One of the foundations of modern civilization and the American Experiment is the ability and opportunity to own private property.
John Locke, the 17th century philosopher who inspired the Founders of our nation, asserted that the best government is that which preserves "life, liberty and property." He understood that citizenship and the "commonweal" of a healthy socieity were best ensured through personal responsibility for one's own domains.
From ancient Jewish writings we learn the same truth. The Book of Nehemiah details the urban renewal of Jerusalem. Each family was called upon to take care of their property and help rebuild the common walls and gates. Even though it was a community project, Nehemiah's appeals included personal stewardship of family-owned property.
History is the long, slow process of human liberation from ancient patterns of oppression and limited ownership of land. From the Magna Charta in 1215 that granted nobles some rights vis a vis the English monarchy to the US Consitution's protection from unlawful search and seizure, we have seen - at least in the West - an increase in the percentage of people able to own land. This percentage growth is concomitant with political freedom.
The 1620 Pilgrims briefly flirted with communal living, but quickly moved toward personal ownership, knowing that it led to the best care for the land and the community.
For over a century and a half, Marxism in all its nefarious forms has sought to change this arrangement under the guise of "the people" owning all land and the means of production. Marx and Engels rightly excoriated industrial and social abuses, but their cures have proven worse than the disease!
Fast forward to 2004. Under the guise of "Greenbelts" and "Eminent Domain" activists in multitudes of communities are literally robbing families of their legacies and livelihoods. The true stories I have heard just this week are the fodder for a dozen movies. The evil character in these scripts is not the cattle baron or the railroad magnate, but local and regional board members and government officials bent on fulfilling a chilling agenda.
There are two levels to this agenda. The public one is ecological balance and the preservation of open space in the midst of suburban sprawl. Sounds great...until you find out the unethical tactics and deeper plots. Families who have lovingly farmed and ranched land for generations are being forced to sell at fire sale prices or actually evicted for unproven minor infractions. One woman I spoke with has lost two properties due to new environmental regulations that turned a few puddles of water into a protected wetland! Of course, there is no compensation for her inability to develop her land.
The hidden agendas are frightful. One facet of the long-term plan is less private ownership and more government regulation and redistribution of wealth - socialism in any other terms. The other aspect of the deeper plot is the strategic aim of neo-pagan "deep ecologists" who want to untimately reduce the human population by half and restore Mother Earth to her pristine, pre-human condition.
These goals are self-destructive to our present freedom and future survival. Nearly two centuries of "enlightened" experiments have shown that socialism ultimately results in either bloated government agencies at best and totalitarianism at worst.
Who are the ones who decide what is best for us?
Thursday, April 01, 2004
Life, Liberty and Property
One of the foundations of modern civilization and the American Experiment is the ability and opportunity to own private property.
John Locke, the 17th century philosopher who inspired the Founders of our nation, asserted that the best government is that which preserves "life, liberty and property." He understood that citizenship and the "commonweal" of a healthy socieity were best ensured through personal responsibility for one's own domains.
From ancient Jewish writings we learn the same truth. The Book of Nehemiah details the urban renewal of Jerusalem. Each family was called upon to take care of their property and help rebuild the common walls and gates. Even though it was a community project, Nehemiah's appeals included personal stewardship of family-owned property.
History is the long, slow process of human liberation from ancient patterns of oppression and limited ownership of land. From the Magna Charta in 1215 that granted nobles some rights vis a vis the English monarchy to the US Constitution's protection from unlawful search and seizure, we have seen - at least in the West - an increase in the percentage of people able to own land. This percentage growth is concomitant with political freedom.
The 1620 Pilgrims briefly flirted with communal living, but quickly moved toward personal ownership, knowing that it led to the best care for the land and the community.
For over a century and a half, Marxism in all its nefarious forms has sought to change this arrangement under the guise of "the people" owning all land and the means of production. Marx and Engels rightly excoriated industrial and social abuses, but their cures have proven worse than the disease!
Fast forward to 2004. Under the guise of "Greenbelts" and "Eminent Domain" activists in multitudes of communities are literally robbing families of their legacies and livelihoods. The true stories I have heard just this week are the fodder for a dozen movies. The evil character in these scripts is not the cattle baron or the railroad magnate, but local and regional board members and government officials bent on fulfilling a chilling agenda.
There are two levels to this agenda. The public one is ecological balance and the preservation of open space in the midst of suburban sprawl. Sounds great...until you find out the unethical tactics and deeper plots. Families who have lovingly farmed and ranched land for generations are being forced to sell at fire sale prices or actually evicted for unproven minor infractions. One woman I spoke with has lost two properties due to new environmental regulations that turned a few puddles of water into a protected wetland! Of course, there is no compensation for her inability to develop her land.
The hidden agendas are frightful. One facet of the long-term plan is less private ownership and more government regulation and redistribution of wealth - socialism in any other terms. The other aspect of the deeper plot is the strategic aim of neo-pagan "deep ecologists" who want to untimately reduce the human population by half and restore Mother Earth to her pristine, pre-human condition.
These goals are self-destructive to our present freedom and future survival. Nearly two centuries of "enlightened" experiments have shown that socialism ultimately results in either bloated government agencies at best and totalitarianism at worst.
Who are the ones who decide what is best for us?
John Locke, the 17th century philosopher who inspired the Founders of our nation, asserted that the best government is that which preserves "life, liberty and property." He understood that citizenship and the "commonweal" of a healthy socieity were best ensured through personal responsibility for one's own domains.
From ancient Jewish writings we learn the same truth. The Book of Nehemiah details the urban renewal of Jerusalem. Each family was called upon to take care of their property and help rebuild the common walls and gates. Even though it was a community project, Nehemiah's appeals included personal stewardship of family-owned property.
History is the long, slow process of human liberation from ancient patterns of oppression and limited ownership of land. From the Magna Charta in 1215 that granted nobles some rights vis a vis the English monarchy to the US Constitution's protection from unlawful search and seizure, we have seen - at least in the West - an increase in the percentage of people able to own land. This percentage growth is concomitant with political freedom.
The 1620 Pilgrims briefly flirted with communal living, but quickly moved toward personal ownership, knowing that it led to the best care for the land and the community.
For over a century and a half, Marxism in all its nefarious forms has sought to change this arrangement under the guise of "the people" owning all land and the means of production. Marx and Engels rightly excoriated industrial and social abuses, but their cures have proven worse than the disease!
Fast forward to 2004. Under the guise of "Greenbelts" and "Eminent Domain" activists in multitudes of communities are literally robbing families of their legacies and livelihoods. The true stories I have heard just this week are the fodder for a dozen movies. The evil character in these scripts is not the cattle baron or the railroad magnate, but local and regional board members and government officials bent on fulfilling a chilling agenda.
There are two levels to this agenda. The public one is ecological balance and the preservation of open space in the midst of suburban sprawl. Sounds great...until you find out the unethical tactics and deeper plots. Families who have lovingly farmed and ranched land for generations are being forced to sell at fire sale prices or actually evicted for unproven minor infractions. One woman I spoke with has lost two properties due to new environmental regulations that turned a few puddles of water into a protected wetland! Of course, there is no compensation for her inability to develop her land.
The hidden agendas are frightful. One facet of the long-term plan is less private ownership and more government regulation and redistribution of wealth - socialism in any other terms. The other aspect of the deeper plot is the strategic aim of neo-pagan "deep ecologists" who want to untimately reduce the human population by half and restore Mother Earth to her pristine, pre-human condition.
These goals are self-destructive to our present freedom and future survival. Nearly two centuries of "enlightened" experiments have shown that socialism ultimately results in either bloated government agencies at best and totalitarianism at worst.
Who are the ones who decide what is best for us?
Thursday, March 25, 2004
The End of the American Experiment
I am deeply concerned about two issues in the public eye. At first they may appear to be unrelated, but they both point toward disaster for the future of the United States.
The first issue is gay marriage. For millions who adhere to the three major monotheistic religions, the phrase "gay marriage" is an oxymoron at best and an immoral union at worst. Without commenting on the nature or morality of private sexual activity between consenting adults, what is lost is this debate is the fundamental definition of family and what kind of "unit" is essential to a free society.
The American Experiment in representative democracy depends upon conscious and unconscious adherence to basic moral values. Our founders assumed that American citizens would be hard-working, honest, law-abiding, and loyal to family, clan and community. Marital fidelity and sexual discipline were critical virtues that unleashed the energy and inventiveness that formed the greatest nation in the history.
When Martin Luther King marched for Civil and Voting Rights for millions of disenfranchised people, he did so with a call to faith, moral rectitude, and a renewal of ideals held by all Americans. He and his colleagues took for granted the nuclear and extended family that included lifetime loyalty of husband and wife.
No civilization in history has ever questioned the primacy of the husband-wife relationship, even those cultures that wink at homosexual activity or other departures from "the norm."
The present call to equalize gay unions with heterosexual ones ignores biology, family psychology (ideally, Johnny needs a Mommy and a Daddy), history and sociology. Please notice that I have deliberately left out religious opinions, because they are so divisive. I think the great religions deserve consideration, for it is Monotheism that gace birth to morality and the legal traditions that uphold order.
The second issue is abortion. "Not another column on abortion!" you may cry. Recent attempts to have an unborn child considered a person in the case of a pregnant woman's murder have exposed the anti-child lobbies for who they really are. Several states will charge a person with double murder if an expectant mother is killed. Pro-choice advocates are so afraid of any opening that might restrict a woman's right to destroy her unborn, being-born or just-born child that they will not grant personhood to the tiniest victims of violence.
How are these issues related? Gay marriage and refusing to accept the personhood of the unborn are the twin sides of a chilling plot to undermine our very notions of life, morality and responsibility. Gay marriages can not naturally yield the next generation or unveil the male/female balance essential to emotional health. Refusing to see the unborn as persons makes all babies expendable. We are living in the first generation that realizes they were (and are?) expendable if they get in the way of the selfish needs of parents.
Gay marriage and abortion are, at their roots, a repudiation of life and the ultimate enthronement of the human ego as the only sovereign in life.
Without the value of life and the priority of family structures to gurantee our future, we sacrifice humankind's long-term health on an altar of self-destructive hedonism.
The American Experiment will end if we do not reaffirm first principles that value all life and ensure our future as a nation, even as a species.
The first issue is gay marriage. For millions who adhere to the three major monotheistic religions, the phrase "gay marriage" is an oxymoron at best and an immoral union at worst. Without commenting on the nature or morality of private sexual activity between consenting adults, what is lost is this debate is the fundamental definition of family and what kind of "unit" is essential to a free society.
The American Experiment in representative democracy depends upon conscious and unconscious adherence to basic moral values. Our founders assumed that American citizens would be hard-working, honest, law-abiding, and loyal to family, clan and community. Marital fidelity and sexual discipline were critical virtues that unleashed the energy and inventiveness that formed the greatest nation in the history.
When Martin Luther King marched for Civil and Voting Rights for millions of disenfranchised people, he did so with a call to faith, moral rectitude, and a renewal of ideals held by all Americans. He and his colleagues took for granted the nuclear and extended family that included lifetime loyalty of husband and wife.
No civilization in history has ever questioned the primacy of the husband-wife relationship, even those cultures that wink at homosexual activity or other departures from "the norm."
The present call to equalize gay unions with heterosexual ones ignores biology, family psychology (ideally, Johnny needs a Mommy and a Daddy), history and sociology. Please notice that I have deliberately left out religious opinions, because they are so divisive. I think the great religions deserve consideration, for it is Monotheism that gace birth to morality and the legal traditions that uphold order.
The second issue is abortion. "Not another column on abortion!" you may cry. Recent attempts to have an unborn child considered a person in the case of a pregnant woman's murder have exposed the anti-child lobbies for who they really are. Several states will charge a person with double murder if an expectant mother is killed. Pro-choice advocates are so afraid of any opening that might restrict a woman's right to destroy her unborn, being-born or just-born child that they will not grant personhood to the tiniest victims of violence.
How are these issues related? Gay marriage and refusing to accept the personhood of the unborn are the twin sides of a chilling plot to undermine our very notions of life, morality and responsibility. Gay marriages can not naturally yield the next generation or unveil the male/female balance essential to emotional health. Refusing to see the unborn as persons makes all babies expendable. We are living in the first generation that realizes they were (and are?) expendable if they get in the way of the selfish needs of parents.
Gay marriage and abortion are, at their roots, a repudiation of life and the ultimate enthronement of the human ego as the only sovereign in life.
Without the value of life and the priority of family structures to gurantee our future, we sacrifice humankind's long-term health on an altar of self-destructive hedonism.
The American Experiment will end if we do not reaffirm first principles that value all life and ensure our future as a nation, even as a species.
Thursday, February 05, 2004
Worlds Collide
Years ago James Sire wrote a book called "The Universe Next Door" that evaluates the vastly different world-views people hold in their heads and hearts. When we consider America's war with the world of terrorism and our apparent isolation from the UN, we need to remember that there are radically different views of reality at work. In short, we are seeing worlds collide and compete for mastery of the human family.
Within the US, we are witnessing worlds clash as up to five generations try to understand each other. The Greatest Generation is worried that their sacrifices of the 1930's and 1940's will be dissipated by our present lifestyles and relegated to the ashbin of history. The "I like Ike" community is still wondering why their vision of stability was totally rejected by the Boomers. The Boomers are now in power and discovering that "Question Authority", "Free Love" and other chic 60's and 70's phrases are not enough to hold a Republic together. Gen X and Gen Y are trying to find solace in ever-increasing pleasure or pain. The Millennials are looking for roots and wondering if their parents have left much to work with.
On the world scene, we see a contest for global hegemony between a USA in search of herself, a post-Christian European Community, new superpowers India and China and a resurgent Islamic radicalism determined to bring the world under Shari'a Law.
Historians of the 22nd century will be evaluating the winners and losers of the current global game - if we do not have an apocalypse.
My point in this essay is that simplistic answers to complex issues within the US and around the world must factor in the different "universes" of the parties involved.
What will be the moral underpinnings of the American Republic and the global coalitions in the next generations? Are there any principles that can non-coercively unite our nation and inspire the world?
Let me know what you think - email me at drcharlieself@yahoo.com and we will add your ideas to our community discussion.
Next time: There IS a simple answer to one problem we face
Within the US, we are witnessing worlds clash as up to five generations try to understand each other. The Greatest Generation is worried that their sacrifices of the 1930's and 1940's will be dissipated by our present lifestyles and relegated to the ashbin of history. The "I like Ike" community is still wondering why their vision of stability was totally rejected by the Boomers. The Boomers are now in power and discovering that "Question Authority", "Free Love" and other chic 60's and 70's phrases are not enough to hold a Republic together. Gen X and Gen Y are trying to find solace in ever-increasing pleasure or pain. The Millennials are looking for roots and wondering if their parents have left much to work with.
On the world scene, we see a contest for global hegemony between a USA in search of herself, a post-Christian European Community, new superpowers India and China and a resurgent Islamic radicalism determined to bring the world under Shari'a Law.
Historians of the 22nd century will be evaluating the winners and losers of the current global game - if we do not have an apocalypse.
My point in this essay is that simplistic answers to complex issues within the US and around the world must factor in the different "universes" of the parties involved.
What will be the moral underpinnings of the American Republic and the global coalitions in the next generations? Are there any principles that can non-coercively unite our nation and inspire the world?
Let me know what you think - email me at drcharlieself@yahoo.com and we will add your ideas to our community discussion.
Next time: There IS a simple answer to one problem we face
Monday, January 26, 2004
Public Religion
Americans are funny people about religion. In spite of 50+ years of secularization in the public square, we are still deeply interested in spirituality. Among Western nations the percentage of people participating in religious communities is quite high. We want to hear "God Bless America" sung in public and we do not mind politicians saying "God bless you" and "God bless America". Too much detail about the religious beliefs of candidates, however, makes us uncomfortable, especially if those beliefs are anything close to historic Christianity or Judaism.
Some of our ambivalence serves the public interest well. The first sixteen words of the First Amendment are still a beacon of light to the world. We enjoy complete freedom of conscience and religion without government interference.
Keeping government out of the religion business is good - good for freedom and, paradoxically, good for the religious communities themselves. Without subsidies and taxes, the faith communities must rely on the volunteer spirit of their members, which only enhances loyalty and effectiveness.
"Separation of church and state" is an interpretation of Jefferson's "wall of separation" rhetoric referring to the Virginia's constituional relationship with the Episcopal (Anglican before 1776) Church. Neither Jefferson or any of the Founders envisioned today's ACLU-inspired political correctness that removes Judeo-Christian symbols from the public square.
All the Founders recognized that religious values were critical to the moral and social fabric of a free society. They wanted complete freedom of conscience and freedom of speech, including religious speech. If public officials want to express personal religious opinions, they should not be vilified. If the electorate does not appreciate them, it has the power to elect someone else.
I am old enough to remember the controversy regarding JFK, our first Roman Catholic President. Even in 2000, some were worried about Senator Joseph Lieberman's Judaism and its effects on his policies. in both cases, all fears were (and are) unfounded. Agree or diagree with their policies, both men are Americans serving as well as they know how.
Our current President has a deep religious faith that has sustained him through life's turmoils and provided solace in the midst of political battles. I see no evidence of religious coercion. Having strong moral and religious convictions is an American birthright. Respecting the differing views of others is the other side of the same coin. I do not like many of our President's current policies, for a variety of reasons. But I respect his right to have and express his deepest ideals.
It is interesting that so many who seek a separation of religion and the public square seem to tap dance around the issue of Islamic ideology and its social implications. Politicians fall all over each other assuring the world that Al Queda, Hezbollah and The Islamic Jihad are a tiny fraction of the Muslim world.
It is true that most Muslims are not terrorists. So what? The statement is a non-starter, utterly irrelevant to the current debate on public religion. It is like saying that a particular TV evangelist speaks for all Christians. Are we going to tell American Muslims to abandon their conviction that America would be a better land under Islamic Law? Why do we insist that American school children spend weeks each year studying Islam while the Jewish and Christian roots of the West are ignored or even put down?
Our problem stems from the Baby Boomer's (those now 45-65) generational rejection of its image of America's past, religion and all. The Boomers forgot Martin Luther King's deep spirituality. They conveniently ignore The Greatest Generation's (those who survived the Depression and fought in WWII) deep piety. The Boomer's ideology is a pseudo-Marxist, New Age ethos that is best captured by John Lennon's 1970 anthem, "Imagine". Lennon's nasal vision of a world without borders, possessions or religion sounds wonderful until you realize its subversion of our deepest national values.
Where do we go from here? How about back to the future again? Let's stop muzzling religious expression and allow citizens freedom, in public, to express their deepest passions with civility and mutual respect.
Next time: Worlds Collide
Some of our ambivalence serves the public interest well. The first sixteen words of the First Amendment are still a beacon of light to the world. We enjoy complete freedom of conscience and religion without government interference.
Keeping government out of the religion business is good - good for freedom and, paradoxically, good for the religious communities themselves. Without subsidies and taxes, the faith communities must rely on the volunteer spirit of their members, which only enhances loyalty and effectiveness.
"Separation of church and state" is an interpretation of Jefferson's "wall of separation" rhetoric referring to the Virginia's constituional relationship with the Episcopal (Anglican before 1776) Church. Neither Jefferson or any of the Founders envisioned today's ACLU-inspired political correctness that removes Judeo-Christian symbols from the public square.
All the Founders recognized that religious values were critical to the moral and social fabric of a free society. They wanted complete freedom of conscience and freedom of speech, including religious speech. If public officials want to express personal religious opinions, they should not be vilified. If the electorate does not appreciate them, it has the power to elect someone else.
I am old enough to remember the controversy regarding JFK, our first Roman Catholic President. Even in 2000, some were worried about Senator Joseph Lieberman's Judaism and its effects on his policies. in both cases, all fears were (and are) unfounded. Agree or diagree with their policies, both men are Americans serving as well as they know how.
Our current President has a deep religious faith that has sustained him through life's turmoils and provided solace in the midst of political battles. I see no evidence of religious coercion. Having strong moral and religious convictions is an American birthright. Respecting the differing views of others is the other side of the same coin. I do not like many of our President's current policies, for a variety of reasons. But I respect his right to have and express his deepest ideals.
It is interesting that so many who seek a separation of religion and the public square seem to tap dance around the issue of Islamic ideology and its social implications. Politicians fall all over each other assuring the world that Al Queda, Hezbollah and The Islamic Jihad are a tiny fraction of the Muslim world.
It is true that most Muslims are not terrorists. So what? The statement is a non-starter, utterly irrelevant to the current debate on public religion. It is like saying that a particular TV evangelist speaks for all Christians. Are we going to tell American Muslims to abandon their conviction that America would be a better land under Islamic Law? Why do we insist that American school children spend weeks each year studying Islam while the Jewish and Christian roots of the West are ignored or even put down?
Our problem stems from the Baby Boomer's (those now 45-65) generational rejection of its image of America's past, religion and all. The Boomers forgot Martin Luther King's deep spirituality. They conveniently ignore The Greatest Generation's (those who survived the Depression and fought in WWII) deep piety. The Boomer's ideology is a pseudo-Marxist, New Age ethos that is best captured by John Lennon's 1970 anthem, "Imagine". Lennon's nasal vision of a world without borders, possessions or religion sounds wonderful until you realize its subversion of our deepest national values.
Where do we go from here? How about back to the future again? Let's stop muzzling religious expression and allow citizens freedom, in public, to express their deepest passions with civility and mutual respect.
Next time: Worlds Collide
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
