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
Saturday, December 5, 2009
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
