Freedom should be free, I suggest, in making an argument that we should not make it so hard for people to come to America.
Only to have a Facebook friend fire back, "Uh, freedom wasn't exactly free for the Founding Fathers. They pledged their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor, and it wasn't idle rhetoric."
And, another replied, "Freedom is never free, it must be purchased with blood through every generation."
Good thoughts, those are. In such a sense, freedom is not free. But, the freedom to come to America is not one that needs to be earned through spilling blood to get here. Freedoms that need to be won are won by those who don't have them from those who won't just give them away. But when freedom is won, it should not hoarded, but shared, freely.
The man who shares not his freedom knows not its meaning.
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Monday, January 30, 2012
If We Find Silly Alcohol Laws, Get Rid of Them
We should loosen up our alcohol laws in Utah.
Oh, I do not mean drop our government agency that distributes. Nor, would I like to see us make it much easier to get alcohol.
But, I would like to see us wash from the books any law that is just silly. We do ourselves no favor by having silly laws on the books.
I understand bar owners, home brewers and others sat down earlier this month with the Utah Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control Review Committee. They asked some pretty hard questions. Why should restaurants pay double for license renewals? Why is it illegal to serve two shots of, say, Jack Daniels, but okay to give the patron one shot of Jack Daniels and another of vodka. Why are curtains or walls required to be placed between the people mixing the drinks and the customers?
If we have silly and unreasonable laws, let's change them. We should look into such questions as were brought up, and, if they are correct, change the laws to make them equitable.
(Source for this story item: Peg McEntee's column in the Jan. 12 Salt Lake Tribune.)
Oh, I do not mean drop our government agency that distributes. Nor, would I like to see us make it much easier to get alcohol.
But, I would like to see us wash from the books any law that is just silly. We do ourselves no favor by having silly laws on the books.
I understand bar owners, home brewers and others sat down earlier this month with the Utah Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control Review Committee. They asked some pretty hard questions. Why should restaurants pay double for license renewals? Why is it illegal to serve two shots of, say, Jack Daniels, but okay to give the patron one shot of Jack Daniels and another of vodka. Why are curtains or walls required to be placed between the people mixing the drinks and the customers?
If we have silly and unreasonable laws, let's change them. We should look into such questions as were brought up, and, if they are correct, change the laws to make them equitable.
(Source for this story item: Peg McEntee's column in the Jan. 12 Salt Lake Tribune.)
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Life is Not in Petri Dish, but in Womb
If a heart is beating 23 days after conception and a brain is forming 21 to 24 days in, and, if we judge a person to be dead if his heart stops beating, why would we have a different take on whether an unborn child is a living being if he or she has a beating heart?
So I asked in a Facebook post.
Scott Peterson fired back a good answer:
"One of my favorite points that pro-lifers make is the 'beating heart' premise.
*Individual* cardiac muscle cells beat. I've seen it in a petri dish with my own two eyes. Doesn't mean that the cell can function in any way on its own."
*Individual* cardiac muscle cells beat. I've seen it in a petri dish with my own two eyes. Doesn't mean that the cell can function in any way on its own."
I think Scott has a valid point. I am partially persuaded. But, it should not be overlooked that the beating heart, in the unborn, is yet within the unborn's body. Comparing apples to apples, that seems of note.
And, I wonder but what, if the little heart were to quit beating while within the womb, there wouldn't be a miscarriage. If so, that would indicate the beating heart in the unborn is not to be equated with a heart still beating in a petri dish, but to be equated with one that stops beating resulting in death.
.
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Ron Paul Not as Dangerous as Suggested?
Read today how it is not that Ron Paul supports legalizing drugs and prostitution, but that he simply favors leaving the issue to the states, being a believer that such powers are delegated to the states by Article 1, Section 8 and the 10th Amendment.
This tempers my feelings toward Paul, but doesn't alleviate them. I have heard him say we should free those who are in jail for marijuana. I do fear our country and government would move more the direction of not fighting drugs, not fighting gambling, and such other things if Paul were elected.
This tempers my feelings toward Paul, but doesn't alleviate them. I have heard him say we should free those who are in jail for marijuana. I do fear our country and government would move more the direction of not fighting drugs, not fighting gambling, and such other things if Paul were elected.
Monday, January 23, 2012
Of Newt and Paul: Morals of Candidate, Nation Matter
I do not want Newt Gingrich for president because the morality of a person is important, and I do not want Ron Paul because the morality of a nation does matter.
Gingrich's turned his campaign around by castigating CNN's John King for opening last Thursday's debate with a question on whether Newt asked a former wife for an open marriage, condemning King for "the destructive, vicious, negative nature of much of the news media" and saying he was appalled that King would open a presidential debate with such a question.
But, I think the morality of a candidate is a valid issue. I think whether Gingrich asked for an open marriage is a valid concern. More so, I do not think I should forget Gingrich was having an affair while, as speaker of the House, he was leading impeachment proceedings against President Clinton for having an affair with Monica Lewinsky.
It is one thing to say these things were wrong, and to apologize each time the topic comes up. But to say such things are "destructive, vicious and negative" is not where I chose to leave them. They are destructive and negative to a campaign, certainly, but they are important to determining the character of the person.
And, in electing a person to fill the Oval Office, character is something I desire.
Nor can I vote for Ron Paul. If we were to elect him, our nation would swing towards legalizing drugs, and perhaps legalizing gambling, as well. Paul's views on limited government do not end with making the government smaller, but extend to limiting government's efforts to bring morality to our land. The idea of making cocaine legal, to me, is dangerous. The idea that we could become a nation riddled with gambling casinos, street corner drug markets, and open prostitution is not a pleasant one. It is not the America I envision.
I believe in an America with values. Freedom to some might seem to be the right to be "wicked," the right to indulge in whatever thing a person might want. I say, though, having government restrictions on those things is not going to take away your indulging, but it is going to curb it, it is going to keep it from being an open and assessable part of our society, a thing that advertises itself by being right out in the public, thus attracting and promoting more of the same.
No, I am not for the immoralization of America, and I am not for Ron Paul.
Gingrich's turned his campaign around by castigating CNN's John King for opening last Thursday's debate with a question on whether Newt asked a former wife for an open marriage, condemning King for "the destructive, vicious, negative nature of much of the news media" and saying he was appalled that King would open a presidential debate with such a question.
But, I think the morality of a candidate is a valid issue. I think whether Gingrich asked for an open marriage is a valid concern. More so, I do not think I should forget Gingrich was having an affair while, as speaker of the House, he was leading impeachment proceedings against President Clinton for having an affair with Monica Lewinsky.
It is one thing to say these things were wrong, and to apologize each time the topic comes up. But to say such things are "destructive, vicious and negative" is not where I chose to leave them. They are destructive and negative to a campaign, certainly, but they are important to determining the character of the person.
And, in electing a person to fill the Oval Office, character is something I desire.
Nor can I vote for Ron Paul. If we were to elect him, our nation would swing towards legalizing drugs, and perhaps legalizing gambling, as well. Paul's views on limited government do not end with making the government smaller, but extend to limiting government's efforts to bring morality to our land. The idea of making cocaine legal, to me, is dangerous. The idea that we could become a nation riddled with gambling casinos, street corner drug markets, and open prostitution is not a pleasant one. It is not the America I envision.
I believe in an America with values. Freedom to some might seem to be the right to be "wicked," the right to indulge in whatever thing a person might want. I say, though, having government restrictions on those things is not going to take away your indulging, but it is going to curb it, it is going to keep it from being an open and assessable part of our society, a thing that advertises itself by being right out in the public, thus attracting and promoting more of the same.
No, I am not for the immoralization of America, and I am not for Ron Paul.
Sunday, January 22, 2012
George Albert Smith Aspired to Loftiest of Goodness
Don't know that I have heard of any other person -- other than Christ -- aspiring to any higher ideals than did George Albert Smith, president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from 1945 to 1951.
You must read his personal creed to decide if you agree. In it, we find as lofty of ambition to do good as you should find most anywhere.
I first read his creed as a young man, probably while I was at Ricks College, and the line, "I would be a friend to the friendless," has been a positive influence on me ever since.
Though the creed is little known, I think it worthy of great attention. If it were popular, and given mass attention, and considered a great document, I think that would be worthy.
The creed:
"I would be a friend to the friendless and find joy in ministering to the needs of the poor.
"I would visit the sick and afflicted and inspire in them a desire for faith to be healed.
"I would teach the truth to the understanding and blessing of all mankind.
"I would seek out the erring one and try to win him back to a righteous and happy life.
"I would not seek to force people to live up to my ideals but rather love them into doing the thing that is right.
"I would live with the masses and help to solve their problems that their earth life may be happy.
"I would avoid the publicity of high positions and discourage the flattery of thoughtless friends.
"I would not knowingly wound the feelings of any, not even one who may have wronged me, but would seek to do him good and make him my friend.
"I would overcome the tendency to selfishness and jealousy and rejoice in the successes of all the children of my Heavenly Father.
"I would not be an enemy to any living soul.
"Knowing that the Redeemer of mankind has offered to the world the only plan that will fully develop us and make us really happy here and hereafter, I feel it not only a duty but also a blessed privilege to disseminate this truth."
You must read his personal creed to decide if you agree. In it, we find as lofty of ambition to do good as you should find most anywhere.
I first read his creed as a young man, probably while I was at Ricks College, and the line, "I would be a friend to the friendless," has been a positive influence on me ever since.
Though the creed is little known, I think it worthy of great attention. If it were popular, and given mass attention, and considered a great document, I think that would be worthy.
The creed:
"I would be a friend to the friendless and find joy in ministering to the needs of the poor.
"I would visit the sick and afflicted and inspire in them a desire for faith to be healed.
"I would teach the truth to the understanding and blessing of all mankind.
"I would seek out the erring one and try to win him back to a righteous and happy life.
"I would not seek to force people to live up to my ideals but rather love them into doing the thing that is right.
"I would live with the masses and help to solve their problems that their earth life may be happy.
"I would avoid the publicity of high positions and discourage the flattery of thoughtless friends.
"I would not knowingly wound the feelings of any, not even one who may have wronged me, but would seek to do him good and make him my friend.
"I would overcome the tendency to selfishness and jealousy and rejoice in the successes of all the children of my Heavenly Father.
"I would not be an enemy to any living soul.
"Knowing that the Redeemer of mankind has offered to the world the only plan that will fully develop us and make us really happy here and hereafter, I feel it not only a duty but also a blessed privilege to disseminate this truth."
Saturday, January 21, 2012
Hooray for Freedom, Freedom on the Internet
I posted this at the end of an Deseret News online Associated Press story about how Wednesday's protest on the Internet reaped such success:
"Hooray for freedom. It might be well, yet, for legislation against pirating, but that legislation should be focused on those doing the pirating and those downloading the pirated material. It should not be directed at the websites such as Wikipedia, and should not make them the policemen for what is a government responsibility, You don't go after the maker of a soapbox when someone jumps up on it and slanders another person, and neither should you go after the new-fangled soapbox makers (the Internet sites) when someone gets on them and commits a crime. Punish the party committing the crime, not someone else. Freedom ceases to be freedom when you take away the rights of a person not committing the offense."
"Hooray for freedom. It might be well, yet, for legislation against pirating, but that legislation should be focused on those doing the pirating and those downloading the pirated material. It should not be directed at the websites such as Wikipedia, and should not make them the policemen for what is a government responsibility, You don't go after the maker of a soapbox when someone jumps up on it and slanders another person, and neither should you go after the new-fangled soapbox makers (the Internet sites) when someone gets on them and commits a crime. Punish the party committing the crime, not someone else. Freedom ceases to be freedom when you take away the rights of a person not committing the offense."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)