About Me

Name: Josh Kon
Email: smartway24@gmail.com Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Blog Search

Blog Roll

 

“The Passion Argument” against legal recognition of homosexual "marriage."

(Author's note: This is a long one; for shorter essays, see below.)

            I now attempt the impossible in the current political climate and make an argument for heterosexual marriage as the ideal and thus the only one deserving of legal recognition -- or more accurately stated, legal encouragement. Although too many so-called progressive people respect the notion of moral relativism—and thus, one cannot argue any relationship is superior to another—the patent superiority of heterosexual relationships over homosexual ones leads me to take the chance and let the chips fall where they may.

To start at the beginning—many people make an ambiguous argument for the ideal nature of heterosexual marriage by saying that the unique union between a man and a woman acts as a foundation to our society. Thus, if we radically change it to include, for instance, same-sex unions, our society and its values will die out. Some may find this sufficient. But what exactly does it mean? How does it work? It is clear that we need to refine this argument, or at least flesh it out.

We start with the premise that only a society passionate about their values fights for those values; and, obviously, if they don’t fight, their values do not survive. More specifically, a society must be willing to fight both in the marketplace of ideas and if it comes to it, with military force.

On the other hand, if they lack this passion, and the values are confronted with values held by passionate adherents, say, Islamic Totalitarians, surely the former’s values will die out and only the Islamists’ values will survive. They will more loudly and persuasively argue for their values in the marketplace of ideas and, if they must defend their values with the tip of a sword, they will fight with more dedication, conviction and strength. So whether you like the term “passionate” or would rather something like “fervent,” that’s fine. Regardless, I am sure we can agree that the values held by adherents who are less willing to preserve them—by spending their time, voices, blood and treasure—are less likely to survive the test of time than values posited by those willing to do whatever it takes.

Now that we can, hopefully, agree on that point, we must determine what breeds this lack of passion/fervor. Two sources overtly present themselves: one, moral relativism and two, a lack of heterosexual marriages.

To begin with the first one, a moral relativist posits a world where most, if not all, of one’s values possess no intrinsically or objectively better characteristics than anyone else’s. Values, they argue, result considerably from what any given culture happens to deem moral. Thus, a society has little to no passionate relationship with its morals; they are merely that society’s cultural opinion or preference. If that is the case, then why on earth would that society fight to preserve those values? If another country’s mere preference on a subject is different than ours, will we protest in the streets or go to war? I hope not. Therefore, evidently moral relativism breeds this lack of passion in one’s values. But what does this have to do with homosexuality? A couple things:

Firstly, a homosexual person is likely to adopt this type of world view. Initially, they will have two choices: live in sin under a Judeo-Christian-type moral framework or decide that framework is a relic of the past. More likely than not, the homosexual will decide to abandon the Judeo-Christian-type framework and replace it with some secular moral framework. This type of framework is, by definition, a relativist one, as there is no divine, and thus objective, authority for morals. As a result, the likely adherents to this secular/relativist ideology -- i.e. homosexuals and their supporters -- breed this moral relativism and the ensuing lack of passion in one’s values.

One can find yet another connection between moral relativism and a society’s sanction of homosexuality, by taking a look at the rhetoric of the same-sex special-interest groups. We see that they regularly advance the argument that one’s personal biology -- not some objective notion of morality -- acts as a primary determinant of what we deem moral. That is to say, they advance the notion that homosexuality is moral by finding persuasive the argument that homosexuals were “born that way.” Thus, they argue, society should tolerate—if not celebrate—homosexuality.

This argument, however, cuts both ways. If we accept this argument as compelling, then when other people are born other ways we must also find that conduct more acceptable as a result. Lets say, for instance, we come across a person born with a propensity to be sexual promiscuous, or even to be a robber or physically violent; one who gives this type of argument persuasive weight must at least think twice before condemning these conducts. In other words, when -- or actually, if -- these people decide to denounce these types of behaviors, they will likely do so with much less passion because the objects of their condemnation were “born that way.” How can they blame them? 

            We see this constantly with people on the left who show more compassion for a murderer on death row than the victim and their family. Punishment and retribution are no longer virtuous endeavors of a criminal justice system, as these people were “born ill.” Regardless, one should be able to see by now that the values of other people who do not get swayed or distracted by this “born this way” argument will survive, and the moral relativist’s values will wither and die. For that reason, since the homosexual movement further's this crippling relativist agenda, we must not give it government support in the form of legal marriage.

Nevertheless, I will admit that thus far I have just made an argument why society should discourage -- or at least not encourage -- homosexual relationships. But in truth, we do not need to go this far. It is enough to say that heterosexual relationships, specifically marriages, deserve special legal encouragement because of their superiority over other unions. To prove this we come back to the theme of this essay, namely “passion in one’s values.”

Again, I start with a premise—the premise that each sex has its own inherent strengths. For example, women are more passionate and emotional, and men are more task-oriented. Of course if we look hard enough, we can locate exceptions to this rule, as is the case with any rule. But there is little intellectual honesty behind the notion that we do not generally find men and women to each possess inherent strengths that the other sex does not.

The old saying goes “behind every great man there is an even a greater woman.” Sounds nice, but I think now we see what this really means. Quite commonly, when a society confronts competing values, it is the women who get the most emotional, and thus passionate, about it. To illustrate this we can even take an example from the other side of the isle. In the case of the anti-war protesters, the mothers of the lost soldiers act as one of the greatest catalysts for the “fight” to end the war. And if that is too narrow an example for you, we can take a glance at how women normally are the most passionate about their family’s religion; it is their fervor that decides the “house’s” level of religiosity. This is not to say men cannot be passionate about religion, but it is normally the women who we unearth as being a family’s major source for this religious and spiritual passion.

So at this point one may ask “then why do we need men?” We need men to manifest these passions into action. For instance, when a kid gets suspended from school for cheating, the kid incites the anger of both their father and mother. The father, however, acting partly on his wife’s nudging, normally plays the role of the authoritarian -- the punisher. In other words, the man brings to fruition the condemning passions shared by both parents; he takes action. 

Now again, of course, no one can honestly claim these generalizations are universal or absolute. There are many women who take the authoritarian and action-oriented role. Nevertheless, this does not detract from the excellence we only find in the unique synergy between men and women; the relationship still is a man and a woman, one being the actor, one being the catalyst. Further, I am sure if we look hard enough, we will also come across some same-sex couples who possess a similar synergy. But a society makes policy choices based on what we generally find to be true, not what could be true. Thus, as a matter of policy, a society is fully within its rights to make these general legal-encouragements of just heterosexual couples, i.e. legal marriage and the resulting tax breaking, as men/women couples more frequentely possess these complimenting strengths.

To illustrate, we give similar legal-encouragements, i.e. tax breaks, to people who save money instead of spending it; we do this even though in many situations those who spend their money could necessarily deserve these tax breaks as well. As a result, if, as the same-sex special-interest groups argue, we could no longer make these distinctions, our government would ultimately not be able to make any of these conduct-related tax laws. To do so, we must draw lines, and sometimes those lines unnecessarily leave people out of the loop. What’s more, this is especially acceptable in this case to the extent we are talking about things like tax breaks and expedited probate, as these are “privileges,” not rights.

Consequently, it is in our society’s best interest to, at the very least, not give legal recognition to -- and thus encouragement of -- homosexual relationships. Moreover, it is quite advantageous for us to encourage heterosexual marriages, as this unique synergy between men and women plays a vital and irreplaceable role in maintaining a passionate subscription to our values. Granted, society has many other reasons to specifically and exclusively encourage men-women relationships (i.e. raising children and linking sexual behavior to family-life). Nevertheless, without the ensuing passion mentioned above, our values -- probably the most important element to our society’s survival -- are all doomed. So let's survive.

Tags: marriage  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The fundamental right to not become a murder stat.


The assault (no pun intended) on the right to bear arms touches on a more fundamental idea than most of the public debate cares to recognize. Even assuming, for argument's sake, that stricter gun laws would decrease innocent deaths, murder will still occur everywhere; not even the most confused anti-gun advocate will make that claim -- at least I hope not. 

Therefore, if Americans really are free, why must we just accept the inevitable fact that we may, some day, end up a mere murder stat? The most basic notions of liberty demand that we instead allow people at least a chance to defend themselves appropriately -- whether against a lone murderer, or God forbid, a murderous and oppressive government.

        In other words, truly free people can -- and in fact, should -- buy a gun, bear it and keep it.

Tags: gun rights  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Atheists and theists -- similar, but so different.

Atheists frequently invoke a dastardly indictment, accusing theists of being the same as them. The horror. They argue that theists merely claim to follow a higher moral standard; when in fact, they are really just following their own conscience, just like atheists. That is to say, they contend that theists are really just taking scripture and interpreting it to fit the moral zeitgeist of the times, and not extracting from the Bible its divine moral code. 

I understand this point, and do not find it without any merit; but I think it ignores a fundamental truth.  In other words, there is little honesty in saying that religious people do not allow their own hearts to guide them when interpreting written texts like the Bible. Indeed, even the most avid fundamentalists do not possess immunity to this bias; disagreement amongst fundamentalists has to come from somewhere, right? Yet, assuming of course the Bible reflects any degree of a divine will, the forthcoming morality is not the same as that which comes from an atheist’s heart.

First, let me ask you a question: Do you think that when interpreting laws, a judge's control over people is more constrained than the legislature who may make those laws anew? I assume the answer is yes. This is because the judge must fit his version of justice into a pre-existing moral framework, i.e. the one previously set out by the legislature. Whereas, the legislature is not similarly bound.

So now let's apply it to humanity. Who is more bound -- or stated differently, guided -- by an external and higher moral standard? The religious person who must at least pre-textually pay homage to a written code like the Bible, or an atheist who must not take similar steps? The answer should be apparent. It is the theist who is more guided. Therefore, herein lays the difference between a religious person and an atheist. Even though we must filter biblical morals through our own conscience, we still can come out with a less bias result.

Is that a good thing? I think so.

Just like we would not like judges making up laws as they go along -- we want them somewhat constrained by the democratic will -- so, too, a human's inevitably biased and self-centered heart needs to be constrained by some higher moral will as well. Because, if for nothing else, while bad religion does exist, when evil marches under the banner of secular ideologies like Nazism, Communism or Maoism -- where the only constraint is a dictator’s demented heart -- the ensuing death and suffering knows no equal. 

Tags: atheism  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

"Atheism in the Gaps"

       Dinesh D'Souza recently coined a wonderfully insightful quip to respond to the old "God in the Gaps" mantra -- that is, "Atheism in the Gaps." So it is in his tenacious shadow that I offer my own little tidbit.

As I see it, "Atheism in the Gaps" occurs when an atheist does not need to prove his position is more plausible; but instead, he just needs to point out the holes in the theist's position, i.e. prove it is not iron-clad – as if anything is – and then fill in the gaps with an atheistic belief.

Atheists, for example, point to supposed "design-flaws" in the human body, like that we choke too easily. To them, this lack of perfection creates a gap in the God model proposed by theists. They then proceed to fill this hole with atheism, saying these flaws prove there is no omniscient and perfect God that designed us all. 

But this conclusion is quite arrogant, let alone wrong.

They are in essence claiming to know what the grand purpose of humanity is. Only then can they legitimately claim that the design which supposes to achieve that purpose is in some way flawed. For instance, a hammer does not have a “design flaw” because it can’t beat eggs, as its purpose is to – what’s the technical term? Oh yeah! – bang things hard.

So how do they know our purpose? Indeed, why do they assume it is to live forever so that things like choking easily frustrates it? Who told them, God? What's more, how do they then proceed to, with a straight face, fill this purpose/design gap with an atheistic belief? This is a completely irrational step that assumes far too much.

In fact, the idea that atheists have a claim to this knowledge fails at a far more basic level. Atheists necessarily posit a purposeless origin to our universe; there is, of course, no purpose without a purposeful creation. Therefore, the very notion of positing a grand purpose to humanity, for which the design is flawed in achieving, reflects an idea so rooted in intellectually dishonesty it makes one shiver.

What’s more damaging to the atheist posture is that theists do have an answer for these "flaws." That is to say, the frailty of the human body perfectly fits the design many theists posit. Only a frail and feeble creature would have the motivation to guard – or for that matter, to live – life as the fleeting treasure of untold value that it is. If we lived forever, how would life be similarly meaningful? It is in fact the urgency and ease of death that gives life meaning.

So we see that unless atheists can somehow pull out of their magician’s hat an objective purpose to humanity, this argument, much like most atheist arguments, can be discarded out of hand. What is unmistakably clear is that atheists definitely have no rational basis to fill this gap with atheism. But fill they do. 

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (5) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The consent-for-abortion and statutory-rape contradiction.

         In a particularly unnerving turn of events, too many Americans seem ambivalent to Senator Obama’s stalwart opposition to a law that would allow a doctor to save babies born alive after a failed abortion.  Without this law, if the “mother” objects, a doctor must allow the baby born alive to die on the operating table. Clearly, this law represents this issue's most egregious violation of morality and decency.  

          Still, other abortion laws possibly saddle their proponents with an equal lack of moral clarity and consistency. This is clearly illustrated by the laws that neither require, nor allow, for parental-consent when a 12 year-old-girl seeks to abort her unborn baby. 

         In many ways, I do not bring this up to challenge the wisdom of such laws. To me, taking these positions -- some of which being even more pro-abortion than NARAL – should be, to any thinking American, self-defeating. So I only ask because I am genuinely curious what these pro-abortion people are thinking. (And yes, while not every "pro-choice" person is "pro-abortion," those that support laws like this clearly fit that description in any intellectually honest world.)

         Anyways, the current law in many states is that a 12-year-old is mature and wise enough to "choose" whether to abort her unborn baby even without parental notification -- let alone consent. Yet, statutory rape laws necessarily maintain that a 12-year-old is not mature and wise enough to "choose" whether to have sex with a 22-year-old even with parental consent. 

         So I ask: how is a 12-year-old always wise enough to choose to abort her unborn baby, but never wise enough to choose when to engage in sexual conduct with an older man? Conservatives have a great answer to this question, namely, she is not wise enough for either. But what do the pro-abortion people have to say? Really, what?

Tags: abortion  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (6) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Activist judges, plumbers and mother-in-laws.

One should think about a judicial-activist judge like you would your mother-in-law when she tells your plumber how to do his job. What?! 

Let me explain: People hire a plumber when they have a plumbing issue, not because they “feel” like it, but because a plumber knows how to do plumbing better than your mother-in-law. In fact, I bet a whole dollar – I am in a risky mood – that no one reading this would even let their mother-in-law give their plumber advice on how he should do his job. 

Yet, people do not apply this common sense idea to activist judges. That is, we elect representatives because most would – or at least should – agree that a democracy usually does a better job at governing than an oligarchy. Therefore, logic says that we follow this obvious fact and disallow an oligarchy from giving advice to – let alone, ordering – the elected representatives on how to do their job. The sad part is, this perfectly labels what activist judges do, and we let them; some even celebrate them. These “wise” judges tell the democratically-elected representatives that they must take certain actions – not because of something written in the Constitution – but because of these judges’ personal views on a subject. Why are people not screaming in the streets opposing this assault on democracy?
Examples of this would take me a lifetime to list. But possibly the most egregious is found in the death penalty cases. It is beyond me how a document that explicitly allows for the death penalty can implicitly evolve into a document that disallows it. 
I must admit, however, much of what the left does is beyond me. I sometimes feel like I live in a cartoonish world called “Backwards Land,” where up is down, false is true, and irrationally is a judgment handed down by our highest court.  Oh well. 
Tags: courts  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

America: Great, greatest or none of the above?

I think many people -- we won't mention any names -- have to figure out what they believe. They say: "America is the greatest country in the world." But their rhetoric doesn't really allow for this possibility.

When you ask them: "Ok, so America is great. When? Throughout its history?" They answer: "Of course not! America was one of the most racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic etc… nations in all of history"—or what ever other one-word pejorative the intellectually lazy invoke.

In response, we comment: "Fine, so then even though it was all those bad things, it has become the greatest country, right?" They answer: "Well, no. Really, America was a beacon of hope and opportunity, but now it is a sexist, racist, homophobic, imperialistic, anti-environment etc...nation."

Thus, now a bit confused, we ask: "OK, so maybe you mean: it is the greatest country, but it is just not perfect. But it is still the best, or among the best, out there, right?" They answer again: "Well, maybe. But in truth places like Sweden with their moral relativism and socialism are far better at almost everything."

So in the end, really, in the eyes of many people on one side of the political/cultural spectrum, America is a mediocre country, at best. And that's fine. I have no problem per se with someone taking that foolish position. But please, be candid about it.  
Tags: Politics  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Gay Adoption and the Courts.

Obviously, a child is best served with a mother and a father -- and all the unique, and generally irreplaceable, strengths that both sexes bring to parenting. When faced, however, with the choice of a foster-home/orphanage to a loving parent who happens to be homosexual, the child's best interest likely lies with the latter.

  Yet, one should note that no where in this argument do I make mention of the Constitution. That is because -- as the liberal intelligensia loves to say  -- "understood properly," the Constitution says nothing about this issue. As far as the Constitution is concerned, the states are clearly free to make a so-called "gay adoption ban," despite how irresponsible such a policy would be.

And that, my friends, is the crux of my complaint . It seems that many movements, including this one advocated by the same-sex special-interest groups, know they may never get their policies enacted at the ballot box. So they seek to usurp our democratic process and impose them via some power-hungry judges.

Granted, historically, judges on both sides have invoked the Constitution to do their dirty work -- albeit, recently, the left has used it far more often. But as they say, "two wrongs don't make a right." Thus, even though Democracy has its shortcomings, societies have tried oligarchies -- they have far more. So, when we think about what types of judges we want appointed, let's pick those that bring some integrity back to the judiciary and wipe this misguided power-grab from this branch's otherwise honorable role.
Tags: culture  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (4) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Great Orators usually have nothing good to say.

Why do we need to prioritize what we hold dear in this world? Because if we don't, someone else will do it for us.

Great orators usually have nothing good to say, because if they did, they would not need to be great orators.

People can make an argument for anything; and more troubling, persuasive people can make a persuasive argument for anything. Thus, if we are not grounded in any pre-set value system, valuing some things over others, then we doom ourselves to a life as pawns of some more principled and ideologically focused leader who can make what seems to be a compelling argument. Without any prior anchors, what stops a good orator from fashioning new values for us to fret over, all the while forgetting the important values, like human life?

Following this, it should come as no surprise that the vast majority of people that were willing to stand up to the dictators of history had some pre-existing value they were appealing to—be it scientific progress in the case of Andrei Sakharov of the U.S.S.R. or belief in a loving God in the case of the many Christians that risked their lives for Jews in the Holocaust.

Tags: values  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Does the judicary need some checking and balancing?

People say "judicial activism" is not so bad -- in fact, it may be great -- as it checks and balances the other branches.

I agree, "checks and balances" are a great thing. But who checks, and who balances, the judiciary? When they decide to make use of the more elastic terms in the constitution like "privileges," "due process" or "equal protection," who can balance them short of a constitutional amendment that they can interpret however they like anyways? 

Listen liberals: call it what you like, but be candid about the fact that when the judges so broadly use "judicial review" (a mechanism not democratically instituted, i.e. in the Constitution), they are becoming a modern day version of Plato's Philosopher Kings. They are telling the democracy that it is too stupid to figure out these complicated issues for itself, so the self-proclaimed oligarchical courts will do it for them.

This assault on self-governance -- a notion that our nation was founded under -- should not be tolerated.

I suggest reading "A Country I do not Recognize." It expounds on these issues far more eloquently than I can. Conservatives should read it as it is a nice re-buff to the one-sided, liberal version of law we are fed by the mainstream media and liberals should like it, if for nothing else, because it will give you a glimpse into what the other side is thinking so that you are more prepared to combat it in the marketplace of ideas.

http://www.hooverpress.org/productdetails.cfm?PC=1110
  
Tags: courts  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Judges use torture all the time!

No one really, I mean really, thinks that torture cannot help one obtain credible information – or at least I hope not. We use it all the time. When we obtain testimony via a plea agreement – testimony used in a court of law – we acquire it using force or the threat of force – in other words, torture. We either threaten them with prison, and all the pain and suffering associated with it, or we actually put them into prison until they decide to become more helpful. So if it’s always good enough for a judge with all his rules of evidence, how is it never good enough for an intelligence operative who is trying to keep us safe?

Now, of course, this should not lead one to condone torture or even coerced interrogation (i.e. water-boarding) at every possible chance. We must still use it rarely because of a zealous officer's inevitable abuse. Yet, little integrity attaches to  the odd claim that threatening or using force cannot, at times, acquire valuable information that polite cajoling will not. Sure, there will be times when force gets us information of little use. But surely no one can seriously argue that civilly asking a murderer questions will not leave us with information that is of no use as well. Therefore, for all those with even a shred of intellectual honesty, let’s get rid of this odd and utterly untrue talking point that force does not obtain credible information – it can, and clearly, it does.

 

Tags: courts  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Does the Constitution have anything to do with something being "unconstitutional"?

Do you ever ask yourself why liberal positions like surrendering in Iraq, antipathy to school vouchers, or the constitution's favorite topic of discussion, the normalization of homosexual sex, are always deeply rooted in the constitution? And remember, this is the same constitution liberals otherwise lambaste as a work of America’s founders, with their dark and oppressive pasts. So does it not seem odd to most people that lefty groups like the ACLU always find full support for their leftist or liberal policy-choice in the words of a 200 year old document? Does it not seem odd that the founders intended something like abortion—a largely immoral practice—to be a constitutional right; or better, that the implicit evolution of the constitution forbids the administration of the death penalty—something the constitution happens to explicitly allow for by saying life may be deprived with "due process"?

These are all, of course, rhetorical questions. Of course it is odd, and in many ways, counter-intuitive. So why do liberal organizations trying to advocate policy choices in the oligarchy courts—policy choices they know they would never get passed at the ballot box using the democratic process—choose to make their arguments rooted in the constitution? Shouldn’t the overt sentiments of contradiction and inconsistency persuade them to seek a different basis for their arguments?

On the surface, there are two answers to this question—one being more ominous than the other. The first, less devious, answer is that the judges imposing these liberal policy choices must at least claim to be engaging in their duty to safeguard and protect the rule of law rooted in the constitution. Thus, they must, at a minimum, pay lip-service to a document from which, in actuality, they rarely seek guidance. They only truly call on the constitution if it happens to support their presupposed policy-choice leanings—and that occurs less often than Senator Obama speaking without a teleprompter.

Nevertheless, the second, and more frank, answer is that even liberals see the need to seek support from some objective source of morality and law. Only then can they impose their policy choices on the masses with at least a small degree of intellectual honesty. Without this objectivity, they are merely compelling society to adhere to their own personal, and thus subjective, preference on various policies and issues. This is why they elect to label any policy choice they disagree with "unconstitutional" or "illegal"; they are tripping on their own moral relativism and the subjective, and thus illegitimizing, aura it promotes.

So since they argue that God may not even enter the mind of a policymaker, let alone guide him in his policy making decisions, the constitution is all they have left. It is the last avenue of appeal for some notions of right or wrong that transcend their personal opinion and preference. Thus, they are forced to hijack the constitution so that can claim to have some objective, and thus legitimate, authority over the society on which they seek to impose their policy choices.

This is clearly illustrated by the liberal attack on traditional notions of marriage. They make the odd claim that the Equal Protection clause demands, despite the obvious differences, that we legally encourage homosexual relationships in the same way we do so for heterosexual relationships—with things like tax breaks and expedited probate. Yet, the Equal Protection clause was only created for the purpose of granting equal rights to blacks based on their newfound freedom from slavery. The drafters did not even mean to promote equality among the sexes with this clause, let alone between different types of sexual conduct. But this undeniable fact does not deter liberals from invoking the constitution, because without it, they lack even a pretense to an objective, and thus legitimate, basis for their policy impositions.

But really, who can blame them? Saying something is "unconstitutional" sure does sound more persuasive than saying "I feel in my heart, and tummy…that is a bad rule."

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Patriotism is under attack!

Yes, patriotism is under attack. No, not by foreign forces who wish to undermine our nation’s morale, but by our supposed brethren at home. A relatively new idea put forward by many so-called “progressives” is not only that they are not patriots, that we already knew, but now they argue that patriotism is a bad thing—in fact, something we must purge from our country’s midst.

The gist of their argument is that patriotism’s malignant progeny, nationalism, has caused more death than even their long-time enemy, religion. As a result, they are calling on all of us to renounce our patriotism and become “World Citizens”—and thus, have no lines of division between us. But to follow this advice is to invite our own demise. Patriotism—love of one’s country as long as it is a fundamentally moral—must be preserved. (Note: As one reads this essay, they should bear in mind that the same arguments put forward for patriotism stand almost identically true for good religion as well.)

Just like most assertions the left puts forward, it hides its sophistry among a few grains of truth. Nationalism—obsession with one’s country as superior no matter what it does wrong—does in fact cause a colossal amount of suffering and death. The U.S.S.R and Nazi Germany should be all one has to say at this point. But when we seek to eradicate this cause of devastation, should we be getting rid of its sane cousin, Patriotism—one of the only forces capable of going toe to toe with it? Indeed, only ideologies akin to patriotism, ones that create healthy alliances between two people who are otherwise strangers, can provide enough passion and will to confront evil where ever it may rear its ugly head.

It should go without saying that evil exists and in fact, will always exist. Any notion to the contrary is rooted in irrational Utopianism; to say we can get rid of evil is like saying we can completely eradicate hate or jealousy, or any of the other things that cause people to inflict unjust suffering and death. Thus, we need things like patriotism in order to conquer these inevitable foes. Put another way, we need good patriotism to fight the unavoidable bad patriotism, i.e. nationalism.

Think about it like this: Our survival requires we subscribe to ideologies like patriotism because, in short, people take care of their own. If we thus rid ourselves of this healthy national association, which admittedly may possibly fester into a dividing line, there will be no one left to fight for—no one to call our own. In turn, most people will just take care of themselves and not the then unfamiliar World-Citizen in dire need.

This should not be an acceptable result. Instead, we must hold dear the ideologies that persuade us to feel the pain of people whose plight does not openly affect our lives.

We find this persuasion occurring all the time. Whether one altruistically extends a helping hand to a family member in need or a religious group or state department works hard to save their own from the hands of a foreign oppressor, regardless, we all take care of our own.

There was, for instance, a huge contingency of American Jews that worked tirelessly to secure aid and asylum for the Jews who were brutally oppressed by the U.S.S.R. If not for their brethren speaking out, these Jews would be left to the communist wolves.

For an example more relevant to this essay’s topic, we can look at who gave up their lives to fight Japan in WWII. Was it the French whose hatred of patriotism and embrace of internationalism made them easy, pacifist targets for the oncoming Blitzkrieg? Of course not—our own brothers and sisters paid the ultimate price. Even the UK may not have been fighting that war if Hitler did not pose a grave threat to their country.

Too many Americans take for granted what is a unique U.S. endeavor: to fight for and protect others even when our own face no immediate peril. For that we can ironically thank the other enemy of the left, our religious nature. It demands of us that we care for all of God’s children and not let any human unjustly suffer or die. Yet, it is this otherwise natural propensity of people to only take care of their own that should make the idea of “World Citizenry” smack us as instinctively bad.

Do people really think that something like a general notion of humanism will overcome our deep lust for self-preservation? The inevitable refrain will be: “Why should we take care of people being butchered in a far off land? Let the other world citizens do something about it!”

So when all is said and done, the “progressives” again find themselves in backwards-land. Not only do nationalism’s ill-effects not call on us to abandon patriotism; on the contrary, it forcibly demands that we inculcate this reasoned and moral love of country in the most profound way. Evil will triumph unless there are those who have the will to stand in its way

Tags: Politics  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Universal Jurisdiction: Universally a Bad Idea

The concept of Universal Jurisdiction, a progeny of the new “international law,” creates quite a troubling situation. In short, Universal Jurisdiction creates a right for any country to prosecute any person, other than an active leader of a state, with crimes such as genocide and the increasingly vague charges of “crimes against humanity” and “war crimes.” At first glance, one interested in reducing human rights violations, will undoubtedly laud this turn of events. Yet, upon further inspection, this development, to say the least, is clearly not a good thing.

It will inevitably place America’s political decisions under the control of a foreign court. Anytime any country in the world disagrees with our democratically decided policies, they need only to detain and charge any soldier or official that happens to be in their country with some vague war crime and let their noble court sort out the rest. So besides the fact that it will subvert our sovereignty by rendering our elected representatives and their policies targets for criminal prosecution, it is also a bad idea as it places in the courts a concept which it has little ability to justly rule upon, namely politics.

Ask any law student or judge: one concept that has carved out a permanent place in our court’s jurisprudence is the Political Question Doctrine. This doctrine of judicial restraint acknowledges, very wisely, that courts are limited in their ability to adjudicate certain disputes. Sure, the question of whether, for example, a battery occurred—i.e. whether someone intentionally touched someone else in a harmful or offensive way—is well with a court’s area of expertise. There is little nuance for a court to apply. Using a handful of pre-existing rules and excuses for such conduct, the court can adjudicate justly. But this is not the case when we deal with politics. And most wise judges know that.

Politics requires a far more nuanced approach. The question of whether we should institute school vouchers, for instance, is not something that can be concluded based on some prior rules. So surely things like the use of military force should be determined by political debate and compromise, and not the relatively cold decision-making process of a court. Moreover, politics are beyond the court’s privy because the court has no legitimate basis to approve or reject any democratically-instituted policy based on its “independent judgment.” It should go without saying that a court—especially a foreign one—that can make policies/laws, in addition to merely interpreting them, is too powerful; indeed, such an oligarchy-like ruler is far more powerful than a democratic society predicated on a notion of separation of powers should have to tolerate.

Thus, because Universal Jurisdiction can—and inevitably will—bring any of our foreign-policy decisions on trial before a far-off court, it should be discarded out of hand. 

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Enemies that can't fight back

     The left’s obsession with political correctness has officially gone from annoying to dangerous. Their hysterical fear of possibly offending people with their ideas has forced them to only recognize enemies who have no name, who have no possibility to get offended, or of course who have no ability to challenge them back. So they are relegated to talking about toothless enemies like global warming or population crisis, but fail to recognize the true enemies to our liberty and way of life. That being now, Islamic terrorism.


Tags: Politics  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (5) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous12Next »