News Snipet 'Blog

I get called out by the street preachers here in G-ville all the time. I guess I look like a non-beleiver. They never single out the guy in kakhi shorts and a baby stroller. They hand out flyers while the police watch over them. It's like they are protecting them. I feel sorry for any Jewish, Muslims, or anybody else that has to put up with that mess. Everybody feels thier religion is right.

Religion is getting real heavy lately. This counry was founded by religious nuts that were kicked out of Europe. I am all for beleiving in what you want to beleive in, unless it's like raping little girls or something like that. You know what I mean.

I must admit I'm pretty liberal, but I have an open mind. I'll be looking foward to some of your posts.
-Nolff

 

Nolff, I am one of the few people that firmly believes that morality should not be legislated--even though some would consider me a religious person. What moral decisions you want to make that have outcomes indigenous to you should be up to you, but unfortunately in this nation and around the world we have people who are wanting to force their morality on others. For example, what two consenting adults do in a bedroom is none of mine or the government's business. But similarly, if I want to be a selfish person, keep the money I earn and not have to give it to poor people, that should be my right too. People rarely see it both ways, though.

On the other hand, Nolff, I don't know that religion has gotten any more heavy handed than it has ever been--I just think the media is calling the activism to our attention in more ways. I don't buy into a lot of the conspiratorial "religious right" or "evil left" views--they are unrealistic and rarely relate to real life.

Take you and me for example, Nolff. We're basically two ordinary guys with sometime differing opinions, but with much more in common than difference. Most Americans are just like us, with the few highly vocal who make the rest of us look bad.

Anyhow, Nolff, appreciate your comments as always. Hope your show goes well this weekend-Happy 4th!

-Jack

P.S. Nolff, I know I hit the Dems a lot, but its never anything personal. The Republicans are just as open to folly sometimes too. Of course, we independents aren't infallible either...

 

Oh, and I guess I need to clarify myself on one issue. I think that there should be a separation of church and state also. The government should stay out of religion and its practices, but also, the Constitution prohibits the establishment of religion through government. Religion's job is not to convert governments, but rather to focus on individuals. That's where religion has lost its focus, and thus its efficacy

 

You've touched upon an issue that has caused me much intellectual aggravation lately. I'm slowly but steadily working on a post/article about what I perceive to be the error behind the liberal attack on the migration of conservative Christians into politics lately. (And I'm with you; I'm not a big believer in legislating morality, believing that strong societal norms within communities provide much better moral policing.)

 

BW,

One of the greatest moral legislators of our time is Saddam Hussein. I am working on a similar article, but in a book that I hope to eventually publish (good luck with that, Jack!ha!).

Anyhow, government should be limited in its scope because in its purest form its simply FORCE.

When you think about the things that FORCE should be applied to there aren't very many. For example, FORCE should be used against someone who assault's or would assault another. This is the correct use of FORCE. I will provide another example of incorrect use of FORCE below.

Any time the question comes up about the use of government, the simple rule of thumb is to ask oneself the question: Is this something that FORCE should be applied to? (FORCE is applied by the government in various ways-regulation, licensing, taxation, punishment, etc.)

Many "conservatives" have missed the boat on the gay marriage issue, because in all reality the government should have stayed out of marriage to begin with. Force has no place in a marital relationship, but in an effort to influence and manipulate society the government became a force in marriag. Marriage should not have been the government's jurisdiction to begin with.

I could cite many more examples, like, I should not be forced to pay money to feed the poor or provide them healthcare. The government through taxation forces me to do this even if its against my own sense of morality. If I refuse to do it, though, the government brings FORCE to bear upon me (jail in this case).

Such are the dangers of empowering government and strengthening it through taxation, etc.

Not sure this makes sense as I present in quite a rambling manner when responding to comments.

Happy 4th!

-Jack