The truth is the truth, even if only one person believes it. It doesn't make that person smarter than anyone else, just honest. Yes, it takes honesty to tell your truth when faced with a crowd of doubters. Far easier to just go along with the crowd. The greatest example of this can be found in the Bible. Jesus tells Peter you will deny me three times before the dawn. He does, and what is the reason? Fear, Peter was afraid of the crowd, that they would seize him. He denied ever having known Jesus at all!
He was afraid for his own safety.
The thing is the authority was dictating what the truth was to be. Jesus was tried and convicted based on their truth. He was a blasphemer! And what is a blasphemer? Anyone that speaks in an irreverent fashion about God. In short, saying anything counter to the authority. Now when it comes to religion and religious belief there can be no right or wrong. There is only what the authority believes. In the Catholic Church the Pope is the ultimate authority. Indeed Catholics believe the Pope receives divine guidance directly from God. Every religion has someone that is the authority on that religious belief.
The same applies with governments. Government is the authority. Even in cases where the truth is unclear, the government is the final authority simply because there has to be! Someone, something has to decide. In the United States what where the first laws concerned with? They were concerned with what we could do, what we were guaranteed as our right. But many took that to mean, if it doesn't say I can't, that means that I can. That's where the rest of the laws started appearing, in response to that. For those in favor it is a great thing, a wonderful thing, to those opposed it is the restriction of freedom. Now I can't do whatever it is I want to do. No different really than when our parents corrected us as children. It was for our own good. Isn't that the logic? It is, or is it the excuse to assert our authority? Parents are after all in control, exercising authority over the children. Governments are like that. What needs to be guarded against is abuse. At what point does abuse occur? Well now that depends upon the truth doesn't it? And whose truth must we obey? The authorities.
The big question in all of that being; is truth only what we agree it to be? That is to say, what the authority says it is. If that is the case, whenever we speak out in opposition we would be wrong. Is that the truth? No and we would all agree on that as well. Why? Because the truth is the truth even if only one person believes it. That begs the question; is the function of government to impose truth upon the people! The truth being the majority opinion, at least in our country it is supposed to be. In days of old the King made the truth. In our founding documents we held certain truths as self evident, among them, life , liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We have been defining and redefining those truths ever since. Consider the obvious. We have a right to life. Well now that has certainly changed hasn't it, beginning with the therapeutic abortion act in 1967. Yes, it was California that passed that legislation. And what is the reasoning behind this? Sources say this: " a woman has a right to make decisions about their reproductive systems and because they can exercise that right regardless of government policy. " In short women do not have to adhere to the truth as declared in the Declaration of Independence. So then, what is the truth? Do we have a right to life or not?
Today we justify truth with science. That's the standard we have decided to impose. Science is supposed to be cold, hard, facts, unbiased, without any agenda, unencumbered by human emotions. It's science! Science isn't supposed to deal in morality, only facts. We can see that by the removal of religious considerations when adjudicating the truth. The Bible clearly states, thou shalt not kill, yet we legalized that. How? By using science to justify that action, saying a fetus isn't a human being and therefore has no rights. You only have rights after you are born! Well, and even that is being changed as I write this piece. The authority has just used, for the first time, science to restrict religious practice in direct conflict with the first amendment to the constitution. Science trumps belief! The authority deciding it is too dangerous regardless of your belief. Seems like no big deal right? Well what science will be employed to further erode your rights? It's obvious that moral and ethical judgement will be taking a back seat to the authority. The most glaring example of that was Nazi Germany. The authority there imposing truth upon the population, or death. Yes, that was the choices you were left with. Peter felt the same way when Jesus was arrested. Deny or die.
He was afraid for his own safety.
The thing is the authority was dictating what the truth was to be. Jesus was tried and convicted based on their truth. He was a blasphemer! And what is a blasphemer? Anyone that speaks in an irreverent fashion about God. In short, saying anything counter to the authority. Now when it comes to religion and religious belief there can be no right or wrong. There is only what the authority believes. In the Catholic Church the Pope is the ultimate authority. Indeed Catholics believe the Pope receives divine guidance directly from God. Every religion has someone that is the authority on that religious belief.
The same applies with governments. Government is the authority. Even in cases where the truth is unclear, the government is the final authority simply because there has to be! Someone, something has to decide. In the United States what where the first laws concerned with? They were concerned with what we could do, what we were guaranteed as our right. But many took that to mean, if it doesn't say I can't, that means that I can. That's where the rest of the laws started appearing, in response to that. For those in favor it is a great thing, a wonderful thing, to those opposed it is the restriction of freedom. Now I can't do whatever it is I want to do. No different really than when our parents corrected us as children. It was for our own good. Isn't that the logic? It is, or is it the excuse to assert our authority? Parents are after all in control, exercising authority over the children. Governments are like that. What needs to be guarded against is abuse. At what point does abuse occur? Well now that depends upon the truth doesn't it? And whose truth must we obey? The authorities.
The big question in all of that being; is truth only what we agree it to be? That is to say, what the authority says it is. If that is the case, whenever we speak out in opposition we would be wrong. Is that the truth? No and we would all agree on that as well. Why? Because the truth is the truth even if only one person believes it. That begs the question; is the function of government to impose truth upon the people! The truth being the majority opinion, at least in our country it is supposed to be. In days of old the King made the truth. In our founding documents we held certain truths as self evident, among them, life , liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We have been defining and redefining those truths ever since. Consider the obvious. We have a right to life. Well now that has certainly changed hasn't it, beginning with the therapeutic abortion act in 1967. Yes, it was California that passed that legislation. And what is the reasoning behind this? Sources say this: " a woman has a right to make decisions about their reproductive systems and because they can exercise that right regardless of government policy. " In short women do not have to adhere to the truth as declared in the Declaration of Independence. So then, what is the truth? Do we have a right to life or not?
Today we justify truth with science. That's the standard we have decided to impose. Science is supposed to be cold, hard, facts, unbiased, without any agenda, unencumbered by human emotions. It's science! Science isn't supposed to deal in morality, only facts. We can see that by the removal of religious considerations when adjudicating the truth. The Bible clearly states, thou shalt not kill, yet we legalized that. How? By using science to justify that action, saying a fetus isn't a human being and therefore has no rights. You only have rights after you are born! Well, and even that is being changed as I write this piece. The authority has just used, for the first time, science to restrict religious practice in direct conflict with the first amendment to the constitution. Science trumps belief! The authority deciding it is too dangerous regardless of your belief. Seems like no big deal right? Well what science will be employed to further erode your rights? It's obvious that moral and ethical judgement will be taking a back seat to the authority. The most glaring example of that was Nazi Germany. The authority there imposing truth upon the population, or death. Yes, that was the choices you were left with. Peter felt the same way when Jesus was arrested. Deny or die.
No comments:
Post a Comment