Monday, July 01, 2013

fancy words on societal erosion

In response to Todd Courser's weird netspeak diatribe on judicial activism in regards to marriage Jeff Phillips quickly composed this sermon
It is because the concept of marriage has already been twisted and morphed to be a state institution to begin with. It is not a state institution. It is a Godly institution. It is a Family institution. If we are to believe that our rights truly do come from God and are endowed in the inner fabric of our beings, as individuals, then we also have to have a few certain qualities about ourselves. We have to live BRAVELY, in a world where we are the true masters of ourselves, we are the defenders of our family--and that includes the responsibility to instill in them a spirit of discernment, reason, and a system of ethics compatible with the state of mind (or state) within which we live of deeming what is acceptable in public and in private.

We do socialize certain standards of what is unacceptable in our communities even in private spaces. Certain activities like rape, child molestation, theft, extortion, murder, etc. are addressed in our frameworks as a state-wide shared, standardized, socialized idea that we as Michiganders say collectively is wrong and yes, we're willing to collaborate across branches of government, get warrents, and will search on your property and hunt you down if you do some of these things. Your privacy is limited when it comes to activities the rest of the people of the shared "state" of mind have in common as Michigandars--that is why we are a state, it all comes down to state of mind.

There are many religious folk that act terribly fearful of the notion that a couple of guys living a few miles down the road from them are telling their friends that they are married, as though this shatters the concept in their minds that it is even conceivable for their society to survive in the future. They need to learn to articulate how, and that can only be done by themselves first stepping up to the plate to try to govern on a face to face, personal level. Until they get involved they will never be able to get to know the people or their situation, and therefore will never meet the basic standard of reconciling their proposed policies against the "no taxation without representation" standard. If you aren't bothering to govern enough to make oneself aware of the situation, then you are taxing in the form of levying objections upon them (after all, what is a tax, in its principle form, stripped away from the higher level human construct of money?) If they want to levy, they need to be willing to hear the voices of those who have been through the other side of this mess in depth enough actually understand their emotional foundations. One must also understand that the reason compulsory primary education exists in this country is to provide a mechanism of allowing communities to ensure and standardize the foundations of Americanism within each individual--to be sufficiently educated with the certain degree of instruction required, as Thomas Jefferson spoke of, so as to sustain liberty through the generations. It should be resolved what exactly those foundations of thinking need to be in order to be a proper citizen, morally and ethically, without influencing or biasing one's foundations in religious doctrines or anything of the sort--recognizing the roll and scope of that area to be the families themselves. We have many generations eroded such that our society now turns to the state in lieu of god, even for the most personal matters such as that of their marriage, and then at the same time is unable to be brave in this world and takes skirmish offense to others around them that do not share in the light, instead of themselves actually bothering to share the light. It is almost a miss-translation of principle, except that it is more of a blurring over the generations, like a copy of a copy of a copy degrading the quality and spirit of what once was the Land of the Free balanced on the scales of Justice with that of the Home of the Brave. A people can not have one without the other.
Honestly I have a bit of trouble making heads nor tails of it.

When we make our big pushes towards sound policy we need to adopt fine colloquialisms and make certain that we establish how what is good for the goose is desirable for the gander.

I like political philosophy; most people don't care what the Founders believed would be good for the country and how they thought it should work best as much as they are worry about what works for them.  What does it even mean to "standardize the foundations of Americanism within each individual"?

Your audience, voters, constituents, should never ask that.  If they start to ask that then the crusade is lost.

No comments: