God in Politics, pt. 1

America is a religious nation, there is no denying this. The population is predominantly Christian with 76% of Americans identifying themselves as such, although many other faiths are present. This creates a powerful morally conservative base, especially in the southern and midwestern regions known as the "Bible Belt" which is a backbone in American politics and the formation of legislation. There must be a clear division of this personal faith and affairs of the state. After all, we aren't a theocracy, so the words of preachers and priests shouldn't be taken into account in the political theater.

Morality and ethics have a place in the composition of policies. They're the basis of compassionate and fair government, and religious organizations are responsible for many philosophies of morality. Many peoples' whole perception of right and wrong is based on their faith. But god has no place in politics. No legislative act can ever be justified with any variation of "god said it's wrong." Here, we must detach legal justification from what is right in the eyes of the devoted. To a person of faith something may be 'wrong', such as eating certain foods. This doesn't mean that the majority can push these dietary restrictions into law, it only means that those practitioners of their belief must adhere to said rule.

Take gay unions for an example: whenever I hear an argument against same-sex marriage, I am appalled. People will rant about how 'disgusting' and 'vile' the love these people have for each other is. Why? Preachers and clerics tell them it is wrong. Someone else's marriage has never affected me; so how can you deny the right to wed to anyone? All the opposition is from the religious right, who call it an abomination and unnatural. Apparently those preaching about love and tolerance are only talking to the straight crowd. The religious conservative influence on civil unions is erroneous. We're secular in America. If your god is ordering you to go to war, tell him to shove it. Freedom of religion also implies freedom from religion, never should someone else's fervor disrupt your ability to be happy. America's founders created the First Amendment to ensure that everyone not only had the right to practice religion, but not have their lives disrupted by it.

It is not my intent to mock or ridicule belief, only to show that I disagree with the hive-mind of the 'Bible Belt'. You should never insult someone for their religion, faith is a personal thing. Insulting it is akin to insulting someone's identity. If someone is preaching on the subway, and it bothers you, listen to them and respectfully debate them if you want to. An intellectual argument can do nothing to hurt you, only allow you to see the issue through your opponent's eyes. I've told you before, knowledge is power, and with it you can defeat any adversary.

Now for the comment maker. Not to be mean, but how can you justify actions with a deity? A god is something you believe in, just like children have faith in Santa. There are books about it, older people tell you it's real, but you can never see it. This doesn't prove or disavow god, only renders him moot in political theory. If a god's existence cannot be certified, it cannot be a justification for any political action. People will tell you they can give you evidence of god and thump on their bibles. Wow, a book, raw energy. How can you argue with that? Let's see, they're telling you that god exists and is infallible.

Says who?

The Bible says so.

But who wrote the Bible?

The Bible was inspired by god.

Meaning?

God exists and is infallible, so whatever he wrote is true.

Wow, quite the argument there. But it's biggest hole is right in the middle because circular logic does not work. Once an argument loops around and relies on one of it's own points for justification, it is self-defeating. In conclusion, theory cannot be proved by theory, only with existing facts. Arm yourself.

Education and Literacy pt. 1

Schoolhouse Rock never lied to me. Ever. And Schoolhouse Rock told me 'knowledge is power!' If that's true, then books are raw energy. And Schoolhouse Rock doesn't lie.

It saddens me to watch the state of education in America. I'm not gonna get all preachy about test scores and passing grades and no child left behind (today). What saddens me is how education ends as soon as school does. The American learning institution is a machine, you sit for 12 years, maybe more, and hopefully come out just literate enough to never read a book again. We sit, listening to boring teachers who don't get paid enough to be interesting, but will never lose their jobs for being incompetent. Surrounded by other children who don't care and are never taught anything but memorization. At every level, American education is broken.

Why is education so deplorable over here? Because the American household is broken. A child from a negative environment will project negativity in the classroom. The solution? Remove him from class, make sure he doesn't learn and isn't encouraged to participate. Universities, classical beacons of higher education and study, reduced to the Top 10 Party Schools. Nice. Yes, you get back what you put in, and in Nickrowetopia, everyone pays attention, classes are both effective and engaging, and there's no homework, when everyone goes home, they just read for leisure.

Ah, reading for fun, the dying art. Be honest, when was the last time you read a book? Not a sports page, not a magazine, but a book, nigga. (If it has been more than a month or so, I prostrate myself and beg, please go do so.) Every day, I wonder at how lucky I am for being born in New York City, where even in Rockaway, there are 3 libraries. Libraries...ah, how romantic. I love the idea that reading is free and open to the public. That's true democracy if you ask me, the open and free trade of ideas. How wonderful is it that our tax dollars support a system where you can walk into a building, be helped to literature of all kinds, and it's (almost) free! Regrettably, so few people take these opportunities to educate and better themselves.

Worse even is the book banning, the horror of actually denying someone a classic work because it disagrees with the status quo. To oppose something based on the fact that it goes against your particular way of thought is egregious (word of the day). How, in America, can you limit what someone reads or hears? For the right to free speech goes both ways, you can say anything you want, and you can take in whatever you want.

I tire, and thus will conclude. You cannot hate something, only wish to destroy it. Learn and take in everything you can, from every possible angle. Once you have studied and learned something in it's entirety then, if you can still hate it, you have the means to destroy it. If that makes any sense, we're on the same page. Arm yourself.

Freedom, pt. 1

For a while, I've been thinking and talking about starting a movement. Being weary of the American system, I want to ferment change. I don't expect to do this through a blog, but what a blog can become is the simplest of soap boxes, a platform from which I can state my views and philosophies in a plain and honest matter. This is more of an intensely public journal, a safe place where I can examine the world, it's problems, and aimlessly brainstorm on how to fix them. I stand behind anything I say on this blog because otherwise there's no point in claiming them as my words, but comment and disagree, change my mind if you can.
I will be exercising my right to free speech (that's what blogs are for) but what this won't become is a series of inflammatory statements designed to insult people, nor a thundering of praise and glory for anyone else. Neither will I try to force an ideology on anyone, that's peer pressure. My main goal is to simply sift through politics and what makes them tick, to find the theory of a possible perfect system. This page is a colander for my thoughts, separating crude thoughts from refined ideas.
The first concept I want to figure out is the most American: Freedom. The human right to happiness, success, and enlightenment. Liberty is indeed an entangled concept, with several queries as to where it begins and ends. What actions and words can be considered free?
"The right to swing your fist ends where my face begins" is one of the simplest but most exact definitions of freedom ever encountered. A free man can do whatever he pleases, yet the instant his actions impede upon another's happiness freedom ends, and he has become an oppressor. In a truly free world, there can be no oppression. The instant you hold someone down, or deter them in some way, you are taking away their humanity, leaving them naked in the wind. Creating rules for the common good however, is not a deterrence of freedom, as it falls into the government's role, which is to protect it's people. Think of where we would be without police. Yes, it can be a tool of persecution, but it is necessary to our safety in the same way the militia was 200 years ago.
Can you limit speech if it is derogatory or insulting? Some people would say absolutely not, if they don't like it let them plug their ears. This is pretty hard to do when you scream it at them all the way from their house to their job. Can you tell someone, 'don't say that, it's mean'? No, but you can nip it in the bud, and eliminate the ignorance necessary to verbally assault someone you don't even know through racial slurs(shouldn't exist, we're all people), or other comments on their appearance, which is why in a free system, education is the most important factor. One of a weak education lacks the skills to properly attack an opponent, by knowing him and finding the real distinction between them so that it can be solved.
This definition is incomplete, and I will revisit in later posts, forming it like clay until I have an idea so perfectly constructed, or at least wrapped in a language so that it is an undeniable ideal, a foundation on which to build. Rome wasn't built in a day, and this could take years.