Stand up for what you believe in, even if it goes against the current status quo.

Posts tagged ‘Politics’

Keep Politics and Religion Together

What do y’all think?

Can you truly separate your politics from your religion?

This is a question I have been thinking a lot about recently, and I thought it would be an interesting discussion point.

We hear a lot about the separation between church and state. In our secular society, the political sphere is not meant for any sort of religion or religious argument, and opponents to religion don’t let the rest of us forget it.

But isn’t religion a lifestyle? Shouldn’t it be such a large part of us that we can’t separate it from our private and our public lives?

Rick Santorum has gotten some heat for bringing his religious morals and values into the political spectrum, especially on the issue of gay “marriage.” His critics don’t want to hear any mention of God or the bible or anything to do with Catholic faith.

But what about those politicians and leaders who say they have religion, but don’t show any indication of practicing it?

I do not think religion and politics should be separated, nor do I think they really CAN be separate if an individual has a strong faith and conviction in their respective religion.

I am a college student who has a strong Catholic faith. I am the same person in public as I am in private. I have the same morals and values when I am with one close friend and when I am with a large group of my peers. I don’t just attend church on Sunday, sing the hymns and praise Jesus, but then disregard my faith the other six days of the week.

My faith is who I am. It influences every aspect of my life. My decisions, my political views, my outlook on life. It influences how I treat people, how I live every minute of every day. It influences the politicians I support and vote for in elections. It influences what I want from my government, and what I don’t want.

What kind of hypocrite would I be if on Sunday I praised a God who opposed abortion, but then on Tuesday advocated for a Pro-Choice standpoint on abortion? Would you be able to look me in the eye if I told you, “I’m a religious person, but I know that other people aren’t, so I’m not going to force them to respect all human life the way God expects us to. They’re going to abort their babies anyways, we might as well make it legal and available to women who want it.” (Some girl actually said this in one of my political science classes. Not even joking.)

The truth of the matter is, if religion is an integral part of someone’s life, if it influenced their decisions and provided the purpose of their existence, they would have an incredibly difficult time separate their religious beliefs from politics. In fact, it would be impossible.

The Founding Fathers, while they did want separation between government and a religion institution, believed that religion was and should be a part of people’s everyday lives. They acknowledged that it could make a person BETTER.

I’d like you hear you viewpoints! Comment comment comment!



Mitt Romney So Good?

I’m sitting here at my desk, in my dorm room, listening to the girls in the rooms surrounding me shriek, struggling with the age old question… What am I going to do when I graduate college?

It’s a tough-y.

And I had this overwhelming urge to write, so I decided, Hey. Let’s blog. Lucky you.

Mitt Romney came to mind. Not quite sure why, but it might have to do with the Republican Presidential Candidate discussion I had in my Problems with American Democracy class today. Quite surprisingly, it seems that most of the class would classify themselves as Republicans (or at least don’t like Obama). That put quite a smile on my face, I must admit.

Anyways… Mitt Romney. Interesting little article in the Washington Post on him today. It’s about him changing his ideology about abortion.

This is one of the problems that I have with Romney: he can’t seem to make up his mind. OR. He is just a crowd pleaser. Either one is negative in my eyes.

Massachusetts, normally, tends to be more liberal than the whole of American. Massachusettian Republicans are more liberal than, lets say, North Carolinian Republicans. So, it would only make sense that their governor would be on the more liberal side because he would be forced to try to connect with the issues the people care the most about.

But the ideals that he stood for in Massachusetts, more liberal or not, are not the ideals that most Republicans stand for.

Here are a few examples: RomneyCare, gay marriage, abortion.

As Governor, Romney established state-run healthcare (no thank you), stood for Pro-Choice values (although the article says that he later became pro-life; however, he did not try to pass pro-life legislation), and advocated for gay marriage (he is STILL pro-gay marriage).

But now, as a Republican Presidential candidate, he has become Pro-Life and has backed away from his state-run health care (even if minimally).

I don’t know y’all. I just get a bad feeling from him. I’m not sure why he is so popular. I’m not sure why people like him. Yes, the polls are showing that he might be more popular than Obama. But will our country really be in better hands with Romney as our President? I think if people paid enough attention to his past, they would see that he is not the conservative leader we need.

Just my opinion.

The top RPCs (abbreviated) that we guessed would receive the nomination in my class today were (shockingly!) Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, and Newt Gingrich (I threw that one in there. He’s rising in the polls!). The candidates people would like to see receive the nomination were Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, and Rick Perry. Personally, I don’t know if I really care for any of them. I’m pushing for Rick Santorum, but he’s not doing so hot. We shall see.

Have a great week!!! 😀

You Just Can’t Escape It

I know that I’ve posted something like this once before, but I’m going to share this with you again.

I am writing a paper for my poli. sci. class (Problems with American Democracy) on Rick Perry’s book, Fed Up. (It wasn’t a bad book either. Pretty quick read too. Check it out if you have time!)

Anyways, I’m writing a sentence about the Founding Fathers, and Pages (the word processor for Macs) underlines “fathers” in green, which means there is a  grammatical error.

‘What in the world,’ I’m thinking, ‘Could be wrong with “fathers?”‘

Oh. The liberals have even taken over the auto-correct on our computers.

Father is a gender-specific word and should be replaced with something more appropriate. Examples include “originates”, “gives life to”, and “parents.”

Seriously? you say.

Seriously. And don’t just take my word for it. I have PROOF.




Voila. Pretty ridiculous, huh? I thought so.

Have fun, y’all!


Amendment 26 Says What?

Yes, yes. I should be writing a Criminology paper and getting to sleep (it’s currently 12:30 am). But… I was having a mental block and I’m not tired so I decided to write y’all another post instead. Two in one day! I’m on a roll… 🙂

My friend told me about this article in a universities newspaper. It was under the “Viewpoint” section, which I believe is sort of an opinion section for the paper’s writers.

It’s about abortion. In favor of abortion, of course!

The chick who wrote this is apparently very ignorant.

She opens up with the defeat of Mississippi’s Amendment 26. She explains it a bit, not doing it much justice. Then she states, “Thankfully, the Amendment did not pass.”

Thankfully. Of course!

She’s against it because of “the issue of rape.” Of course you are. This young author believes that if a woman was raped and was not allowed to have an abortion, that the child would be “a slap in the face” and that the mother would show nothing but “distaste” towards the child because it would be a constant reminder of that rape. She says something a little insane about a mother falling, and having a miscarriage, and being processed as a criminal… which I’m pretty sure was not the intent of the Amendment, but hey, I could be wrong… Then the article moves on to fertility treatment and claims that outlawing certain fertility treatments would ban couples from having children.

And here we go.

ISSUES with this article: Everything.

First off, of course it’s a pro-choice article. What institution would print a pro-life article commending Article 26? I wonder if I wrote to The Technician about the positives of this Amendment if they would print it? Highly doubtful.

Second. Her argument about miscarriages and criminal proceedings is awkward. I don’t think she has her facts straight, which is unfortunate. I can just see college students reading this, nodding their heads in agreement, unaware that the details of the Amendment have been skewed and blown out of proportions. And of course they won’t go read the Amendment for themselves, because hey! Someone’s already done that for them. Riiiiight…

Third. I completely understand that rape is horrible. No woman (or man) should ever have to suffer a trauma that horrific. However, it’s pretty selfish to want an abortion because that child would be a constant reminder of the rape. So an abortion is better, huh? Not only will the woman suffer one trauma (the rape) but then she’ll go endure another one having the abortion!! Now that’s horrific. And to call the child a slap in the face is just plain stupid. Get a grip author! You should be more intelligent than that.

Fourth. This argument is the worst of them all I think. “I am the result of numerous fertility treatments. Although I was born long before this became an issue, it still hurts to know that some couples who want children could be potentially banned from having children, should this become a law anywhere?” Well… I don’t think Mississippi will be banning people from having children. There is this thing called adoption. It’s a great thing to do. Instead of creating babies through science and illegitimate and unnatural means, maybe parents can help those that are already living? You know, save a life, give a child a better life and the opportunity to know unconditional love and what it’s like to have a family. Isn’t that was we as Americans stand for? Don’t we stand for happiness and opportunities? Apparently only to a fault.

Plus, I love that she titles it “Standing Up For Rights.” Whose rights? Not those of the innocent, defenseless child. Oh, the woman’s rights? What? Her right to kill an innocent, defenseless child? That’s not a right. That’s murder. And murder is just plain wrong.

Maybe I’m overreacting. Maybe I’m not. I just don’t think this is a necessary article for a university’s newspaper. If they’re going to publish a left-sided article it’s only fair that they should publish a right-sided, pro-life one. But they won’t, which is unfortunate.

And that’s my peace. Time for sleep.


Watching Barack Speak

Sorry y’all! I know I know… it’s been forever since I’ve been on here. Blame higher education. So, this story is kind of late buuuuut…

I SAW OBAMA SPEAK LIVE. Yeah… I know! It was exactly like watching him on TV. Dead serious. I didn’t think it was anything special. He strutted out. He waved like he was Bono. He nodded his head a lot. Said thank you trillions of time. Tried to get the crowd to stop applauding (half-heartedly I thought). And then began his shpeel on the American Jobs Act. (Which apparently… if you would like to know what’s in it, Obama told us to read it on I guess it’s too lengthy to summarize? Or he just didn’t feel like he owed us a little description of what the bill was about? Who knows?)

I saw him speak on Sept. 14. The cool thing about it was that I got to see a standing President speak live. The downside to it was that I had heard the same speech on TV less than a week before (his jobs speech on Thursday, Sept. 8). It was the exact same speech. PASS THIS BILL! PASS IT NOW! If you love me you’ll pass this jobs bill! (And I was always taught that if someone you were in a relationship with said “if you love me” it was an unhealthy relationship…)

It was nauseating how the crowd ate it up. Like they had no brains of their own and just loooooooved everything Obama had to say. (Granted, it was a bunch of liberal college kids, at a university, which is pretty liberal… Eh.)

And I’m sure you’d ask, “So, Lucy, was Obama’s speech entertaining at all?”

WELL! I’m super glad you asked. Despite the fact that I learned nothing new about this jobs creation act and I was told I could read it online (psh), his speech was quite entertaining.

During his speech, I was sitting next to a foreign exchange student from Australia who was studying “politics” (like me!). And we had a good time critiquing Obama’s speech. She couldn’t believe that people actually believed the nonsense that was spewing from his lips. We talked about how it was curious he never told us how he was going to create all of these jobs. Obama never told us what was going to happen in the creation of the jobs. He never told us how we are going to pay for these jobs. (Apparently by themselves… in both speeches I watched, he said that the bill would be paid for. How? Magically? Is China paying for this bill? Are you going to raise taxes to pay for the bill? HOW is it going to be paid for?)

It was entertaining to see everyone’s reactions. Both the students and Obama’s.

And I’m not going to lie…. It was neat to be able to see a standing President talk. Plus, I’m in the marching band and we were able to play for him. Once in a lifetime stuff I think. And, I have a special VIP ticket. 😛

Hope y’all are having a fantastic week!


“Yesterday is not ours to recover, but tomorrow is ours to win or to lose.” ~Lyndon B. Johnson

Um. Seriously?

I hate when I have to do this (really  I do), but I am throwing one of my friends under the bus again.

Oh, liberals.

I won’t say names. But one of my female friends posted this on her fb page, and it just so conveniently came up on my news feed.

“‘Welfare will create generations of irresponsible animals.’ Fox News…..AHHHHHHHHHHH!! HEAD DESK!! AND PEOPLE BELIEVE THIS SHIT?!?!?!”

This post was accompanied by this link.

John Stewart. Oh goodness…

My response to this status would go as follows.

Ahem. My dear friend, You are stupid. I’m sorry to be so blunt. You can bash Fox News all you want, but you are getting your news from John Stewart on Comedy Central. John Stewart is not a credible news source. He has no idea what he is talking about. He is trying to be funny. He is not a news anchor. He is not a scholar. If you want to bash Fox News, watch something credible. Or at least more credible than John Stewart. I would even prefer you watch CNN or MSNBC. SOMETHING! Watch the “news.” Not this fake, stupid news. Sincerely, You’re friend, who really wants you to be educated and know your facts and stop being silly.

If only.

I know this is mean. It really upsets me that my friends are so uninformed and come up with stupid crap like this. If I were to REALLY post something on this stupid post, it would go something like this….

You can bash Fox News and conservatives all you want. You get your news from John Stewart on Comedy Central….. ’nuff said.

But since this chick is my friend….. I’ll just rant about her political stupidity to you guys! Awesome.

I mean, honestly. How ignorant people are! How ignorant liberals are. How ignorant my friends are.

I think I need to find more conservative friends. 😛


Push it Further, Will Ya?

Oh. My. Gosh.

Things are coming full circle. First there is polygamy. We get rid of polygamy. Then people decide that gay marriage should be legalized. Next, people decide that polygamy should again be legalized also.

There is just no rest for the weary.

What is happening to society? What is happening to marriage between ONE man and ONE woman? What’s happening to fidelity? And loyalty? And partnership?

This story is weird. It’s about these polygamist sisters who apparently have a reality tv show on TLC called “Sister Wives.” (I’ll watch an episode and do a follow-up blog for y’all.) (TLC will put just about anybody on tv won’t they? Jon and Kate plus 8. 19 Children and Counting. Sister Wives. Good grief.)

I’ve said this before, I know. And I don’t want to get too monotonous here. But really people? What really is happening to a marriage between one man and one woman? It’s being thrown out the window, that’s what.

Does anybody else have an issue with sisters marrying the same guy? I mean, I love my sisters and all, but living with them for this long has been tough enough! I don’t want to have the same husband or half-children with them. That’s just weird. And I think I would get jealous.

Most normal women out there need a one woman man. And I do believe that most men need a one man woman. It’s just natural. It’s governed by the universe.

Don’t you be eyeing my husband, sister. Yeah. If we married the same guy, we’d end up literally killing each other. No exaggerations.


Messed up.

I like the first paragraph of the article. The little summary section. “He says he will simply argue that the State should not interfere with the private and consensual sexual behavior of the polygamists and must respect their religious beliefs.”

Well, they’re in Utah, so if they’re probably Christians, if not Mormons. I’m pretty sure that the Mormons threw the idea of polygamy out a few decades ago. And all the rest of the Christian denominations don’t believe in polygamy (unless it’s some crazy one I am unaware of.)

And sure. In the old testament men did have multiple wives. But in the coming of Jesus, He preached a different story. He gave us what marriage REALLY was. What marriage was supposed to be. He gave us rules and teachings. Polygamy was not in those teachings. I’m baffled on what these “religious beliefs” really are… I’d love to know. Some demented, twisted definition of Christianity probably…

Oh, well. Let me know what you think! I’d love some feedback on the “Sister Wives.” Has anyone seen the show?




Tag Cloud