It's been quite a while since I've posted anything, so I thought I might do so now.
The particular burr under my saddle this time is the plethora of stories about Christians being harassed for their beliefs under the guise of anti-discrimination laws.
My economic and philosophical leanings tell me that discrimination is not only moral, but absolutely necessary under certain circumstances. I read something within the last few days that stated that the reason for all of this folderol was the fact that courts have ruled that many businesses are to be considered public accommodations, which places them under the scrutiny of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. While no Libertarian, Barry Goldwater predicted such an outcome back when this bill was being debated in Congress, and this was largely the basis of his opposition to the bill.
Many posters on forums on which I have participated insist that businesses cannot discriminate in cases like these (bakers and photographers and wedding chapels being compelled to service same-sex couples under threat of fine and/or jail), but I fail to see why not. Are there no LGBT bakers or photographers out there which can provide their services? This sounds to me like an opportunity for some enterprising LGBT people. Or, is their purpose simply harassment?
All of you who insist that Christian businesses, or any business that has a moral or ethical objection to any person or group, do not have the right to deny their products or services to whomever they please, make a logical case for such a position that doesn't resort to positivist reasoning ("It's the Law, nyah, nyah."). I want you to explain to me why any person or business doesn't have the right to do business with whomever they choose. However, if your argument ultimately appeals to government force, then you will not convince me that you are right, only that you have the numbers and violence on your side.
Tuesday, October 28, 2014
Tuesday, December 27, 2011
My First Post
Hi, everyone,
This is my first post on my own blog. I bet you're saying to yourself, "Big deal!". Well, it's a big deal to me. For quite a long time I've admired and followed many blogs, including those of Lew Rockwell, Vox Day, Ilana Mercer, James White and a few others. I've admired these for their writing styles and the clarity and the passion of their argumentation. It has long been one of my goals to communicate as well as these bloggers do.
My reasons for finally taking the plunge into the blogosphere boil down to a few - to improve my writing and communication skills, to dialogue with people about things and ideas about which I am passionate, and to reach a much wider audience with my take on things than I could ever do just talking to my family and acquaintances.
As my blog title suggests, my posts will deal mainly with religion, politics and economics. To me, these three things are almost inextricably linked in my world view. There will be other subjects that will be discussed from time to time, but the bulk of my postings will fall into one of these three categories.
I make no pretense about having all the answers, but I do think that my view of things is informed by a set of very respected and intellectually rigorous schools of thought. I will obviously try to convince others that I am right, but I also promise to entertain the views of others who are almost certainly smarter than I am, and have better minds. I am not afraid to admit this. I hope the interchange will be frank but cordial. But, I will not suffer pomposity, nor will I suffer ad hominem attacks toward me or other posters. My purpose is to foster dialogue that will enrich and educate, and maybe even entertain on occasion, though wit is not necessarily my strength.
Without further ado, then, let's get right to it. My main motivation to finally start a blog was a piece I read at WND.com. This piece, written by Bob Unruh, quotes a former senior aide to Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) as saying that while he had never heard anything overtly racist or anti-Semitic come from the mouth of Rep. Paul over the years, he had expressed opinions about the state of Israel that would give a supporter of the state of Israel pause. In a nutshell, what this aide says is that, according to Rep. Paul, the existence of the state of Israel is, at the very least, an impediment to peace and stability in the Middle East. He even implies that things would be better if Israel didn't exist.
Now I have heard many things Ron Paul has said over the years about our support of Israel in particular, and foreign aid in general. My own feeling is that Ron Paul wants genuinely to adhere to the Constitution as he understands it, and founders' vision of our place in the world. I have no way of knowing whether this former aide's charges are true or false, but the tone of the comments suggest that the purpose is to damn with faint praise. "He is not anti-Semitic, but his views are misguided", the aide seems to say. These accusations and charges echo the ones made by the major conservative talk radio hosts and even WND chief Joseph Farah. The various charges seem to boil down to one major one - Ron Paul is an isolationist, and that makes him unacceptable as a presidential candidate.
This presents a real dilemma for someone like me, who is a Reformed Christian, a supporter of the existence of the state of Israel, and a small-L libertarian. I understand the arguments of Ron Paul in wanting a more humble and non-interventionist (not isolationist) foreign policy, and I sympathize with them. After all, what has our meddling all over the world for more than a century gotten us? Surely there must be a better way. What say you Evangelical Christians out there who support, in theory, the limited-government positions of Ron Paul but at the same time are all in for the perpetual-war posture of our current foreign policy. Is America really the savior of the world, and any violence in serving this cause is justified? Do opponents of Ron Paul really believe that he is a dangerous isolationist who would put us at the mercy of our enemies? Does this disagreement negate the 99+ percent of the issues on which you and Ron Paul agree?
And for you Ron Paul supporters out there (of which I am one), do these latest charges and accusations change your minds at all about supporting this man for President? I personally believe that he might be the last hope to restore our country to some semblance of the one that our founders left to us, with all of its flaws. Is there any way the 'national greatness' conservatives and the truly limited-government ones can come together and support the man who may be our last, best hope?
This is my first post on my own blog. I bet you're saying to yourself, "Big deal!". Well, it's a big deal to me. For quite a long time I've admired and followed many blogs, including those of Lew Rockwell, Vox Day, Ilana Mercer, James White and a few others. I've admired these for their writing styles and the clarity and the passion of their argumentation. It has long been one of my goals to communicate as well as these bloggers do.
My reasons for finally taking the plunge into the blogosphere boil down to a few - to improve my writing and communication skills, to dialogue with people about things and ideas about which I am passionate, and to reach a much wider audience with my take on things than I could ever do just talking to my family and acquaintances.
As my blog title suggests, my posts will deal mainly with religion, politics and economics. To me, these three things are almost inextricably linked in my world view. There will be other subjects that will be discussed from time to time, but the bulk of my postings will fall into one of these three categories.
I make no pretense about having all the answers, but I do think that my view of things is informed by a set of very respected and intellectually rigorous schools of thought. I will obviously try to convince others that I am right, but I also promise to entertain the views of others who are almost certainly smarter than I am, and have better minds. I am not afraid to admit this. I hope the interchange will be frank but cordial. But, I will not suffer pomposity, nor will I suffer ad hominem attacks toward me or other posters. My purpose is to foster dialogue that will enrich and educate, and maybe even entertain on occasion, though wit is not necessarily my strength.
Without further ado, then, let's get right to it. My main motivation to finally start a blog was a piece I read at WND.com. This piece, written by Bob Unruh, quotes a former senior aide to Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) as saying that while he had never heard anything overtly racist or anti-Semitic come from the mouth of Rep. Paul over the years, he had expressed opinions about the state of Israel that would give a supporter of the state of Israel pause. In a nutshell, what this aide says is that, according to Rep. Paul, the existence of the state of Israel is, at the very least, an impediment to peace and stability in the Middle East. He even implies that things would be better if Israel didn't exist.
Now I have heard many things Ron Paul has said over the years about our support of Israel in particular, and foreign aid in general. My own feeling is that Ron Paul wants genuinely to adhere to the Constitution as he understands it, and founders' vision of our place in the world. I have no way of knowing whether this former aide's charges are true or false, but the tone of the comments suggest that the purpose is to damn with faint praise. "He is not anti-Semitic, but his views are misguided", the aide seems to say. These accusations and charges echo the ones made by the major conservative talk radio hosts and even WND chief Joseph Farah. The various charges seem to boil down to one major one - Ron Paul is an isolationist, and that makes him unacceptable as a presidential candidate.
This presents a real dilemma for someone like me, who is a Reformed Christian, a supporter of the existence of the state of Israel, and a small-L libertarian. I understand the arguments of Ron Paul in wanting a more humble and non-interventionist (not isolationist) foreign policy, and I sympathize with them. After all, what has our meddling all over the world for more than a century gotten us? Surely there must be a better way. What say you Evangelical Christians out there who support, in theory, the limited-government positions of Ron Paul but at the same time are all in for the perpetual-war posture of our current foreign policy. Is America really the savior of the world, and any violence in serving this cause is justified? Do opponents of Ron Paul really believe that he is a dangerous isolationist who would put us at the mercy of our enemies? Does this disagreement negate the 99+ percent of the issues on which you and Ron Paul agree?
And for you Ron Paul supporters out there (of which I am one), do these latest charges and accusations change your minds at all about supporting this man for President? I personally believe that he might be the last hope to restore our country to some semblance of the one that our founders left to us, with all of its flaws. Is there any way the 'national greatness' conservatives and the truly limited-government ones can come together and support the man who may be our last, best hope?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)