politicalcivility.com Blog

Here’s a link that gives a nice quick overview of what the Grace Commission found about taxation and governement spending.

http://www.freecanadian.net/articles/grace.html

This is a follow-up on the $55 dollar tow job post.

Not too long ago I read a letter to the editor in the Wall Street Journal that hit the “religion” principle nerve for me. The writer remarked that the best way for me to show him respect is to practice religion the way that he does–namely, in the privacy of my own home.  My interpretation of his assertion was that religious sympols have no place in the public square because they infringe on his right not to be confronted by the religious symbols of another.

I have a hard time with this line of thinking as well as a hard time understanding why some are so quick to be offended by public demonstrations of faith.  The Constitution protects my right to worship privately and publicly. 

Here is my counter to this fellow’s assertion: We need more religious symbols in the public square, not less.  I accept gladly the wish of Happy Hanukah or Kwanzaa though these are not holidays my religion celebrates.

It takes NO respect to ask people to not confront me with beliefs that are not my own.  True respect and civility come into play when I seek to appreciate, value, understand and honor those things which are good and just regardless of religious persuasion or political affiliation of another human being.  I would hope that I am secure enough in my own beliefs to appreciate and see the value in the public expression of a faith different from my own.  Not only that, but also to be grateful my neighbor aspires to a higher sphere of moral conduct.

Religion as a Key Moral Compass

Liberty cannot endure unless those under its banner a) have a clear sense of right and wrong and b) in general choose to act in accordance with right.

But this leaves us with a dilemma: who defines “right.”  Herein lies the critical role of religion.  The definition of right must come from a higher, unchanging source.  Why?  If man by himself defines right, what man then is able to determine “right” for the remainder of mankind, especially if we truly espouse the notion that all men are created equal.  If all are created equal, then each man’s definition is equally “right.”  We are left with chaos and anarchy.

Religion and an appeal to the Almighty is the only way for us to find a clarity of right and wrong that can be applicable to all and to which all can be subordinate.

I know that much has been said and written about “the wall of separation of church and state,” which has no reference in the Constitution or Bill of Rights.  Unfortunately, those who have sought to ban religion from the public sector fail to recognize that they are simply practicing and legislating another faith or religion: humanism or atheism.

Given the success of this movement, I am not surprised by the corporate scandals we have witnessed, nor the increase in divorce or the increase of a litenany of other social ills.  We have removed the Source of truth.  We have taken away the only compass proven over time to provide the public a sure way of discerning right from wrong, thus leaving the public to define right for themselves, and in the case of Enron the consequences were disasterous for thousands of individuals. 

Good government is not freedom FROM religion but promoting the FREE exercise of religion in both private and public forums, thus recognizing the fundamental role religion plays in providing a compass for moral behavior that lines and lines of additional code and legislation can never provide.