granting permission

  Is it being progressive, inclusive and accepting, or is it allowing the forbidden? When you think about it a great deal of the behaviors we now embrace we once forbidden by general consensus. Think about the things your parents told you not to do. Weren't they generally things to improve your life? Weren't they trying to keep you safe, protect you and instruct you? But we all grow and feel like we know better and try things we are told not to. We are even told, you know better than that. Sometimes we agree, sometimes we just like it. Whatever the case may be we begin to allow that. On a personal level at least. we allow that. From that we move on to advocating for that action. Have we learned and moved forward or are we just allowing the forbidden. There are even times when we allow ourselves the forbidden while forbidding our children! Yes, what parents haven't done that? 

  I wasn't thinking about parenting though, I was thinking about the progression of a nation. Now despite all the rhetoric to the contrary this nation was founded on the Judeo-Christian tradition. Yes, it was mainly Christian doctrine but that is certainly inseparable from the Jewish tradition. If you think about that what is the difference? It is in what is allowed, what adherence to "rules" apply. The same could be said for the break between the Catholics and protestants. All in the manner of practices. In what is allowed. The Catholics felt like they were making progress by breaking with the Jewish traditions, then the protestants took issue with that, they felt progressive, and it has continued until this very day. I'd say Evangelists are the final result, really a return to what Jesus was doing if you think about it. 

  Now that being established the constitution and the bill of rights was written by Christians. Yes, I know they all weren't Christians, I know they was protestants and deists, but in general they all believed in the Christian doctrine of right and wrong. In short, what should be allowed, and what should be forbidden. Remember the Constitution was written only for a moral and religious people, it is wholly inadequate to any other. John Adams said that and he ought to know. The Constitution was to limit the power of the government, not limit the power of the people. The Constitution delineates what the government can't do! What the people can't do, what is forbidden, is ruled by our morality. Where does your moral base come from? Well, that goes back to what you were taught as a child, what was allowed and then later endorsed. What was your religious instruction? There are, of course, those raised without any religious instruction at all so where does their moral base come from? Simply on what is allowed is the only answer I can offer. It is also the reason modifications to the Constitutions are undertaken. 

  Jewish scholars say there were originally 613 commandments. That came as a surprise to me. Later pared down to a more manageable ten, an alteration. Those ten are what I was taught as things not to do. I was also taught that just because it isn't written down that I shouldn't do something, it is permission to do that. But my point here is simply man likes to change the text, change the instructions to align to his wants. We call that making progress. The behaviors that have been denied to us, those frowned upon or forbidden previously receive new labels, labels such as discriminatory. Interesting that discriminatory is a derivative of discrete, exercising discretion, which means what? Not allowing others to know what you are doing. If you are doing something questionable, it is best to be discrete isn't it? But does that discretion make the action correct? No, the hope is that no one notices. You don't want them to notice because it is wrong. That's how that works. 

  Now if we abandon or modify the text enough we can allow just about everything. That's true in government and in religious belief. It doesn't take much of a scholar to see and understand that. The law.  The law is the law whether written by government or what we are taught to believe. Violating government law has its' punishments. Violating our personal laws of conduct also has punishments, but those punishments have to be self inflicted. What we sometimes call belief or conscience. Belief is fueled by conscience, can't have one without the other. We can eliminate conscience by allowance. That is, what we decide is allowed despite any moral instruction we may have received. We decide to rewrite the text. There is no immediate punishment for that, as long as we don't act contrary to what the government says. Thing is, we can change what that is any time we want to. We can change what the law allows in that context. 

  The problem we face, and all governments face, is aligning morality and law. When the law begins to mandate moral virtues a new document is required. When the Republic was formed John Adams, and I'm certain all the others, were quite aware of that. That was the reason for the very first amendment to that Constitution. The separation of Church and State. Even when we are all reading the same text the interpretation of that text will vary. That is increasingly evident in todays world. There are Priests that support abortion, think about that. I do not doubt their sincere religious belief but commandment number six seems clear enough in the Kings James Bible, Thou Shalt not kill. But if you are reading the Hebrew Bible it says, Thou Shalt not Murder. Does that give me permission to kill my enemies as long as I don't murder them? But even then what is murder? To kill someone deliberately and with forethought and planning. Isn't that abortion? But all of that is just by way of example. The government in Roe V Wade made a moral choice allowing what is forbidden. We all know you shouldn't murder people, we all know you have a right to life. But we are rewriting that text. Is it progressive or is it allowing the forbidden? Is it written anywhere in the Constitution that we "shall not kill?" Why isn't it? The answer is simple enough, the government shouldn't kill its' citizens, and the constitution limits the power of government. Not killing other people is self-evident! Yes, those rights didn't need to be written in the constitution. 

  Ultimately we are all subject to the law. Whether that law is government or natural, we will be held to account. The concern is for what lies beyond man's law. That is what the founders realized when writing the constitution. We will all come and go, nothing lasts forever. Eternity does, at least that is the concept, the theory we live our lives by, those of us that hold religious belief. For those of us believing in such, what we allow today determines what the reward will be in eternity. Really it is the same as that old commercial, pay me now or pay me later, but later is far more expensive. Our constitution was written only for a moral and religious people. The question is now, has that Constitution become inadequate? It has if we allow it! Progress? Inclusiveness? Or is it simply allowing the forbidden? When it comes to all of that we are the ones that grant permission, to ourselves and our posterity. If you really think about it, it is your posterity that will pay in the end, the debt satisfied. Whether it is a rise or fall depends upon the choices made.