Just some random thoughts after today's news-- (scribbled down on 11/19/2003 in response to a class I was taking that asked why not legalize drugs)
** I believe it to be imperative that we always keep in mind the bases for what we believe, and always weigh what we believe against something that is immovable; who and what we are is ever so slightly affected by our own intellect, shaped and molded so minutely by pure reason, inner-reflection, and fairness. We must always admit the failings of our human nature and find natural ways to prop up those failings so we never forget. If we can do this, we will understand that experience is the better judge rather than intellectual thought alone. If we do this, we will understand that human nature is a blinding force that makes resistance futile without respect and reverence and heedance for the moral astuteness of those who came before us. Yet, the conundrum is that what we need to learn from yesteryear comes from the learned. Eric Hoffer said, “In times of change learners inherit the earth; while the learned find themselves beautifully equipped to deal with a world that no longer exists.” So, for this to make sense, I figure that the learned must also fit the category of the learner; the learned learned knows that the pursuit of knowledge is evolutionary and never ending. But when the pursuit of knowledge becomes secondary to the pursuit of happiness revolutionary movements lose their attachment to renowned wisdom and morality separates itself from the law. The question over these past few decades has been whether or not government has the right to legislate morality. Today, our actions insist that it cannot. But I say that it must.
** I find myself periodically in these kinds of moods where I have to just sit and write such things out in order to try to make sense out of various current events. The left has been attacking moralism for so long now that it has become socially insensitive for anyone to have a hard line belief that locks out any kind of personal behavior. Thus, the right shifted to other forms of justification, leaving behind the truisms we use to take for granted based on judeo-Christian values. Tradition became an important concept, for a little while. Then pure reason worked for a time. Then, then -- conservatism eventually found it’s own self to be hollow, based only on relativistic humanism— this is today’s conservatism, and progressive liberalism is taking it apart piece by piece, as it rightly should.
Will there eventually be a reawakening, likened to what we have seen before? Perhaps; the world is not void of these kinds of cycles. But what is different today is our ability to substitute trinkets and medications to fill the voids in our character and in our very thought patterns. Natural selection is not being "allowed" to clean and adjust nature.
Again I quote Hoffer (from memory)-- "It is a truism that many who join a rising revolutionary movement are attracted by the prospect of sudden and spectacular change in their conditions of life.” The question is, can we again find what the learned once knew – that Man’s nature is corrupt, and we must keep sight of a Line that cannot be crossed. For some of us who are condemned to search for the meaning of existence life is likely to run full circle: there are but two major moments in a man's life; when he leaves home, and when he returns. The leaving moment is literal, and we all know when that moment happened. The return is metaphorical and it becomes apparent at the moment when we suddenly know our best is past and that now we just wait. I'm not there .. yet. But with some luck I just might have the opportunity to absorb that moment. It may sound odd to some of you -- to hear one speak so casually of uselessness and death. But to me such a moment will actually be a privilege- it will be a truly senior moment not so well deserved. I say that because in my youth I was certain I would die young and violently.
Sen. Kennedy calls Justice Janice Brown a “Neanderthal” because she believes in those uncrossable lines, while he praises Justice Ruth Ginsberg who believes 12 year olds should have the right to marry. If Justice Ginsberg had her way in Massachusetts, Michael Jackson could take his 12 year old friend to Mass., get married, and live with the blessings of the law. But for the moment the law is caught somewhere in the twilight zone, hollow and void of moral character. The wort of it is that these "leaders" rely on their constitutionally created posts to impose their constitutional interpretations on the rest of us.
Liberals read the Constitution for what it could say while Conservatives read for what it actually says.
** Another worry: Do we not support the separation of church and state, especially the left? I am left to ponder this concept as I read about gay marriage being legal now in Mass. In our haste to find the newness of tomorrow, we have totally forgotten that the institution of marriage is an integral part of the Christian Bible. Where in the Constitution is the idea of marriage mentioned at all? Nowhere. So, how did the Mass. High Court find the right for homosexuals to marry in the Constitution? How?, because our laws are shallow and hollow, void of the concepts that founded this formerly great nation. --Separation of Church and State: what does it mean? Separation of Men and Men? Separation of Moral doctrine from public direction? The interpretation of this phrase can be numerous and the meaning must become a major part of its debate. Contrary to common belief, there is no such phrase in our Constitution and we must define what we mean by church and by state as they apply to separation. Aren’t they both defined by their people –their membership, if you will? The church is not a building or even a single belief, but a combination of the totality of its people; the same is true for the state. Thus, those that support separation of church and state are in fact supporting a division of the people. Am I wrong to suggest that such a concept is one of exclusion rather than one of inclusion? Christianity, on the other hand is not exclusionary; Jesus taught his followers to go in among them (non-believing), to love all people and that all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. ‘There is none righteous, no not one,’ and that we were all made in his image, none greater nor lesser than any other. It is the Christian principles built into our social psychic that love and tolerance of all beliefs is proper for the best in harmonical discourse (I love that!- “harmonical discourse”) We must agree –to be patriotic Americans, whatever our beliefs—that the concept of separation of church and state must not mean the separation of God and government. The back bone of American constitutionalism includes the concepts of sovereignty and inalienable rights; to accept these concepts one must also accept the idea of a Higher Power as a part (leadership role) of our chain of command — that's called consistency.
** Why is it that so very few even know what our organic law includes? Why is it that so many think that our government being republican in form is partisan politics? Why do so many of our leaders/judges ignore Natural Law concepts? Basic jr. high school civics should teach us our clearly Christian-esk Declaration of Independence is in fact citable law (see the United States Code annotated, Volume 1, among the very first pages) and it is filled with references to the Natural Law (and Christian ethos), but liberals laugh at the concepts expressed in that Great Document and love to ignore it as if it has no place in today's legal discussions. Those very same progressive souls are the ones who have no idea that a republican form of government has no political bias other than to protect the liberty of the individual, including theirs! Our founders felt acknowledgment of our republic was important enough to insert it into our Constitution (Article IV, Sec IV), but so few know its there and even fewer understand it. There are hundreds of citations in our case law using the Declaration of independence as the authority- I call it the soul of our Constitution.
**The Word Game: No matter where you fall into the political spectrum, ya’ gotta admit Mr. Jefferson was pretty careful with the choosing of words. So let’s decipher one small thing and settle the argument about the “general welfare” including all this public money we are spending on dead weight:
Our Constitution’s Preamble-
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." –
Notice the words, “establish,” “ensure,” “provide,” and the kicker- “promote.” Promote the general welfare. Not establish or insure or provide, but promote.
Do I need say more?
** The primary reason why Bin Laden said he orchestrated 9/11 was because of the corrupt influence western civilization is having on Islam. I wonder what the folks in Saudi Arabia and Iran and Turkey are saying today about America in light of the Mass. decision? Are we safer now with more liberalism in American society?
** I believe it to be imperative that we always keep in mind the bases for what we believe, and always weigh what we believe against something that is immovable; who and what we are is ever so slightly affected by our own intellect, shaped and molded so minutely by pure reason, inner-reflection, and fairness. We must always admit the failings of our human nature and find natural ways to prop up those failings so we never forget. If we can do this, we will understand that experience is the better judge rather than intellectual thought alone. If we do this, we will understand that human nature is a blinding force that makes resistance futile without respect and reverence and heedance for the moral astuteness of those who came before us. Yet, the conundrum is that what we need to learn from yesteryear comes from the learned. Eric Hoffer said, “In times of change learners inherit the earth; while the learned find themselves beautifully equipped to deal with a world that no longer exists.” So, for this to make sense, I figure that the learned must also fit the category of the learner; the learned learned knows that the pursuit of knowledge is evolutionary and never ending. But when the pursuit of knowledge becomes secondary to the pursuit of happiness revolutionary movements lose their attachment to renowned wisdom and morality separates itself from the law. The question over these past few decades has been whether or not government has the right to legislate morality. Today, our actions insist that it cannot. But I say that it must.
** I find myself periodically in these kinds of moods where I have to just sit and write such things out in order to try to make sense out of various current events. The left has been attacking moralism for so long now that it has become socially insensitive for anyone to have a hard line belief that locks out any kind of personal behavior. Thus, the right shifted to other forms of justification, leaving behind the truisms we use to take for granted based on judeo-Christian values. Tradition became an important concept, for a little while. Then pure reason worked for a time. Then, then -- conservatism eventually found it’s own self to be hollow, based only on relativistic humanism— this is today’s conservatism, and progressive liberalism is taking it apart piece by piece, as it rightly should.
Will there eventually be a reawakening, likened to what we have seen before? Perhaps; the world is not void of these kinds of cycles. But what is different today is our ability to substitute trinkets and medications to fill the voids in our character and in our very thought patterns. Natural selection is not being "allowed" to clean and adjust nature.
Again I quote Hoffer (from memory)-- "It is a truism that many who join a rising revolutionary movement are attracted by the prospect of sudden and spectacular change in their conditions of life.” The question is, can we again find what the learned once knew – that Man’s nature is corrupt, and we must keep sight of a Line that cannot be crossed. For some of us who are condemned to search for the meaning of existence life is likely to run full circle: there are but two major moments in a man's life; when he leaves home, and when he returns. The leaving moment is literal, and we all know when that moment happened. The return is metaphorical and it becomes apparent at the moment when we suddenly know our best is past and that now we just wait. I'm not there .. yet. But with some luck I just might have the opportunity to absorb that moment. It may sound odd to some of you -- to hear one speak so casually of uselessness and death. But to me such a moment will actually be a privilege- it will be a truly senior moment not so well deserved. I say that because in my youth I was certain I would die young and violently.
Sen. Kennedy calls Justice Janice Brown a “Neanderthal” because she believes in those uncrossable lines, while he praises Justice Ruth Ginsberg who believes 12 year olds should have the right to marry. If Justice Ginsberg had her way in Massachusetts, Michael Jackson could take his 12 year old friend to Mass., get married, and live with the blessings of the law. But for the moment the law is caught somewhere in the twilight zone, hollow and void of moral character. The wort of it is that these "leaders" rely on their constitutionally created posts to impose their constitutional interpretations on the rest of us.
Liberals read the Constitution for what it could say while Conservatives read for what it actually says.
** Another worry: Do we not support the separation of church and state, especially the left? I am left to ponder this concept as I read about gay marriage being legal now in Mass. In our haste to find the newness of tomorrow, we have totally forgotten that the institution of marriage is an integral part of the Christian Bible. Where in the Constitution is the idea of marriage mentioned at all? Nowhere. So, how did the Mass. High Court find the right for homosexuals to marry in the Constitution? How?, because our laws are shallow and hollow, void of the concepts that founded this formerly great nation. --Separation of Church and State: what does it mean? Separation of Men and Men? Separation of Moral doctrine from public direction? The interpretation of this phrase can be numerous and the meaning must become a major part of its debate. Contrary to common belief, there is no such phrase in our Constitution and we must define what we mean by church and by state as they apply to separation. Aren’t they both defined by their people –their membership, if you will? The church is not a building or even a single belief, but a combination of the totality of its people; the same is true for the state. Thus, those that support separation of church and state are in fact supporting a division of the people. Am I wrong to suggest that such a concept is one of exclusion rather than one of inclusion? Christianity, on the other hand is not exclusionary; Jesus taught his followers to go in among them (non-believing), to love all people and that all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. ‘There is none righteous, no not one,’ and that we were all made in his image, none greater nor lesser than any other. It is the Christian principles built into our social psychic that love and tolerance of all beliefs is proper for the best in harmonical discourse (I love that!- “harmonical discourse”) We must agree –to be patriotic Americans, whatever our beliefs—that the concept of separation of church and state must not mean the separation of God and government. The back bone of American constitutionalism includes the concepts of sovereignty and inalienable rights; to accept these concepts one must also accept the idea of a Higher Power as a part (leadership role) of our chain of command — that's called consistency.
** Why is it that so very few even know what our organic law includes? Why is it that so many think that our government being republican in form is partisan politics? Why do so many of our leaders/judges ignore Natural Law concepts? Basic jr. high school civics should teach us our clearly Christian-esk Declaration of Independence is in fact citable law (see the United States Code annotated, Volume 1, among the very first pages) and it is filled with references to the Natural Law (and Christian ethos), but liberals laugh at the concepts expressed in that Great Document and love to ignore it as if it has no place in today's legal discussions. Those very same progressive souls are the ones who have no idea that a republican form of government has no political bias other than to protect the liberty of the individual, including theirs! Our founders felt acknowledgment of our republic was important enough to insert it into our Constitution (Article IV, Sec IV), but so few know its there and even fewer understand it. There are hundreds of citations in our case law using the Declaration of independence as the authority- I call it the soul of our Constitution.
**The Word Game: No matter where you fall into the political spectrum, ya’ gotta admit Mr. Jefferson was pretty careful with the choosing of words. So let’s decipher one small thing and settle the argument about the “general welfare” including all this public money we are spending on dead weight:
Our Constitution’s Preamble-
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." –
Notice the words, “establish,” “ensure,” “provide,” and the kicker- “promote.” Promote the general welfare. Not establish or insure or provide, but promote.
Do I need say more?
** The primary reason why Bin Laden said he orchestrated 9/11 was because of the corrupt influence western civilization is having on Islam. I wonder what the folks in Saudi Arabia and Iran and Turkey are saying today about America in light of the Mass. decision? Are we safer now with more liberalism in American society?
