Game of Thrones is a very popular TV series, set in a medieval world, during a violent conflict. It has been criticized for violence, sexuality, and all sorts of other course things. It is true that it depicts all sorts of terrible things on screen, but I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing as long as it doesn't glorify those things. It usually graphically portrays all of the horrors and outcomes of those things that are very real in our own world, even if we usually sanitize any sign of them from our own daily lives. But there is one thing that is portrayed in a very different light than modern society is accustomed to: marriage.
Marriage is clearly in the process of being redefined in our culture, from the unconstitutional "a union between a man and a woman," to the more open ended and acceptable: "a loving bond." Notice that the word love is not even in the first "traditional" definition. Modern society thinks that love is the only thing that matters, and that this recent change is a case where love wins. But what happens when that "love" is no longer actively being felt. If that was the basis for the bond, then the marriage is over, and it is time for divorce. And then we see that on its own, love does not win. But what if the marriage was based on something else besides love, namely commitment? And if it wasn't about seeking happiness of the individual so much as developing a lasting relationship between different families through creating children they both valued? What if divorce was not even an option? That is the scenario we see played out in Game of Thrones.
The first relationship where we see this become clear, is the king and his wife. They hate each other, and both cheat on each other, so their marriage is by no means the Christian ideal. But it is clearly stated that their marriage, tying together two powerful families that are otherwise at odds with one another, is what preserves peace in the kingdom for 17 years. Once one of them dies, the marriage is over, and all hell breaks loose in the power struggle that follows. The closest thing we see to divorce is the young prince breaking off his betrothal to the daughter of a man he sees as a traitor, and this is still considered a serious decision that requires the approval of the gods. And he doesn't live long enough to benefit from his replacement wife. That daughter's brother spurns an engagement he agreed to for political reasons to marry for love, in a move that was criticized by all his advisors, and led to his death. By contrast, another political marriage is forced upon a couple, and they develop a level of care for one another where there had been none before, even without the benefit of sex. So clearly the commitment aspect of marriage is strongly reinforced throughout the show, in a way that is probably more historically accurate than the passionate romances that we see in most historical movies. But marriage is also presented as a tool for social stability and family advancement. When motivated by greed, that is a bad thing, but when motivated by love, that stability provides a solid foundation for raising up the next generation.
Marrying for money is frowned upon in our culture even by those who actually do it. And marrying for looks is ridiculed, but only because marriage has been decoupled from sex. Having sex with someone based on their appearance is celebrated, but marrying them for that reason is not. Society thinks that marriage is supposed to be based a strong passionate emotional connection, which is why many high profile marriages are so short, because strong emotions rarely last long or are consistent. And that is why commitment is so important, as is the recognition that it is about more than the individual emotions. Now I am not saying that marriages should be exactly like they are in Game of Thrones, I am just saying that those marriages do have a level of commitment that our current marriage culture appears to be completely lacking.
Saturday, July 25, 2015
Sunday, July 19, 2015
The Government as (a) God
In practical daily life, most liberal atheists still look to a higher power for help, to solve problems that are beyond their control. But instead of looking to God for those answers and solutions, they look to the government. Maybe this was obvious to everyone else before now, but I was blind to the idea until it was revealed to me a few weeks ago. But now I can't go a day without seeing another clear manifestation of this principle.
The clearest example to see, is the concept of climate change. The climate is changing, and pretty much everyone agrees on that. The disagreement comes when trying to determine how we as people should respond to that obvious fact. For thousands of years, people in cultures around the world have prayed to God or gods for rain for their crops, for less severe cold and snow, for less severe heat. Christians continue to do that today, but there is a new trend. Those who don't believe in God find themselves turning elsewhere for a solution to control the changes in weather and climate. The only other higher power that they can see is the government. Now from an objective human standpoint, the idea that the government has any control over the climate of the region they rule is laughably arrogant, but now widely accepted. Now from the government's perspective, it's citizens are coming to them with a request that they have no true power to respond to, since they can't legislate the weather. They can see that human activity has at least some effect on the weather, if not the climate. So they respond that if we want them to deal with the climate issue, they need to have control over all human activity. It's a win-win for those who want control, because if things they have no real influence over (read-weather) improve, they can take credit for that, and if they don't improve, they can claim they weren't given enough control over the situation, and demand more.
Another example is the war on poverty, as if that was something that the government could solve. Instead of seeing those less fortunate and doing something for them themselves, they think: "the government should do something about that." So they present the problem of poverty to the government, which responds with, "let's set a minimum wage, so that everyone has enough money." But since certain jobs are of less financial value than others, those jobs under the minimum wage disappear. That leaves many people with no one willing to pay them the legal minimum to work, so they are now unemployed. So the government responds by creating unemployment benefits. As each solution fails to solve the poverty problem, this is followed by social security, medicare, welfare, food stamps, and a myriad of other government programs to make poverty more comfortable. Now poverty is not something that the government should even be trying to solve. They are responsible for providing justice, freedom and defense, but not economic prosperity or happiness. But this overreach is favorable to those receiving the benefits of it, as well as those whose consciences are eased by it, freeing them from any personal obligations to those around them in need.
So instead of believing in a God powerful enough to solve problems, they want a government powerful enough to solve all the problems they see, and they are willing to trade away their liberty and freedom to get it. And those who are willing to trade away freedom for security deserve neither and will lose both. God on the other hand goes to great lengths to give us freedom, when he has the authority and power to solve any problem by forcing us to do things his way. Instead, he put the tree in the garden, making it our choice to solve problems or create new ones. We are supposed to look to him for guidance and support, not a man-made government, which in that case becomes in idol.
The clearest example to see, is the concept of climate change. The climate is changing, and pretty much everyone agrees on that. The disagreement comes when trying to determine how we as people should respond to that obvious fact. For thousands of years, people in cultures around the world have prayed to God or gods for rain for their crops, for less severe cold and snow, for less severe heat. Christians continue to do that today, but there is a new trend. Those who don't believe in God find themselves turning elsewhere for a solution to control the changes in weather and climate. The only other higher power that they can see is the government. Now from an objective human standpoint, the idea that the government has any control over the climate of the region they rule is laughably arrogant, but now widely accepted. Now from the government's perspective, it's citizens are coming to them with a request that they have no true power to respond to, since they can't legislate the weather. They can see that human activity has at least some effect on the weather, if not the climate. So they respond that if we want them to deal with the climate issue, they need to have control over all human activity. It's a win-win for those who want control, because if things they have no real influence over (read-weather) improve, they can take credit for that, and if they don't improve, they can claim they weren't given enough control over the situation, and demand more.
Another example is the war on poverty, as if that was something that the government could solve. Instead of seeing those less fortunate and doing something for them themselves, they think: "the government should do something about that." So they present the problem of poverty to the government, which responds with, "let's set a minimum wage, so that everyone has enough money." But since certain jobs are of less financial value than others, those jobs under the minimum wage disappear. That leaves many people with no one willing to pay them the legal minimum to work, so they are now unemployed. So the government responds by creating unemployment benefits. As each solution fails to solve the poverty problem, this is followed by social security, medicare, welfare, food stamps, and a myriad of other government programs to make poverty more comfortable. Now poverty is not something that the government should even be trying to solve. They are responsible for providing justice, freedom and defense, but not economic prosperity or happiness. But this overreach is favorable to those receiving the benefits of it, as well as those whose consciences are eased by it, freeing them from any personal obligations to those around them in need.
So instead of believing in a God powerful enough to solve problems, they want a government powerful enough to solve all the problems they see, and they are willing to trade away their liberty and freedom to get it. And those who are willing to trade away freedom for security deserve neither and will lose both. God on the other hand goes to great lengths to give us freedom, when he has the authority and power to solve any problem by forcing us to do things his way. Instead, he put the tree in the garden, making it our choice to solve problems or create new ones. We are supposed to look to him for guidance and support, not a man-made government, which in that case becomes in idol.
Friday, June 26, 2015
Taxes
I am not totally opposed to taxes at a philosophical level (render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's) but I am opposed to government expansion, which is what US taxes currently represent. I am also opposed to governments using taxes to manipulate and control it's citizens. Obamacare was ruled constitutional because it was enforced through a tax, reasoning that i strongly disagree with. Taxes should be in place to raise needed revenue, ideally proportionally to benefits received, not to artificially incentivize certain actions. For example gasoline taxes should be used to support highway infrastructure, and the tax rate should be determined by the needs of the roads, not increased as high as the public will stand for, to increase revenue and discourage fossil fuel use.
Rand Paul recently proposed a total reworking of the US tax system. Although his new plan is not perfect, it is simpler than the current system. It tries to remove most of the loopholes, and change the tax rate to a fixed percentage. These are two separate changes, that are independent. I favor simplifying the rules in both areas, but the tax rate isn't very complicated, the tax tables just distract from the the fact that the tax rate increases as income increases. The loopholes and corner cases are the areas with the most need for improvement. The plan would eliminate complex depreciation and amortization calculations from the business world, and most of the complexity from personal investments. It would probably put a few accountants out of work, but I have no problem eliminating jobs that were only artificially useful in the first place.
Interesting as well are the loopholes he leaves in place, including the mortgage deduction. Interest is tax deductible, which is the government incentivizing borrowing. From a Biblical perspective, lending money with interest is prohibited, which seems to have been long forgotten by modern society. I am not saying we should ban interest, but we shouldn't be incentivizing and encouraging it. This is the single main loophole that remains in Paul's proposal, which I see no reason for, besides politics.
The other half of the plan is to flatten the tax rate to 15%. Regardless of the effect it would have on Federal revenue, that is not longer linked to how much the government is spending. I favor cutting government spending drastically, but due to the national debt, we probably shouldn't decrease revenues. So I am not pushing to decrease the tax rates, just decrease the complexity and waste.
So the rate and the flat percentage will get lots of debate before the whole idea is canned, but the simplification is what we really need. And some common sense and basic budgeting skills in Washington would be helpful as well. Until then our tax money, regardless of the rates we pay, is just being flushed down the drain.
Rand Paul recently proposed a total reworking of the US tax system. Although his new plan is not perfect, it is simpler than the current system. It tries to remove most of the loopholes, and change the tax rate to a fixed percentage. These are two separate changes, that are independent. I favor simplifying the rules in both areas, but the tax rate isn't very complicated, the tax tables just distract from the the fact that the tax rate increases as income increases. The loopholes and corner cases are the areas with the most need for improvement. The plan would eliminate complex depreciation and amortization calculations from the business world, and most of the complexity from personal investments. It would probably put a few accountants out of work, but I have no problem eliminating jobs that were only artificially useful in the first place.
Interesting as well are the loopholes he leaves in place, including the mortgage deduction. Interest is tax deductible, which is the government incentivizing borrowing. From a Biblical perspective, lending money with interest is prohibited, which seems to have been long forgotten by modern society. I am not saying we should ban interest, but we shouldn't be incentivizing and encouraging it. This is the single main loophole that remains in Paul's proposal, which I see no reason for, besides politics.
The other half of the plan is to flatten the tax rate to 15%. Regardless of the effect it would have on Federal revenue, that is not longer linked to how much the government is spending. I favor cutting government spending drastically, but due to the national debt, we probably shouldn't decrease revenues. So I am not pushing to decrease the tax rates, just decrease the complexity and waste.
So the rate and the flat percentage will get lots of debate before the whole idea is canned, but the simplification is what we really need. And some common sense and basic budgeting skills in Washington would be helpful as well. Until then our tax money, regardless of the rates we pay, is just being flushed down the drain.
Sunday, May 24, 2015
Married Life
I have been keeping pretty busy since my last post. This whole "married life" thing is great, but it does not lend itself well to blogging. (Or staying in contact with friends, or...) But I don't want to totally abandon this endeavor yet. So besides working in Vegas, buying a backhoe, and planting a garden, I have been taking a long trip across the country with my wife.
We are staying at a Baptist summer camp for a few weeks as volunteers. While I have done this numerous times in the past, this has been different for a number of reasons. For one, I am no longer a single man in need of a wife. So that shifts your interactions with the staff of the opposite gender a bit, although the continually increasing age difference has been doing that for a while. As a married couple with our own space, we have a bit of liberty for recreation, which is nice. But this is my wife's first experience dealing with conservative Baptists, and that causes me to see things through her eyes, which can be a bit amusing at times, and she has had to adjust to some things. We also do all of our work together, which allows us to get things done faster, but I have to dial back the intensity a bit so that she can keep up.
I am a pretty intense worker, even at home, and she knows that. But in the camp environment, with no distractions, and clear objectives and visible progressive steps in front of me, I can get a bit too focused on the task at hand. Because of that, we will get finished and home sooner than we anticipated, but we still have to take breaks occasionally for the sake of our relationship. And the most significant contribution from some of our "help" from the camp has been just to give her some social interaction outside of myself. (When you send two girls in skirts out to help the people building the ropes course, what are you expecting them to do?) But the trip has been a good adventure to have together, early in our marriage.
Once we get back, I suppose we will have to settle into "real life" together. Pretty soon we will probably have chickens, then maybe a cat or dog. And then kids eventually. And probably not so many two month trips and time working at camp. But we will see what the Lord has in store for us.
We are staying at a Baptist summer camp for a few weeks as volunteers. While I have done this numerous times in the past, this has been different for a number of reasons. For one, I am no longer a single man in need of a wife. So that shifts your interactions with the staff of the opposite gender a bit, although the continually increasing age difference has been doing that for a while. As a married couple with our own space, we have a bit of liberty for recreation, which is nice. But this is my wife's first experience dealing with conservative Baptists, and that causes me to see things through her eyes, which can be a bit amusing at times, and she has had to adjust to some things. We also do all of our work together, which allows us to get things done faster, but I have to dial back the intensity a bit so that she can keep up.
I am a pretty intense worker, even at home, and she knows that. But in the camp environment, with no distractions, and clear objectives and visible progressive steps in front of me, I can get a bit too focused on the task at hand. Because of that, we will get finished and home sooner than we anticipated, but we still have to take breaks occasionally for the sake of our relationship. And the most significant contribution from some of our "help" from the camp has been just to give her some social interaction outside of myself. (When you send two girls in skirts out to help the people building the ropes course, what are you expecting them to do?) But the trip has been a good adventure to have together, early in our marriage.
Once we get back, I suppose we will have to settle into "real life" together. Pretty soon we will probably have chickens, then maybe a cat or dog. And then kids eventually. And probably not so many two month trips and time working at camp. But we will see what the Lord has in store for us.
Friday, March 13, 2015
Weddings
I have pretty big day coming up tomorrow. An argument could be made that it is the biggest day, or most significant one, of my life. Marriage is supposed to last the rest of your lives together, which is a pretty long time, hopefully. And it is a deliberate decision that you make, it is not something that happens "to" you, at random. It is one of the only ways (besides adoption) that you extend or increase your family. And family is intended to be a permanent status, and a significant part of your identity.
The identity shift is a big one, from single guy to married husband. Certain things are less of a shift for me, because I haven't been living a particularly wild single life. Besides the extensive traveling, I have lived in a way that is fairly conducive to marriage, and that was no accident. I have been looking forward to this for a while, but it will be a big change.
People keep asking me if I am nervous, assuming a positive response. Maybe it hasn't really "hit" me yet, but I am quite calm about it. The major decisions involved were made a long time ago. The only thing the wedding really marks is the end of the opt-out period called the engagement. And since I am confident that I am not going into this decision impulsively, or without thinking about it enough, I don't see what there is to be nervous about.
Sure there will be a lot of people staring at us during the ceremony, and it would be nice if all of our carefully laid plans went off without a hiccup, but that is not essential. Even if something doesn't go as smoothly as we would like, we will get married. And then we will have a whole new challenge in front of us, that will be longer but probably less intense than planning a wedding. I am honestly almost as excited to get that stressful tedious phase behind us as I am for the new phase that we step into, on the honeymoon. It is not like we haven't been waiting long enough, and our engagement was short compared to most. So it will be interesting to see what new unanticipated things this new change brings. But I am definitely looking forward to it.
The identity shift is a big one, from single guy to married husband. Certain things are less of a shift for me, because I haven't been living a particularly wild single life. Besides the extensive traveling, I have lived in a way that is fairly conducive to marriage, and that was no accident. I have been looking forward to this for a while, but it will be a big change.
People keep asking me if I am nervous, assuming a positive response. Maybe it hasn't really "hit" me yet, but I am quite calm about it. The major decisions involved were made a long time ago. The only thing the wedding really marks is the end of the opt-out period called the engagement. And since I am confident that I am not going into this decision impulsively, or without thinking about it enough, I don't see what there is to be nervous about.
Sure there will be a lot of people staring at us during the ceremony, and it would be nice if all of our carefully laid plans went off without a hiccup, but that is not essential. Even if something doesn't go as smoothly as we would like, we will get married. And then we will have a whole new challenge in front of us, that will be longer but probably less intense than planning a wedding. I am honestly almost as excited to get that stressful tedious phase behind us as I am for the new phase that we step into, on the honeymoon. It is not like we haven't been waiting long enough, and our engagement was short compared to most. So it will be interesting to see what new unanticipated things this new change brings. But I am definitely looking forward to it.
Tuesday, February 17, 2015
Modern Homesteading
So I had this brilliant idea a few weeks ago, that seemed like it could help alleviate a number of major national issues. It would create jobs, decrease homelessness, and generate revenue for the government, at no immediate cost to them. What was this brilliant idea? To bring back the Homesteading Act, that originally motivated Americans to populate the Western United States. Instead of 160 acre parcels, they could be closer to ten acres, just enough for sustenance farming as opposed to large commercial operations. There would be a requirement to build your own small house, with well and septic within a few years in order to keep the property. There would be commercial areas developed like townships used to be, except farther apart since we can travel by car instead of horses now. Those commercial parcels could be sold for decent prices, since the influx of development and building would provide new markets for goods. Imagine a lot of Home Depots popping up in those areas.
So if people are willing to work, they can show up their, register for a claim, and get started. Developing a claim would require some money, but it is likely that neighbors who are better funded will be looking for assistance with their own projects. Helping there will be a good place to start, to acquire both resources and experience. So unsurprisingly, community would be the factor to make it all work.
I had been working on sorting out some of the details in my head over the last few weeks, when I made an interesting discovery. This is not a new idea. There was an attempt to re-institute homesteading at a Federal level a few years ago, but didn't make it through Congress. Instead, a number of states and smaller communities have implemented similar systems, to give away public land to stimulate growth. So much for my novel new idea. There are places out there giving away free land to those who want to homestead on it. But for the most part, those locations are areas that are not particularly pleasant to live in, which is why the incentives are being created.
But it is still an interesting concept to think about. I am doing something similar to what has become known as modern homesteading, but without the free land. The modern movement is about creating an independent and sustainable lifestyle that allows one to be more self reliant. I have been developing my own garden to grow a portion of my own food, with rainwater collection and irrigation reserves. And most of my appliances are propane, which could allow me to run off of solar power in the future.
So the discovery of that established homesteading subculture has provided a lot of new resources and ideas for my projects around the property. Not like I wasn't busy enough before, but there are definitely a few new items on the to-do list. But I have been learning better ways to do a variety of the things I had already been planning, so it evens out a bit. But I won't be running out of things to do anytime soon, if ever.
So if people are willing to work, they can show up their, register for a claim, and get started. Developing a claim would require some money, but it is likely that neighbors who are better funded will be looking for assistance with their own projects. Helping there will be a good place to start, to acquire both resources and experience. So unsurprisingly, community would be the factor to make it all work.
I had been working on sorting out some of the details in my head over the last few weeks, when I made an interesting discovery. This is not a new idea. There was an attempt to re-institute homesteading at a Federal level a few years ago, but didn't make it through Congress. Instead, a number of states and smaller communities have implemented similar systems, to give away public land to stimulate growth. So much for my novel new idea. There are places out there giving away free land to those who want to homestead on it. But for the most part, those locations are areas that are not particularly pleasant to live in, which is why the incentives are being created.
But it is still an interesting concept to think about. I am doing something similar to what has become known as modern homesteading, but without the free land. The modern movement is about creating an independent and sustainable lifestyle that allows one to be more self reliant. I have been developing my own garden to grow a portion of my own food, with rainwater collection and irrigation reserves. And most of my appliances are propane, which could allow me to run off of solar power in the future.
So the discovery of that established homesteading subculture has provided a lot of new resources and ideas for my projects around the property. Not like I wasn't busy enough before, but there are definitely a few new items on the to-do list. But I have been learning better ways to do a variety of the things I had already been planning, so it evens out a bit. But I won't be running out of things to do anytime soon, if ever.
Friday, January 23, 2015
Freedom of Expression-Legal versus Right
There was a major terrorism incident in Paris at the beginning of the month, which has many angles to examine. A cell of Muslim extremists from Al-Queda in Yemen attacked the creators of a satirical magazine "Charlie Hebdo" killing many of their staff members. The shooters escaped the scene, and were hunted for two days before being cornered in two locations, and killed by police attempting to rescue hostages that had been taken.
There has been much debate about the incident, which is really about contrasting values in the world. Charlie Hebdo was a magazine that published deliberately controversial and disrespectful cartoons as part of their satire. They were deliberately pushing the limits of social norms and political correctness. Islamic fundamentalists of course claim that they had it coming, while those on the opposite end of the spectrum fully support the magazine, and claim that they should have been able to say whatever they want without fear of retribution. And everyone else from the pope to the media falls somewhere in the middle. Directly after the attack, the prevailing reactionary response was to show full support for Charlie Hebdo victims, but that overwhelming opinion seems to be shifting in a more moderate direction as time goes on.
For once I agree with the pope, who condemned the violent attack, but pointed out that you cannot throw insults without expecting a reaction. "There is a limit. Every religion has its dignity ... in freedom of expression there are limits." It is not their fault, but they were also not random victims. It was a targeted attack, with a specific military objective, to quench what Al-Queda saw as overt propaganda and blasphemy. It was still wrong, but it wasn't unprovoked.
There was initially a movement on social media linking the shootings to an attack on the freedom of speech and expression. I saw immediately that this was nonsense, because the freedom of speech protects one from the government suppressing what they have to say. It does not protect one from the other consequences of what they say. But freedom of speech may now be under attack as a result of the shootings. There is currently much dialog in the media about whether Charlie Hebdo's type of expression should be outlawed in the same way that Holocaust denial is outlawed in France. I for one believe that disrespectful insults shouldn't be made, but that the limits should be set by internal discretion, as opposed to external censorship. Not everything that is wrong should be illegal. People should have the freedom to set the course of their lives, but must be ready to face the consequences of the decisions that they make. We all face the possibility of dying as the result of our decisions on a daily basis. Have you driven a car today? No amount of legislation eliminates that potential, so why try to minimize it? Especially if you believe in the theory of natural selection as the source of life.
The surviving Charlie Hebdo staff who published the next issue, which depicted the Prophet Muhammad on the cover, knew exactly what risks they were taking. But now so does everyone else who is considering publishing something like that. The government doesn't need to make that decision for them, they should be free to choose for themselves. The potential consequences should be what causes people to pause, not just because the government may intervene and shut them down. Just because it's legal doesn't make it right. Before anything in life that we choose to do, we should ask ourselves: "is this really the right thing to do?" and "am I prepared to face the consequences of what I am about to do?" Some people are offended that the artists should even have to consider the threat of violent response in their decisions, but that is the reality of the world we live in, and unless we confront and defeat violent extremism and terrorism, that threat isn't going to disappear.
There has been much debate about the incident, which is really about contrasting values in the world. Charlie Hebdo was a magazine that published deliberately controversial and disrespectful cartoons as part of their satire. They were deliberately pushing the limits of social norms and political correctness. Islamic fundamentalists of course claim that they had it coming, while those on the opposite end of the spectrum fully support the magazine, and claim that they should have been able to say whatever they want without fear of retribution. And everyone else from the pope to the media falls somewhere in the middle. Directly after the attack, the prevailing reactionary response was to show full support for Charlie Hebdo victims, but that overwhelming opinion seems to be shifting in a more moderate direction as time goes on.
For once I agree with the pope, who condemned the violent attack, but pointed out that you cannot throw insults without expecting a reaction. "There is a limit. Every religion has its dignity ... in freedom of expression there are limits." It is not their fault, but they were also not random victims. It was a targeted attack, with a specific military objective, to quench what Al-Queda saw as overt propaganda and blasphemy. It was still wrong, but it wasn't unprovoked.
There was initially a movement on social media linking the shootings to an attack on the freedom of speech and expression. I saw immediately that this was nonsense, because the freedom of speech protects one from the government suppressing what they have to say. It does not protect one from the other consequences of what they say. But freedom of speech may now be under attack as a result of the shootings. There is currently much dialog in the media about whether Charlie Hebdo's type of expression should be outlawed in the same way that Holocaust denial is outlawed in France. I for one believe that disrespectful insults shouldn't be made, but that the limits should be set by internal discretion, as opposed to external censorship. Not everything that is wrong should be illegal. People should have the freedom to set the course of their lives, but must be ready to face the consequences of the decisions that they make. We all face the possibility of dying as the result of our decisions on a daily basis. Have you driven a car today? No amount of legislation eliminates that potential, so why try to minimize it? Especially if you believe in the theory of natural selection as the source of life.
The surviving Charlie Hebdo staff who published the next issue, which depicted the Prophet Muhammad on the cover, knew exactly what risks they were taking. But now so does everyone else who is considering publishing something like that. The government doesn't need to make that decision for them, they should be free to choose for themselves. The potential consequences should be what causes people to pause, not just because the government may intervene and shut them down. Just because it's legal doesn't make it right. Before anything in life that we choose to do, we should ask ourselves: "is this really the right thing to do?" and "am I prepared to face the consequences of what I am about to do?" Some people are offended that the artists should even have to consider the threat of violent response in their decisions, but that is the reality of the world we live in, and unless we confront and defeat violent extremism and terrorism, that threat isn't going to disappear.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)