I think we must come to terms with a simple fact. Man cannot in his finite universe understand or explain the infinite. Think about it. Can you really understand the infinite space of the universe ? No, you can't, nor can I. We even divide that infinite space into galaxies in an attempt to make it fit our finite minds. The beginning of one galaxie and the beginning of another ? Perhaps each galaxy is a molecule making a whole. A whole what ? It is an exercise in futility.
We also need to come to understand that there are certain universal laws. They have been labeled over the years, the most popular being, " natural law. " These laws although very difficult to delineate cause much harm and upheaval in society when violated. They are basic to co existence with our fellow man. These laws are intuitive to man. Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That is about as succinct as it gets. Defining that is the struggle of man. There are variables. What is acceptable in a society depends largely upon the values of that society. The " natural laws " always apply but societal acceptance of behaviors vary widely.
Is it feasible to define the values of a society ? That depends upon the definition of society. All the groups and subgroups could be considered a society. That is why certain clubs sometimes call themselves societies. The society I speak of is The United States of America. Is it feasible to state the values of this society ? I would have to say it is not. The best that can be hoped for is tolerance. Tolerance does not mean acceptance however. Tolerance also does not mean the imposition of your beliefs upon the society in general. And therein lies the difficulty.
The United States of America, as a society, was formed during the " Enlightenment Era. " There were Christians and some say Deists that wrote the founding documents. Religious freedom was of prime importance. Interestingly little was said about religion however. It was to be kept separate from Government. The values contained within any one particular religion was not to have preference over any other. At the time of the writing, Christianity was the predominate religion in this nation. The term religion was used interchangeably with denomination. The founding documents do not say that the values, as expressed by Christian doctrine, were not to be recognized in the application of law.
There is a flaw with the enlightened way of thinking. If we are going to base our decisions solely on what can be observed and tested by man, the scientific method, what do we do with the unexplainable. What about those natural laws ? Do we legislate contrary to them ? To do so will cause a great deal of unrest. To legislate in accordance with those natural laws is certainly the wise way to go. For surely if anything is to be learned from history it is this, rebellion against a government ( society ) occurs when the people of that society feel their " natural laws " have been violated. When forced " acceptance " becomes oppression !
This is the struggle I see going on today. I have read about this same struggle in my history books. The players were different, the issues may have seemed very different but they were not. The central issue has always been the same. To live free. Governments are instituted among men in order to promote harmonious relations. This Republic of ours is little different in that regard. As I watch the news I am reminded of that famous quote from Benjamin Franklin. " A republic if you can but keep it. "
Can you base a set of " laws " on principles which cannot be defined ? These principles could also be called " religious values ". It is those " religious values " whether you choose to label them as such or not, that motivate a society to harmony or dissent. Acceptance, tolerance or oppression ? Depends upon those " natural laws " does it not ? I think so.
We also need to come to understand that there are certain universal laws. They have been labeled over the years, the most popular being, " natural law. " These laws although very difficult to delineate cause much harm and upheaval in society when violated. They are basic to co existence with our fellow man. These laws are intuitive to man. Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That is about as succinct as it gets. Defining that is the struggle of man. There are variables. What is acceptable in a society depends largely upon the values of that society. The " natural laws " always apply but societal acceptance of behaviors vary widely.
Is it feasible to define the values of a society ? That depends upon the definition of society. All the groups and subgroups could be considered a society. That is why certain clubs sometimes call themselves societies. The society I speak of is The United States of America. Is it feasible to state the values of this society ? I would have to say it is not. The best that can be hoped for is tolerance. Tolerance does not mean acceptance however. Tolerance also does not mean the imposition of your beliefs upon the society in general. And therein lies the difficulty.
The United States of America, as a society, was formed during the " Enlightenment Era. " There were Christians and some say Deists that wrote the founding documents. Religious freedom was of prime importance. Interestingly little was said about religion however. It was to be kept separate from Government. The values contained within any one particular religion was not to have preference over any other. At the time of the writing, Christianity was the predominate religion in this nation. The term religion was used interchangeably with denomination. The founding documents do not say that the values, as expressed by Christian doctrine, were not to be recognized in the application of law.
There is a flaw with the enlightened way of thinking. If we are going to base our decisions solely on what can be observed and tested by man, the scientific method, what do we do with the unexplainable. What about those natural laws ? Do we legislate contrary to them ? To do so will cause a great deal of unrest. To legislate in accordance with those natural laws is certainly the wise way to go. For surely if anything is to be learned from history it is this, rebellion against a government ( society ) occurs when the people of that society feel their " natural laws " have been violated. When forced " acceptance " becomes oppression !
This is the struggle I see going on today. I have read about this same struggle in my history books. The players were different, the issues may have seemed very different but they were not. The central issue has always been the same. To live free. Governments are instituted among men in order to promote harmonious relations. This Republic of ours is little different in that regard. As I watch the news I am reminded of that famous quote from Benjamin Franklin. " A republic if you can but keep it. "
Can you base a set of " laws " on principles which cannot be defined ? These principles could also be called " religious values ". It is those " religious values " whether you choose to label them as such or not, that motivate a society to harmony or dissent. Acceptance, tolerance or oppression ? Depends upon those " natural laws " does it not ? I think so.
No comments:
Post a Comment