It can’t be said that there are many parallels between Newt Gingrich’s political philosophy, if it can be collected into one coherent philosophy, and the structure of the Responsible Community. But, we do need to give Gingrich his due when he is right, even if not for the same reasons.
Today is Florida’s Republican primary and immigration is a big issue because of the large amount of immigrants, both legal and illegal. Mitt Romney, Gingrich’s biggest rival in the presidential primary, has developed his “self-deportation” plan that has some truth at the core. He believes that as a country, we need to somehow remove the illegal immigrants from the neighborhoods of America and return them to their home country. There, they can apply to come to America legally. He would do this by cutting off the jobs the immigrants obtain when here. This is the truth at the core of his plan; we would have much less illegal immigration if there weren’t jobs going unfilled here.
But, Romney is not likely to be willing to go up against business owners and fine them for hiring illegals. Remember, he is a pro-business candidate, having run a capital investment firm very successfully. It just can’t be seen how the pro-business, less regulation candidate is going to stop businesses who need cheap docile employees.
If Romney wants to remove the illegals from our neighborhoods, he will have to drive the padding wagon down the street, dragnet style. He will have to round them up and send them home.
Gingrich doesn’t think that is such a good idea, nor do I. Gingrich has said something like rounding up someone’s grandmother that has been here for many years to deport her is against humanity and, besides, can’t really be done. (Gingrich is right on both points. Can you image removing 10 to 20 million people from the country? Panic and chaos would be pandemic. There would be riots and armed conflict in the streets of our towns. Our courts would be filled with backlog cases for many years, if not lifetimes.)
These people are here because we needed them to fill jobs that went unfilled. While they may have taken jobs that legal immigrants could have filled, it is not as bad as it seems. Once here, they created a synergy that created more jobs. Economically, they hold entire communities together. They rent houses and apartments, buy food for their families, entertain themselves and buy shirts from JC Penny. By removing about 10 to 15 percent of the population, if it could be done, would send us into another recession. The jobs it is said the illegals took would be gone along with all the other jobs that were created from the goods and services they purchased.
That is not to suggest that we should not do a better job of keeping illegals from the country in the first place. A blog post from May 2010, End Illegal Immigration in Five Steps, outlines five steps to end illegal immigration without ten foot concrete walls around the country. Let’s make sure every person has a national identification card so we know who is legal and who isn’t, that every business knows that there will be severe consequences if they hire undocumented workers, manage our borders not control them and build the economies in the home countries. We also need to provide a path for documenting workers that aren’t currently legal instead of deporting them.
Solutions for problems like illegal immigration come from practical community based solutions not from politically motivated ideological double speak. Romney is suggesting that we get tough by cutting off the supply of jobs at the same time he says we need to get rid of regulations and help business. This is Romney’s double speak. Gingrich at least is defining the issue in practical terms.
-----
Responsible Community Working Together in Shared Responsibility.
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Monday, January 23, 2012
Body autonomy, at the core of abortion rights
In a perfect world, everyone’s rights would be given the same weight. But, the practical matter is, in a community that has its entire existence invested in the freedom of the individual, there are times when someone’s right must be overridden by someone else.
As examples, we can say troubling things that can harm people, but it is our right to express. When Occupy took over ground to stage their protests, they prevented others from using the property for other reasons. We take up arms to fight the enemy to save ourselves and our way of life, but many of our own and others die in the process. In the end, these and other freedoms that we as a community feel so fervently about are worth the loss.
All freedoms are based on body autonomy. It is the basic idea that individuals can’t be forced to submit to the will of others. It may have had a different meaning in the past, perhaps anchored in the anti-slavery movement. But, in this expanded usage, not only does it apply to involuntary servitude, but also to other freedoms.
As it is with all other freedoms, it is also true with abortion, perhaps with deeper implications. But, because the end result may be more troubling to some, it doesn’t mean that the individual freedom to make the choice is any less sacred. The fact is, a woman can’t be made to labor for someone else if she doesn’t choose to. To discount her right of body autonomy would be placing an entire class of people below the rights of all others.
Abortion will be a big issue in the upcoming election. Many of the candidates will talk high mindedly about how abortions should be stopped. But, when all the rhetoric is set aside, it will mean a woman is being forced to give up her right to body autonomy. During the election season, many states will also make an attempt to pass citizens initiatives that restrict or prevent abortions. Many will attempt to define life at conception or at the first heartbeat so abortion can be curtailed. It still means the same thing, woman will lose control.
Whatever the rhetoric or the passion, abortion must remain legal and safe in this world, this country and this community.
-----
As examples, we can say troubling things that can harm people, but it is our right to express. When Occupy took over ground to stage their protests, they prevented others from using the property for other reasons. We take up arms to fight the enemy to save ourselves and our way of life, but many of our own and others die in the process. In the end, these and other freedoms that we as a community feel so fervently about are worth the loss.
All freedoms are based on body autonomy. It is the basic idea that individuals can’t be forced to submit to the will of others. It may have had a different meaning in the past, perhaps anchored in the anti-slavery movement. But, in this expanded usage, not only does it apply to involuntary servitude, but also to other freedoms.
As it is with all other freedoms, it is also true with abortion, perhaps with deeper implications. But, because the end result may be more troubling to some, it doesn’t mean that the individual freedom to make the choice is any less sacred. The fact is, a woman can’t be made to labor for someone else if she doesn’t choose to. To discount her right of body autonomy would be placing an entire class of people below the rights of all others.
Abortion will be a big issue in the upcoming election. Many of the candidates will talk high mindedly about how abortions should be stopped. But, when all the rhetoric is set aside, it will mean a woman is being forced to give up her right to body autonomy. During the election season, many states will also make an attempt to pass citizens initiatives that restrict or prevent abortions. Many will attempt to define life at conception or at the first heartbeat so abortion can be curtailed. It still means the same thing, woman will lose control.
Whatever the rhetoric or the passion, abortion must remain legal and safe in this world, this country and this community.
-----
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
No "Right to Life" Michigan license plates
If legislation that is before the Michigan Senate Transportation Committee passes, motorist will be able to purchase a license plate for their car that supports Right to Life of Michigan. Not only will the plate make a statement in support of the right’s “Pro Life” campaign, some of the money generated from the sale of the plate will go to Right of Life of Michigan. The organization has stated in press releases that they will use the money to support pregnancy centers around the state.
The Right to Life organization and other conservatives frame this as a free speech issue. The drivers of the cars that have one of the plates attached have a right to express their opinion. The right also believes that the state has the right to take positions on issues, comparing the position to things such as don’t drive drunk or stay in school.
The ACLU and other organizations on the left see it differently. They see this as a fairness issue. If the state is to sell plates that speak to a political point of view, they should offer the same to groups that are opposed to the idea. Also, funds that will be raised for Right to Life of Michigan will not be balanced with funds for the opposing point of view.
In a Responsible Community, the government is not chartered to support any political point of view – maybe even to go as far as not supporting any behavior other than to obey the law. Government in a community is created to facilitate the development of a safe and peaceful environment. To take a partisan side on any issue is to work against some of the stake holders in the community, a protection that is part of a constitutionally limited republic. In this case, the state is facilitating the right’s ability to express a political point of view, but is not providing the same ability for others. Even if the state was to offer a plate for pro-choice groups, it still falls outside of the state’s function.
On a practical matter, as soon as government steps in to a political issue, it will be impossible to delineate between the many points of view that exist in the community and support them all. Its attempt would create a confusing and wasteful use of resources, especially since it is outside of the function of government.
Let’s keep the government doing what it is chartered to do, create a safe and peaceful environment that supports all individuals in the community.
-----
The Right to Life organization and other conservatives frame this as a free speech issue. The drivers of the cars that have one of the plates attached have a right to express their opinion. The right also believes that the state has the right to take positions on issues, comparing the position to things such as don’t drive drunk or stay in school.
The ACLU and other organizations on the left see it differently. They see this as a fairness issue. If the state is to sell plates that speak to a political point of view, they should offer the same to groups that are opposed to the idea. Also, funds that will be raised for Right to Life of Michigan will not be balanced with funds for the opposing point of view.
In a Responsible Community, the government is not chartered to support any political point of view – maybe even to go as far as not supporting any behavior other than to obey the law. Government in a community is created to facilitate the development of a safe and peaceful environment. To take a partisan side on any issue is to work against some of the stake holders in the community, a protection that is part of a constitutionally limited republic. In this case, the state is facilitating the right’s ability to express a political point of view, but is not providing the same ability for others. Even if the state was to offer a plate for pro-choice groups, it still falls outside of the state’s function.
On a practical matter, as soon as government steps in to a political issue, it will be impossible to delineate between the many points of view that exist in the community and support them all. Its attempt would create a confusing and wasteful use of resources, especially since it is outside of the function of government.
Let’s keep the government doing what it is chartered to do, create a safe and peaceful environment that supports all individuals in the community.
-----
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
At the debate of the Republican presidential candidates, each contender stood firm in their opposition to same sex marriage. Their opposition was based on religion, tradition or both. The debate was held at St Anselm’s College, a Roman Catholic grammar school for boys (in Wirral), in Manchester, New Hampshire.
Newt Gingrich, whose sister is gay and a supporter of President Barack Obama, started the conversation by saying that there was a bias by the news media bias because they keep asking the wrong question. The media should be asking about the consequences of same sex marriage instead. Gingrich said that the recognition of a marriage goes far beyond a loving couple who want to form a long term relationship. The consequences of allowing same sex marriages are that all married couples have to be considered for adoption and other rights. Gingrich suggested that this creates an institutionalized bigotry (his word) by the federal government against organizations, like the Catholic Church, because they will not consider gay couples in the adoption process. Gingrich said, therefore, that he supports the traditional sacrament of marriage, one man and one woman, to avoid the consequences.
Mitt Romney said that recognizing same sex marriages, as has been done in New Hampshire, is a mistake. His reason is that children being raised by a male and a female are better off.
Jon Huntsman, Jr. supports civil unions of same sex couples. He does not, though, support same sex marriages. His reason is that he is a traditionalist. Marriage, Huntsman believes, should be saved for one man and one woman. He added that “reciprocal beneficiary rights” should be part of civil unions and that states should talk about the subject.
Rick Perry said that he supports the Federal Marriage Amendment and the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). That law, the DOMA, was struck down in part by the federal courts. Obama decided against defending the law in the courts and Perry believes that the Obama administration is at war against people of faith by deciding not to defend the law in the courts.
Rick Santorum believes that marriage is a federal issue, while adoption by same sex couples is a state issue. He believes that there needs to be one law for the entire country that defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
Ron Paul didn’t respond to the marriage question. He does believe that government should get out of the marriage business. Paul has said in the past that he personal believes in marriage as between one man and one woman.
As mentioned above, President Obama did decide not to defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). In part, the act said that states don’t have to accept a marriage from other states and that marriage between same sex couples are not to enjoy the same benefits as those of one man and one woman. In the case Smelt v United States of America, the Obama administration at first defended the law, as it is the policy of the administration to defend all federal laws. But, after pressure from civil rights groups from around the country, Obama withdrew his support and reinstated his original position of asking for full repeal of DOMA.
The definition of marriage is going to be a big issue in the presidential election this fall. The concern the candidates have with marriage is adoption and partner benefits. It is their belief that a child should be raised in a home with a man and a woman, the traditional marriage arrangement. Additionally, with providing benefits to domestic partners it both cost more and provides a de facto approval of the living arrangements.
But, can anyone tell me how same sex marriage is a problem? Same sex marriage doesn’t cause harm to anyone either in the relationship or in the community, so government should not attempt to prevent it. Since being gay it is not a choice, but a biological determination, raising children in the environment is not going to brainwash more children into the gay lifestyle. The argument about costing more is a moot point. It is likely that if there weren’t same sex marriages, there would be more traditional marriages and cost just as much. Finally, to argue that as a community we should continue with one man and one women marriage just because it is tradition is nonsense. Over the last 3,000 years many things have changed and the human species is still here. In fact, we have survived and prospered because we changed when it was deemed necessary.
Civil Unions, which some candidates have suggested is to step into the equal but separate argument. In a broad acceptance of Brown v the Board of Education, separate is not equal. It is inherently unequal by the very fact that they are separate.
Marriage as a contract is something the community should recognize no matter the partners. The benefit is to allow rights and property to pass to each partner and for other legal reasons. But, to define it as only between a man and a woman makes no sense.
-----
Follow us on Facebook.
Newt Gingrich, whose sister is gay and a supporter of President Barack Obama, started the conversation by saying that there was a bias by the news media bias because they keep asking the wrong question. The media should be asking about the consequences of same sex marriage instead. Gingrich said that the recognition of a marriage goes far beyond a loving couple who want to form a long term relationship. The consequences of allowing same sex marriages are that all married couples have to be considered for adoption and other rights. Gingrich suggested that this creates an institutionalized bigotry (his word) by the federal government against organizations, like the Catholic Church, because they will not consider gay couples in the adoption process. Gingrich said, therefore, that he supports the traditional sacrament of marriage, one man and one woman, to avoid the consequences.
Mitt Romney said that recognizing same sex marriages, as has been done in New Hampshire, is a mistake. His reason is that children being raised by a male and a female are better off.
Jon Huntsman, Jr. supports civil unions of same sex couples. He does not, though, support same sex marriages. His reason is that he is a traditionalist. Marriage, Huntsman believes, should be saved for one man and one woman. He added that “reciprocal beneficiary rights” should be part of civil unions and that states should talk about the subject.
Rick Perry said that he supports the Federal Marriage Amendment and the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). That law, the DOMA, was struck down in part by the federal courts. Obama decided against defending the law in the courts and Perry believes that the Obama administration is at war against people of faith by deciding not to defend the law in the courts.
Rick Santorum believes that marriage is a federal issue, while adoption by same sex couples is a state issue. He believes that there needs to be one law for the entire country that defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
Ron Paul didn’t respond to the marriage question. He does believe that government should get out of the marriage business. Paul has said in the past that he personal believes in marriage as between one man and one woman.
As mentioned above, President Obama did decide not to defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). In part, the act said that states don’t have to accept a marriage from other states and that marriage between same sex couples are not to enjoy the same benefits as those of one man and one woman. In the case Smelt v United States of America, the Obama administration at first defended the law, as it is the policy of the administration to defend all federal laws. But, after pressure from civil rights groups from around the country, Obama withdrew his support and reinstated his original position of asking for full repeal of DOMA.
The definition of marriage is going to be a big issue in the presidential election this fall. The concern the candidates have with marriage is adoption and partner benefits. It is their belief that a child should be raised in a home with a man and a woman, the traditional marriage arrangement. Additionally, with providing benefits to domestic partners it both cost more and provides a de facto approval of the living arrangements.
But, can anyone tell me how same sex marriage is a problem? Same sex marriage doesn’t cause harm to anyone either in the relationship or in the community, so government should not attempt to prevent it. Since being gay it is not a choice, but a biological determination, raising children in the environment is not going to brainwash more children into the gay lifestyle. The argument about costing more is a moot point. It is likely that if there weren’t same sex marriages, there would be more traditional marriages and cost just as much. Finally, to argue that as a community we should continue with one man and one women marriage just because it is tradition is nonsense. Over the last 3,000 years many things have changed and the human species is still here. In fact, we have survived and prospered because we changed when it was deemed necessary.
Civil Unions, which some candidates have suggested is to step into the equal but separate argument. In a broad acceptance of Brown v the Board of Education, separate is not equal. It is inherently unequal by the very fact that they are separate.
Marriage as a contract is something the community should recognize no matter the partners. The benefit is to allow rights and property to pass to each partner and for other legal reasons. But, to define it as only between a man and a woman makes no sense.
-----
Follow us on Facebook.
Saturday, January 7, 2012
Not a third world junta government
Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul has received plenty of support from the men and women in uniform. He has raised more money from those in uniform than any other Republican and as well as any Democrat. That includes President Barak Obama, the Commander in Chief.
The men and women in the military have the same rights as the rest of us on their personal time. They can donate money to political campaigns, work on elections and even go door to door in support of a political candidate. All of this according to the military code of conduct but also as granted in the Constitution and supported by any responsible community.
Cpl. Jesse Thorsen is just like any other individual that lives in the United States. That is except he is a reservist. As a reservist and in his fatigues, he was interviewed on CNN. During that interview, he endorsed Ron Paul for president. Thorsen later spoke at a rally for the presidential candidate. While he is allowed to support any candidate he wants, he just can’t do it in uniform. This rule is also part of the military code of conduct. (…and yes according to the Constitution and supported by any responsible community.)
In many countries around the world, the military commanders stand with selected candidates for office. This is their way of showing support for a political view point, a view point that is often directed by the military junta that controls the day to day activities of the government. Their appearance with candidates doesn’t support a free and open election process. Instead, it creates fear in the hearts of the voters who are being told how to vote – or else, some great harm will come their way to them and their families.
The authors of the Constitution knew in very personal terms the results of having the military stand over their shoulders when voting. Not only from what the English did to the colonist, but what was happening in Europe. That is why there are a lot of road blocks to military control. As a couple of examples, military budgets can’t be approved for more than two years and military personnel could not be quartered in private homes without permission.
Ron Paul, perhaps more than any other candidate, runs a campaign based on respect for the Constitution. In numerated and enumerated ways, the document makes it clear that the military is to stay out of elections and the civilian government. While Paul may not have been able to control the interview of Thorsen on CNN, Paul should not have allowed the corporal to speak at the rally.
Is this an oversight on Paul’s part or his campaign managers? Perhaps it is the mangers, but Paul isn’t the point. Let’s keep the military out of the elections. Unless, of course, we want to move the country in the direction of establishing Eisenhower’s military industrial complex he warned about.
-----
The men and women in the military have the same rights as the rest of us on their personal time. They can donate money to political campaigns, work on elections and even go door to door in support of a political candidate. All of this according to the military code of conduct but also as granted in the Constitution and supported by any responsible community.
Cpl. Jesse Thorsen is just like any other individual that lives in the United States. That is except he is a reservist. As a reservist and in his fatigues, he was interviewed on CNN. During that interview, he endorsed Ron Paul for president. Thorsen later spoke at a rally for the presidential candidate. While he is allowed to support any candidate he wants, he just can’t do it in uniform. This rule is also part of the military code of conduct. (…and yes according to the Constitution and supported by any responsible community.)
In many countries around the world, the military commanders stand with selected candidates for office. This is their way of showing support for a political view point, a view point that is often directed by the military junta that controls the day to day activities of the government. Their appearance with candidates doesn’t support a free and open election process. Instead, it creates fear in the hearts of the voters who are being told how to vote – or else, some great harm will come their way to them and their families.
The authors of the Constitution knew in very personal terms the results of having the military stand over their shoulders when voting. Not only from what the English did to the colonist, but what was happening in Europe. That is why there are a lot of road blocks to military control. As a couple of examples, military budgets can’t be approved for more than two years and military personnel could not be quartered in private homes without permission.
Ron Paul, perhaps more than any other candidate, runs a campaign based on respect for the Constitution. In numerated and enumerated ways, the document makes it clear that the military is to stay out of elections and the civilian government. While Paul may not have been able to control the interview of Thorsen on CNN, Paul should not have allowed the corporal to speak at the rally.
Is this an oversight on Paul’s part or his campaign managers? Perhaps it is the mangers, but Paul isn’t the point. Let’s keep the military out of the elections. Unless, of course, we want to move the country in the direction of establishing Eisenhower’s military industrial complex he warned about.
-----
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
Arizona's inferior education system
Expanding the base of knowledge that all students have about history and the path we took to get to the present is part of what education is all about. If students are allowed to examine our successes and failures, they can hopefully avoid the mistakes of the past and be better prepared for the future.
This makes sense most everywhere but in Arizona. There, the state superintendent of schools, John Huppenthal, determined that the Mexican American Heritage class taught at the Tucson Unified School District violated the law under House Bill 2281. That bill makes it illegal to include courses that are designed for particular ethnic groups and promote resentment toward a race or class of people. Huppenthal as a state senator worked to get the law passed in the Arizona legislature. Arizona governor Jan Brewer signed the bill in the spring of last year just a month after signing the toughest anti-immigration law in the country. (The immigration law is now being contested by the United States attorney general and parts of it have been placed on hold by the courts.)
Besides Mexican American studies, the Tucson Unified School District offers programs on African American and Native-American studies. The programs focus on history, literature and include information about the influence the ethnic group has had on United States history and culture. As an example, the American History class includes the role of the ethnic group in major United States historical events and has courses that emphasize the group’s literature.
Every community has the responsibility of educating its young and offering continuing education to those that are in need of it. By definition, education means providing all the relevant information about the subjecting being taught. Sometimes that means teaching about the failures of the past. But, with a solid understanding of the events that lead to those failures, we can hopefully do better in the future.
Those on the right of the political spectrum often bring up the term political correctness. This term has a very board and varied definition. But, under one definition of the term, this law fits. The conservatives that currently are in charge in Arizona want to focus just on the positive aspects of the current majority culture without any discussion of its failures. By offering no challenge to the prevailing culture, we can never be sure that we are the best we can be. This is very definition of a politically correct education.
Think of it as a science course teaching about rocketry. If the course didn’t include the many times experimental rockets failed and the reasons why, each new generation would have to experience failure after failure to find the right path. But, with knowledge of the failures of the past, students can build on what works.
Arizona’s students, if the state continues on this path, will have an inferior education. When they graduate and step into the real world, they will make decisions with only part of the information needed. A set up to failure – or at least, repeating the mistakes of the past.
A Responsible Community doesn’t limit inquiry. It also doesn’t prevent the knowledge that is learned from that inquiry from being assimilated nor does it limit the challenge to the current beliefs.
Anything else has a more than likely chance of repeating the failures of the past.
Note: Thank you to Nathan Collins for bringing attention to this important story.
Also, find us on facebook with the facebook link.
-----
This makes sense most everywhere but in Arizona. There, the state superintendent of schools, John Huppenthal, determined that the Mexican American Heritage class taught at the Tucson Unified School District violated the law under House Bill 2281. That bill makes it illegal to include courses that are designed for particular ethnic groups and promote resentment toward a race or class of people. Huppenthal as a state senator worked to get the law passed in the Arizona legislature. Arizona governor Jan Brewer signed the bill in the spring of last year just a month after signing the toughest anti-immigration law in the country. (The immigration law is now being contested by the United States attorney general and parts of it have been placed on hold by the courts.)
Besides Mexican American studies, the Tucson Unified School District offers programs on African American and Native-American studies. The programs focus on history, literature and include information about the influence the ethnic group has had on United States history and culture. As an example, the American History class includes the role of the ethnic group in major United States historical events and has courses that emphasize the group’s literature.
Every community has the responsibility of educating its young and offering continuing education to those that are in need of it. By definition, education means providing all the relevant information about the subjecting being taught. Sometimes that means teaching about the failures of the past. But, with a solid understanding of the events that lead to those failures, we can hopefully do better in the future.
Those on the right of the political spectrum often bring up the term political correctness. This term has a very board and varied definition. But, under one definition of the term, this law fits. The conservatives that currently are in charge in Arizona want to focus just on the positive aspects of the current majority culture without any discussion of its failures. By offering no challenge to the prevailing culture, we can never be sure that we are the best we can be. This is very definition of a politically correct education.
Think of it as a science course teaching about rocketry. If the course didn’t include the many times experimental rockets failed and the reasons why, each new generation would have to experience failure after failure to find the right path. But, with knowledge of the failures of the past, students can build on what works.
Arizona’s students, if the state continues on this path, will have an inferior education. When they graduate and step into the real world, they will make decisions with only part of the information needed. A set up to failure – or at least, repeating the mistakes of the past.
A Responsible Community doesn’t limit inquiry. It also doesn’t prevent the knowledge that is learned from that inquiry from being assimilated nor does it limit the challenge to the current beliefs.
Anything else has a more than likely chance of repeating the failures of the past.
Note: Thank you to Nathan Collins for bringing attention to this important story.
Also, find us on facebook with the facebook link.
-----
Monday, January 2, 2012
Happy New Year
Happy New Year!
May this New Year bring you success in seeking your own personal happiness. May the privacy of your body be respected from everyone. That you can personally practice your own religion without interference. May who you love be given the same respect as anyone else in the community.
May you have the freedom to speak your mind and publish your ideas for others to consider. May you continue to have the right to join with others that share your outlook and ask that the community to address your concerns.
May you be safe in the environment. That you are safe and secure from invasion of outside forces and free of crime in your community. That government and business doesn’t intrude in your life any more than necessary. That you free to own weapons.
In this New Year, may the privacy of your home and other spaces you live and work in be as hollowed as the most sacred of places. May your personal property be free from intrusion. That if such a situation arises, that you are treated fairly by the courts and provided every opportunity to defend yourself.
As it should be, may the New Year allow you to openly inquire about all things. That you may share all that you have learned. In return, may you also have the right to openly challenge what others think so that the truth can be found.
May the community help when you have done everything possible but still find trouble. When you experience a loss of income, may the community share the responsibility in restoring your potential. That if your health is a problem, the community will be there to help.
In short, may you find that by respecting others and sharing the responsibility of the community with your neighbors, more will be accomplished than you could on your own.
-----
May this New Year bring you success in seeking your own personal happiness. May the privacy of your body be respected from everyone. That you can personally practice your own religion without interference. May who you love be given the same respect as anyone else in the community.
May you have the freedom to speak your mind and publish your ideas for others to consider. May you continue to have the right to join with others that share your outlook and ask that the community to address your concerns.
May you be safe in the environment. That you are safe and secure from invasion of outside forces and free of crime in your community. That government and business doesn’t intrude in your life any more than necessary. That you free to own weapons.
In this New Year, may the privacy of your home and other spaces you live and work in be as hollowed as the most sacred of places. May your personal property be free from intrusion. That if such a situation arises, that you are treated fairly by the courts and provided every opportunity to defend yourself.
As it should be, may the New Year allow you to openly inquire about all things. That you may share all that you have learned. In return, may you also have the right to openly challenge what others think so that the truth can be found.
May the community help when you have done everything possible but still find trouble. When you experience a loss of income, may the community share the responsibility in restoring your potential. That if your health is a problem, the community will be there to help.
In short, may you find that by respecting others and sharing the responsibility of the community with your neighbors, more will be accomplished than you could on your own.
-----
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)