Mitt Romney vs. State

One of the biggest controversies in the political realm has to do with the separation of church and state. JFK was the first Catholic president and he surprisingly strengthened his candidacy with his faith. It's a different story in today's presidential running.

Mitt Romney is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ and the Latter-Day Saints. The Mormon faith is one that is not exactlly widely accepted, as only 2% of the population practices it. Now, I've said in past blogs that I don't care what faith a person practices, as long as they don't preach it or let it get in they way of how the populous is handled. As a political leader, you can't base your nomination on what God you believe in, because you are saying "My God is better than your God." Especially because you can't preach Theism, as it means exactly what it says; it's a theory. Just like evolution: even though there is scientific evidence and carbon dating, you can't really preach that it is the way things happened because it is still considered a theory. But this is beside the point.

It's questionable as to whether or not Romney will let his faith get in the way of his political rulings (hypothetically speaking, if he wins the presidency). Now, why is Mormonism subject to discussion over Christianity, or any other Christian based theory? It's not to say that Mormon's don't believe in Jesus Christ, it's the rest of what they believe that sparks controversy. So what exactly do they believe?

First of all, the Mormon faith was conceived during the 20th century. It is based off of one man's hallucinations, and that alone seems fishy. Joseph Smith went into the woods on a blindingly hot day, and fell to the ground. He saw the sun coming through the trees, and claimed that he saw God the Father, and his son. They told him to go up into the mountains and look under a rock, where he would find the gold plates that would eventually be translated into the Book of Mormon. Those who practice Mormonism do not allow any other faith penetrate its walls. You can't be gay, because it is a sin and you will not be accepted in the eyes of God. Young men go on missions around the world to try and convert people to their faith. They can only marry other Mormons. They practiced polygamy openly for many years, and some still do, even though it is illegal. If you are not Mormon, you cannot come to their Temple unless you're going to convert. I saw a Frontline special on Mormonism and the camera crew was not allowed beyond the front room. The inside of their temples are pure white where those that practice the faith have to also wear a white robe with white clothes underneath, white socks, and no shoes. The faith was kicked out of 3 different cities because of their controversial themes until they landed in secluded Salt Lake City, Utah. They say it's the holy land. They have record of every person who has died locked away in an underground "safe." What do they do with these names? In the Mormon faith, they believe that unless you are baptized, you go to pergatory, where you wait. They take the names and baptize them via the living so they can go to Heaven. That's great and all, yunno, wanting everyone to get into Heaven, but this proves that they don't believe that any other faith will allow you into Heaven, if it does, truly, exist. It's just weird overall.

So Mitt Romney. Good that he has faith, but not one who's mantra is to believe in only that faith and preach it as the only true faith. It requires its followers to live a limited life and have it play a major role in every aspect of life.

With all this in mind, why would we want a Mormon president? If he was a real person, he wouldn't let it run his political life as well. But he was quoted as saying that he would NOT separate the two lives. This does not give me any incentive to vote for him. If he is voted into office, One of two things will happen. He will either be a good candidate who's practices and ideas HELP us without his beliefs getting in the way. Or, his faith will get in the way and we'll be stuck with him for 4 years. Who knows what the Mormon faith could do to an entire country? We've seen what Islam and Christianity have done to countries. They're warring against each other. And HAVE been for centuries. I'm scared for the future.. this presidential election will determine a lot of things, and I just hope we benefit from whomever runs the country. We need help, not a hindrance.

Statutory Rape?

A Kettering teacher at Fairmont has been accused of having sex with a 14-year old student and is now in jail. Here's what I think.

I'm glad the guy was convicted and is now serving time because well, you don't have sex with 14-year olds when you're a) twice their age, and b) teaching at the same school! But what about the girl? Does she have to go to juvenile court? No. She too committed a crime, but because she's a juvenile and termed as an "innocent child" she gets nothing. Is this fair? The story didn't say that this guy raped her, it said that he "had sex with" her.

Here's where I question the system.

Say you're an 18-year old dude in high school, just about to graduate and your girlfriend is 17, also about to graduate. That would technically be illegal. If later on she took you to court for some reason and she brought up the fact that you were having sex while she was a minor, you could be convicted of stautory rape, even if you both KNEW it was consensual. So she would laugh her ass off as yours is dragged off to jail.

If Mr. Teacher-Man "had sex with" the 14-year old, then it had to be consensual because otherwise it would have been called rape, and that obviously is a felony. This means that the girl was FULLY AWARE of what was going on. She KNEW it was sex, she KNEW it was with a 30-something teacher at her school, and only HE gets jail-time. Do they assume that this girl is stupid? Does she get nothing because she's a minor? Shouldn't she be sent to juvenile court and have SOME kind of penalty against her? She's laughing her ass off as his gets dragged off to jail. Here's what I say: What the fuck?!

Ok. I understand that minors can't get jail-time because "they're children and don't know any better." Fuck that. You are fully aware of your actions by the time you hit 13. Why do I say this? Because you feel as though you are being looked at by everyone in every different direction in the 7th grade. That's when it all starts: the insecurities, the "cliques," the confusion. But you are aware of it because it is the hardest part of growing up! I hated that time in my life. I made FUN of the people who had sex by then, because they knew what they were doing and not being responsible ablout it. There were kids in my junior high that had sex on the library couch afterhours! They knew they were doing it! And so did everyone else! All I'm saying is that juveniles know what they're doing and should be charged accordingly. So what if it ruins their record for being a normal adult. They screwed up! And they should be penalized! A fucking 17-year old "accidentally" killed his friend because they were "playing" with a gun. NO. Guns don't "accidentally" go off. He didn't "accidentally" point the gun at his friend. He may not have meant to kill him, but he was fully aware that he was pointing the gun at his friend, and he was fully aware that if the gun went off (which obviously, it did) he would harm the friend. But because he was a juvenile, he didn't didn't get anything but psychiatric help. That's good and all, but if he was only a year older, he would have gone to jail.

I know people who did stuff wrong when they were minors BECAUSE they were minors, and knew they wouldn't get charged. Isn't there something to say about that? Isn't that just as wrong as doing it when you're NOT a minor? I would say so. When you're a minor, you don't care about things because you don't have to. You don't exist to your government until you're 18, or "old enough" to contribute to the government. I think that if the age was lowered, kids would care more because a) they could be convicted of crimes, b) they could vote and actually have a "voice," and c) they would be legitimate citizens! When you're a legitimate citizen, you have a purpose. When you have a purpose, you feel important and have value in yourself. Is that to say, then, that until you're 18 you don't really have value in yourself or your actions? Is it also safe to say that this is why 'kids' under 18 suck? I believe this to be true. Time to go.