Info

You are currently browsing the archives for the worldview category.

May 2012
M T W T F S S
« Apr    
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031  
Links

Archive for the worldview Category

The evil of disorder

If one has spent any serious amount of time talking about politics with his neighbors, he’s sure to have heard someone say that “we all want the same things.”

At first the saying seems benign, a somewhat understanding and peaceful approach to political conversation, a suggestion that despite disagreement, neither party is evil, nor any countryman an enemy.  But in reality, behind the mask of camaraderie and tolerance, and perhaps even deeper than the intentions of its professors, lies an ideology extremely harmful to society at large.  For evils don’t often manifest themselves in total opposition to any universally positive quality.  Instead, persuading with a charming tone and appealing oftentimes to the same qualities which noble men hold dear, they simply rearrange the manner in which those qualities take precedence over one another. Read the rest of this entry »

Christian Sharia? Part 1: Biblical Law in Historical America

In a world of political slander and misrepresentations both purposeful and accidental, there are few insults less ridiculous than those pertaining to “Christian Sharia,” or, rather, that the logical conclusion of a Biblical legal stance is Arabic despotism.  One doesn’t have to look far back in history to see that many figures (if not most) crucial to the establishment of classical liberalism, as well as to the foundation of the United States of America, proclaimed without hesitation that law itself, if it was ever to be just, must agree with the legal principles contained in Scripture or be opposed. Read the rest of this entry »

Jesus: the true American Dream

America, though often derided and hated — perhaps not explicitly, but silently — by the left, oftentimes experiences the opposite problem from its most ardent admirers, the conservatives.  In its admiration, perhaps condensed most perfectly into what is known as the American Dream, men elevate a nation into idolization because the nation elevates men.  One does not have to look far to see that in American literature, in the movies, in even the world of politics, Americans believe on a sincere level that in the United States, opportunity can be had by all who truly seek it, and that for this reason it is worthy of glorification. Read the rest of this entry »

Why true conservatives do not attend AIDS rallies

In the world of politics, there are perhaps fewer psychological weapons better disguised than a so-called charitable cause.   For though at first some causes appear to be rooted in goodness, in empathy, and in mercy, they can oftentimes be vehicles not only to safely advance causes which many find morally offensive, but also tools to silence opponents without the perils of argument.  And in this brand of political warfare, there perhaps exists no greater weapon than the fight against AIDS. Read the rest of this entry »

Civilization versus the barbarian

One of the most important questions facing civilization, not only in light of the savagery of London’s riots, but in all of history, is how civilization defines barbarism. Read the rest of this entry »

Honor, shame, and pro-gay anti-bullying campaigns

The other day, as I was on my way to work, I was driving through a relatively empty parking lot.  Being in somewhat of a hurry, I was trying to save as much time as possible, taking the route in which I had expected the least amount of traffic and cruising over speed bumps.  But as I moved quickly to my destination, and a young woman crossed in front of me, a wave of impatience smothered my sensitivity and urged me to continue at my same pace.  Surely she can speed up, I thought.  And she did: I did not slow down. Read the rest of this entry »

Problems with modern liberty of speech

In John Stuart Mill’s most influential and widely read work, On Liberty, he defended what he considered to be one of the most important pillars of any successful society, liberty of thought, and consequently of speech.  And it is plain from reading On Liberty that Americans have taken his suggestions quite seriously, not only supporting legislation to protect speech from governmental prohibition, but also instituting laws which protect against the so-called tyranny of private opinion.  But has this endeavor actually promoted discussion and rationality, or has it actually suppressed both? Read the rest of this entry »

When the pursuit of liberty is liberty’s greatest enemy

It has been said, by persons such as Abraham Lincoln, that the cause of tyranny can oftentimes be mistaken for and promoted as the cause of liberty.  If this is the case, then Americans must concern themselves most seriously with understanding what liberty is, and also what it is not.

John Stuart Mill, in what is perhaps his most famous and influential work, On Liberty, helped build the foundation for a modern understanding of freedom, one which an overwhelming number of Americans support.  In doing so, he argued that for a society to be properly liberated, its citizens must be guaranteed freedom of thought and speech, liberty of tastes and pursuits, and freedom of association.   Yet, expressly recognizing in the first chapter of On Liberty that these liberties were too radical without certain restrictions, he sought the boundaries within which they should exist.  And by setting those particular boundaries, like so many of his followers on both the left and right do today he unwittingly destroyed the foundation for the liberty he sought in the first place. Read the rest of this entry »

The question of imperialism

Of the many difficult questions a person can ask about the rights of man, one of the toughest is whether the people of a country are ever their own supreme authority. To err toward an absolute “yes” or “no” seems to lend credibility to a variety of atrocities, and trying to strike a balance between the two extremes can plunge the answer into useless subjectivity. But a good answer is readily available for those who concern themselves with sound principles. Read the rest of this entry »

Cruel and unusual to whom?

Most people in the West agree that a human should not be subject to cruel and unusual punishment, as maintained by our eighth amendment and supported by an overwhelming number of Americans. But is it possible that the process of defining “cruel and unusual” has done Americans more harm than good? To understand whether or not this is the case, it is imperative to consider the concept of war, the purpose of law, and then eventually examine the unalienable rights which all human beings possess.

John Locke once described man’s natural rights as being the right to work for his food, to enjoy the products of his labor, and to live within the positive laws of Scripture (Second Treatise, sects 135 and 136). But since man cannot survive without the right to property and to secure the benefits of his labor, an assault on these rights is an assault on survival, an act Locke recognized as a declaration of war. He wrote of the matter, Read the rest of this entry »

Quitting kumbaya: why division is necessary

The other day, I greatly offended an Arabic associate of mine.  During a conversation about the social contract, I tried to use an example of a group forming themselves into a nation, and I had begun the example with the statement, “suppose that a group of people like you were to get together, and decide to build your own country, with your own laws.”

His objection to my statement was that Christians and conservatives oftentimes enjoy separating themselves from everyone else, that we believe that people like him are not part of our group, that we in essence discriminate. In this particular instance, I referred to him as people like you, leading toward an idea and an effect which I had not intended. Why, he asked, could we not just all be considered human, and on the same team? Read the rest of this entry »

Law in the empathetic society

Must an increase in empathy signal a decrease in law?

Let us consider, for a moment, that someone has wronged you by stealing your car.  When the person is caught by police, you have the option to press charges, but then discover that your neighbor–whose wife is dying from cancer, after they both lost their jobs–stole your car out of desperation to rush to meet her in the hospital, since he thought she was about to die.  Begging your forgiveness with tears in his eyes, the man sinks to his knees in court, clasps his hands together, and looks at you directly.  At this moment, moved with compassion, in an act of mercy you allow the man to walk free.

Compassion, then, is our friend.  A placing of ourselves in the shoes of others, imagining their hardship and deciding–in some particular instance, to side with them, to recognize that had you been in their position, you would have been desperate as well.  And this empathy, in many cases, is noble. Read the rest of this entry »

The irrationality of rationalism, part 2: the direction of rationality

It’s no secret that most of the secular public enjoys labeling Christians (serious Christians, anyway) as irrational, backward, and dangerous.  Ever since the Enlightenment, humanity has increasingly become its own god, replacing the West’s foundational religion, Christianity, with reason.  Supposedly, this transfer of sanctity is supposed to beget a golden age of unprecedented civility and creativity, unhindered by the archaic bondage of religion, progressing our species into a liberated utopia in which every man would be his own king.  But secular rationalists–meaning, those who rely on mankind’s rationality as the sole source of morality and social advancement–are not being fair: under their own standards of humanist evolution, even the process of secular rationality fails to achieve its own goals. Read the rest of this entry »

|