| |
|
|
- Please refer to the Forum Rules Amended section for additional rules and modifications.
- This is a moderated forum, all posts will be checked for bad language and composition.
- Before you post in the information section, make sure the information you add is fully accurate.
- All posts within the local and national policy sections must be factually correct and substantively debatable.
- Feel free to be provocative or even politically incorrect, within the rules set.
- No threats, sexual or racist remarks of any nature will be tolerated. Any posts that violate these common sense rules will be removed. Your account may also be suspended after so many violations.
- Creating multiple accounts and pretending to be someone else will result in instant termination of all accounts. We check up on all accounts / IP addresses frequently. You must register and login in order to post within the forums. Your information will not be given out or sold for mailing lists.
|
|
| Author |
Messages |
|
mulhollandj
Posts:230
Senior User
Online Status:
 |
| 06/08/2006 8:24 AM |
|
As a Latter-day Saint I believe “it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they
get a little authority … they will immediately begin to exercise
unrighteous dominion.” (D&C 121:39.)
I am borrowing ideas and quotes from talk Elder Benson, former Secretary of Agriculture gave call Civic Standards for the Faithful Saints (1). It can be found at http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1972.htm/ensign%20july%201972.htm/civic%20standards%20for%20the%20faithful%20saints%20.htm?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0
How do we protect against men exercising unrigtheous dominion? Thomas Jefferson said “In questions of power then, let no more be heard of
confidence in man but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the
Constitution.” (1) We should not support men as they are easily corrupted but the Constiution which is the "supreme law of the land".
“Patriotism,” said Theodore Roosevelt, “means to stand by the
country. It does not mean to stand by the President or any other public
official save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the
country. …(1)
“Every man,” said President Roosevelt, “who parrots the cry of
‘stand by the President’ without adding the proviso ‘so far as he
serves the Republic’ takes an attitude as essentially unmanly as that
of any Stuart royalist who championed the doctrine that the King could
do no wrong. No self-respecting and intelligent free man could take
such an attitude.” (Theodore Roosevelt, Works, vol. 21, pp. 316, 321.)(1)
And what happens if we fail to protect the Constitution?
The warning of President Joseph Fielding Smith is most timely: “Now
I tell you it is time the people of the United States were waking up
with the understanding that if they don’t save the Constitution from
the dangers that threaten it, we will have a change of government.” (Conference Report, April 1950, p. 159.) Will this one be inspired of God? Will the next one recognize that the rights come from God as our Constitution does?
|
|
|
|
|
jwforsyth
Posts:8
New User
Online Status:
|
| 06/08/2006 10:31 AM |
|
I see unrighteous dominion being exercised in the government. First is the Utah Legislature. If there was ever a one-sided and power-hungry governing body, this is it. Examples? How about denying a 2 million dollar allocation for dental work for the poor (which would have gotten 4.5 million in matching federal funds). Instead, the Capitol building gets a 15 million dollar garage. Or when the Legislature threatened to cut the University of Utah's funding if it didn't change it's policy on concealed weapons.
Of course, there's also those who are in Congress and the House, as well as the President Himself. Bush is quite flagrant in his disregard for balance of power (and the Constitution). As can be seen in his mad power grab (Patriot Act, warrantless wiretapping, War on Terror).
The way to prevent this is to make sure that balance of power is upheld. It has not been so for (at least) six years. Politicians now are more loyal to their party than to correct ideals. Two ways to solve this problem. Dissolve the party system and have people run on their merits and objectives alone. That's right, no more straight Republican voting for you all! The second is to educate people enough to become active in the voting process. We can vote in new blood whenever those in the government get too arrogant and/or corrupted (think Orrin Hatch, etc). Along these lines, we should also remove the seniority system. Just because a politician has been in Congress for years doesn't mean they're very good at upholding ideals or listening to constituents.
Checks and balances haven't been working lately. We've got two illegal wars being fought (and being lost). There's a corrosion of the power of the legislative branch and an increase in the power of the executive. I certainly hope people start to wake up before we become something closer to a dictatorship. |
|
|
|
|
Gunrights
Posts:690
Senior User
Online Status:
Intergalactic Multi Phase Dementsion
|
| 06/08/2006 2:03 PM |
|
| I think you example of the U of U is a very poor one. The U was in clear violation of the Utah State Constitution and was clearly violating the civil rights of its employees and students. If you were a woman who went to the U (especially night classes) and were attacked but being a law abiding citizen you left your concealed permit at home, wouldn't you be angry? What do you think makes our Universitites so special that they may violate state law at will. Their arguments regarding having guns in class as a temptation of violence is very specious. They same was used regarding road rage when the law was being proposed. Why is it that people think it perfectly acceptable to violate the Second Amendment but God forbid the right to free speech? (or the imiginary right to privacy) Concealed carry permit holders have the best safety record of any class of people including the police. Do you really think that any law would prevent someone with mayhem in their heart from going to a campus and shooting whomever they desire. There are plenty of examples of this. Would you like it if someone put a sign in front of your house which says "The owner of this home does not own or have any weapons. Therefore you may loot, rape or muder at will.) The same is true of churches which was recently proved again and many other places as well, including post offices, courthouses etc. These kind of laws are simply feel good legislation and make law abiding citizens more vulnerable to violence. |
|
|
|
|
mulhollandj
Posts:230
Senior User
Online Status:
|
| 06/08/2006 7:53 PM |
|
jw I agree with your points on Bush and Hatch. The real question is how do you educate people. I agree that people are very close minded but I think this applies to the Republicans as well as conservatives. I do think that both wars are illegal because the Senate never declared war. I would say that there is a lot more justification for going into Afghanistan than Iraq but I wouldn't say we have lost either war yet. I do appreciate the comments though. I do disagree with several of your points though.
Welfare - The government should not be in the welfare business. I like the way the church teaches it. Self then Family then Charity but never the government. But this a discussion for another time.
Gun Control - This is also a discussion for another time. It is a Constitutional right. It is very apparent to many that both the federal government and UN are trying to disarm us and keep guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens. I think of nations in the last century that have been disarmed. Nazi Germany comes to mind. Nobody could stand against Hitler because nobody had weapons. But I will continue this arguement some other time. |
|
|
|
|
jwforsyth
Posts:8
New User
Online Status:
|
| 06/09/2006 11:18 AM |
|
Well, Gunrights, it might have been a poor example. But, obviously, you did not understand the point I was making. I was not taking a position on the issue of concealed weapons at the U of U. I was however, pointing out that the Legislature thought it was the right body to threaten the U into coming in line with the laws of Utah. Who's job is it to enforce laws? |
|
|
|
|
jwforsyth
Posts:8
New User
Online Status:
|
| 06/09/2006 11:43 AM |
|
Mulholland, you are right in that both wars are not lost yet. However, I would like to ask a few questions. First, what were the original reasons to go to war in both countries and what are they now? Second, what defines victory? If victory cannot be achieved, when can we leave? Third, why did we not attack Saudi Arabia, home of the majority of the 9/11 attackers and Bin Laden? And lastly, does it make sense to be at war with an ideal (terrorism) and attack sovereign states?
I think you meant Democrats and convervatives. ;) (But, I'm picking on the Republicans because they've the majority right now. Plus, picking on Republicans is fun.) And you are right, if applies to both.
How do we educate our country? That is difficult with the priorities of Americans. Education is not very high for a lot of people (who wants to watch Jeopardy instead of Monday Night Football?). Can you imagine what kind of education systems could be implemented with the money spent and projected to be spent on Iraq alone, which is 1 to 2 TRILLION dollars? Increasing the education of our childen would make it easier for them to be more involved and make better decision when voting.
That is a long term solution. We need to get Americans to become active in politics now. Get them to care. I believe that the US has one of the lowest voter turnouts in any democratic country. Quite frankly, I don't think Americans want to care. They're too lazy (and stupid), they don't see the government as impacting their lives. This then leads back to the level of education Americans get. I'm always ashamed when I talk with my friends in England about their education system. It simply blows ours away. I'm also always impressed with how much more educated they are after high school.
Well, enough of my meandering, tangential thoughts. |
|
|
|
|
Gunrights
Posts:690
Senior User
Online Status:
Intergalactic Multi Phase Dementsion
|
| 06/09/2006 12:43 PM |
|
| The Utah State Legislature is within its rights and duties to suspend any State program which it sees fit. That is how our system of checks and balances etc works. The Governor could then veto and the State Leg. could then override if they had the votes. All state government deptments funding comes from the state legislature and it is their sworn duty to uphold the law. I know this might seem as a strange concept but none the less this is how our system is supposed to work! Some might argue that the Senate vote which Kerry voted for before he voted against was their approval on the Iraq war. They could also defund the war at anytime. I know that this is not how the Constitution spells things out but we our government has not followed the Constitution for many years. Finally there is no evidence whatsoever that educational performance and spending are related. Nada Zip You have bought into a usual liberal argument. Try again. |
|
|
|
|
mulhollandj
Posts:230
Senior User
Online Status:
|
| 06/09/2006 12:47 PM |
|
As far as victory vs defeat, I think we went into Afghanistan for several reasons instead of countries like Saudia Arabia. We wanted Osama brought to justice and the Taliban was hiding him and giving him safe harbor so we invaded. We haven't found him yet. How much does that matter? I think that we have severely weakened his forces and made it much harder for him to do anything. Have we succeeded in Iraq? That depends on what you view as the reason we went in there.
As far as education, the reason people are so uneducated is because they don't know how to think for themselves. They don't search for truth. Instead they repeat the rhetoric of Howard Dean, Rush Limbaugh, George Bush, Bill Clinton, etc etc. Does more money help? To a point it does but only to a point. There gets to be a point where it is wasteful. I think that families have a much bigger effect on learning and eduation. That is why Utah does so well despite low funding. But what is the point of education? I think that it is to increase our abiility to find and accept truth. Does modern education, even college education, help you think better and find truth or does it teach you to how to think like your professor does so you get an A? So what if other students can rattle off answers to math problems. Somebody else has already solved these problems. If you look at American history where people were better informed as to what was going on they were educated largely in the family. How good are we at searching for the truth? How good are we evaluating sources of truth to determine who is deceiving us? |
|
|
|
|
jwforsyth
Posts:8
New User
Online Status:
|
| 06/12/2006 1:14 PM |
|
There is indeed a point of diminishing returns on whatever you spend money on, be it education, the war on drugs, or the war on terror. I have/had five family members and two friends in public education. Schools are not getting all the funding they need for everything. Yes, it is a beaureucratic problem. At an elemetary school there is no full time librarian anymore. Instead, there is one person who goes around to different schools and spends one day at each of them. Another example, in relation to the librarian is the computer lab. There is no technician that can fix computer problems at the school, instead there is a district-level computer technician. Reform is needed in education, how we fund, and what.
Our whole culture views education as a Bad Thing. While it lists sports, brawn and good looks as Good Things. People are not educated well enough to see through many things (Republican pandering on issues, advertisements, etc). Utah does so well because those in the profession are VERY passionate about their jobs. They don't do it for the money. Parents certainly, at a national level, aren't involved in their childrens' education.
Mulholland, I absolutely agree with you about people that are so uneducated that they repeat their favorite Rhetoric Zen Master's ideas. (That and resort to name calling).
What does it matter if a student can rattle off answers to math problems? You answered your own question: so they can go to the next unsolved math problem and be able to solve it.
There are some college and univeristy professors that are the worst when it comes to shoving their ideology down on students. This is a problem I see created by two things. The first is that most professors who teach never take classes ON TEACHING. Second, these professors are so egotistical that they have an overblown sense of their own expertise. But, I must ask, what kind of subjects do these kind of professors gravitate towards? I'm going to bet English, Lit, Philosophy, Poly Sci, etc.
Who indeed is deceiving us? Do we deceive ourselves? O.o Time for deep philosophical thinking...
Have we weakened Osama Bin Ladin's forces? Probably. Have we staved off Terrorism? Hardly. If anything, the U.S.'s actions have fanned it like a brush fire.
Why did we go into Iraq? That's easy! To stop the imminent threat of nucular[sic] weapons! Or there's the theory that Bush II really just wanted to beat up old Saddam cause his daddy didn't go all the way. Whichever theory you subscribe to is moot. Any reason to go into Iraq wasn't a good one. Regardless, to win victory in Iraq would be to stabalize the country and have an effective government and military. I don't see these are very easily acheivable goals.
Yes, checks and balances work like that. My view is that the Legislature didn't use it's collective intelligence (or lack thereof) to negotiate or bring to reason the U of U's regents. Instead it threatened, it bullied, it reacted with Neantherdal stick waving. That is my point. Our Legislature throws tantrums if people dissent, whether that dissent is right or wrong. It is also an example of what happens when a body of elected officials is hijacked by one party. |
|
|
|
|
unfettered_kittens
Posts:26
Junior User
Online Status:
|
| 06/12/2006 11:11 PM |
|
| As far as quality and funding, you made a good case for Private Schools jwforsyth. My kids can also pray in Private Schools. I support education that is private run. |
|
|
|
|
Gunrights
Posts:690
Senior User
Online Status:
Intergalactic Multi Phase Dementsion
|
| 06/13/2006 2:55 PM |
|
| Dear JWForsyth; You show ignorance about the battle with the UofU and the State Legislature. The U was adament that guns should not be allowed on campus by private citizens. Your own bias regarding the Republican Legislature has colored your memory. Your writing assumes that the U's leadership are rational and that the Legislature are a bunch of Neantherthals. I suggest that is anything is true it is that the U's regents are very ideological and are supporting a campaign to violate all citizens of the right to protection and their 2nd Amendment rights. You have failed to answer my questions about the citizens rights. How does banning the concealed carry of firearms protect their students? Does not this policy actual make all students and faculty more vulerable to attack by those who do not obey the law? How about women who go to campus at night. Especially from the Avenues which has the highest rape incidence in SL valley? Why do you assume that the Uof U was the rational party to this dispute? I hope you will take the time to address these questions. |
|
|
|
|
jwforsyth
Posts:8
New User
Online Status:
|
| 06/14/2006 10:31 AM |
|
Gunrights, you still continue to show your absolute misunderstanding of the point I was making, I was not commenting on the issue, I was however commenting on the Legislature and how it does business. You are making a mountain out of a mole hill because I mentioned gun rights. I have never stated that the U of U was right or wrong. I was looking at the more broad and general issue (called abstraction) and used the case of the U of U as an example. However, to answer your question, neither party was rational in this fight, but I find the Legislature to have been less rational and more petty. The U had a ban of firearms since 1976 and became in violation when the Legislature passed the concealed weapons law just a few years ago. Yes, the regents sued for first amendment rights, was that the right way to go? Maybe not, but I understand the argument. Now, to combat this dissent from the U's regents, the Legislature threatens to pull their funding. Who would this have hurt? Students. Students who really didn't have anything to do with the lawsuit. (In fact, from a poll taken at the U, the majority supported the concealed weapons law.) So, the Legislature attacked students in order to get the regents to back down.
Unfettered_Kittens, private schools are certainly an option, if you want to pay for it. However, the difference I have found in private schools are that they can admit or remove anyone whom they wish based on differing requirements. Public schools are not so lucky. One of the main reasons that public schools have gotten lower scores or a bad rap is really shown and exaccerbated due to the No Child Left Behind law. Schools are called failing because there are a few non-english speaking or special education students that do not show much improvement over time. Another difference I've seen is that charter schools tend to pop up and in a few years go into bankruptcy. There are a few stalwart schools around, while newer startups usually don't make it.
Now, are charter schools providing a significant quality difference? Well, not really. In a recent research paper entitled 'An Analysis of Charter Schools vs Traditional Public School in Utah CRT 2004' submitted by Christopher A. Was and Sean Kristjannson from the U of U (http://www.usoe.k12.ut.us/charterschools/news/crt_Analysis.pdf), they show that there isn't a significant difference between CRT scores. In fact, the research found that 10th+ graders in traditional schools outperformed those in charter schools, though the scores themselves were not significantly different from the charter scores. In the end, it's the other differences that should make your choice of which school your kids go to. Is the extra money worth those differences? That varies from person to person. |
|
|
|
|
Gunrights
Posts:690
Senior User
Online Status:
Intergalactic Multi Phase Dementsion
|
| 06/14/2006 1:53 PM |
|
| To me this is a very important point, regardless of what you think. If the U had been violating the Free Speech of its students of faculty I suspect that you would have gone apeBEEP. The State Government didn't pull funding. That was said I believe to indicate the actual pecking order. The Uof U and all government institutions are funded by the State Legislature which is composed of members elected by the people. Who elected the Regents? You obviously put a higher motive on the U than the Legislature. That is a typical liberal viewpoint. I am just calling you on it regardless if you like it or not. They were fully within their rights and in my opinion the U was not. End of story. Of all of the things to criticize the State Legislature why pick guns and the Uof U. Only one person that I know of said that we should pull their funding. That was Mike Waddoups. Of course this wasn't done, but it sure seems like a big deal to some people. During my lifetime I have watched the American Peoples rights slowly evaporating. The courts have proven themselves to be a joke. The Founding Fathers never imagined that a society which has become as corrupt as ours could stand. I am very fearful that it is only a matter of time before we find ourselves in another police state. Yet as long as I can watch American Idol or some such fluff the people seem content. Wait until they start going hungry, but then it could be to late. |
|
|
|
|
|
| You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
|
|
ActiveForums 3.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|