“Pursuit of Happiness”

The expression, “pursuit of happiness,” can mean many things, and it definitely had at least one commonly-accepted meaning at the time Jefferson included the phrase in the Declaration of Independence that is almost unknown today, but I want to consider just one today in light of the following comment by William Penn:

“No people can be truly happy, though under the greatest enjoyments of civil liberties, if abridged of the Freedom of their Conscience as to their Religious Profession and Worship.” — William Penn, Pennsylvania Charter of Liberties, 1701

The First Amendment to the Constitution explicitly denies the “feddle gummint” ANY power to impede the free expression of religion. Nowadays, the feds are all over the place bending over backwards to accommodate those who want to eradicate any religious expression that does not agree with their own agendas from the public arena.

And Christians, of all groups, make it especially easy by having secularized their churches to the extent that they have little to stand on in protest of “feddle gummint” misbehaviors.

Let’s take Penn’s “Religious Profession and Worship” phrase to contrast to today’s churches. “Religious profession,” in Penn’s language, does NOT mean “professional religionists,” as in clergy. No, a “religious profession” is a declaration of one’s religious beliefs–to many, anathema in the public square. . . as long as it is profession of Christian beliefs. Anathema even to some who claim to be Christians. When Christians allow themselves to be cowed into silence about the substantive teachings of the church, they have denied their profession.

And what of worship? *feh* The weak, insipid, false view of worship that pervades churches nowadays is the direct result of churches becoming just another part of secular society, and just as secular as what is found outside the congregation. Confining a highly secularized “worship” to behind a church’s closed doors is simply a denial of worship, since true worship is behavior that pervades all of life.

Sidebar: The late 60s youth song, “Sunday’s Child,” about someone who was holier than thou on Sundays but lived like hell the rest of the week comes to mind, as does Fred Pratt Green’s, When the Church of Jesus.” A snippet:

V.2

If our hearts are lifted
Where devotion soars
High above this hungry
Suffering world of ours:
Lest our hymns should drug us
To forget its needs,
Forge our Christian worship
Into Christian deeds.

Now, what “Church of Jesus” would allow “feddle gummint” bullying or naysayers’ whinnying to keep them from true worship? Those who do forfeit a happiness that it is their right to pursue. . . or eschew, as most do.

Yes, I’ve wandered around a bit and not really defined what this form of happiness is, but unless one is willing to pursue obedience to Christ, describing it will do no good.

Matthew 28:19-20

19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.

Yes, “all nations” (all people) means our own, and everyone we meet, whether they like us for doing so or not. Jesus did not say, “Go ye therefore into all the world and try to make people like you by never offending them.” No, in another place He warned that “the world” would hate those who followed Him. Get over it. The highest happiness, for the Christian, is not found in the approval of others–whether of his fellow Christians or outside the congregation of believers. It is found in trusting obedience (our half of the “fides covenant”).

Religious profession: telling others of your faith. Worship: living a life of trusting obedience to God.

And neither of those are genuine if confined only–or even primarily!–inside “church” walls.

Undermining the Foundations

Ponder, if you will, all the times the feds have, of late, misused the 14th Amendment to impose restrictions on genuine rights, create licenses (that it mislabels as “rights”) and in general oppress liberty instead of using it correctly to protect legitimate, natural, God-granted rights. Interesting, eh? Turning constitutional provisions on their heads and destroying liberty seems to be something a majority of SCOTUS, for example, is quite comfy with.

Poisoning the well of freedom. Not a good thing.

Purple-Tinted Rainbow Twaddle Masquerading as Legal Reasoning

Justice Kennedy was exactly the right person to sum up the legal reasoning of the majority opinion behind SCOTUS’ 5-4 HODGES decision. [Note: link is to pdf of Kennedy’s formal opinion.] Let’s just let Kennedy’s emotional bullshit speak for itself:

purple-tinted-rainbow-twaddle

That’s what passes for legal thought in the SCOTUS nowadays. . . Blatant distortion of fact and meaning. Logical fallacy after fallacy supporting emotional bullshit. That is the whole argument for same-sex “marriage” in a nutshell. At least Kennedy got that right.

How to Mend Fences. . . or Not

When you have wronged someone, always apologize in a genuine, straightforward manner, acknowledging your fault, offering to make amends if material harm was done, doing so in a frank, straightforward manner.

When someone has wronged you, always accept a genuine, straightforward apology offered as above. But, always reject a weasel-worded fake apology and specify why. Fake apologies that do not even admit fault are worse than useless; they are additional offense. If the offender refuses to amend their error, shake the dust from your feet and simply ostracize them, make them thereafter a non-person to you, unless the offense also carries substantial material harm. Then, sue their pants off.

In family disputes, this may need a wee bit of tweaking. Between spouses, ignore everything in the second paragraph. No, seriously. 😉

Lobotomized Morning Yaks

I do NOT watch AM TV. . . well, I do not, as a general rule. But. Well, my Wonder Woman is off work today and so morning TV (completely absent anything appropriate for Memorial Day, of course) is on. Blonde Bimbo is attempting to channel her inner 13-year-old “Valley Girl,” complete with the “Listen to me Do I sound stupid or what?” inflections and Robin’s Egg Blue nail polish.

*gagamaggot*

I pointed out the nail polish to my Wonder Woman (school librarian, so look out for the pun). She told me that when she sees girls with blue nail polish she takes their hands and says something like, “Oh, honey, we have to work on your circulation, because your fingers are turning blue!”

*heh*

The Blonde Bimbo Valley Girl on GMA yaks like the circulation problem has caused even deeper problems with her lobotomy. . .

The Natives Are Restless. . .

While the savages in Ferguson and elsewhere demonstrate why ordinary folks hold them in contempt, I’m once again glad I live in America’s Third World County™, where there may be violence from time to time, but usually limited to one-on-one (and at least one of the participants was askin’ for it). There’s quite a bit of gunfire, but it’s usually limited to the range, the deer (or other game) woods, and occasionally shots fired at someone who’s askin’ for it (trespassing, attempted burglary/robbery–usually out in the country where it’s REALLY stupid to try, cos if the 00 shot doesn’t get you, the landowner’s dogs will).

It’s nice to live somewhere with the virtues of civilization and few(er) of its vices.

Keep it in the X-ring, folks!

Is It Just Me?

Anyone else annoyed (to the point of having your gizzard chapped *heh*) by speakers and especially by writers who use the plural pronouns, “them, they, their” in place of “he or she, him or her, his or hers” whenever they simply want to obscure–or simply not specify–the sex of the (singular!) person to whom they refer?

I view such usage as lazy and cowardly. Use gendered pronouns whenever possible. Chap idiots’ gizzards.

Some Non-Random Musings on the Current Scene

N.B.: I frankly DGARA about foreign affairs, except where developments might have a local effect because of “feddle gummint” stupidities or deliberately malicious intent (toward citizens) in policies. So, by “current scene” you can expect me to comment on what was once quaintly known as “the home front,” for the most part.

Today’s topic: Censorship, “feddle gummint” skulduggery, Sharyl Atkkisson, First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, and a possibly appropriate citizens’ response.

By now, anyone with at least one firing neuron who’s not been living under a rock knows that our dear “gummint” placed spying software on Sharyl Atkkisson’s computers. Anyone in denial about the runaway skulduggery in effect in nearly every agency of the “feddle gummint” is either delusional or a part of (or expects to benefit from) the underhanded, nefarious, unscrupulous behavior that seems to now be the norm for “feddle gummint bureaucraps.” Heck, even the WaPo is “viewing with alarm” the appallingly stupid, criminal “feddle gummint” spying on a journalist.

If the feds can do it to her, they can do it to you. “Evidence” of “computer crimes” on ANYONE’S computers is now subject to The Sharyl Atkkisson Caveat: if the feds can plant things on her computer, who’s to say they didn’t plant stuff anywhere else they wanted to?

From now on, any claims by the “feddle gummint” to have found “evidence”–of ANYTHING–on a citizen’s computer should be loudly and raucously mocked.

Citizen response? So far, just the usual “view with alarm” stuff like the WaPo article. Sound and fury, etc. What would be appropriate, I think would be for a “vigilance committee” of patriotic hacker citizens to engage in a “Manhatten Project”-style effort to crack open every government computer system possible and flood the net with everything they want to hide from us. Snowden? He should be so far back he wouldn’t even be visible in the rear view mirror. Of course, it could happen that _some_ secrets could be minimally detrimental to national security, but I seriously doubt there are many such. Most “national security” secrets are more than likely just bureaucratic turf building/protecting.

Sadly, I do not have the skills necessary to make a contribution to the effort, and nor do I any longer have an audience/readership to influence toward that effort, since my work to remake this blog into nothing more than exercise space for “the voices in my head” has borne fruit. *heh*

In further mind-boggling abuses of rights supposedly protected under the First Amendment, while a student who is a Sikh has rightly received a pass on carrying a knife (“ceremonial dagger”) in pubschool, for religious reasons, Christian students who carry or read their Bibles, share their faith with other students or who are seen or heard praying or even just expressing opinions informed by their faith are continually oppressed. (Sure, schools pretty regularly lose in lawsuits over this, but the push against Christians practicing their religion in a pubschool setting is regularly, improperly, assaulted).

And cognitive dissonance never sets in with the left, because. . . it requires cognition? *sigh*