-
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
Categories
Blogroll
Archives
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- December 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
You Are Enough…
Posted in Rambling, Random
Leave a comment
Faith Ashworth’s speech at Utah Republican State Convention, nominating Jeremy Friedbaum
While I myself am not a republican nor religious, my 10 year old sister Faith Ashworth spoke at the Utah Republican State Convention (in front of roughly 5,000 people), nominating Jeremy Friedbaum.
YouTube video published on Apr 23, 2012 by JeremyFriedbaumutah
My name is Faith Ashworth, I am ten years old, and I am not just here to nominate my dad’s friend, Jeremy Friedbaum.
I am here because I have a really big problem, that only you can help me with.
Yesterday, I checked my piggy bank and counted all my savings. It came to $12.47.
But, Don’t worry. I’m not here to ask you for money…
after all, I’m a Republican not a Democrat.
Another thing I checked yesterday was a web site called:
US debt clock.org,
It says the US national debt is over 15 trillion dollars, and the numbers are spinning up so fast, every few months it goes up another trillion.
Now I have to admit, at ten years old, I have a really hard time understanding just how much a trillion is; but my Dad says that’s OK , because almost everybody does …
Especially the politicians in Washington DC who spend it!
So my problem is: some of you older Republicans –
(and I think that means everybody else in the this room)
keep sending the same Republican politicians back to Washington, who help the Democrats
spend trillions of dollars they don’t have -
and they expect me, and other kids my age, to pay for it!
Maybe, that’s because of another big problem.
Since there are only 100 senators in the whole country
when they get to Washington, everybody treats them like they are a really big deal,
and the longer they stay there, the more they start to believe it.
There are a few kids in my school who think they are a big deal:
They always think they are right, even when they are not, and they don’t listen very well:
just like a lot of politicians.
I think Washington DC must be a lot like Pleasure Island in the movie Pinocchio.
It’s a magical land of temptation for Republicans, where they get so much money,
privileges, and power; They soon decide they never want to leave.
And just like in Pinocchio they eventually end up looking more and more like donkeys,
and less like grand old elephants
In Washington DC there are Good guys and Bad guys:
The good guys believe that God helped write our constitution, and our government should do only what the constitution says it should.
And God says right here in the scriptures, in Doctrine and Covenants 101, verse 80:
“I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose.”
The bad guys are the ones who want our government to do things the constitution says it shouldn’t.
Now even a ten year old can understand that.
Some things the bad guys want the government to do, sound like nice things.
But usually are things that God wants us to do ourselves:
like parents taking care of their kids when they are little,
and kids when they grow up, taking care of their parents when they get old.
When we do it ourselves, we do it because we want to.
Because we love our families and our neighbors.
and because we know it is what God wants us to do.
When the government tries to do this for us:
they force us to do it their way. It’s not an act of love done by someone you know, it’s a job done by a government worker far away. It’s done with lots of government rules, and not a lot common sense. It makes people dependent on government, rather than grateful to God for inspiring us to take care of one another.
It’s not God’s plan.
On Caucus night my dad came home very sad.
He said a lot more people came to the caucuses than usual; and the people who came this year were not worried about if the constitution was being followed, or about all the trillions the politicians have spent and left for me to pay.
They just didn’t want to see someone they had grown old with get thrown out of his job.
They thought of him the way he was when he first got sent there, and they didn’t pay attention to how much Washington had changed him.
So my dad said, “You tell um Faith.
Maybe they’ll listen to you.
They won’t listen to me, or any of the other adults who can see how badly we need a change in Washington.
Maybe that’s why God made you such a good speaker for your age.
Maybe you can touch their hearts.”
Yes, I got help with this speech,
but I understand and believe every word.
So please
Don’t do, what a lot of you came here to do.
help me instead, have some faith in what God said about our constitution.
Senator Hatch will be ok if you let him let him have more time to spend with his grand kids and great grand kids.
And his grand kids, and your grand kids Will all be better off If we send a fresh good guy
to represent Utah in Washington DC.
Posted in Humanity, Rambling, Random, Reality
Leave a comment
Predetermined Religious Paradigms
One’s original religious belief system is often predetermined by the culture and geographic area one is born into and has little if anything to do with doctrinal truths. There are a multitude of multifaceted belief systems in a supreme entity or intelligence which can be observed from one cultural system to the next. These various belief systems, with their doctrines, ceremonial rights, and underlying psychological paradigms, differ from one culture to the next in infinitesimal and momentous ways. Due to the diversity in religious practices, doctrines, and beliefs, the study of religious systems and how religions interact within cultures, communities, families, and politics are often filled with controversial, complex, and conflicting claims. “We can learn much about religion in many societies by standing back from it, seeing its role in society, and noting the differences and similarities between religions.”[1] In short, one’s geographical location directly predetermines their religious paradigm rather than the truth claims of the religion.
Looking at religious beliefs systems through an anthropologist perspective gives one the ability to trace the origin of religious belief systems from the macro level, where society itself interacts, to the micro level, where individual choices are made based on the personal beliefs of the individual. Furthermore, religious belief systems, both macro and micro, correspond to the underlying cultural agendas and persuasions. Since societies endeavor to maintain a stable foundation on which to build their own unique cultural agendas, it is not surprising to find that when the globe is dissected into religious persuasions one finds high concentrations of similar religious belief system within localized geographical areas. For example, in India the majority of the population is Hindu, in Afghanistan the population is predominantly Muslim, in China the major belief system is Buddhist, in Israel the inhabitant’s belief system is based on Judaism, in the United States the vast majority of the population claims Christian as their religious belief system, and so on.
The beliefs, customs, and rituals of one’s culture become a complex part of one’s personal beliefs and practices. Understanding a given subject is best done when it is associated with something already familiar to the inquiring individual. Therefore, a person’s belief system is added to “precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little” until it becomes a unique psychological and philosophical matrix which one uses to interact not only with the outside world but also within the realm of personal inquiry and consciousness (Isaiah 28:10). Religious doctrines and cultural customs become a unique intricate interwoven tapestry that dictates the course of a practitioner’s choices and thoughts. No two piece of cloth are identical and yet there are similarities between these intricate tapestries which allows sociologist, psychologists, and philosophers the opportunity of studying religious belief systems at a societal and individual level.
By the time one grows to an age of conscious recollection and understanding the doctrines of a given religion and cultural are already imprinted deep within the intellectual compass and morals of an individual. As a barrage of outward influences intrudes upon the five senses the intricate internal idea of the self, in regards to a given religious belief system, is continually in a state of flux; expanding, contracting, adapting, and developing in direct relationship to outward stimulus. Although not often thought about at a conscious level, one’s religious paradigm is constantly being reevaluated, restructured, and rewritten in accordance with cultural influences.
At the genesis of making sense of the bombardment of one’s senses, also known as the learning process, an individual yearns to make sense of intrapersonal perspectives in relation to the world around it. “Consciousness simultaneously distinguishes itself from something, and at the same time relates itself to it.”[2] This sense of self relation to outside influences is a complex psychological process that involves distinguishing oneself from his/her surroundings and at the same time understanding one’s surroundings by relating them back to the self. The process of alienation reveals itself in many striking ways as one begins the arduous journey of incorporating the religious practices which one is exposed to. At first, religious doctrines must be simplified and even then are generally not fully understood. Upon further association with a given religion it often becomes the driving influence over one’s thoughts, perspectives, political agendas, and ultimately the outward behaviors that can be seen and interpreted by others. As stated by Hegel, “The movement is the twofold process and the genesis of the whole, in such wise that each side simultaneously posits the other, and each therefore has both perspectives within itself; together they constitute the whole by dissolving themselves, and by making themselves into its moments.”[3] This state of understanding reality through religious beliefs is a continual growing process that can be seen throughout the course of an entire life.
As religious traditions are observed and experienced they become a part of how a child identifies their self. This self identification that occurs at a young age, through religious customs, is a way in which traditions are passed down from one generation to the next. This passing down of traditions can also be seen as a passing down of religious preference. Often times the religion of a family has a pedigree chart of its own that is traced and passed down from generation to generation. Although conversions take place, a new pedigree starts with each and every converted individual and so the process continues on with their posterity.
“There is an universal tendency among mankind to conceive all being like themselves, and to transfer to every object, those qualities, with which they are familiarly acquainted, and of which they are intimately conscious.”[4] This anthropomorphic approach to life can be traced all the way back to 500 BCE with the Greek philosopher Xenophanes. Anthropomorphism is a type of comparison that relates the subject to the object. Due to this type of relationship the subject is able to associate themselves to a given object. This realization of the self through outside objects can be seen specifically in religious practices. Furthermore this familiar acquaintance that is imposed onto outside objects and beings allows one to feel comfortable and relatable to the outside world and to a personal ultimate being. The more familiar one becomes with something the more one sees their reflection in it.
The rituals, practices, doctrine, customs, and literature of one’s society are at the forefront of the developmental process. As a given individual develops he/she is trying to come to an understanding of their surroundings. This is done through analyzing their surroundings. These surroundings become a point of reference to that individual and as such a familiarization with certain rituals, practices, doctrine, customs, and literature occurs. This familiarization serves as a foundation to a person’s behaviors, thoughts, desires, and their religious preference. What is accustom to a given individual or society is generally what is best understood regardless of whether or not it is grounded in truth. Because of this customization with cultural practices, the various religions of the world prosper not due to their truths but because of their geological influence on self-identity. In India, Hinduism prospers however in American Christianity is the prosperous religious preference. One comes to realize that the religion one recognizes as true has a direct link to the culture it is found within rather than a direct link to ultimate truths. In this sense, religions are lenses to ultimate reality that apply understanding to the ultimate based on the practices one is most familiar with.
Religion seems not only to be highly influenced by culture but one’s personal religion is directly tied to the household one is born into. “Religion, whatever else it may be, clearly embodies social practices and bodies of belief expressed in particular ways of life.”[5] As social practices and beliefs are so intertwined with religious practices and beliefs it becomes difficult to distinguish the two from each other. Due to this interconnectedness, the ability to freely choose one’s religious preference is lost in adolescence. “Religious belief is not to be understood as a reflection of some transcendent reality but a projection of human needs and aspirations.”[6] As human needs and aspirations are reflected in societal needs and aspirations religion attempts to satisfy these cravings. If an individual was born in Bhutan their needs and aspirations would differ from an individual living in America. Furthermore, the religious preference of these two individuals would also differ. The cultural upbringing of individuals stands as a centerpiece and reference point for each and every individual found in the various regions of the world.
Often times the religion of one’s parents is the first contact one has with religious doctrine and practices. There is little choice on a child’s part as to what material will be presented to them through their developmental years. Many times children are found attending church with their parents and at a young age and begin to be indoctrinated with the religion’s traditions of their parents. Frequently a given set of religious doctrines and religious customs turn into habits that become difficult to break or detach oneself from as the concept of the “self” is realized and shaped through them. Everything one does, sees, hears, and reads leaves an imprint on the self. This imprint although not always recognized has a direct influence on one’s conscious and subconscious behavior and belief system. Although a break from one’s original religious belief system is not essentially necessary, it is worth mentioning and analyzing that religious preferences are not always based on a quest for truth. Often time religious preferences are based on traditions of the family or the traditions of society. The truth contained within a religion is generally not questioned till later in life; if it is even to be questioned at all.
The theory of religion being predetermined by the community one is born into can be illustrated by the LDS community. Soon after a child is born a blessing is preformed through the recognized church authority, namely, the priesthood. This blessing is meant to present the baby to God as well as bestow certain blessing for their future contingent on their faithfulness to the specific doctrines and codes of conduct found within LDSism. Younger children, not yet baptized into this church, still attend church meetings regularly where they are introduced to LDS practices through lessons, songs, and activities. Although one is not able to become a member of the LDS faith until the minimum age of eight years old, the younger children that attend LDS church meetings still recognized themselves as Latter-day Saints. It is expected that when a child, that is already involved in LDS church activities, reaches the age of eight year old they will become a member of the LDS church through baptism. Tremendous speculation takes place in the LDS community if a member of a family chooses to leave or not participate in the LDS practices and traditions as, from my understanding of this religion, the LDS faith is seen as the only true church to its practitioners. Generally the autonomous choice to leave a given religion does not come till a later age when the influences of parents are less authoritative. In some cases, not just limited to the LDS church, the disgrace that encompasses the whole family if one of its members chooses to participate in alternative religious practices keeps individuals from abandoning the religion of their parents, even if they view the doctrine as false. Instead individuals stay bitterly entrapped within the religion of their parents or community.
The theory of the “accident of birth” states that what we believe in is primarily rooted in where we are born. “Someone born to Buddhist parents in Thailand is very likely to be a Buddhist, someone born to Muslim parents in Saudi Arabia to be a Muslim, someone born to Christian parents in Mexico to be a Christian, and so on.”[7] Because of this most followers of a given religion are not actual believers but merely puppets of the previous generations. One’s personal religious truths are judged and interpreted from within the confines of one’s own particular religious traditions. This type of interpretation leads to ethnocentric blind sidedness and is an inadequate way of confirming one’s faith. “There are of course conversions from one faith to another, but in the case of the great world religions these are peripheral to the massive transmission of each from one generation to the next within its own population.”[8]
In western cultural it is the common exclusivist view that only one religion can be correct unlike the well known eastern philosophy that religions are all different paths leading up the same mountain. The western standpoint creates opposition within various cultures as a battle of conversion begins rather than a pursuit of truth. For those trapped within western mindsets the religion of their birth is clung to and seen as a natural and acceptable aspect of life. Twisted ideology of what to expect from religion is often convoluted by the conflicting claims found within the various religions of the world. Separation between a given community and a given religion is often not completely attainable as religious doctrine generally has a stance on certain views that are constantly being debated in communities. It is almost impossible to remain neutral on either side as cultural beliefs and religious beliefs are continually intruding upon the other’s realm.
Many of the major religions of the world are so interwoven with given ethnic groups, cultures, political systems, and everyday life that it is hard to picture one without simultaneously picturing the other.[9] It is hard to imagine America without Christianity, China without Buddhism, or Israel without Judaism. “In essence, religion is so deeply embedded into the matrix of many societies that its boundaries are permeable and its impacts pervasive.”[10]
In conclusion, evidence indicates that an individual’s allegiance to their religion of birth is substantially conditioned by cultural influences. The vast majority of humanity’s religious beliefs are not supported by truth and validity but rather it is supported by how religious beliefs are incorporated into the overall paradigm of one’s cultural lens to ultimate reality. For a majority of the earth’s inhabitants religious beliefs are passed down from generation to generation; with parents, grandparents, and in some cases great grandparents having an influence on the rising generation. In most parts of the world families stay within the same geographical region for generations; as such the major world religions generally stay within the same geographical region and have an empowering influence over those regions. From the cradle to the casket one’s religion is often an affirmation based on family and cultural traditions. The decision on what religion one will practice is usually no decision at all. The interconnectedness between cultures and religions makes it almost impossible for an individual to autonomously choose a religious preference. The religion of the ageing generations is given to the rising generations as a family heirloom to be guarded and protected.
[1] Winch, Peter. Religion and Understanding (New Work: The Macmillan Company, 1967), 47-48.
[2] Hegel, G.W.F. Phenomenology of Spirit (New York: Oxford University Press, 1977), 52.
[3] Hegel, G.W.F. Phenomenology of Spirit (New York: Oxford University Press, 1977), 24-25.
[4] Hume, David Writings on Religion (Illinois: Open Court Publishing, 1992), 117.
[5] Trigg, Roger. Rationality and Religion: Does Faith Need Reason (Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishing, 1998), 29.
[6] Trigg, Roger. Rationality and Religion: Does Faith Need Reason (Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishing, 1998), 39.
[7] Hick, John. An Interpretation of Religion (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), 2.
[8] Hick, John. An Interpretation of Religion (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), 2.
[9] Park, Chris. “Religion and Geography” in Routledge Companion to the Study of Religion, ed. Hinnells, J. (London: Routledge, 2004),1-2.
[10] Park, Chris. “Religion and Geography” in Routledge Companion to the Study of Religion, ed. Hinnells, J. (London: Routledge, 2004), 2.
Color Me Rad 5k
One of my little sisters made it into the promo video for Color Me Rad 5K. She’s in the video a handful of time but she has two close ups. Around the 29 second time stamp she is the one with purple on her face and gorgeous blue eyes and at 33 second time stamp with the side profile.
Posted in Random
Leave a comment
Who’s in my bed?
The other day I got home pretty late to find
two people sleeping in my bed. I live alone apart from my older sister so of course my first response was “What the hell?” and my second thought was naturally to find out who these random people were. I was trying to tip-toe around to see if I could recognize them at all. All of my sisters are blonde so I was quickly running out of possibilities. 
After a few minutes I finally figured it out! I got punk’d by my older sister. She had but her manikin doll heads for her cosmetology exam in my bed and had arranged the pillows to mimic a body. Haha! Classic. 
Posted in Rambling
Leave a comment
Syria’s Torture Machine
For full video click here
What is power without knowledge? What is knowledge without voice? Human rights are both protected and encroached upon by three primary agents: power, knowledge, and voice. Current political tug-of-wars in places such a Syria demonstrate how power is capable of barbarically disregarding human rights, knowledge is capable of being overlooked, and voices are capable of being silenced. Alternatively, groups such as the Human Rights Watch demonstrate how power is capable of making individuals and groups accountable for their actions, knowledge is capable of being easily accessible, and voices are capable of being heard.
An important factor in human rights is empowerment of those victims whose rights have been disregarded or overlooked. Empowerment allows for enforcement and accountability. Who protects citizens from an unjust government? Who is the voice when individuals are not being treated as human beings anymore? The Human Rights Watch along with other organizations such as Channel 4, presented by Jonathan Miller, have been the voice against the intrusion on human rights and the crude physical violence that is taking place in Syria by President Bashar al-Assad’s regime. The Human Rights Watch is willing to address questions such as who is ultimately responsible for crimes against humanity. UN human rights chief Navi Pillay recommends that the council submit Syria to the International Criminal Court for further investigation of possible crimes against humanity that have been brought to light by advocates of human rights.[1] Al-Assad is commander-in-chief of the armed forces, yet in his interview with ABC’s Barbara Walters broadcast on December 7, 2011 Al-Assad advocated that he does not control the Syrian army. However, international law clearly state that “those in position of command are potentially criminally accountable not just for crimes they directly ordered but also for serious crimes committed by their subordinates in circumstances where they knew or should have known of the abuses but failed to take action to stop them.”[2] If one is held responsible for their actions as well as their inactions, there is no sphere of neutrality. In such grievous situations, silence, or in other words failure to take action, also results in grievous consequences. “A person may cause evil to others not only by his actions but by his inactions, and in either case he is justly accountable to them for the injury.”[3]
A final avenue to explore regarding Syria’s torture machine is the differences between being obliged to do or not to do something in comparison to the obligation to do or not to do something. This exploration can be applied to many different groups and individuals found both within Syria and in outside nations. One of the core values that seem to differentiate between these two components, is the existence of human rights. If there are rights, there are obligations. It is apparent that the those officials responsible for the callous treatment of citizens in Syria strip individuals from all the rights and freedoms that we hold as innate liberties and unchallengeable rights that every human being ought to be entitled to. The Syrian government, Syrian citizens, and the surrounding nations are all obligated to take action. Unfortunately, procrastinating obligation denies citizens of justice. Martin Luther King said, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly affects all indirectly…. ‘Justice too long delayed is justice denied.’”[4] By not taking immediate action to the horrors inflicted on the victims of Syria’s torture machine surrounding nations and groups silently accepted its tragedies as history which to some measure makes them culpable. There is no doubt that the events occurring in Syria reflect a heinous history and looming future. The victims of Syria’s torture machine represent unjust authority that will linger in the hearts of Syrian citizens long after their bodies have returned to dust. “They are living symbols of racial hatreds, or terrorism and violence, and of the arrogance and cruelty of power.”[5] Ignoring the reality of the torture occurring in Syria only furthers the liability of its tragedy.
[1] Slater, Emma. “Bureau Recommends: Syria’s torture machine.” The Bureau of Investigative Journalism. December 14th, 2011 http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2011/12/14/bureau-recommends-syrias-torture-machine/ February 21, 2011.
[2] Mepham, David. “Syria’s Guilty Men.” Human Rights Watch. December 22, 2011 http://www.hrw.org/news/2011/12/22/syria-s-guilty-men February 21, 2012.
[3] Mill, John Stuart, “On Liberty.” Philosophical Problems in the Law, 4th Edition. (California: Wadsworth, 2005), 201.
[4]King, Martin Luther, Jr. “Letter from Birmingham Jail.” Philosophical Problems in the Law, 4th Edition. (California: Wadsworth, 2005), 79.
[5] Jackson, Robert H. “Opening address for the United States, Nuremberg Trials.” Philosophical Problems in the Law, 4th Edition. (California: Wadsworth, 2005), 23.
Posted in Humanity
Leave a comment
Inaction Still has Consequences
The International Criminal Court needs to actively investigation crimes against humanity in Uganda by the Lord’s Resistance Army. The arrest warrants issued on July 8 and September 27, 2005 against the top 5 leader of the LRA (Joseph Kony, Vincent Otti, Raska Lukwiya, Okot Odhiambo, and Dominic Ongwen) by the International Criminal Court is not enough.
Posted in Humanity
Leave a comment
Human Rights: Europe’s Treatment of Minorities
Various nations attempt to construct a model for human rights that can transcend culture. This cultural transcendent model for human rights would allow for global recognition and for national powers to excel into international authority. When such models for human rights are constructed minority groups are often overlooked and disregarded. A core principle of human rights is that they address liberties and privileges on an individual level founded in equality. However, recent polls in Europe indicate that EU citizens share the view that there are too many immigrants from ethnic minorities.
Four trends stand out in Europe’s domestic human rights: “the erosion of civil liberties in the fight against terrorism; the rise of populist extremist parties and their negative influence on mainstream politics; the declining effectiveness of traditional human rights institutions; and growing intolerance and abuse toward migrants and minorities.”[1] Reservations about loss of culture, fears over terrorism and increase in criminal activities, and rivalry for economic and industrial resources are all factors explaining explain why prejudices are increasing across Europe.
Instead of addressing public concerns regarding fears of diversity, immigrants, and minorities influence over culture, EU governments have catalyzed their authority through these fears. Europe authorities discount universal rights by not condemning racism and intolerance of diversity. “When it comes to protecting the rights of vulnerable and unpopular minorities, EU governments often prefer to rely on the principle of majority rule.”[2] This disregard for individual human rights has global consequences on EU’s credibility and integrity in promoting universal human rights and challenges the very morals and ethics that Europe is historically founded on. Human rights are not an option feature to life that some are entitled to. Human rights are the core values and fabric of humanity.
[1] Ward, Benjamin. Humans Rights Watch. February 29, 2012. Europe’s Treatment of Minorities Endangers Our Core Values. January 26, 2012. www.hrw.org/news/2012/01/26/europe-s-treatment-minorities-endangers-our-core-values ¶3.
[2] Ward, Benjamin. Humans Rights Watch. February 29, 2012. Europe’s Treatment of Minorities Endangers Our Core Values. January 26, 2012. www.hrw.org/news/2012/01/26/europe-s-treatment-minorities-endangers-our-core-values ¶11.
Posted in Humanity
Leave a comment
















































