A Position for the war in Iraq

M E M O R A N D U M

TO: Jackson Maynard, Esq.,

FROM: Charles Preston

DATE: 10APR06

RE: Position Paper


The War on Terror has been the hot topic of debate since President George W. Bush made the decision to invade Iraq. After the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks at the Pentagon and World Trade Center the American people were ready and backed Bush to make a declaration of war but a formal declaration was never made. However, on September 18, 2001 congress enacted the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists which authorized President Bush "to use all necessary force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons (Grimmett Pg. 1)."
An invasion of Afghanistan to attack and eliminate the Al-Qaeda Terror Network was the start of the war campaign, but, it wasn’t until March 20, 2003 when the United States began its invasion in Iraq, the public support of the War on Terror started to head south. While many allies became adversaries I however, continued to support the war effort because it is consistent with U.S. policy to promote democracy, although its form has not taken on the traditional sense of warfare.

What makes this war nontraditional is the fact that there are no distinct boundaries or guidelines as to what constitutes terror. The definition of terror is open to interpretation. Furthermore, the insurgents are difficult to detect because they wear no combat uniforms and they mingle and blend in with the civilian population. However, the insurgency is very adaptive and effective with their modes of attack. They use weapons such as rocket propelled grenades, suicide bombers, improvised explosive devices (IEDs), vehicle born explosive devices (VBEDs), mortars and rockets. Of these devises the IED has become the most effective and difficult to weapon to overcome.

Unconventional warfare started after the fall of Saddam Hussein’s army during Operation Iraqi Freedom, which occurred April 9, 2003. This is also when the public approval rating for the war on terror continued to decline because U.S. soldiers encountered a whole new realm of warfare and an increase in casualties. The terrorist or insurgency started using deceptive tactics. For example, they would display the universal signs of surrender, waving a white flag or the raising of both hands, and once U.S. troops or coalition forces let their guards down accepting their call of surrender, they would then open fire on the unsuspecting troops. Another example of unconventional warfare involves Iraqi civilian women. Unless they pose a mortal threat, U.S. soldiers consider them non-combatants. However, these women took advantage of the element of surprise, and used themselves suicide bombers to kill and maim U.S. soldiers and coalition forces.

Some Americans go as far as to compare Operation Iraqi Freedom with the Vietnam War and are demanding the withdrawal of American troops. Comparing the guerilla forces in Iraq to the Viet Cong forces in Vietnam, both are mostly foreign fighters opposed to the establishment of democracy and view the United States as a country that is exploiting other countries for economic gain. There are some comparisons but opponents of the war are most likely to point out only the negative aspects of Iraq and Vietnam.

It is selfish for the American people to demand an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. This position, if America continues to hold to it, undermines the progress that has been accomplished thus far and if President Bush were to immediately execute an exit strategy, the United States would fail once again in keeping its promise to finish what it had started. Due to the weak infrastructure Iraq would be overrun by insurgents, become a training ground for terrorists and give rise to a new totalitarian regime. The results in Iraq would turn out just like Vietnam. The Vietnam War was based on a policy of containment to prevent the spread of communism. South Vietnam was a democratic state that was being threatened by force to conform to communism against their will; once the United States pulled out; South Vietnam was taken over by the North Vietnamese and fell to communism.

To illustrate my next position on America’s involvement in the war against terror, I’ll refer to President Bush’s 2006 National Security Strategy speech: “We are a nation at war. We have made progress in the war against terror, but we are in a long struggle. America is safer, but not yet safe. In the short run, the fight involves using military force… to kill or capture the terrorists, deny them safe haven or control of any nation, prevent them from gaining access to weapons of mass destruction (WMD), and cut off their sources of support” (Bush Par. 17). The last portion of this part of his speech outlines the strategic importance of the United States involvement in the war on terror.

First, to take an active role to deny terrorist any safe haven or control of any nation takes their feet out from under them. It makes it difficult for them to assemble, train, and exploit the resources of that nation. Assembly and training are the first steps and key ingredients for executing a prearranged attack. If the United States can make the process of assembly and training difficult, it will not eliminate terror but it will create a barrier of protection for the United States. Deciding to take on the U.S. in an attempt to destroy democracy and spread terror, is no small task but if the U.S. were to stand idle and wait for an attack it could be quite crippling. Just as the World Trade Center attacks demonstrated.

Technology has enabled terrorism to expand beyond borders and take on many obscure forms. Terror organizations are working feverishly to develop the ability to use weapons with nuclear capability. Nuclear weapons contrary to traditional thinking are not the only form of weapons of mass destruction. During the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, who pleaded guilty to his involvement in the attacks of September 11, 2001, the judge considered the commercial airliners that flew into the World Trade Center were weapons of mass destruction. While nuclear capabilities are the goal of some, if not all, organized terrorist organizations, biological and chemical weapons coupled with explosives would constitute a weapon of mass destruction as well.

If these organizations do not encounter any opposition while putting forth such a diligent effort to obtain weapons of mass destruction, one can only assume that eventually the terror organizations will succeed. President Bush has taken initiative to set the example and take the lead in becoming that oppositional force to obliterate the efforts of diligent terror organizations.
A main source of funding for terrorist groups comes from radical Islamic countries like Iran and Afghanistan. President Bush outlined an integral part of the War on Terror during his National Security Strategy speech. Emphasizing without funding, it is difficult for terror organizations to exist. I believe that a united multi-national shared effort to enforce a zero tolerance policy that would demand some type of action against those who lend support or funding to terrorist organizations would speak volumes. It would illustrate to supporters, that the world, not just the United States is opposed to the establishment of terrorist societies and there would be dire consequences to aid such establishments.

Enforcement of such policies, although a big step, unfortunately would only detour part of the problem. Terrorist possess a great deal of creativity and should be given credit for it. To counterbalance their creativity the responsibility once again would fall back onto the nations to get creative also. The nations would need to adopt strict guidelines for banks, credit unions, or any type of institution providing monetary services. President Bush has yet again taken the lead by implementing the Patriot Act, although I do not agree with all of its provisions, it requires financial institutions to adhere to strict guidelines for identifying customers. Stiff fines and penalties are incurred if financial institutions fail to comply.

The war on terror must continue. It is going to require Americans to think outside the box and step past their comfort zones. The United States has entered into the war for the long haul. War is not pretty, it’s not glorious, but it’s necessary. War is not a necessary evil, but a necessary good, when fought for a just cause. Those who want to destroy the United States are strategically planning and are patiently waiting for the opportunity to strike. September 11th is a grim reminder of their due diligence. Americans along with other nations can decide to get proactive or they can remain idle and wait for the next terror attack to fall into their laps.

ACTIONS ONLY NOT OPINIONS

How much weight could a metaphor from a personal letter written January 1, 1802, possibly hold two-hundred-and-four years later? Major weight it seems in the political arena. Make mention of the word God and somebody, it’s almost guaranteed, will howl this particular adage.
Thomas Jefferson, in response to a letter written by the Danbury Baptist Association concerning their right to practice religious freedom as favors granted by the state, addressed this issue with the phrase that’s still ringing throughout politics today: “…thus building a wall of separation between church and state.”
These last five words, “separation between church and state,” have lead to abolishment of school prayer, removal of the Ten Commandments from the Alabama State Courthouse, and the disregard of creationism as a scientific theory. Is this what Mr. Jefferson meant by his words? Where does the constitution stand on the issue of church and state and can there ever be a true separation between the two?
In their letter to Jefferson, the Danbury Baptist Association, addressing a concern about their right to practice religious freedom writes: “…Religion is consider,d [sic] as the first object of Legislation; & therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights: and these favors we receive at the expence [sic] of such degrading acknowledgements, as are inconsistent with the rights of fre[e]men”( Dreisbach 1997). Their view as the right to practice religious freedom as a favor granted by the state, rather than an inalienable right by God meant to the Baptist that their rights could be granted or taken away after appropriate legislation. At the time the Danbury Baptist was a religious minority to the Congregationalist, the established church of Connecticut, who confidently had control of political life and persecuted the Danbury Baptist for not being a part of their religious sect.
Jefferson believed that religion is a matter which lies exclusively between man and his god of worship and owes account to no one, but his god, for his faith or type of worship. The Europeans’ pilgrimage from England was recent history to Jefferson. The Roman Catholic Church was the supreme Church of England during the sixteenth and seventeenth century and anyone who did not conform to the Catholic faith were considered heretics and persecuted. The Roman Catholic Church went as far as to forbid worship in the privacy of one’s own home, imprisonment, torture and sometimes even death. If the government was allowed to institute and enforce a “new” national church it would hold the propensity to resort back to what the American people were trying to escape, religious persecution.
As of December 15, 1791 the beginning of the first amendment reads “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” The first amendment served as a protection for the states to prevent a national establishment of any particular denomination by the Federal Government that of which was feared other religious minorities would be forced to conform. The word “respecting” serves two key functions: it keeps congress from legislating to establish any national religion or disestablish any particular state religion; It also prevents the national government from aiding some, but not all religious organizations.(Meese E. III 2005) Keeping the First Amendment in context one can go on to say no religion shall be bound by law. For example, The United States Supreme Court (USSC) rule banning prayer, the display of the Ten Commandments or any acknowledgement of God, snatches religion in to the realm it was never intended to enter, legislation, albeit from the bench. This decision sings the praises of atheism and secular humanism and establishes them above Christianity. Atheism and secular humanism are both indeed a forms of religion just without the acknowledgement of God. This is what the First Amendment was designed to prohibit, establishment of one religion over the other.
One would have to ignore the past two-hundred and fifty years to not acknowledge and recognize the role Christianity has played in the establishment of the United States. A signer of the Declaration of Independence and the second president of The United States, John Adams writes, “The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principals of Christianity… I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God (Founding Fathers).” Recognizing the principals and the foundation that aided in the establishment of the U.S. does not force religion upon anyone. This also includes religious displays and voluntary participation in prayer etc., the First Amendment protects freedom of religion—not freedom from religion.
The words “separation of church and state” are no where to be found in the constitution and this phrase wasn’t viewed as an authoritative statement until the United States Supreme Court (USSC) referred to Jefferson’s letter in the case of Everson v. Board of Education (1947) which lead to the banning of prayer and Bible reading from public schools. However thirty-eight years later Chief Justice William Rehnquist in Wallace v. Jaffree said the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment only “forbade establishment of a national religion, and forbade preference among religious sects or denominations…” and he also concluded Thomas Jefferson was a “less than ideal source of contemporary history as to the meaning of the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment” (Rehnquist).
Chief Justice Rehnquist articulates this for two reasons: First, he understands the limits the First Amendment placed on the Federal Government. Second, at the time when the Bill of Rights was ratified to the states Jefferson was out of the country in France and had not been involved in the legislative process. Chief Justice Rehnquist also notes Thomas Jefferson’s letter was written to the Baptist Association fourteen years later. The mention of the wall, when kept in context, was to prevent any involvement of the federal government into religious affairs including that of the USSC, an entity of the federal government. The United States Government is a government of action not a government of opinion, that can only operate within the guidelines set forth in the constitution.
Can there ever be a true separation of church and state? Anti-religion zealots do not want legislators exercising their faith when making moral decisions. However, outside of the government establishing a national religion there can never be a true separation to the extent that a legislator’s morality will not play a role in the laws passed and here’s why. Any decision an individual makes concerning religion, morality, justice and other ethical issues births from an internal conviction he or she uses to evaluate the law and how it is ethically aligned. Based on the direction of the individual’s moral compass determines how he or she will judge what’s being legislated and vote accordingly, this is in essence a form of their religious expression.
The wall of separation was to keep the government out of the church not the church out of the government. Someone’s morality is going to be legislated; this just begs the question of whose. To censure one religion just gives rise to another and steps outside the clearly drawn lines of the constitution. Church and government can go hand in hand, if kept in the proper relationship because it is a form of civil government. As the founders of the United States understood for the U.S. to become and continue to be a successful republic, self-government is a necessity and religion provides that.
More often than not, when people hear the word church to it’s assumed to apply to Christianity alone. However, church is not limited to just a narrow definition of Christianity; a church is a make up of a body of believers who share a common moral belief system (whether they believe in one god, many gods, or no god at all).
The Supreme Court’s power is limited to interpreting the constitutionality of laws enacted by the executive and legislative branch. Congress, being an entity of the legislative branch is prohibited by the constitution from meddling in religious affairs. The Supreme Court has stepped outside its boundaries by legislating from the bench and attempting to govern religious affairs. The Constitution of the United States, which all members of the Federal Government have sworn to uphold, is the supreme law and has outlined the lines of freedom the government shall not cross--making the United States a government of action not a government of opinion.


References


Dreisbach, D. (1997) “Sowing useful truths and principles”: the danbury baptists, thomas
Jefferson, and the “wall of separation.”. Journal of church and state 39.n3 (summer 1997): p455-501
Founding fathers quotes. (n.d.). Retrieved April 15, 2006, from
http://www.eadshome.com/QuotesoftheFounders.htm
Meese, E. III Spalding, M. & Forte D. (Eds). (2005). The Heritage guide to the
Constitution. (P. 303). Washington, DC
Rehnquist, W. Justice rehnquist, dissenting. (n.d.). Touro law center. Huntington, NY.
Touro college jacob d. fuchsberg law center. Retrieved April 10, 2006 from
http://www.tourolaw.edu/Patch/Wallace/Rehnquist.asp

Fatherless Home

“How did this happen?” A mother asks. She says she has been a good mother to her nineteen year old son Johnny. She has put food on the table, clothes on his back, and a few dollars in his pocket. She has been the best mother she knew how to be. Now she can’t understand why she is looking at her son with a gaping gunshot wound to his head. She never saw it coming. The goals and dreams of Johnny are gone. The hopes of mom becoming a grandmother are erased. Johnny’s life is gone. Her son has committed suicide. Although the mother in this situation has done everything to the best of her ability, there was one thing missing from her son’s life that she would never be able to provide--a father. For one reason or another dad decided not to remain in the relationship. Was it because Johnny was an accident, was that other lady a little more attractive than mom after giving birth to Johnny, or maybe dad was just scared of the responsibility of raising a child. Whatever the reason may have been Johnny grew up without his father. 63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes” (U.S. D.H.H.S., Bureau of the Census), this means for every one hundred suicides, sixty-three of them are children who are from a fatherless home.
Fatherless homes have become an ugly problem for the American family. It attacks the heart strings of children. The children find themselves struggling with their identity, learning how to relate with members of the same and opposite sex. They also find themselves dealing with issues of acceptance. Asking questions like “why doesn’t dad care about me?” Or, “what could I have done different to make dad stay?” Finally, they find themselves questioning their purpose. What are they supposed to do with their life and if life gets too hard what is the purpose to live? Part of the father’s role is the help define the child’s identity, acceptance and purpose for their life.
Identity
Children, especially males, who have grown up in fatherless homes have a difficult time developing their sexual identity. Some develop Gender Identity Disorder (a disorder in which a person feels discomfort with and inappropriateness of his or her biological sex) (GID) that leads to lifestyles such as homosexuality. Women on the other hand find it difficult to relate to the opposite sex in healthy way.
Johnny was a homosexual. He wasn’t verbal about it out of fear of being ridiculed and rejected by his peers he decided it would be best to keep it to himself. He couldn’t figure out why he was attracted to the same sex. There wasn’t a problem interacting with the opposite sex, he just didn’t find himself attracted to females. There was an unfulfilled void in which he felt same sex relationships could fill. In “Father-Son Relationships and
Sexual Development,” Gregory Dickson, M.A. writes, “homosexuality is a developmental issue that is ‘almost always the result of problems in family relations, particularly between father and son, as a result of failure to bond with father, the boy does not fully internalize male gender-identity, and develops homosexuality… Homosexuality becomes a form of a reparative drive in which the boy seeks a nurturing male relationship to undo the repression and regain the lost father” (Father-Son Par. 11).
Homosexuality isn’t the only problem that stems from an absent father. Women who grow up in a fatherless home are more likely to develop promiscuous behavior that is birthed from an unhealthy desperate search for male affection that usually leads to early sexual activity. This in turn creates more problems: contraction of STD’s, teen pregnancy, and more fatherless homes. If these young women aren’t affirmed in their identity, treated respectfully, and shown how a woman should be treated by example of her mother and father relationship, they will have a difficult time knowing what to expect and how to develop a proper male-female relationship. The absence of the father robs and cheats the child from developing proper sexual identity. It creates a longing for a relationship of the absent parent which the child unconsciously attempts to fill with a cheap counterfeit.
Acceptance
Johnny was also an excellent student athlete. He also graduated top ten percent his class, he participated in the brain bowl, he was a state qualifier in power lifting, and played an instrumental role in the baseball team winning the state championship. Johnny was consumed with being the best in everything he decided to do, yet, there was still dissatisfaction with himself. In spite of Johnny’s accomplishments he still yearned for affection and acceptance from his father. During games he would look to the stands and wonder, “where’s dad?” When Johnny received his report he would look at his grades and ask himself, “are my grades good enough and would dad be proud of me?”
Lack of parental affection leads to neglect in a child’s need for approval. Instead of feeling the acceptance of love, they turn to achievement to meet their needs. An absent father usually equals an absent mother. Not by choice, but by the fact that there is only one adult in the household and the mother must work to provide for her family. This creates an environment where the child is alone and isn’t receiving the attention they need for feeling loved and accepted, thus they adopt an unbalanced works mentality where they feel a sense of acceptance from their accomplishments.
Dr. Randell D. Turner a writer for “Counselor” magazine states “A father's acceptance teaches a child that he or she is loved for who they are rather that for what they do” (Why Par. 38). If Johnny’s father had been there to supply the love and affection he needed he would not need to over achieve to make up for his feelings of insecurity. He would have been grounded in the fact that his father loved him for who he was. Graduating top of the class, wearing state championship rings, and lifting the heaviest weight could not lift the burden of needing a father’s approval.
Purpose
“With more than half of all youth suicides happening in fatherless homes, one has to ask themselves why? For one reason or another, children have found no purpose to want to continue to live. There is no simple way to address this part of the problem. But, one can start by stating the father provides a sense of discipline, direction, and vision in the child’s life. It’s when there is an absence of these things the child loses a sense of purpose for his/her life.
When a father disciplines his child it says to the child, they are loved and daddy wants the best for them. This discipline also speaks words of involvement and attention. Most of all, discipline is a learning tool that teaches the child the difference between right and wrong, this in turn creates a sense of direction.
Direction is the next key tool to a child maintaining a sense of purpose for life. For a child to maintain a positive outlook on life they must be confident in the direction they are heading. The father creates this confidence by teaching the child how to deal with tough situations. This new confidence is strengthened when the father commends the child for making right choices and lovingly disciplines them when the wrong choices are made. Once the child is confident in the decisions they are making they begin to develop a vision for their life.
When a child says things like, “I want to be like Bill Gates” or “I want to be a Fireman,” they are proclaiming vision for their life. A father’s conformation about the child’s capabilities magnifies the confidence in the child and is instrumental to decision making about future plans. A child who has discipline, direction and vision for life are more likely to have a sense of purpose and are less likely to commit suicide. Therefore, if Johnny had his father present at home chances are his mother wouldn’t be looking at her son’s brain in his lap.
Addressing the problems of fatherless homes and the impact it has on the children affected by it is not an easy task. Proposing a solution to help fix what has been broken by this problem, the children, does not make this task a bit easier. First, lets start off by saying don’t get caught up by trying to figure out who is more superior in raising a child the mother of the father. Look at the bigger picture. It’s not what each parent can do for the child individually, but, what can the parents do for the child together. The problem isn’t a shortage of mothers; it’s a shortage of fathers.
Fatherless homes if left in the present state will only continue to be a vicious cycle, the fatherless fathers creating more fatherless children. So, where can the fatherless fathers learn how to become a father? The Christian church; the God of Christianity is relational and says He’s a father to the fatherless. He calls his creation his children. He said He created his children unique for a specific purpose which gives them an identity. He tells his children they are unconditionally loved and accepted, and sets for them a goal to strive to become more like him which gives his followers a purpose to live. If a father can learn how to relate to God who defines for him his identity, acceptance and purpose he can then impart to his son what has been imparted into him. God equips the father with everything he needs to be successful in raising his child(ren).

What did I do In Iraq?

During Operation Iraqi Freedom I played an integral part in the largest transportation operation since World War II. deployed with the 375th Transportation Command Group from Mobile, Alabama we were responsible for motor, air, rail, and sea transportation operations in support of Operation Iraqi and Enduring Freedom geographical areas.
I was responsible for maintaining visibility and control of convoy operations, preparing reports, and briefing the chain of command on the transportation assets in the Iraqi and Kuwait Theater. I was also responsible for coordinating the offloading of ships, clearing out the sea ports, pick up and drop off times, as well as tasking security forces to escort the convoys to the various locations.
I also served as a convoy security escort. Armed with a M249 Squad Automatic Weapon (SAW) Machine Gun, I was the machine gunner in the event we encountered hostile forces my job was to eliminate the threat if possible. I was also tasked as a Liaison Officer, a representative of the 375th Transportation Command Group in northern Iraq, commissioned to serve our down trace units and provide them with resources to fix issues ranging from vehicle maintenance to food supplies.
The duties I performed during my tour of duty I did as a solider. A servant of my country functioning as a part of a well tuned machine, the United States Army. I served a cause bigger than myself by being a protector of freedom and a liberator of the oppressed. A United States solider is what I am.

Perscribed Suicide

Before a dive is taken into the controversial issue of euthanasia or medical assisted suicide, lets take a quick moment to clarify the two terms: Euthanasia is when a physician deliberately and directly administers a substance to cause death. Medical Assisted Suicide is when the doctor prescribes the patient with a lethal dose of medication which he/she will take when they are ready to die.
Some doctors say “they” couldn’t stand to see a patient suffer so euthanasia or medical assisted suicide was the right or noble thing to do. But, there is nothing noble about intentional killing. Pain and suffering are not grounds to kill someone. Euthanasia and medical assisted suicide undermine the physician’s role as a healer.
So, what’s noble about it? Both terms listed above involve taking another persons life. One involves the doctor directly while the other indirectly. The only difference between suicide and murder is the person committing the act. In a court of law if someone were to stand trial before a jury because they had knowledge of someone wanting to commit suicide and provided them with the means to do so, they would be charged with negligent homicide. Negligent homicide is a felony with a maxim sentence up to 20 years in prison and/or a fine up to $50,000.
Proponents argue the patient should be granted the right to die due to pain and suffering. In “The Case for Physician-Assisted Suicide,” Richard Hull writes, “the [severely compromised patients] ability to demand-and-receive physician aid in dying may be severely compromised patients’ only way to tell caregivers that something inhumane stalks them: the inhumanity of neglect and despair” This false dilemma sounds more like an issue of the hospice care rather than illness. Human beings naturally learn from pain and suffering. The pain and suffering experienced produces character, and character produces perseverance and perseverance produces hope. Taking a life because it does not equate to the “ideal” living arrangement or pain and suffering is not good enough. Not to down play terminal illness, but terminal just means the cure isn’t available-yet. If no one is ill then cures can’t be found, if cures can’t be found the ill can’t be healed, and if killing the ill is the answer then everyone is in trouble.
The physician’s main role is, or supposed to be, to sustain life for as long as it can be sustained, exhausting all resources available. How would the confidence in the relationship between patient and doctor sit if it were perfectly legal to prescribe or administer death? The patient would question where the physician stands, therefore undermining his role as a healer. For example, a congregation has found out that a pastor has cheated on his wife. Most of the congregation will now question, does this pastor really practice what he preaches, therefore undermining his role as a pastor. So, would the patient feel comfortable knowing the approach of sustaining life by any means necessary has been struck with a low blow by to an effortless fix all cure? Most likely not, due to the shortcomings of man many patients will lose their life through misdiagnosis, laziness, and selfish motivations through the practice of euthanasia and medical assisted suicide.
A physician who chooses to take a life and calls it a noble thing or takes a life due to pain and suffering undermines and tarnishes his/her role as a healer. Take an all pro athlete immobilize him/her for life and everything they have ever known is gone. Take an everyday citizen stricken him/her with a terminal illness and every thing they have ever known is gone. As a result of sin, we have all been stricken with an illness that leads to death and one day we will all die. Just some will die sooner than others. Euthanasia and medical assisted suicide is a cheap way humans will try to take control of something that is uncontrollable and to calm the fear of the process of dying. It’s murder and if murder is to be legalized based on an illness, the patient isn’t the only one ill.

Freedom...

Freedom is choice with responsibility. When I make a choice I am responsible for the consequences, whether good or bad. America is a place of freedom, free will, and choice. As an American citizen I can choose who I want to marry, what I want to say, where I want to work, and live. These are all the benefits of liberty. But nothing free comes without a price. For one person to experience independence another has to make a sacrifice, a selfless act of service by the laying down of his or her life. At its core freedom will only continue to exist if this attitude of service is adopted.
Serving in the Iraqi Theater of Operation really opened up my eyes to the reality of selfishness and what can happen when you don’t care about anyone’s life but your own. Saddam Hussein built his empire deeply rooted on these things. President Bush knew life was much more valuable and decided to intervene.
Operation Iraqi Freedom is giving the Iraqi people the same opportunities we have been blessed with. Removing Saddam and his oppressors will help produce a country where greatness can be achieved.
In America freedom and opportunity is the foundation we stand upon. From our military super power, to the engineering marvels, to people being able to exercise their opinions and creativity has fashioned avenues of opportunity for new jobs and ideas. Personally, serving in Iraq has created thankfulness for the freedoms we possess. I realize that freedom is not as common as we may think. Being raised in a free country you take for granted, freedom of speech, voting a president in or out of office, and just being able to do as you choose. It’s hard to realize how free you really are until you witness first hand the depravity of a culture under the control of an evil dictator and empire.

Abolish Marriage

While reading through my English text book I stumbled upon an interesting passage….

Marriage, what is the meaning behind this word, should homosexuals have the privilege to participate in this coveted relationship, and if so how should we go about handling the diverse views and opinions to keep the same mundane arguments from reoccurring? In “Abolish Marriage” the author offers, in his opinion, a solution to the problem.
Michael Kinsley a graduate from Harvard with a law degree, the founding editor of online magazine Slate, and currently writes a weekly column for the Washington Post, addresses this debate that seems to be at an apparent stalemate. What should the government recognize as a sanctioned marriage? While targeting both sides of the spectrum, those who are in favor and not in favor of Gay marriage he offers an interesting and creative approach to the argument, suggesting why not just do away with the whole legal aspect of it and just make it a private affair.

Mr. Kinsley, speaking from his experience as a lawyer is addressing the ongoing disputes about gay marriage and proposes the idea to just abolish the institution of marriage as a government-sanctioned ceremony all together. He implies this will alleviate the bickering of what the government will or will not attest to as a marriage by not recognizing either side. If the instution of marriage has simmered down to just a legalized relationship--then his proposal is not a bad idea

With abolishment he declares, “There would be official equality between the two, which is the essence of what gays want and are entitled to,” (Kinsley P.588 Par. 1) Implying that what homosexuals want is for their relationships to be recognized and sanctioned by the government as a legitimate relationship. Equality is the smoke and mirrors, but it’s not what they are after. Redefining marriage is the goal. Not allowing homosexuals to marry is no more of a violation of equality than it is to not allow a brother and sister to marry, or allowing a seventeen year old to vote. But, in doing so this would only create a flip flop and the majority will then become the minority and there still would be no equality. If the government were to make marriage just a private affair, it would definitely be revamped. No longer would it be a union between a man and woman, but a union of whomever, whatever or however many, someone wanted to unite with.

Will the abolishment of government sanctioned marriage solve the problem? Highly unlikely, for it will just create another loop hole for a new argument and thereby adding another ritualistic debate to the list, we need to just recognize that marriage was created and instituted by God himself. Therefore, we do not have the authority to recreate or redefine marriage. So, if there is any redefining to be done, God is the only authority on this issue.