Based on some of the comments from the other posts (here and here) I wanted to address something that should clarify my position a bit and also add to the discussion.
Comment: All laws spring from some sort of morality.
True.
And on the State and Local level, where the government is more in tune with the morality of the community, I believe that governments should have the ability to legislate freely. It's with the Central Government that I'm a little wary.
Here in the United States, we originally limited the powers of the Federal Government to the protection and unification of our people under a select number of rights- springing from a common sense of morality.
What I was trying to argue- and failed at- was this: as we've allowed the Federal Government to gain more and more power and influence over its citizens, the end result has been laws that don't always land squarely on a shared vision of morality.
Let's face it, not all people or religions share a common idea of right and wrong.
Those ideals that gain nearly unanimous consensus probably belong at the Federal Level. But the rest of the laws should be saved for the local level, where they will remain coherent with the will of the people closest to them. This is why we've got the tenth amendment. And I think we need to look into re-emphasizing it a bit more.
Continued from last Thursday.
I am almost tempted to side with the "moral majority" on this issue because of a few I remember reading from Jefferson and Adams where they basically came out and said- this system of limited government isn't going to work if people abandon God. But then I remember what happens when religions feel like people are abandoning "the faith." Things get ugly. Sometimes bloody.
Which is why I'm glad that Churches aren't in control of the army here in our country.
But this isn't to say that governments are better at dictating morality. I don't believe that at all. In fact, I think they're pretty terrible at it. Now, there's nothing particularly "wrong" with governments dictating morals. Most of world history is full of this sort of thing. In fact, Liberty and Limited Government are relatively new ideas compared to dictatorship and tyranny. But it's only very rarely that a benevolent leader was in charge and things ran rather smoothly and peacefully because the morality that was dictated came from a good heart.
The trouble is, leaders aren't always good. And inevitably a lot of them make terrible, selfish choices that actually hurt their people rather than help them. And when evil men are in charge of dictating morality- you have the Inquisition and the Holocaust. You get persecution and genocide.
Interestingly enough, I think part of the problem we have today here in the US isn't that we're too immoral. I think there is plenty of morality. The problem is that we've slipped into a government system where too much power is in the hands of the President and Legislator. Both Republicans and Democrats bring their "morality" into Congress and pass laws based on restraining or enabling the morality of the people.
We've heard the term culture war quite often over the past 10 years and I think the reason liberals and conservatives are so wary of each other isn't the political, but rather religious and moral ideas that each party holds.
Liberals are concerned with the environment for moral reasons. The same is true for systemic poverty and education. These aren't simply political issues for them, they are very religious and moral.
The same can be said of Conservatives who are concerned with unborn babies and upholding their own ideal of what marriage should look like. These aren't simply political issues, either- they speak to the very core of their being and spring from a moral/religious code within them.
Whenever one side or the other makes it into the White House or takes a majority in Congress, fear grips the other side. There's a sense of impending DOOM that the Republicans or Democrats are going to ruin the world with their ideals. I firmly believe that is evidence that we've actually given TOO much moral and religious power over to the government rather than the reverse. These are ideals and values that are at war. And if they were left to the community and churches to decide (as they were originally intended to be), I think our nation would be much better off.
On Sunday, we went over to visit Summit Church in Orlando again. The topic was John 8:1-11 and I was specifically thankful for two perspectives that I gained on this passage, specifically around Jesus "writing in the sand" when the scribes and leaders bring the woman to him who has been caught in adultery.
"Now early in the morning He came again into the temple, and all the people came to Him; and He sat down and taught them. Then the scribes and Pharisees brought to Him a woman caught in adultery. And when they had set her in the midst, they said to Him, “Teacher, this woman was caught in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses, in the law, commanded us that such should be stoned. But what do You say?” This they said, testing Him, that they might have something of which to accuse Him. But Jesus stooped down and wrote on the ground with His finger, as though He did not hear. So when they continued asking Him, He raised Himself up and said to them, “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first.” And again He stooped down and wrote on the ground. Then those who heard it, being convicted by their conscience, went out one by one, beginning with the oldest even to the last. And Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had raised Himself up and saw no one but the woman, He said to her, “Woman, where are those accusers of yours? Has no one condemned you?” She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said to her, “Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more.” "
One: In New King James, there's a statement that doesn't appear in any of the other translations. Verse 6 says, "Jesus stooped down and wrote on the ground with His finger, as though He did not hear." The teacher at Summit reminded us that these scribes and Pharisees were basically barging in on Jesus' teaching- with this added section it seems that Jesus has good boundaries as a teacher. He's not going to let anyone interrupt His teaching- especially not those who are simply trying to trip him up.
Two: By responding in this way- bending over and writing on the ground- Jesus diffuses all attention from the woman in question and places it on Himself. That may seem trite, but when we consider that this woman was probably standing there naked- or barely covered since she had literally been "caught in the act"- we're dealing with a lot of shame and exposure. When the men came in pointing fingers at the woman, trying to get Jesus' take on the matter, He calmly takes the focus onto himself and spares her from the limelight.
I think this is a good metaphor for the entire human condition. There's an accuser who wants to shame us and use us to trip up others, and then there's Jesus who refuses to play into the accusations, and calmly takes the focus onto himself and diffuses the enemy's tricks. The sin is never sidestepped or excused- it's called out and exposed for what it is- but the end result is redemption rather than shame and condemnation.
Most of you were probably too busy wonder why Michael Jackson died to notice the incredibly important piece of legislation that was ramrodded through the House of Representatives on Friday. It was a bill that outlines the US's response to Climate Change- a CAP & TRADE regulation that will limit the amount of supposedly harmful emissions produced by our country and progressively tax our current resources until someone comes up with an energy efficient alternative to Oil and other energies that are supposedly going to kill us all (I say supposedly because there hasn't actually been consensus in the scientific community as to whether or not humans are actually causing climate change- Al Gore would have you believe otherwise, but there's plenty of evidence on both sides, and this isn't really a forum for debating whether or not people are causing it- let's save that for a different site).
Now, I'm actually really excited about competition in the energy industry.
I just don't feel that the right way to achieve competing energy sources is by jacking up the price of our current solutions so much that someone simply HAS to come up with an alternative in order to remain viable and economically stable. That's just silly.
That's like students who put off their term papers until the last minute because they "work best under pressure." Sometimes it works and they scrape by with an A- but often it results in a sloppy effort that doesn't really meet the expectations of the professor and results in a terrible grade.
The market doesn't react very well to this sort of force, either. It doesn't like to be manipulated under threat. And what I'm afraid is going to happen is something unexpected- something terrible that we can't plan for or predict or react to effectively.
Hopefully, it won't be market failure- but if it is...
You can be sure that the government will blame the market rather than their own manipulation. And when that happens, they'll be quick to put their own restraints and regulations in place so that the market doesn't "continue to fail." This will lead to further failure and more government. Eventually, if things get too bad, we'll be facing total government control of the energy market and we'll be rationed what they think we need.
I don't want to live here when that happens.
This week, I'm exploring our own American Revolution, largely due to the Iranian Revolution that's unfolding as we speak. I want to address the ideals that the founding father's laid out and determine whether they actually fit with the current state of affairs in our country. * * *
Yesterday, I decided that the size of a population shouldn't be the determining factor in whether or not the size of the central government grows- in fact, the idea of limited, representative democracy should work with populations no matter how large they grow (score one big point for Jefferson, Adams, and their crew).
Today, I want to address concern number two- are we TOO secular for Representative Democracy and Limited Government.
The argument goes something like this: The founding father may not have been "Christians" and may have wanted a separation of Church/State, but they assumed that people would be receiving moral guidance from some sort of religious entity. Since more and more people are abandoning the church or ignoring their precepts, can we really continue to live under the assumption that the people can make good, moral choices unless we legislating and enforce it?
Thank you "Moral Majority" for bringing this issue to the table...
Actually, this issue is equally a part of the Left and Right. Conservatives have a set of values that cannot stand for two individuals getting married unless they are a man and a woman- they want to legislate this morality. But on the Left, liberals see systemic poverty and climate change as moral issues- and they want to regulate it. Everyone, it seems, is hoping that Washington will legislate morality because as far as they are concerned, no one is doing "the right thing."
If I'm honest with myself, this is the issue that almost throws me over the fence. I've seen the evils that religion can perpetuate, sure- but for the most part, churchgoing folk of all religions are pretty moral people. Now, I'm not saying that my friends who don't attend church aren't good people- in fact, I know more than a few of them that put Christians to shame with their good works- but at the same time, I know that religion is one of the primary sources of morality and therefore abandoning a primary source of morality means that the people either become amoral or end up getting their morality from somewhere else.
That somewhere else often ends up being The State.
Of course, when The State dictates morality- they usually need to expand their influence (and their armed forces) in order to enforce the morality they've legislated. While the church has definitely done this in the past (Crusades, Inquisition), our friends in government almost ALWAYS do. Governments never let go of power- especially not the power to tell people what to do.
This is one reason that the founding fathers set out to create the least amount of government possible- they knew that the government wouldn't "let go" if they were ever in a position of dictating the actions of their citizens.
Part Two- coming to you live this evening!
This week, I'm exploring our own American Revolution, largely due to the Iranian Revolution that's unfolding as we speak. I want to address the ideals that the founding father's laid out and determine whether they actually fit with the current state of affairs in our country.
* * *
The first argument I've head launched against Representative Democracy and Limited Central Government is that our country has outgrown a viable "small representative government" model. The idea is presented in a fashion such as this: "Limited government may have worked well when our country was a mere 13 colonies and a million people, but today it's just not feasible given the amount of people who live in the country. 300-400 million people cannot be governed the same way that a few million would have been governed 200 years ago."
The biggest problem I have with the "Too Big" argument is that it ignores the primary thrust of what the founding fathers were getting at when they set up a limited central/federal government in the first place. The original idea was that people are governed best at the most local and personal levels- primarily the home but also the community, the city, and the state. IF this is true, then it would follow that no matter how big a country grows in size and citizens, the best place for government is still within the smallest common denominator.
One of the real dangers of perpetual growth within the central/federal government is that centralized systems tend to legislate "one size fits none" mandates that don't generally meet the needs of the people they represent. When we couple these rather narrow set of laws with the growing population, eventually we find that more and more people are left either unprotected or overprotected (depending on the law that's passed).
For instance, our friends out West have very different needs that what we see here in Florida. So if policies heralding from Florida were passed carte blanch (perhaps regarding how people should react in a Natural Disaster) the fact that our primary concern is Hurricanes may mean that those in California who are dealing with wildfires and earthquakes would be required to abide by policies that were ineffective or harmful to their own situation.
That said, I wonder if those who argue that we've grown too big for our current system of government are mistaken in the route we should take to remedy the situation. They think it takes MORE Federal Government to control more people, while the reality is it takes more community efforts. It takes local rights and State rights to accurately govern to the needs of the people.
This is the reason that the 10th amendment exists (although it's ignored completely by our Federal Government). It was intended to keep power closest to the people. It was intended to keep government and regulation relevant to the people. It was a check and balance that was intended to limit the size and scope of the Central Government so that "one size fits none" legislation would be cut down before it had a chance to ruin the country.
Using the most simple terms, The United States emerged from a rejection of tyranny.
Our founding fathers beheld, firsthand, what happened when power was left only in the hands of the few. And in reaction to this, they formed a system of government that would be held at bay by the people it governed. They created a nation that was supposed to run from the bottom-up rather than from the top-down. It was one that was supposed to provide a mere infrastructure of cohesion rather than a dictating force that informed its citizens how they should act in every situation.
They gave most of the governing authority over to the local and state communities and it was hoped that most decisions regarding behavior would spring forth from the community itself. This decision was probably due to the fact that most citizens of these States United were churchgoing folk who valued community and religious structures- there wasn't as much need for the heavy hand of government when a "higher Power" was instructing the lives of the people.
I've heard a lot of folks say that things are just too different now to maintain a limited role of Federal Government. They say that times have changed and the ideals of the founding father's aren't right for what we're dealing with now. And in three primary regards, they're right:
1. There are a lot more people living in the United States.
2. Less people are "religious."
3. Technology has changed the way we live.
I'd like to explore each of these different ideas for the rest of the week to see whether or not these changes should legitimately change the way government works. When times change, sometimes we need to change with them, so let's see if we need an overhaul of our system or a return to the original intent of our founders.
You're trying to call out a friend's addiction, so you heap on the guilt...
Thick.
The results are less than desirable, in fact, your friend seems to be further addicted than ever before. What's going on? Why doesn't a guilt trip work?
Plain and simple, every one of us are dealing with self-loathing tendencies already- without the aid of our well intended friends. So add an addiction to the mix and you can bet you're dealing with someone who's already going through a lot of guilt, self-hatred, and contempt over their inability to let go.
That said, how on earth would MORE guilt make that situation any better than it already is?
Perhaps that's why God goes with a different plan (one that we'd follow if we were smart)? It's His Kindness that leads us to repentance (Romans 2). He knows that condemnation is worthless, usually pushing us onward toward despair rather than redemption.
That said, when we heap on condemnation- we're working against God. We're anti-Christ.
Just a thought.
I'm planning to use part of my backyard for a small garden.
I'm still in the planning stages, so it may or may not happen- but so far I have this idea that it will make me appreciate where my food comes from and maybe even teach me a thing or two about farming. I'd really like to get three specific things out of this garden.
1. I'd like some food.
Since I'm going to be planting a veggie garden rather than a flower garden, I'd really like to be able to eat some of the vegetables that grow in it. I need to eat more veggies anyhow, so this will be a good opportunity to get moving in that direction. Especially since I might actually feel more obligated to eat the things that I grew myself and worked over.
2. I'd like to learn about rhythm.
I don't mean musical rhythm, of course. What I mean is that for much of the world's history, people were primarily agrarian rather than industrial. The rhythm of creation came with the rain and the seasons. Their lives were tied to the harvest and the planting of new grain and I think that particular cycle of growing things helped shape a paradigm within them that's different that what I experience as an American consumer who is only governed by the alarm clock. I wonder if part of the disconnect I feel from the rest of history as a post-industrial human might be remedied by undertaking some of the traditions that are common to man, like growing my own food. I'd like to think that being able to understand how farming works might also help me understand the rhythms of life that humans have lived within since their Formation.
3. I'd like to get outside more.
I was reading Richard Dalhstrom's book 02 a few months ago and he hit on something grand that I'll never forget- He wrote that in order for us to really understand God, we need to be interacting with the things that God has made rather than just the things that man has made. As much as our cars, homes, streets, books, computers, iPhones, and clothing are great things that show off the creativity of man- Nature is even more of a show, displaying the wonder of God's creation. I don't get to spend much time in God's creation as a trainer, so I'm hoping that planting a garden will get me out in the backyard with the trees and the grass rather than sitting around with the XBOX on the weekends.
One year!
Today marks one year of nathankey.com which is a milestone that's come a lot quicker than I would have expected. For all of you who reguarly read and comment on my blog, thank you for making this such a great experience for me.
Stats
Since creating this website, I've had over 6,000 individuals visit my page from almost every state (still waiting on Wyoming- no surprise there... I still don't believe it exists) and over 90 different countries around the world.
Last month alone there were over 1,000 different visitors, so I feel like I'm gaining some momentum and attracting people to the topics I've been discussing.
As far as content is concerned, it seems like everyone really enjoyed my Letter to Craigslist Buyers, Thoughts on Ethics vs. Morality, Brains in Your Head, and 7 Ways to Get a Job.
Shoutouts!
Weebly themselves have been my biggest referal. They've featured me twice this year which definitely increased traffic to the site.
My friend Seth came in second and Chris, one of my guest bloggers came in third. Thanks to both of you for pushing people my direction. I'm really glad for both of your voices and your referrals!
The Future
In the next year, I'd like to double my reach. What I mean is, I'd like to reach at least 12,000 visitors. It's an aggressive goal because in my new job, I'm working a LOT more hours and I'm not in front of a computer, thinking all day. This means I'm going to have to come up with relevant content that excites people- with less time investment.
That's where YOU come in, gentle readers!
If you like what I write and the ideas I present here, I'd love to have you interacting with the content and requesting topics that I could cover in the future that would be relevant to you! I'm going to be looking for ways to make my blog a lot more interactive and look for opportunities to include more guest bloggers in order to show off how great my readers are!
So, if you're interested- you can begin right here by talking about it in the comments section and dropping any suggestions on how I can make this site more appealing to you!
Thanks again for making this a great year for me!
|