Sunday, June 24, 2012

Opinion Tole


Opinion ... It drives society ... but in what direction? Maybe the question should be "what drives opinion?" Everyone has one or so we're told. It's something we're entitled to? Something that can be observed from different view points? Something from which you can draw your own conclusion apart from others? If this is true, it has little to do with an actual truth or fact. These, of course, are immutable rendering them incompatible in any way with opinion which is subjective in nature leaving them with only a navigational duty. After all, an orange is an orange regardless of which direction you're looking at it, and opinions to the contrary are rendered nonsensical and absurd. Still, they flow freely and the variety is almost endless. We reverence them in a way that is shameless, considering the sources that fuel these vehicles. Unfortunately, it's becoming increasingly rare that fact or truths are the navigators. Appetites for control or appetites out of control feed the propagating opinion mill with the most incredible whoppers all with the egotistical flair of the misplaced sovereignty unto man. The disciples of these mantras of deceit remain undaunted in their quest. Most of our encounters with the most outrageous of these abrogating, dictatorial purveyors of policy driven, for our own welfare, revolutionizing opinion driven mandates are usually armed with nothing more than a television and a bag of potato chips. Still, public opinion can be ruthless if you find yourself on the outside and you may find yourself being advised to keep it to yourself despite the assurance that opinions are, as they say, "everyone is entitled to one." 

Oh, but this is the country where free speech reigns. The first amendment says so. This is the perfect example for examination as to where we should venture. After all, it's rare that one can go very long without overhearing this discussed at work, church, the grocery store, or wherever groups may meet giving opportunity to weigh in with their discourse on a wide variety of remedial solutions for the country's problems.  

Let's start with the first five words "Congress shall make no law". At first glance one would suppose that this would mean, congress shall make no law, that they have been restricted as to making any laws as to what follows. "Respecting an establishment of religion" is what follows. This raises many a question. Does it mean that it's the judicial branch's responsibility to restrict religious freedom? Obviously, this has to be their role in preserving "separation of church and state". This certainly should be covered somewhere in the Constitution being a Christian term and after all Christianity was the only religion on the menu. I must have an edited version of the Constitution because I can't find that part anywhere. We'll just have to trust our judicial leadership on this one because of their ever-increasing prowess at extracting truth from the incredibly deceptive simplicity of that first amendment. It just makes you wish they could have been present to enlighten the framers of this document of all its intricacy.  

"Or prohibiting free exercise thereof" follows next. To the untrained eye one might expect this to mean prohibiting free exercise thereof. Of course this means, except where we say you can't, despite the poor example given by the Founding Fathers. Thank god, their god anyway, for the ability to perpetrate this one on an ever increasingly ignorant "we the people." Their god is very fond of manipulation and whoppers. In fact, the Bible refers to him as the father of whoppers. This is exceedingly important to me because it's an identifier. I'm rather narrow in this regard. Call yourself whatever; if this is your only means of promoting your agenda, I know who your daddy is.  

"Or abridging the freedom of speech,or of the press" is their favorite part. Despite the prevailing Christian philosophy under girding the intent of this portion that we're free only to be able to do that which is good and lawful under God's word [that's the difference between the Republic our founders formed and a democracy that they decided against because of the inevitable failure experienced by preceding experiments in this form of government] this section is invaluable in the preservation of pornographic enterprises. Surely, this protects and projects our earnest endeavors to protect an honest venture into capitalism. Still, we can be assured that this will never be used to endorse hate speech such as might be used in a politically incorrect fashion to promote antiquated ideals or virtues. Thank their god we can be protected from that one thanks to our watchdog servants in the Judicial Branch. Thank their god they're there for life protecting our freedoms.  

"Or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" ... We can kiss this one away now if we're deemed a terrorist in the eyes of the Governing body thanks to recent legislation suspending our fifth amendment rights by an overwhelmingly majority of our revered senators. It's a little late now to question their authority in interpreting this portion of the Bill of Rights [the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution by concerned founding fathers regarding the disregarding of the inherent rights therewith]. I know literacy and comprehension rates are falling but I wonder who is in la-la land, our congressmen or us for putting them there. So will our opinion be based on the notion of original intent or the prevailing opinion of separation of church and state in it's twisted polar opposite revision for the last 50 years win the day? Let's throw some light into the darkness to see what's really lurking there. 

The obvious course or route to take is always back to the beginnings or the origins surrounding the article of debate. This is good for my stance and something only to be discouraged, hidden or distorted by the debunkers of the Judeo Christian undergirdings of our country's origins. The Founding Fathers knew you couldn't have a garden without a gardener, something from without that does the pruning, weeding, watering and so forth that separates it from the outside environment making it what it is. More to the point, they believed in the God of the Bible.

Daniel Webster, known as the defender of our Constitution, speaking from outside the White House July 4th 1851, a year before his death, had this admonition for the country:  

"Man is not only an intellectual, but a religious being, and his religious feelings and habits require cultivation. Let the religious element in man's nature be neglected - let him be influenced by no higher motives than self-interest and subjected to no stronger restraint than the limits of civil authority- and he becomes the creature of selfish passion or blind fanaticism. The spectacle of a nation [France] powerful and enlightened but without Christian faith has been presented ... as a warning beacon for the nations. On the other hand, the cultivation of the religious sentiment represses licentiousness, incites to general benevolence and the practical acknowledgment of the brotherhood of man, inspires respect for law and order, and gives strength to the whole social fabric."  

Just an isolated speech outside the Capital? At this time church services had been held in the capital for 51 years. December 4, 1800, after having completed enough of the Capital building to begin use thereof, the first order of business was an unanimous vote for the Capital to be used as a church with services reaching up four on any given Sunday. Thomas Jefferson was then Vice-President becoming President the following year. He arrived Sundays in pouring rain, snow or otherwise on horseback. Under his administration government money was appropriated for ministry to the Indians not to mention his personal enlistment of the military band for the purpose of playing for services at the Capital. Who would have thought he was so confused about "separation of church and state". Actually, he always had it right. He's not even within a stones throw of a modern democrat, much to their dismay.

"History by apprising them of the past, will allow them to judge the future." Thomas Jefferson  

This is an important clue as to why our friends have written a revisionist historical account. The adoption of Public Schools Marxist based version based on his proletariat systematic destruction of capitalistic forms of government confines history to be reduced to an economic cause and effect only version effectively eliminating any other aspects, such as Christianity. If it's not there we can pretend [or lie] it didn't happen nor did it have a place in who we are as a nation.

John Jay, Founding Father and one of three authors of the federalist papers, said this: 

"The Bible ... should be read in our schools in preference to all other books from its containing the greatest portion of that kind of knowledge which is calculated to produce private and public happiness."  

Here's another signer confused about the Christian principle of separation of church and state. He's not the only one, obviously. Reverend Frederick Augustus Mulenberg, first Speaker of the House, was one of two signatures on the Bill of Rights of which he and his brother, Reverend John Peter Gabriel Mulenberg were framers. Twenty-four of fifty-six signers of the Constitution also held seminary degrees. At the ratification conventions, forty-four delegates were ministers. All of the grievances reiterated in the Declaration of Independence are found in the written sermons of prominent pastors [they wrote everything out much to the dismay of our revisionist writers]. The American Political Science Review in a study to review where our Constitution came from found that 94% of all documents of the Founding Era of our nation were based on the Bible. 34% were direct quotes from the Bible. This is incredible! How come they don't have an enlightened view of the Christian principle of "Separation of Church and state?"

My apologies to any of the home schoolers that may read this. You already know all of this. I would encourage people to go to the site "Library of Congress -Religion and the Founding Era". I've written enough make my case and there are thousands of actual documents and quotes. In all actuality, we understand the subversion of our country has been a battleground from the beginning. The issue of "Separation of Church and State" was settled in the Supreme Court [not really Supreme in reality] in the 1800's declared, under a barrage of evidence proving that this was a Christian nation, that it was, as always intended, "no prohibiting of the free exercise thereof".  

The passage of the bill in 1954 containing Lyndon Johnson’s one sentence 501[c][3] provision for silencing criticism detrimental to his election campaign slipped through without notice or debate providing the IRS to impose the free speech restrictions on pastors through regulatory administrative decisions. This means, and popular it is becoming, you can effectively side step "we the people".

The other side of the debate is shallow and without substantiation. It's based on a socialistic presumption of "man as sovereign philosophy." My main objection is their premise of a relativistic, floating crap table that allows lying to be okay in obtaining their equality for all mirage. The Pilgrims were the first to discard the failed trappings of this philosophy after two years of starving. Exodus 18:21 provided them with the foundation of elected representation. Welfare reform came from the Biblical mandate that if one is able, one should not eat if one does not work.  

1Tim. 5:8 “But if any provide not for his own, and especially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith and is worse than an infidel.”  

Marx did not deny that his proletariat form of rule was dictatorship. Many a Christian will deny this allegiance, but any honest research into the architects of the separation of church and state will find themselves at his door. 

So, is it just a matter of opinion? Opinion has a way of disappearing under the light of truth. I still have my opinions but have an earnest desire to be free of them. I don't believe that will happen this side of heaven, certainly not by holding onto that bag of chips and the remote. My ultimate conception of humiliation would be to be defeated by such as these.  

"Seek ye first the kingdom of God."  

Those who would deceive and rob us are numerous and driven. If you have to own an opinion or have an opinion own you, make an honest effort to discover the architect. You have a choice of two. One cannot lie; one is the father of lies. I'll say it one more time because it's an "identifier".  Manipulation is a lie. God will lead you into truth by His Word. The Founding Fathers were grounded in this belief and laid the foundation of our country on it. Our detractors know this too and are furious and unrelenting in their attack and that is why we stand firm. We stand on the Truth. 

Opinion: The judgment which the mind forms of any proposition, statement, theory or event, the truth or falsehood of which is supported by a degree of evidence that renders it probable, but does not produce absolute certainty. 

Tole: To draw or cause to follow by presenting something pleasing or desirable to view; to allure by some bait.


Sunday, June 10, 2012

Caught in the Act

     I have an older friend at work whom, as he's leaving, always remarks with a quip from a generation soon to pass, "catch your act later." Am I an act? If indeed I am an act, I hope it's a good act, or at the very least a good portrayal. "Of what" do I portray? Is it in the sense of moral conduct as in deeds done or behaviour appropriated for the occasion of the moment? At least it would seem to have been done I hope, as an exploit or achievement, whether good or ill, as my dictionary translates. It just strikes me as such an odd remark leaving me feeling rather uneasy, espescially after my last post. If, when upon observation, my presence is summed up in such a quip as this, how was my perfomance received? And much more to my horror, did anyone see, as I sometimes see, how phony and poor the performance can be when scrutinized by a discerning eye? After all, what I long for in relationship, is simply, genuiness, something real, something concrete. A pretender, after all, is nothing more than a liar. I'm as convinced of this as of anything else because it's who I am too much of the time. I'm not saying that one should not be kind when the feeling is not there. We're all past that I would hope. I'm not saying that "to put on Christ" is not to be pursued with all of our heart, or at the very least an attempt to be made. I'm saying it scares me to death that my present witness could be reduced to a mere act, unsustainable and  laughable by my preceding acts, revealing a lack of depth and conviction. When the reviews come in, or rather out when I leave the room, are they compelling enough to sell the story. After all, you can't sell what you don't have and it preys upon my mind and spirit when I'm "caught in the act."
     One more of the many ways in which my dictionary references act is this.  "A state of reality or real existence, as opposed to a possibility."
     "The seeds of plants are not at first in act, but in possibility, what they afterwards grow to be."
                                                                                                                                               Hooker