Kentucky’s Mini-Gods

Standard

Rowan County, Kentucky

County Clerk Kim Davis was a “born again sinner” and claims that, since that day, she has “pledged the rest of her life to the service of the Lord.” To Kim Davis that pledge apparently means that she has become the sole arbiter, interpreter and executor of God’s word.

Kim Davis has apparently forgotten another vow that she made when assuming the position of Rowan County Clerk:

County Clerk Oath:

Did you catch that last sentence? “. . . ” will faithfully execute the duties of my office without favor, affection or partiality, so help me God!

Kim Davis is not only a Christian Bigot, she is a person who is willing to break an oath to God based on her own, amateurish interpretation of His word.

Does she hold a divinity degree? Does she have years of experience studying the works of biblical scholars? No, she’s just a reformed sinner who, like so many of her ilk, desperately wants to be a mini-God because she has no faith in her Creator’s ability to run His own show.

Hopefully God will reward her with just enough jail time to remind her of her place in the universe, enough of a fine to make her realize that “so help me God” means something and a period of unemployability that will remind her that she is the humble servant not anyone’s master.

The County Clerk’s oath (above) was borrowed from an article in the Daily Kos about another Kentucky County Clerk, Casey Davis (possibly a relative), who had the same hate-filled Mini-God complex that Ms. Davis has. Mr Davis, however, additionally, felt the need, as part of his position, to “remind” gay people that they would forever ‘burn in Hell.” His story and the above oath of office can be found HERE!

Speaking of Hell, where the Hell does Kentucky find these losers?

Political Identity: Secular-Conservative

Standard

I used to have an internal debate going over my political identity. I’ve self-identified at times as a Republican, a Conservative,  a Libertarian and an Independent. I’ve come to the conclusion that, if I was forced to decide on an an official title it would probably be none of those, it would be hyphenated: Secular-Conservative really fits me. I agree with the basic Conservative principle of limited government, I champion a free market, I oppose excessive taxes and unnecessary regulations on business and champion a strong national defense, but I loudly and firmly oppose any connection between organized religion and organized politics (only because there IS NO CONNECTION and there should not be one).

Mr or Ms Conservative candidate proudly procaim, on a near-daily basis, the purely religious position that they are “pro-life.” Does that make them better at making the right political decision when their political decision is required. NO, of course not. Politicians (even Conservative ones) do their jobs and make decisions on the bases of Constitutionality and relevant law. Yes  we are all moral beings, that’s just part of our better nature and part how most of us were brought up; with ingrained rules that say this is right and that is wrong. A politician who self-identifies in their private life as either “pro-life” or “pro-choice” brings NOTHING to the table when it comes to doing the jobs they were elected to do. Yet that seems to be the primary “credential” for many of them in an election season.

Here’s a news flash for citizen non-politicians who have been drinking the Religious Conservative Kool-Aid for so long that they believe that they can’t call themselves Conservative without being devoutly religious and advertising it! You’ve been duped! If you believe, as I stated above that I do, in the core Conservative values of small government, less regulation and a strong free market a strong national defense and responsible levels of taxation you ARE a Conservative. Don’t let Sean Hannity, Mark Levin or any other Conservative talker tell you otherwise.

The Website About.com has an excellent “Overview of Political Conservatism“.  What is excellent about this particular definition of Conservatism is the fact that it correctly identifies Conservatism as a two-part philosophy:

Part 1 is identified as “core tenets” of Conservatism. To me, these core tenets define what I call “Secular Conservatism. The “core tenets” of Conservatism are the basic beliefs in three principles: (from the article): “1) Economic liberty and the central role of free enterprise in American society, 2) A small, non-invasive government, (and) 3) A strong national defense focused on protection and the fight against terrorism.”

Part 2 is the “Ancillary Principles & Ideologies” of Conservatism. These ancillary principles are the things that only threaten Christian Culture: Attitudes about “traditional family values”, marriage, the commitment to faith and religion and the assumed right to life for still un-born potential citizens. Even the strongest Religious Conservative would have to scratch pretty hard to find an “Ancillary Conservative Principle” that will help them do the job they were elected to do.

When you think about it, vocalizing their pro-life stance is just a way to coerce votes from the minority of religious people who have long since substituted religious texts for the U.S. Constitution and relevant law. Even the majority of the religious community must understand that the word “Religious” before the word “Conservative” is a ploy.

In Defense of Children in Peril

Standard

An article in the National Journal (http://www.nationaljournal.com/domesticpolicy/why-90-000-children-flooding-our-border-is-not-an-immigration-story-20140616) titled “Why 90,000 Children (per year) Flooding Our Border Is Not an Immigration Story”, provides a detailed look at the facts and background of the story you see almost nightly on the news.

My very first reaction to this scenario where all of these thousands of refugees are being snagged and then bussed to Arizona was that we should have secured the borders long ago, when it was being called for and when we were starting to understand what illegal immigration was doing to our country. But after reading this National Journal article I realized (as the Journal article’s title implies) that this is not a matter of illegal immigration, this is more correctly looked at as a refugee problem with a twist. These refugees are not adults looking for work, these are children, UNACCOMPINED children who were in danger in their home coutries. I’m inagining the heartbreak of the mother or father who realized that to save the son’s or daughter’s life they would have to send them away, to a different country, and perhaps never see them again. Most of these parents may not live long enough to see their children again. That’s an act of desperation AND an act of love.

The reason that this is happening is well beyond our direct control. These are impoverished Central American countries where the criminals and drug lords have taken over. It may be a terrible imposition on the generous nature of Americans to have to feed and clothe and medicate all of these childrens but it is what it is.

Had these refugees been adults I would opt for sending them all back to where they came from and encouraging them to learn to fight to defend themselves their families and their neighbors. There are no doubt more of them than there are criminals and they should have no qualms about killing the criminals before the criminals kill them. Hopefully it will come to that in ElSalvador, Guateala and Honduras, hopefully the people will rise up and take back their lives and neighborhoods.

The children, however, are another story. Frankly I applaud the common sense and courage of the parents or relatives of these children for sending them out of harm’s way. This is America and we will find a way to do what we have to for these kids, keep them well and keep them safe and make them feel like someone cares about what happens to them.

=============================================================================================

‘What is this you’re saying,’ you ask! ‘Your an atheist, a godless personification of evil works and evil intentions.’

‘Don’t believe everything you read or hear,’ I answer. ‘Every non-Christian has a heart (“if you prick us, do we not bleed” (Merchant of Venice, Act 3, Scene 1, Shylock speaking); and this atheist will never harm a child or knowingly send a child into harm’s way.