neutrality

I do not believe in religious neutrality.

In the last several years, it has become a popular phrase to: "accept all religions". In fact, Senator Obama just said it the other day (or so the news tells me). Specifically, he was saying that we are no longer a Christian nation, and that we need to accept "all religions".

Ironically, technically speaking, I do not believe were were ever an entirely Christian nation. Even in the beginning, there were certainly non-Christians. Is he talking about a majority? That cant be it, because we still certainly have a majority of the United States that at least professes to be followers of Christianity.

I believe the point he was getting at is that the minority of non-Christians are rising, and that their religions (or anti-religions) need to have the same equal playing ground as Christianity has.

And this is where I get off that bus. Putting my own personal belief in Christianity aside, and speaking purely philosophically, with regard to theological structures... it is impossible to respect all religions at once, unless of course one takes a stance to ignore them all.

I am a complete supporter in a strict separation of church and state, or at least an attempt for the United States to take a position of ignoring all religious institutions. To me, it makes total sense for a president to choose to reject any and all dabblings in religious institutions. (This of course would necessarily have to include both your deistic religions, those that believe in a God or spirit world, such as Christianity and Islam... as well as your anti/non deistic religions, including atheism and secular humanism)

However, the absolute worst thing that a presidential candidate can do would be to attempt to respect all world religions at once. Not only does this have sever theological ramifications, but philosophically and psy/sociologically this borders on a necessary schizophrenia. As wonderfully beautiful as "accepting of all religions" may sound, it simply is not possible.

In its purest form, a "religion" is a nonnegotiable Truth statement about the world, its parameters, and the very reason for life and existence. It is not an opinion, but a fact in the eyes of its believers. For a president to be accepting of "all contradicting facts" is complete non-sense. In my opinion, a leader of this country should either accept one truth statement, and make decisions from its base while being respectful to those that do not agree (though not to their belief because it directly contradicts his own). Or, he must take a position to not meddle at all in a truth statement at all, which would make for an ironically hilarious method of operation as a leader of a nation, who is constantly required to make pseudo-moral decisions.

It is pure insanity for the leader of the United States of America to say that he accepts everyone's contradicting statements about the truth of existence. Even worse, that he would then try and incorporate all of their positions on public policy.

Democratic Process

There are several things I do not understand right now...

First, after watching an episode of Boston Legal last night... I was suddenly made aware that we dont actually live in a democracy. Apparently, and I was totally unaware of this... but a person's votes actually are only a suggestion. When the people of the United States vote in the primaries... they are actually only suggesting who is nominated for their respective party (Democrat or Republican). It turns out that "delegates" actually make that decision for the people.

Right now, the Democratic national party is in a bit of a bind... as the race between Obama and Hillary is so tight that neither side can win by a large enough margin. Now, the race is to see who can obtain the greatest number of "delegates"... which means, the choice for the democratic national candidate rests in the hands of something like 4,000 people... and not in the hands of millions of Americans.

Putting the irony of all this aside, I really have only one question: Does anybody know, for fact, the difference between Obama and Clinton's proposed changes to the United States? I hear a lot of speculation, but I can no figure out, in plain and simple English, what it is that Obama and Hillary wish to actually change about the United States... and how their plans differ.

And what I really can no figure out is... why we arent doing anything about the national debt... Yes, yes... I know there are apparently "bigger issues" to deal with... but the increasing national debt certainly isnt helping. Right now, I believe we are around 9.5 trillion dollars in debt.... $9.5 trillion. At our current rate, we are accumulating over $1.5 billion in debt per day. Not only does this rape our economy... but it is also butchering our gas prices and our international trade.

Just to put this into perspective for you... if we had a $9.5 trillion surplus... invested at 8% gain annually... the government would be making over $2 billion dollars a day, just from the accumulated interest. (yes, I know that is not the way gov money works... this is just to make a point) There are so many problems in America right now that would be radically helped with the assistance of money.

That being said... I think it is about time the US Gov worked on some fundamentals. In reality, it seems that current politicians are like fire fighters who run into a building without their gear on because they heard screaming. While their programs/ approaches may seem noble... in the long run, it is best to prepare yourself for full service, so that you can serve generations to come... and not just die a martyr.

Personal analogy: It is like me going to college. Sure, I could run off and start life now... but in the long run, I will be better equipped spending these next few years on ME. It is hard, because there is so much to do in life... but it is necessary.

I wish our government would get the same message. I wish the US people would start thinking more long term... and I mean that on many levels.

Monday vLog

Random vLog on Polygamy and our Inner Child... no worries, no relation between those two topics... haha. Enjoy!



yes yes... I know J-me... my vLogs are still stupid long and I should get to some point in them... I need to work on the whole vLog thing. See, I dont want to be a "teacher" when I am vLogging... I just want to say what is on my mind... like a video diary of sorts. The problem is... for the most part, I think in questions.

Hillary vs. Obama videos

I came across these two videos a while back... Lisa Nova is amazing. Let me know which one you all liked more... Enjoy!


Hillary vs. Obama - Take 1




Hillary vs. Obama - Take 2




I liked the second one....

"Interesting fact you may not know... Politicians have to give detailed plans in order for their programs to be implemented... For example, you cant go to congress and say: "Here's my plan, everybody gets the American dream... Yea!""