It has been an eventful week... and I am a bit behind on my musings... but stay with me as I meander around as I have a great deal swirling around upstairs...
Egypt has turned over its totalitarian government, and the West fears Al Queda? Or the Muslim Brotherhood?
Egypt's government got caught in The WEB! And it happened even though these folks existed under a very strict censorship of the Web. Islamic Radicalism cannot survive the Web any more than Radical Liberalism at elite U.S. universities, double talking politicians, petty rip-off-artists, and myriad other FOS sorts. Its just not possible! These phenomenon required the control of the flow of information and that just AIN'T gonna happen anymore in places with access to the Web.
In the short term, certain regimes are perhaps going to be able to restrict access to the Web... but not for long. For a number of reasons: technical - people will come up with technology that will by pass the censors; Economic - by doing so they are putting their society at a competitive disadvantage.
What has begun in Tunisia and Egypt will eventually sweep away the balance of the totalitarian regimes - EVEN CHINA. Maybe it takes a few years, maybe even a decade... but not a lifetime. And maybe its all over in a couple of years. Think about what the Web has done to the West in the last decade.
And Osama Bin Laden? He's an Old Fart, and Al Queda is yesterday's news (murder via "terrorism" existed before Al Queda and will exist long after they have gone). The Muslim world is youthful (somebody should point out how that came to pass and what it means to the West's ruling class of childless and single offspring power couples... and what it means to their sensibilities... while the privileged young of the West were busy studying "women's studies" and "Gay history" their counter parts in the Muslim world were having babies... no babies, no culture... lots of babies, dominant culture... why is this politically incorrect to point out? ). The future belongs to the young. While the West was concerning itself with Gay marriage
(which I absolutely do not oppose; people should be free to make what contracts they will - self-determination is not a sometime thing... that does not mean its an important issue for the continuance of our culture... because it simply is not... it might be important to Gay people... but in the final analysis Gay people tend to not reproduce in meaningful numbers, and producing children and raising them to be good people is requirement NUMERO UNO in ANY and EVERY culture... if you doubt this, just ask a Shaker. Oh, can't find one? That's because they did not believe in sex and procreation.)
the Muslim world was putting babies on the ground. These babies have now grown up, and with the assistance of the Web have become educated, and have taken down 2 despotic regimes in as many months. Somehow, I do not see them wishing to live in societies with the equivalent of the Nazi S.S. walking around and chopping off hands and heads, shooting women in soccer stadiums over their dress code, stoning, and some of the other niceties associated with Fundamentalist theocracies... but, hey... what do I know.
Now the folks back home in the West that benefit from all of the money spent on Homeland Security here in the U.S. and its equivalent programs elsewhere are FREAKING out right now. Between the federal deficit and the potential for democracy... well, they desperately need somebody, somewhere to blow something up, or else their budgets are going to get cut, their department will get closed down, and they will have to gain meaningful employment in honest toil... something they have never known.
Still, the Old Fart Bin Laden and the Old Farts here in the West are locked in a death grip over something (Oil and its accompanying wealth) that won't last another human lifetime in any event. And it is killing and maiming and mauling the few young people that our culture has been able to produce.
In my previous post I laid out my argument why abortion should not be debated as a legal issue and that it should be debated as an ethical issue. I think I can make the same case for ending the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and not starting any new wars and closing the far flung military empire that the U.S. has cobbled together and bringing our citizens/military personnel HOME.
War is legal. So what? What does that have to do with the ETHICS of war? Is it ethical to drop a 500 pound bomb from an aircraft on a house that a member of the Taliban has taken up refuge? What about the other people in the home? And look... I am not naive... the battle in Afghanistan is all about nuclear Pakistan... I get it. The number of lives lost as a result of a nuclear event coming out of Pakistan, both directly and indirectly would be in the millions... that does not make the killing of Afghan civilians any less unethical. Nor does killing them even the score for 9/11... revenge never works - and it never ends.
Let us take the killings of Americans at the hands of Law Enforcement over drugs. Is it legal? Yep. Is it ethical? You would have to be out of your freaking mind. Americans are killed in "police encounters" every day. Such encounters would never have occurred absent our insane drug policy, and whenever police kill unarmed Americans they have a handy excuse - "drugs were found at the scene". This is one of those times where I think I am the only normal person left. Let's think this through, shall we? We have people, Americans, willing to go to work for the Government and kill people via hemorrhagic shock/trauma (that's what shooting somebody does, and it is a horrible way to die) for simply possessing a particular chemical or plant matter... and for those that they do not kill, these government employees (I hate the word "Agent". It makes Law Enforcement personnel sound as if they were bred by the government and are a breed apart, when in fact these are people just like you and me...) are willing to torture these people in our Gulags for decades, long past the point that these people could be any threat to anyone, but occasionally releasing them after assuring that they are suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder while they are still young enough to do some real harm.
Does that make any f&*^%ing sense at all? Really??!! (And if it does make sense to you, I really have to question your humanity.)
The Left gets this one. Let me ask you folks on the Right.... WWJD?? Would He suggest that police encounter killings over drugs are acceptable in G-d's sight? I rather f&$##ing doubt it, but I am all ears. Fill me in. Set me straight.
Now let me set you straight. "He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword". Matthew 26:52. This includes any and all people willing to kill or harm for any reason. The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.
Economic interests. National interests.
This is another one that makes me nuts. Whenever I hear "protecting American interests" I become deeply, deeply suspicious, because they never seem to be talking about rescuing an American hiker lost in the Andes... no, its usually about about killing people over "economic interests"; or more simply, killing people for money. Is that what a nation "under G-d" does? It kills for money? Absolutely. Is it Legal? Yep.
Is it ethical? NAFC.
And as I said before... I am NOT naive... nor a strict pacifist... there are some evils that should rightly be be destroyed (Nazi Germany comes to mind... but Dresden? Come on...). These do not include killing for convenience (abortion), killing for money (economic interests), or killing for the sake of exerting power (police encounter killings).
"Thou shalt not KILL". WTF is so hard to understand about that?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
42 comments:
I'm reading a wonderful book called Tending The Wild. In it, a native American Chief says that all gold is owned by a demon and all who chase gold will be cursed by him. This was a wondeful post. I agree with the difference between legal and ethical but it's a point lost on most.
You just about have me totally convinced. I’ll even concede that dropping the legality of abortion to exclusively peruse a more effective moral argument is probably the best course; even though by all rights it should be justly considered a crime akin to murder.
However, I think you go awry in lambasting Dresden. Lowering the cost of war only makes it more prevalent. The mind rightly recoils at the thought of Dresden or Hiroshima. However one big side effect of our smart bombs is that they lower the cost of war and perversely make it easier to wage war on both sides. It is the ideal behind Robert E. Lee’s famous quip “It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it.” One of the good things about the Powell Doctrine, viewing war as a switch that is either ON or OFF with no grey area, is that it significantly raises the threshold of what is a casus belli.
Looked at another way, William Sherman infamously wrote “We are not only fighting armies, but a hostile people, and must make old and young, rich and poor, feel the hard hand of war, as well as their organized armies.” Sherman’s march, while a crime, helped to bring the war to a close. Southern officers heading home after Appomattox had been vowing to fight on until they came across the ruins of Sherman’s march and realized the hopelessness of their cause. In a very real sense General Grant won the conventional war while General Sherman won the peace by preventing the insurgency.
Best,
Dan
Dan:
If I could only convince our brethren...
Good article Jeffers,
WWJD is a tough question best answered by everyone themselves. But I will give my opinion on ethics instead of laws based on my ethics. Rome was a terrible brutal dictatorship and as such was completely antithetical to the idea of limits of governments, freemen, compassion or any other such thing at least to those that were not Romans.
Jesus came into this mess and I cannot find one instance where he talked about anything political in this life. He had much the same philosophy of changing people one heart at a time as you bring up here. It was not if Rome was some great moral culture, crude abortion was not necessarily common but was used. Prostitution was legal in the pagan temples, etc. But judgment is best left to God and the early church only cared about sanctifying their disciples and growing the church, thus setting people free from the bondage of sin.
They lived this out every day as they were hung on crosses from Jerusalem to Rome, only caring about expanding this gospel. Their message was one of calling Disciples to freedom in their personal lives.
This is where the abortion argument used to fail on the right, not anymore. The church is trying to make real change by supporting young single moms, adoption services and counseling, paying for ultrasounds, teaching young people to look past lust and unto the freedom you get in a relationship that is mutually gratifying spiritually, ethically, sexually.
The principles that I have found that work for my Christians ethics and complement my libertarian viewpoint our: Freedom is a choice and gives everyone the ability to make themselves who they want to be and government can never help this.
1. Non-Christians won't act like Christians; expecting them to is foolish
2. Live your life to the fullest, love your God, your family, and your church.
3. Show them the freedom, love, Joy and fulfillment of your life and maybe they will see the truth of your beliefs. (This only shows through when you are willing to wash others feet though) do you give time, energy and money.
4. Freedom is a choice and gives everyone the ability to make themselves who they want to be and government can never help this. This is why I am a libertarian.
Thanks for the sermon, Dextred- just about spurted out a mouthful of morning coffee.
Yes, Christians feel that they alone have the total truth and all other religions are false. Of course, all the folks that follow the thousands of other world religions feel exactly the same way about their own non-Christian religions.
It's also possible to be a darn good person w/o following any structured religious doctrine- some of the most moral folks I have ever known did not follow ANY religious belief system of any kind. And some of the worst folks I have ever known were strict religious followers.
Maybe we ought to stay more with energy than religion.
Best, Marshall
Dex,
I don't think being Christian (or religious in general) necessarily makes a person more ethical or moral. As Marshall indicated above, one of the most ethical people I ever met was an atheist. Yet he was opposed to abortion on the grounds of it being "cruel." His philosophy was that this is all there is, and everyone has the right to a fair shot of existence, particularly the most helpless.
By contrast, some of the nastiest people I've ever met were church-going folks who never wasted an opportunity to preach about Jesus.
Doc
I would describe myself as very secular... I capitalize letters when speaking of beings other's deify out of respect and consideration... and not that I deny anything, either... to my mind it is the principals and ethics that govern; dogma is your own perusal...
Violence seems pretty cut and dried, as its rejection... however you get there is good enough for me.
In fact, I will accept ANY reasoning, ANY rationalization, Any motivation that rejects justifications for murder and violence. My sense is, that if folks start there and work backwards to their dogma we'll be alright come what may.
Greg,
I appreciate your excellent idea about debating abortion purely on ethical grounds, rather than allowing it to devolve into a relativistic argument.
I will use that going forward. That being said, one gray area that I struggle with is in the case of rape, which is why I believe women need to have access to emergency contraception.
But stay with me, folks... I am going somewhere with this series... your comments are greatly appreciated.
My struggle is also with seriously compromised fetuses. I am all for letting a child be carried to full term but only if she can be properly cared for after birth.You can't have it both ways and complain about the cost of services required to provide as full a life as possible but insist that the child be born anyway. The sydrome my youngest has is hereditary (both birth father and birth grandmother have it). I will supervise her every minute but she's an absolutely beautiful little girl and things happen. Would I consider letting her carry a baby to term? I'm way too old to raise another child so I would only do so if there was a family out there willing to take responsibility. Do I hear any takers? The sydrome results in g-tube dependence, epilepsy, mental retardation and hearing loss. My little one is mildly involved but a lot of these kids never do learn to walk or talk. Trust me. As soon as she's old enough we will explore sterilization although the good guys at the ACLU will scream. They wouldn't take a child mind you. They'll just holler about my decision.
Take the government's nose out of family matters be it abortion, divorce and support etc and watch how fast individuals will embrace morals once again.
They are all connected in the end and we just keep inflating all the problems with entitlements and government legislation.
Marshall,
I am who I am and I won't change or hid it because people online think whatever about it, thanks. It would be much easier being a relativist that says things like all beliefs are valid, blah, blah, blah. It is just not true. Everything can not be true at the same time. My point is the church does not need to focus on the politics of It and that is why I have come to my libertarian point of view. I actually was asserting the exact opposite of what your point was. I believe in people making their own choices and don’t think the state can enforce morals standards because peoples view on them change. That is how the early church operated, though over time the changes that result in the culture determine voting patterns, beliefs, etc.
Who said you cannot be moral or ethical with Christianity? Did I say that? I believe that my idea of truth is right(like anyone). I never asserted you can't be moral without religion, but I have no idea what that has to do with Christianity. It is kind of the whole point, you know the whole mankind is fallen and is in desperate need of a savior thing!!! Anyways I am not the straw man you just built in your mind.
So is your assertion that we would of reached the current Idea of western culture (mostly talking about the inalienable rights type of things, freedom, property rights) without the Christian religion? I find this a highly fanciful delusion. All of what we call the west are either Christians or post Christian areas. The moral/ethical code is so ingrained that renouncing the culture to “post-Christian or non-Christian” would be as if to reject the very thing which formed the country’s sense of national identity and community morals to begin with.
Kathy,
If mercy killing is ok, where and why do you draw the line? Also, Why the rush? Shouldn’t we at least wait to see if the tot was misdiagnosed? Up to 30% are in fact misdiagnosed. If they turn out to be crippled we can always throw them in the dumpster shortly after birth, like they do in china. While some would be revulsed by that, including me, it would save the percentage that is misdiagnosed.
If we are going to throw all morality out the window on account of financial considerations, then she could be euthanized at any time she becomes inconvenient. This isn’t just conjuncture the Dutch are doing this now. I recall reading about a doctor euthanizing a fifteen year old boy with “chronic depression” after his girlfriend dumped him, a couple of years ago. The doctor wasn’t too worried about his behavior because it made the news when he boasted about “helping the boy” to reporters with the understanding that it would be published.
Best,
Dan
Pioneer:
That is pretty much, not surprisingly, the way I see it... although you are stealing my thunder again! Intuitively you see where this is going, I take it...
Kathy et al: The larger point about my ethical argument is a recognition of our limits... we are not going to make things perfect, and trying for perfection has left us in with a far less than the "best possible outcome", with emphasis on "possible".
For a secular guy I seem to be quoting scriptures a lot lately, BUT:
"The poor will always be with us" is an understanding and admission of a less than perfect world... and seems to be governing what we are talking about...
But please, stay with the entirety of my point (a rejection of violence and interference) for the purposes of this series... I am going somewhere with this and I truly value the myriad view points that seems to come out of this group.
Our society/culture has dug a couple of deep holes for itself... maybe we can come up with some ideas to dig out.... you never know...
Sorry Greg
And yes I did think that was where you were going. Although not willing to call myself a Libertarian yet I have noticed we seem to come to the same ultimate conclusions. I wasn;t trying to jump to your end result however I was merely speaking to others.
Pioneer:
Not willing to call yourself a Libertarian? ROFL!!
What the hell are you then??!!
HAHA!
Sorry, bro... you ain't been nothing else for a long time...
I think I didn't make my point very well Dan. I actually don't condone abortion except in exteme cases. I just think we need to make it possible to give all children the best we have to offer. If we can't (or won't) do that then we need to man up and admit it, then accept the consequences and not pretend they're unintended.
Kathy,
On rereading my post, while the point is valid, I was being a total a$$. While there really isn’t a point we can decide in good conscience after conception; that can be stated without being smarmy.
Also, while I have libertarian leanings I am not a total libertarian. I think society should help those that can’t help themselves; and I am speaking directly about those can’t function in society through no fault of their own here not those who don’t try. In other words the Severe and Profound disability, the insane, the severely retarded, etc. need homes, sheltered workshops, and the like.
Best,
Dan
“While there really isn’t a point we can decide in good conscience after conception” [to terminate a pregnancy] I recon I should also point out I am excluding ectopic and other non-viable forms of pregnancy here.
Best,
Dan
I am a Constitutionalist (That always shows as being spelled incorrectly in comments). I have seen a few issues where the two ideologies do differ slightly although I think the end result of either would be about the same.
Dex,
If Christianity was the driving force behind freedom, why did it take nearly 1800 years before these ideas finally emerged as a nation (and one that was certainly imperfect at its founding)?
I believe Armenia was established as a Christian nation very early on. However what you are calling a Christian founding and asking "about 1800" years leads me to believe you speak of These United States.
Assuming you are not counting any nation formed under a secular king as a Christian nation then you really must look at the formation of Protestantism and the awakening of humanism into Western Christianity. There were several smaller areas mostly large towns which did manage to form pseudo democratic counsels to govern themselves. Christianity was the spark that grew with the intellectual awareness of the Western Europeans.
Thank you Dan. I have been reading some commentary toady about the surging price of food on the global market. All churches are going to have to address the problem of population, especialy in although certainly not limited to, the third world. It'sgoing to make for some difficult and interesting conversations.
Pioneer:
I consider Libertarian and Constitutionalist to be one and the same... I wasn't aware that they were different.
Libertarians are NOT anarchists, but the founders appear to me to all have been Libertarians... perhaps a discussion for another day, but I would describe myself as either/or.
Doc,
I think both the Protestant reformation and the Renaissance (though really just a response of culture to the protestant reformation educational values) were the two most powerful forces as PP pointed out (by the way pp I will in liberty, Kansas this fall where do you live in Missouri). Another reason not talked about too much is the ability of capital formation in the protestant countries which is wholly a part of Protestant reformation, but a specific fact which made a huge difference. The papacy collected high taxes and rigid controls on prices /usury. (Similar to the communist’s inability to adjust to inflation and eventually their downfall.) Luther believed the whole debate focused on free will, or in modern conservative parlance freedom to choose. You did not need the Catholic Church to intercede for you, but you could go to God yourself. This priesthood of believers took hold and Kaboom, individualism was the result.
I suspect you did not really want an answer though; you seem to be looking for a fight. I get bored with this stuff. Your first post was anecdotal, subjective, and opinion and your second to me is frankly baffling. Look, you can believe whatever fairy tale of history that you want; the fact is that Christianity was the driving force of western culture. Though no doubt some Ideas where not just Judeo/Christian. In this context the explosive change as a result of Christianity is undeniable to any astute observer. You must be one of those guys that make coffee instant.
You want to create a straw man and then tear it down to feel good. I am Tim and I have specific opinions, debate me on them and not “Christians”. How do I know they believe what I belief or talk like I talk, or act like I act. There is no such thing as a collective, just billions of individuals that have similar beliefs.
Jeffers,
The palistinians are getting jumpy with Israelie military saying they will be ready for any uprising by the palestinians. Bahrain is starting a revolution it looks like, Eygpt is under military rule and word is that the King of SA is Dead. Could get real interesting now.
Oops don't forget Yemen. The world is ripe for something big, hello peak oil. Humanity is in such flux right now.
Kathy,
First, you are a living saint. Your work is heroic, and nothing we would attempt voluntarily. My wife and I have taken in a few strays over the years, but would nothing like your commitment. Amazing.
I am with Dan, in that those who are incapable of helping themselves deserve help and protection. Certainly the insane, mentally retarded and profoundly physically handicapped do. Most of these tragedies are far beyond the ability of a family to cope with, and society has recognized this long before the current "progressive" movement.
What bothers me most is the progressive's inability to differentiate between those who can't and those won't. Unbridaled care and comfort for those who are incapable of caring for themselves is a blessing. The same thing bestowed upon the capable but unwilling is a curse that yields sloth, dependency and learned helplessness. Of course, distinguishing one from the other may be problematic in some cases.
I attended a very liberal church for a while. So much so that after a particular sermon the organist exclaimed loud enough to be heard by too many people, "This is bulls#!t! If I wanted to listen to this I'd have stayed in the Soviet Union!" This is just for background.
Some of the church's youth were sent to a mission/soup kitchen in San Antonio, TX. They worked in the soup kitchen for a week and returned home. They prepared a report of their work that they presented to the congregation, and talked about the number of people fed, and so on. As an aside they also talked about two very humorous men that worked in the kitchen, but once lived in the street. At no point was it ever explained our young missionaries, nor did they figure out for themselves, that the two men in the kitchen were the success, and those being fed were "works in progress." Nor did it seem that anyone in the congregation recognized that in five hours, all those men who came to eat would be homeless and hungry again, but the two men in the kitchen had reclaimed their lives. And this is a church! This is where the progressives leave me flat.
Regards,
Coal Guy
Greg
As I see it (which means my opinion not what the Libertarians or Constitutionalist party reps put out).
Libertarians are pretty set in little to no foreign policy and remain open on issues like same sex marriages, gays in the military etc.
I could be way off base in reality however. I do know I could be quite happy in a Libertarian world though.
PP,
I agree that the gay marriage thing is troubling, but the right place to decide that is in the states and not at the federal level (at least not forcing conservatives in the heartland to approve of abortion/gay marriage). The gays in the military is a sovereign nation thing and the feds do have the right to discriminate in military hiring because of the important nature of its duty. The military/foreign policy thing is much more difficult than the others for the simple fact that the world is so interconnected because of oil needs and trade in general. Though I abhor Americans dying in the sand, the obvious problem is without the US influence there we would have a real oil problem. SA would fall in days without our support, the Suez Canal would close and the Strait of Hormuz would be under the always watchful eyes of Iran. No easy answers!!
I kind of agree with Jeffers that Constitutional and libertarian are very similar. I tend to think of myself as a classic liberal in the founders meaning of the words. The only problem is that no one knows what the original liberals were, so libertarian works, though I tend to have a mean conservative bent on occasions.
Dex,
I'm not looking for a fight. However, your arrogant response (laced with various insults) indicates that you really aren't looking to debate but to pontificate. It's truly amazing that people can argue that Christianity is what led to modern freedoms when it has stood in the path of individual liberty since the early church. I'm not the one believing in fairy tales.
Dex,
Before I went to sleep last night I saw where Mubarak's sons [had] nearly come to blows during speech and the article claimed it was due to blame over reforms Gamal Mubarak had implemented to “liberalize” (financialize?) the economy.
“Gamal Mubarak, 47, worked for 11 years in Bank of America in Cairo and London, and gained great influence in government after his father appointed him head of the ruling party policy council in 2002. This move led many to believe he was the designated heir. Gamal paved the way for business executives to hold key positions in the government of Ahmed Nazif, whom the Egyptian president fired several days after the riots began.”
However I didn’t bother to follow up, instead drifting off into slumber. Fortunately Matt Stoller had many of the same thoughts I did and dug up the goods. If he is right, and I think he may be, most of our allies in the Middle East are going down. I have no problem seeing where our crooked money centers would rape the land and push the penniless pheasants over the edge without even realizing, or caring, what they were doing. It could also explain Pioneer’s observation about all the women wearing the hijab. These weren’t the more liberal middle class that one sees running around shops, cafes and etc. they were the much more conservative poor.
If this is the game the banks are running in the Middle East then almost all of our allies are probably on the ropes, while our enemies are not; another common observation, that goes hand in hand with yours about this exploding across the Middle East.
While Islam prohibits interest, it also prohibits prostitution. They get around that by putting “mothers” in the brothels. Then the john can marry the young lady, pay a reverse-dowry to her “mother” and divorce her in the morning, by telling simply her he divorces her three times. Wallah his objective has been accomplished within the letter of the law; which is why AIDS and other forms of VD plagues the region. Anyone doubt that our illustrious banksters couldn’t innovate some similar arrangement for interest?
Best,
Dan
PP and Dex:
Marriage is a contract, and contracts are governed at the state and federal level (in that a contract in one state is enforceable in the other states) from what I understand... but I am not an attorney (I just play one on the Web...).
The Libertarian position, and with which I concur, is that people should be able to enter into contracts freely - that would also mean that marriages could have expiration dates and many other arrangements and formats.
Doc,
Here is what you wrote "By contrast, some of the nastiest people I've ever met were church-going folks who never wasted an opportunity to preach about Jesus." Like I said “anecdotal, subjective, and opinion”. Anyways I am one of those nasty people you just hate. I don’t play gotcha games, I lay out what I think.
Look you have a preconceived notion and nothing will stop you from believing that. The funny thing is that the Idea of a corporate/political/statist church does in fact take away liberty which I agree with you (power corrupts and I know like anyone there are religious charlatans), but you have to be blind to not see the major advances in human freedom under the protestant church. I am not here to defend the Catholic Church. The first 400-500 yrs of church were in fact much different than the next 1000. The protestant reformation was nothing more than the church finding it roots as expounded by St. Augustine and other early church fathers. By faith only, by scripture alone, etc. This is in no doubt what laid the foundation to this nation and the western culture in general. What examples do you point in opposition to mine? Where in the rest of the world was the idea of individualism and freedom been displayed? The Christian west is in fact the, well use to be the defenders of freedom. Your act like ideas don’t have foundations.
Jeffers,
I did point out it should be decided at state level. You would destroy family's with such easy terms. Look what welfare, foodstamps and divorce have already done. If you cannot make a commitment then just don't get married. It is the building block of every nation.
Dearly belusted,
We are gathered here today to join John Doe, Joe Blow and their dog Fido in unholy matrimony for the remainder of the calendar year- or until congress changes the tax code. ...In fun and in health, for sickness voids the contract. For better and much better- because this crackpot deal will fall apart if things turn worse...
Leaves a bit to be desired, methinks.
Best,
Dan
Greg
While I have absolutely no wish to see anyone's bedroom legislated and really could care less what someone's sexual bent is. I do on another level take issue with non traditional relationships trying to claim the Christian institution of marriage as applicable to their situation as well as it even being recognized in a legal setting.
Not that I am in anyway trying to debate such a thing at this time. It is just one of a few ways that I differ from a standard Libertarian view.
As to DocHoliday's comments if he wishes to deny the influence of Christendom on Western Civilization there is nothing that can be said short of a complete work on medieval history to gainsay his belief.
In short however Western civilization provided the atmosphere needed for democracy and individual freedoms to bloom by merging the Christian ideal of "the shepherd" with classical Greek thinking. It took centuries to form but those two ideologies formed the primordial ooze for the very beginning of Western Civilization. Without that underlying Christian value (along with others) the situation would never have come about for democracy and individual freedoms int he West.
Pioneer:
I do not disagree with your sensibilities in the slightest.
I would simply refuse to involve the government in the personal lives of our citizens, particularly in relationship's that likely won't produce offspring. Especially if the "unintended" consequence is to give a political lift to groups that would be best to be left twisting in the wind.
Dan:
That was hysterical and you point is well taken.
Dan,
Interesting article, the elites having been destroying nations for yrs. LOOK AT US!!!!
I am hearing Ireland might tell the EU to go to hell and give a major haircut to all the bondholders. The funny thing is the narrative from the EU is that it will destabilize Europe, as if making a free nation enslaved to a foreign central state is any better. The finance minister even withheld bond payments until new government takes hold if I am not mistaken. When our pretend republic switches hands they line up trillions of more in spending to favored industries, unions, or military at the expense of taxpayers.
Post a Comment