“We should celebrate all things spiritual! Afterall, all religions basically teach the same thing: respect and love for one’s neighbor and doing good to human kind.”

This is a very, very common way of thinking. People of all stripes and occupations hold to it.

Before we throw our lot in with the pluralist crowd, though, we should pause and think. Is it really true that all religions are fundamentally the same?

If you actually study the main tenets of the world’s major faiths, you’ll find out that they are quite different.

Christianity, Islam, and Judaism all hold to a personal God that is separate from His creation. In many forms of Hinduism, God is impersonal and one with the cosmos. In Buddhism, the existence of God is irrelevant. Christians believe Jesus was and is the Messiah, God-in-the-flesh, whereas Jews hold that to be abhorrent. Muslims believe Jesus was just a prophet, but recoil at the notion of Him being God. All these beliefs are central to each religion. If you examine them further, you’ll find they also radically differ on their diagnosis of humanity’s problem (sin vs. lack of knowledge, for example) and the solution to that problem (repent and embrace Jesus as Savior vs. attain nirvana). Even each religion’s concepts of what happens after death are radically different (heaven/hell, reincarnation, nothing).

If you reflect further, you’ll see that these can’t all be true! God is either personal or impersonal. He either exists or He doesn’t. In no case can God be both personal and impersonal, real and fake. Jesus either is the Messiah or He is not. In no case can He be both the Messiah and not the Messiah. When you die, you either are reincarnated, go to heaven, rot in the ground, or hitch a ride on a comet…but you can’t do it all!

Some might object by saying “what’s true for you might not be true for me.” Jesus rose from the dead “for me,” but not for you. What does that even mean? Again, we are not talking about ice cream. With ice cream, preference reigns; personal tastes are subjective. But the resurrection of Christ is a claim not about preference, but about history, and therefore it is either true or false, not true “for me” or false “for you.” Denying this makes about as much sense as saying, “Lincoln was shot for me, but not for you.”

I have heard the rejoinder that “this either/or way of thinking is just a western logical system. In the east, people are perfectly comfortable embracing contradictory views.” In the east, the argument goes, a both/and system of thinking is popular, over against the western either/or way. Therefore, they reject the belief that God can’t be both personal and impersonal.

Don’t fall for this! Even in Tibet, they run when they see a charging bull; they understand that it’s either them or the bull, not both. It might look like the “both/and” system reigns supreme, but at bottom, reality is still fundamentally either/or when it comes to contradictory beliefs. Notice that the easterners who harp on the “both/and” choose that way of thinking *instead of* the either/or.

Be skeptical of the grand claims of pluralism. Sure, Gatorade and anti-freeze might both be green liquids, but it’s the differences that matter when choosing which to drink!

What good is an idea that is never shared?

A site buried in a pile of search results is like an idea you don’t tell anybody about. You may have the perfect strategy to save the world, know all about the dangers even clean coal poses for the environment and cancer rates, even have a few recycling ideas to share, but if nobody can find your site to find out about them, you may as well be talking to a tree. Politics needs to be shared, but if nobody can find you, no sharing can possibly take place.

The Internet provides the perfect network to promote politics and ideas. Obama proved the effectiveness of utilizing the online community, finding new ways to unite people than ever before. The best place to educate people about the importance of saving the environment and living sustainably is on the world wide web.

If a web site exists in the forest of the Internet but nobody even knows it exists, can it really make a sound?

Ideas are exchanged over the Internet every day like the flow of electricity. In fact, the web can be one of the most powerful educational tools when it comes to global warming, the dangers of pesticides or the risks of nuclear power.

But to get those ideas out there, your site needs to be found. Since most people don’t take the time to go through more than a few pages of results, your site needs to be in the first page or two of search returns for anyone to even know it exists. Ranking high is only possible through a consistent marketing strategy, one that adds value to your site through relevant content as well as links it to other high quality sites that add prestige and importance to your site.

Add value to your site through relevant content designed to optimize the search engines as well as intrigue the web users who find you through top search engine rankings. This includes content that’s useful, educational and compelling. The more you reward people with quality content, the more often they’ll visit and interact with your site, influencing the prestige that Google assigns it.

Interest in a site snowballs. As more people find you at the top of the rankings, you’ll get more traffic, which means more promotion of your ideas. As your site becomes more visible, your ideas will be shared and networked, having a greater impact on the environmental community.

With the economy in such poor condition and people getting laid off everyday, the outlook for teen jobs this summer doesnt look very good. This comes at a time when more teens than ever will probably be looking for jobs as they need money for themselves and for their families.

Teens not only need jobs to make money but they also need jobs to keep them busy during the slow summer months. Teens who are employed at least part time are able to learn some new things as well as gain work experience all the while keeping out of trouble. If this summer turns out to be a bad one for jobs, many teens will have too much time on their hands and likely get into some trouble.

Right now, unfortunately, might be the worst time to be looking for a job in recent history. Many adults are out of work and may be glad to accept the minimum wage jobs that would ordinarily go to teens. In order to find jobs, teens are going to have to be persistent and perhaps even innovative in the way they go about finding jobs. The most creative teens may end up creating their own jobs by finding some need that is going unfilled.

Many teens will be looking for their very first job and they should be using the Internet for two things to help them make money. The first is there are many ways to pick up some spending money online and they should learn how to do it. Filling out surveys and other money making ideas can bring a little extra money in every month to help fill the gaps when a job is hard to find.

The second use teenagers can get from their computer and the Internet is to look for real jobs. Many employers have now switched their recruiting efforts online and learning how to submit resumes and apply for jobs on the Internet is very important. Teens will be able to identify potential jobs easier and they will have quick access to many job sites that might aid them in finding that much needed summer job.

“That’s true for you, but not true for me.”

That view comes up often in discussions about religion and morality. It’s quite popular. The notion is that there are no overarching truths or morals that applies for all across cultures. Truth is relative to cultures or individuals, and all points of view are true.

The popular sentiment continues: one shouldn’t say other religions or morals are in error, just as it would be odd for me to say your choice of broccoli over beans is wrong. Sure, “my truth” can help me live a better life, but I shouldn’t push it on others. I should be tolerant of others’ beliefs.

Like I’ve already said, this is a very common way to think. Maybe you yourself believe this!

What should we make of this point of view?

First, notice that it’s unlivable. If someone walked up to you and claimed to sincerely believe rape is ok, you wouldn’t reflect on that belief tolerantly–to paraphrase philosopher William Lane Craig, you would quickly usher them to the nearest mental health professional. It doesn’t matter which culture our rape fan comes from, he is simply mistaken.

Let’s say you are at work, and you witness two co-workers arguing. The first, a white male, calls a black female co-worker some pretty hefty racial slurs, as well as some very explicit words for various female genitalia. The anger in his voice shows his intent. The female looks very hurt. Has he done anything wrong? Not wrong “for you,” but just wrong. Does it change things if he is from another culture or country?

The answer, of course, is yes on the first question, and no on the second. Racism and misogyny are wrong, no matter who you are or where you are from. Period.

Next, the person who says “there is no universal truth, so you should be tolerant of others’ beliefs” contradicts herself. At the end of the day, she says that it’s wrong to say others are wrong! On the one hand, she says that truth and morality are relative, but on the other hand she offers that as if it is pure, unadulerated, obvious truth.

She thinks this is something that applies to others, not just herself. Here’s an example conversation that bears this out (that I again borrow from Greg Koukl):

“What’s true for you might not be true for me, so you shouldn’t push your morals on others. Be tolerant!”

“Is that your morality?”

“Yes.”

“If that’s your morality, by all means, go with it, but don’t judge me and push it on me.”

See where this is going? By using words like “should” or “ought,” she saws off the branch she is sitting on.

Or:

“there are no universal truths.”

“Is that true?”

She’s in a tight spot. If she answers the former, then she has contradicted herself, but if the latter, she is being consistent, but it’s just “her truth,” and she can be safely ignored. She most likely doesn’t want to make her view irrelevant like that, though. The fact of the matter is that saying some are right and others are wrong is unavoidable. Best to drop the “big T/little t truth” malarkey.

“Sure, you think that’s true, but some people disagree. Who are you to judge?”

If you’ve ever had a discussion on a moral issue or religion, chances are you’ve heard that phrase, or any one of its close cousins. The popular sentiment these days is that in the areas of morality, religion, and sometimes politics, everything is relative; there is no one point of view–or truth–that’s true for everyone. There is no universal Truth (with a capital “T”). Rather, each culture or individual has its own “truth” (small “t”), and all religions, cultures, and morals are equally valid.

Therefore, so the popular argument goes, you shouldn’t push your morality or truth on others. That’s kind of like you judging another because he chose peanut butter ice cream over your personal favorite vanilla. It is fine if your “truth” makes you happy, but you should be tolerant of others’ beliefs. Saying others are wrong is intolerant, so the saying goes.

If you haven’t run into this line of thinking in your conversations or reading, chances are, you yourself believe it!

What should we make of this point of view?

First, even if someone says he believes this, his whole life contradicts it. He might wax eloquent about how morality is relative, but the next moment he’ll complain about someone cutting in line in front of him. If you listen carefully, you’ll find even the most ardent relativist make strident moral judgments every day as if they apply to more people than just him.

Let’s say you are at work, and you witness two co-workers arguing. The first, a white male, calls a black female co-worker some pretty hefty racial slurs, as well as some very explicit words for various female genitalia. The anger in his voice shows his intent. The female looks very hurt. Has he done anything wrong? Not wrong “for you,” but just wrong. Does it change things if he is from another culture or country?

The answer, of course, is yes on the first question, and no on the second. Racism and misogyny are wrong, no matter who you are or where you are from. Period.

Moreover, the notion expressed is contradictory. It commits logical suicide. It’s like saying, “I’m a vegetarian, pass the meat.” Really, the person is saying that it’s wrong to critique others’ views, but merely by uttering that, she critiques others. Out of one side of her mouth, she says that there are no truths that applies to others, but out of the other side of her mouth she gives a truth that is supposed to apply to others: that it’s wrong to critique others and that one should be tolerant.

She thinks this is something that applies to others, not just herself. Here’s an example conversation that bears this out (that I again borrow from Greg Koukl):

“People have different beliefs, so you should be tolerant of them!”

“Is that your morality?”

“Yes.”

“Then that’s your belief, so believe it, but it’s not true for me, so I can ignore it I guess.”

Do you see the problem? For the person who adopts the sentiment I’ve been examining, as soon as she opens her mouth and says something like “should” or “ought,” she has defeated herself.

Or take this example:

“There is no ‘Truth’ with a big ‘T,’ only ‘little t’ truths.”

“Is that ‘Truth’ with a ‘big’ T, or ‘little t’?”

She’s in a tight spot. If she answers the former, then she has contradicted herself, but if the latter, she is being consistent, but it’s just “her truth,” and she can be safely ignored. She most likely doesn’t want to make her view irrelevant like that, though. The fact of the matter is that saying some are right and others are wrong is unavoidable. Best to drop the “big T/little t truth” malarkey.

Over the last eight years, our media has provided example after example of wasteful government spending. Of course, each example was blamed on Republicans. This year, few news reports are even mentioning wasteful government spending, even though the government has passed massive spending bills. Fiscal Year 2009′s spending report highlights multiple examples of wasteful government spending.

The first Bill that I cringed at was a piece of legislation passed for Hawaii and Guam. Rep. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), and Rep. Madeline Bordallo (D-Guam) requested $1,200,000 for two projects to deal with Brown Snake Tree Control. Since 1996, $14.6 million has been earmarked in both Hawaii and Guam for the purpose of Brown Snake Tree Control. Whats next? Are our Representatives going to earmark a Bill for Great White Ocean Control? Useless spending. Thats all this is. Are the Brown Snakes of Hawaii and Guam a threat issue? Why not use the $14.6 million that has been allotted to Hawaii and Guam over the past 13 years for something more efficient. Why not invest this money in a program for early education for the children of this nation. They are our future.

The next Bill that smells like bacon, is one that House Appropriator Carolyn Kilpatrick ( D-Mich ), requested $50,000 for. This money is being used for tree replacement in River Rouge, MI. According to a census completed in 2000, this town had a population of less then 10,000 people. Could this money not have had a better use? How many trees do you get for $50,000? Does a town of less then 10,000 people really need this many trees. Why not start a community outreach program to keep kids off the streets and off of drugs. Education, in my opinion, is more important then a few thousand trees.

Lets talk about the outlandish Military Spending going on in this country. Senate Military Construction Appropriations Subcommittee member Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii), Senator Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii), and Representative Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii), requested $30,000,000 for Phase Five of an access road at the Pohakuloa Training Area. Since 2002 this Training Area has received six earmarks worth $74.4 million. How many Phases does an access road have? Is 70 plus million not enough to complete this project? Why is it taking the better part of 7 years to complete? When a project raises this many questions from an everyday civilian, then theres definitely something wrong. We have kids walking into schools and maliciously shooting other children. Why dont we invest this money on something much more important, like keeping illegal guns off the streets and out of the hands of children, possibly even a Gun Awareness and Education Program..

Democrats make a large issue of, their perceived, trouble with military hospitals and veterans’ benefits. However, these are not the main items they are requesting money for. Senators Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.), Charles “Chuckie” Schumer (D-N.Y.), and Representative Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.) requested $9,000,000 for Niagara Falls Air Reserve Station. Not an unusual amount for military spending, however, this was for a dining hall.

And last but not least, lets end this with an extremely wasteful way to spend money. We can thank the Department of Agriculture and Senate Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee member Tom Harkin (D-Iowa). He requested $1,791,000 for Swine Odor and Manure Management Research in Ames IA. The so called purpose of this bill is to generate and integrate knowledge for evaluation and development of new management practices that minimize nutrient excretion, malodorous emissions, and the release of pathogens into the environment as well as have a positive impact on animal health.

Now I can call Bull when I see it. We seriously have to spend 1.8 million to find out why swine manure stinks? Thats ridiculous. Has anyone took the initiative to study the human feces to see if we excrete nutrients. If the time was taken to study this then they would more then likely determine that humans excrete nutrients in their feces as well. Also, as for odor control, we as humans, have invented the toilet. Why not spend this money on creating a sanitary way to not only dispose of the swine manure, but it would also act to control the odor. There is no reason to do a study on why manure has an odor. It always has and always will. Thats part of anatomy. Lets spend this money on something more important, like finding homes for all the children who are abandoned at birth and given up for adoption of just left out on the Hospitals doorstep.

Military branches are always researching new weapon systems. It is necessary to keep America the superpower that we are and protect our citizens. It is not surprising the Department of Defense is developing a new jet plane. The Joint Strike Fighter has been in development for several years. Congress decided that the current engine needed competition to make it cheaper. They alotted $465,000,000 to develop a second engine. There was nothing wrong with the current engine being tested. Congress just wanted more competition.

All together 535 Officials have refused to be associated with the uncontrollable spending, and bogus ear marks. 100 Senators and 435 Representatives. Why run and hide, if nothing wrong is being done. These elected officials know what is going on is shady, to say the least. They didn’t get elected into office to blow the taxpayers money on these fraudulent and lucrative ideals. I insist that you do your job as an American and as a tax payer. Call your local elected officials and let them know that this kind of behavior and this sort of erratic ear marking, is not what they were elected for. Stand up and take control of the situation.

Over the last eight years, our media has provided example after example of wasteful government spending. Of course, each example was blamed on Republicans. This year, few news reports are even mentioning wasteful government spending, even though the government has passed massive spending bills. Fiscal Year 2009′s spending report highlights multiple examples of wasteful government spending.

Hawaii and Guam are spending millions on controlling brown snakes. In Fiscal Year 2009, Representatives Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) and Representative Madeline Bordallo (D-Guam) requested $1.2 million. Representatives Hirono and Borallo requested the money to control brown snakes. Even more astonishing, similar requests were made each of the last 14 years. A total of $14.6 million has been used to control brown snakes.

$50k to replace trees. In fiscal year 2009, Carolyn Kilpatrick (D-Mich) asked for $50k to replace trees. No, these trees were not in a federal park or even disaster area. These trees were in River Rouge, Michigan. United States Census shows that River Rouge, Michigan is a town of less than 10,000 people. With all federal government expenditures, the question is “Why should a taxpayer in California pay to replace trees in Michigan?” How would Representative Kilpatrick answer this question?

Lets talk about the outlandish Military Spending going on in this country. Senate Military Construction Appropriations Subcommittee member Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii), Senator Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii), and Representative Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii), requested $30,000,000 for Phase Five of an access road at the Pohakuloa Training Area. Since 2002 this Training Area has received six earmarks worth $74.4 million. How many Phases does an access road have? Is 70 plus million not enough to complete this project? Why is it taking the better part of 7 years to complete? When a project raises this many questions from an everyday civilian, then theres definitely something wrong. We have kids walking into schools and maliciously shooting other children. Why dont we invest this money on something much more important, like keeping illegal guns off the streets and out of the hands of children, possibly even a Gun Awareness and Education Program..

Veterans benefits and military spending have received a large amount of attention. Our military veterans deserve the best benefits money can buy. This spending story has nothing to do with veterans benefits. It is about a request for money to build a dining hall. Representative Louise Slaughter joined then Senator Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) in requesting $9 million to build a dining hall at Niagara Falls Air Reserve Station.

And last but not least, lets end this with an extremely wasteful way to spend money. We can thank the Department of Agriculture and Senate Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee member Tom Harkin (D-Iowa). He requested $1,791,000 for Swine Odor and Manure Management Research in Ames IA. The so called purpose of this bill is to generate and integrate knowledge for evaluation and development of new management practices that minimize nutrient excretion, malodorous emissions, and the release of pathogens into the environment as well as have a positive impact on animal health.

Now I can call Bull when I see it. We seriously have to spend 1.8 million to find out why swine manure stinks? Thats ridiculous. Has anyone took the initiative to study the human feces to see if we excrete nutrients. If the time was taken to study this then they would more then likely determine that humans excrete nutrients in their feces as well. Also, as for odor control, we as humans, have invented the toilet. Why not spend this money on creating a sanitary way to not only dispose of the swine manure, but it would also act to control the odor. There is no reason to do a study on why manure has an odor. It always has and always will. Thats part of anatomy. Lets spend this money on something more important, like finding homes for all the children who are abandoned at birth and given up for adoption of just left out on the Hospitals doorstep.

As a final thought I would like to leave you with a segment from the 2009 Pig Book. It is under the Department of Defense. And I find this spending to be outlandishly ridiculous. $465,000,000 for the continued development of the F-136 engine as an alternative engine in the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Program. The JSF is 55 billion dollars over its budgeted cost according to the Government Accountability Office. Congress has added funding for an additional engine in order to supposedly increase competition and flexibility for pilots, despite the fact that the winning engine had prevailed in a half dozen public and private competitions, and despite the fact that no other part of the plane would be competed once production commenced. CBS News reported on July 30,2007, that the Air Force and two independent panels concluded that the second engine is not necessary and not affordable, and that the professed savings from competition will never be achieved.

All together 535 Officials have refused to be associated with the uncontrollable spending, and bogus ear marks. 100 Senators and 435 Representatives. Why run and hide, if nothing wrong is being done. These elected officials know what is going on is shady, to say the least. They didn’t get elected into office to blow the taxpayers money on these fraudulent and lucrative ideals. I insist that you do your job as an American and as a tax payer. Call your local elected officials and let them know that this kind of behavior and this sort of erratic ear marking, is not what they were elected for. Stand up and take control of the situation.