Don't Cry Over Different Opinions

There has been a lot of disagreement, even violence, due to the results of this year's presidential election. Those that wanted Hillary Clinton to win are distraught that Donald Trump stole the position of President from Clinton. There are riots in the streets because some think that Trump will not be a good president and they are also terrified for their lives because their skin color isn't white. I agree that the way Trump talks makes him sounds a bit racist. But that doesn't mean that he will act on those thoughts when he becomes president. These people that are rioting in the streets and shout at people on street corners aren't even willing to give Trump a chance at being president. However, I will admit that I myself have said that neither Trump nor Hillary would be a good fit to run the country. I don't agree with Hillary's policies and Trump will most likely run his mouth and get us into a global war. I'm not wrong, am I? But, in my mind, I believe that I am a republican and I am willing to let Trump have a shot at running America before I decide whether he is truly a bad president or not. 



Families are being split apart because of opposing political views. Friends are turning into enemies simply because of difference in opinions. People across the nation are requiring a "safe space" for themselves because they are "triggered" due to the fact that someone has a different opinion. But like what the actual hell? Isn't that what makes humanity so creative and diverse? A difference in opinions? Romans 12:6 says, "In his grace, God has given us different gifts for doing certain things well". If God gave us all different gifts and different opinions, then why should we have the right to get angry at someone who thinks differently than we do? We were all made in God's image, but we are all wired differently; therefore, we all think differently.

Hillary Clinton called herself a Christian. However, she believes that gay marriage and abortion is okay. In my mind and in my heart, I don't believe that you can think those things are okay and call yourself a Christian. Exodus 20:13 says, "You shall not murder". Leviticus 18:22 says, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination". Abortion, to me, is murder. A baby is a baby from the moment the baby is conceived. Ending the baby's life simply before it is born doesn't mean that it's not murder. Gay marriage is just wrong. There's no other way to put it. God didn't intend for it to happen, so how can it not be a sin? I don't understand how you can be okay with abortion and gay marriage and call yourself a Christian. But I do have friends who are gay. I don't agree with the way that they live, but I love them apart from the way they live. If a self-proclaiming-Christian Hillary supporter, who agreed with her policies, got angry at a Trump supporter for disagreeing with Hillary, that just wouldn't make sense in my eyes. A Christian agreeing with non-Christian policies becoming angry with another Christian for disagreeing with said policies? Does that make sense to you? Because it doesn't make sense to me.

Homosexuality

One of the most controversial topics in our world today is gay marriage. Something that was once frowned upon and illegal is now legal and encouraged. In many places in the world, there are gay pride festivals being held. What many people may not realize is that they are just celebrating sin. In Leviticus 18:22, it says "Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable".

A majority of the world has long since abandoned it's morals. Let's be honest, how many people do you think ask themselves "What would Jesus do?" or "What would Jesus think if He saw me doing this?"? Probably not many people. Nevertheless, God loves everyone unconditionally. I read an article that stated, "But prominent evangelical Christians continue to become publicly affirming of LGBT persons". Yes the Bible says that gay marriage is wrong, so it would make sense that these evangelical Christians would be against the homosexual lifestyle; however, they don't need to publicly ridicule the LGBT people. Jesus loves everyone, but that doesn't mean that he loves everyone's lifestyle choices. You can love someone without loving the choices that they make. The same article said, "...it is high time Christians opened wide their arms, wide their churches, wide their tables, wide their homes to the LGBT community".

There are even many influential people who are involved in the media that are gay, such as Tyler Oakley, Connor Franta, Trevor Moran, and Sam Smith. Now that there are people like this involved in things like the media and there are more and more people getting addicted to the internet, more and more people are letting their guard down. There are more people accepting gay and lesbian marriage everyday. People think, "Oh the world will not affect me. I will stand my ground and keep my morals". What people do not realize is that that is a whole lot easier said than done. I will admit that I am guilty of this accusation. I myself have many friends that are gay, lesbian, transgender, and bi. And I accept them for who they are. But does that mean that I approve of all of the choices that they make for themselves? Absolutely not. As I said before, you definitely do not need to love someone's lifestyle to love the person as well. If we, including Jesus, did have to love someone's lifestyle to be able to like the person, would Jesus love any of us? The answer is no. He would not. 

Jesus does say that we should not associate ourselves with people like that, but that does not mean that we have to completely shut them out. We just should not actively seek out their company. The issue of someone having a gay family member also comes up quite often. Like Jesus, we are supposed to love everyone, regardless of lifestyle. Say you yourself had a gay or lesbian family member and they invited you to their wedding. If it were me, I would not be morally able to attend the wedding. So, what I'm saying is, if I were in that situation, I would still love that person. But I would not be able to attend a wedding like that. 

That's What Xi Said

I read a few articles about a man named Xi Jinping. Xi Jinping is the current leader of China. Some even refer to him as the "core leader". One of the articles claimed that, by making Xi Jingping the "core leader" of China, it "elevates Mr. Xi to a level of individual power last bestowed on Jiang Zemin...". The thought of making Xi the "core leader" is said to have been influenced by Mr. Xi himself and a few of his allies. In fact, one of the articles said that, unlike his predecessor Deng Xioaping, Xi Jinping called himself the "core leader", and the people of China just went along with it.  Is Xi Jinping a strong-willed person, or are some of the minds of the people just weak-willed? Perhaps a bit of both?

Giving Mr. Xi the title of "core leader" seems like a huge ego boost. It basically is telling the people that whatever Xi Jinping says goes; although he's not nearly as powerful as Mao Zedong or Deng Xiaoping.  Now that he holds this title,  most the people of China have pretty much surrendered to him. Whether they were forced to or  it was by their own choice I do not know. There are some that believe that Xi Jinping, by holding this title, now believes that he can control too much of China's decisions, which may be true. I'm sure that if I was in charge of a country and I was called the "core leader", I would feel like I could control the world and get anyone to do what I say. If Xi Jining thinks that he can get most of the people of China to do what he wants, wouldn't that lead to some screwed up future policies? I'm going to answer that right now. Yes, yes it would.  

As an American, I do not know if Xi Jinping is doing a good job or a bad job ruling China. Whatever he's doing doing, he probably wants to do as much of it as he can before his reign is over. It's like how Obama wants to do as much damage to America as he can before a new presidents is elected (yes, I definitely did have to say that). One of the articles said that Xi "may delay choosing a successor, so that he has more time and more choices, and preserves his influence". I think that he want to stay in a position of power because he has been so elevated for so long. He's probably used to people agreeing with what he says, even if out of fear, and he does not want it to end. Xi Jinping is described as a "formidable leader". The definition of formidable is: "inspiring fear or respect through being impressively large, powerful, intense, or capable". It is possible that Xi Jinping gave himself this title simply to engrave into the people minds that he is going to be their leader and he is going to give the orders. Just like what Obama is doing to America, it seems as though Xi Jinping trying to bring China down. 

Fat, Dumb, and Addicted

I read an article about how the media is affecting the amount of geniuses in the world. I agree with that to an extent. The article claimed that Twitter is shortening our attention span. That is true. Well, partly. I think more and more people are getting addicted to Twitter because the current generation is so focused on how people think of them and more people today are focused on internet communication rather than real life communication. During the day, people are thinking ,"When is the next time I can log on to Twitter? I wonder what people are saying about me". I admit that I myself am guilty of internet addiction. But I believe that my own addiction doesn't interfere with my social skills as much as the people of today's society. People today are so addicted to the internet that it is deteriorating their social skills. No one wants to communicate face to face anymore, which is insane. While I understand that sometimes being alone is nice and simply texting someone can be just enough, humans were designed to be social. We need to interact with other humans not just for our own good, but also for  fulfilling our purpose and spreading the word of God. 

The article also claimed that the way people think geniuses are formed today isn't actually true. People think that drilling information into someone's head will automatically make them smart, and that's not always the case. The article stated that you don't make someone drown themselves in chemistry books if they want to become a history teacher.  I completely agree with that. For example, if I wanted to become a genius on the subject of Visual Arts, which I do, I wouldn't go off to university and major in mechanical engineering. I would need to submerge myself in everything related to Visual Arts in order to become an expert. That's what everyone needs to do. Whichever field that a person wants to go into, they need to study that subject in order to become a genius on the topic. 

I think that the media has another affect on how people think. Since so many people are concerned with the way people think of them today, they could ask random people on the internet if they think that they could succeed in the field that they want to go into. If that person says no, then the person will drop that major and find a new one that will make them seem smart to other people. For example, someone could want to be an actor, but their parents or family might not think that's it's a respectable career. So that person will take up a new career, such as being a lawyer. The fact that some people are like this bothers me. I want to go into Visual Arts and I already know that it's a tough field to find a job in. I already know that people think I won't know what to do with my life. But I want to do it; therefore, I'm going to do it. 

A Right Or A Weapon?

   On many college campuses today, the right to freedom of speech has become a huge issue. Students that feel even the slightest bit offended, they have the right to leave the room to obtain some sort of "psychological safe space". They are saying that freedom of speech can be used as a weapon. A report called "And Campus For All: Diversity, Inclusion, and Freedom of Speech and U.S. Universities" claims that a lot of students on various campuses aren't exercising their right of freedom of speech because they are worried about offending other peers. The very same report stated that "A rising generation may be turning against freedom of speech". people are afraid to speak freely because they could offend one person or even multiple people. An insignificant comment, such as "your shirt is ugly", could set off a chain reaction in the person's mind to where they think, "Oh wait. That person just offended me. I need a safe space. GET ME A SAFE SPACE!".     Yes, there are some people out there who are more sensitive than others, but some of those people know how to hide it well. People on college campuses, or anywhere for that matter, shouldn't need a place like a "puppy room" to make themselves feel better. What I'm wondering is, if all of these people can't handle one person disagreeing with them or one slightly rude comment, how are they going to be able to fend for themselves in the real world? The truth is, they won't be able to function.    

A Right Or A Weapon?

On college campuses, speakers are being turned away if they don't agree with what most of, if not all of, the students believe. For example, if a speaker for the LGBT community who was anti-LGBT were to go to a college campus full of pro-LGBT students, they would most likely not be able to speak there because they could accidentally offend one, or multiple, students. The fact that these people still want freedom of speech, yet they can't handle one minor disagreement, just blows my mind. In the world, there are DEFINITELY going to be people who disagree with you. No doubt about it. The education system, college particularly, is supposed to prepare you for the real world. If you aren't able to handle someone having a different opinion than you, you won't be able to deal with the issues going on in the world today.     

 The reporter of the "And Campus For All: Diversity, Inclusion, and Freedom of Speech and U.S. Universities" asked a student, named Storm Ervin, from the University of Missouri what her opinion was on the right of freedom of speech. Ervin stated that freedom of speech is a "basic human right for herself and for her group", which makes sense because any normal American citizen would want the freedom of speech, wouldn't they? But then, Ervin turns things around. Ervin wants freedom of speech, but when it comes to a group that disagrees with Ervin's beliefs, she is against freedom of speech. In other words, Ervin is for "compromised freedom of speech". That is not how the First Amendment was supposed to play out. The word "freedom" is in the term "freedom of speech" for a reason.

                                     

Never-ending Argument

There have been a few forms of government throughout our history that just have not worked. There is always something that just does not fit in. In the year 1783, there was yet again another government issue. There was a "new" type of government forming in America; however, it was too similar to the type of government that America had just escaped from. James Madison stepped up to the plate and tried to steer America away from entering back into the same useless form of government. He enlisted the help of the great George Washington. George Washington was hungering for retirement. He was ready to throw in the towel and take a break from all of the action. What Washington did not realize was that Madison was manipulating him into coming out of retirement. I think that Madison just wanted the help of an experienced person like Washington to aid him in forming an ideal new government.

One of the main reasons that the American government was weak in 1783 was the fact that the constitution America had at the time was very weak. One reason for this could have been because our constitution copied others; therefore, it had to be remade. But how? How could the constitution be remade to where it pleases at least the majority of the people? I think that the American government at the time should have let the people vote on it. Yes, that is both a good decision and a dangerous one. However, if the government wanted to please the majority of the people, letting them have a say would probably be the best way to please the majority of America's population.

Appearing out of the tangled mess known as the political process came the idea that finally captured America; however, it was not necessarily the best plan. It went against the traditional norm of the political system and it was not exactly what one would call "logical". It put state and federal government against each other in a constant battle for dominant power, thus making the "argument itself the answer". The constitution was now considered "an argument without end". After hearing about this, George Washington truly believed that our nation was no longer moving towards greatness, but chaos. He even informed John Jay that he did "not conceive that we can exist long as a nation", which, given the state of the constitution, was probably true. If there was constant arguing between state and federal government, there would have been practically no way for the political system of America to move forward.

James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay took it upon themselves to help America in making a new and stronger constitution. They wrote a series of 85 articles called "The Federalist" in order to ratify, or confirm, a new constitution. James Madison was in favor of the federal government being in supreme power, which meant that there would be smaller community forms of government as well as a reigning national government. Alexander Hamilton, however, wanted the states to disappear. It was a "take it or leave it" decision. There would be no negotiating involved with this decision. The federalist had to choose between staying united or complete disbandment. There were pros and cons to both having the states stay together as a united nation as well as eradicating the states altogether. Either way, in my opinion, the nation could still be united as one. If the states did end up completely vanishing and all that was left was just "one giant America", everyone would be united as one, considering that some states have different views on various subjects such as abortion and gay marriage. No state laws would separate the the states via morality. If the states stayed and there were small local governments as well as a larger national government, everyone would be united under the supreme reigning government. But small republics in small areas seemed to work better for the well being of America. The Founders even created a bicameral legislature for two important reasons: to make sure that the states were represented efficiently and for the separation of powers. The complete eradication of the states seems and having everyone united under one single government sounded like a nice option, but what do I know? I'm not a politician. I would say that the people in charge of deciding whether the states would stay or not knew what they were doing, but we had just freed ourselves from England only years earlier, so they were clearly still trying to get a handle on how to run the government.

Presidential Debate Sept. 26th

The fact that Trump and Hillary both made it this far in the presidential campaign must mean that they are both fairly smart. During the presidential debate on September 26th 2016, both Trump and Hillary made some good points. While Trump owns many businesses that are worth great amounts of money, he has never really been a politician. Yes, he is very smart and knows how to run a business, but he doesn't necessarily know how to run an entire country. Hillary Clinton, however, has previously run for the position of president, so she seems like she knows what she's doing more so than Trump does. She seemed very prepared for the debate while Trump acted like he wasn't nearly as prepared as Hillary.

During the debate, the issue of gun control was brought up. Hillary said that people that are not American citizens as well as people who are on terrorist watch should not be allowed to buy guns, which is a good point that I agree with. Dangerous people should not be allowed to own a gun. Hillary said earlier in the debate that guns should be taken away from people who do not need them, such as civilians. Now that is something that I do not agree with. In my opinion, civilians should be allowed to carry a gun to protect themselves. Trump said that guns should be taken away not from everyone, but from dangerous people, such as gang members. Now that I agree with. I think that people should have the right to defend themselves. If a gun is necessary for that, the so be it.

Both Trump and Hillary said that America's economy is in the worst state it has been in since the Great Depression. I think that this is true. Our economy's current state is a wreck. Hillary believes that the wealthy people should help support the economy, which sounds an awful lot like welfare. Welfare is where people who make more money have to give some of their money to people who have no jobs. I do not agree with Hillary's belief. Just because people make more money than others does not mean that they should help out people who make less money by giving them "hand outs". Lazy people should not be given free money just because they do not want to get up and find a job. Those people should be provided with a job and not free money.

In addition to her statement about gun control, Hillary said that if a young black male were to do the same thing as a young white male, he would be more at risk of getting arrested or hurt. This is most definitely not the case. Race may still be an issue in our society today, but not everyone is a racist. Not everyone is going to hurt blacks and not every cop hates black people. Just because one cop hurts one black person doesn't make him a racist person. Cops aren't killing black people just because they are black. The fact that the person the cop killed is black is just a coincidence and not a race issue.