Skip to main content

Are Republicans Really Fearful of the Government Seizing Too Much Control? How's This For Irony?

This isn't true in all cases, of course, but more times than not, when talking about the government's role in people's lives, Republicans tend to sway to the side of, "They have too much control!" The Tea Party, a sub-party of angry Republicans, spout those same sentiments fairly regularly.

I find this amusing, because as polls have shown for a while now, Republicans tend to be more "religious," more involved with the church, more regular attenders of church services, etc.

Now, nobody really knows with certainty why religions were created, what the reasons for them were, if any of them are accurate and/or superior to all others, etc. We can have faith that one is accurate and superior, but until we pass, we won't know.

Personally, I've always believed that religion was a tool used by the governments of the world to mold citizens in a certain-like, in hopes that it would provoke fear, especially of authority figures and in turn, bring about a willingness by citizens to allow their leaders to run the show, without many qualms.

Whether or not that theory is true is not all that important. The constant in the equation is the fact that religions all over the world set down rules, guidelines for people to follow and ask for more control over a person's livelihood than our government does. The government may ask for taxes, but religions ask for a person's character, individuality, uniqueness all in the name of "morality" and the after-life. Actually, I should re-phrase that, because religions themselves aren't entirely to blame for this, the religious leaders whom interpret scripture are at fault here as well.

So, how is it philosophically consistent to lambast the government for having too much power over our lives and yet, giving oneself up with no complaints in the name of a religion?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun...

Face guarding is legal in college football and the NFL

I just wanted to remind fans and announcers especially, that face guarding is legal in both college football and the NFL. It all comes down to contact. So long as a defender doesn't make contact with an intended receiver, he doesn't have to turn around to play the ball. I can't tell you how many times every week I hear announcers talk about face guarding being a penalty. It's not. I even heard one announcer yesterday state, "If the defender doesn't turn around and play the ball, the ref will call pass interference every time." That's simply not true. Courtesy of referee Bill LeMonnier, he says this with regard to the rule at the college level (answered on 8/12/13): "NCAA rules on pass interference require the face guarding to have contact to be a foul. No contact, no foul by NCAA rules." In the NFL rule book, this is written:  "Actions that constitute defensive pass interference include but are not limited to: (a) Contact by a ...