Saw this one on the way to Target:

As opposed to teaching what? And what exactly is this “peace” curriculum?

It was placed (not surprisingly) right under an Obama/Biden bumper sticker.

To top it off, as if I need to say more, in looking for the image on google I ran across this (eye roll/sigh):

This sticker is truly stupid.

What does this really mean?

First of all, the symbols together are nonsensical. How does "peace" coexist with a religion? How do men and women coexist with a religion?

To be fair, the definition of coexist from Merriam-Webster:

1 : to exist together or at the same time

2 : to live in peace with each other especially as a matter of policy

Going with definition number two, it can be a policy that religions live peacefully with each other. I get that. Being a Mormon, I think that principle is great.

But what do people who slap this on their car in Southern California expect? In Southern California Muslims, Christians, Taoists, Jews, and so forth coexist with each other pretty well. Once in awhile you have a kook, but kook rarely focus their efforts under a principle of non-coexistence — they usually are just kooky and act that way. In fact, in most of the world, these groups coexist (keep in mind, even in the world of Islam, they kill each other as much as they kill anybody).

Men amazingly coexist with women. what? ( Who would have thought given this history and the 6 billion people on this earth that coexistence between men and women was a problem?)

Peace also coexists with … what ?

And men coexist well with Judaism (?!?), and women coexist great with peace (?!?), and … what ?

As the what ’s point out, this saying is just dumb. The meaning is schizophrenic and non-sensical once you get past the smug nodding your head yes and agreeing without thinking. Moreover, this communicates nothing useful or productive in the context of the audience to whom it is offered. Drivers who put this sticker on their cars just have to advertise (smugly, I might add) to the rest of the world that they are for getting alone with everybody.

(Except, of course, Christians. Because, what this sticker really means and to whom it is directed are Christians, who should respect every other group there.).

P.S. the sticker conspicuously doesn’t refer to secularists, who deride and attack religious beliefs at every opportunity. Just saying.

Referring again for Obama’s call to end the petty grievances in Washington and "heal," Nancy Pelosi is still at it even after George W. Bush is now ex-president:

Pelosi said one of her favorite moments from Inauguration Day was when Marine One lifted off the Capitol grounds, signifying former President George W. Bush’s exit from Washington. "It felt like a 10-pound anvil was lifted off my head ," she said.

Classy, Madame Speaker. Even the media has found it in its heart to have some respect for Bush now that his term is over.

UPDATE

Somebody has been listening :

Bloomberg article headline reads "Obama’s First Civility Test Is Pelosi’s Manners ."

Liberalism: Mortgaging the future to feel good today.

More of the same :

[President Obama] cited the worst U.S. economic conditions in 70 years and the Iraq and Afghanistan wars as having placed the country in crisis and said it was time to "proclaim an end to the petty grievances " that have long divided Americans.

"What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility – a recognition, on the part of every American, that we have duties to ourselves, our nation, and the world, duties that we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly," he said.

Why now? Why not two years ago? Why not six months ago?

Liberals mistakenly think that merely proclaiming that the age of partisanship is over, it is over. I’m sorry, but Obama’s statement just reeks of disingenuous. If liberals were committed to "ending the petty grievances," they wouldn’t be clamoring for Bush’s head on a pike today. They wouldn’t have waited until the first day they are in charge to offer the olive branch.

The time for sincerity has long passed. If you are really serious about ending this sort of squabbling President Obama, you liberals will have to take the first steps. And let me clarify, merely saying "let’s be friends" doesn’t count. You will be judged on what you do , not what you say .

To all the liberals, the ball is in your court now. Let’s see what you do with it.

UPDATE

The headline says it all:

Bush Mocked As He Arrives on Inauguration Dais

Yes, let’s put aside our petty grievances…

Today is the inauguration of President Obama. I hope he has his Presidential Seal ready.

This morning’s reading was a little hard to stomach, mostly due to the smugness underlying the articles I read. Two headlines caught my attention. Unfortunately, I think these headlines paint a somewhat accurate picture of the way liberals think.

1. The first is an article by Robert Shrum entitled "Battered Liberal Syndrome ." He explains that Barack Obama will succeed because he is reaching across the aisle in an effort to end partisanship.

He writes:

I’m convinced Obama’s right to pursue the politics of change in his own remarkable fashion. Americans are fearful, but they yearn to be hopeful; that’s why they voted for Obama. They want solutions, not ideological battle. His stratospheric approval rating as transition yields to inauguration suggests how far he has moved beyond his Election Day majority and how effectively he has harnessed the public will. This could be a powerful force for advancing his agenda—and he’s not going to jeopardize it by letting his presidency be cast in partisan terms.

…

Everyone assumes that partisanship ultimately will reassert itself—in a year or two, or certainly four. Differences will remain and debating them will always be the essence of democracy; the sense of a new dawn may fade. Yet maybe there is a chance we’ll see change here, too—that the political clashes of the future will be more respectful, less angry, more open to finding common ground . . . . Today, Obama speaks for America in part because he respects and responds to voices across the American spectrum . At times, this may discomfort progressives. The end result, however, may be a cure for Battered Liberal Syndrome. It may also usher in a new, if imperfect, progressive era.

What bothers me is this: why did liberals have to wait until their man was in office and they control the legislature to have "a more respectful, less angry, more open" discussion? Over the last eight years, hasn’t nearly all the vitriol from the American public come from the left? What I take away from these sorts of statements is that liberals will only play nice when they are in charge. If liberals really wanted to extend an olive branch (which I don’t believe they do… see below), the time to do it is when the other guy is in office. Liberals have had eight years to play nice, but they haven’t.  It simply doesn’t look genuine when, after winning, you say, now things will be different. Now we won’t be angry. Now we will have a respectful conversation.

2. The second is a pair of articles about prosecuting George W. Bush. Did I mention that there isn’t an olive branch? Here is case in point.

(I have to be honest. I am not a huge G.W. Bush fan. I am conservative mostly from a fiscal standpoint, and he has been anything but a fiscal conservative.)

From Pelosi Open to Prosecution of Bush Administration Officials

I think you look at each item and see what is a violation of the law and do we even have a right to ignore it ," the California Democrat said. "And other things that are maybe time that is spent better looking to the future rather than to the past."

Rep. John Conyers, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, announced Friday he wants to set up a commission to look into whether the Bush administration broke the law by taking the nation to war against Iraq and instituting aggressive anti-terror initiatives. The Michigan Democrat called for an "independent criminal probe into whether any laws were broken in connection with these activities ."

From Bashers End Bush Era Deflated by Lack of Prosecutions

Activists who have spent years protesting President Bush admit their chances are slim of seeing Bush or any members of his administration face legal recourse for what they say are "crimes against humanity."

While Shrum tells everybody that partisanship and vitriol are over, his friends are busy setting up the gallows for President Bush. What’s even more ironic here, is that according to Conyers, a "criminal probe" needs to be set up to see if any laws were broken. In other words, Conyers, Pelosi, and the rest have no concrete evidence of any wrong doing.

They want a witch hunt.

Pelosi justifies herself with the "we don’t have a right to ignore it" mantra. Ignore what , Madame Speaker? Moreover, since when does the legislative branch enforce the law ? Since never. That is the job of the Executive branch, which is exactly why Pelosi et al. need Obama to be on board with their lynching of Bush, and the source of the frustrations for the lack of prosecution for the so-called crimes against humanity.

Here we have liberal retribution at its finest. Why are these people so bent on prosecuting Bush for war crimes? Where is the outcry against the terrorists for their crimes against humanity? Are you angry at Bush because he kept us safe for the last seven years? Because he stumbles over his words? Because he took us to war and actually used our military for more than just funding the college education of our troops?

No,  this goes back to the Monica Lewinsky scandle. The liberals have waited a decade for some payback for impeaching President Clinton. It is their turn to loudly proclaim "off with his head." And in so doing, they show their true colors.

On one hand we have Mr. Shrum’s smugness, and on the other we have the balance of the left’s hatred. Sorry, Mr. Shrum, but I don’t see the conversation in Washington becoming any more civil now that Obama is on the beat. The problem is largely with yourselves. A civil discussion doesn’t work when you are only willing to be civil when your guy is in the house and when you are getting your way. It doesn’t happen when you are turning the leader of the other party over to the liberals in the Hague for prosecution of war crimes. The truth is that even now that your guy is in the house, your people still aren’t civil.

Prop. 8, just won’t go away. I had to post this quote because I find it funny every time nonreligious people try to speak religious-speak.

"The campaign they funded was one of lies and deceit, clearly in violation of the religious tenet of “thou shalt not lie. ”

Oh yes, the eleventh commandment. Probably related to "thou shalt not bear false witness."

One of the many drafts that for some reason never got published (I think because I needed to go back and find the goldfish link). I am glad the election is over, but post election thoughts still linger.

---

Today, I read yet another article on the registration of fraudulent voters. This time, the registrant was a dead goldfish in Illinois. Which begs the question, how and why did the goldfish get registered.

Originally, the only people eligible to vote in the United States were land owners. In other words, you got to vote if you could show title to a parcel of land. Then blacks got the right to vote, followed by woman’s suffrage, which are both positive societal advances.

Voting is a privilege that every citizen of our country enjoys. But why do we need groups running around registering everybody? If a person wants to vote, they ought to figure out how to get themselves registered and do it of their own volition?

Critics might argue that certain segments of the population don’t feel comfortable dealing with the government and feel they will be discriminated against. Fair enough, but I can’t alter how these people feel when dealing with the government. (Shoot, I don’t know anybody who enjoys dealing with the DMV.) Perhaps there are other similar arguments.

Nonetheless, if a person wants to vote, that person should take the initiative to get themselves registered. Period. No ACORN. No other groups reaching out to register these folks. One vote per person, and each person takes it upon themselves to vote.

Moreover, each person, in registering to vote, should have to show some sort of identification. Again, critics might argue that some people don’t have identification and don’t feel comfortable going to get it. To which I answer: then that person shouldn’t be allowed to vote. Period.

Our system must have safeguards built into it to ensure that each person get one and only one vote. So far, this election cycle shows that the absence of safeguards is fertile soil for gross abuse and voter fraud. On balance, what is worse: allowing hundreds of thousands of false registrations or requiring a extremely small portion of the population, who don’t have picture identification, to get identification before they vote?

If ACORN et al. wants to be useful, I propose that rather than register people to vote, which obviously they cannot do ethically, they help these people get their picture identification and then give them detailed instructions on how to get themselves registered to vote. The so-called "disinfranchised" then get their ID’s and get to cast their ballots.

The only people who lose in this situation are Mickey Mouse, dead goldfish, and the Dallas Cowboys.

I just can’t stop reading about the response of the opponents of Prop. 8. And I find a certain amount of amusement with the picketing, white substances, and all the other stunts these opponents are pulling against the Mormons and other religions that supported Proposition 8.

Don’t these people have jobs?

From the LA Times :

Jim Key, a spokesman for the L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center, said barbs by gay marriage activists were directed at church leadership, not individual Mormons.

"We’re making a statement that no one’s religious beliefs should be used to deny fundamental rights to others," he said.

My response to this comment:

1. Since when is gay marriage a fundamental right? (Which, by the way, is a semantics trick on the part of gay rights advocates to imply that gay marriages is a type of right that gets the highest form of legal scrutiny when faced with a statute that tends to restrain the right–a compelling state interest. In practice, meeting the compelling state interest standard is nearly impossible.) As of today, gay marriage isn’t even a right, let alone a fundamental right.

2. What about a person’s fundamental right to practice their religion (actually, if I remember correctly, free exercise of religion is not a fundamental right any longer thanks the the U.S. Supreme Court)? Where were the "fundamental rights" police when doctors were being threatened with revocation of their licenses because their religious beliefs don’t accommodate artificial insemination of lesbians?

Those in favor of prop. 8 should counter to stalemate: "We’re making a statement that no one’s sexual orientation should be used to deny fundamental rights to others."

Religious freedom, unlike gay marriage, is actually a right granted to the people in the Bill of Rights. How does gay marriage, which isn’t a legal right at all, therefore trump free exercise of religion?

3. A person’s religious beliefs forms part of their value set, which they have every right to voice in a democratic process. Just like the anti-religious values gay rights advocates vote for. What makes their values better than my values? Why should only their values be voiced in the democratic process?

Because gay rights advocates don’t agree with religion?

This is yet another example of elitism at its finest. The "dumb" people shouldn’t be allowed to vote (i.e., they shouldn’t cast a vote reflecting their religious values). Yet again the attitude of "you’re too stupid to vote" rears its ugly head. Even worse, stupid is defined by whether you agree or disagree with Mr. Key’s point of view.

I was initially surprised that nobody in the gay community seemed concerned about judges overturning the voice of the people. But as I have watched the campaign unfold, I see now that gay rights activists have no interest in democracy, which is why they continue to protest and act like buffoons.

They are for an autocracy, where they are in charge. It should come as no surprise, therefore, that they are all for court intervention once again, even now that the people have spoken twice.

Law school warps your mind in to an endless debate about where to draw lines. So I put this out to the gay community:

• Would gay rights advocates support a minority of murderers who believe they have a "fundamental right to kill people" and are therefore being discriminated against by people whose morals dictate that murder is wrong?
• Would it be wrong for those who believe murder is immoral to seek passage of laws to outlaw murder in their society if they believe it to be wrong?
• Would seeking passage of anti-murder laws amount to "hate" of murderers?

I can see the counter argument: murder affects the rights of another person, whereas gay marriage does not affect the rights of anybody but the gay couple.

In actual practice, however, gay marriage has been shown to affect the rights of parents to dictate the values their children are taught in school, the rights of doctors to refuse to artificially inseminate lesbian couples based on contrary religious values, and the rights of religious based adoption agencies to refuse adopting to homosexual parents based on the church’s religiously based opposition to homosexuality.

The end result is the same. Murder impinges on the right of the killed. Gay marriage impinges on the free exercise of religion and on the right of parents to choose what values their children are taught.

These are important rights to religious folks and parents, and must be part of the equation.

** Aside: I can’t help but wonder if gay marriage would come out differently if (1) gays would agree with notification to parents of all gay rights materials distributed and taught in schools and allow parents to remove their children when objectionable values were discussed (or at least be notified and have the opportunity to instill different values to their children, (2) leave small children out of the equation and, if gay rights must be discussed, do it at an age-appropriate level where a child is mature enough to have the sexuality discussion, and (3) allow for religious based values to be respected when those with religious values and gay rights come into direct conflict.