I was recently asked by my girlfriend about my opinion on a European nation outlawing the wearing of burkhas in public. I responded that this was a typical infringement on individual rights, which is an easy excuse for avoiding the source of the problem.
In frustration with rampant Islamic violence, Europeans will avoid dealing with the source of that violence. Instead, they will set a dress code to somehow alleviate the violence, infringing on individual rights, rather than giving the death penalty to those who terrorize and kill others, thus punishing the guilty.
Americans are as bad or worse. We have "hate crimes" and laws that govern the sobriety of a driver.
Reckless driving is already a crime. When the police proved impotent in stopping reckless driving, then we outlawed the conditions under which a person can operate a vehicle. Then came the rights-bashing organization Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), whose founder resigned in disgust with the group becoming an alcohol-abolitionist organization. Because this special-interest group believes that people should not drink, they have used drunk-driving legislation to further their goal in stopping drinking. They have lowered the level of alcohol recognized as causing "drunkenness." Now, in some states, the blood-alcohol level is so low that a person can be arrested for having a glass of wine with a meal at a restaurant then driving home. In some places, if a person starts to drive, recognizes he/she is drunk, and pulls over on side of the road to sleep it off, they can be arrested for drunkenly "operating a vehicle" simply because they are sitting behind the wheel!
So a noisy and irritating special-interest group has pressured our "esteemed" government officials into restricting our rights as Americans. I hope their damned kids end up arrested on DUIs if they drive after having one beer. Of course, we will see the double standard if this happens.
Our "war on drugs" has been a dismal failure at a major cost to the taxpayer, and to the benefit of organized crime. Let people live as they wish, and our society will benefit more.
Since the judicial system has failed with ordinary crimes, we now have "hate crimes." Somehow, if it can be determined that a violent crime is done in hate, it is somehow worse than if it is done without hatred. Please show me examples of the many violent crimes that are done where no hatred is involved! What is meant is that it is now illegal for one group of people to hate another group of people. And if a crime can be linked to group hate, the penalty is more harsh. In short, the government has determined the legality of the thoughts of the individual. Crimes are no longer determined merely by the cruelty of the act, but the CRUELTY OF THE INTENT--is this a verifiable criterion, or something to be manipulated by politicians to their arbitrary benefit? Where is our right to free speech when the thoughts of an individual can be determined to be criminal?
If a person hates me because I am a white, conservative, semi-atheistic American, why should I care? No doubt there are many minorities of "color," Christian evangelicals, and others who feel bigoted hatred towards me. If their hatred causes them to do violence against me, are there not already laws in place against such violent acts? If the penalties are not strict enough for "ordinary" crimes, why only raise the penalties for "hate" crimes? Why not across the board?
Of course, since I am not a racial minority, the law will probably not apply to me--white males seem fair game for hatred in our society. So are "hate crimes" not discriminatory against me? If I hate blacks and kill a black person, a gay person, a Muslim, or a Jew, it will be a "hate crime." Would the same apply if I were killed by a bigoted black person? Or do blacks have a right to hate whites? Does the law mean that I will face a stiffer penalty than a minority person for committing the same crime, simply because of my skin color and ethnic origin?
Thinking and dress are not what is criminal--actions are. Let's abolish these special-interest laws that only benefit the few.
Friday, July 10, 2009
Deism, the Enlightenment, and the Founding of America
Deism was a belief at the heart of the movement known today as the Enlightenment, that wonderful period of human history which marked the transition from church-dominated politics to the belief in individual rights and freedoms. Deism maintained belief in a divine order to the universe, minus the presence of an all-mighty and intervening god-being. Their belief was that any creator was powerless in controlling what he/she/it created.
While many American Christians like to refer to America as a Christian nation, and our founding fathers as Christians, they fail to understand that the Christianity of the most influential founders had little to do with modern-day Christianity. Their Christianity was neither sectarian nor evangelical nor socialistic nor prudish. Rather, it was sternly against all of these trends.
The religion of the founding fathers was based upon the divinely-granted and inalienable rights of individuals. They believed that the freedom of individuals was the safeguard of a free and prosperous society. They assured that there would be no state religion nor any church-dominated government. Individuals would have the freedom to think freely, speak freely, pursue their own goals and dreams, set their own motivations, protect themselves, and amass wealth as they would see fit. Individuals were free in all of this as long as they did not infringe upon the rights of others. Importantly, the government did not have the right to set any restrictions except to protect the rights of individuals and assure the common good.
Contrast this with the social trends in the world today. More regulations are set daily in western nations in the interest of "fairness." Even the word "fairness" gets re-translated as the non-working reaping the rewards of the labor of others. Our current U.S. president commented on his vision of the free market providing wealth to be "shared across the board." This view has absolutely nothing to do with the vision of the founders of this nation, who would recognize "wealth redistribution" as the robbing of the achiever and the de-motivating of the unproductive. Under the guise of economic stimulus, our nation has already witnessed wealth redistribution and government infringement in the private sector to a level inconceivable merely decades ago.
Under the current U.S. government, the medieval Christian and Islamic values have gained dominance over the deistic values of the founding fathers. We have taken a major historical step backwards in the development of a free society. The higher authority is being established in the U.S. government, which will determine instead what is "fair" and what is not. The choice is no longer left to the decisions of individuals in their routine conduct of business.
While many American Christians like to refer to America as a Christian nation, and our founding fathers as Christians, they fail to understand that the Christianity of the most influential founders had little to do with modern-day Christianity. Their Christianity was neither sectarian nor evangelical nor socialistic nor prudish. Rather, it was sternly against all of these trends.
The religion of the founding fathers was based upon the divinely-granted and inalienable rights of individuals. They believed that the freedom of individuals was the safeguard of a free and prosperous society. They assured that there would be no state religion nor any church-dominated government. Individuals would have the freedom to think freely, speak freely, pursue their own goals and dreams, set their own motivations, protect themselves, and amass wealth as they would see fit. Individuals were free in all of this as long as they did not infringe upon the rights of others. Importantly, the government did not have the right to set any restrictions except to protect the rights of individuals and assure the common good.
Contrast this with the social trends in the world today. More regulations are set daily in western nations in the interest of "fairness." Even the word "fairness" gets re-translated as the non-working reaping the rewards of the labor of others. Our current U.S. president commented on his vision of the free market providing wealth to be "shared across the board." This view has absolutely nothing to do with the vision of the founders of this nation, who would recognize "wealth redistribution" as the robbing of the achiever and the de-motivating of the unproductive. Under the guise of economic stimulus, our nation has already witnessed wealth redistribution and government infringement in the private sector to a level inconceivable merely decades ago.
Under the current U.S. government, the medieval Christian and Islamic values have gained dominance over the deistic values of the founding fathers. We have taken a major historical step backwards in the development of a free society. The higher authority is being established in the U.S. government, which will determine instead what is "fair" and what is not. The choice is no longer left to the decisions of individuals in their routine conduct of business.
Divine Intervention and Social Dependency
About ten years ago, I remember the encounter between a man in his late thirties and his friend and coworker in a parochial school where we all taught. Our co-worker, who was an evangelical Christian, asked him when he and his wife were going to have children. When he replied that they could not have children, the co-worker replied "Oh, you don't know my God. You should get to know him. With him, all things are possible."
What the woman did not know is that his wife had just had a complete hysterectomy. And all the prayer in the world was obviously not going to help much in making her fertile.
Observing this conversation was a sort of turning point in my life. I reflected, and reflect today, on the futility of divine intervention in such circumstances. I reflect on how the power of a surgeon's knife is far more powerful than the imaginary god of my evangelical friend. Of course, the true believer will still say that their almighty god can even overcome a hysterectomy. I'm not holding my breath--neither did the man in my true story.
Yet much of the Judaeo-Christian tradition teaches reliance upon such an intervening imaginary being, and how we are "filthy rags" incapable of doing any good ourselves. Jesus himself based his world view on charitable giving, and with his passing, his chosen twelve followers set themselves up as re-distributors of the wealth of the early Christian communities, which "shared all in common."
How easily this religion was manipulated by crafty clerics--Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant--to form governments where the people were dependent upon the clerics and the divine right of kings instead of upon themselves. Medieval Hinduism had a similar development, with the brahmin and kshatriya castes dominating the society. We see Islam today in this same despicable phase of evolution, giving rise to violence against the "infidel" who largely outgrew their medieval phase of development.
Yet the next phase of societal evolution is little better. We have seen the twentieth-century transition from divine intervention to governmental intervention. From Russia to England to Canada, the transition from czars and kings and queens to socialist governments of many varieties was made complete during the last century. Today, we are witnessing this in the United States at the dawn of a new century.
The Acts of the Apostles accounts that those early Christians who sold property to donate to their socialistic leaders, but withheld some of the money for themselves, were struck dead by their god. Superstition, fear, and false hope are powerful tools in controlling the masses. First, convince people that they must depend upon an imaginary being for their worth and their survival, and place fear of divine retribution in their hearts. Transfer this dependency to the god's chosen leaders. Then when the god never shows up to help, the leaders remain. After a while, the god disappears from the dogma, but the tyranny remains.
No matter how much people pray to their imaginary god and wait for divine intervention, the poor and the ill continue to starve and die, the barren remain so, the wealthy still find themselves unhappy or suffering inwardly or facing the problems of illness and death which no money nor prayer can prevent, and nothing really changes. Hope upon an afterlife or coming new world rings empty when the imagined being in charge is impotent in alleviating the suffering of the present moment.
The transition from reliance upon an almighty and intervening god, to reliance upon his divinely-ordained clerics with very human means of inflicting suffering and maintaining control, to reliance upon the government are mere phases in a continuum of teaching that the individuals cannot make responsible choices on their own, and that a higher power must intervene to provide for them and protect them from themselves. Inevitably this means a bigger government with many laws restricting the rights of individuals. The government replaces the god.
The major exception to this trend was the government formed over two hundred years ago in America.
What the woman did not know is that his wife had just had a complete hysterectomy. And all the prayer in the world was obviously not going to help much in making her fertile.
Observing this conversation was a sort of turning point in my life. I reflected, and reflect today, on the futility of divine intervention in such circumstances. I reflect on how the power of a surgeon's knife is far more powerful than the imaginary god of my evangelical friend. Of course, the true believer will still say that their almighty god can even overcome a hysterectomy. I'm not holding my breath--neither did the man in my true story.
Yet much of the Judaeo-Christian tradition teaches reliance upon such an intervening imaginary being, and how we are "filthy rags" incapable of doing any good ourselves. Jesus himself based his world view on charitable giving, and with his passing, his chosen twelve followers set themselves up as re-distributors of the wealth of the early Christian communities, which "shared all in common."
How easily this religion was manipulated by crafty clerics--Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant--to form governments where the people were dependent upon the clerics and the divine right of kings instead of upon themselves. Medieval Hinduism had a similar development, with the brahmin and kshatriya castes dominating the society. We see Islam today in this same despicable phase of evolution, giving rise to violence against the "infidel" who largely outgrew their medieval phase of development.
Yet the next phase of societal evolution is little better. We have seen the twentieth-century transition from divine intervention to governmental intervention. From Russia to England to Canada, the transition from czars and kings and queens to socialist governments of many varieties was made complete during the last century. Today, we are witnessing this in the United States at the dawn of a new century.
The Acts of the Apostles accounts that those early Christians who sold property to donate to their socialistic leaders, but withheld some of the money for themselves, were struck dead by their god. Superstition, fear, and false hope are powerful tools in controlling the masses. First, convince people that they must depend upon an imaginary being for their worth and their survival, and place fear of divine retribution in their hearts. Transfer this dependency to the god's chosen leaders. Then when the god never shows up to help, the leaders remain. After a while, the god disappears from the dogma, but the tyranny remains.
No matter how much people pray to their imaginary god and wait for divine intervention, the poor and the ill continue to starve and die, the barren remain so, the wealthy still find themselves unhappy or suffering inwardly or facing the problems of illness and death which no money nor prayer can prevent, and nothing really changes. Hope upon an afterlife or coming new world rings empty when the imagined being in charge is impotent in alleviating the suffering of the present moment.
The transition from reliance upon an almighty and intervening god, to reliance upon his divinely-ordained clerics with very human means of inflicting suffering and maintaining control, to reliance upon the government are mere phases in a continuum of teaching that the individuals cannot make responsible choices on their own, and that a higher power must intervene to provide for them and protect them from themselves. Inevitably this means a bigger government with many laws restricting the rights of individuals. The government replaces the god.
The major exception to this trend was the government formed over two hundred years ago in America.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)