American football is a perfect example of how rules and regulations have ruined America. Our society has mirrored the changes that have been brought to the game, or the game has mirrored our changes, that have led to something crappy for both. This post is quite simple; I don’t like watching American football anymore because it’s not really American football. I can’t believe people continue to watch a sport based on forcefully tackling the opponent that now has subjective rules and regulations that punishes a team for forcefully tackling; and the people remain silent. It seems like the team who tackles the best can arbitrarily be punished, while the other team is rewarded and becomes a winner without having to actually do anything. The rules in football today would be the same thing as disqualifying a boxer for punching a defenseless boxer in the face. That’s the thing with America now. We have all these systems that worked 100 years ago, and now we’re making changes to the system that contradict the whole purpose for the existence of the system. And then we wonder why we suck.
[We could have a long discussion about this and what our courts and laws have done related to equality, assistance/infrastructure, and the way we assess whether our systems are working]
People say they want to protect the players. If you really wanted to protect the players, you wouldn’t give them a helmet and tell them to run into somebody hard enough to knock them over and cheer. Ironically, the injuries continue. Then the judicial system says it’s the league’s fault. But the players don’t have to play the game. Since when did one person’s chosen actions become the responsibility of somebody else. Getting sued all the time and losing will definitely force you to change.
I find it interesting that people who demand a separation of church and state use morals as a reason to impose regulations on others. Separation of church and state simply means that your church doesn’t make decisions for the government. It doesn’t mean that people with similar beliefs can’t combine morals with logic to make a better community for all. The philosophies of the community should be very dear to the heart of the decisions the local government makes. Separation means we don’t simply follow the church. We elect officials; and yes pastors can be officials. Separation of church means that you can’t exclude people because they don’t follow your pastor and you should never force people to follow your pastor. However, it does not mean that people who don’t like your church can force the community to change or force the pastor to be silent. If it did, then it would mean I could force football to become American football again because I certainly don’t like what it is now. If you like a community that prays but you don’t pray, that’s fine. You can live there as long as you follow their laws. Separation doesn’t mean they have to stop praying, it just means they can’t force you to pray. Groups of people specifically traveled across the Atlantic Ocean so they could pray together the way they wanted, and now they can’t do it. And people somehow think this was the whole idea of separation of church and state and what the original people wanted. If the original people had wanted to end prayer and God, don’t you think they would have done it since they were the ones making the rules? So don’t try to act like you know what they wanted, all we know is what they did and how they lived.
The media tried to attack Dr. Ben Carson for making the statement that a Muslim shouldn’t be president. I can only ask the question, would we all be fool enough to vote for leaders who have openly admitted they don’t believe in our faith or philosophy of government? It would not make sense to elect a candidate from the communist party to run a system based on natural law and capitalism. It would not make sense to elect a Nazi bigot to run a system based on free will and equality either. The beautiful thing about America is that both of those candidates can live in America with their beliefs and make agreements with people of similar beliefs, as long as they don’t break required laws. It is ok for a community to pray together as long as they don’t force people to pray with them. Anybody who doesn’t like the moment of prayer is free to leave or get elected to office to create change. I just don’t think I want to elect someone who openly admits he/she wants to eliminate Jesus from my community. People who question Dr. Ben Carson either never read our founding documents or don’t understand them. Our founding documents and system of natural law are clearly based on the teachings of Jesus. Whether you call it morals or logic, why would I want to elect someone who fundamentally disagrees with my community’s way of life? This is not an attack on Muslims as I have met many intelligent, peaceful Muslims. But I should not have to pretend that their vision of social law is different than mine. The reason faith matters are that character and fundamental beliefs will influence logical decisions and understanding over social laws.
To me it was a loaded question to ask somebody whether a Muslim should be president. If you think about it, Christianity means many different things to many different people who interpret the Bible differently. Allowing people to interpret Christianity and live together the way they wanted was the real reason for people coming to America. I do know that one huge difference between Muslims who came to America a hundred years ago verses Muslims who come to America today (all immigrants for that matter). Muslims used to kiss the ground and be thankful to be in such a welcoming place that would let them live in peace. Immigrants used to be excited to assimilate themselves into the American way of life. Now, there are immigrants who come with hatred and want to change the American way of life. Am I supposed to pretend that I don’t see Muslims preaching hatred against the “infidels”? Do not forget that at one time in America people feared electing a Catholic president because of the corruption associated with the Catholic church that sent the pilgrims across the ocean in the first place. So yes, your faith and beliefs or non-beliefs do matter. If people say things that disagree with our philosophy of government and their beliefs are different than ours, then yes, I would be a fool to vote for those people. The problem is that just because they say they are Christian or Muslim doesn’t mean they really are practicing the definition of the Christian religion or Muslim religion. That is why the goal of this website is to create a way that communities can identify political leaders by their character, achievements, and political policies instead of by their religion or political party.
One good thing to be taken from this discussion is that a black man, Dr. Ben Carson, now knows what it feels like to be an honest, hardworking successful white male. America has come a long way since slavery. Ben Carson made a logical comment on the spot because he was trying to have an open and real discussion. His statement was then analyzed by a lot of people who made assumptions, who then drew conclusions about his character rather than question and debate his statements. All of a sudden Ben Carson became a bigot, but I guarantee you that if we judge his character by his past actions in life (which would make more sense than a few statements he made during a discussion) we would see something quite different than a person who commits prejudice acts. Yet, people are making these statements about his character as though they are facts.
The purpose of America and this website are to realize that just because you are Muslim or Christian doesn’t mean you will be a good leader. The goal is to create a way of electing the best people who will follow our philosophies/morals. The problem with the discussion is that the word Muslim can have many different meanings regardless of its textbook definition. This is why people normally have to discuss things to understand what they mean. Some people view “Muslim” as though it is an ethnicity and then get all offended. Others view it as radical Islam, while others view it as a slightly different version of Judaism or Christianity. And you are right; we shouldn’t judge an official based on his/her religion. But if a particular religion has specific philosophies that contradict our laws and someone professes to have these conflicted views, then no we shouldn’t vote for her/him. I think this is all Dr. Carson was trying to point out. I find it interesting that no one would question us if we said that a KKK member should not be our president, even though technically the founding principles of the religion were actually peaceful and well intended. How do we know whether he/she is a practicing member, or exactly what parts of the KKK philosophy she/he follows? I suppose the answer would be to actually look at his/her past actions and accomplishments. I do find it interesting that one thing that the Muslim religion and the KKK have in common is their self-proclaimed supremacy, whereas the Gospel of Jesus is focused on acceptance. Also, I have seen groups of Muslims chanting ideas in direct conflict with my way of life and our laws. So I do believe that Dr. Carson has a leg to stand on when he questions whether or not we should elect a Muslim official. Wouldn’t the people attacking his statements just love it if we all voted someone into office who would change our laws to fit their beliefs? Being tolerant doesn’t mean that I have to condone the acceptance of someone who wants to change me; that would be called being a gullible fool. I suppose the better way to approach the situation would be to just focus on what a person has tried to do and has accomplished when voting for him/her. Because the truth is that I really don’t know what it means to be “Muslim”, which is why the question should have never been asked. You give a smart man a stupid question and he tries to answer it honestly and somehow the smart man gets critiqued instead of calling out the reporter for his/her irrelevant question. We should be questioning whether or not the reporter should be a reporter for formulating such a poor question. And Dr. Carson never said we should make it a law or do religious testing for political office. He is just referring to the fact that the voter does have the right to vote for someone who shares similar philosophies of life, especially when those philosophies make up the societies laws.
America is a place where people can take risks if they want. Yet, I don’t believe that people could agree to play an old game of American football without somebody being wrongfully sued if an injury occurs. The new rules of football are immoral in the sense that they are hypocritical and contradictive to the purpose of the game. They result in one team winning a game without ever really achieving anything over their opponent. In fact, the team who hit the hardest is most likely to lose. Sadly, this seems to be a pattern in American society as well. Your beliefs or non-beliefs should never prevent a group of people from playing an old game of American football if they want. A person who shows up to the game and doesn’t like it should never be able to change the game. And if somebody shows up who believes the rules of football should be changed to the rules of soccer, then I would be stupid to vote for that person. If they want to play a different game, they can go somewhere else and play it. The thing that kills me is that people will participate in this new game that is just like soccer, but continue to call it football. Come to think of it, the rest of the world does call soccer football, so it appears that America is becoming more and more like the rest of the world everyday. The unhappy people who showed up have changed the rules of American football with the help of the courts. The rules have changed so much that I’m no longer watching American football. If you want to play a game with less risk (like soccer), just say so and go do it. The whole idea of America is that I can take my own risks, live my life the way I want, and solve my problems the way I want. We made an agreement that allowing each to solve their own problems and take the risks that they want would be the greatest freedom every experienced by a society. Additionally, it used to be common knowledge that a government is lying when it says it can protect you from the risks that this life brings us all. It would be the same as the government professing it could protect you from death and taxes. Rules and regulations never have and never will be able to end risks that we must all face from birth on in this world no matter what Obama or Bernie tell you. Obama trips me out every time there is a mass shooting and then he starts shaking is head and speaking with a condescending tone as if he could really stop these tragedies if we would just do what he says. All liberals are like this; they speak as if they have a message from God about what needs to be done to solve unpredictable acts but that we are too stubborn to just do what they say. Funny thing is that normally what they want to do has already been done and proven not to work. Creating more regulations for people who don’t follow the law really doesn’t help. People are confused about what is the law and what is a regulation to prevent/predict who will break the law. I don’t want to live in a world where proven idiots are predicting if I will break a law. What I don’t understand is that I was here first and now that I’m complaining people are telling me that I just have to accept it. How come the people who showed up complaining didn’t have to “just accept it” too?
I’m not saying gun regulations are unnecessary, especially if they are used wisely and effectively for the right reasons. It just ticks me off that liberals act like they truly without a doubt have the solution to stop mass shootings. When has any liberal idea ever worked? I honestly don’t see how more gun regulations can have any effect. We have more regulations now and less common daily use of guns than years ago when there didn’t seem to be a problem, so something is not adding up. In many aspects the US and Mexico have more in common than the US has with Europe. And Mexico has some of the strictest gun laws; yet, they have much more gun violence than the US. Fact of the matter is that if you get rid of suicide statistics, the gun violence numbers drop quite a bit in the US. And I really don’t see how someone deciding to shoot himself/herself with a gun can be the government’s problem. It seems like if I wanted to kill myself and you took my gun away, I would just use a rope or something. How many things can you take away in the name of risk?
If you want to live under the European umbrella, by god go live under it. If you don’t want to eat American beef, then don’t eat it. But why on Earth can people not understand that forcing me to not eat American beef for my own “so called protection” is the kind of oppression the original Americans fought against. The government will never be able to protect you as well as yourself, your friends, and your community. At one time, Americans knew this and it is the reason they made the original agreement to face risk head on and live free. I have no problem with the government warning me, advising me, and certifying things for me in all of our interest. However, the government should never be able to restrict me in the name of risk, especially when they use the same methods to protect me that they claim I can’t use to protect myself because its too risky. If I want to be a boxer, or play a good ole game of American football, or eat good ole American beef then I can, and I will be responsible for any risks that come with my free will choice.