RightFaith Clouds military

Welcome To RightFaith
I Enjoyed Writing These
RightFaith BlogRoll

Friday, June 30, 2006

Sen. Allen's ACLU Facts--Wrong

Recently, I wrote Senator George Allen (R-Va) asking him to sponsor a bill that prevents the ACLU from receiving taxpayer money to secularize America.

They receive this funding due to US Code section 1988 which states that that when the ACLU storms into a community like yours claiming that the 10 Commandments must come down, a graduation speech is too religious, or prayer before meetings is un-Constitutional, they can be reimbursed at the taxpayer's expense because it is a 'civil rights' issue.

While this intent of this law is to protect religious folk, it has been abused by the ACLU and utilized as a significant source of funding. Instead of this law offering protection, it offers incentive for the ACLU to fight against the religious traditions of the American people.

Here is a list of 9.6 million dollars that the ACLU has received from you and me (courtesy of Stop The ACLU). Yet, when I brought this to Senator Allen's attention asking him to sponsor Rep. John Hostettler's (R-Ind.) amendment in the Senate, this was his response.
Thank you for contacting me regarding the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). I appreciate your concerns and value the opportunity to respond.

As you may know, the American Civil Liberties Union is a non-profit agency that seeks to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to all people in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States. Their mission is to fight violations of civil liberties wherever and whenever they occur.
(Why is he defining the ACLU? What makes him speak so highly of it? Why has a Senator of the United States given himself to describing the alleged role of the ACLU? Makes me wonder... But, back on message; here's the important part:)
Annual dues and contributions from its members, plus grants from private foundations and individuals, help fund the ACLU. They do not receive any government funding.

I believe the United States strength, in part, comes from its diversity; it is a land of freedom and opportunity. Our nation understands that people have fundamental God-given rights and liberties and our Constitution requires the government to protect those rights.

While I may disagree with many of the positions and stances the ACLU defends, I believe that it is important that we respect the opinions of others. Our Founding Fathers did not necessarily always agree with the course our great nation was taking, as evidenced in the writings of James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay in the Federalist Papers and the antithesis of the Anti-Federalist Papers written by Robert Yates. Without this great debate, and many similar debates like this over time, our nation would not be what it is today. Therefore, it is with differing opinions that we continue to solidify and uphold the ideals that our nation was founded upon freedom, liberty, and representative democracy. You can be certain that I will continue to fight for the common sense ideals of Virginians...

With warm regards, I remain

Senator George Allen
I generally like the Senator, but this one case where his facts are dead wrong and they are costing American's their tax dollars and their religous heritage.

Linked: Stop the ACLU. Thanks

Thursday, June 29, 2006

Pausing for a moment of thanks

I praise the God of Heaven and Earth, the most powerful and sovereign Creator, for his wonderful and praise worthy invention: the coffee bean.

My first cup of coffee was over a dinner with my mom, at Frisch's Big Boy, around the age of 8. I put so much sugar in there that the coffee taste was barely recognizable.

I was late in my high school years when I patronized my first coffee shop called 'The Buzz'. Quite the alternative place (had an "unusual" smoke filling the air) but a good brew nonetheless. Social drinking was motive.

In college, I needed coffee. It kept me in my 'A' game and helped to produce some great grades, memorable moments late at night, and helped to pay for my way through.

After college, the opportunity to drink coffee was sought out. I had coffee appointments several times per week with friends, not to mention solo every morning at work. I really became interested in taste and quality during this time; no more Maxwell House for me. No more burnt roasted or pre-ground beans.

Now, having spent all my money on coffee up to this point, the treasured cup of quality coffee is rare treat. I've also learned to coordinate my caffeine intake with my sleep schedule. Yet, the clarity with which I think of drinking a cup of coffee tingles my senses so that I can even smell it right now.

The Creator did well and today I give Him thanks for the coffee bean.

Wednesday, June 28, 2006

Feelings are Stupid

You are sitting in a theater watching a scary movie, when all of the sudden the serial murderer jumps out from behind the dumpster. You jump with fright and feel afraid even though you are perfectly safe in that theater and no one is going to attack you. Feelings are stupid.

What if you became smitten with the town hooch, you know the person who ‘gets around’. You really like this person and might even begin thinking about love; but before you can have the DTR (defining the relationship) conversation, you are suddenly dropped like a bad trend in the 1980’s. Feelings are stupid; you should have known better.

The point is this, feelings come and feelings go. You can neither trust them nor depend upon them staying the same. Feelings are great companions but lousy leaders.

Which brings me to Democrats…

War is an unfortunate, but often necessary, consequence of human depravity. I hate war and am truly glad that the Democrats (the ones who are sincere and are not pushing their anti-American propaganda) are making such a fuss against the War in Iraq. In a democracy, we need people to grow tired of wars because it forces us to be leery before committing to one.

But, the middle of war is the wrong time to give emotions and feelings the leadership position of national policy. War is bad, but feelings are stupid.

Democrats or Republicans who allow emotions to dominate their decisions should not be leading the nation. The abdication of rationality and forward thinking for our military strategy to defeat terrorist and win the War in Iraq will most definitely lead to a Middle East dominated by Islamofacism.

Emotions must be disciplined into submission. No matter how much we hate war and grow weary of it, leaving Iraq would be an emotion-driven, irrational decision that we the people must not tolerate. We need our politicians to be disciplined, master of their emotions, and leaders in times of national stress. While the people may be inclined toward emotionalism, the character of our nation’s leaders must inspire--not pander.

Feelings are too stupid to give them the power of setting national policy.

Linked at these superior blogs: Adam's Blog, Don Surber, Pursuing Holiness, Stop the ACLU and Basil's Blog. Linked at GOPinion.

RWN interviews Sen. Santorum

John Hawkins: If someone said to you, "Rick, I am undecided between you and Casey. Give me three differences between the two of you that would convince me to vote for you." What would you tell them?

Rick Santorum: First, I'd say taxes are a big difference. He is against the tax reductions of 2001 and 2003. He said he would like to raise...rates up to 50% for the top bracket. He is absolutely a traditional tax and spend Democrat. So on taxes and spending, he is for spending a bunch more and taxing a bunch more....

The second issue that I think is especially important, particularly for Pennsylvanians, is medical liability reform. That's an issue that is just killing our commonwealth. We are losing doctors hand over fist. We had 9 maternity wards close down in the city of Philadelphia, 5 in the city of Pittsburgh. We have a real crisis on our hands and Bobby Casey is a trial lawyer. That's what he did. He sued doctors before he got into politics and there is a big difference between him and me on (that) issue.

...Those are the two big economic issues that are facing us. On the cultural side, probably the biggest difference is on the issue of marriage. I strongly believe we need to protect the traditional family in America and he does not feel that way. He is not in favor of the Federal Marriage Amendment. He is not in favor of a State Marriage Amendment. He would do nothing to stop the courts from doing what they (inevitably seem to do), which is to...take this issue of what marriage is out of the hands of the people and have the courts decide it for us in a way that is against the way most Americans think it should be.

Sen. Santorum is stuck in a tight re-election bid against a name: Casey. Bob Casey really doesn't have much to run on except his father's, former and well-liked Governor, identity. It was a really good interview; you can read the rest of it here.

Tuesday, June 27, 2006

Gawking’s Unintended Consequences

Do philanthropists despise the media attention? The glamour and awe accompanying Warren Buffet’s announcement was repulsive. While a 40-billion dollar gift to the Gates Foundation is significant, in my opinion the media overload decreases its qualitative nobility.

Consider the most recent issue of Newsweek that praises people who are “Giving-Back” dollars to a cause or humanitarian issue. These 15 millionaires are verbally slobbered upon until they look shameful.

If the purpose of the media recognition is to encourage giving in others (and if it wasn’t, why not?), the media failed. Instead, it sends two contrary messages:

The first message it sends it that the value of a gift is measured in dollars not in personal sacrifice. Come on, we all know that Warren Buffet is going to continue living in the lap of luxury. The media overload is unattractive and smirks of arrogance and pride.

Second, to us average non-millionaires whose budgets are so easily influenced by high gasoline bills, what gift can we give that compares? Thus, we are compelled to philanthropic lethargy.

I admire the heart of someone willing to sacrificially give, but I consider the beauty of a daughter caring for her Alzheimer inflicted mother of greater nobility than Buffet’s. I consider the immigrant working at the local Mexican restaurant a much greater man when he sends his paycheck home, knowing that it will probably never arrive but be stolen.

I don’t condemn any of the givers mentioned above, but I do condemn the gawking. In my opinion, the arrogance and pride it reflects sends messages that negate the original gift.

Un-Protecting the Flag

This is one issue that may put me at odds with my conservative readership. I am against Flag Burning Amendment. Let me outline why...

I am passionately patriotic and understand the sacrifice of our military (and their families) for the freedoms I enjoy. My love has been birthed in a study of history, nurtured in blessings I enjoy, and matured in an understanding of the sacrifice of our grandparents.

I have a love affair with the United States of America and find it upsetting that someone would so strongly and emotionally oppose a national policy that the best expression of their emotion would be in the burning of our most sacred national image.

My affection is the result of relationship; were someone to force me to love it or act like I love it, I would immediately reject it and all that it stands for. A rule without relationship produces rebellion.

Parents who have too many rules for their children and don’t take the time to foster a relationship create of void in relationship that manifests itself in the rebellion of the child. It’s not a perfect metaphor, but maybe you can understand my thought. If the nation chooses to make rule for acceptable forms of expression, I believe we would widen the void between the parties.

Before anyone else mentions it…The flaw in this argument is this: What if my form of dissent is to walk around naked all day (or some other irresponsible manifestation of self-expression)? Shouldn’t a community have the right to establish acceptable forms of dissent within itself? That’s a good point too.

The answer is ultimately yes. Which bring us to the current vote. If it were me voting, I would say that walking around naked is unacceptable but, because of the reasons above, flag burning would be acceptable.

Personally, however, if someone resorts to flag burning, they have just demonstrated to me that the weight of their argument is too weak to stand on its own merits. Haven't they?

Monday, June 26, 2006

Where is the outrage?!

E.D. offers outrage where there otherwise would have been none. She's upset that our marines are beaten, slaughtered, and mutliated, but no one seems to be concerned; meanwhile, the alleged torture of detainees in Gitmo, etc., has every liberal condemning our soldiers. Well said, E.D.

Linked in good form at Independent Christian Voice.

Online Involvement for Social Conservatives

The following links are civic involvment opportunities for social conservatives:

Oppose plans by the National Education Association to approve and promote homosexual marriage, click here.

Write Governor who fired Christian for personal convictions, click here.

Boycott Ford, click here.

Support the Pledge Protection Act, click here.

Oppose S 471 -- the Stem-Cell Research Bill, click here.

Support the 'Public Expression of Religion Act', click here.

Contact President Bush and ask him to keep nominating the good judges he promised, click here.

On Illegal Immigration, Tell Congress: Compassion, Yes, But Security First, click here.

Ask Congress to pass "Holly's Law," click here.

Ask Congress to pass "We, The People Act (H.R. 4379)," click here.

Ask Governor Pataki to stop discriminating against owners of skating rink for Christian Skate Night, click here.

Saturday, June 24, 2006

Inherently Evil

"While they look innocent, they really are wicked and rebellious," said a good friend of mine and new father about his son. I protested, "What kind of father are you? (jokingly) How could you say this? He looks so sweet!"

I finally get it; he was right. Who taught my cousin, at the age of 6, that lying was acceptable? Who taught the 10-year-old girl next to me in the coffeeshop that screaming is an acceptable form of voicing dissent or desire (I'm about to turn and give her mom some much needed asssistance.) If a code of morality is written on the hearts of man and expressed, among other things, in common rightness among differing cultures, why are kids born breaking it?

Kids lie, scheme, manipulate, complain, and are generally sinners of opportunity. If given the choice, they rarely choose good. And, if they choose good, they are inclined to choose it for the wrong reasons. How frustrated this must make parents! (Sorry, Mom).

Bullying is another manifestation of this evil. I use the word 'evil intentionally; kids are inherently inclined toward evil. I saw this when I worked in the local school system. Don't take my word for it, take the Principal's. Get this: He is a public school principal who is a strong advocate for homeschooling--his perspective is priceless. He is writing a series on public school safety; here is an excerpt:
Every Day in America 160,000 students stay at home from school because they are afraid of how they might be treated by their peers. Every day thousands or millions more come to school with a knot in their guts unable to concentrate, learn, or perform at their best because they are afraid they will be insulted, harassed, assaulted, or worse. Every day....
He's a credible, quality writer with a lot to share. Enjoy.

More at Hard Blog Life

Friday, June 23, 2006

Moral Non-Development

Moral development is a fascinating study.

Recently, I was sitting in a classroom where values development for people, 18-30 years old, was being discussed. William Perry’s theory of intellectual and ethical development, obviously the favorite of the professor, was being digested by the knowledge hungry students. Let me summarize the theory for you:
The more relativistic you are, the higher levels of intellectual and ethical development you have achieved.
You can visit here for more information. Catch the irony with me: the more incomprehensible decisions of right and wrong become, the higher intellectual and ethical development you possess. Or, put another way, the more you think in terms of right and wrong, the more immature you are. Ridiculous?

This is yet another example where an academician has ‘educated himself into imbecility’. The question that I would like to ask Mr. Perry is this, “Do you believe that your theory is right?” If not, then why is he a proponent? If so, hasn’t he just proven his theory false?

Relativism in all its forms is incoherent because of the Aristolian law of non-contradiction which states, “one cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time” (wiki). The car can not be parked on the street and not parked on the street at the same time without another clarifier (i.e. time). Of course, Perry would probably deconstruct his way out of my questions.

But, as I left the class, I looked around and saw the next generation of Kenneth Lays and went home pessimistic.

Thursday, June 22, 2006

RightFaith Lives Again

Celebrate with us that RightFaith is back online with a brand new look! Enjoy your day and spread the word.

Thanks Angel

Wednesday, June 21, 2006

US gets R-E-S-P-E-C-T from Europe

Following sharp jabs at American policy including the President being asked whether the United States was, "regarded as the biggest threat to global security," The Austrian Chancellor rose and gave his opinion:
"I think it's grotesque to say that America is a threat to the peace in the world compared with North Korea, Iran, a lot of countries," Schuessel said. Europe would not enjoy peace and prosperity if not for U.S. help after World War II, he said.

"We should be fair from the other side of the Atlantic," Schuessel said. "We should understand what September 11th meant to the American people."
He continued with a nod to our common values that should motivate our global actions including democracy, rule of law, and individual rights.

In a time when the US is ridiculed out of jealousy and envy, it's nice that someone has our back.

Where is hope?

Evil exists within my heart. I know it is evil because I see the same passions in society and cringe with disbelief. Evil’s manifestation through the actions of others reveals the evil that rests within me. Who doesn’t condemn CEO Kenneth Lay who lied to shareholders as Enron was collapsing only to maximize his personal profit, but has never lied? Who doesn’t condemn the husband who commits adultery, but never lusts? People commit these acts and worse; yet even my heart is inclined to justify the lying, cheating, stealing, and lusting it quickly condemns in others. Is there hope for me?

There is something wrong with a heart that can identify an action as bad, but still has a passion for experiencing badness. It has become corrupted, and is pulled with an ever increasing intensity towards its own debasement. What can stop such a brazen pursuit of evil? Who will repair the heart? The state of our humanity is weak, hypocritical, and increasing defiled. Is there hope for us?

The decay of morality in our world is unstoppable. Have you looked around your city lately? I have; I saw men gazing at provocatively dressed women, appearing to lust in their heart, while holding the hands of another. I have overheard conversations that promote the pursuit of materialism, unhindered by ethics. I have seen murder rates rise, rapes reported, property destroyed, and corruption increased. Is there hope for our communities?

I am overwhelmed by hatred, pride, anger, and lust in our world. How is it that the passion for an object or achievement short-circuits our judgment before a person is able to decide whether it is worth pursuing? Why are anger and hatred so prevalent and how are such horrific actions justified in their name? Is there hope for our world? This world is a bad place where bad people do bad things—and I am one of us.

The only hope I see, and I say this most sincerely, the only hope I see for mankind is in the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Thursday, June 01, 2006

Constitutional Marriage Protection Needed Now

Massachusetts – May 17, 2004: After a ruling by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, the state begins issuing marriage licenses to homosexual couples. This leads directly to schools openly promoting homosexuality and to Catholic Charities being forced to stop placing children for adoptions.
In 2004, the mayors of several cities, beginning with San Francisco, issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples (Sandoval County, New Mexico; New Paltz, New York, and Multnomah County, Oregon). State courts rule those “marriages” invalid, but appeals are pending.

Nebraska – May 21, 2005: A federal judge overturns the state’s constitutional marriage amendment, which had been enacted by a ballot vote of 70 percent.

California – September 6, 2005: The legislature becomes the first in the nation to pass a law mandating legalization of homosexual “marriages.” Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) vetoes the bill, but proponents say they’ll be back.

Connecticut – October, 2005: Connecticut becomes the sixth state (after California, Hawaii, New Jersey, Massachusetts and Vermont) to offer some form of legal recognition to same-sex couples.

Maryland – January 20, 2006: A Baltimore city judge strikes down the state marriage law, and then stays her order pending appeal.

Georgia – May 16, 2006: A county judge overturns the state marriage protection amendment enacted in 2004 by a 76-percent ballot vote.

Utah – May 16, 2006: The state Supreme Court upholds the bigamy conviction of a former police officer, Rodney Holm. He had challenged the marriage law after being convicted in 2002 upon his third “marriage.” Chief Justice Christine Durham dissents, saying the state law violates the “privacy of intimate, personal relationships” and religious freedom.

Washington – The state Supreme Court will rule soon on a challenge to that state’s marriage law, as will the high court in New Jersey. Both courts are dominated by liberals. Unlike Massachusetts, neither Washington nor New Jersey has a law barring marriages to out-of-state couples whose own states do not recognize “gay” marriage. Thus, if either state begins issuing marriage licenses to couples from the other 49 states, the recipients will return to their own states and file lawsuits challenging not only their state laws but the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

Lawsuits filed by homosexual activists seeking to overturn state marriage laws are pending in 10 states: California, Connecticut, Florida, Iowa, Maryland, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma and Washington.

RIGHTFAITH: Where everything favors the stewardship of patrimony. All content is believed to be correct but may be amended based upon new information. The content of this page may be republished with proper citation without the expressed consent of the author. This site is not, in any manner whatsoever, associated with the religious philosophism from the Indian penninsula. All comments or emails to the author become the property of the author and may be published or deleted without notice or reason provided. Copyrighted 2005.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Social Conservative Action Centers

Web Blog Pinging Service

Add this blog to my Technorati Favorites!
GOP Bloggers