So, how am I abusing my television? Well, let me put it this way, I like to yell at the digital people on the screen… a lot… and very loud… sometimes, I think they can actually hear me. My voice and reactions must carry through the wonderland of audio and video frequencies… I whole heartedly believe that! I don’t yell and scream at the real people in my life, why do I yell at digital representations of people on my television? If I was the only one that does this, I might feel a bit weird, or maybe even crazy. But, I KNOW I’m not the only one who EXPECTS the people inside the television to hear and obey the screams of those watching.

And so, I abuse my television, it carries the weight of this burden quite well. It has yet to talk back to me and it never fails to turn on. It must be a glutton for punishment because if I listened to how I talk to it (and I’m using talk very loosely here), I would have up and blown my picture tube a long time ago. I would have ceased to recognize the remote control signals and simply sit there doing absolutely nothing. Yep, that’s what I would do quite honestly. I’m sure glad my television doesn’t have any artificial intelligence at all.

Not only do I scream at the video game people, but I yell at people playing the variety of sports that I watch. How can they make such lousy plays when they’ve been playing these sports for the vast majority of their living and breathing life? Shouldn’t they be nearly unstoppable in every facet of their sport after practicing for nearly 20 years and being paid to do it to boot? From missed free throws to missed bunts to missing their pit in the race… how can it be done?

In reality, these people DESERVE to be yelled at and yelled at VERY loudly. Not only are they making their team cover for their mistakes, but they are affecting millions of people watching their performance. Yes, they should EXPECT to get yelled at… I would because I yell at myself for making the teams I’m involved with cover for my mistakes. Yes, not only do I yell at the video games and sports people on television, but I actually yell at and abuse myself.

I hope you guys don’t think I like yelling at things that don’t talk back… I don’t exactly like it. It’s just something that is built into my emotional state of being. I like to yell at inanimate things because I believe they actually enjoy making me mad enough to do it. Why else do some of the most unbelievable things happen while I’m watching? I honestly believe that if I’m not watching, things are absolutely perfect and nothing goes wrong… but when I tune in or play the game, the entire world comes crashing down in front of me just to see how loud I can yell or how high I can make my blood pressure go.

Even though I recognize that these objects in my life simply cannot hear me, I will continue to express my dissatisfaction with them by yelling, screaming, and generally hating every lasting minute of their existence until they succumb to my every beck and call. So, television, I know I’m a bit crazy, but you will continue to hear my yells. Sports people… you also will continue to be berated by my maniacal tirades at your incompetence. And I haven’t even mentioned the tools in my life… they probably deserve their own article.

So, join me in my abuse of inanimate objects… let’s show them who the boss is! I’ll guarantee you that I’ll do my part!

Targets can be a crude way to look at the results of “warfare,” but in reality, people are simply targets while at war. People are a portion of the infrastructure. Bridges, buildings, armaments, communication lines, and people… they are all targets from a military perspective. The United States and other NATO allies choose to separate civilians from military personnel. Our enemies however, do not. Civilian life from their perspective is just a part of the overall military target.

The enemy’s point of view concludes that civilians are at fault for paying taxes that support the war machine or they are by default born into an enemy society and therefore must pay for its transgressions against their way of life. No civilian is free from blame in their point of view. Therefore, suicide bombers who destroy civilian lives are in fact, freedom fighters in their mind. They have been taught this from birth. Their religion supports this and their history only strengthens their points of view.

From our perspective, killing innocent civilians is against our moral code. We believe the fight is with the military and the leadership, not the standard man, woman, child, and elderly person not taking up arms. From their perspective, the enemy is at fault because of their nationality or belief. They believe in killing anyone who does not believe what they believe by any means necessary.

Suicide bombers killing civilians are treated as heroes in their culture. Their families are “blessed” and they receive monetary rewards for such actions. They are in fact, the ultimate freedom fighter in their minds. How can a human being of any nationality or religion subscribe to this blatantly insane doctrine? Human nature involves sympathy for one another. We all have a mother and a father. We all experience relationships with other human beings in our lives. How can an entire culture simply lose sight of the fact that murdering innocent civilians, including women and children, is wrong no matter what you believe? Simply put, it is just morally wrong.

I believe the nations who support and promote suicide bombers as being freedom fighters have allowed their religion to be hijacked by terrorists who are using their faith against them for their own personal gain. Using their faith is the key. They are giving them the ultimate key to their spiritual safety by twisting religion into a radical “get out of jail free” card. Religion and faith is so deeply rooted within their society that they are blindly led by their maniacal leaders. They have simply lost focus on the fact that what they are doing and supporting is morally wrong.

Military action is one thing… destroying innocent civilian life, on purpose, is something insanely different. Terrorists rely upon their faith and religion to justify their actions against civilian life. How can you combat that? Generations upon generations have been led down this path and they continue to grow in size. Until the moderate and true leaders among their society come to the forefront, the radical terrorist spiritual leaders will continue to undermine their nations and the bloodshed will continue. Freedom fighter can never equal suicide bomber when civilians are the targets.

In the last article, I mentioned the 16 pages of bickering that resulted from the original topic writer’s opinion piece. What I didn’t mention was the fact that nearly all of the “debaters” considered themselves of the same faith. How can there be such disparate viewpoints on an issue so black and white such as abortion? Without religion, sure, there can be many shades of gray, but within the religious community, there is one simple and resounding fact, abortion is not to be accepted.

Let’s just throw this issue out and focus on the bickering and the resulting ramifications, because in reality, the issue isn’t the problem. The issue is that there are too many differing factions amongst the religious community. Each denomination can be separated by many different sub-categories and have their own set of acceptable rules and regulations you should abide by. Orthodox and unorthodox, strict versus non-strict, and the list goes on. But, as part of the Christian faith, all teaching should be directly rooted within the Bible’s passages and messages.

When the public sees Christians fighting amongst themselves over such core issues, what are they left to think? Are they going to think Christians are following their own standards and spiritual guides or are they going to think much differently? Christians, while debating such issues, must watch what they say and must think about their personal spiritual relationship before regurgitating some “official” Church stance on the subject.

Personally, I am a Christian, but I do not consider myself a member of a specific denomination. I don’t believe you have to be Catholic or Protestant. I believe you are simply a Christian if your faith is in Jesus Christ. However, when I debate religion, I am slow to argue and quick to listen. Debating is much different than arguing. Debating will attempt to answer questions and offer informational arguments concerning the issue at hand. Arguing only leads to a winner and loser mentality no matter what the fallout.

Christians, who argue in front of their fellow man, believer and non-believer alike, do nothing but harm their faith and leave those who can hear, see, and read with distaste for all involved. How can people of the SAME faith, be at each other’s throats over issues which are so clear amongst the Christian community? Some people feel the need to be, or feel, right no matter what the costs are. Some people will destroy everything for their own personal satisfaction. This is what I equate religious infighting to… some people are so worried about winning, they are actually losing and they are hurting more people than they can ever imagine.

You can take this ideology to any issue in your life. If you are too worried about winning, then you are likely arguing. If you are worried about the other person’s point of view and listen, then you are more than likely debating. Debating is healthy and we all learn from it, even on spiritual issues. Arguing is always a lose/lose situation. In the case of religious infighting, it’s even worse than just a lose/lose situation, you are potentially harming everyone around you and your entire faith. Be quick to listen, be slow to speak. The old adage “Think before you speak” can be applied everywhere.

Doesn’t it seem like we are living in a polarized society? How often do you see our political candidates debating about the “middle” ground? How often do you, and those you observe, have conversations with people about religion, politics, environment, taxes, etc which do not degenerate into red faced, deep breathed, eye bulging, and shrill shouting fests? It seems as if we cannot have a standard conversation about hot issues anymore without being labeled a polar opposite or fringe supporter. The middle doesn’t seem to exist.

We live together because we are tolerant of each other’s differences. Society continues to work because we allow similarity to overcome our differences as a people. However, if we try and take our society beyond a simple acquaintance, we have major issues to deal with, issues that polarize us and separate us. These differences create overwhelming chasms between individuals that seem to boil over into us versus them or me versus you episodes.

Over time, our political parties have evolved, or devolved if you like, into polar opposites of each other. If one party chooses a particular stance, automatically, the other chooses the exact opposite. Common ground appears to be lost between them. The media pushes these differences and creates a deeper valley of opposition between people because it satisfies their need for sensationalist news reporting (ratings). They need polar opposites and they want to create voter blocks that are in fact divided because it’s easier to cajole a vote out of a “manufactured” voter segment.

This same ideology applies to news in print, online, and on the radio. They are all working on creating voter blocks by polarizing the people listening. The middle ground is much harder to sway and win.  They are actually listening to each side while utilizing facts and information to determine their stance on each and every issue.   The middle does not haphazardly apply a blanket stamp of approval based upon party lines.

How do you approach your decision making? Do you make an effort to listen to both sides of the story and dig deep for additional information or do you listen to the “guy” from your affiliated party and jump in line toting the media bylines as conversation ammunition? Remember, they WANT you to know nothing. They want you yelling and screaming vehemently about the cause using their campaign taglines and propaganda.

Make an effort to learn more and become an informed voter and you will more than likely return to the middle ground rather than be polarized like the media and political parties wish for you to be. Republicans have good ideas and so do Democrats. If we were on middle ground, our government wouldn’t be in the state it is, pulling apart at the seams while nothing is accomplished. Polarized society and government has led us to the dire state we are in.

Stop yelling the “approved” party lines and start investigating. Information is the key. Sometimes you may not like what you find, but an informed voter is worth more than the lemming they are trying to make you and me. Make your vote count, make them earn it, don’t become a media and political party polarized voter just because it’s easier. We need to come together in the middle ground as a nation and until we know more than what the media tells us, we cannot make an informed decision. Step out of the line and learn.

I’ll admit that I am guilty of being uncompromising on certain topics (abortion being one of them), but for the vast majority of other issues, I am willing to compromise when given an agreeable solution that actually helps people. I like to think that each and every one of us falls into this mold. There are some topics that are just divisive and always will be because of their roots in religious belief or moral and ethical makeup. But, it seems as our country progresses forward, we are making every single debate or difference a core division amongst ourselves.

I like the color blue and you may not. Does that mean that I must berate you and demean your intelligence level because, of course, all rational people must love the color blue? We can replace the argument with any topic and it fits the mold of how we are living. If other people do not agree with our idea, then of course they must be 100% wrong and must be corrected by submission or defeat at all costs.

Our current political process has succumbed to this theory of ideological submission and defeat. The other party is wrong, completely wrong, and they must be deported for their traitorous rhetoric. At least that is how they would like us to believe as voters. No way could the opposing party have anything substantial to bring to the table. Why? Because they are the enemy! Somehow over the years, our parties have been categorized as follows: Republicans – gun toting war nuts in search of oil so they can make their friends as wealthy as kings (oh, they are also homophobes intent on forcing women to give up their “right” of abortion). Democrats – tree hugging, drug legalizing, baby murdering, robin hoods intent on stealing your wealth and taking your guns away (and oh yeah, they are all communists).

With such trumped up sensationalistic ideology running rampant about both parties, isn’t it hard to believe and vote for either one? The media does nothing but try and hammer home the stereotypes listed above. There is no need to listen to politicians anymore. All you have to do is check which party they are affiliated with and that’s all you need to know right? That’s what they are hoping for. They do not want an informed society with an understanding of the middle ground. Middle ground is not a case for winning. It’s a case for compromise.

As the goal of winning at all costs being the decisive factor, all we will ever get is the kind of society splitting arguments we see pushing each of us farther apart. It’s in all of our lives, not just in politics. We must recapture our ability to debate without total annihilation of the “enemy” being the necessary outcome. Assuming that we all want our country to benefit from our existence, our goal should be what makes the country stronger, or what makes our society healthier, or what makes us come together more as a nation. Destroying the enemy as being the key to victory will only make those concepts unattainable.

We can easily see where divisive living brings us: deteriorating economy, foreign policy hatred, high divorce rates, broken families, and parentless homes. Our financial markets and political process are not the only victims of our country’s focus upon winning ideological debates. Our homes and families have also become victims. In the end, we are all paying the price because we have failed to realize that living together in harmony means more than being victorious in a spiteful debate over ideas. Winning is not everything, in life or in sports.

I ran across a report detailing exactly what I am referring to above. A young man recently was in a car accident, killing 2 people. Prior to the accident, he was stopped for suspected drunk driving. However, as the officer approached his vehicle, he sped off, ran a red light at an intersection and hit a vehicle which sent him airborne. His vehicle proceeded to land on top of another, crushing the passengers inside. The passengers were a newlywed couple (married for about a month), on their way home from a movie date when their life was ended. The first vehicle included 5 students with 2 receiving non-life threatening injuries. As it usually happens, the suspected drunk driver was not killed and is currently hospitalized. His passenger, needing to be cut out from the vehicle, is also hospitalized.

Sad story, but in reality, this was a needless accident that occurred because our justice system has become too “fair.” The back story on our driver includes the following: He has been arrested 4 times previously for Driving While Intoxicated (DWI), involved in 2 police chases, and has 4 outstanding drug and DWI warrants. Should this man have been allowed to be free? The last DWI charge he faced only required a $500 fine to be paid before he could be released. Is that fair? No, these charges are not something that he accrued over his extended lifetime… he is only 22 years old. This man should not have been allowed to drive let alone be out of jail.

How many of these needless accidents occur throughout the year? Not only drunken driving accidents, but any accidents that could have been prevented if our justice system would be more adamant about putting criminals behind bars rather than freeing them in an attempt to be more “fair.” I believe the suspect in this case was well beyond being treated fair. His repeated criminal action was more than enough to require his removal of freedom. Now, there are 2 deaths involved and at least 3 other injured people because of his actions.

We read stories like this all the time. Accidents happen, but some accidents can be prevented. This was a preventable accident. Are we too worried about how many people we have in prison? Are we worried about criminals being treated unfairly when they have repeatedly violated our laws? Who is standing up for the victims? Why aren’t we worried about the rights and lives of the victims or even future accidental victims? Each time we see or read a story such as this, we always think “That’s horrible… I’m glad it wasn’t me or my family.” This time… If we continue to allow our criminals to walk away time and again, eventually, your family could be reading a story about an accident involving you… or even worse, children receiving a phone call informing them of their parent’s death.

Citation: http://www.foxnews.com/

I ran across an article earlier this week asking a question if the inclusion of the American Flag in Churches and the recital of the Pledge of Allegiance during worship should exist. If we are only looking at the true, 100% separation of Church and State, then theoretically, the answer is no. The assumption that on one hand, we must remove all Church references from the State goes both ways. Churches should then remove all State references from their halls. Is that right? Is that what our forefathers intended? I hardly think so. Quoting from a pastor’s sermon I heard, “The separation of Church and State is a one way street.” The State does not dictate any laws or influence society regarding the formation of a national Church. However, the Church can and should influence the State through its individuals.

We are free to believe as we wish. We are guaranteed the right to do so by our Constitution and Bill of Rights. However, the onslaught of pressure to remove every reference of the Church from our State is a misguided attention to interpreted rule sets. If you take a few minutes of your life and research our forefathers, you will know beyond any doubt whatsoever, they were men of faith. Our greatest leaders, almost to a man, have speeches which directly account for the Church in their lives and decision making. There are statements and speeches from our forefathers stating the importance of faith in society AND government. It doesn’t sound all that separate does it? But it is.

The separation of Church and State is a mechanism allowing our society to believe as they wish. It protects us from our government establishing a national Church. Remember, our forefathers came from England where the Church was part of the governmental establishment. The mixture of government and Church creates a much different society when they act as one. Religious freedom cannot exist in such a society. Therefore, our country’s forefathers created the separation of Church and State to allow for religious freedom amongst the State. But, they did not create a situation where the State was separated FROM Church. Church influences the State by influencing the individuals elected within.

Our country’s history was based upon the Christian faith as our forefathers were religious men and women. Speeches, books, notes, and many references can be traced back to their Christian beliefs. From our currency to our justice system to our military, our country has many influences from Church. But, the State is not FORCING the Church onto society. Society is influencing the STATE. As for the question from the article I have read, I believe the inclusion of the flag is well within the Church’s rights. We are citizens of our country. As patriots of our country, we support and uphold our laws and rights.

As citizens of faith, we cannot separate our beliefs from our “society’s being.” Faith is a part of those who believe. If you can separate your faith from your State, then are you truly faithful? Who you are includes your faith and it cannot be separated from within. I agree with separation of Church and State because power corrupts and if the Government dictates a national Church, the Church will be corrupt and faithless. I do not support the removal of faith or Church from the State.

However, the State is not here to dictate laws supporting the Church’s beliefs. This is the balancing act which occurs. If the Church influences the State to create laws which are the Church’s beliefs, then we are breaking the separation. Individuals of faith should not try and force laws upon society regarding their Church. However, the individuals of faith should use their faith and Church as a basis for doing what is right and wrong. As a person of faith, there are lots of things I personally believe are wrong because of my faith. However, that is my right to believe so. I cannot FORCE these beliefs on someone else through laws from the State.

Men and women of faith can utilize their belief to do what’s right for society without imposing their Church’s will upon it. It’s a balancing act most cannot achieve because the lust for power is so great. But, we must remember our country was created as a nation of free people. “We the people…” Our Church can win the hearts and souls of society without imposing laws upon them. People come to faith freely, not through force.

To sum up, I believe Churches have the right to display the American Flag and recite the Pledge of Allegiance. The separation of Church and State applies to the State not imposing the Church’s will upon society. It does not separate the Church from the individuals within the State.

Article Noted:  http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20080728/cm_csm/yakers_1

So where is this line between being overly tolerant and being intolerant? It’s a very hard question and one that cannot be answered for you. However, I am going to give you my take on tolerance and how it impacts my life. I tolerate lots of things. I tolerate the amount of taxes I pay, I tolerate the bad drivers at 4-way stops, I tolerate the annoying kids on cell phones, I tolerate the inconsiderate people at the grocery store with their SUV shopping carts, I tolerate the speeding drivers that like to drive on my side of the road, and I tolerate other people’s opinions. Tolerance is almost a minute by minute issue. I’m sure there are umpteen million other examples of how we tolerate things and people in our lives. We allow these issues to continue because the cost of doing something to correct it is either too costly, or too harmful, or too time consuming to worry about. So we tolerate them, we allow them to continue, we put up with it.

However, you can become intolerant to any of these situations in an instant. What would happen if my taxes doubled? Would I tolerate that? Nope. What would happen if people ran into me at an intersection on purpose? What would happen if someone intentionally hit me with their cart in the grocery store? Would I continue to tolerate these things? My answer is VERY HIGHLY unlikely. They have just crossed the line of tolerance, to my intolerance level. I will not put up with, or allow continuing of these actions against me. That’s fine and very easily understood, I’m sure this level is pretty similar amongst everyone out there. But where does “true” tolerance come into play? I think it comes into play in the most delicate nature when we are talking about people’s opinions or our so called rights.

Our daily lives revolve around interaction with other people. If we are intolerant, we cannot function within society. Intolerant people find themselves always at odds with people and often are uncompromising. They just do not fit into society and create great division. So, we go through our daily lives tolerating other people, their actions, and their words, and their beliefs. It allows us to function as a society. But is there a line in tolerance within a social setting? I believe so. Just because there are feelings and rational thought involved, it doesn’t mean there isn’t a line somewhere that can be crossed. At home, at work, at school, at church, and in your country, you tolerate people’s opinions, feelings, and “rights.” What would something be that you would not tolerate in a social setting? Would you tolerate individuals shouting expletives at a school function? Nope. Would you tolerate someone coming into your home and burning a flag? Nope. Would you tolerate someone stealing your ideas and work at your job? Nope. Would you tolerate someone disregarding your opinion as stupid and wrong just because it’s not the majority opinion? Nope.

There are lines of tolerance in a social setting. It’s pretty easy to see. However, each person’s tolerance line will be different. I see labels of intolerance given to certain organizations and groups of people. Why is this so? Some people believe that being the least bit intolerant towards anything is in fact removing something of value from them. They believe they should be able to do or say anything because they have the “right” to do so. If it doesn’t affect you, then why do you care? Ok, for simplicity’s sake, I will agree. You are human, and you have the right to do ANYTHING you want. However, there are consequences to some of these things you do and say because of the simple fact that you live in a society of other people. You are not a one person country. You are not the judge, jury, and executioner of what you think should be allowed.

The society will only tolerate so much. It will reach a certain point and then “intolerance” will arrive. Actually, the line of tolerance is at the root of almost every issue we face. We tolerate illegal immigrants. We tolerate gas prices. We tolerate flag burning. We tolerate the removal of the 10 Commandments from our society. We tolerate the hate mongers fueling niche organizations. We tolerate many, many things. Some of these things are very divisive and deep rooted within personal beliefs. However, as we approach the level of society’s intolerance, we see conflict and division amongst our communities. That is where we are at now. We are past the tolerance level of many within our society, but only until recently have we more than likely reached that level with the majority.

Tolerance is required to have a civilized society. But, we have to remember that being overly tolerant is just as bad as being overly intolerant. We cannot reach a point where we tolerate every single thing. Our society would devolve into chaos. On the other side, we cannot reach a point where we are intolerant to almost everything. Our society would in turn become a basic form of dictatorship at all levels. So, here we sit, somewhere in the middle. Are we in the middle, to the far left, or the far right? Depends on which way the wind is blowing it seems. Currently, it appears that we are falling farther and farther to the left, completely tolerant in a way that is basically intolerance. We worry about what we say being offensive to certain groups. These groups have certain words they associate with intolerance and thus label you. However, who is the intolerant one here? Irony never leaves the building. I do not want to live in a society of complete tolerance. Political correctness is one of the main weapons of this movement. Make sure EVERYONE is happy. Make sure you don’t offend those crazy intolerant right wingers! Maybe it should be the other way around. Make sure you say something you believe in so the left wingers actually have to form an opinion rather than say yes to everything.

In the end, tolerance is a major key to our success as a society. We can’t allow the completely tolerant or intolerant take over our nation. Choose your battles wisely. Rely on your beliefs and moral and ethical makeup. You will be better off. Tolerate, but only to an extent, in everything you do.