I can’t think of the number of times that I need a place to record a story. My old personal web site is currently dormant and needs rebuilding to make it a decent blog site. So, given that I was working on rebuilding the Boatswain’s old journal, I figured this would be as good a place as any to try and capture some of mine.
Franklin D. Roosevelt in his first inaugural address, at the heart of the great depression:
I am certain that my fellow Americans expect that on my induction into the Presidency I will address them with a candor and a decision which the present situation of our people impel. This is preeminently the time to speak the truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly. Nor need we shrink from honestly facing conditions in our country today. This great Nation will endure as it has endured, will revive and will prosper. So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance. In every dark hour of our national life a leadership of frankness and vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory. I am convinced that you will again give that support to leadership in these critical days. [1]
Today, we need to hear those words. Instead of listening to the warmongers crying out about terrorists, we need to sit back and listen to our hearts. Fear is driving us to accept as normal, things that would have been inconceivable ten years ago. A country that held impeachment hearings on a President’s private, sexual relations with an adult intern, refuses to question the criminal actions of a President who admits to bypassing congress time and time again, in violation of the law.
Are you are citizen who believes in liberty and self reliance, or are you willing to place all your rights into the hands of a mindless bureaucracy, led by self seeking individuals?
There is another quote you must remember. Part one states; “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”, but the second part of that statement is rarely included; “Great men are almost always bad men.” [2] Are you willing to trust your life, liberty and freedom to our current collection of great men, or would you rather trust in a Constitution and system of laws that has maintained those freedoms for over two hundred years?
The famous psychologist Abraham Maslow once said, “He that is good with a hammer tends to think everything is a nail”.
Thus, our legislatures and regulatory bodies, because they only have the ability to write laws, seem to think that laws can solve every problem. Too often, they overlook another physician’s mandate, “First do no harm.” Too often, in their desire to help they end up causing harm.
I was meditating on this fact during this past week as I helped defend our corporate computer systems from damage caused by the law that changed the start and stop times for Daily Savings Time. For some marginal good, that law has placed many computer systems around the world at risk and caused thousands of hours to be spent defending against the damage this “minor change” could cause.
I really wish the Senate, Congress and all regulatory agencies looked a lot more carefully at the cost of the laws and regulations they develop. No matter how GOOD the purpose is behind a law or regulation, the primary mandate should always be, “First do no harm”.
The psalm this past Sunday, Ps 15:2-3, 3-4, 4-5 is a reflection on Ezekial 18:5-9, a description of a man of virtue. This one line from that reading hit me simply because I have credit card debts that are years old, that I’ve been trying to pay “forever”.
In California, the legal rate of interest is 10% for consumers; the general usury limit for non-consumers is anything over 5% greater than the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco’s rate, yet I have credit cards that charge way over 20%!
How can they do that? According to State Interest Rates & Usury Limits, in 1980, the federal government passed a special law which allowed national banks to ignore state usury limits. They are the ones that issue credit cards and change over 20% interest on them.
What they are doing may be perfectly legal, but I wonder what God will say to the people who work for those banks when judgment day roles around?
You’ve all seen crying and hand-wringing by those who believe that Same Sex Marriages [samesexmarriage.ca] somehow violate the sanctity of marriage. (See: Bush vows to defend ‘sanctity of marriage’ [washtimes.com].)
My position is simple. By mixing the secular or profane recognition of legal and financial contracts, known as marriages, with the theological or sacred unions of a man and a woman, also known as marriages, the churches have opened themselves up to this problem.
The major theme behind the drive for same sex marriage contracts is access to the same financial rights and benefits that are given to those who get “married”. Hospital visitation rights, health insurance, the right to raise children and inheritance rights. These are all secular issues. They have nothing to do with the teachings of mainstream religions. [One exception noted below.]
The pastors and priests of this country have allowed the state to license them to perform marriages. In doing so, they have mingled the sacred and the profane. Other countries require two wedding ceremonies. One, by a civil servant, establishes the civil and financial contracts that make up a civil union. The other, by a minister or priest, establishes the spiritual union as taught by that specific church. By co-mingling the sacred and the profane aspects of the marriage union, the religious leaders have lost their ability to control the definition of a “marriage”.
The solution is simple. Each church needs to clearly define what constitutes a marriage based on their theology and perform the appropriate ceremonies needed to recognize that union. However, they must also understand that they cannot and must not control the secular contracts that state recognizes as a marriage union. If they were smart, they would join the bandwagon to recognize same sex and other civil contracts as just that, civil contracts and unions, and work to separate them from the concept of a sacred marriage union.
Sacred [reference.com]: 2. Worthy of religious veneration: the sacred teachings of the Buddha.
Profane [reference.com]: 2. Nonreligious in subject matter, form, or use; secular: sacred and profane music.
The one exception I mentioned is the underlying teachings by some faiths that homosexuality is a sin. (See: HOMOSEXUALITY—SIN, OR A CULTURAL BAD HABIT? [apologeticspress.org] for one example.) This, however, has nothing to do with the US Government or a State recognizing a financial contract between two people who are living together. Finally, given the US concept of the separation of church and state, the government cannot base its legal decisions on the teachings of any one church, no matter how mainstream that church is.
Given that I was working on rebuilding the Boatswain's old journal, I figured this would be as good a place as any to try and capture some of my stories.