A couple of days ago I was reading an article about the new film "Noah." More specifically, the article was about Russell Crowe's response to the controversy over "Noah," that of the film not being much like the Biblical story. The gist of his comments seems to be that people are ignorant, and should not prejudge the film, but decide for themselves after they see it.
I am not unsympathetic to Mr. Crowe's view. I often disagree with critics as to what constitutes a "good" movie. Tastes are subjective. I also believe that Mr. Crowe is a fine actor. The same can be said for the other members of the cast of "Noah" that I am familiar with, with the exception of Anthony Hopkins, who I believe is an extraordinary actor.
At the same time, I have to acknowledge certain realities. The movie "Noah" is not the Bible story Noah or anything close to it. The days where a major director would tackle that kind of project are long gone. And the criticism that the actors and director get for making an "artistic" version of a Biblical epic is nothing compared to making a faithful one. Ask the people involved in "The Passion of the Christ" about their publicity if you want to know about real horror stories.
So the director made "Not 'Noah'", the studio backed it, but then started to get worried about it when people noticed. There was a lot of money involved, after all. So they started issuing disclaimers that weren't quite disclaimers about "artistic license" or some such thing, and putting extra time and effort into selling "Not 'Noah.'" And based on the receipts for the first weekend, it seems to have worked. The movie is on track to make $40 million. Of course, it cost $130 million to make, so there is still a ways to go. There's still a lot to worry about there.
Meanwhile, a tiny little film that cost $1.5 million to make, another $6 million to distribute, branched out this past weekend. "God's Not Dead" expanded to another 360 screens, and has made over $20 million. And I don't think the people involved in that are worried too much about anything with regard to that movie. I think that movie is already doing exactly what it is supposed to be doing. The money is just a nice bit of fluff on the side.
Sunday, March 30, 2014
Wednesday, March 26, 2014
Third Grade Diplomacy
In a stunning explanation of foreign policy this week, the President again demonstrated why he won the Nobel Peace Prize before he had a chance to take office and actually carry out any official duties. The successful invasion of Crimea by Russia, it seems, was not an indication of Russia's strength, but rather Russia's weakness. Considering that, in the past, most countries tend to resist invasion and takeover by "weak" countries, I have my doubts that Crimea considers Russia all that weak, but it could have been an elaborate bluff. The troops and tanks and helicopters could have been cardboard cutouts, or props borrowed from a defunct movie studio. In that case, the entire invasion amounts to little more than a cry for attention from a wanna-be emperor trying to recapture lost glory days of the past. He is to be pitied, not feared.
And this is what it has finally come to: International law on the third grade level. For invading a sovereign nation, Russia is barred from the G8 (pardon me, G7) conference. Putin is given a time out. He is classified as a bully. To the liberal mind, that is a terrible thing. (Most liberals are bullies, but they bully people for "good" reasons, so to their way of thinking, that doesn't count.) It is so terrible that on some level they believe Putin will resent the label so much that he will reverse course. They will not allow themselves to admit the truth consciously.
Some people like being bullies. They like what being bullies does for them. They like the deference and privilege that is granted to them based on their antisocial behavior because it would never be granted on their importance or accomplishments. If you doubt this, just ask North Korea, Iraq, or any militant Islamist organization.
But people liking to act like bullies is only half of the problem. The other half is the enablers. It's the people that refuse to act like adults. They've made up a critical mass in Europe for a long time, at least enough so that they were content to let America do the bulk of the military operations while they spent their cash on bureaucrats. Now America has finally caught up, or close to it. Too many people don't want to act like adults. People have refused to grow up on their own, to the point of not even wanting to take responsibility for their own food, shelter, college, or even birth control.
You know, maybe Putin isn't so bad to have around. Maybe people need to be reminded of what it's like when you don't have to worry about taking care of yourself at all.
And this is what it has finally come to: International law on the third grade level. For invading a sovereign nation, Russia is barred from the G8 (pardon me, G7) conference. Putin is given a time out. He is classified as a bully. To the liberal mind, that is a terrible thing. (Most liberals are bullies, but they bully people for "good" reasons, so to their way of thinking, that doesn't count.) It is so terrible that on some level they believe Putin will resent the label so much that he will reverse course. They will not allow themselves to admit the truth consciously.
Some people like being bullies. They like what being bullies does for them. They like the deference and privilege that is granted to them based on their antisocial behavior because it would never be granted on their importance or accomplishments. If you doubt this, just ask North Korea, Iraq, or any militant Islamist organization.
But people liking to act like bullies is only half of the problem. The other half is the enablers. It's the people that refuse to act like adults. They've made up a critical mass in Europe for a long time, at least enough so that they were content to let America do the bulk of the military operations while they spent their cash on bureaucrats. Now America has finally caught up, or close to it. Too many people don't want to act like adults. People have refused to grow up on their own, to the point of not even wanting to take responsibility for their own food, shelter, college, or even birth control.
You know, maybe Putin isn't so bad to have around. Maybe people need to be reminded of what it's like when you don't have to worry about taking care of yourself at all.
Sunday, March 23, 2014
Fleeing a Dead Dinosaur
A sad admission of mine looking back is that I wasn't much of reader growing up. I was adequately skilled, but seldom found it enjoyable. Mathematics was my first love, and prose could not compete with the sheer purity and precision, that blissful order that I craved so much in my early days. It was only after I had enlisted in the Navy, and found myself in need of frequent worlds to escape into, that I became a true lover of the written word. (Note: This was not due to any particular fault of the Navy as an organization. I simply came to realize over time that we were ill-suited for each other.)
While I was not the reader some of my friends were, did go through spurts of various authors. I was quite fond of Stephen King, Harlan Ellison, and Dean Koontz, to name a few. My friend's taste were quite different. Whereas I enjoyed modern fantasy and horror, they preferred a more classic touch.
Burroughs was a particular favorite, and while I was not much for older writing styles, I decided to give him a try. My test novel was "The Land That Time Forgot," the story of a submarine the finds prehistoric creatures in an isolated crater in Antarctica. I was always fascinated by dinosaurs growing up, so I thought it had the best chance of any of his works of capturing my interest.
Sadly, Mr. Burroughs and I parted company after the novel. I can't really say what it was about the style that I found unappealing, this being close to forty years ago now, but for the amount of reading I did there were authors I much preferred. There was a concept that he used in that novel, however, that I found quite clever. The basics of the scene remain with me to this day.
At one point in the story, some of the men from the submarine are menaced by a dinosaur. I don't recall which variety, though Tyrannosaurs are always a favorite in those situations. The crew is armed with rifles and begins firing, but the dinosaur keeps coming. Terrified, the men retreat. The dinosaur is gaining on them rapidly, and about to overtake them, when it suddenly falls down, dead. The rationale employed by the author for the sudden failure of the predator is that the huge reptile was known to only have a brain the size of a walnut. Given the size of the body, the number of systems being controlled, etc., some functions and responses are substantially slower than in modern animals. In this case, one of the men had shot the dinosaur in the heart, but it had already decided to take off running after them, and it took a while for the beast to realize it was dead.
There are certain parallels in modern times we are more familiar with. One of the most common is stepping on a dead bee. A child will learn quickly that the insect doesn't have to be alive to sting you. Potentially more damaging would be the rider whose horse is shot, but then falls on top of him as they go down.Not exactly the same as running out of gas on the freeway.
And now, as a nation, we face a similar problem. For that matter, so does the bulk of Western civilization. Only instead of fleeing monsters such as T-Rex and Allosaurus, the behemoths following us go by names like "Social Security" and "Medicare." There are other, smaller beasts running with the pack, various pensions and assorted benefits. And there's the new kid on the block: Obamacare. It's starting out pretty large on it's own, but it has the potential to be huge beyond all imagining.
And they all have joined together, forming the great herd called "Social Safety Net." It's an irony of the darkest order. There is neither safety, nor a net, not one of any substance. As with many parts of the programs themselves, most of their features are illusory, bits of smoke propped up by public money and self-serving politicians. All of the programs are dead, as dead as the dinosaurs. They just don't know it. For, if we couldn't afford the benefit programs that we had, if the spending levels were already unsustainable, how could we ever believe that we could manage the system as it increases, government pushing to provide ever more services on a constantly shrinking supply of productive individuals?
The answer is, of course, it cannot. The beasts will fall, and not only in the Americas. Europe has been growing its own phantom herd even longer, and with a far greater percentage of public funds until recently. While some of the politicians have been making brave noises about reform, none have showed the combined dedication and resilience to get anything lasting accomplished. Barring something truly astounding, the systems will crash, and only God in heaven knows the extent of the destruction.
It would be the ultimate irony, one worthy of note assuming it is remembered afterward. Twenty-first century man, at the height of his intellectual and technical prowess, killed while fleeing a dead dinosaur.
While I was not the reader some of my friends were, did go through spurts of various authors. I was quite fond of Stephen King, Harlan Ellison, and Dean Koontz, to name a few. My friend's taste were quite different. Whereas I enjoyed modern fantasy and horror, they preferred a more classic touch.
Burroughs was a particular favorite, and while I was not much for older writing styles, I decided to give him a try. My test novel was "The Land That Time Forgot," the story of a submarine the finds prehistoric creatures in an isolated crater in Antarctica. I was always fascinated by dinosaurs growing up, so I thought it had the best chance of any of his works of capturing my interest.
Sadly, Mr. Burroughs and I parted company after the novel. I can't really say what it was about the style that I found unappealing, this being close to forty years ago now, but for the amount of reading I did there were authors I much preferred. There was a concept that he used in that novel, however, that I found quite clever. The basics of the scene remain with me to this day.
At one point in the story, some of the men from the submarine are menaced by a dinosaur. I don't recall which variety, though Tyrannosaurs are always a favorite in those situations. The crew is armed with rifles and begins firing, but the dinosaur keeps coming. Terrified, the men retreat. The dinosaur is gaining on them rapidly, and about to overtake them, when it suddenly falls down, dead. The rationale employed by the author for the sudden failure of the predator is that the huge reptile was known to only have a brain the size of a walnut. Given the size of the body, the number of systems being controlled, etc., some functions and responses are substantially slower than in modern animals. In this case, one of the men had shot the dinosaur in the heart, but it had already decided to take off running after them, and it took a while for the beast to realize it was dead.
There are certain parallels in modern times we are more familiar with. One of the most common is stepping on a dead bee. A child will learn quickly that the insect doesn't have to be alive to sting you. Potentially more damaging would be the rider whose horse is shot, but then falls on top of him as they go down.Not exactly the same as running out of gas on the freeway.
And now, as a nation, we face a similar problem. For that matter, so does the bulk of Western civilization. Only instead of fleeing monsters such as T-Rex and Allosaurus, the behemoths following us go by names like "Social Security" and "Medicare." There are other, smaller beasts running with the pack, various pensions and assorted benefits. And there's the new kid on the block: Obamacare. It's starting out pretty large on it's own, but it has the potential to be huge beyond all imagining.
And they all have joined together, forming the great herd called "Social Safety Net." It's an irony of the darkest order. There is neither safety, nor a net, not one of any substance. As with many parts of the programs themselves, most of their features are illusory, bits of smoke propped up by public money and self-serving politicians. All of the programs are dead, as dead as the dinosaurs. They just don't know it. For, if we couldn't afford the benefit programs that we had, if the spending levels were already unsustainable, how could we ever believe that we could manage the system as it increases, government pushing to provide ever more services on a constantly shrinking supply of productive individuals?
The answer is, of course, it cannot. The beasts will fall, and not only in the Americas. Europe has been growing its own phantom herd even longer, and with a far greater percentage of public funds until recently. While some of the politicians have been making brave noises about reform, none have showed the combined dedication and resilience to get anything lasting accomplished. Barring something truly astounding, the systems will crash, and only God in heaven knows the extent of the destruction.
It would be the ultimate irony, one worthy of note assuming it is remembered afterward. Twenty-first century man, at the height of his intellectual and technical prowess, killed while fleeing a dead dinosaur.
Saturday, March 15, 2014
Here's Another Word We Can Ban: Respect
And let's add "capable." And "determined." And "resilient." And of course, there's my personal favorite: "honest."
That last one traces back to the roots of the women's movement, and a lot of other "equality" movement's as well. The cry then was the women and African-Americans and (fill-in-the-blank-of-your-favorite-minority-here) just wanted to be able to compete on an equal basis. They just wanted a level playing field.
Back then, a "level playing field" was understood to mean equal opportunity and access. I thought that was a great idea. Then came the quotas and set asides in hiring and government contracts, the nebulous "goals" for diversity in business and college class size. Along the way, I, and a whole lot of other people getting the short end of the stick, realized that we had been lied to. And the beat goes on.
One of the bulldozers used to "level the field" for some time now has been banning the use of certain words offensive to particular groups. Some are well known. Others less so. The latest (that I am aware of) to make the hit parade is "bossy." This hideous invective is known to upset the sensibilities of strong young women to such an extent that they lose interest in pursuing leadership roles in society, thereby robbing us all of the full measure of their gifts and talents. In the interest of the greater humanity, therefore, use of this word should be banned. Or so the reasoning goes.
There are some that might question the wisdom of this course of action, wondering how a newly minted leader might respond to her first serious challenge to authority. Such questions hardly merit consideration, bordering on heresy, but far too ludicrous to bring formal charges. No doubt, the leader will have previously accrued a wealth of confidence from training in a supportive, judgment free environment. Or so the reasoning goes.
Seriously, you would think that we would have learned something by now. You would think that all of those years of bolstering children's self esteem over nothing and seeing the results of that might have provided a clue. You would think that sending several generations of students into colleges that they were unprepared for might have been an example.
You don't become a MIT graduate by being accepted to MIT. You become a MIT graduate by having the necessary skills, intelligence, and determination, and then by completing the necessary course prerequisites. You study and work to master the required skills, so that when the opportunity comes, you are ready to take it and succeed.
In the same way, you don't become the boss by being hired as the boss, at least not most people. You become the boss by learning about the job, and developing the needed skills. Some of them are academic, some are interpersonal. Some people have a natural ability or inability that defies description. But in most cases, if you drop someone into a supervisory role without training or experience, you are setting them up to fail. And part of that training will be dealing with difficult hires.
Or more succinctly, if you can't handle being called "bossy," you can't handle being the boss.
Honestly, I can't think of a campaign more destructive to the aspirations of young girls and women than this one. This is going to reinforce every negative stereotype out there about how women can't "cut it" in leadership roles, and "women need special treatment." And since that's basically your case, how will you answer them?
I'm on your side, ladies. Or more correctly, I'm on the side of equality. I know that men and women need each other. Any campaign that reduces mutual respect takes us away from that, and that's a place I don't want to go. How about you? Are you tough enough to be "bossy?"
That last one traces back to the roots of the women's movement, and a lot of other "equality" movement's as well. The cry then was the women and African-Americans and (fill-in-the-blank-of-your-favorite-minority-here) just wanted to be able to compete on an equal basis. They just wanted a level playing field.
Back then, a "level playing field" was understood to mean equal opportunity and access. I thought that was a great idea. Then came the quotas and set asides in hiring and government contracts, the nebulous "goals" for diversity in business and college class size. Along the way, I, and a whole lot of other people getting the short end of the stick, realized that we had been lied to. And the beat goes on.
One of the bulldozers used to "level the field" for some time now has been banning the use of certain words offensive to particular groups. Some are well known. Others less so. The latest (that I am aware of) to make the hit parade is "bossy." This hideous invective is known to upset the sensibilities of strong young women to such an extent that they lose interest in pursuing leadership roles in society, thereby robbing us all of the full measure of their gifts and talents. In the interest of the greater humanity, therefore, use of this word should be banned. Or so the reasoning goes.
There are some that might question the wisdom of this course of action, wondering how a newly minted leader might respond to her first serious challenge to authority. Such questions hardly merit consideration, bordering on heresy, but far too ludicrous to bring formal charges. No doubt, the leader will have previously accrued a wealth of confidence from training in a supportive, judgment free environment. Or so the reasoning goes.
Seriously, you would think that we would have learned something by now. You would think that all of those years of bolstering children's self esteem over nothing and seeing the results of that might have provided a clue. You would think that sending several generations of students into colleges that they were unprepared for might have been an example.
You don't become a MIT graduate by being accepted to MIT. You become a MIT graduate by having the necessary skills, intelligence, and determination, and then by completing the necessary course prerequisites. You study and work to master the required skills, so that when the opportunity comes, you are ready to take it and succeed.
In the same way, you don't become the boss by being hired as the boss, at least not most people. You become the boss by learning about the job, and developing the needed skills. Some of them are academic, some are interpersonal. Some people have a natural ability or inability that defies description. But in most cases, if you drop someone into a supervisory role without training or experience, you are setting them up to fail. And part of that training will be dealing with difficult hires.
Or more succinctly, if you can't handle being called "bossy," you can't handle being the boss.
Honestly, I can't think of a campaign more destructive to the aspirations of young girls and women than this one. This is going to reinforce every negative stereotype out there about how women can't "cut it" in leadership roles, and "women need special treatment." And since that's basically your case, how will you answer them?
I'm on your side, ladies. Or more correctly, I'm on the side of equality. I know that men and women need each other. Any campaign that reduces mutual respect takes us away from that, and that's a place I don't want to go. How about you? Are you tough enough to be "bossy?"
Friday, March 14, 2014
Political Algebra
It's no surprise to anyone that in this day and age, school subjects have become as politicized as anything else. Social sciences were among the first to go. History is taught with a vicious slant. It's now worming it's way into the harder sciences, as the PC crowd is looking to put quotas in "STEM" fields (note to self: invest in "classic" tech). It's only a matter of time before mathematics, the only pure bastion of reason, falls. I can't win, I realize that now. There is nothing to do but try to get ahead of the curve.
We'll begin with some classic, or "conservative" algebra."
For variables X and Y, where X does not equal (≠) Y,
X + Y = Y + X, and XY + XX = XX + XY
We'll begin with some classic, or "conservative" algebra."
For variables X and Y, where X does not equal (≠) Y,
X + Y = Y + X, and XY + XX = XX + XY
XY = YX, However XY ≠ XX ≠ YY (Whatever that is)
Honestly, a lot of people never master Algebra, and that's fine, but most people throughout history have managed to handle these concepts. You could almost refer to them as defining, natural laws for all societies, at least those that lasted for any length of time. Recently, however, there has been a shift in the wind, and the old ways aren't good enough for anything. So now, according to "Liberal" Algebra:
For variables X and Y, where X does not equal (≠) Y, (≠) is considered an arbitrary construction. So in fact, there may be cases where,
XY = XX =YY (Whatever that is)
On the other hand, should it desire to be so, XX may be greater than XY. XY may be considered less than XY, but only in a particular aspect, and not in such a way that is deemed to lower it's relative value overall to XX. (It should be noted here that in Conservative Algebra, XX and XY are considered separate but equal complements of a set.)
Now, should XY desire to increase it's absolute value, it may adopt XX characteristics, keeping in mind that it's relative value may approach, but not exceed, XY. Some XX variables are generated with a tendency toward an XY alignment, which seems to result in an XY prime (XY') variable that may be commutative, is limitedly associative, but not independently multiplicative. Similarly, there is an XX' variant with equal and opposite tendencies and properties that appear to resist classical combination laws.
The end result of this is, of course, that a once orderly system is rapidly degrading as systems built to handle classical programming attempt to ingest a series variable premises and contradictions. You can juggle the X's and the operations forever. Unless you come up with a good reason for Y, you'll never solve the problem.
Wednesday, March 12, 2014
Laboratories for What?
I just finished what passes for discussion with a few people online over on an NPR comment thread. A story that was nominally about the amendment to the Arizona Religious Freedom Act got the ball rolling, though the law described in the comments bears little resemblance to the one that was passed by the state legislature or ultimately vetoed by the governor. If truth is the first casualty of war, then the liberals must believe they are in a battle for their survival. Or, they can get away with saying anything without the media calling them on it, whichever.
There were several disheartening aspects to the discussion, but one that struck me as particularly sad pertained to the first amendment and the establishment clause. The person that I was disagreeing with (debate is far too disciplined a term) was convinced that Christianity could not have had a significant impact on the founding of the nation. I pointed out to him, truthfully, that the framers of the Constitution asserted that the document would only work for a Christian people. It was unsuitable for any other society. At this point, he seemed extremely skeptical. His evidence was the first amendment itself. How could a group of people with so much faith in Christianity not establish it as the state religion, and even go so far as to assure that it could be done in the future (without an amendment)?
Jesus wept.
I have no idea whether the fault is that history is no longer taught or if liberalism is simply that good at eradicating all traces of memory. Either way, it presents a discouraging state of affairs. Here was a person who simply could not imagine people forming a government and not wanting to impose their will upon present and future generations. It wasn't really a surprise, given the earlier comments he had made. He was quite open about his opinions that any religious person unwilling to serve at any position for sake of conscience should be prepared for hefty government penalties, all the while denying any use of force or involuntary servitude. It was a trip into cognitive dissonance that still has my ears ringing.
There was a time when it was taught that the states were to be "laboratories for democracy." Each was to have the maximum allowable freedom to experiment in this new land, and see for themselves what worked, without interference from a central government that had no place in their day to day lives. Successful experiments would be rewarded with prosperity, and the certain knowledge that many would rush to join their state and partake of their excellent system. Other states would view their success, and be encouraged to adopt the best practices as their own, with the idea eventually the worst practices would be abandoned altogether.
It might have worked. If the statists hadn't worked through the courts, it might have worked.
As it is, the federal government now has standardized many things it was never intended to deal with at all. Rather than allowing states to decide their own remedies, Washington encourages dependence on itself, using the states' own money to force compliance with the worst practices. It's not looking good for the American spirit. The laboratory isn't closed, not quite, but a lot of the space is gathering dust. Outside, the night grows darker while a few hopeful people work by candle, and pray for a light to show the way.
There were several disheartening aspects to the discussion, but one that struck me as particularly sad pertained to the first amendment and the establishment clause. The person that I was disagreeing with (debate is far too disciplined a term) was convinced that Christianity could not have had a significant impact on the founding of the nation. I pointed out to him, truthfully, that the framers of the Constitution asserted that the document would only work for a Christian people. It was unsuitable for any other society. At this point, he seemed extremely skeptical. His evidence was the first amendment itself. How could a group of people with so much faith in Christianity not establish it as the state religion, and even go so far as to assure that it could be done in the future (without an amendment)?
Jesus wept.
I have no idea whether the fault is that history is no longer taught or if liberalism is simply that good at eradicating all traces of memory. Either way, it presents a discouraging state of affairs. Here was a person who simply could not imagine people forming a government and not wanting to impose their will upon present and future generations. It wasn't really a surprise, given the earlier comments he had made. He was quite open about his opinions that any religious person unwilling to serve at any position for sake of conscience should be prepared for hefty government penalties, all the while denying any use of force or involuntary servitude. It was a trip into cognitive dissonance that still has my ears ringing.
There was a time when it was taught that the states were to be "laboratories for democracy." Each was to have the maximum allowable freedom to experiment in this new land, and see for themselves what worked, without interference from a central government that had no place in their day to day lives. Successful experiments would be rewarded with prosperity, and the certain knowledge that many would rush to join their state and partake of their excellent system. Other states would view their success, and be encouraged to adopt the best practices as their own, with the idea eventually the worst practices would be abandoned altogether.
It might have worked. If the statists hadn't worked through the courts, it might have worked.
As it is, the federal government now has standardized many things it was never intended to deal with at all. Rather than allowing states to decide their own remedies, Washington encourages dependence on itself, using the states' own money to force compliance with the worst practices. It's not looking good for the American spirit. The laboratory isn't closed, not quite, but a lot of the space is gathering dust. Outside, the night grows darker while a few hopeful people work by candle, and pray for a light to show the way.
Saturday, March 8, 2014
I Am Now Worse Than The Devil
I was having a discussion on an NPR website not long ago. The subject was the commentary that had played out about the proposed amendment to the Arizona religious restoration act. The amendment passed the state legislature, but was ultimately vetoed by the governor due to outside pressure. It was her prerogative and she took it, so I can't fault her for that. The media coverage, however, was biased against the amendment to the point of rank dishonesty and near hysteria. Considering their ethical obligation to inform the people, I can and do fault them for that. I'm sure that the remaining newspapers are suitably impressed.
I never expected to persuade anyone on the website to my point of view. That was not the purpose. Rather, I was there to remind some of them that not everyone able to log onto a computer thinks the same as those who frequent NPR and to gage a bit of the perspective of my liberal countrymen. I was curious if, beyond the hype and dishonesty presented in the campaign, anyone had a straightforward reason as to why a person should be forced to participate in a wedding service they thought was immoral. What I found was somewhere between discouraging and terrifying.
My case was both simple and compelling, or so I believed. Under the first amendment to the Constitution, the government by rights should not be able to compel a person to violate their religious convictions. Combine that with the thirteenth amendment, which prohibits involuntary servitude, and it would seem that there was little left to discuss. Frankly, I still can't understand how we have reached this point at all. It seems to me that common sense should have prevailed long ago, foolish person that I am.
My opponents countered my argument with hardly a pause. Their argument was also quite simple. According to them, the Constitution does not apply to businesses, but only to individuals. Therefore, as soon as you become a business open to the public, you sacrifice your first amendment rights.
I listened to this (figuratively, of course. I was reading at the time) and I was too stunned for words. Under this rationale, if a Christian, or anyone else, desires to make a living, they must sacrifice all of their Constitution protections to do so. They immediately become fair game for whatever whims the legislature can pass, regardless of how strange or capricious. The right to speak out, to redress for grievances, to an attorney - all gone. I'm listening, and I'm wondering how could this type of view ever have come to be? And then I remember how thoroughly the liberals are in control of our schools and colleges and media these days, and I sigh, and I want to weep quietly.
In the movie "A Man for All Seasons" about the life of Sir Thomas Moore, there is a scene where Sir Thomas's family is counseling him to arrest someone who plans to do him political harm. Sir Thomas refuses because the man has done no wrong before the law. When a family friend complains the man is breaking God's law, then Sir Thomas retorts "Let God arrest him." As the discussion grows heated, Sir Thomas asks the friend would he knock a road through the law to chase after the devil, and the man replies that to catch the devil he would knock down every law in England, and that is when Sir Thomas reminds him that when the law is flat and the devil turns on him, how can he possibly stand in the wind that will come?
Sir Thomas was eventually beheaded for treason. His crime was that he would not agree that the King's divorce was lawful according to the church. In order to change wives, King Henry had appointed himself head of the English clergy and approved the divorce himself. And to ensure that there was no dissent among the public, the king insisted his nobles recognize his divorce and new marriage, and all of them did. Except Sir Thomas. He kept silent. A man both loyal to his king, and more loyal to his God, he would speak against neither, love both, and do his best to serve well. It did not save him.
In time, a man named Cromwell arranged to have Sir Thomas arrested, tried, convicted, and executed. The evidence was perjury, the trial was rigged. In his zeal to get Sir Thomas, Lord Cromwell "knocked flat" every law in England. And in the end, the devil turned on him. And now, we see a new generation of "Cromwells," ready to knock flat the laws and rights that so many suffered and died for to get...people like me. And ironically, it still has to do with marriage. For the sake of holding to God's view of marriage, I am now considered worse than the devil.
I never expected to persuade anyone on the website to my point of view. That was not the purpose. Rather, I was there to remind some of them that not everyone able to log onto a computer thinks the same as those who frequent NPR and to gage a bit of the perspective of my liberal countrymen. I was curious if, beyond the hype and dishonesty presented in the campaign, anyone had a straightforward reason as to why a person should be forced to participate in a wedding service they thought was immoral. What I found was somewhere between discouraging and terrifying.
My case was both simple and compelling, or so I believed. Under the first amendment to the Constitution, the government by rights should not be able to compel a person to violate their religious convictions. Combine that with the thirteenth amendment, which prohibits involuntary servitude, and it would seem that there was little left to discuss. Frankly, I still can't understand how we have reached this point at all. It seems to me that common sense should have prevailed long ago, foolish person that I am.
My opponents countered my argument with hardly a pause. Their argument was also quite simple. According to them, the Constitution does not apply to businesses, but only to individuals. Therefore, as soon as you become a business open to the public, you sacrifice your first amendment rights.
I listened to this (figuratively, of course. I was reading at the time) and I was too stunned for words. Under this rationale, if a Christian, or anyone else, desires to make a living, they must sacrifice all of their Constitution protections to do so. They immediately become fair game for whatever whims the legislature can pass, regardless of how strange or capricious. The right to speak out, to redress for grievances, to an attorney - all gone. I'm listening, and I'm wondering how could this type of view ever have come to be? And then I remember how thoroughly the liberals are in control of our schools and colleges and media these days, and I sigh, and I want to weep quietly.
In the movie "A Man for All Seasons" about the life of Sir Thomas Moore, there is a scene where Sir Thomas's family is counseling him to arrest someone who plans to do him political harm. Sir Thomas refuses because the man has done no wrong before the law. When a family friend complains the man is breaking God's law, then Sir Thomas retorts "Let God arrest him." As the discussion grows heated, Sir Thomas asks the friend would he knock a road through the law to chase after the devil, and the man replies that to catch the devil he would knock down every law in England, and that is when Sir Thomas reminds him that when the law is flat and the devil turns on him, how can he possibly stand in the wind that will come?
Sir Thomas was eventually beheaded for treason. His crime was that he would not agree that the King's divorce was lawful according to the church. In order to change wives, King Henry had appointed himself head of the English clergy and approved the divorce himself. And to ensure that there was no dissent among the public, the king insisted his nobles recognize his divorce and new marriage, and all of them did. Except Sir Thomas. He kept silent. A man both loyal to his king, and more loyal to his God, he would speak against neither, love both, and do his best to serve well. It did not save him.
In time, a man named Cromwell arranged to have Sir Thomas arrested, tried, convicted, and executed. The evidence was perjury, the trial was rigged. In his zeal to get Sir Thomas, Lord Cromwell "knocked flat" every law in England. And in the end, the devil turned on him. And now, we see a new generation of "Cromwells," ready to knock flat the laws and rights that so many suffered and died for to get...people like me. And ironically, it still has to do with marriage. For the sake of holding to God's view of marriage, I am now considered worse than the devil.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)