Should there be a debate about how obedient we should be to church leaders as opposed to the gospel or the inner voice?
Some would argue (Read 'Under the Banner of Heaven') that even thinking the still small voice is telling you to do something does not mean you should do it.
ESPECIALLY when it is telling you something like commit a murder or a crime.
Should we not review the actions of church leaders to keep them to the standards they would expect of us?
These things I ponder as I think back to my days in SLC, Utah.
Also, to look at how different the church's stance is on politics is of note.
'The Proper Role of Government' by Ezra Taft Benson clearly denounces the use of government force to make people do as we want them to. It offers a libertarian stance on politics, not an intrusive one.
And one of my earliest memories of the threatre in Utah was the show Saturday's Warriors
about people having to lear on their own terms.
Satan wanted to force everyone to act, and Jesus wanted people to be free to decide for themselves. Believing that people, in choosing good and not being forced into it, would get the greatest reward.
So where are we today on this line of thinking?
S~
I vote libertarian.
Tuesday, June 21, 2005
Sunday, June 05, 2005
Neo-Com
Jun 4 1989
Chinese troops, firing a few warning shots, manage to push tens of thousands of student protesters out of Tienanmen Square without killing any of them. This changes once they're out of the Square, however. In the end, hundreds of unarmed citizens on the streets of Beijing are massacred by the army. Later, several leaders of the pro-democracy demonstration are publicly executed.
As I read this, I thought about some debates I have had over the past year. I wonder what side the neo-communists are on when you discuss the Tienanmen Square incident.
Are they pro-democracy and rights, or are they anti-rights and pro-communism, or worse yet, are they in the 'ambiguous zone',
Why the contradiction? You ask! Why not a distinction? I ask!
Does it do anyone well to dwell in an unspeakable, undefinable state? This is Especially important when it comes to how they vote/rule over others. If you can not state or defend your position, can you be so sure it is the right one?
You cannot support property rights and communism because, as Karl Marx said, "Communism can best be defined by the abolition of private property."
It can not be said that the students in China on that amazing day of hope and tragedy were there to bring communism to China. They were there to demand the government stop violating their rights, their freedoms.
So the students back in 1989 in China, standing up for the rights the Communist government would never want to stop taking/violating/suppressing, were asking for quite a lot. Which, at the same time was their unalienable right to have. Just as it is our unalienable right.
It should make us here in America aware of where we our in our current state of affairs, both politically and socially. No one should ask we lose one right to protect another.
Sacrificing liberty should never be confused with a good way to secure safety. It is putting trust in the hands of men with powers outside of yourself.
Oh, You ask, "What do you have to hide?" I declare I have NOTHING to hide, and so much to protect.
"What do I have to hide?" What is it you seek?
A large number of people in America tend to lean towards the social controlling government, and less in the self determination side of government protection.
For example, most conservatives want to secure the right to bear arms and most socialists want to secure homosexual marriage, and in the same term in office they boldly swipe at the other's desired rights.
We act like gangs on a turf war boldly and carelessly enacting laws about the opposition because we have stopped caring what the opponent wants and needs. In fact we have set ourselves out, ofttimes, to take what the opposition wants.
"eat the rich", "feed the poor"- "corporations are evil"- "You will not get my gun, Not till you pry my gun from my cold dead fingers"- "Save the environment"- "Save the humans"- "save our schools"- "stop teaching evolution"- "Stop teaching creationism", "protect gay rights!" ETC!!!
Moreover we have violated what the whole American system was supposed to be doing in the first place. Simply pprotecting the unalienable rights of 'We the people. . ."
How does this apply to the wars we fight against each other?
In closing - - - Just a few examples,
Gay marriage- "The job of the government is to protect individual rights, gays are individual, case closed." MB
War on Drugs- Decriminalize drugs. When a drugged or sober person violates another person's rights, we can justly place that person in jail. Currently the war on drugs make soft kids harder, and provides huge income from the black market. AND it connects the incarcerated with dealers even behind bars.
War on Guns- How about actually putting and KEEPING people behind bars when the use of guns violates the rights of another, not when they simply own one. I had a friend in Utah whose father was murdered in the parking lot of a bar. The shooter got two and a half years in jail, and we have kids in jail for five or ten years mandatory minimum just because they had drugs on them.
Where are our priorities???
Where are our rights?
I suggest the nation display some intellectual stamina and investigate the libertarian philosophy.
It is as close to the one we started out with as you can get. The only changes are that we now know that rights are held by all, not all in power.
You may also join the party. Donate to the party or to local liberty activists. Then vote for the candidates that want to protect you from ANY violation of your rights, regardless of the party they may be in.
Reply,
Scott Lindsley
___________________________________________________________________________
"Unwise legislation, too often prompted by political expediency, is periodically being enacted that seductively undermines man's right of free agency, robs him of his rightful liberties, and makes him but a cog in the crushing wheel of a regimentation which, if persisted in, will end in dictatorship." --David O. McKay
----------------------------------
Ps, What are you doing about your beliefs?
"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others."
Thomas Jefferson
Chinese troops, firing a few warning shots, manage to push tens of thousands of student protesters out of Tienanmen Square without killing any of them. This changes once they're out of the Square, however. In the end, hundreds of unarmed citizens on the streets of Beijing are massacred by the army. Later, several leaders of the pro-democracy demonstration are publicly executed.
As I read this, I thought about some debates I have had over the past year. I wonder what side the neo-communists are on when you discuss the Tienanmen Square incident.
Are they pro-democracy and rights, or are they anti-rights and pro-communism, or worse yet, are they in the 'ambiguous zone',
Why the contradiction? You ask! Why not a distinction? I ask!
Does it do anyone well to dwell in an unspeakable, undefinable state? This is Especially important when it comes to how they vote/rule over others. If you can not state or defend your position, can you be so sure it is the right one?
You cannot support property rights and communism because, as Karl Marx said, "Communism can best be defined by the abolition of private property."
It can not be said that the students in China on that amazing day of hope and tragedy were there to bring communism to China. They were there to demand the government stop violating their rights, their freedoms.
So the students back in 1989 in China, standing up for the rights the Communist government would never want to stop taking/violating/suppressing, were asking for quite a lot. Which, at the same time was their unalienable right to have. Just as it is our unalienable right.
It should make us here in America aware of where we our in our current state of affairs, both politically and socially. No one should ask we lose one right to protect another.
Sacrificing liberty should never be confused with a good way to secure safety. It is putting trust in the hands of men with powers outside of yourself.
Oh, You ask, "What do you have to hide?" I declare I have NOTHING to hide, and so much to protect.
"What do I have to hide?" What is it you seek?
A large number of people in America tend to lean towards the social controlling government, and less in the self determination side of government protection.
For example, most conservatives want to secure the right to bear arms and most socialists want to secure homosexual marriage, and in the same term in office they boldly swipe at the other's desired rights.
We act like gangs on a turf war boldly and carelessly enacting laws about the opposition because we have stopped caring what the opponent wants and needs. In fact we have set ourselves out, ofttimes, to take what the opposition wants.
"eat the rich", "feed the poor"- "corporations are evil"- "You will not get my gun, Not till you pry my gun from my cold dead fingers"- "Save the environment"- "Save the humans"- "save our schools"- "stop teaching evolution"- "Stop teaching creationism", "protect gay rights!" ETC!!!
Moreover we have violated what the whole American system was supposed to be doing in the first place. Simply pprotecting the unalienable rights of 'We the people. . ."
How does this apply to the wars we fight against each other?
In closing - - - Just a few examples,
Gay marriage- "The job of the government is to protect individual rights, gays are individual, case closed." MB
War on Drugs- Decriminalize drugs. When a drugged or sober person violates another person's rights, we can justly place that person in jail. Currently the war on drugs make soft kids harder, and provides huge income from the black market. AND it connects the incarcerated with dealers even behind bars.
War on Guns- How about actually putting and KEEPING people behind bars when the use of guns violates the rights of another, not when they simply own one. I had a friend in Utah whose father was murdered in the parking lot of a bar. The shooter got two and a half years in jail, and we have kids in jail for five or ten years mandatory minimum just because they had drugs on them.
Where are our priorities???
Where are our rights?
I suggest the nation display some intellectual stamina and investigate the libertarian philosophy.
It is as close to the one we started out with as you can get. The only changes are that we now know that rights are held by all, not all in power.
You may also join the party. Donate to the party or to local liberty activists. Then vote for the candidates that want to protect you from ANY violation of your rights, regardless of the party they may be in.
Reply,
Scott Lindsley
___________________________________________________________________________
"Unwise legislation, too often prompted by political expediency, is periodically being enacted that seductively undermines man's right of free agency, robs him of his rightful liberties, and makes him but a cog in the crushing wheel of a regimentation which, if persisted in, will end in dictatorship." --David O. McKay
----------------------------------
Ps, What are you doing about your beliefs?
"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others."
Thomas Jefferson
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)