds and hearts when deciding their fate at its hands is altogether terrifyingly inimical to the concept of freedom itself.
-Lawrence K. Marsh
There is always a tendency for government powers to grow, at the expense of individual liberty. Often, a previous power exercised by government will serve as a pretext to arrogate unto itself further logical extensions of that previous power. Should society exchange its liberty for its security, by condoning government pre-emptive and pro-active prior restraint of criminal behaviour, based on presumption of government to read people's minds, and act on their mere thoughts in advance?
All freedom is inherently risky business: so long as other people are free, each of us feels insecure, as to what those other people might do to us. America was not established by cowards, and its very national anthem contains the words "the land of the free and the home of the brave" to describe it. Certainly, if our neighbor points a loaded gun at us, we wish the government would exercise prior retraint upon him, to stop him from shooting us. But should the government prohibit all gun ownership, absenting any proof of intent by would-be gun owners to use the guns for clearly-illegal purposes, simply because they "might do so" otherwise? Some people say "yes", while others say "no".
Our system of law and government is based upon a presumption of innocence until guilt is clearly proven. Under such a system, the burden of proving criminal intent(mind-reading) is always upon the claimant; in most cases, the government. In absence of hard physical evidence, the thoughts of the human mind are at least difficult, if not impossible, for other men to accurately discern. Herein lies the controversy behind the passage of "hate crimes" laws.
To the extent we permit the government to arrest and penalize people just for the thoughts of their minds, to that same extent we will give up freedom. This is a system of government which bases itself upon fear, rather than upon trust. On the other hand, American law does recognize, for example, differing degrees of murder, based upon perception of the degree of intent on the part of the accused to actually take other human lives. Should this notion continue in the law, or should it be scrapped? Surely, in all cases, people are fully accountable for actions which contributed towards or led up to, the taking of other human lives. This would argue in favor of abandoning all consideration of intent in murder cases, and punishing equally for all murder, regardless of the state of mind, or even the external context, in which the murder occurs. Still, we cannot forget the horrors of a Nazi Germany or a Communist-Stalinist Russia, wherein citizens were arrested, tried and executed for allegedly "thinking thoughts against the state".
Every power afforded to government is a two-edged sword which can be used either to our benefit or to our detriment. Suppose we consider a portrait of a naked human person, should the intent context in which the portrait was created make a difference in the eyes of the law, as to whether or not the creator of the portrait is penalized? Should the law consider, whether the portrait showed up in Larry Flynt's "Hustler" magazine, as opposed to being displayed in a respectable public art gallery, and the painting is that of a famous Classical artist, who says he wishes to show man as God sees man? If we consider intent in such matters, we may risk coming to a point of saying the end justifies the means, in all matters of human behaviour. It is OK to break the law, if one is of honorable intention in doing so, we would then be saying. Indeed, the U.S. Supreme Court defined pornography as an appeal to prurient interests, "without any redeeming qualities". The problem of who defines redemption, and by what criteria, still remains.
So long as the American people wish to maintain a free society, it would be best to disregard motive, in the issue of separating legal from illegal behaviour. A society based upon the empowerment of government to read people's minds and hearts when deciding their fate at its hands is altogether terrifyingly inimical to the concept of freedom itself.
-Lawrence K. Marsh
Saturday, June 27, 2009
That Perennial "God-and-Caesar" Question!
From the beginning of this country's history, the relationship of religion to civil secular government has been, and continues to be, a topic of considerable public controversy.
The U.S. Constitution, not the Bible or any other religion's holy book, is the ruling document of this country. Nevertheless, many of the concepts brought to bear upon the formation and organization of the American government can be said to have been inspired by Bible scripture. For example, the presumption of innocence of somebody accused of a crime until guilt is proven goes back to one of the Ten Commandments saying, "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor." The notion of individual rights not rescindable either by government or by majority will is reflected in the Bible, Matthew 18:11-14, where Jesus Christ declares the supreme importance in God's eyes of every single sheep of the flock. The notion of limited and enumerated government designed to preclude the arbitrary and wicked rule of evil men is found in Jeremiah 17:9, which declares the heart of man to be desparately wicked--who could know it? The founders of America knew it, from ample experience and observation of cruel monarchies in the European Old World. In response, they gave us tripartite government, in the which no one ruler would have too much power.
Many Americans of liberal persuasion claim that the U.S. Constitution mandates complete separation of church from state. Those exact words appear nowhere in the text of the Constitution, but there is a provision in the Constitution, saying there shall exist no religious litmus test, in deciding fitness of aspirants to occupy various civil secular government offices. Also, the previous Old World experience of this nation's founders would strongly suggest that they did not want to have power and authority vested simultaneously in the same people on behalf of both the church and the civil secular state. In this sense, we must have "separation of church and state". But in a larger sense, the fact must be recognized that laws, rules and regulations are always based upon religious or anti-religious presumptions, there is no such thing as "religious neutrality" in law. And who among us would be willing to rescind from the law books all laws against theft and murder, just because "Thou shalt not kill" and "Thou shalt not steal" are found in the Ten Commandments?
What the U.S. Constitution First Amendment says is, "Congress shall make no law....concerning the establishment and free practice of religion." What this means is that government shall not use its coercive mechanisms and institutions, in order to forcibly compel anybody to participate or not participate in any religious activity. In our day, much protest has been made over various forms of religious display and exercise engaged in on public property, even when said displays and exercises were made on a completely voluntary basis. It is at least doubtful that America's founders had this interpretation of the First Amendment in mind, when they wrote it. So long as government is not resorting to coercion through the passage and enforcement of laws concerning religion, it is by no means promoting religion per se, to merely passively allow religious activity to take place on government-owned or other public property, devoid of government leadership or direction over the activity.
In recent years, proposals have been made to legally prevent certain passages from the Bible from being read in Christian churches, on the grounds that said passages supposedly constitute "hate speech". The only legally and morally appropriate answer here is that whatever a rabbi, a minister, a priest, an imam or other religious leader tells his congregants in a house of worship on the day designated by that religion for worship is none of government's business! Likewise, if both religious teachings and the civil secular government address a particularly important issue of our national life, American citizens should be absolutely free to state their opinions on said subjects without fear of retaliatory punishment from either the church or civil secular government side. Gay rights and abortion are two of several-such examples of shared interest and concern between God and Caesar.
Religious teachings are no good, unless they are translated into practical action in the outside world. The alleged bottom-line purpose for religion's existence is to make the rest of the world a better place in which all mankind can live. The Bible speaks of men not lighting candles to then only hold them under bushel-baskets. There has been debate within religious communities as to whether adherents of various religions should be fixated on making this world better, or on preparing one's self for a next life beyond this one. This author believes religion must focus on both goals, in order to be worthy of its name.
From time to time, both law courts and legislatures have changed laws, saying previous laws are "unjust". On what basis are they "unjust", if nothing higher than human standard of moral rectitude is being invoked to evaluate them? As a stark example, slavery was practiced all over the world for four millenia, before anybody began to say the practice might be wrong. Also, the notion of a legally-enforced racial equality among all races of men is a relatively recent phenomenon, not strongly in evidence anywhere in the world before the 20th century. Yet, these ideas also go back to Bible scripture: God is not a respecter of persons(Acts 10:34-35), and if we have respect to persons(i.e. discrimination), this is morally wrong(James 2:9-10). At this juncture, something must be said about the legal referent to precedent(stare decisis): How far back do men want to go in history, to decide which precedent represents the right thing to do? Does long-standing historical practice of a particular mode of behaviour, in itself, justify indefinite continuation of that practice? Again, the four-millenia slavery example must be remembered. Some Americans say too that we should not look to foreign countries as a basis for interpreting the U.S. Constitution. But the drama of the Bible unfolds in a completely different time and place from that of contemporary America. Separation of church from state, anybody?
The United States of America is not by any means a theocracy, per se. Yet, its form of government having been designed by Christians, bequeathed since that time a country where persons of all religious persuasion, and even those of no religious persuasion, could flourish far better than they might in other countries where religions outside of Christianity are dominant. That fact should always be celebrated as the "amazing grace" of the United States of America. How sweet that sound!
-Lawrence K. Marsh
The U.S. Constitution, not the Bible or any other religion's holy book, is the ruling document of this country. Nevertheless, many of the concepts brought to bear upon the formation and organization of the American government can be said to have been inspired by Bible scripture. For example, the presumption of innocence of somebody accused of a crime until guilt is proven goes back to one of the Ten Commandments saying, "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor." The notion of individual rights not rescindable either by government or by majority will is reflected in the Bible, Matthew 18:11-14, where Jesus Christ declares the supreme importance in God's eyes of every single sheep of the flock. The notion of limited and enumerated government designed to preclude the arbitrary and wicked rule of evil men is found in Jeremiah 17:9, which declares the heart of man to be desparately wicked--who could know it? The founders of America knew it, from ample experience and observation of cruel monarchies in the European Old World. In response, they gave us tripartite government, in the which no one ruler would have too much power.
Many Americans of liberal persuasion claim that the U.S. Constitution mandates complete separation of church from state. Those exact words appear nowhere in the text of the Constitution, but there is a provision in the Constitution, saying there shall exist no religious litmus test, in deciding fitness of aspirants to occupy various civil secular government offices. Also, the previous Old World experience of this nation's founders would strongly suggest that they did not want to have power and authority vested simultaneously in the same people on behalf of both the church and the civil secular state. In this sense, we must have "separation of church and state". But in a larger sense, the fact must be recognized that laws, rules and regulations are always based upon religious or anti-religious presumptions, there is no such thing as "religious neutrality" in law. And who among us would be willing to rescind from the law books all laws against theft and murder, just because "Thou shalt not kill" and "Thou shalt not steal" are found in the Ten Commandments?
What the U.S. Constitution First Amendment says is, "Congress shall make no law....concerning the establishment and free practice of religion." What this means is that government shall not use its coercive mechanisms and institutions, in order to forcibly compel anybody to participate or not participate in any religious activity. In our day, much protest has been made over various forms of religious display and exercise engaged in on public property, even when said displays and exercises were made on a completely voluntary basis. It is at least doubtful that America's founders had this interpretation of the First Amendment in mind, when they wrote it. So long as government is not resorting to coercion through the passage and enforcement of laws concerning religion, it is by no means promoting religion per se, to merely passively allow religious activity to take place on government-owned or other public property, devoid of government leadership or direction over the activity.
In recent years, proposals have been made to legally prevent certain passages from the Bible from being read in Christian churches, on the grounds that said passages supposedly constitute "hate speech". The only legally and morally appropriate answer here is that whatever a rabbi, a minister, a priest, an imam or other religious leader tells his congregants in a house of worship on the day designated by that religion for worship is none of government's business! Likewise, if both religious teachings and the civil secular government address a particularly important issue of our national life, American citizens should be absolutely free to state their opinions on said subjects without fear of retaliatory punishment from either the church or civil secular government side. Gay rights and abortion are two of several-such examples of shared interest and concern between God and Caesar.
Religious teachings are no good, unless they are translated into practical action in the outside world. The alleged bottom-line purpose for religion's existence is to make the rest of the world a better place in which all mankind can live. The Bible speaks of men not lighting candles to then only hold them under bushel-baskets. There has been debate within religious communities as to whether adherents of various religions should be fixated on making this world better, or on preparing one's self for a next life beyond this one. This author believes religion must focus on both goals, in order to be worthy of its name.
From time to time, both law courts and legislatures have changed laws, saying previous laws are "unjust". On what basis are they "unjust", if nothing higher than human standard of moral rectitude is being invoked to evaluate them? As a stark example, slavery was practiced all over the world for four millenia, before anybody began to say the practice might be wrong. Also, the notion of a legally-enforced racial equality among all races of men is a relatively recent phenomenon, not strongly in evidence anywhere in the world before the 20th century. Yet, these ideas also go back to Bible scripture: God is not a respecter of persons(Acts 10:34-35), and if we have respect to persons(i.e. discrimination), this is morally wrong(James 2:9-10). At this juncture, something must be said about the legal referent to precedent(stare decisis): How far back do men want to go in history, to decide which precedent represents the right thing to do? Does long-standing historical practice of a particular mode of behaviour, in itself, justify indefinite continuation of that practice? Again, the four-millenia slavery example must be remembered. Some Americans say too that we should not look to foreign countries as a basis for interpreting the U.S. Constitution. But the drama of the Bible unfolds in a completely different time and place from that of contemporary America. Separation of church from state, anybody?
The United States of America is not by any means a theocracy, per se. Yet, its form of government having been designed by Christians, bequeathed since that time a country where persons of all religious persuasion, and even those of no religious persuasion, could flourish far better than they might in other countries where religions outside of Christianity are dominant. That fact should always be celebrated as the "amazing grace" of the United States of America. How sweet that sound!
-Lawrence K. Marsh
Cross-Burning/Flag-Burning
In times of extreme national political upheaval and trial, some people resort to extreme behavioural symbols of protest. Two of these have been, and continue to be, flag-burning and cross-burning. There has been much public outrage over such behaviour, saying these two forms of political expression should be banned on the basis of the moral ideals the cross and the flag represent.
On this issue, there are two questions which must necessarily be asked: 1)to whom does the flag or cross belong, and 2)on whose property is the flag or cross being burned? It is a basic core value of American freedom, for any property-owner to dispose of his or her property as they see fit. Under no circumstance, should the burning of a flag or cross paid for with public tax-payers' money be allowed to be burned with impunity, without strong legal response. Not because this behaviour strikes great fear into the hearts of some people, and great moral disgust into the hearts of others. No, this is destruction of public property, which should never be tolerated under any circumstance, regardless of what the form of public property may or may not represent. However, in the case of private property, the act should be permitted if 1)the owners of the cross or flag give their consent to its being burned, and 2)if the owners of the property on which the cross or flag is being burned also give their consent to this action. Actions and behaviours under the law should be permitted so long as all parties involved therein agree to them voluntarily. It should be recognized, in turn, that in a truly free society, people will always and inevitably say and do things which rub other people the wrong way, and rattle their cages.
Thomas Jefferson was correct on-spot in his statement that "timid men prefer the calm of tyranny to the boisterous sea of liberty." The American people would do well, to remember that a liberty once lost will never be re-gained without violent confrontation and conflict, with very tragic consequences. Thomas Jefferson also said, "From time to time, the tree of liberty must be refreshed with the blood of tyrants and patriots. It is its natural manure."
-Lawrence K. Marsh
On this issue, there are two questions which must necessarily be asked: 1)to whom does the flag or cross belong, and 2)on whose property is the flag or cross being burned? It is a basic core value of American freedom, for any property-owner to dispose of his or her property as they see fit. Under no circumstance, should the burning of a flag or cross paid for with public tax-payers' money be allowed to be burned with impunity, without strong legal response. Not because this behaviour strikes great fear into the hearts of some people, and great moral disgust into the hearts of others. No, this is destruction of public property, which should never be tolerated under any circumstance, regardless of what the form of public property may or may not represent. However, in the case of private property, the act should be permitted if 1)the owners of the cross or flag give their consent to its being burned, and 2)if the owners of the property on which the cross or flag is being burned also give their consent to this action. Actions and behaviours under the law should be permitted so long as all parties involved therein agree to them voluntarily. It should be recognized, in turn, that in a truly free society, people will always and inevitably say and do things which rub other people the wrong way, and rattle their cages.
Thomas Jefferson was correct on-spot in his statement that "timid men prefer the calm of tyranny to the boisterous sea of liberty." The American people would do well, to remember that a liberty once lost will never be re-gained without violent confrontation and conflict, with very tragic consequences. Thomas Jefferson also said, "From time to time, the tree of liberty must be refreshed with the blood of tyrants and patriots. It is its natural manure."
-Lawrence K. Marsh
Health Care For America
Several tens of millions of Americans in our day are tragically without any health insurance. What to do about this situation? Many people in government have advocated a national health care system, similar to ones found in Canada and several European countries. But it should be remembered that the American population is much larger than that of Canada and of most European countries; therefore, such a national health care program for America would be far more costly, than that found in the other countries.
President Theodore Roosevelt once said, "Under government ownership, corruption can flourish just as rankly as under private ownership." This statement is true: does a man change his basic moral character based on whether he is in the employ of government or of private industry? No evidence of that has yet been demonstrated anywhere.
Public opinion surveys in the past have shown that of twenty professions, politicians rank rock-bottom number twenty in the collective public esteem. Given that fact, it would be most foolish to place the administration of health care into the hands of politicians. If we cannot trust our political leaders to be fair and just in other matters, why should they be trustworthy in the administration of health care? The distribution of health care would necessarily be made on the basis of political considerations, as some segments of the American population would be inevitably favored over other segments of it. Politicized rationing of health care would be made sooner or later as well.
Given that people's health care needs vary widely, it would be extremely foolish to commit the American people to a single one-size-fits-all national scheme, even if the government officials administering it did so with the utmost of scrupulous honesty.
There is no provision in the U.S. Constitution explicitly authorizing the federal government to get involved into health care. This issue should be resolved by the needs of individual state and local governments, at the direction of their local citizenry. The federal government was originally created to perform only those tasks of which the individual states are absolutely incapable, and the state and local governments are perfectly capable of dealing with people's health problems.
One major problem existing today is that most of the American people have been completely brain-washed to the proposition that only the federal government is the right venue for addressing issues of social interest and concern such as health care, poverty alleviation, education, disaster relief, etc.
Those who have their own private health insurance plans should be allowed to retain them. Those who have no health insurance should be permitted a 100% income tax write-off on their medical treatment. Any and all health care expenses not covered by an insurance plan should likewise be permitted complete 100% tax write-off. Exception: Those who contract illnesses due to extraordinarily risky health practices should not be given any compassionate exemption from responsible payment from their own financial resources, for their health care. When a disease or injury is easily preventable, the general public should never be in any way obliged to financially under-write its medical treatment.
Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The American people should have the wisdom by now to say "no" to any absolutist power wielded over their lives by the government, and especially in the matter of health care.
-Lawrence K. Marsh
s
President Theodore Roosevelt once said, "Under government ownership, corruption can flourish just as rankly as under private ownership." This statement is true: does a man change his basic moral character based on whether he is in the employ of government or of private industry? No evidence of that has yet been demonstrated anywhere.
Public opinion surveys in the past have shown that of twenty professions, politicians rank rock-bottom number twenty in the collective public esteem. Given that fact, it would be most foolish to place the administration of health care into the hands of politicians. If we cannot trust our political leaders to be fair and just in other matters, why should they be trustworthy in the administration of health care? The distribution of health care would necessarily be made on the basis of political considerations, as some segments of the American population would be inevitably favored over other segments of it. Politicized rationing of health care would be made sooner or later as well.
Given that people's health care needs vary widely, it would be extremely foolish to commit the American people to a single one-size-fits-all national scheme, even if the government officials administering it did so with the utmost of scrupulous honesty.
There is no provision in the U.S. Constitution explicitly authorizing the federal government to get involved into health care. This issue should be resolved by the needs of individual state and local governments, at the direction of their local citizenry. The federal government was originally created to perform only those tasks of which the individual states are absolutely incapable, and the state and local governments are perfectly capable of dealing with people's health problems.
One major problem existing today is that most of the American people have been completely brain-washed to the proposition that only the federal government is the right venue for addressing issues of social interest and concern such as health care, poverty alleviation, education, disaster relief, etc.
Those who have their own private health insurance plans should be allowed to retain them. Those who have no health insurance should be permitted a 100% income tax write-off on their medical treatment. Any and all health care expenses not covered by an insurance plan should likewise be permitted complete 100% tax write-off. Exception: Those who contract illnesses due to extraordinarily risky health practices should not be given any compassionate exemption from responsible payment from their own financial resources, for their health care. When a disease or injury is easily preventable, the general public should never be in any way obliged to financially under-write its medical treatment.
Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The American people should have the wisdom by now to say "no" to any absolutist power wielded over their lives by the government, and especially in the matter of health care.
-Lawrence K. Marsh
s
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
The Question of Marriage
The issue of gay marriage, in direct challenge to the traditional Biblical one-man, one-woman model, has become greatly-intensified since the last decade or two of the 20th century. There are strong political efforts in evidence today, to make this practice socially main-stream and fully protected by civil rights statutes.
The U.S. Constitution First Amendment clearly protects freedom of peaceable assembly, which implies freedom of association as well. Certainly, government has no place to interfere into the affairs of the human heart per se, to tell anyone whom they can or cannot love. At the same time, however, individuals cannot claim legal rights without also accepting responsibilities with them. Often, the opponents of gay marriage cite their religious beliefs, or even their personal disgust and revulsion with the practice, as basis for their opposition to it. But so far as the U.S. Constitution is concerned, these are not sufficient reasons to justify the legal recission and subsequent prohibition of the practice from society. Nevertheless, society cannot tolerate, nor should it be required to tolerate, completely untrammeled individual exercise of freedoms without social accountability of individuals in question.
The main reasons to justify opposition to gay marriage most likely rest with demonstrable medical scientific or economic impact considerations. Any responsible government should consider whether or not homosexual conjugal relations involves a spread of sexually-transmitted diseases uniquely-attributable to that social arrangement. Also to be considered is possible psychological impact upon the children of same-sex parentage, as opposed to children coming from a home with both a male and a female parent. Is it indeed deleterious upon a child's personality development, for "Heather to have two mommies"? Some studies and reports strongly suggest that gay marriage does, more often than not, involve extraordinary problems with sexually-transmitted diseases and adverse psychological impact upon the personality development of any children associated with such a marriage. Also to be considered are the possible long-range social dysfunctionalities which may grow out of that same marital arrangement. Increased crime, social dependency upon society-at-large in the future?
In any case, when some people make risky health choices of behaviour, the general American tax-paying public-at-large should not be compelled to underwrite with their tax monies the medical rescue of individuals from any severely-adverse health consequences of their decisions. On the contrary, all American citizens should take full economic, socio-political and moral responsibility for their own personal choices. No monies should be appropriated from the public treasury, for the purpose of finding cures for sexually-transmitted diseases, given that said diseases are easily-preventable through more responsible personal behaviour.
If homosexual marriage becomes acceptable in society, what next? Once the proverbial "glass ceiling" on the traditional Bible-based model of marriage is broken, the issue of polygamous and/or polyandrous marriage may not be far behind: what is so great about gay marriage, that is not equally-meritorious about polygamy or polyandry? For many long years and decades, the law has also prohibited these two latter marital arrangements as well, citing alleged deleterious social and moral consequences of these.
Perhaps the most egregious activity on the part of the gay community is its blatant attempt to compel the rest of society to morally embrace it and dub it "normal". In a free democracy, there is absolutely no place for government-supported tyranny over the human mind. To be sure, public popular disapprobation of a particular action or behaviour is not sufficient reason to outlaw the action or behaviour. Ours is a nation based on the proposition of protecting individual rights not subject to any "lynch-mob" mentality from the popular majority. Persons unpopular for a wide variety of reasons are all entitled to those legal protections from the evils of "mob-ocracy". Nevertheless, the gays, for their part, are not entitled to any emotional protection from popular verbal condemnation and censure of their behaviour, under the ruberic of "anti-hate-speech" laws. When gays openly flaunt their sexual perversities, they should remember the dictum of the late President Harry S. Truman: "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen." This author believes the "don't ask-don't tell" policy is the best on this question. The Constitution First Amendment freedom of speech for all Americans, regardless of persuasions, must always remain the supreme law of this land we call America.
-LKM
The U.S. Constitution First Amendment clearly protects freedom of peaceable assembly, which implies freedom of association as well. Certainly, government has no place to interfere into the affairs of the human heart per se, to tell anyone whom they can or cannot love. At the same time, however, individuals cannot claim legal rights without also accepting responsibilities with them. Often, the opponents of gay marriage cite their religious beliefs, or even their personal disgust and revulsion with the practice, as basis for their opposition to it. But so far as the U.S. Constitution is concerned, these are not sufficient reasons to justify the legal recission and subsequent prohibition of the practice from society. Nevertheless, society cannot tolerate, nor should it be required to tolerate, completely untrammeled individual exercise of freedoms without social accountability of individuals in question.
The main reasons to justify opposition to gay marriage most likely rest with demonstrable medical scientific or economic impact considerations. Any responsible government should consider whether or not homosexual conjugal relations involves a spread of sexually-transmitted diseases uniquely-attributable to that social arrangement. Also to be considered is possible psychological impact upon the children of same-sex parentage, as opposed to children coming from a home with both a male and a female parent. Is it indeed deleterious upon a child's personality development, for "Heather to have two mommies"? Some studies and reports strongly suggest that gay marriage does, more often than not, involve extraordinary problems with sexually-transmitted diseases and adverse psychological impact upon the personality development of any children associated with such a marriage. Also to be considered are the possible long-range social dysfunctionalities which may grow out of that same marital arrangement. Increased crime, social dependency upon society-at-large in the future?
In any case, when some people make risky health choices of behaviour, the general American tax-paying public-at-large should not be compelled to underwrite with their tax monies the medical rescue of individuals from any severely-adverse health consequences of their decisions. On the contrary, all American citizens should take full economic, socio-political and moral responsibility for their own personal choices. No monies should be appropriated from the public treasury, for the purpose of finding cures for sexually-transmitted diseases, given that said diseases are easily-preventable through more responsible personal behaviour.
If homosexual marriage becomes acceptable in society, what next? Once the proverbial "glass ceiling" on the traditional Bible-based model of marriage is broken, the issue of polygamous and/or polyandrous marriage may not be far behind: what is so great about gay marriage, that is not equally-meritorious about polygamy or polyandry? For many long years and decades, the law has also prohibited these two latter marital arrangements as well, citing alleged deleterious social and moral consequences of these.
Perhaps the most egregious activity on the part of the gay community is its blatant attempt to compel the rest of society to morally embrace it and dub it "normal". In a free democracy, there is absolutely no place for government-supported tyranny over the human mind. To be sure, public popular disapprobation of a particular action or behaviour is not sufficient reason to outlaw the action or behaviour. Ours is a nation based on the proposition of protecting individual rights not subject to any "lynch-mob" mentality from the popular majority. Persons unpopular for a wide variety of reasons are all entitled to those legal protections from the evils of "mob-ocracy". Nevertheless, the gays, for their part, are not entitled to any emotional protection from popular verbal condemnation and censure of their behaviour, under the ruberic of "anti-hate-speech" laws. When gays openly flaunt their sexual perversities, they should remember the dictum of the late President Harry S. Truman: "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen." This author believes the "don't ask-don't tell" policy is the best on this question. The Constitution First Amendment freedom of speech for all Americans, regardless of persuasions, must always remain the supreme law of this land we call America.
-LKM
Sunday, April 12, 2009
The America I Would Like To Have
There are many visions of America in the minds of its citizens. Based on my life experiences and observations, I would like to have an America where:
1)The provisions of the U.S. Constitution are strictly observed and enforced, with no hidden meanings read into the document's actual text. State and local rights respected, as per the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.
2)Taxation voluntary and not compulsory. A government by truly popular democratic will has no right to go beyond the voluntary will of the American people, as expressed by their free-will financial support. Government has no intrinsic right to the people's money.
3)No military alliances or commitments to any foreign countries exist. As Thomas Jefferson said it, we should have free trade with all but entangling alliances with none.
4)There exists no national financial debt or deficit. Government always keeps its budget balanced, and the gold standard is restored. Fiscal responsibility is a key to our government's success.
5)No man or woman is bullied, harassed or hounded for reason of ideological or theological belief. Constitution First Amendment rights to express these beliefs freely without fear of retaliation are also respected.
6)The needy through no fault of their own are cared for through private charity initiative, and not through government programs. No government financial appropriations given to shield anybody from the consequences of their own fiscal recklessness and irresponsibility. Medical care not covered by private insurance are fully tax-deductible, as opposed to national government-administered programs.
7)No abortions are performed, not because of coercive laws prohibiting it, but because the women concerned sincerely feel it to be unnecessary.
8)No foreign political pressures compelling any change in the direction of American domestic politics. National energy independence is especially in view here.
9)People are free to make their own mistakes in life, rather than the government to make mistakes for them. Government does not always know best!
10)Government does not interfere with the right of parents to raise and educate their own children as they(the parents) see fit.
11)Food, air and water are free of all industrial pollutants.
12)Financial status is irrelevant to citizen access to the courts and the justice system. Equal justice under law for all, not just for the rich. Access even to the U.S. Supreme Court for all cases with Constitutional merit.
13)No marital divorce exists. Marriage as a lifetime commitment taken seriously, marital problems worked out.
14)No rights, priviledges or monetary benefits given to illegal aliens. Valid American citizenship required as a prerequisite to enjoyment of the American "good life". America does not belong unconditionally to the rest of the world!
15)Race, national origin and ancestry of all American citizens is irrelevant in the eyes of the law. Equal justice under law, and no man or woman is pilloried or penalized for the sins and crimes of their ancestors.
-Lawrence K. Marsh
1)The provisions of the U.S. Constitution are strictly observed and enforced, with no hidden meanings read into the document's actual text. State and local rights respected, as per the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.
2)Taxation voluntary and not compulsory. A government by truly popular democratic will has no right to go beyond the voluntary will of the American people, as expressed by their free-will financial support. Government has no intrinsic right to the people's money.
3)No military alliances or commitments to any foreign countries exist. As Thomas Jefferson said it, we should have free trade with all but entangling alliances with none.
4)There exists no national financial debt or deficit. Government always keeps its budget balanced, and the gold standard is restored. Fiscal responsibility is a key to our government's success.
5)No man or woman is bullied, harassed or hounded for reason of ideological or theological belief. Constitution First Amendment rights to express these beliefs freely without fear of retaliation are also respected.
6)The needy through no fault of their own are cared for through private charity initiative, and not through government programs. No government financial appropriations given to shield anybody from the consequences of their own fiscal recklessness and irresponsibility. Medical care not covered by private insurance are fully tax-deductible, as opposed to national government-administered programs.
7)No abortions are performed, not because of coercive laws prohibiting it, but because the women concerned sincerely feel it to be unnecessary.
8)No foreign political pressures compelling any change in the direction of American domestic politics. National energy independence is especially in view here.
9)People are free to make their own mistakes in life, rather than the government to make mistakes for them. Government does not always know best!
10)Government does not interfere with the right of parents to raise and educate their own children as they(the parents) see fit.
11)Food, air and water are free of all industrial pollutants.
12)Financial status is irrelevant to citizen access to the courts and the justice system. Equal justice under law for all, not just for the rich. Access even to the U.S. Supreme Court for all cases with Constitutional merit.
13)No marital divorce exists. Marriage as a lifetime commitment taken seriously, marital problems worked out.
14)No rights, priviledges or monetary benefits given to illegal aliens. Valid American citizenship required as a prerequisite to enjoyment of the American "good life". America does not belong unconditionally to the rest of the world!
15)Race, national origin and ancestry of all American citizens is irrelevant in the eyes of the law. Equal justice under law, and no man or woman is pilloried or penalized for the sins and crimes of their ancestors.
-Lawrence K. Marsh
Friday, April 3, 2009
Man: A Sinner By ANY Standard
The Bible defines "sin" as personal dereliction to live up to the laws and teachings of God. However, man, in his constant rebellion against all authority, refuses to abide by other sets of rules and regulations as well.
At least ever since the turn of the 20th century, the United States Constitution has also been virtually ignored by all three branches of the federal government. In relation to it, the individual states have much less sovereignty now, than they used to have, as the central federal government has made many unconstitutional power-grabs. Part of this problem lies with the fact that the American people have been brain-washed into believing that the federal government is a consumation devoutly to be wished in solving their problems, rather than a solution of last resort. "Pass the buck" and "Let George do it", rather than acceptance of personal responsibility, are largely the reasons for this problem. These are sins of omission.
Finally, everybody knows that those New Year's resolutions do not last long! Even by our own standards we set for ourselves, we decline to faithfully maintain them over any significant length of time.
-Lawrence K. Marsh
At least ever since the turn of the 20th century, the United States Constitution has also been virtually ignored by all three branches of the federal government. In relation to it, the individual states have much less sovereignty now, than they used to have, as the central federal government has made many unconstitutional power-grabs. Part of this problem lies with the fact that the American people have been brain-washed into believing that the federal government is a consumation devoutly to be wished in solving their problems, rather than a solution of last resort. "Pass the buck" and "Let George do it", rather than acceptance of personal responsibility, are largely the reasons for this problem. These are sins of omission.
Finally, everybody knows that those New Year's resolutions do not last long! Even by our own standards we set for ourselves, we decline to faithfully maintain them over any significant length of time.
-Lawrence K. Marsh
Thursday, April 2, 2009
LKM's Life Principles
1)Truth matters supremely. The victory of truth over falsehood is more important than consideration of other people's feelings, when they are comfortable with their beliefs in falsehood.
2)Numbers cannot and do not substitute for principle in discernment of right from wrong, truth from falsehood. VOX POPULI VOX HUMBUG!
3)Economic Communism and socio-political liberty cannot and do not co-exist side-by-side.
4)Human rights are God-given, not man-given. Man cannot give rights, but only temporary priviledges. Anything and everything men can give to us, men can also take away from us.
5)Human governments are a necessary evil, not a consumation devoutly to be wished. In problem-solving, government should be a last resort, not a first preference.
6)The rich are those who rejoice in whatever possessions they have.
7)It is supremely important, to give thanks and praise to God when we are on the "up" side of life, and not just to beg his aid when we are on the "down" side of life. My favorite national holiday is not Christmas or Easter, but Thanksgiving. God is never under any obligation to put us and keep us on the "up" sides of life.
8)Whether you win or lose is not as important as how you played the game. Did you play by the rules, or did you cheat to get ahead?
9)WE must take responsibilities, and not just "let George do it".
10)EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW. God is not a respecter of persons, and neither should we be.
11)Name-calling does not get the ball rolling.
12)Actions speak louder than words.
13)If there be no music in heaven, I would prefer never to go there because between heaven and hell, there would then be no difference.
14)Seeing is only half-believing. Experiencing is the other half.
15)With relationship to God, once you have thoroughly established among men Whose you are, it is then completely unnecessary to establish among them, who you are.
16)The test of freedom comes in seeing how much we can get by with saying and doing, when government frowns on it.
17)It is no test of freedom, if the only exercise of it we permit is that exercise with which we all unanimously agree.
18)The degree of ease by which men take offense is merely a reflection of their vanity and pride.
19)Whosoever thinks himself to be wise, is a fool. But whosoever knows himself to be a fool is wise.
20)Today's errors assure to us great lessons for better tomorrows.
-Lawrence K. Marsh
2)Numbers cannot and do not substitute for principle in discernment of right from wrong, truth from falsehood. VOX POPULI VOX HUMBUG!
3)Economic Communism and socio-political liberty cannot and do not co-exist side-by-side.
4)Human rights are God-given, not man-given. Man cannot give rights, but only temporary priviledges. Anything and everything men can give to us, men can also take away from us.
5)Human governments are a necessary evil, not a consumation devoutly to be wished. In problem-solving, government should be a last resort, not a first preference.
6)The rich are those who rejoice in whatever possessions they have.
7)It is supremely important, to give thanks and praise to God when we are on the "up" side of life, and not just to beg his aid when we are on the "down" side of life. My favorite national holiday is not Christmas or Easter, but Thanksgiving. God is never under any obligation to put us and keep us on the "up" sides of life.
8)Whether you win or lose is not as important as how you played the game. Did you play by the rules, or did you cheat to get ahead?
9)WE must take responsibilities, and not just "let George do it".
10)EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW. God is not a respecter of persons, and neither should we be.
11)Name-calling does not get the ball rolling.
12)Actions speak louder than words.
13)If there be no music in heaven, I would prefer never to go there because between heaven and hell, there would then be no difference.
14)Seeing is only half-believing. Experiencing is the other half.
15)With relationship to God, once you have thoroughly established among men Whose you are, it is then completely unnecessary to establish among them, who you are.
16)The test of freedom comes in seeing how much we can get by with saying and doing, when government frowns on it.
17)It is no test of freedom, if the only exercise of it we permit is that exercise with which we all unanimously agree.
18)The degree of ease by which men take offense is merely a reflection of their vanity and pride.
19)Whosoever thinks himself to be wise, is a fool. But whosoever knows himself to be a fool is wise.
20)Today's errors assure to us great lessons for better tomorrows.
-Lawrence K. Marsh
Friday, March 27, 2009
LKM Answers The Feminists
For better or worse, the nuclear family is the basic structural unit of every society and nation on earth. Even societies which recognize the legitimacy of such extended family forms as clans and tribes, still require nuclear families as the irreducible unit to comprise them. No human generational continuity with such organization is possible without joint sexual activity of one man and one woman.
Feminists say child-bearing is slavery, and marriage is therefore male chauvinist oppression of women. They call for the complete destruction of the marriage institution as a major step towards their freedom. Let us be sufficiently politically-incorrect to follow this road, and see, to where it eventually leads.
With nobody alive today having children, the earth would become completely de-populated in about one century, as people die without leaving any progeny. Shrinkage of the population on such a drastic scale would bring on excruciatingly painful economic adjustments, as the economy shrinks concommitantly with the population. This may make the environmentalists very happy in the short run, as the earth returns to a pristine state of wilderness existence. But they, too, would eventually find their own lives severely impacted by extreme economic reversals. Economic growth with population shrinkage is completely incongruous.
With the crashing of the marriage institution would also come the loss of all private property. The identification of all property as being private necessarily involves legal association of the property with a family name, to distinguish its unique personal ownership from all other possibilities of possession arrangement.
Karl Marx advocated destruction of the family for this reason, saying private property ownership makes a virtue out of greed. But the feminists, without private property ownership of their own, will likewise have no power base from which to rule the rest of society as they wish. So, the abolition of the private family in favor of some form of government-administered communal existence would render the rise of feminism as a form of special socio-economic priviledge highly unlikely to occur.
Feminists say if only maledom did not exist, their lives would be immeasurably happier. But women still have economic and socio-political conflicts among themselves which would not immediately and automatically disappear with the total demise of maledom.
What about gender role reversals, as some more moderate feminists advocate? Some men are gradually agreeing to such accomodations, and this writer has frequently wondered, what America would look like with all levers of government power and authority monopolized by the distaff side. It is indeed an intriguing question. But women would need to accept concommitant increase of responsibility with their expansion of political power. As their preoccupation with careers trumps traditional marriage and family life, they would rule over a populace faced with the severe economic consequences of dire population shrinkage. Planning accordingly would be an especially monumental task for an all-female government, with the institution of the family gone, and all private property with it.
It is often said that politics makes strange bed-fellows. In this case, the feminists, in their quest for total sexual freedom, have a staunch ally in pornography-king Larry Flynt and his ideological "progeny". They may both agree to the proposition of free sex for any consenting adults anywhere and any time. But finally, the feminists should be warned that this one objective is all the two camps share in common, and in the purveyors of pornography, they are likely to face mortal foes otherwise.
-Lawrence K. Marsh
Feminists say child-bearing is slavery, and marriage is therefore male chauvinist oppression of women. They call for the complete destruction of the marriage institution as a major step towards their freedom. Let us be sufficiently politically-incorrect to follow this road, and see, to where it eventually leads.
With nobody alive today having children, the earth would become completely de-populated in about one century, as people die without leaving any progeny. Shrinkage of the population on such a drastic scale would bring on excruciatingly painful economic adjustments, as the economy shrinks concommitantly with the population. This may make the environmentalists very happy in the short run, as the earth returns to a pristine state of wilderness existence. But they, too, would eventually find their own lives severely impacted by extreme economic reversals. Economic growth with population shrinkage is completely incongruous.
With the crashing of the marriage institution would also come the loss of all private property. The identification of all property as being private necessarily involves legal association of the property with a family name, to distinguish its unique personal ownership from all other possibilities of possession arrangement.
Karl Marx advocated destruction of the family for this reason, saying private property ownership makes a virtue out of greed. But the feminists, without private property ownership of their own, will likewise have no power base from which to rule the rest of society as they wish. So, the abolition of the private family in favor of some form of government-administered communal existence would render the rise of feminism as a form of special socio-economic priviledge highly unlikely to occur.
Feminists say if only maledom did not exist, their lives would be immeasurably happier. But women still have economic and socio-political conflicts among themselves which would not immediately and automatically disappear with the total demise of maledom.
What about gender role reversals, as some more moderate feminists advocate? Some men are gradually agreeing to such accomodations, and this writer has frequently wondered, what America would look like with all levers of government power and authority monopolized by the distaff side. It is indeed an intriguing question. But women would need to accept concommitant increase of responsibility with their expansion of political power. As their preoccupation with careers trumps traditional marriage and family life, they would rule over a populace faced with the severe economic consequences of dire population shrinkage. Planning accordingly would be an especially monumental task for an all-female government, with the institution of the family gone, and all private property with it.
It is often said that politics makes strange bed-fellows. In this case, the feminists, in their quest for total sexual freedom, have a staunch ally in pornography-king Larry Flynt and his ideological "progeny". They may both agree to the proposition of free sex for any consenting adults anywhere and any time. But finally, the feminists should be warned that this one objective is all the two camps share in common, and in the purveyors of pornography, they are likely to face mortal foes otherwise.
-Lawrence K. Marsh
Thursday, March 26, 2009
The "Hate Crimes" Question
Let's face it, folks! ALL crimes are hate crimes, and has anybody ever heard of a "love crime"? All crimes are motivated and driven by hate directed at least towards society-at-large, if not towards certain targeted individual people.
Why should it be somehow more egregious, to inflict criminal violence upon members of certain segments or groups of our society, than to inflict the same upon any of the rest of us? Such law is clearly a violation of the U.S. Constitution 14th amendment. Equal justice under law is the mantra carved in marble on the facade of our supposedly-auguste and noble U.S. Supreme Court. That is one of the core moral values we as Americans should all live by.
-Lawrence K. Marsh
Why should it be somehow more egregious, to inflict criminal violence upon members of certain segments or groups of our society, than to inflict the same upon any of the rest of us? Such law is clearly a violation of the U.S. Constitution 14th amendment. Equal justice under law is the mantra carved in marble on the facade of our supposedly-auguste and noble U.S. Supreme Court. That is one of the core moral values we as Americans should all live by.
-Lawrence K. Marsh
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Limits of Liberty
In America today, there is much debate both in government circles and among the public-at-large, as to how much liberty should be afforded to the general populace. There is in evidence today a strong desire to curtail the freedoms of other people, if their exercise of it rubs us the wrong way, and rattles our cages. Protection of people's feelings against all possible emotional injury seems to trump First Amendment free speech rights in particular these days. Both the political Left and the political Right are guilty of seeking recission of freedom on these grounds.
The problem with this approach to law and justice in controlling behaviour is that we do have the 14th amendment in our Constitution. One man's trash is another man's treasure, and one man's villain is another man's hero. So, how can we protect everybody's feelings against all possible sense of offendedness in a way that meets 14th amendment requirements? The answer is simple: that cannot be done!
In deciding which actions and modes of behaviour should be permitted and which should be prohibited, we should just ask four questions: 1)Does the action or behaviour inflict physical violence and injury upon anybody? 2)Does the action or behaviour inflict damage and destruction upon the properties of others, without the consent of the owner(s)? 3)Does the behaviour pick anybody's pocket or bank account? And 4)Do all parties directly involved in the behaviour or action voluntarily agree to it? If the answer to any one of the first three questions is "YES" and the answer to the fourth question is "NO", then the action or behaviour should be legally prohibited. But if the answer to all three of the first three questions is "NO" and the answer to the fourth question is "YES", then the behaviour or action should be permitted, and third-party observer offendedness be damned!
Collective society also has rights; however, the burden of proof is always on the claimant. America was not originally established as an absolute majoritarian democracy; rather, it was established as a republic, in the which individual citizens SHALL be granted certain enumerated freedoms which cannot be rescinded either by government or by majority will of the people. As Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman once put it, VOX POPULI VOX HUMBUG! If collective society-at-large would claim that the actions or behaviours of free individuals threatens to somehow damage society-at-large, the burden of proof in the matter should be on the collective entity rather than upon the individual. As the most vulnerable in our society and in our nation, individuals need the shield of the law most of all, against either maddened mob-ocracy or government goon-squads.
The Bible book of Matthew 18:12-14, records the words of Jesus Christ, telling His apostles the story of the Good Shepherd, who leaves the flock of 99 sheep to look for the one which is lost. This parable tells us that God unequivocally considers each and every individual supremely precious in His sight. Here is the basis of individual civil liberties, in the which the nation's founders proclaimed absolute inviolability as man's "natural God-given right".
Sad to say, as America turns its collective back upon God and the positivist school of legal thought replaces the naturalist one of our nation's founders, the proposition possesses the collective American mind that rights are from the generosity of government, to be granted or rescinded at its political convenience. We cannot claim to be a truly free nation, while living in fear of what may happen to us, if our neighbor is also free. Freedom is indeed risky business, but America was not established by cowards. How much longer will the American flag wave o'er the land of the free and the home of the brave? The nation's founders observe us today from their heavenly abodes with the gravest of concern.
-Lawrence K. Marsh
The problem with this approach to law and justice in controlling behaviour is that we do have the 14th amendment in our Constitution. One man's trash is another man's treasure, and one man's villain is another man's hero. So, how can we protect everybody's feelings against all possible sense of offendedness in a way that meets 14th amendment requirements? The answer is simple: that cannot be done!
In deciding which actions and modes of behaviour should be permitted and which should be prohibited, we should just ask four questions: 1)Does the action or behaviour inflict physical violence and injury upon anybody? 2)Does the action or behaviour inflict damage and destruction upon the properties of others, without the consent of the owner(s)? 3)Does the behaviour pick anybody's pocket or bank account? And 4)Do all parties directly involved in the behaviour or action voluntarily agree to it? If the answer to any one of the first three questions is "YES" and the answer to the fourth question is "NO", then the action or behaviour should be legally prohibited. But if the answer to all three of the first three questions is "NO" and the answer to the fourth question is "YES", then the behaviour or action should be permitted, and third-party observer offendedness be damned!
Collective society also has rights; however, the burden of proof is always on the claimant. America was not originally established as an absolute majoritarian democracy; rather, it was established as a republic, in the which individual citizens SHALL be granted certain enumerated freedoms which cannot be rescinded either by government or by majority will of the people. As Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman once put it, VOX POPULI VOX HUMBUG! If collective society-at-large would claim that the actions or behaviours of free individuals threatens to somehow damage society-at-large, the burden of proof in the matter should be on the collective entity rather than upon the individual. As the most vulnerable in our society and in our nation, individuals need the shield of the law most of all, against either maddened mob-ocracy or government goon-squads.
The Bible book of Matthew 18:12-14, records the words of Jesus Christ, telling His apostles the story of the Good Shepherd, who leaves the flock of 99 sheep to look for the one which is lost. This parable tells us that God unequivocally considers each and every individual supremely precious in His sight. Here is the basis of individual civil liberties, in the which the nation's founders proclaimed absolute inviolability as man's "natural God-given right".
Sad to say, as America turns its collective back upon God and the positivist school of legal thought replaces the naturalist one of our nation's founders, the proposition possesses the collective American mind that rights are from the generosity of government, to be granted or rescinded at its political convenience. We cannot claim to be a truly free nation, while living in fear of what may happen to us, if our neighbor is also free. Freedom is indeed risky business, but America was not established by cowards. How much longer will the American flag wave o'er the land of the free and the home of the brave? The nation's founders observe us today from their heavenly abodes with the gravest of concern.
-Lawrence K. Marsh
Monday, March 23, 2009
Islam In Our Midst
"The good men do is oft interred with their bones, but the evil they do lives after them." So wrote William Shakespeare in his play, "Julius Caesar" assigning these words to Marcus Antonius in oration at Julius Caesar's funeral.
So it is, too, with Islam in America after September 11, 2001. Because the attacks on the Twin Towers in New York City and the Pentagon on that day were perpetrated by Muslims, in the name of Islam, the entire religion became in the collective American mind a categorical and unconditional evil. Forgotten is the fact that the American government declined to call to account the particular Islamic nations from which the terrorists came, i.e. Saudi Arabia and Egypt. These are supposed friends of the United States, and could have easily prevented the tragedy. Instead, hysteric presumption of guilt by association in America has spoiled universally the repute of all Muslims everywhere, good and evil alike.
It is incumbent upon all Americans to remember that Islamic Americans among us still enjoy all the same religious protections and rights under the U.S. Constitution First Amendment which the rest of us enjoy. At the same time, it would be well for all Islamic Americans to eschew as far as possible all association with their foreign co-religionists. Islam under the U.S. Constitution, not Islam under the Shari'ah, must be the watchword for Islamic Americans. The acceptance of foreign Muslim country money to finance construction of mosques and related institutions will cast upon Muslims among us an appearance of being a dangerous domestic "fifth column" of subversion on behalf of foreign Islamic country interests. Indeed, in the Islamic mind, a co-religionist brotherhood supersedes nationalist identities.
How should America respond to the Islamic challenge? While America has no official religion per se, its ruling government institutions and precepts are at least vaguely Christian in philosophical outlook. Americans do "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's", in response to a teaching from Jesus Christ.
Given the overt propensity of foreign Muslims to resort to terrorist violence as their method of choice by which to spread their religious faith, America would be very wise, to close its doors to further immigration from Islamic nations. As a sovereign country, America does not owe the rest of the world a living. By the same token, Islamic Americans have equal legal right of access to mass electronic and print communications media as do other religious groups, to broadcast their message as a peaceful effort to proselytize America to Islam. They might be well-advised that honey attracts more flies than vinegar, and good ideas stand well on their own merit, without any backing of physical force and violence to guarantee their implementation.
All Americans must remember these sage words of Thomas Jefferson: "It is in our lives, and not from our words, that our religion must be read."
-Lawrence K. Marsh
So it is, too, with Islam in America after September 11, 2001. Because the attacks on the Twin Towers in New York City and the Pentagon on that day were perpetrated by Muslims, in the name of Islam, the entire religion became in the collective American mind a categorical and unconditional evil. Forgotten is the fact that the American government declined to call to account the particular Islamic nations from which the terrorists came, i.e. Saudi Arabia and Egypt. These are supposed friends of the United States, and could have easily prevented the tragedy. Instead, hysteric presumption of guilt by association in America has spoiled universally the repute of all Muslims everywhere, good and evil alike.
It is incumbent upon all Americans to remember that Islamic Americans among us still enjoy all the same religious protections and rights under the U.S. Constitution First Amendment which the rest of us enjoy. At the same time, it would be well for all Islamic Americans to eschew as far as possible all association with their foreign co-religionists. Islam under the U.S. Constitution, not Islam under the Shari'ah, must be the watchword for Islamic Americans. The acceptance of foreign Muslim country money to finance construction of mosques and related institutions will cast upon Muslims among us an appearance of being a dangerous domestic "fifth column" of subversion on behalf of foreign Islamic country interests. Indeed, in the Islamic mind, a co-religionist brotherhood supersedes nationalist identities.
How should America respond to the Islamic challenge? While America has no official religion per se, its ruling government institutions and precepts are at least vaguely Christian in philosophical outlook. Americans do "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's", in response to a teaching from Jesus Christ.
Given the overt propensity of foreign Muslims to resort to terrorist violence as their method of choice by which to spread their religious faith, America would be very wise, to close its doors to further immigration from Islamic nations. As a sovereign country, America does not owe the rest of the world a living. By the same token, Islamic Americans have equal legal right of access to mass electronic and print communications media as do other religious groups, to broadcast their message as a peaceful effort to proselytize America to Islam. They might be well-advised that honey attracts more flies than vinegar, and good ideas stand well on their own merit, without any backing of physical force and violence to guarantee their implementation.
All Americans must remember these sage words of Thomas Jefferson: "It is in our lives, and not from our words, that our religion must be read."
-Lawrence K. Marsh
Thursday, March 19, 2009
LKM To Black America: President Barack Obama is Not One of You!
The election of Barack Obama to the American presidency is a historic first, i.e. someone of African descent is now our President. However, there is one misconception in the collective mind of black African-Americans which needs to be cleared up: He is not "one of you"!
Most black African-Americans are descendants from the American pre-Civil War slavery experience. However, the African slave trade to the United States came from West African countries. Barack Obama's people came from Kenya, an East African country. Africa is a huge continent, and odds are strongly against any possibility that slave traders from America transported any East Africans to the African West coast, by either land or sea.
Barack Obama was born in 1961, and his mother hustled him out of the United States to live first in Great Britain and then in Indonesia, all during the 1960s civil rights struggle in the United States. His birth certificate, the legal validity of which is still in doubt to this day, claims that he was born in Hawaii. Hawaii shares none of the experiences of racism and slavery of the former Confederate Southern states.
Hence, neither Barack Obama nor any of his African ancestors faced any of the American experiences with racism and slavery suffered historically by most black African-Americans. No, black African-America, from a historic perspective, President Barack Obama is not "one of you"!
Most black African-Americans are descendants from the American pre-Civil War slavery experience. However, the African slave trade to the United States came from West African countries. Barack Obama's people came from Kenya, an East African country. Africa is a huge continent, and odds are strongly against any possibility that slave traders from America transported any East Africans to the African West coast, by either land or sea.
Barack Obama was born in 1961, and his mother hustled him out of the United States to live first in Great Britain and then in Indonesia, all during the 1960s civil rights struggle in the United States. His birth certificate, the legal validity of which is still in doubt to this day, claims that he was born in Hawaii. Hawaii shares none of the experiences of racism and slavery of the former Confederate Southern states.
Hence, neither Barack Obama nor any of his African ancestors faced any of the American experiences with racism and slavery suffered historically by most black African-Americans. No, black African-America, from a historic perspective, President Barack Obama is not "one of you"!
Saturday, March 14, 2009
God Bless Archie Bunker!
For those of us old enough to remember the show "All In The Family", featuring Archie Bunker, his wife the "Ding-Bat", his daughter Gloria a.k.a. "little goil", and the son-in-law Michael Stivic a.k.a. "the meat-head", some of us were deeply offended by it, while many more of us laughed at it like we have never laughed before. Admittedly, the show had a uniquely-cathartic effect on all of us: we were offended, we were outraged, we were provoked to side-splitting laughter for the exact same reason. THE SHOW HIT HOME, RIGHT WHERE WE ALL LIVE!
Who among us does not have any of the bigotries and prejudices displayed by Archie Bunker? There is a certain amount of "Archie Bunker" in all of us, insofar as we find it difficult to accept other people who, in one way or another, are not exactly like us, be the difference one of race, gender, religion, sexual orientation or national origin. "Those people, those people; they, they, they...", Archie Bunker used to say. At the same time, his black African-American neighbor George Jefferson often expounded on his displeasure against white people as well. However, when on one episode it began to look like Puerto Ricans might move into the vacant house on the other side of the Bunkers, Archie Bunker and George Jefferson quickly became close allies to the common cause of keeping a third ethnicity out of their neighborhood. As it happened, that house became occupied by an Italian-Irish mixed-marriage couple who were both Catholics, and Archie Bunker had a real field-day with Catholics as well. "First there's Christians and then there's Catholics!"
Perhaps Archie Bunker was not as smooth, sophisticated and educated we might have wished him to be. But if we examine the extenuating circumstance that he was a child of America's 1930s Great Depression, we might view him with a little more compassion. Sure, he was rough-and-gruff. But the Great Depression forced him to leave school, and hustle to find a job to support his family when fully half of America's work-force was unemployed and jobs did not exist.
Who was the REAL bigot on that show? Arguably, it was the meat-head, Michael Stivic. Michael Stivic irresponsibly married a woman before he was finished with his schooling and well-settled into a career, by which he would maintain his financial independence. He felt himself at liberty to just drop in on the Bunker household and sponge off of that family, all the while frequently subjecting Archie to continuous ridicule with a most abject lack of gratitude for the latter's financial largesse to him. Michael Stivic was the product of far better economic times which afforded to him educational opportunities Archie Bunker never had. Some say Archie Bunker was not a good Christian, but I disagree! He would have been within his legal rights to expel Michael Stivic and his daughter Gloria from their home at any time, because Michael Stivic, not Archie Bunker, was responsible for the financial welfare of his wife Gloria. Instead, Archie Bunker bore up magnificently under the heavy cross of his son-in-law's self-righteous deprecations against him. Granting that it was insensitive of Archie to call his son-in-law "dumb Polack meat-head college student", do we not all have our "terms of endearment" for persons who by nationality are strange to us? We may not overtly enunciate them, but such thoughts still occupy the mind!
The music composer Aaron Copland wrote a magnificent trumpet fanfare called, "Fanfare for The Common Man". I would like to nick-name it, "Fanfare for Archie Bunker". It celebrates in music the real heroes of the American scene: the millions of average "Joe plumbers" among us who rise up early in the morning, faithfully going to work every day, work long hard hours through often-difficult and trying experiences on the job, and finally coming home tired in the evening. How rightful they are, to then plop themselves down in their easy-chairs, turn on the TV, and tell their "Edith"s to "get me a beer"! John Wayne once said of the women's movement: "Women can do anything they want to....as long as they have supper ready for us men when we get home from work." I agree: Without the "Joe plumbers", this nation would have no back-bone and no existence at all!
God bless America, God bless Archie Bunker! Forever may his cathartic service to our nation on TV be remembered! It also gave minority groups in our nation whom Archie Bunker ridiculed, a valuable lesson: Don't fight with the Archie Bunkers of this world, just play along with them! One time when Archie Bunker learned that a black woman nurse was going to donate blood to him during a surgical operation, he became all flustered. But the nurse just played along with him and said when he awakened from his surgery, he would "have a strange craving for watermelon!"
-Lawrence K. Marsh
-Lawrence K. Marsh
Who among us does not have any of the bigotries and prejudices displayed by Archie Bunker? There is a certain amount of "Archie Bunker" in all of us, insofar as we find it difficult to accept other people who, in one way or another, are not exactly like us, be the difference one of race, gender, religion, sexual orientation or national origin. "Those people, those people; they, they, they...", Archie Bunker used to say. At the same time, his black African-American neighbor George Jefferson often expounded on his displeasure against white people as well. However, when on one episode it began to look like Puerto Ricans might move into the vacant house on the other side of the Bunkers, Archie Bunker and George Jefferson quickly became close allies to the common cause of keeping a third ethnicity out of their neighborhood. As it happened, that house became occupied by an Italian-Irish mixed-marriage couple who were both Catholics, and Archie Bunker had a real field-day with Catholics as well. "First there's Christians and then there's Catholics!"
Perhaps Archie Bunker was not as smooth, sophisticated and educated we might have wished him to be. But if we examine the extenuating circumstance that he was a child of America's 1930s Great Depression, we might view him with a little more compassion. Sure, he was rough-and-gruff. But the Great Depression forced him to leave school, and hustle to find a job to support his family when fully half of America's work-force was unemployed and jobs did not exist.
Who was the REAL bigot on that show? Arguably, it was the meat-head, Michael Stivic. Michael Stivic irresponsibly married a woman before he was finished with his schooling and well-settled into a career, by which he would maintain his financial independence. He felt himself at liberty to just drop in on the Bunker household and sponge off of that family, all the while frequently subjecting Archie to continuous ridicule with a most abject lack of gratitude for the latter's financial largesse to him. Michael Stivic was the product of far better economic times which afforded to him educational opportunities Archie Bunker never had. Some say Archie Bunker was not a good Christian, but I disagree! He would have been within his legal rights to expel Michael Stivic and his daughter Gloria from their home at any time, because Michael Stivic, not Archie Bunker, was responsible for the financial welfare of his wife Gloria. Instead, Archie Bunker bore up magnificently under the heavy cross of his son-in-law's self-righteous deprecations against him. Granting that it was insensitive of Archie to call his son-in-law "dumb Polack meat-head college student", do we not all have our "terms of endearment" for persons who by nationality are strange to us? We may not overtly enunciate them, but such thoughts still occupy the mind!
The music composer Aaron Copland wrote a magnificent trumpet fanfare called, "Fanfare for The Common Man". I would like to nick-name it, "Fanfare for Archie Bunker". It celebrates in music the real heroes of the American scene: the millions of average "Joe plumbers" among us who rise up early in the morning, faithfully going to work every day, work long hard hours through often-difficult and trying experiences on the job, and finally coming home tired in the evening. How rightful they are, to then plop themselves down in their easy-chairs, turn on the TV, and tell their "Edith"s to "get me a beer"! John Wayne once said of the women's movement: "Women can do anything they want to....as long as they have supper ready for us men when we get home from work." I agree: Without the "Joe plumbers", this nation would have no back-bone and no existence at all!
God bless America, God bless Archie Bunker! Forever may his cathartic service to our nation on TV be remembered! It also gave minority groups in our nation whom Archie Bunker ridiculed, a valuable lesson: Don't fight with the Archie Bunkers of this world, just play along with them! One time when Archie Bunker learned that a black woman nurse was going to donate blood to him during a surgical operation, he became all flustered. But the nurse just played along with him and said when he awakened from his surgery, he would "have a strange craving for watermelon!"
-Lawrence K. Marsh
-Lawrence K. Marsh
Friday, March 13, 2009
U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder is Correct!
Last month, which marked African-American Cultural Heritage month, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder called America a "nation of cowards" for its collective timidity to openly discuss race relations issues. He is correct!
The nation is long-overdue for such discussion, provided that its goal is the arrival at historic and scientific truth, and not political indoctrinations into political correctness. Some very important questions on this topic must first be raised.
Firstly, what is race? Is it merely a figment of our collective social imagination, or does it have scientific and historic reality to it? We should begin by dispelling the myth that skin-color alone defines it: Besides the many different peoples of Africa, the Dravids of South India, the peoples of Papua New Guinea, and the Maori of Australia and New Zealand also have dark-colored skins. But there is to date no evidence proving a common origin for these various peoples. Such factors as differences in hair and skin textures, prevalence of differing blood-types between racial groups, and differences of bone structure may also figure in, to delineate races, one from another.
Most people today are of varied racial heritage, very few are pure, without any historic contribution to their genetic configuration from other distinct groups. DNA testings could easily corroborate this claim.
Some say race is the result of environmental pressures exerted on people over eons of time, but this claim has yet to be proven. If this claim is true, for example, why are not the peoples of South America living within the same latitudes as the central third of Africa also of the same race or skin-color? The scientific evidence suggests that any one individual's race would remain indefinitely constant down through many successive generations, despite one generation moving to a different environment and then the descendants remaining there forever. The distribution of both light-skinned and dark-skinned peoples would appear to span a wide diversity of physical climates.
What about the use of racial labels? These are often, regrettably, of inaccurate application. For example, the term "African-American" ignores the fact that Africa is a continent, not a race, and it therefore includes many divergent peoples, including Arabs and Berbers of North Africa and Dutch Afrikaans whites of South Africa, as well as the darker-skinned denizens of the African continent elsewhere. Also, the word "Hispanic" cannot denote a race. It merely denotes a language, spoken by persons of considerable variety of skin color.
In short, it is extremely difficult to clearly delineate, for government legal purposes, one racial group from another. The best socio-political solution to the dilemma is to adhere to the U.S. Constitution 14th amendment, and deny the claims of any creditor race or debtor race existing in the United States. Under the law, race should not matter.
There are a few embarrassing proverbial "elephants in the living room" on the topic of race. Why do African-Americans dominate the sports scene, while East Asians and Jews almost uniformly excel head-and-shoulders above everybody else in academia? But given that physical and intellectual supremacies can be used for wicked and evil as well as for virtuous purposes, we need not give the topic more than superficial pause for reflection.
-Lawrence K. Marsh
The nation is long-overdue for such discussion, provided that its goal is the arrival at historic and scientific truth, and not political indoctrinations into political correctness. Some very important questions on this topic must first be raised.
Firstly, what is race? Is it merely a figment of our collective social imagination, or does it have scientific and historic reality to it? We should begin by dispelling the myth that skin-color alone defines it: Besides the many different peoples of Africa, the Dravids of South India, the peoples of Papua New Guinea, and the Maori of Australia and New Zealand also have dark-colored skins. But there is to date no evidence proving a common origin for these various peoples. Such factors as differences in hair and skin textures, prevalence of differing blood-types between racial groups, and differences of bone structure may also figure in, to delineate races, one from another.
Most people today are of varied racial heritage, very few are pure, without any historic contribution to their genetic configuration from other distinct groups. DNA testings could easily corroborate this claim.
Some say race is the result of environmental pressures exerted on people over eons of time, but this claim has yet to be proven. If this claim is true, for example, why are not the peoples of South America living within the same latitudes as the central third of Africa also of the same race or skin-color? The scientific evidence suggests that any one individual's race would remain indefinitely constant down through many successive generations, despite one generation moving to a different environment and then the descendants remaining there forever. The distribution of both light-skinned and dark-skinned peoples would appear to span a wide diversity of physical climates.
What about the use of racial labels? These are often, regrettably, of inaccurate application. For example, the term "African-American" ignores the fact that Africa is a continent, not a race, and it therefore includes many divergent peoples, including Arabs and Berbers of North Africa and Dutch Afrikaans whites of South Africa, as well as the darker-skinned denizens of the African continent elsewhere. Also, the word "Hispanic" cannot denote a race. It merely denotes a language, spoken by persons of considerable variety of skin color.
In short, it is extremely difficult to clearly delineate, for government legal purposes, one racial group from another. The best socio-political solution to the dilemma is to adhere to the U.S. Constitution 14th amendment, and deny the claims of any creditor race or debtor race existing in the United States. Under the law, race should not matter.
There are a few embarrassing proverbial "elephants in the living room" on the topic of race. Why do African-Americans dominate the sports scene, while East Asians and Jews almost uniformly excel head-and-shoulders above everybody else in academia? But given that physical and intellectual supremacies can be used for wicked and evil as well as for virtuous purposes, we need not give the topic more than superficial pause for reflection.
-Lawrence K. Marsh
Theory of Evolution: A Musician Replies
Evolutionists postulate the historic existence of an ever-upward progression in complexity and sophistication of animal life, in the which the later stage of organism development has better capabilities and adaptive powers than do earlier stages of animal life.
It is not until we reach the evolutionary stage of birds that true music is discernable. Crickets chirp and tree-toads ribbit, but those sounds do not have distinctive patterns of varied and definite pitches called songs. Birds have a limited repertoire of songs relating to biological survivability, e.g. mating calls and meeting challenges of aviary competitors.
Then, we have whales and dolphins--sea mammals--naturally-equipped with in-born sonar, to communicate for similar biological purposes through sound waves of definite wave-length frequency: a music of sorts.
If what evolutionists say is true about the ever-upward improvements in animal organisms as they evolve up the ladder, we should detect concommitant improvements in music-making capacities, as animals improve. But evidence for this purpose is singularly lacking: unlike sea-mammals, land mammals have no-such musical capacity.
The music-making capacity of birds and sea-mammals relates to biological necessity. But in higher mammalian stages, the music-making capacity totally disappears, suggesting the end of music's indispensability for biological survival.
Man's allegedly-closest relatives, apes and monkeys, perhaps could be taught to relate aural musical pitch to written music notation on a musical staff, but they totally lack man's power to re-arrange the notes in an infinite variety of ways, to originate the creation of new music. Man alone possesses this capacity, despite it being unnecessary to his biological survival.
What purpose does man's musical capacity serve, if not biological survival? God said, "Let us create a man in Our image", i.e. endow him with a creative power far beyond that of all other animals. In the music-making capacity, then, man represents a quantum leap above all other animals. Evolutionists have no explanation for this sudden quantum leap of man above monkeys and apes, thus opening to question the validity of their claim of constant progressively-upward evolution.
When monkeys play the cello as well as I do, then will I believe in evolution!
-Lawrence K. Marsh
It is not until we reach the evolutionary stage of birds that true music is discernable. Crickets chirp and tree-toads ribbit, but those sounds do not have distinctive patterns of varied and definite pitches called songs. Birds have a limited repertoire of songs relating to biological survivability, e.g. mating calls and meeting challenges of aviary competitors.
Then, we have whales and dolphins--sea mammals--naturally-equipped with in-born sonar, to communicate for similar biological purposes through sound waves of definite wave-length frequency: a music of sorts.
If what evolutionists say is true about the ever-upward improvements in animal organisms as they evolve up the ladder, we should detect concommitant improvements in music-making capacities, as animals improve. But evidence for this purpose is singularly lacking: unlike sea-mammals, land mammals have no-such musical capacity.
The music-making capacity of birds and sea-mammals relates to biological necessity. But in higher mammalian stages, the music-making capacity totally disappears, suggesting the end of music's indispensability for biological survival.
Man's allegedly-closest relatives, apes and monkeys, perhaps could be taught to relate aural musical pitch to written music notation on a musical staff, but they totally lack man's power to re-arrange the notes in an infinite variety of ways, to originate the creation of new music. Man alone possesses this capacity, despite it being unnecessary to his biological survival.
What purpose does man's musical capacity serve, if not biological survival? God said, "Let us create a man in Our image", i.e. endow him with a creative power far beyond that of all other animals. In the music-making capacity, then, man represents a quantum leap above all other animals. Evolutionists have no explanation for this sudden quantum leap of man above monkeys and apes, thus opening to question the validity of their claim of constant progressively-upward evolution.
When monkeys play the cello as well as I do, then will I believe in evolution!
-Lawrence K. Marsh
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
