Letting God or Helping Yourself

Just an observation.

When a person is trying to do the right things, struggling to do their best, and things still turn out wrong, others will tell them that they should "Let Go And Let God". You're trying too hard and not allowing God to make a miracle in your life.

If the person is asking God to help and waiting for God to do something, others--sometimes the same others--will tell them that "The Lord Helps Those Who Help Themselves". You can't expect God to do everything for you.

Sounds fishy to me.

That's what Earthchild is thinking this morning. What say you?

Why don't you mind your own business?

Perhaps it's an issue of defining our terms. What, exactly, is *your* business?

Whatever the stand I'm taking, there will be people who ask, "Why don't you protest something *important*?" [emphasis mine] Or, "Why do you care; it's not about you?"

My question is "Why do so many people lack passion and compassion?"

Because I take a stand for what's right on an issue that doesn't affect me, my motives are suspect? Have they never seen something worth standing up for? If their neighbor chains their child out in the yard and doesn't feed them, would they ignore it because it's not their child? I think not. At least, I hope not. Although, from comments made by some about my interest in "other people's business", I could be mistaken.

Whether or not I agree with a cause, I admire someone who stands for something. Clearly, that person considers their cause as important enough to actually do something. Which is a whole lot more than some people do who are oblivious to the wrongs in this world. It is much more than those whose only response to injustice is to gripe and point fingers. I find I have more affinity with activists in whose causes I disagree than with those in my previous sentence who don't care enough to do anything.

The people who criticize activists for not protesting something else or for not minding their own business generally are those who don't bother with anything that doesn't affect their own little world and then their only response is to complain and blame others.

That's what earthchild thinks. What do you think about it?

The Right to Control Others

I’ve been thinking about this and just can’t seem to grasp it. Could someone explain to how it is that I can have a law made to control the personal decisions of others? I don’t mean murder, assault, theft, or damaging someone’s property; I mean choices that cause no harm to another person.

For example, why should I get to determine what you can eat or drink? Or when and where you can consume the food or beverage of your choice? I can understand not allowing people to smoke in public places or setting off areas for smoking but there are towns where people aren’t even allowed to smoke in their own homes! A person’s home is his castle; no one should be able to control your behavior on your own property unless it’s beyond a doubt harming neighboring properties.

The real kicker here is that people will complain about a law that limits their choices but advocate for one that controls another person. If only people would realize the problem isn’t the particular laws but the fact that we allow them to exist. A person can’t expect to control their neighbors without allowing their neighbors the right to control them.

Take some time today to think about which laws bug you and why. Then think about laws about which you’ve heard others complain. Do you see a connection? Would you be willing to get rid of that law if they would toss out the one you don’t like? I would say, yes; you, on the other hand, might think it’s worth giving up your freedom if it means you get to control other people.

Those are my thoughts for this morning. Er…, I mean: Earthchild has spoken; now it’s your turn. Please comment below.

Giving government permission

What if I decided it’s indecent to show your hands in public? After all, hands are used for all sorts of personal and sometimes dirty tasks. Hands are used for wiping your butt and blowing your nose, for changing baby diapers and bathing children, to masturbate, etc., so I don’t want to have to see that personal part of your body. Say I find a group of people who agree with me and we lobby the government to make a law that everyone has to wear gloves in public.

That’s not as far-fetched as you might think. After all, we already have these sorts of laws now and the vast majority of the public thinks those laws are reasonable. It seems to me that once we give the government permission to ban something or require something, the next time they want to do it, well...we’ve already given permission.

We’ve given the government permission to require certain body parts be covered so what’s to stop them from adding to the list? If you can be required to wear pants, what else can be required? I’m not advocating for or against public nudity; I’m merely following the laws we have now to their logical conclusion. People tend to misunderstand, sometimes deliberately, and claim *that* couldn’t happen but history shows that many people would be shocked if they knew some of the laws we have now in their future. Laws they would have said could never happen.

Along with deciding what is decent for us, we’ve also given the government permission to ban substances so what’s to stop them from adding to that list? What’s that you say? Those things are “bad for you.” So, you’d be okay with banning coffee, alcohol (yeah, that went over well the last time they did it), and cigarettes? In addition, what about donuts and candy and sugar and myriad other things someone has decided aren’t good for us.

There are those who say *religion* isn’t good for a person so this brings me to the fact that we’ve given the government permission to limit our activities. What’s to stop them from adding to the list? Should gambling be illegal? How far should the government be allowed to limit your parenting decisions? There are already stories in the news of children being taken by CFS because the parents [gasp] allowed them to play outside. In addition, who should get to decide with whom you are allowed to associate—what types of relationships you have—including dating, sex, and marriage? If you think the government should be allowed to control those decisions, how can you protest their control of your religious choices? Should people be allowed to attend the church of their choice or even go to church at all? Should the government have any say in which churches can be allowed?

Now, go back and reread this, substituting the word *government* with *other people*. Because that’s what government is: the people. If you are okay with controlling the activities of consenting adults, you can’t complain when other people limit yours. I shouldn’t have to explain this to you so I’ll let Frederick Douglass tell you: “No man can put a chain about the ankle of his fellow man without at last finding the other end fastened about his own neck.” Try to remember that.

Earthchild has spoken. Your turn below.

The importance of truth

http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/godpoll.asp

This morning someone posted this well-known hoax to a group of which I am a member. The fact that it was totally unrelated to the purpose of said group is bad enough but it’s also a lie. Why so many people can’t be bothered to confirm the truth of what they post is beyond my understanding. Why are so many people willing to spread lies when the truth is so easy to discover? I already knew this wasn't true but I did a quick search just to test it and found that it took 0.58 seconds to discover that fact.

I'm also disturbed when some gives their "opinion" and says I have to keep my mouth shut if I disagree. That is the opposite of what this country is about and violates the Golden Rule.

At any rate, even if this were true, an NBC poll only polls NBC viewers. It's not a vote of the entire country so it would be completely meaningless in determining what the people of the United States think.

Even this were a vote of the entire country, the United States is a *republic*, not a democracy. In a republic, there are laws to protect everyone’s rights so that no majority can vote away the rights of an individual. A person should be glad for that and protect our republic because they might need it someday but it seems most are only interested in two things:

1) Their rights to do, to live, and to believe as they choose and

2) Their “right” to control what others do, how they live, and what they believe.

I must also correct this misconstruction: The poster asks why the “world” is catering to 14%.

1) In the first place, this isn't about the world; this is about the United States of America, a republic where the 14% don't have to agree with the majority in order to have their rights protected and

2) There is no *catering*, only protections guaranteed by the United States Constitution to each individual citizen of the United States. This should be celebrated and respected because it means that 99% of the people of the United States cannot vote to take away your rights.

It is also queried if the word *God* should stay in *American culture*. The answer is that it should stay as long as there are people who want it there. People should be free to believe as they choose. They can believe, pray, and worship as they choose. They can attend the church of their choice and read the books they like and live in the freedom guaranteed by our constitution. The only catch is that they must respect the rights of others to do the same according to their own conscience. I'm not sure why that's hard for some people.

As a further note, while the pledge written in 1892, it was not adopted until 1942. From 1781 to 1942, did not having a pledge to the flag mean that people were less loyal? Up until 1954, were people less likely to believe in God? No, many polls have shown that more people believed in God back then and I also think they were more likely to understand that this is a republic and to respect the liberty and justice of all. Those principles were written into the original pledge to celebrate our freedom. "Under God" was added in the Fifties because of the Cold War and fear of "commies".

If you've read this far, thank you. I honor your respect for what others have to say and your interest in knowing the truth.

Earthchild has spoken and is interested in what you think.

What do you choose for me?

Some background:

I have been tormented with ever-increasing levels of pain for 26 years stemming from a car accident in 1990. [A young woman who wasn't paying attention rammed her Big Truck into my Omni.] Since the accident I've tried an assortment of therapies, both physical and chemical, but nothing has made more than a temporary dent and many of the chemical treatments caused unpleasant side effects. Some nights I wake up in so much pain that I can't sleep and can only sit and cry. Some days I think there is no point in living like this and long for it to end.

The possibility of medical cannabis caught my eye some time ago but it is illegal where I currently live. Many long years ago, even before the accident, I smoked some cannabis with people I knew at that time. I wasn't that impressed and moved on. I never craved it; I just happened to be at gatherings where it was being smoked so I tried it a few times. Since that time I've never had any desire for it. So much for addiction. [Cigarettes are another matter. Over six years without and I still sometimes want a cigarette.]

With that background in mind, which do you choose for me?

1. Remain in constant daily pain that sometimes keeps me from doing normal daily activities and always reduces my quality of life.

2. Take strong opioids that don't take away nearly enough of the pain to make life worth living and can cause unpleasant side-effects.

3. Try some cannabis and see if I really can get some relief like so many others have found.

4. No point in adding this one because I probably wouldn't do it but: End my miserable life.

5. If there is another option, please add it in the comments.

Now that you've made my choice, tell me this: Other than the fact that I just asked you to choose, why do you think you have the right to choose for me? Why do you claim the right to decide what medical treatments I can use or what substances I put into my own body? Seriously, I have no desire to decide for you what you can do with your own body so why your big interest in mine? I think I'm adult enough to make my own choices and should be able to do so without risk of legal penalties.

Earthchild has spoken and is interested in what you have to say. Please comment below.

Help for age 65 and over with low income

Just wanted to let everyone know about a discovery I made while helping my neighbor with his Social Security. If you have a low income and are 65 years old or older, you can qualify for additional income in the form of an SSI [Supplemental Security Income] check. The caring people in our government want to ensure that everyone who is 65 or older has enough money to live. They’ve figured up how much you need and they’ll subtract whatever income you have*—which is likely just your Social Security check—from that amount and give you the balance. Isn't that great?! So if your income is less than $733** rest your worries here because your money problems are over. You should probably send them a thank-you note.

Another load off your mind will be that if you get SNAP [Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program]—which most likely you do if your income is that low—you don’t even have to worry about reporting that extra income. The Social Security Administration will inform them on your behalf, which is kind of them. You wouldn’t want to take more than your fair share, would you? Of course not. Once your SSI is approved, you’ll get a letter from the DHHS [Department of Health and Human Services] letting you know that your SNAP will be cut due to your increased income.

For example, in the county where I live, if your Social Security check is around $500 a month, you get somewhere in the vicinity of $150 for SNAP and you’ll get about $233 from SSI. Good deal, huh? Of course, your SNAP will drop to about $20. Don’t look at me like that. The Government giveth and the Government taketh away. Everyone knows that. Besides, how much does an old-timer need to eat, anyway. There’s only so much money to go around and the hard-working people who run corporations and industries need subsidies much more than you need luxuries like food, soap, and toilet paper. Stop being selfish. They have to pay their executives enough to live on, you know. Not to mention the salaries and benefits for our elected representatives.

On a side note: if you’re receiving any type of Social Security check, you’re probably aware by now that there will be no COLA [Cost of Living Adjustment] for 2016. Well, the cost of living hasn’t gone up so why should you get more, you greedy SOB [Son of a Bitch]. Quit acting as if you’re entitled to that money you were promised when you voluntarily paid into it. Sheesh. 

You selfish old people are the root of all the troubles in this country. You should have planned for your retirement better than that. 

 *Minus $20

**Some states add to this.

That’s what Earthchild has to say for today. Leave your comments below.