After the female bishops of the Church of England demanded that the Church stop referring to God as "he," the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, declared that God was neither male or female. Is this blasphemous? Sacrilegious? Neither. What it happens to be is logic and common sense.
Whatever title you bestow upon this entity, the Supreme Being of the Bible would have no specific gender, and here is why. Human beings and most living creatures have two distinct genders for one specific purpose: propagation of the species. In plain English--reproduction. Nature in all its forms has one encompassing and overriding goal: to keep the species going, whether it's plants, animals or people. That is why one of the most pleasurable and powerful--if not the most powerful--drive we possess is the sex drive. Nature designed it that way to insure that we would reproduce. Our species would have died out eons ago if every human was repulsed and sickened by the very thought of sex. And it is no coincidence that our genitalia is conveniently compatible. A protruding penis for the guys, and an accommodating vagina for the ladies. Everything about our physical and emotional makeup is designed to keep the species reproducing.
When the concept of a God was conceived thousands of years ago, it was a world ruled, owned and operated by men, so it followed that ancient minds made God a male.
That raises the question: Why would a Supreme Being have a specific gender? The short answer is that it wouldn't. A Supreme Being isn't human, and therefore does not require genitalia for the purpose of reproduction. God would have no need for a penis or vagina, which means God would have no gender.
Sunday, November 25, 2018
Saturday, November 17, 2018
HAIL, GRIDLOCK!
Gridlock: It's a word we all dread when it describes rush hour traffic. When it's used to describe the political landscape, it's a word we should all welcome.
Prior to this year's midterm election, the Republicans controlled the White House and both Houses of Congress. After the election, the Democrats regained control of the House, while the Republicans increased their majority in the Senate. The media portrayed this has a stunning defeat for President Trump. But was it really? The Democrats gained 29 seats in the House. By comparison, during Clinton's first midterm election, the Democrats lost 53 seats in the House and 6 in the Senate. During Obama's midterm, The Dems lost 63 seats in the House and 6 in the Senate. Those numbers make the Republican losses in the House in 2018 look like a minor blip. In fact, it's typical. Historically, Americans have traditionally given the majority in Congress to the party not holding the White House. Only twice in the past 96 years, 1934 and 2002, have the voters increased the President's majority in Congress during the midterm. It seems that Americans value balancing the powers of the Federal government. That situation has earned the title of gridlock.
But is gridlock in Washington a bad thing? When political parties operate with little or no opposition, their worse tendencies emerge, particularly as it effects the economy. The marketplace hates uncertainty. Business men live in fear of the government hammer falling on their heads in the form of higher taxes and more stringent regulations. With a divided Congress and White House, the risk of such a calamity is signifigantly reduced. Look what happened the day following the 2018 election. The stock market gained over 500 points. Why? Because with gridlock, the marketplace believes both parties will fail to cobble together a majority to pass major legislation. In fact, we are all saved from an overactive government. Someone once said that he who governs least governs best. Gridlock allows that scenario to play out, saving us from a burdensome avalanche of rules, regulations and laws that ultimately reduce our freedom. In any given year, Presidents have signed into law as many as 300 bills, the vast majority restricting our freedom to one degree or another.
Americans are a tough, self-reliant bunch who prosper the most when politicians get the hell out of the way and allow citizens to run their own lives as they see fit.
Hail, gridlock! The American citizen's best friend.
Prior to this year's midterm election, the Republicans controlled the White House and both Houses of Congress. After the election, the Democrats regained control of the House, while the Republicans increased their majority in the Senate. The media portrayed this has a stunning defeat for President Trump. But was it really? The Democrats gained 29 seats in the House. By comparison, during Clinton's first midterm election, the Democrats lost 53 seats in the House and 6 in the Senate. During Obama's midterm, The Dems lost 63 seats in the House and 6 in the Senate. Those numbers make the Republican losses in the House in 2018 look like a minor blip. In fact, it's typical. Historically, Americans have traditionally given the majority in Congress to the party not holding the White House. Only twice in the past 96 years, 1934 and 2002, have the voters increased the President's majority in Congress during the midterm. It seems that Americans value balancing the powers of the Federal government. That situation has earned the title of gridlock.
But is gridlock in Washington a bad thing? When political parties operate with little or no opposition, their worse tendencies emerge, particularly as it effects the economy. The marketplace hates uncertainty. Business men live in fear of the government hammer falling on their heads in the form of higher taxes and more stringent regulations. With a divided Congress and White House, the risk of such a calamity is signifigantly reduced. Look what happened the day following the 2018 election. The stock market gained over 500 points. Why? Because with gridlock, the marketplace believes both parties will fail to cobble together a majority to pass major legislation. In fact, we are all saved from an overactive government. Someone once said that he who governs least governs best. Gridlock allows that scenario to play out, saving us from a burdensome avalanche of rules, regulations and laws that ultimately reduce our freedom. In any given year, Presidents have signed into law as many as 300 bills, the vast majority restricting our freedom to one degree or another.
Americans are a tough, self-reliant bunch who prosper the most when politicians get the hell out of the way and allow citizens to run their own lives as they see fit.
Hail, gridlock! The American citizen's best friend.
Monday, November 12, 2018
FEDS, FIRES AND NATURE
The fires ravishing California have been among the fiercest and deadliest in recent memory. California governor Jerry Brown is one of the many voices blaming these ferocious fires on climate change. Are they correct? Is global warming the culprit? Climate change is the easy whipping boy, but could there be another culprit?
For thousands of years periodic fires have attacked our forests. Rather than being a purely destructive force, these fires replenished nutrients in the soil, established seeding for new trees and encouraged the growth of more fire resistant older trees.
The Forest Service, organized in 1905 by the Federal Government, began a policy of fire suppression. The Forest Service mission is to suppress all fires in order to save vegetation and nearby communities. By completely stamping out the light burning of forests, the Feds have created unnaturally dense forests. Most of these forests had light fires every 10 to 30 years, but since these fires have been curtailed by the Feds, these forests have become choked with vegetation. To worsen the situation, since the 1980's the Feds have reduced the number of timber harvests. Reduced harvests mean that more trees are densely packed, which ultimately results in more frequent and more intense fires.
Has with so many other areas of human endeavor, government encroachment inevitably leads to waste, destruction, and in the case of forest fires, the loss of human life. And we must ask ourselves one pertinent question: How many protected species of animals and plants have perished because of over reaching government policies?
For thousands of years periodic fires have attacked our forests. Rather than being a purely destructive force, these fires replenished nutrients in the soil, established seeding for new trees and encouraged the growth of more fire resistant older trees.
The Forest Service, organized in 1905 by the Federal Government, began a policy of fire suppression. The Forest Service mission is to suppress all fires in order to save vegetation and nearby communities. By completely stamping out the light burning of forests, the Feds have created unnaturally dense forests. Most of these forests had light fires every 10 to 30 years, but since these fires have been curtailed by the Feds, these forests have become choked with vegetation. To worsen the situation, since the 1980's the Feds have reduced the number of timber harvests. Reduced harvests mean that more trees are densely packed, which ultimately results in more frequent and more intense fires.
Has with so many other areas of human endeavor, government encroachment inevitably leads to waste, destruction, and in the case of forest fires, the loss of human life. And we must ask ourselves one pertinent question: How many protected species of animals and plants have perished because of over reaching government policies?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)