Shall we limit ourselves to conditional communication ? Should we not speak the complete truth but mete out only what will be favorable received ? I admit at times it is a temptation. It would certainly cause me less consternation. There are times, in my faltering way of expressing myself, that I offend. I mull my choice of words over, sometimes sensing they may be misconstrued, but feel compelled to write them anyway. I have difficulty with conditional communication, I dislike censors. My mother always says, if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all. I weigh what I am saying against that advice. Telling the truth, as I believe it to be, is not being unkind is it ? Do I not owe the reader that much ? I read others' thoughts and try to receive it in that context. What I find most disconcerting, on a personal level, is when it strikes at belief. But there are times when I discover my belief is flawed. Coming to grips with that realization is never an easy thing, when the image in the mirror doesn't exactly the fit the image in our mind. I know the feeling all too well. When that offense happens to myself, my immediate reaction is anger. Getting past the anger is the first step in understanding. Pain often accompanies growth.
The quality of government can be judged by the extent to which morality pervades politics. If the politicians tend to observe morals, they constitute a healthy and sound society. If they disregard morals and tend to be short sighted and self seeking, they constitute an unhealthy society, which will collapse upon itself. If we practice conditional communication within that society the result will be the same. It is only through open communication that differences can be resolved. Turning a deaf ear to the moral condition under the guise of democratic principles is the beginning of the end. The purpose of law is to preserve freedom and moral agency. Freedom from oppressive government and the enforcement of moral agency. Moral agency being the ability to judge right and wrong.
In our Republic, a government of the people, our founders were deeply concerned with that moral agency. That is why they insisted upon the separation of church and state. First we must understand what is meant by church. Church is not a religion but a way of practicing a religion, a doctrine if you will. That the founders of our nation all believed in the Christian idea of what is moral behavior can not be disputed. The manner in which they choose to exercise that belief is what can be called into question. All believed in what could be called Natural law. Natural law are those laws derived from man, basically the golden rule applies. As they exclaimed, all men are created equal.
I have begun to see examples of this disregard for moral agency. Most recently the support for flag burning. It is my position on that very subject that has caused me to write this essay. I have obviously struck a nerve and caused pain to some. That was not my intent, my intent was only to explain my position. Everyone agrees that burning the flag just isn't right. It is a violation of that moral agency held so dear by Americans. Yet, I see our country making laws affirming a " right " to violate that moral agency. I can not help but speak out. Another is this " right to choose " concept. Under what moral conditions do we have the right to choose the right to life ? Consider that. I can see that choice no other way than self serving, it does nothing for the life being lost. But the lawmakers are setting aside moral agency in favor of a more pragmatic approach to government. A government devoid of morality.
Somehow morals and religion have become an enemy to the state. The founding fathers in the very first amendment to our constitution said the congress shall pass no law establishing a religion or preventing the free exercise thereof. They didn't say abandon moral behavior. I believe what they intended was we are not going to a Catholic nation, a Baptist nation, a Jewish nation of any other denomination you care to list but you are free to practice whichever you desire. They did not mean to not govern using natural law. the law derived by man from nature. The founding fathers asked for divine providence in the establishment of our government. And what does that mean ? Gods' intervention in the affairs of men. The implication is crystal clear, Judeo/Christian values, morals and ethics are the foundation of freedom.
These are my thoughts. I write them down for everyone to read. They are to become a sort of legacy. I have no great wealth or property, but have my thoughts. It is my hope future generations will find something of use in them. It has also come to be something of a responsibility. I never expected my words to carry much weight. I am, after all, just a common man lacking formal education beyond the twelfth grade. I claim no string of letters after my name, no great accomplishments, no fame, why should my words matter ? The truth is, there is power in my words. That power is contingent upon the person reading those words. When I am awarded the power to injure that is an awakening. My words have caused injury where none was intended. I wonder though if the injury was caused by a chink in the armor, not the force of the blow.
The quality of government can be judged by the extent to which morality pervades politics. If the politicians tend to observe morals, they constitute a healthy and sound society. If they disregard morals and tend to be short sighted and self seeking, they constitute an unhealthy society, which will collapse upon itself. If we practice conditional communication within that society the result will be the same. It is only through open communication that differences can be resolved. Turning a deaf ear to the moral condition under the guise of democratic principles is the beginning of the end. The purpose of law is to preserve freedom and moral agency. Freedom from oppressive government and the enforcement of moral agency. Moral agency being the ability to judge right and wrong.
In our Republic, a government of the people, our founders were deeply concerned with that moral agency. That is why they insisted upon the separation of church and state. First we must understand what is meant by church. Church is not a religion but a way of practicing a religion, a doctrine if you will. That the founders of our nation all believed in the Christian idea of what is moral behavior can not be disputed. The manner in which they choose to exercise that belief is what can be called into question. All believed in what could be called Natural law. Natural law are those laws derived from man, basically the golden rule applies. As they exclaimed, all men are created equal.
I have begun to see examples of this disregard for moral agency. Most recently the support for flag burning. It is my position on that very subject that has caused me to write this essay. I have obviously struck a nerve and caused pain to some. That was not my intent, my intent was only to explain my position. Everyone agrees that burning the flag just isn't right. It is a violation of that moral agency held so dear by Americans. Yet, I see our country making laws affirming a " right " to violate that moral agency. I can not help but speak out. Another is this " right to choose " concept. Under what moral conditions do we have the right to choose the right to life ? Consider that. I can see that choice no other way than self serving, it does nothing for the life being lost. But the lawmakers are setting aside moral agency in favor of a more pragmatic approach to government. A government devoid of morality.
Somehow morals and religion have become an enemy to the state. The founding fathers in the very first amendment to our constitution said the congress shall pass no law establishing a religion or preventing the free exercise thereof. They didn't say abandon moral behavior. I believe what they intended was we are not going to a Catholic nation, a Baptist nation, a Jewish nation of any other denomination you care to list but you are free to practice whichever you desire. They did not mean to not govern using natural law. the law derived by man from nature. The founding fathers asked for divine providence in the establishment of our government. And what does that mean ? Gods' intervention in the affairs of men. The implication is crystal clear, Judeo/Christian values, morals and ethics are the foundation of freedom.
These are my thoughts. I write them down for everyone to read. They are to become a sort of legacy. I have no great wealth or property, but have my thoughts. It is my hope future generations will find something of use in them. It has also come to be something of a responsibility. I never expected my words to carry much weight. I am, after all, just a common man lacking formal education beyond the twelfth grade. I claim no string of letters after my name, no great accomplishments, no fame, why should my words matter ? The truth is, there is power in my words. That power is contingent upon the person reading those words. When I am awarded the power to injure that is an awakening. My words have caused injury where none was intended. I wonder though if the injury was caused by a chink in the armor, not the force of the blow.
No comments:
Post a Comment