Since no one can argue that eternal life in a paradise world is bad, it seems logical to create laws that would force others, who may not be as enlightened as me, to follow my beliefs because I have their best interests at mind and everyone will be better off for it.
INSERT YOUR BELIEF HERE _______________
I have cold heartedly (at least in my mind) questioned the idea of man-made climate change, and the idea that taking care of our environment is good. I don't personally agree, but do think that the case can be made to not worry about what man may or may not do to the environment. I have laid out my case and hope to continue discussions on this matter. For some, the very foundations of life depend on us taking care of the very earth that sustains millions of life-forms. We live in a beautiful and amazing world, and we desire that every generation after us can see what we have seen.
My REAL concern is not that someone believes something differently than me, but that I might be able to retain my right to disagree, and not accept their beliefs as truth. Contrary to popular sentiment, science requires the integration of faith and belief in something that cannot totally be understood. We are told that we must separate faith and science, and that somehow religion and science must be separate. This is a lie, and is at the heart of the environmental problem in my view. To some, the environment is just a playground for science, not a beautiful creation that should be maintained. We are being asked to believe in science that runs counter to our very religion. For some, definitely not all, this science IS their religion.
I love the environmental cause...and environmentalists. But when our government, or those lobbying for the cause, takes up an issue like this and forces me to worship at the feet of the earth, forces me to think and act in a certain way, and forces me to accept the faith that science has put into their own beliefs and assumptions, THAT is where we all must draw the line.
Contrary to the beliefs of President Obama and the extreme left that guides our policies more than many might admit, our country IS a christian nation. A nation that was founded with the idea that our laws must come from outside our own understanding, a heavenly creator. John Jay, founding father stated that "Providence has given our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as privilege and interest, of a Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."
Our christian nation does not require that everyone believe as we believe, or act as we act. But we do require the acceptance of our basic laws, our unalienable rights. Our environment is very important, but I WILL argue that the freedom is more important. The law is blind, and none are above it. Our basic rights will cease to exist, if we sacrifice a little piece of them for every good cause that comes along. Thanks to cousin Brennan for pointing out the wise words of Benjamin Franklin on this one. "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -Benjamin Franklin
-----------------------------------------------
Another interesting Quote for the day: "Diamond are nothing more than chunks of coal that stuck to their job." - Malcolm Forbes
Our country was founded in the belief that you can practice any religion one pleases. Not simply christianity. Its in the first amendment.
ReplyDeleteOh my, Andrew. I think I'll let my little brother take over the arguments because that way you won't have two of us crazy liberals on your back. :)
ReplyDeleteBrennan is the true debater, not I. However, I do have to continue to disagree with the "freedom vs. environment" issue. If we don't give up a little freedom to ensure the protection of the environment, we will quickly destroy the beauty of the earth that God has given us.
Laura
Brennan,
ReplyDeleteYou are exactly right. I mentioned something similar in my last paragraph..."Our christian nation does not require that everyone believe as we believe, or act as we act."
Looking beyond the constitution is a great history lesson though. There is a plethora of evidence that our founders modeled our country after a Judeo-Christian school or thought, and the system that the Israelites used throughout the [Christian] Bible. They saw the negative impact that the nationalized church had in England and created a system that allowed everyone to worship freely, etc... through the constitution.
Our government has taken us so far beyond the confines of the constitution that it isn't funny. Part of it is due to the fact that most people see the constitution as a document that says what the people can do, rather than what the government cannot do. As our government oversteps its bounds, we will see the rules change and all the freedoms we enjoy now, will ultimately go away. Where have all the great nations of the past gone? From my view, they were ultimately destroyed from within by an increasingly small group of people seeking more power and claiming they will take care of everyone.
Check out "The 5000 Year Leap" for some interesting reading. It gives a great overview of how our government is/was structured.
Laura,
ReplyDeleteI don't think you are "on my back". I appreciate the comments and fully expect people to disagree. I don't expect to convince anyone they are right or wrong, although it may seem otherwise sometimes.
If we don't have the debate, we will never understand the alternative positions and ultimately become less because of it.
Part of the mindset that I see behind the freedom vs. environment issue is our expectations of people. It would be false to assume that by relaxing environmental regulations, people would not do the responsible thing. (The following does not assume anything about your view) My worldview says that all men are created equal by God in His image. Starting from this point, I can only assume that people, when given the choice to do right or wrong, will choose the right thing in most cases; although not all. Oppressive legislation may have have good intentions, but it assumes that people won't ultimately do the right thing themselves.
I see a future blog post coming.
In a free market, some may abuse the system, but when a group of people see that we can harness the energy of the sun, or the wind, and it makes more economical sense than the polluting coal factory down the street; the economic benefits will win.
Science provides great advancements in technology and understanding. It is a shame that we think we have to force people to utilize those advancements, instead of letting the best ones gain popularity through a free market.
This comment got long on me...
You point out all the things the "extreme left" does to take away our freedom, and had a great quote from Benjamin Franklin about giving up freedom for security. However, what about the Patriot Act and other bills passed by the right wing conservatives, don't they take away from our freedom just as much, if not more? What happened to the beliefs of the founding fathers you talk about and the government they wanted to set up? All men are created equal, so shouldn't the conservatives be held responsible for torture and what was going on at Guantanamo. Obama seems to be upholding Christian values in closing Gitmo and putting an end to the sanctioned tortures that were going on before.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous,
ReplyDeleteI think the Patriot Act is slightly different animal than Gitmo, although they are connected. I think the Patriot Act probably oversteps the bounds of the constitution. I don't know a lot about it, but I know that it gives the government more power to the government to potentially infringe on the rights of americans, by monitoring communications. However it does expire, and hopefully we let that come to pass.
On the other hand, Gitmo, and the prisoners held there (in my opinion) should not be treated as americans and given the same rights as we enjoy. Those prisoners are the worst of the worst that we have captured. They are enemies of the state. They were attacking us and intimately involved with attacks against this country. Interestingly enough, the US won't send those prisoners back to their home countries because they know that most of them will be tortured and killed by their own countries. We are preserving their lives (for good or bad) by keeping them in our custody. I say send them back. The alternative to capturing them is killing them on the battlefield. We need to have this conversation over an episode of "24", and philosophize about whether protecting the country by Jack Bauer tactics is better than the intended alternatives. The story is fiction, but the scenario might be plausible.
I have never claimed that Republicans, or George Bush are perfect, or even conservative. George Bush increased the size of government by a huge degree, and was not conservative in many areas...but to his credit he protected us. Arlen Specter claims that republicans are moving to far to the right (so he will become a democrat), but it is him that has moved to the left...coupled with the realization that republicans will not re-elect him, so it is a political move.
You mention 'holding the conservatives responsible' for torture. Under the law at the time, what they did was legal. Should we be at liberty to change the laws and then persecute people who, in the past, may have broken them? This is a dangerous road.
You and I must seperate ourselves from the people and the ideologies when looking at situations like this. If we found that Clinton did something that is now illegal, you would probably find a way to defend it because you might agree with the cause. When its "your guy" in office, it is harder to be critical; and this applies to everyone. It is a challenge.
I am OK with closing Gitmo, depending on what we do with the prisoners. Maybe Obama is doing the right thing here, I don't know. However, I personally don't think Obama cares much about life and human rights, when he is willing to abort babies, or suck their brains out when they are halfway out....or kill them after a failed abortion.