All entries tagged with politics
One of CNNs currently most popular aricles is Obama picks Bible for inauguration, but what verse?. While President-elect Barack Obama will certainly be making history when he takes the oath of office on January 20, he'll also be repeating it -- by placing his hand on the same Bible that Abraham Lincoln used during the inauguration of 1861. Presidents have differed greatly, however, on the question of which passage the Bible should be opened to during the swearing-in ceremony. It brings up the question of what -- if any -- biblical passage Obama will emphasize.
I have a couple of suggestions: [Exodus 21:2] "When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing." [Exodus 21:7-8] "When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do." [Exodus 21:26-27] "When a man strikes the eye of his slave, male or female, and destroys it, he shall let the slave go free for the eye’s sake. If he knocks out the tooth of his slave, male or female, he shall let the slave go free for the tooth’s sake." [Leviticus 24:16] "And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death."  Sorry, I could not resist. :-) Update: Fixed typo in headline... Thanks Roland!
|
 Ratings
0
|
Warning, this blog entry have a potential political content. Disclaimer: I have been living in the US for almost 11 years. I still have some European views, though.
When it comes to US politics, I have a hard time when it comes to agreeing with either of the two parties. In Sweden I voted for the Moderate party (lower taxes, tougher on crime, strong defence forces, less government and more personal freedom). But the views of that party is more liberal (in the original meaning of the word, not as it is currently used in the US). For example, the party is pro-choice (not only when it comes to choosing daycare for your kid or hospital/doctor to visit, but also when it comes for a woman to be in charge of her own body).
Because of this, I sometimes enjoy(?) to look at the lack of logic among US politicians. Let me give one simple example.
We will compare the stand on gun ownership vs sex education among certain politicians. For simplicity, we will assume that the politicians also agree with NRA on certain issues.
NRA even have a webpage with safety resources aimed especially to youths: http://www.nrahq.org/youth/resources.asp So teaching young people/kids about gun safety is good, since it prevent people from being hurt.
But the same politicians are against teaching youths/kids about sex, including how to avoid becoming/making someone pregnant. The logic used is "if we teach them about sex, they will have more sex".
Nobody (well, some democrats might) claim that "if we teach kids how to use guns, there will be more shootings". Right?
"Palin is a strong proponent of the Second Amendment, and supports gun-safety education for children."
"Palin's running mate, John McCain, and the GOP platform say children should be taught that abstinence until marriage is the only safe way to avoid pregnancy and disease. Palin's position is less clear. In a widely quoted 2006 survey she answered during her gubernatorial campaign, Palin said she supported abstinence-until-marriage programs. But weeks later, she proclaimed herself 'pro-contraception' and said condoms ought to be discussed in schools alongside abstinence."
Time to decide?
We all know that if you make something "forbidden", it becomes more interesting and tempting. So by preaching abstinence, the youth actually want to try the "forbidden" thing.
I do not think it is a coincidence that the US have the highest rate of teenage pregnancy per capita in industrialized countries, way higher than most European countries, where sex education and pregnancy prevention is taught more/earlier.
I have a hard time with hippocrites, no matter if they are politicians preaching family values and having affairs behind the spouses back, or using flawed logic (as in the example above), or people calling themselves "christian" (and going to church every Sunday) while having affairs with married women/men.
|
Ratings
0
|
