This is about that radical Christain movement rising in the U.S. I was
talking about.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/7235393/the_crusaders/?rnd=1141889548343&has-player=true&version=6.0.11.847
Scary stuff if you ask me.
------SuperJared Response--------:
It's a bit Left-wing. I mean the language is a bit slanted (comparing the movement to communism?) But clearly making Christianity into a unified political front under a radical interpretation of scripture is—unchristian. It's very religious, but not in character for the individualist aspect inherent in Christianity. However, rather than specifically condemn this movement, I'm more critical of the radical power lobby groups are accorded in most "democratic" societies. This doesn't seem any worse than the non-smoking groups; have you ever stopped to consider why beer and tobacco is so heavily taxed but groceries are not? It is not a luxury tax, it's sin tax. If it were a luxury tax, then why don’t donuts have the same (approx. 100%) tax? It's so expensive because our society has made a moral judgment about the nature of these products, which has exceeded the essential character of the constitution –or even the conditions for a just society. The government is supposed to maximize the freedom of individuals so far as it doesn't infringe on the freedom of others. For God's sake, we shouldn't even have seat belt laws. Speed limits? of course; speed endangers others. But seatbelts don't protect anyone but yourself. Considering the way the liberal government always cedes to Supreme Court decisions no matter what the people —who are supposed to be ultimate decision makers in democracy— say(rather than ask the public, they pretended the Supreme Court was the "supreme" power in the gay-marriage debate), I think if they are ever re-elected I should bring this before them as an instance of violated fundamental rights, maybe sue for my beer-tax back too...
2 comments:
But a person without a seatbelt could become a projectile, which makes them a danger to others. We can't just have children flying through windshields all willy-nilly, it would be anarchy!
Erin :p
You can restrict the freedom of children without contradiction by stipulating that only those at the age of majority can chose to endanger their own safety. As a fully develloped rational adult, I think you should feel free to shoot out your windshield.
Post a Comment