August 2012

S M T W T F S
   1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031 

Tags

Syndicate

RSS Atom
Powered by InsaneJournal

Jan. 1st, 2008

So happy New Year everyone, before I forget. But today is finally the day that I talk Golden Compass. Some will be about the book and some will be about the movie. I'm too scattered at the moment to make something more than bullet points, but I still want to do it, so sorry in advance for the lack of formate. I just feel like if I don't do it now in some format I'm never going to do it. A brief summary of what I plan to cover includes: why I like the movie when a bit over half of all reviewers don't, some of the differences between the movie and the book and why (I think) there are those differences, some of the themes of the book and what I like or don't like about it. Since there is MAJOR SPOILERS going on I'm going to cut it.



Sep. 21st, 2007

Makes me sick sometimes

Dark Christian over at lj pointed this one out to me http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=926

"Rep. Paul believes, correctly, that the Bible is the infallible, inerrant word of God and thus it is not the role of God-ordained civil government, at any level, to feed, house, clothe or educate anybody."

I mean what? I thought and maybe I'm the one wrong, that charity was implict in the Christian doctrine. You know helping and taking care of the sick, poor, mentally disabled, and needy. I thought that even the dommies were all about doing charity work, sure its only for people who worship God nine ways to Sunday, but still I was fairly certain that missionary work, soup kitchens and the like are MOSTLY Christian run.

I mean I guess that maybe the Gov, according to Christianity isn't in charge of charity, the church is. But since dommies usually see church and state as the same thing or should be the same thing, I figured that there should be lot of charities and programs, they'd include the word of God, but they'd still be there.


"Rep. Paul takes his oath to God as a Congressman seriously and believes, correctly, that the Constitution is the highest man-made law in our land, that it severely restricts what the Federal Government can legally do, and it must be obeyed. This is why, as he states on his campaign web site, he has: never voted to raise taxes; never voted for an unbalanced budget; never voted for a Federal restriction on gun ownership; never voted to raise Congressional pay; never taken a government-paid junket; and has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch."

This one I have conflicted feelings on. I'm all for the Constitution, but I think Paul might be skewing meanings here. I mean I'm all for balancing budgets and I'm glad that that he doesn't want to increase the power of the executive branch, but most of that other stuff kind of needs to be passed. I mean taxes are really important and there should be some gun laws and we should have them on a Federal level. I suppose that Congressional pay shouldn't be raised outrageously, but we need to raise it with the cost of living. I mean we don't want people to not take the job because they can't live off the wages. After all most people qualified to be congressmen have law firms or some other lucrative business. It's enough that they are taking a pay cut most of the time without adding to it.

On that note, I'd say that there are times when the Executive Branch needs more power. Times of war, emergency situations, we need quick and decisive actions. I don't think the time is now and even if it was, I wouldn't trust Bush with that kind of power, but there are definately times when we need one guy calling the shots because we don't have time to argue. No choices made can be worse than the wrong choice.


"Rep. Paul, again correctly, is truly pro-life and believes that there are no circumstances under which it is OK to murder by abortion any innocent unborn babies."

Roar, but then again I think we all know that I'm pro-choice. I mean there is too much in the air. What are the circumstances surrounding the pregnancy. What is the quality of life a mother can provide for herself and her child. When is a person really a person, what do we call living? What if a mother can not afford the medical expense of a severely disabled child? What if the kid is already addicted to a substance? There's way too much that tilts what is right and wrong. There are things worse than death and certain we need to take in quailty of life

I mean the dude is just not cool, he has a whole bunch of what I consider bad policy moves similar to these. Ick. Say no to Rep. Paul

Sep. 17th, 2007

Insteresting Article from DC over at LJ

So I was looking through my feeds and came across this little tid bit: George W. Bush is such a good Christian and so firm in his beliefs and ideals that he doesn't bother going to church.

Now of course he give a lot of reasons for this, reasons that never seemed to stop Bill Clinton. But over all while the article is definitely anti-Bush, I think it brings up some interesting issues and it's worth a read.

Belief net article on Bush not going to church and why that is an important aspect of his politics because he has made being a "Good Christian" such a large part of his campaign and time as president

Sep. 11th, 2007

From DC

Prisons Purging Religious Books

That's from the NY Times so basic summary: Prisons are pulling SOME religious books from prisons.  These books have been donated or otherwise present in prisons for over a decade.  The reason that the country justifies these actions is because they feel prisons are "breeding grounds for religious extremists".  A class action suit is being filed by a Jewish and Christian inmate who claim this violate their rights to religious freedom and free speech as protected under the first amendment and the Religious Freedom of Restoration Act.  

My thoughts, I wonder what books are allowed to stay or go.  I know that my faith certainly couldn't stay on the shelf and I figured that they were pulling certain or perhaps all Muslim texts based off of the excuse given, but the religions of those people filing the suit make me wonder exactly what the prisons are pulling. 

I'm also curious as to why we'd pull something that doesn't cost us any money (most of the books are apparently donated or provided by vary denominations) and that we often hear helps inmates.  If they find some sort of peace or salvation in any religion then who are we to pull that from them?  Are we really going to allow a little bit of fear movitivate every action from now on?  Is this really the right thing to do?  But meh, these are just my thoughts on it.

Aug. 25th, 2007

Dude Check it out Ted Haggard is straight and asking for cash"

Aug. 23rd, 2007

Orginally found by legless over at lj and posted in DC, but I wanted it here.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20227400/sit
e/newsweek/

Aug. 20-27, 2007 issue - In one of history's more absurd acts of totalitarianism, China has banned Buddhist monks in Tibet from reincarnating without government permission. According to a statement issued by the State Administration for Religious Affairs, the law, which goes into effect next month and strictly stipulates the procedures by which one is to reincarnate, is "an important move to institutionalize management of reincarnation."

Now granted I know nothing about China's judiciary system, but I'm wondering how this works.  

I know that making such a law doesn't acknowledge that reincarnation exists, it only serves to punish people who claim to be reincarnations.  But my question is how do you prove this? 

I mean let's say that item X was stolen.  I go around town telling everyone that I stole it.  The cops get tipped off and I'm taken in for questioning.  Right at this point all I have to do is deny the claims.  They might be watching me after they release me.  They might search my house or do try to find evidence linking me, but in the end if they can't prove it, as long as I deny that I stole x to the cops or to a judge, it is the police and lawyer's job to find evidence.  

Let's apply this to reincarnation. The Dali Lama passes on and monks start looking for his reincarnation.  They go through a series of tests and find who they believe to be the Dali Lama.  Police swoop in.  Maybe this kid doesn't even believe he is the reincarnation and maybe he does, but either way when questioned he gives some sort of answer like "I don't know" or "no one can say for sure".  Now the police have to prove that he is a reincarnation.  Now they can reference the tests that the monks did to decide he was the Dali Lama, but without an actual admission or claim made by the person and not the public, how can the police act against him. 

On a similar thread, why doesn't all of Tibet resist by all of them claiming to be a reincarnation of X who reincarnated without permission.  I mean can China really throw all of them in jail?  

But those are just my thoughts on it.  Anyone else?