Is Law Our Basis?

The rule of law is the basis of maintaining order in our society. Our Constitutional Republic is understood as a representative government where the individual and religious liberty was an important value.

The problem today is when our nation-state has been impacted and threatened by those who voice their "religious right" to undermine our humane laws.

Right now, the Supreme Court will rule on whether the Baptist Church had a right to religious speech when they caused emotional pain  to the parents at their son's funeral.

When other religious "speech" such as terrorists acts are committed against our society, we treat them as criminals. Should there be a distinction between the nation-state's right and the individual's right? Is the individual a private citizen, or a public pawn?  Where do we draw our distinctions? Weren't we basically a Judeo-Christian nation in our earliest days? We have affirmed both public responsibility and the private right of citizens. Which one will win in the end? The tension must be maintained if we want to continue to have religious freedom and private lives.

Our laws are not based on "God", but are based on the individual's right to his "own person". How does a humane nation uphold the "rule of law" and yet, allow religious liberty to those that undermine that law? Don't we hold them accountable to the law for the sake of our society?  Or is freedom of speech too important a value to undermine? If we go down the road of limiting speech, then won't it undermine most speech in the end?

While our laws are not based  solely on "God", neither are  the values of life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness based on science.

Just recently, there was a British "commercial" for an organization that promotes Climate Control. In that "commercial" the teacher is asking if her students would choose to further the flourishing of mankind through limiting their comsumption of energy and the emission of "gases". Would they take public transportation? Two of these students stood up to such governmental control over their choice. The teacher affirmed their right of choice, but in the end, pushes a button that kills them, splattering their blood on the others in the classroom.

This "outrage" of inhumanity is not the only 'outrage", as it was shown on a talk show recently, in Britian, that a well-known scientist suggested that she would smother her child, rather than allow the child to suffer. There was obvious discomfort from the interviewer to her response. The question was asked again, but the scientist still held to her view that it was important to protect her child from suffering by killing.

Whether Western society survives the onslaught of religious fanaticism or scientific positivism is the question. The West is at a crossroads to what our future will be and how we will go forward, or will we be destroyed?

Isn't It Interesting?

What do you find interesting?

It disturbs me that people want to know so much about other people's private lives. Do they not have enough to keep them occupied? Instead they snoop and investigate others, read everything they can get their hands on. Is thier life so boring, that they must "live" through another's life?

After hearing of the "confession" of Gov. Sandford the other day, I had the radio on. The talk radio host went into detail about the e-mails sent back and forth between the Governor and his mistress. I felt so sorry for everyone involved, as it was really no one's business what the "details" were. And the ones wagging their finger in the face of Sanford, are the very ones listening to all the "details". (I guess listening the legitimate news sources makes such revelations okay...)

There is something so sinister about how many of us want to give no one else room to "be" and live their lives in peace and quiet. I wonder if celebrity is worth the "costs" of giving up one's private life.

Now, we have questions concerning Michael Jackson's death. I don't mind or think that it is "immoral" to talk about how a celebrity grew up or became famous, but it goes a little over the line to hear the constant barage or speculative and suggestive scenarios.

I like to hear information about what our leaders are doing and what they believe, but I find that their private life, unless revealed by consent is really nothing other than stealing their "life" from them. It is a form of voyerism.

On the other hand, if something is revealed that involves public interest and would hinder someone's ability to carry out his official duties, then it is the public's business. Accountability should be within the bounds of responsibility. Public should remain public, whereas, private life is best left to private areas of religious or social connections (unless it involves some criminal activity.)

Though I believe that political opinions are open game to discuss in the public square, where does one draw a line when something is "revealed" that shows a leader's "clay feet"? Do we ever give room for the leader to be "human", to have frailities, to have questions, or do leaders have to lead a "perfect" life in however that is defined in a particular context?

I feel for celebrities, politicians, and leaders of all kinds, as there is no way to please everyone. So there will be someone that will be critical.

Leaders, live your life, yes, in responsible commitment to the ideals you believe in and remind yourselves that it is only the small minded that have no room to grow beyond filling their minds with "life".