Kim Davis, county clerk in Ashland, Kentucky, refused to issue marriage licenses to a gay couple, and as a result, she was thrown in jail for contempt of court. That action ignited a firestorm of protests around the country by people claiming Ms. Davis is being persecuted for exercising her religious beliefs. Rights have been violated, but they weren't those of Ms. Davis.
Her claim is that gay marriage is in opposition to her religious beliefs, and therefore, she refused to issue the marriage licenses on moral grounds.But there is a far more fundimental issue in question. The government, be it federal, state or local, has no right to tell consenting adults who they can and cannot marry. Such matters are way beyond the purview of government in a free society. It was mere decades ago that in a certain number of states, whites and blacks were not permitted to marry one another. Giving bureaucrats the power to decide which adults can marry is certainly heading down a slippery slope. Setting such a precedent, future government leaders could decide that Jews can't marry Catholics, or Asians can't marry Caucasians, or Italians can't marry Swedes.
The only actions that should be deemed unlawful are those that violate the individual rights of others.In the case of gay marriage, whose rights are being violated? You may be offended, but none of your rights have been violated.
And while there is no provision in our Constitution, this country was built on the priciple of seperation of church and state. You are free to practice your religion, but you can make no laws forcing your religious beliefs on others. Some Christians would debate this point, especially as it pertains to gay marriage. This is, at best, a hypocritical position.What would be the reaction of Christians be if a female county clerk dressed in burka refused to uphold a law because she said it violated Islamic teachings? My guess is there would be utter outrage at such an action, and justifiably so.
If gay marriage laws violated Kim Davis' religious beliefs, then she should have recused herself from the situation rather than deny the rights of two Americans.
Let us ask ourselves two question: Do we really want a government that has the power to tell us who we can and cannot marry? And how does two gays marrying interfere with your Constitutional rights?
Sunday, September 6, 2015
Monday, August 24, 2015
THE SOUND OF CHINA SHATTERING
That ear-splitting thud you heard was the stock market crashing on Wall Street. Since the market's historic high back in April, stocks have lost over two thousand points. Numerous factors have contributed to the downfall, but the one factor most frequently sited is the economic downturn in China, the world's second largest economy after the US. The Chinese stock market has lost billions in value, and the government has devalued their currency as that country falls into a deep recession. These developments have struck fear into the hearts of investors around the world, particularly the US. A multitude of companies, both large and small, depend on China for a signifigant amount of their business, and if the Chinese economy goes into a protracted tailspin, so will the profits of these companies.
Just a few years ago financial experts around the world were predicting that China would overtake the US as the world's largest economy. So what happened? To find out, let us back up a few decades. Under Chairman Mao and the communist revolution, China was nothing more than a large country with a third world economy. There was massive poverty and hunger, the result of a brutal dictatorship and failed economic policies.
With the death of Mao, new leadership took power and immediately overhauled their policies by liberalizing their economy and granting their citizens greater personal freedom. The beginnings of a capitalist economy took root. People were now free to own their own businesses and enjoy the profits. No longer did the communist leaders declare capitalism to be the enemy. Instead, the government encouraged entrepreneurship, causing the economy to soar and poverty and hunger to diminish.
So why is the powerful Chinese economic engine suddenly sputtering and stalling? A couple of years ago I told a friend the Chinese miracle would not continue unabated--could not continue under its current system of government, much less surpass the United States, because it has one fundimental flaw. That flaw is its economic system.
Am I saying there is a flaw in the market system? Not at all. The flaw with China is that its free market isn't free enough. Because it is still a one party system run by communists, the government maintains stringent controls and regulations over the market. In order for a free market system to grow and prosper, freedom must be maximized. Allow me to explain.
Picture a large unfenced backyard. In this yard we have a dog. To keep the dog from running away, it is attached to a long leash. The leash is long enough to permit the dog to roam a large area. But if it goes beyond a certain point, the leash stops the dog in its tracks and prevents it from advancing.
Such is the case wirh the Chinese economy. It is like the dog in the yard. The communist bureaucrats are the leash. Once the economy grows to certain levels, the onerous regulations halt economic expansion in its tracks. It was just a matter of time for those regulations to halt progress, and that time has arrived.
While our own country does not have a totally free market, the level of regulations and restrictions are nowhere near the magnitude of the Chinese.Should our leaders at some point in the future seek to increase the regulatory burden on the marketplace, then we will experience a similiar crash.
What is now required going forward is for our business and political leaders to realize that as long as China remains under Marxist leadership, their ability to be a dynamic economic power will be limited, like that dog on a leash. Further advancement will always be thwarted. That means our own business plans must begin to reflect that reality when dealing with the Chinese.
The lesson to be learned is thas the freer the market, the more prosperous the market.
Just a few years ago financial experts around the world were predicting that China would overtake the US as the world's largest economy. So what happened? To find out, let us back up a few decades. Under Chairman Mao and the communist revolution, China was nothing more than a large country with a third world economy. There was massive poverty and hunger, the result of a brutal dictatorship and failed economic policies.
With the death of Mao, new leadership took power and immediately overhauled their policies by liberalizing their economy and granting their citizens greater personal freedom. The beginnings of a capitalist economy took root. People were now free to own their own businesses and enjoy the profits. No longer did the communist leaders declare capitalism to be the enemy. Instead, the government encouraged entrepreneurship, causing the economy to soar and poverty and hunger to diminish.
So why is the powerful Chinese economic engine suddenly sputtering and stalling? A couple of years ago I told a friend the Chinese miracle would not continue unabated--could not continue under its current system of government, much less surpass the United States, because it has one fundimental flaw. That flaw is its economic system.
Am I saying there is a flaw in the market system? Not at all. The flaw with China is that its free market isn't free enough. Because it is still a one party system run by communists, the government maintains stringent controls and regulations over the market. In order for a free market system to grow and prosper, freedom must be maximized. Allow me to explain.
Picture a large unfenced backyard. In this yard we have a dog. To keep the dog from running away, it is attached to a long leash. The leash is long enough to permit the dog to roam a large area. But if it goes beyond a certain point, the leash stops the dog in its tracks and prevents it from advancing.
Such is the case wirh the Chinese economy. It is like the dog in the yard. The communist bureaucrats are the leash. Once the economy grows to certain levels, the onerous regulations halt economic expansion in its tracks. It was just a matter of time for those regulations to halt progress, and that time has arrived.
While our own country does not have a totally free market, the level of regulations and restrictions are nowhere near the magnitude of the Chinese.Should our leaders at some point in the future seek to increase the regulatory burden on the marketplace, then we will experience a similiar crash.
What is now required going forward is for our business and political leaders to realize that as long as China remains under Marxist leadership, their ability to be a dynamic economic power will be limited, like that dog on a leash. Further advancement will always be thwarted. That means our own business plans must begin to reflect that reality when dealing with the Chinese.
The lesson to be learned is thas the freer the market, the more prosperous the market.
Sunday, July 26, 2015
A FLOOD? OR FOREGIVENESS?
We are told that God possesses three important attributes: He is loving; He is foregiving; He is merciful. It says so in the Bible, and since the Bible is the word of God, it obviously must be true. There are many biblical stories to illustrate these qualities. Let us examine the story of Noah's Ark to check the credibility.
God was upset at the sinful ways of humankind, so as punishment for their sins, He created a flood caused by forty days and forty nights of rain. Prior to the flood, He told Noah, "Make thee an ark of gopher wood." This ark was to be-by current measurements--520 feet, 8 inches long by 86 feet, 9.3 inches wide, and 52 feet high.Noah, as we all know, was also instructed to gather two of every animal and place them on the ark to save them from the impending flood. The ark would then sail for 371 days until the flooding subsided.
The story of the ark brings in to question numerous issues that the Bible fails to address. First is the conundurm of the animals.There were, and still are, millions of species of animal life on earth. How was it possible that Noah could fit two of every species on his ark? There is an additional problem with the "two of every species" demand. What about those animlas unique to North America? Europe? Australia? The islands dotting the Pacific, Atlantic and Caribbean seas? How could Noah have possibly navigated the globe to rescue these animals? And assuming he did collect all these speices, how could he have adequately fed such a diversified diet for a year with the earth covered with water? Then there is the question of how one stores a years worth of food for millions of animals.
Finally, this brings us to the original premise of a loving, foregiving and merciful God. The great flood covered the earth, virtually wiping out all of humankind as punishment for their sinful ways. That means that along with the evil sinners, untold numbers of innocent babies, children, mothers, fathers and grandparents also perished in the flood. Can a six month old infant be a terrible sinner? How about a five year old? God must have thought so because he deliberately drowned them. He apparently cared more about horses and goats and elephants and worms than He did children and the elderly and infirmed.
If any story illustrates the illogical and contradictory nature of Bible stories,surely it is the story of Noah's ark. It paints a picture of a vengeful, unfeeling, merciless God. Somebody needs to get their stories straight.
God was upset at the sinful ways of humankind, so as punishment for their sins, He created a flood caused by forty days and forty nights of rain. Prior to the flood, He told Noah, "Make thee an ark of gopher wood." This ark was to be-by current measurements--520 feet, 8 inches long by 86 feet, 9.3 inches wide, and 52 feet high.Noah, as we all know, was also instructed to gather two of every animal and place them on the ark to save them from the impending flood. The ark would then sail for 371 days until the flooding subsided.
The story of the ark brings in to question numerous issues that the Bible fails to address. First is the conundurm of the animals.There were, and still are, millions of species of animal life on earth. How was it possible that Noah could fit two of every species on his ark? There is an additional problem with the "two of every species" demand. What about those animlas unique to North America? Europe? Australia? The islands dotting the Pacific, Atlantic and Caribbean seas? How could Noah have possibly navigated the globe to rescue these animals? And assuming he did collect all these speices, how could he have adequately fed such a diversified diet for a year with the earth covered with water? Then there is the question of how one stores a years worth of food for millions of animals.
Finally, this brings us to the original premise of a loving, foregiving and merciful God. The great flood covered the earth, virtually wiping out all of humankind as punishment for their sinful ways. That means that along with the evil sinners, untold numbers of innocent babies, children, mothers, fathers and grandparents also perished in the flood. Can a six month old infant be a terrible sinner? How about a five year old? God must have thought so because he deliberately drowned them. He apparently cared more about horses and goats and elephants and worms than He did children and the elderly and infirmed.
If any story illustrates the illogical and contradictory nature of Bible stories,surely it is the story of Noah's ark. It paints a picture of a vengeful, unfeeling, merciless God. Somebody needs to get their stories straight.
Saturday, July 25, 2015
IT'S LONELY AT THE TOP: A BRIEF CRITIQUE OF ADAM & EVE
The Bible tells us that God was lonely, and hungering for companionship, he created the first human--Adam. Because Adam needed a place to live, God then created the Garden of Eden. Eventually God saw that Adam, too, was lonely, so He took a rib from Adam and used it to create the first woman--Eve. Apparently loneliness abounded in the Bible.
The issue of loneliness begs the question: Why was God lonely? Was not Heaven populated by beautiful angels? Why was God unable to find companionship with them?
Accepting the premise that God sought companionship, he created Adam and Eve and placed them in a paradise on earth called the Garden of Eden. Next we have to ask ourselves how this alleviated God's loneliness.He did not interact with Adam and Eve. Instead, He looked down upon them from Heaven like someone observing goldfish in a bowl. Logic would dictate that if God was lonely, he would have kept Adam and Eve with Him in Heaven, where the three of them would have been able to interact and communicate directly, while enjoying the fruits of real companionship. Looking at it from a smaller scale, what would more effectively eliminate loneliness? Goldfish in a bowl? Or a playful and loyal dog?
Like virtually all Bible stories, this one lacks any logic and is burdened with contradictions and paradoxes that can only be attributed to the ancient, superstitious and unscientific minds that created them.
The issue of loneliness begs the question: Why was God lonely? Was not Heaven populated by beautiful angels? Why was God unable to find companionship with them?
Accepting the premise that God sought companionship, he created Adam and Eve and placed them in a paradise on earth called the Garden of Eden. Next we have to ask ourselves how this alleviated God's loneliness.He did not interact with Adam and Eve. Instead, He looked down upon them from Heaven like someone observing goldfish in a bowl. Logic would dictate that if God was lonely, he would have kept Adam and Eve with Him in Heaven, where the three of them would have been able to interact and communicate directly, while enjoying the fruits of real companionship. Looking at it from a smaller scale, what would more effectively eliminate loneliness? Goldfish in a bowl? Or a playful and loyal dog?
Like virtually all Bible stories, this one lacks any logic and is burdened with contradictions and paradoxes that can only be attributed to the ancient, superstitious and unscientific minds that created them.
Wednesday, July 15, 2015
THE FALLACY OF PRAYER
What is prayer but the petitioning of God for His devine intervention in human lives. This most often occurs in matters of life and death, when we or a loved on is facing a major health crisis, such as surgery or battling a deadly disease. Sometimes prayer is used in hopes of saving an embattled marriage, a failing business or a financial crisis. The goal is for our pleas to attract God's attention, have Him look upon us with sympathy and mercy, and then use His supreme powers to enact positive change in our lives.
In order to fully understand the fallacy of prayer, we must first accept certain qualities attributed to God. First and foremost is the idea that God is prescient, which is to say He knows everything that has happened, is happening, and that will happen. It is not unlike the lyrics to the Christmas classic,Santa Claus is Coming to Town. "He sees you when you're sleeping, he knows when you're awake, he knows if you've been bad or good, so be good for goodness sake."
There isn't anything that God does not know, because if He doesn't know it--if he lacks knowledge or foresight--then He cannot be God. He must be all knowing and all seeing. To be anything less means He isn't a supreme being.
Which brings us back to prayer.For the sake of argument, let us create a character named Jack. He is a middle-aged family man who has been critically injured in an automobile accident. He is rushed to surgery, where doctors repair severely damaged organs. The surgeon tells the family that he has done all he can, and that it is now a waiting game to see if Jack survives through the night. "It is in God's hands," the surgeon solemnly declares. In response, the family initiates a prayer vigil. They go to social media and implore friends to pray for Jack. Somehow the idea exist that with enough voices petitioning God, He will be duly impressed, influenced and ultimately spare Jack's life.
Here is where the contradiction lies. As stated earlier, God is omniscient. That means that the very second Jack was conceived in the womb, God, as if viewing a biographical documentary, knows what will happen to Jack every second of every hour of every day of Jack's life. That also means He knows the precise second of Jack's death, where he will die and the cause of death. How does He know all this? Because He is an all-knowing God. And what does that imply? It implies that prayer is a futile exercise. How do we reach such a conclusion? We reach it by the very definition of prayer. I stated at the beginning that prayer is a petitioning of God to change an outcome, to intervene in our lives to circumvent trajedy. In short, the goal of prayer is to change God's mind. But if prayer can change God's mind, it must mean He doesn't know the future. The instant of Jack's birth, God knew that he would have a car accident on that particular day and whether Jack would sirvive or not; therefore prayer is pointless. To suggest that prayer can change God's mind about an outcome means God does not really know for sure what the future holds. And if He doesn't knowwhat the future holds, He cannot be a supreme being.
God either preordains all human events, or He has no clue what will happen. The concept of prayer can mean only two things: 1) It is useless because God has already determined the outcome of a given situation. 2) Prayer can change God's mind, which means He has no more grasp of the future than we sinful mortals.
To reach the latter conclusion is to admit there is no omniscient, infallible Supreme Being.
No doubt there are those who would pray I am wrong.
In order to fully understand the fallacy of prayer, we must first accept certain qualities attributed to God. First and foremost is the idea that God is prescient, which is to say He knows everything that has happened, is happening, and that will happen. It is not unlike the lyrics to the Christmas classic,Santa Claus is Coming to Town. "He sees you when you're sleeping, he knows when you're awake, he knows if you've been bad or good, so be good for goodness sake."
There isn't anything that God does not know, because if He doesn't know it--if he lacks knowledge or foresight--then He cannot be God. He must be all knowing and all seeing. To be anything less means He isn't a supreme being.
Which brings us back to prayer.For the sake of argument, let us create a character named Jack. He is a middle-aged family man who has been critically injured in an automobile accident. He is rushed to surgery, where doctors repair severely damaged organs. The surgeon tells the family that he has done all he can, and that it is now a waiting game to see if Jack survives through the night. "It is in God's hands," the surgeon solemnly declares. In response, the family initiates a prayer vigil. They go to social media and implore friends to pray for Jack. Somehow the idea exist that with enough voices petitioning God, He will be duly impressed, influenced and ultimately spare Jack's life.
Here is where the contradiction lies. As stated earlier, God is omniscient. That means that the very second Jack was conceived in the womb, God, as if viewing a biographical documentary, knows what will happen to Jack every second of every hour of every day of Jack's life. That also means He knows the precise second of Jack's death, where he will die and the cause of death. How does He know all this? Because He is an all-knowing God. And what does that imply? It implies that prayer is a futile exercise. How do we reach such a conclusion? We reach it by the very definition of prayer. I stated at the beginning that prayer is a petitioning of God to change an outcome, to intervene in our lives to circumvent trajedy. In short, the goal of prayer is to change God's mind. But if prayer can change God's mind, it must mean He doesn't know the future. The instant of Jack's birth, God knew that he would have a car accident on that particular day and whether Jack would sirvive or not; therefore prayer is pointless. To suggest that prayer can change God's mind about an outcome means God does not really know for sure what the future holds. And if He doesn't knowwhat the future holds, He cannot be a supreme being.
God either preordains all human events, or He has no clue what will happen. The concept of prayer can mean only two things: 1) It is useless because God has already determined the outcome of a given situation. 2) Prayer can change God's mind, which means He has no more grasp of the future than we sinful mortals.
To reach the latter conclusion is to admit there is no omniscient, infallible Supreme Being.
No doubt there are those who would pray I am wrong.
Monday, July 6, 2015
TRUMP OR CHUMP?
Controversy continues to swirl like a tornado around Donald Trump's statement regarding illegal Mexican immigrants. What he said has been frequently quoted--and misquoted.But what he didn't say is equally important. Trump did not say all illegals were criminals; nor did he say every illegal is a criminal.
He did say some of the illegals bring in crime and drugs. They are rapists. Is he wrong? Given the fact that millions of illegals have poured across our southern border, it would be statistically impossible that there was not a single criminal among the estimated 30 million illegal immigrants roaming across the US.
According to statistics from Homeland Security, 11 to 15% of all convicts in US prisons are illegals, and 24% of all those convicted of drug related crimes are illegals.
It is a shame people were offended by the Donald's remarks. But it is also a shame that the media chooses to ignore or distort the truth, rather than report it.
He did say some of the illegals bring in crime and drugs. They are rapists. Is he wrong? Given the fact that millions of illegals have poured across our southern border, it would be statistically impossible that there was not a single criminal among the estimated 30 million illegal immigrants roaming across the US.
According to statistics from Homeland Security, 11 to 15% of all convicts in US prisons are illegals, and 24% of all those convicted of drug related crimes are illegals.
It is a shame people were offended by the Donald's remarks. But it is also a shame that the media chooses to ignore or distort the truth, rather than report it.
Friday, June 26, 2015
GAY MARRIAGE AND THE CONSERVATIVE CONTRADICTION
The Supreme Court decision to uphold gay marriage reveals the contradiction within the conservative ideology. The majority of conservatives have long opposed gay marriage. Presidential candidate Scott Walker called the ruling "a grave mistake."
What exactly is the contradiction in the conservative position? The very foundation of their philosophy is oppostion to big government. They, like libertarians, believe in a small, limited government. They, like libertarians, believe that he who governs least governs best; that we need to minimalize government intrusion and control in our lives.
Given those beliefs, one would think conservatives would have welcomed and supported the Supreme Court decision, instead of greeting it with anger and vitriol. Here is where libertarians and conservatives part company.
From the libertarian standpoint, supporting gay marriage was the proper decision based on one simple proposition: It is beyond the purview of government to tell consenting adults who they can and cannot marry. That is not the proper role of government in a free society. Banning gay marriage is a slippery slope. By accepting the premise that the state can decide which adults can marry, it leaves the door open for future leaders to outlaw marraige between Catholics and Lutherans, or Asians and Hispanics, or marraiges where there is a large disparity in ages. Up until the 70's, a number of states banned marriages between blacks and whites. That degree of intrusion is not what a free society is about.
Ask yourself one question: Which one of your individual rights are being denied when two gay people marry? The answer is: none.
You may be offended by the concept, but the freedom of expression, by definition, means someone may say or do something that offends you. But offending someone shouldn't be a crime. Were it a crime, then we would all have spent time behind bars, because who among us hasn't at one time or another said or did something that offended somebody somewhere at some time?
This is the time for conservatives to face this contradiction. You either believe people should be free to live their lives with minimal government interference, as long as they deny no one their individual rights; or you believe that the state should enforce laws that make it a crime to offend someone's sensibilities.
I find that offensive.
What exactly is the contradiction in the conservative position? The very foundation of their philosophy is oppostion to big government. They, like libertarians, believe in a small, limited government. They, like libertarians, believe that he who governs least governs best; that we need to minimalize government intrusion and control in our lives.
Given those beliefs, one would think conservatives would have welcomed and supported the Supreme Court decision, instead of greeting it with anger and vitriol. Here is where libertarians and conservatives part company.
From the libertarian standpoint, supporting gay marriage was the proper decision based on one simple proposition: It is beyond the purview of government to tell consenting adults who they can and cannot marry. That is not the proper role of government in a free society. Banning gay marriage is a slippery slope. By accepting the premise that the state can decide which adults can marry, it leaves the door open for future leaders to outlaw marraige between Catholics and Lutherans, or Asians and Hispanics, or marraiges where there is a large disparity in ages. Up until the 70's, a number of states banned marriages between blacks and whites. That degree of intrusion is not what a free society is about.
Ask yourself one question: Which one of your individual rights are being denied when two gay people marry? The answer is: none.
You may be offended by the concept, but the freedom of expression, by definition, means someone may say or do something that offends you. But offending someone shouldn't be a crime. Were it a crime, then we would all have spent time behind bars, because who among us hasn't at one time or another said or did something that offended somebody somewhere at some time?
This is the time for conservatives to face this contradiction. You either believe people should be free to live their lives with minimal government interference, as long as they deny no one their individual rights; or you believe that the state should enforce laws that make it a crime to offend someone's sensibilities.
I find that offensive.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)