I'm hoping, for the purposes of this post that many of you have seen The Ides of March which came out earlier this year because I really don't want to go into synopsis mode... But for those of you who have not seen it, I will do you at least the favor of linking you to the IMDB page for your own reference purposes. I only reference this movie because it serves as a lovely foil for the article I wanted to make the focal piece of this post. Some my fellow Christians may have an interest in apologetics, and even many non-Christians have at least heard the name Ravi Zacharias because he tours all around the country and the world with his team and gives talks on college campuses and in churches and basically wherever he's invited. Well, we are subscribers to his monthly journal Just Thinking and this month the featured article held my interest to the point of desiring to share it on all my social sites because I believe it brings up a conversation we the American people should be having. Those of you whose eyes may have begun glazing over at the mention of apologetics: please give me another paragraph or two of your time to make the case to you that this topic extends to every concerned citizen in America and even to freedom lovers in other nations. I honestly can't think of anyone that this discussion would exclude in its scope so please bear with me!
The article I'm referring to is linked here and is called The Golden Triangle of Freedom by Os Guinness and is actually an excerpt from his new book A Free People's Suicide: Sustainable Freedom and the American Future- definitely a book I plan on borrowing for the library or buying in the near future:) It's a rather long article- 16 pages double-columned- but it's OH SO WORTH the read in its entirety if you're willing to give 20 minutes of your time to it. The author's premise is that the Constitution alone was not the Founders' complete solution to tyranny and the ills that have plagued the nations of the world since the beginning of man. They also believed that the people and the leaders needed to keep and cultivate certain traits that would make existing as a free nation possible. Guinness write on page 8, "What the framers believed should complement and reinforce the Constitution and its separation of powers is the distinctive moral ecology that is at the heart of ordered liberty. Tocqueville called it the 'habits of the heart,' and I call it 'the golden triangle of freedom'- the cultivation and transmission of the conviction that freedom requires virtue, which requires faith, which requires freedom which in turn requires virtue, which requires faith, which requires freedom and so on, like the recycling triangle, ad infinitum."

Now here's where we bring in The Ides of March. Clooney's character in this movie is running for the Presidency and is portrayed to the nation as sort of the dream candidate (sounds vaguely familiar re 08, does it not??). His signature campaign speech we hear him and his right hand man (Ryan Gosling) give at various points in the movie is that he doesn't believe in any deity but his faith rests alone on the Constitution. I tried looking up the quote of his speech on Google but apparently I haven't got the magic touch;) Gosling's character is enamored with Clooney's (Governor Morris) and truly believes he is helping a good honest American get into the Oval Office. Then the crap hits the fan when Gosling's character starts a relationship with one of the interns who turns out to be pregnant with Clooney's baby. Just so you're following me: the presidential candidate (a married man with children) gets one of the interns prego and now she's left with the fallout of that situation which ends in her aborting the child and then committing suicide. Clooney's character is an example writ large of why faith in the Constitution alone without the supporting moral virtues is never enough- especially in the cut throat world of political leadership. Gosling's character is obviously disenchanted by learning about all this and he gets his revenge in a very clever way but that's all besides the point.

What is the point? The point is this: our Founders never intended (not even the deistic and free thinking ones) our Constitution to be enough to hold any people together. Look at the Constitution. Notice what it's lacking: rules about how we should behave, how we should treat one another- in other words, our positive and negative liberties. It wasn't designed to contain them because our Founders felt that that onus belongs to us a people. We determine for ourselves whether we intend to live morally upstanding lives and the chief means by which we determine this and live it out is through cultivating our virtue (moral character), which rests upon our faith (even atheistic ones) and preserving freedom. And Americans until about a century ago very much lived out these principles. Then they started to erode as Guinness explains, "Historians point out that the modern elevation of the Constitution as the sole foundation and bulwark of American freedom reached its present height in the 1930s. That was no accident. Significantly, it came right on the heels of a general secularization of American law that has led in turn to a general legislation of American life. The preceding decades were the time when legal contracts were strengthened and sharpened to take the place of weakening moral considerations such as character and trust (the 'my word is my bond' of an earlier time... The U.S. Constitution and all legal contracts were elevated at the very moment when faith, character, virtue and trust began to be denigrated and relegated to the private sphere."

This hearkens to my memory a rather timeless quote from William Penn, "Men must be governed by God or they will be ruled bytyrants." I think we're beginning to see here just what he was talking about. We complain about all the red tape and regulations and nit-picky rules we must wade through to obtain seemingly minor things these days- such as raising chickens in your own yard within city limits or doing your taxes. Some of these are ultimately self-imposed complications that never would have existed had we not centralized our power so much in government. Our founders very much wanted the local grassroots level to have the loudest voice and the strongest sway in our nation, not Capitol Hill. Nowadays it's just the opposite and it's largely due to our ignorance or unwillingness as a people to take ownership of our end of the bargain and cultivate in ourselves the moral fortitude that keeps our communities, local, state and even federal governments in check.

There is so much in this article that I want to discuss but I'm running out of time so I'll just limit myself to one more. Of the three legs of this Golden Triangle, Guinness points out that the freedom leg is usually the most challenging to Christians because we tend to be so proud of the large Christian heritage in this nation (and I think justly so). The great challenge to any free people is the test of having enough faith to let others be free to believe as they choose. Only then can we be a truly free society. It's the reason why jihad still hangs like a black cloud over the Middle East and the 10/40 window is full of underground churches. No matter how much these societies modernize their technologies and imitate the Western world in their political aspirations- so long as religious freedom is a barrier to the minorities there can be no true freedom. And on the flip-side what about our nation? Is this leg of the triangle where our society will find its Achilles Heel? I'm not so much a fan of the "CoExist" stickers because they promote a form of tolerance that equates to "shut up because all religions are the same" but in the true spirit of the word, we must maintain our stance of true tolerance where we accept each others differences while abiding by our consciences. I leave you with some lovely and timeless quotes from Madison and hope you've enjoyed reading this post:P I'm incurably long-winded, I know...

"Nothing, absolutely nothing in the American experiment is more revolutionary, unique and decisive than the first sixteen words of the First Amendment that are the “Religious Liberty Clauses.” At one stroke, what Marx called “the flowers on the chains” and Lord Acton the “gilded crutch of absolutism” was stripped away.⁵³ The persecution that Roger Williams called “spiritual rape” and a “soul yoke” and that Lord Acton called “spiritual murder” was prohibited.⁵⁴ The burden of centuries of oppression was lifted; what Williams lamented as “the rivers of civil blood” spilled by faulty relations between religion and government were staunched; and faith was put on its free and fundamental human footing as “soul freedom”—Williams’s term for what was a matter of individual conscience and uncoerced freedom."

"Almost like an echo, Madison rang out the same themes in his “Memorial and Remonstrance” protesting against Patrick Henry’s proposal to levy a religion tax that everybody could earmark for the church of his or her choice. No, the little man with the quiet voice protested, hammering home point after point with precision as well as force, that this was absolutely wrong and there was a better way. Among the highlights of Madison’s historic protest are the following:

First, the principle of religious liberty, or freedom of conscience, is foundational and inviolable: “We hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, ‘that Religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence.’ The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. . . . This right is in its nature an unalienable right.”⁵⁷

Second, understanding that the flower is present in the seed and the greatest problems start with the smallest beginnings, “it is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties.” Even a minute tax of three-pence on behalf of religion should be enough to sound the alarm: “Distant as it may be in its present form from the Inquisition, it differs from it only in degree.”

Third, the principle that rights are both inalienable and equal operates like the Golden Rule for religious liberty, “while we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess and to observe the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us.”

Fourth, it is both wrong and foolish to think “that the Civil Magistrate is a competent judge of Religious truth; or that he may employ Religion as an engine of Civil policy.”(Or as Pastor John Leland wrote tartly, “If government can answer for individuals on the day of judgment, let men be controlled by it in religious matters; otherwise let men be free.”⁵⁸)

Fifth, the Christian faith needs no government support. To say that it does is “a contradiction to the Christian Religion itself; for every page of it disavows a dependence on the powers of this world.”

Sixth, establishing religion is disastrous for the church. “What have been its fruit? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution.”

Seventh, established religions are bad for civil government. “In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of Civil authority; in many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instances have they been seen the guardians of the liberties of the people.”

Eighth, any establishment of religion departs from the generous American policy of“offering asylum to the persecuted and oppressed of every Nation and Religion” and thus lights “a Beacon on our coasts warning [the asylum seeker] to seek some other haven, where liberty and philanthropy in their due extent may offer a more certain repose from his troubles.”

Ninth, failure to guarantee religious liberty for all destroys the “moderation and harmony” of“the true remedy”that the United States has brought to an issue that elsewhere has spilt“torrents of blood.”

Hey folks- just taking a sounding of the depths here to see how everyone is doing... I know I should be horsewhipped for evaporating into thin air like I do but it really has more to do with the blocked sites policy at our school and my lack of reliable access to the internet. these last four years have been rough on us and i've got the premature gray and extra ounds due to stress to prove it. But I hope to make a big comeback and frquent my old haunts on here... til then, peace, love, and no'bama '12...

It's soup season, what with sniffly noses and flus and altogether miserable weather, and soups make a soothing meal or side dish. I have some I'd love to share and I'm sure nearly everyone here on Xanga has a favorite hot soup they'd love to dish out.

*EDIT*

Another fun idea: if you find a recipe in this soup swap and make it, please post about it so we can all hear about your experience. Extra credit: make it a picture post:)

*End Edit*

Instead of making everyone fish through the comments for recipes, I thought I'd try something with you. If you'd like to contribute a soup to the swap do the following:

1. Copy this blog through these instructions (you don't have to copy my recipes or ending comments)

2. Go to your site, create a new weblog entry and title it Soup Swap (you can personalize the title some)

3. Paste what you've copied from here and then fill out the rest of your post with your soup recipes.

4. Post your blog, go view it in the public view format. Copy the url in the browser.

5. Create a message to PreciousOnyx (me) and paste the url in the message.

6. Come back, comment and rec if you want to spread the word around.

*7*. PreciousOnyx will use your url links to create a menu on this post so everyone has easy access to all recipes.

________________________________Stop copying here__________________________________

Recipes:

Awesome Taco Soup

Ingredients:

1 lb ground beef (or turkey or chicken)

1 large onion chopped

3 (16 oz) cans Mexican-style chili beans (undrained)

1 (16 0z) can whole-kernel corn

1 (16 oz) can chopped tomatoes (undrained)

1 (16 oz) can tomato sauce

1 1/2 cups water

1 (4.5 oz) can chopped green chiles

1 package taco seasoning

1 envelope dry ranch salad dressing

Instructions: Brown meat and onions together in a skillet. Drain. Put in large pot and add all the remaining ingredients and bring to a boil. Reduce heat and simmer 15 minutes. Serve with desired toppings (sour cream, cheese, lettuce, etc). Yields 8 servings.

Creamy Sausage Potato Soup

Ingredients:

1/2 to 1 lb ground sausage

1 small bunch green onions

3 cups cubed potatoes

2 Tbsp butter

2 cups chicken broth

1- 1/2 cups half and half

2 Tbsp flour

1/4 cup parsley or greens

Instructions:

Fry sausage and drain. Set aside. Cook potatoes until nearly tender and drain. Set aside. Saute sliced green onions in butter then stir in the flour to make a paste. Stir in the chicken broth and half and half. When chill is off of half and half, stir in the sausage and potatoes. Simmer until hot. Stir in parsley and salt and pepper to taste.

And for you slow cooker aficianados out there...

Rich French Onion Soup

Ingredients:

6 large onions, chopped

1/2 cup butter

6 cans (10 1/2 oz each) condensed beef broth, undiluted

1- 1/2 tsp Worcestershire sauce

3 bay leaves

10 slices French bread, toasted

Shredded parmesan and mozzarella cheeses

Instructions:

In a large skillet, saute onions in butter until crisp-tender. Transfer to an ungreased 5-qt. slow cooker. Add the brother, Worcestershire sauce and bay leaves. Cover and cook for 5-7 hours or until the onions are tender. Discard the bay leaves. Top each serving with French bread and cheeses. Yields 10 servings

Fresh Pumpkin Soup

Ingredients:

8 cups chopped fresh pumpkin (approx 3 lbs)

4 cups chicken broth

3 small tart apples, peeled and chopped

1 medium onion, chopped

2 Tbsp lemon juice

2 Tbsp minced fresh gingerroot

2 garlic cloves, minced

1/2 tsp salt

TOASTED PUMPKIN SEEDS:

1/2 cup pumpkin seeds

1 tsp canola oil

1/8 tsp salt

Instructions:

In a slow cooker, combine the first 8 ingredients, mix well. Cover and cook on low for 8-10 hours or until pumpkin and apples are tender. Meanwhile, toss pumpkin seeds with oil and salt. Spread in an ungreased baking pan. Bake at 250 degrees for 50-60 minutes until golden brown. Set aside. Cool the pumpkin mixture slightly; process in batches in a blender or food processor. Transfer to a large saucepan; heat through. Garnish with toasted pumpkin seeds. Yields 9 servings.

Xanga Soup Contributors:

Redlegsix's Taco Soup

crazycanuckj's Beef Noodle Soup

I'm rather picky about which movies I am willing to spend $8 or $9 a pop to see in theatres. The economy is bad, we're poor, and frankly I don't think it's all that good for people to watch movies all the time. I'm convinced it zaps braincells. But, now and then, hubby and I venture forth to the theatres, as we did last night to go see Sherlock Holmes, which we roundly enjoyed (although my logic-loving hubby questions their usage of deductive logic).

So I thought I'd generate some discussion about up-coming flicks and share what we plan on seeing this year (or whenever they hit theatres). Do these interest you, and if not, what are you interested in seeing this year?

Alice in Wonderland. I have been a faithful Burton fan since I first watched The Nightmare Before Christmas at a friend's birthday party. I've been a rather loyal fan of Johnny Depp since The Pirates of the Caribbean (yes, I know he's done a ton more movies before then, some of which I've unwittingly seen, but I never recognized him as the actor in those movies because I'm bad with names.) I'm an even bigger fan of when these to nutballs get together, except Sweeny Todd, I don't plan on seeing that one. I also love the story of Alice in Wonderland so it's great big DUH that I want to see this version in theatres:)

Toy Story 3. What's NOT to love about Pixar? Honestly. Not to mention Tom Hanks and Tim Allen and the iconic voice talents of John Ratzenberger (voice of the Piggy Bank- who, to my knowledge, has played in EVERY Pixar)

The Screwtape Letters. There's not much here to say, because they're dragging their heels on this one, but I love C.S. Lewis and I'm in the midst of reading this book so it only makes sense to see the movie. I'm a little concerned about what kind of take they'll use on it, it could very easily be made into a rather twisted film, but curious is my middle name. It's a wonder it hasn't killed me yet...

Hoodwinked Too. We came across the announcement of this movie quite by accident. We stopped at a Burger King for dinner last weekend and it turns out BK is sponsoring them. My kids got movie toys in their kid's meals. We saw the first one in theatres and it had us nearly rolling in the aisles with laughter. Yah, the animation is not quite Pixar, or even Dreamworks quality, for that matter, but the plot line and characters and ingenuity were off the charts. I'm a little disappointed in the change of main voice characters (Red gets a voice change, I feel like crying!) but Wolfie and Granny are still in the game as originals so I'm cool. This would be another movie I'm having difficulty finding a release date for, but I think it will be out before Screwtape Letters, probably late this year.

The Spy Next Door. I know, cheesy. But Chan makes me laugh, and there's nothing like a good laugh during rough times. Although, I may put this one on the back burner and wait until it's released in the Red Box... decisions, decisions...

Letters To God. Based on a true story, sounds inspiring. 'nuf said.

Shrek Forever After. Oh c'mon, I've already followed them this far, might as well finish it, right? At least they always pick cool music:)

There are others I might consider like the Karate Kid, but nothing really grabs me as of yet...

Before anyone throws a hissy fit, this is not a rant or satirical post. Actually, it's a product of my undying curiousity. I like to learn about the origins of things. And it seems to me that certain things we attribute to a source are not necessarily from that source. I think we English speaking peoples tend to think of things that have an air of sophistication as being exotic in a sense. And the French, compared with the rest of Europe, are rather exotic. So I thought I'd do a little Google research to see what the origins of some popular "French" things really are. I am always happy to give credit where credit is due, so if something really is French in origin, I will be sure to mention it here.

To do my title justice, we'll start with the all-American French fry (sounds rather oxymoronish, don't it?)

According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_fries):

It's a name thing

The phrase means potatoes fried in the French sense of the verb "to cook", which can mean either sautéing or deep-grease frying. While its French origin, frire, unambiguously means deep-frying, frites being its past participle is used with a plural feminine substantive, as in pommes de terre frites ("deep-fried potatoes").^[5][6] Thomas Jefferson at a White House dinner in 1802 served "potatoes served in the French manner".^[5][7][8] In the early 20th century, the term "French fried" was being used for foods such as onion rings or chicken, apart from potatoes.^[9][10]

The verb "to french", though not attested until after "French fried potatoes" had appeared, can refer to "julienning" of vegetables as is acknowledged by some dictionaries,^[11] while others only refer to trimming the meat off the shanks of chops.^[12] In the UK, "Frenched" lamb chops (particularly for serving as a "rack of lamb") have the majority of the fat removed together with a small piece of fatty meat from between the ends of the chop bones, leaving mainly only the meat forming the "eye" of the chop attached.

But in terms of the actual food... it's a shared source:

Wikipedia splits the possible origin between Belgium, France and Spain. Who knows? I think the explanation for Spain being the origin makes the most sense, but I doubt we'll be making a name change. People might mistake "Spanish fries" for "Spinach fries" and that would not go over well...

Hmm, so what about the French braid?

Wikipedia says the origin is unknown. However, ehow.com (http://www.ehow.com/about_4564738_french-braids.html), credits the French with being the first to be recognized for this style. I dunno...

"Women have been braiding hair since the beginning of time. For this reason, it is difficult to trace the origin of French braids. The name, French braid, however points to the region of France as being the first people to turn a typical braid inside-out. "

French or not, this is one hairdo I've never been able to master on myself. I'm stylistically challenged when it comes to the tresses.

Okay.. French vanilla. What about that?

According to the ever-loving wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanilla):

"The term French vanilla is not a type of vanilla, but is often used to designate preparations that have a strong vanilla aroma, and contain vanilla grains. The name originates from the French style of making ice cream custard base with vanilla pods, cream, and egg yolks. Inclusion of vanilla varietals from any of the former or current French dependencies noted for their exports may in fact be a part of the flavoring, though it may often be coincidental. Alternatively, French vanilla is taken to refer to a vanilla-custard flavor.^[18] Syrup labeled as French vanilla may include hazelnut, custard, caramel or butterscotch flavors in addition to vanilla."

Ah, so that explains the black dots in French vanilla ice cream... and here I thought they were just dirty;)

difference between vanilla and french vanilla: http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-difference-between-vanilla-and-french-vanilla.htm

Okay-dokey. French onion soup?

This would be one of my top favorite soups of all time. It's right up there with Broccoli and Cheese and my Awesome Taco Soup.

According to http://classical-french-cuisine.suite101.com/article.cfm/french_onion_soup_history_and_recipe, this is not only a French recipe, they claim it comes from Lyon:

"Few dishes in French gastronomy have traveled as well as the classic French Onion Soup. However, the name is misleading. The soup is not simply 'French.' It's Lyonnais."

Mmm. Soup. French Onion soup.... yum! Anyone else feeling a little hungry for soup right now?

Might as well pass around a recipe while we're at it:

French Onion Soup Recipe

Ingredients:

Soup Preparation:

1. Peel and finely chop the onions.
2. Melt 70 g/2 oz. butter in a pot. Add the onions and cook in a covered pot until lightly browned, stirring often.
3. When the onions have caramelized, sprinkle in the flour, stir, and let cook for 1 minute.
4. Add the white wine then the stock.
5. Add salt and pepper, leaving the mix to simmer over a low fire for 30 minutes.

Dry Preparation:

1. Cut the bread into thin slices and dry them in a low temperature oven.
2. Put a little butter and a little cheese into the bottoms of four oven proof bowls.
3. Put a slice of bread or two (depending on their size) on top of the butter and cheese.
4. Sprinkle some more cheese on top of the bread. Continue layering cheese and bread until there is none left.
5. Preheat the oven to 200°C/400°F.

Preparing to Serve the Soup:

1. Once the soup has finished cooking, pour 1/3 of it into the four bowls. Save the other 2/3 of the soup for later.
2. Place the bowls in the oven and cook until the top layer of cheese is melted and slightly grilled and the bread absorbs the liquid.
3. Pour the cognac into the bowls, then the remaining 2/3 of the onion soup.
4. Put the bowls back into the oven for 10 minutes.
5. Just before serving the soup, mix the egg yolk and porto, pour this mixture into the bowls and serve steaming hot.Serves 4 peopleThis soup warms your soul and fills your belly. And for those of you longing for the authenticity of French cuisine, this soup takes you on a gastronomical trip to Lyons."

And last but not least... the French kiss. No, not the movie.

Oh, this makes me giggle. There are actually websites out there that teach people how to kiss. I find this funny. Anyways, on with the origin according to http://frenchkissingsecrets.com/the-origin-of-the-french-kiss:

"The French kiss origin is oftentimes a misconception for many. Most people think that the French kiss started in France. Although the name may insinuate that it was indeed created in France, this is just what people tend to believe, and it is not true. There are several theories and speculation for its origin.

Why then is then it called a French kiss? One theory for utilizing the country France in its name is because France was always known as the city of love. With the Eifel tower and Paris still symbols of love and romance, the French are credited with the French kiss origin. Also, not only have the French been historically known to be romantic, they are also labeled as sensual and promiscuous people compared to the rest of the world. Additionally, the French were basically the first people to be acceptable of public displays of love and affection, like kissing.

Another theory of the French kiss origin is that it was a derogatory, stereotypical term towards the French during times of war. A common phrase would be that instead of fighting in a war, the French would rather make love with their faces. Also, some said that the French stick their tongues where they are not welcomed or should not be. Perhaps this, coupled with France’s reputation, is how the term came about to be coined.

The term French kiss is claimed to be dated back to at least the 1820s by some people. Its use was rampant once again around the 1920s. This was the time that the French were preoccupied in love, attraction, and passion while the rest of the world was not. More than likely, this phrase is just a stereotypical judgment made about France and its people.

The actual author of the term French kiss is unknown. Whoever it was though would have never guessed that his or her phrase is now common knowledge and known throughout the world. Due to hardly any documentation, more than likely the author of the term will never be known and remain a mystery forevermore."

The article continues beyond this but I figured this gives enough speculation to suffice for this post. I think it's quite obvious that the tongue kiss has been around as long as people have been making love and that would predate the French by quite a while.

Well, I hope this has been fun and informative for everyone. Any other "French" things you think I should look into?