Of course this is a broad generalization, not all Christians are in favor of war. However, many of the evangelical, "fundamentalist" churches are of the Hannity, O'Reilly, Coulter, World Net Daily variety and whole heartedly support the war especially against militant Islam. However, what about the words of Jesus to "love your enemies, bless those that curse you"? Those words seem to be as easy to ignore as "turn the other cheek."
One must revert back to the Old Testament in order to support aggressively pursuing and subduing an enemy state. A major factor behind this mind set is the support for the nation of Israel. The development of Israel is viewed by many as the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy. It is seen as one of the deepest desires of God Himself, to restore the land of Israel. After all, who wouldn't want to be a part of fulfilling one of God's deepest desires? No one is more "Christian Zionist" than I was at one point. I actually learned modern Hebrew and lived in Israel for over 3 years. I was caught up in the "romanticism" of the rebirth of Israel. However, God's requirement to "love thy neighbor" extends to Israel as much as to the rest of us. The fact is that many Israelis are baffled at Christians' blind support of her policies that run rough shod over non Jewish citizens and are skeptical and turned off by it. One major problem with this mind set is that it runs contrary to the basic tenets of the New Testament. Jesus summed up his entire ministry with the command to "love one another as I have loved you". Sure he confronted injustice and pointed out hypocrisy, but it was all with the intention to produce a heart change, never to subdue or coerce. Nowhere did Jesus support the idea of national sovereignty. So why do Christians defend it so strongly. The answer is simple: Biblical prophecy. This was the exact same motivation that led the Crusaders on a mission to "liberate" the holy land from the infadels. The list of atrocities and injustices incurred during that period are voluminous.
Is there ever a time to go to war? Of course there is. Self defense, or the defense of one's neighbors, family or allies would be a good reason. However, we now know that there were no established links between the incidents of September 11 and the nation of Iraq. The main reason put forth by the Bush administration for going to war with Iraq was the misguided belief that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. We now know that this claim was false. Another claim was that the Iraqui people were under the hand of an oppressive dictator: Saddam Hussein. However, under closer scrutiny these claims do not justify a war on the scale of America's involvement, not to mention the fact that war with Iraq was never declared by Congress as is required by the United States Constitution. First of all, it is no secret that North Korea has recently developed nuclear capability, yet we have not declared war or attempted to intervene in their politics. More importantly, since when do we engage in war with a sovereign nation based on "sketchy" information withouth a formal declaration by Congress? As for Saddam being a mad dictator, so was Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe. He is responsible for the complete implosion of his nation as well as countless acts of murder and injustices toward his people and America did not lift a finger to help that country. Neither did we intervene in Darfur when masses of civilians were raped and taken into slavery by marauding bands of Muslims from the Sudan. Why then did Saddam Hussein and Iraq rise to such a level of importance as to require direct intervention? You will need to do your own research into that. However, it gives credence to the conclusion that the supporters of this war were pawns in the hands of some larger conspiracy. Especially since Halliburton and other private companies made out like bandits as a result of the war.
Ron Paul has been preaching a message of peace and love for decades and has remained largely unheard. Even during the last Republican debates, he was ridiculed and ostricized even by the likes of Baptist minister Mike Huckabee and Sam Brownback who both supported keeping troops in Iraq for an "indefinite" amount of time. The idea that Christianity should "impose" its values on the rest of society has never worked and cannot be found in scripture. The fact is that Christians have enjoyed a country, which until the early 1960's had a predominately Christian world view. As that paradigm began to shift, the result has been an attempt by Christianity to "force" the country back to that state. Another term for this is "repression". It doesn't work. Instead, the response needs to be that of Ron Paul: to get our country back to the basic tenets of our founding fathers; namely, liberty and individual sovereignty so that each person is free to discover and embrace the truth on his or her own. Is this not walking in love? Is this not the definition of being a "neighbor" after the parable of the Good Samaritan? There is a fight we must wage, and it is against the enemies of our Constitution. However, there are more dangerous "domestic" enemies at hand than foreign ones with which we should concern ourselves.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Monday, June 1, 2009
At the risk of giving this anti-homeschooling blog more traffic...
Take a look at this site and the comments generated by it... http://teacherrevised.org/2009/05/30/the-case-against-homeschooling/
Here is my response:
10. “You were totally home schooled”. If by "geeky" you mean intelligent, loves to learn, makes high test scores and actually enjoys reading, then a little ribbing can be tolerated. If you mean "not good at sports" that is an individual characteristic.
9. "a students’ classroom shouldn’t also be where they eat Fruit Loops and meat loaf". And we get this axiom from whom? Thomas Jefferson, George Washington or perhaps Thomas Edison? Maybe Abraham Lincoln or Frederick Douglas or perhaps George Washington Carver made this brilliant observation.
8. "Homeschooling is selfish." Ok, got me there. However, many home schooled students offer their services as tutors and teachers' aides in the public school system.
7. "God hates homeschooling." Are we still using logic? The primary purpose for "schooling" is education, not missionary endeavors. However, many teachers and some guest speakers manage to "sneak" the gospel in occasionally even though it is banned in most public schools today.
6. "Homeschooling parent/teachers are arrogant to the point of lunacy. For real! My qualifications to teach English include a double major in English and education, two master’s degrees (education and journalism), a student teaching semester and multiple internship terms, real world experience as a writer, and years in the classroom dealing with different learning styles. So, first of all, homeschooling parent, you think you can teach English as well as me?" Don't you mean "as well as I?"
5. "As a teacher, homeschooling kind of pisses me off. (That’s good enough for #5.)" I know the feeling. I feel the same way about having to pay taxes to support a failing public institution.
4. "Homeschooling could breed intolerance, and maybe even racism. Unless the student is being homeschooled at the MTV Real World house, there’s probably only one race/sexuality/background in the room. How can a young person learn to appreciate other cultures if he or she doesn’t live among them?" Well, our children use reading. They also attend a mulit-cultural church. As for intolerance, I think you are doing a fine job at that yourself!
3. "Homeschooling, undoubtedly, leaves the child unprepared socially." That would depend upon the social context wouldn't it? In an institutionalized, authoritarian often hostile environment, perhaps home schoolers might feel somewhat defensive. However, in an entrepreneural, autonomous, competitive environment they will be able to stand their ground. Home schoolers spend a larger proportion of their time interacting with adults rather than peers, which gives them an edge in some social settings.
2. "Homeschooling parents are arrogant." That sounds rather intolerant to me.
1. "And finally… have you met someone homeschooled? Not to hate, but they do tend to be pretty geeky***." I meet homeschooled children all the time, and as a general rule they are a breath of fresh air. Perhaps, rather than pre-judging you should ask yourself this question; "What are home schoolers doing that public schools could implement in order to be more successful?" Of course you would have to admit that home schooling is successful in order to do that, and I really don't see that happening.
Here is my response:
10. “You were totally home schooled”. If by "geeky" you mean intelligent, loves to learn, makes high test scores and actually enjoys reading, then a little ribbing can be tolerated. If you mean "not good at sports" that is an individual characteristic.
9. "a students’ classroom shouldn’t also be where they eat Fruit Loops and meat loaf". And we get this axiom from whom? Thomas Jefferson, George Washington or perhaps Thomas Edison? Maybe Abraham Lincoln or Frederick Douglas or perhaps George Washington Carver made this brilliant observation.
8. "Homeschooling is selfish." Ok, got me there. However, many home schooled students offer their services as tutors and teachers' aides in the public school system.
7. "God hates homeschooling." Are we still using logic? The primary purpose for "schooling" is education, not missionary endeavors. However, many teachers and some guest speakers manage to "sneak" the gospel in occasionally even though it is banned in most public schools today.
6. "Homeschooling parent/teachers are arrogant to the point of lunacy. For real! My qualifications to teach English include a double major in English and education, two master’s degrees (education and journalism), a student teaching semester and multiple internship terms, real world experience as a writer, and years in the classroom dealing with different learning styles. So, first of all, homeschooling parent, you think you can teach English as well as me?" Don't you mean "as well as I?"
5. "As a teacher, homeschooling kind of pisses me off. (That’s good enough for #5.)" I know the feeling. I feel the same way about having to pay taxes to support a failing public institution.
4. "Homeschooling could breed intolerance, and maybe even racism. Unless the student is being homeschooled at the MTV Real World house, there’s probably only one race/sexuality/background in the room. How can a young person learn to appreciate other cultures if he or she doesn’t live among them?" Well, our children use reading. They also attend a mulit-cultural church. As for intolerance, I think you are doing a fine job at that yourself!
3. "Homeschooling, undoubtedly, leaves the child unprepared socially." That would depend upon the social context wouldn't it? In an institutionalized, authoritarian often hostile environment, perhaps home schoolers might feel somewhat defensive. However, in an entrepreneural, autonomous, competitive environment they will be able to stand their ground. Home schoolers spend a larger proportion of their time interacting with adults rather than peers, which gives them an edge in some social settings.
2. "Homeschooling parents are arrogant." That sounds rather intolerant to me.
1. "And finally… have you met someone homeschooled? Not to hate, but they do tend to be pretty geeky***." I meet homeschooled children all the time, and as a general rule they are a breath of fresh air. Perhaps, rather than pre-judging you should ask yourself this question; "What are home schoolers doing that public schools could implement in order to be more successful?" Of course you would have to admit that home schooling is successful in order to do that, and I really don't see that happening.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Obama's education plan vs. homeschooling...
Although I have no statistics to back it up, I would venture to say that the majority of home schoolers in America share conservative values. An article I read today regarding the public school curriculum in England gave me some pause for concern. Early statements regarding Obama's educational directives, indicate an emphasis on the "global economy" and more involvement from the federal level starting at birth. This article from The Guardian reveals that Britain's educational overseer plans to focus on more "modern" literary masterpieces such as Wikipedia (which is comprised of information supplied by readers) and Twitter. Another emphasis which raises an alarm and sounds familiar to that of Obama's recent proposals is a greater push toward social involvement. Obama has made the same statement regarding a "civilian security force" which would require mandated service of the nation's youth at some level. This is apparently an attempt to fund the first four years in a local community college, although no connection is made between the community service and college tuition at this point.
I know how this could sound alarming to conservatives who cringe at anything which smacks of socialism. However, I have lived on an Israeli kibbutz, which is basically socialist in its philosophy and practice, and I have worked as a lead organizer for a faith-based community organization. I can understand how Obama would see these requirements as productive and beneficial to the youth and the country. However, when policies are implemented on a broad scale in an attempt to target specific issues, they seldom work. In fact, many of Obama's policies take president Bush's failed "no child left behind" requirements and actually extend them. Since such broad policies cannot address the individual needs of each particular child, invariably some children "fall through the cracks". Which is fine unless it happens to be YOUR child!
Home-schoolers are watching the Obama presidency with much trepidation. For the most part, home-schoolers are students of education. Their goal is to give their children the best education possible. They typically encourage educational activity and limit other activities which would prove to be detrimental or distracting from the academic process, such as television, or video games. They also guard their childrens' extracurricular involvement, making sure that the educational environment remains protected and free from as many distractions as possible. Their children are encouraged to think independently and the natural curiosity which children possess is cultivated and nourished. These are all things which the public school system cannot regulate. They are also essential building blocks of learning. In fact, if Obama were enough of a visionary, he would take a more active approach at steering the educational system back toward the home. With today's technilogical advancements, curriculum and materials are readily available. However, it appears that his hands are tied with special interest groups, lobbyists, traditional thinking, and a personal agenda. As a result, it appears that the public school system will come further under the scrutiny of the federal government and less under the care of the "village" in which the child lives.
I know how this could sound alarming to conservatives who cringe at anything which smacks of socialism. However, I have lived on an Israeli kibbutz, which is basically socialist in its philosophy and practice, and I have worked as a lead organizer for a faith-based community organization. I can understand how Obama would see these requirements as productive and beneficial to the youth and the country. However, when policies are implemented on a broad scale in an attempt to target specific issues, they seldom work. In fact, many of Obama's policies take president Bush's failed "no child left behind" requirements and actually extend them. Since such broad policies cannot address the individual needs of each particular child, invariably some children "fall through the cracks". Which is fine unless it happens to be YOUR child!
Home-schoolers are watching the Obama presidency with much trepidation. For the most part, home-schoolers are students of education. Their goal is to give their children the best education possible. They typically encourage educational activity and limit other activities which would prove to be detrimental or distracting from the academic process, such as television, or video games. They also guard their childrens' extracurricular involvement, making sure that the educational environment remains protected and free from as many distractions as possible. Their children are encouraged to think independently and the natural curiosity which children possess is cultivated and nourished. These are all things which the public school system cannot regulate. They are also essential building blocks of learning. In fact, if Obama were enough of a visionary, he would take a more active approach at steering the educational system back toward the home. With today's technilogical advancements, curriculum and materials are readily available. However, it appears that his hands are tied with special interest groups, lobbyists, traditional thinking, and a personal agenda. As a result, it appears that the public school system will come further under the scrutiny of the federal government and less under the care of the "village" in which the child lives.
Conspiracy theories...
As I have already stated, I grew up in a rural community. I was taught conservative values and internalized them completely. Because of my temperament, the absence of a strong father figure, and a number of other factors, I had a tremendous need to be accepted. I started attending a strong, evangelical church at a young age which had a major impact on my life. Although I did not "fit in" with my peers at the church, I adopted the values that were taught because I thought they would make me a "good" person and ensure my acceptance as an individual. These values formed the bedrock of my belief system and I viewed them as "rock-solid", unshakeable. My temperament is introverted and highly sensitive. I am an "N" in the Myers Briggs, Jungian personality profile, which means I am highly idealistic, romantic, and want the world to be a better place. It also means, however, that I strive for "reality" and authenticity. In other words, it's more like; "Dreams CAN come true, it CAN happen to you". Obviously, I invested myself in my religion with a fanatic zeal.
Somewhere, around the age of 30, the "weight" of carrying the banner of truth and righteousness, plus the hypocricy of not being able to live up to the standards I espoused began taking its toll. I had to face the fact that most of my righteousness was "self righteousness" and it stank. I began questioning my beliefs and conclusions and started backing off of my religious zeal. It took me more than ten years to extricate myself from my former conditioning and the truth remains very elusive to this day. I now find myself on the outside looking in at my former value system, and I realize that I am not alone in this.
I have never been one to believe in "conspiracy theories". In fact, I felt pretty much the same way about 9/11 as David Letterman did when he had Bill O'Reilly on his show and was getting raked over the coals. America had been violated and we needed to do something. Now, I have heard stories about the Illuminati and the Tri-Lateral commission for years. Like the Kennedy assassination plots, they have always had a "ring" of eccentricity attached to them. A sort of maniacal paranoia that leaves the boundaries of rational thought. However, given the light of present circumstances, and watching particular things begin to unfold, I cannot help but wonder how much influence major banks and financial institutions have had over our government over the years. Liberals claim to be impervious to the influences of this wealth, yet they clearly reap the benefits of it and do not appear to be in any hurry to disassociate from it.
I have long decried the atrocities committed by our government against Blacks and Native Americans. However, I have comforted myself with the knowledge that there were good people in government who hated and fought against those atrocities as well, and that eventually the "good" won out. I now believe that this is nothing short of denial. While our country has made some strides against racial hatred and prejudice, we have done virtually nothing to stem the economic blight created by failed economic policies and former atrocities. In fact, further atrocities have been committed by both sides of the political spectrum, whether it be the Republicans and their collusion with financial institutions, or the Democrats and their crippling, patronizing, welfare policies. Neither a dictatorial, nor a paternalistic state (which in fact amount to the same thing) is what our founding fathers envisioned when establishing the republic in which we live.
One of my favorite movies is The Last Samurai with Tom Cruise and Ken Watanabe. It is the story of a US military officer who is hired as a consultant to the Japanese in order to help suppress the Samurai who have risen up against the government in protest against a new move toward westernization and capitalism. A couple of scenes portray the US Ambassador trying to make an arms deal with Japan. I cannot help but feel that our history is rife with this sort of impropriety and that, as a nation, we have "sewn the wind and reaped the whirlwind".
Right now, in my life and under present circumstances, Ron Paul is a patriot as heroic as any in our nation's history. He is standing as a single beacon of truth and proclaiming his message in the onslaught of criticism, ridicule and outright hatred. He continues in spite of certain threats of imprisonment and death. His message is simple; "Peace and Responsibility". It is a message that crosses racial lines, party lines, philosophical lines, and even ecumenical lines. However, now that the conservatives have lost the election, and Dr. Paul has gained some credibility, they are grabbing his message and incorporating it as their own. Slowly, the prejudices and paranoid thinking of the far right are being associated with the message of "peace and responsibility" causing it to polarize in opposition to a need for some type of social reform.
I still don't go so far as to say it is all one big conspiracy as the video below suggests. However, I do agree with Thomas Jefferson in that; "Scenes are now to take place as will open the eyes of credulity and of insanity itself, to the dangers of a paper medium abandoned to the discretion of avarice and of swindlers". I believe that our nation has gotten itself into dire financial straits and as anyone who is facing huge debt would be required to do, we must consolidate our resources and take drastic measures to bring our economy back under control. The "entangling alliances" that the Obama administration appear to be courting are quite disturbing. I also find it remarkable that in the face of clear, intelligent instruction, such as provided by Dr. Paul, adherence to "party code" and agenda appear to take precedence. This suggests that the primary objective is not to help "the people"; rather, it would seem, the goal is to implement an agenda.
Somewhere, around the age of 30, the "weight" of carrying the banner of truth and righteousness, plus the hypocricy of not being able to live up to the standards I espoused began taking its toll. I had to face the fact that most of my righteousness was "self righteousness" and it stank. I began questioning my beliefs and conclusions and started backing off of my religious zeal. It took me more than ten years to extricate myself from my former conditioning and the truth remains very elusive to this day. I now find myself on the outside looking in at my former value system, and I realize that I am not alone in this.
I have never been one to believe in "conspiracy theories". In fact, I felt pretty much the same way about 9/11 as David Letterman did when he had Bill O'Reilly on his show and was getting raked over the coals. America had been violated and we needed to do something. Now, I have heard stories about the Illuminati and the Tri-Lateral commission for years. Like the Kennedy assassination plots, they have always had a "ring" of eccentricity attached to them. A sort of maniacal paranoia that leaves the boundaries of rational thought. However, given the light of present circumstances, and watching particular things begin to unfold, I cannot help but wonder how much influence major banks and financial institutions have had over our government over the years. Liberals claim to be impervious to the influences of this wealth, yet they clearly reap the benefits of it and do not appear to be in any hurry to disassociate from it.
I have long decried the atrocities committed by our government against Blacks and Native Americans. However, I have comforted myself with the knowledge that there were good people in government who hated and fought against those atrocities as well, and that eventually the "good" won out. I now believe that this is nothing short of denial. While our country has made some strides against racial hatred and prejudice, we have done virtually nothing to stem the economic blight created by failed economic policies and former atrocities. In fact, further atrocities have been committed by both sides of the political spectrum, whether it be the Republicans and their collusion with financial institutions, or the Democrats and their crippling, patronizing, welfare policies. Neither a dictatorial, nor a paternalistic state (which in fact amount to the same thing) is what our founding fathers envisioned when establishing the republic in which we live.
One of my favorite movies is The Last Samurai with Tom Cruise and Ken Watanabe. It is the story of a US military officer who is hired as a consultant to the Japanese in order to help suppress the Samurai who have risen up against the government in protest against a new move toward westernization and capitalism. A couple of scenes portray the US Ambassador trying to make an arms deal with Japan. I cannot help but feel that our history is rife with this sort of impropriety and that, as a nation, we have "sewn the wind and reaped the whirlwind".
Right now, in my life and under present circumstances, Ron Paul is a patriot as heroic as any in our nation's history. He is standing as a single beacon of truth and proclaiming his message in the onslaught of criticism, ridicule and outright hatred. He continues in spite of certain threats of imprisonment and death. His message is simple; "Peace and Responsibility". It is a message that crosses racial lines, party lines, philosophical lines, and even ecumenical lines. However, now that the conservatives have lost the election, and Dr. Paul has gained some credibility, they are grabbing his message and incorporating it as their own. Slowly, the prejudices and paranoid thinking of the far right are being associated with the message of "peace and responsibility" causing it to polarize in opposition to a need for some type of social reform.
I still don't go so far as to say it is all one big conspiracy as the video below suggests. However, I do agree with Thomas Jefferson in that; "Scenes are now to take place as will open the eyes of credulity and of insanity itself, to the dangers of a paper medium abandoned to the discretion of avarice and of swindlers". I believe that our nation has gotten itself into dire financial straits and as anyone who is facing huge debt would be required to do, we must consolidate our resources and take drastic measures to bring our economy back under control. The "entangling alliances" that the Obama administration appear to be courting are quite disturbing. I also find it remarkable that in the face of clear, intelligent instruction, such as provided by Dr. Paul, adherence to "party code" and agenda appear to take precedence. This suggests that the primary objective is not to help "the people"; rather, it would seem, the goal is to implement an agenda.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Those who fail to learn from history...
Why are we going down this road again? I mean, after just a few short minutes on the internet I read an article that pointed out rather conclusively that government bailouts of failing institutions is bad, and that support of entrepreneurial, free-market endeavors is good. You would think Yale and Harvard political science majors would already know this stuff! I found it while Googling John Stuart Mill, whom I knew was favorable of a society in which "personal happiness and fulfillment" was the ultimate goal. Imagine a world in which "life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness" were actually common objectives! In fact, Mill is one of the founders of the Utilitarian philosophy which Jefferson so adamantly adhered to. Mill's argument is basically that the "common good" is in everyone's interest and that as long as everyone strove toward the same end, harmony would be the prevailing result.
John Locke's position of natural "God-given" rights introduces a moral component into the question of social politics. To be sure, it is not possible for government and law to be completely amoral. However, it is the premise of these two philosophies that creates the unique approaches taken toward governmental involvement. Mill's approach is one which simply considers what is in the best interests of everyone. "The best for the most." Locke's position, while arriving at the same conclusion of individual sovereignty and personal freedom, carries an assumption which leads to a different course of action. Under Mill's system, government is a necessary evil, which is exactly how Jefferson saw it. A group of people, chosen by the community to see that the community's best interests are maintained and upheld, and to ensure that no one individual's personal freedom is infringed upon by anyone else, be it minority or majority! However, under Locke's philosophy, a moral element is introduced. Government begins to take on a more "paternal" function. Because human rights are "God-given", the work of protecting those rights now becomes sacred. The problem with any religious argument is that it is subject to personal interpretation. Rather than determine if a particular action is detrimental to society as a whole, it is viewed as either right or wrong. These subjective judgements change with the particular world view that happens to be in power. This is the reason why, when you look at our present day Republican and Democrat parties, they look exactly the same even though they appear to have different values. One party claims that big government is evil while the other demonizes large corporations. The fact is that both of these instutions abuse the same thing: the taxpayer's money! Both of these parties climb up on their respective "moral high ground" and fire away at the other. They use emotionally laden, moralistic language, each questioning the other's commitment to the poor, the sick or national security. If anyone should be so bold as to point out the obvious, such as the fact that BOTH Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden were once on America's payroll, the candidates of both parites will trip over each other trying to get to the same piece of dirt in order to sound patriotic and promote their party's self serving agenda! The goal then becomes promoting the party and the party's agenda because their particular party knows what is best for the public!
Mill's philosophy, on the other hand, demonstrates how two people espousing opposite world views, such as Howard Stern and Pat Buchanan, can arrive at the same exact conclusion. Ron Paul, who espouses John Stuart Mill's philosophy and similarly, Milton Friedman's economics, believes in what's "best for the most", and has the courage to face down both parties without digressing into moral platitudes, even though he himself espouses a predominantly Christian world view. Even though he shares most of the same conservative values as the majority of his party, he is willing to set his personal views aside and work for the best of everyone. After all, even Locke conceded that religious life and secular life had two different objectives, and keeping them separate proved to be beneficial. Dr. Paul epitomizes the phrase "setting aside our differences" in order to work together for the common good (in the capitalist sense of course). The question now becomes, is the current Republican party worthy of such a candidate?
John Locke's position of natural "God-given" rights introduces a moral component into the question of social politics. To be sure, it is not possible for government and law to be completely amoral. However, it is the premise of these two philosophies that creates the unique approaches taken toward governmental involvement. Mill's approach is one which simply considers what is in the best interests of everyone. "The best for the most." Locke's position, while arriving at the same conclusion of individual sovereignty and personal freedom, carries an assumption which leads to a different course of action. Under Mill's system, government is a necessary evil, which is exactly how Jefferson saw it. A group of people, chosen by the community to see that the community's best interests are maintained and upheld, and to ensure that no one individual's personal freedom is infringed upon by anyone else, be it minority or majority! However, under Locke's philosophy, a moral element is introduced. Government begins to take on a more "paternal" function. Because human rights are "God-given", the work of protecting those rights now becomes sacred. The problem with any religious argument is that it is subject to personal interpretation. Rather than determine if a particular action is detrimental to society as a whole, it is viewed as either right or wrong. These subjective judgements change with the particular world view that happens to be in power. This is the reason why, when you look at our present day Republican and Democrat parties, they look exactly the same even though they appear to have different values. One party claims that big government is evil while the other demonizes large corporations. The fact is that both of these instutions abuse the same thing: the taxpayer's money! Both of these parties climb up on their respective "moral high ground" and fire away at the other. They use emotionally laden, moralistic language, each questioning the other's commitment to the poor, the sick or national security. If anyone should be so bold as to point out the obvious, such as the fact that BOTH Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden were once on America's payroll, the candidates of both parites will trip over each other trying to get to the same piece of dirt in order to sound patriotic and promote their party's self serving agenda! The goal then becomes promoting the party and the party's agenda because their particular party knows what is best for the public!
Mill's philosophy, on the other hand, demonstrates how two people espousing opposite world views, such as Howard Stern and Pat Buchanan, can arrive at the same exact conclusion. Ron Paul, who espouses John Stuart Mill's philosophy and similarly, Milton Friedman's economics, believes in what's "best for the most", and has the courage to face down both parties without digressing into moral platitudes, even though he himself espouses a predominantly Christian world view. Even though he shares most of the same conservative values as the majority of his party, he is willing to set his personal views aside and work for the best of everyone. After all, even Locke conceded that religious life and secular life had two different objectives, and keeping them separate proved to be beneficial. Dr. Paul epitomizes the phrase "setting aside our differences" in order to work together for the common good (in the capitalist sense of course). The question now becomes, is the current Republican party worthy of such a candidate?
Monday, March 16, 2009
Ron Paul IS the standard...
Mark my words... right now, Ron Paul is setting the standard for the next election. After all, any Republican who can command the support of Bill Maher , DL Hughley and Howard Stern, is a shoo-in for the presidency. Dr. Paul's influence crosses party lines. Not only that, he has proven himself to be prophetic. As the Obama administration continues to follow the now familiar, Democratic, fiscally irresponsible strategy and pushes us further toward global 'absorption', the scales will fall off of the eyes of those disillusioned to the 'hope' of change.
Presently, Ron Paul is showing up everywhere. When any commentator, analyst or economic forecastor wants to know how far an Obama policy is "off the mark", Ron Paul is called in as a consultant. Even those who find it difficult to swallow his strict constitutionalist adherence have to agree that Dr. Paul has done his research and knows what he is talking about.
In 2012, the bar for each presidential candidate will have already been set by Dr. Paul. He will have sufficiently educated the masses on fiscal responsibility, foreign policy, expectations regarding health care and taxation and smoke and mirrors will no longer be tolerated. If the Republican Party had any sense at all it would hand the keys over to Dr. Paul and simply say; "Tell us what to do". As for the rest of us, we need to provide Dr. Paul with a back-up plan should the party pull another bone-headed stunt and attempt to derail his campaign as before. Something like a 'New Republican' party for example.... Just a thought :>)~
Presently, Ron Paul is showing up everywhere. When any commentator, analyst or economic forecastor wants to know how far an Obama policy is "off the mark", Ron Paul is called in as a consultant. Even those who find it difficult to swallow his strict constitutionalist adherence have to agree that Dr. Paul has done his research and knows what he is talking about.
In 2012, the bar for each presidential candidate will have already been set by Dr. Paul. He will have sufficiently educated the masses on fiscal responsibility, foreign policy, expectations regarding health care and taxation and smoke and mirrors will no longer be tolerated. If the Republican Party had any sense at all it would hand the keys over to Dr. Paul and simply say; "Tell us what to do". As for the rest of us, we need to provide Dr. Paul with a back-up plan should the party pull another bone-headed stunt and attempt to derail his campaign as before. Something like a 'New Republican' party for example.... Just a thought :>)~
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
