Where exactly is the line between the Protection of Religious Freedom by the government and the government protecting itself from Religion? Let me preface this by saying that there is and should be a line. The struggle to sway that line in our direction is the essence of politics. The problem however, as with most things in life is that the line is ever drifting between one extreme and another.
We all see this ebb and flow in life for example from one party to another in politics and at least at a gut level we understand it and realize it is a necessary thing. Americans also accept that in order for our Democratic Republic to flourish -- for “Freedom” to flourish -- we must allow others to believe what they will and we’ll believe what we will. This seems to be where our brand of Freedom comes from in our country.
As a Conservative I get upset around the Zealots of the Gay Marriage group. This video helps me understand the reason for the 2nd amendment
Wow that was pretty hard.
Well this next one isn‘t quite so physically threatening but I would hate to see that truck in front of my house, and I begin to wonder why the 1st amendment was written.
I know I quit watching, about a minute is all I could take. Dull mainly but you get the drift.
Just saw an article in Townhall.com titled
Defense of "The Oogedy-Boogedy Branch of the GOP"
by John Hawkins
Hawkins makes a pretty good case of where that line can be drawn in the Republican Party as it tries continually to straddle the Christine Todd Whitman, McCain liberal in all but finance group and the Social Conservatives or Religious Right.
Hawkins talks of this country being a religious one and that both parties cater to the religious idea whether they believe in religion or not.
To bad there has to be compromises with the other side. To bad we have to think for ourselves where that line is all the time. It’s hard work. We have to think not only of ourselves but of others as well.
On the one side, Stalin knew exactly where the line was, as citizens of the USSR we would have no difficulty discerning where that line was. It was the Party Line.
Conversely, In Iran the Ayatollah takes that burden off our backs too.
The best book I’ve read explaining the compromise that is our American Republic form of Democracy, is Thomas Sowell’s, “Conflict of Vision”
He simplifies all the political bickering of 230 some years down to two different “Visions” people use to help them decide how they live their lives. One is as valid or invalid as the other.
In 1776 it was just as hard to compromise one’s “vision” as it is now: but the goal is what clinched that deal. They were setting up a new government and in so doing had put their life on the line when they signed their collection of compromises we call the Declaration of Independence later codified into the Constitution. They knew that their very lives and fortunes were tied up in those compromises and they knew also that those compromises had to be effective or else they would lose all. To put it in modern terms, they had to agree to disagree, but most important they had to get it done.
In the past whenever we as a Nation would get too far to the left or too far to the right we would see the threat to ourselves and swing back more to the center. I hope we continue in that vein.
As far as the current controversy in the Republican Party I think a veer to the Right is what is needed.; as we are in the midst of a veer to the Left. I am starting to fear the loss of the things like capitalism that has made this country great, and allowed the freedom given me and every other citizen. The freedom to not only hope but to actually do what it takes so that we may better ourselves. It is this fear that will unite us, as we battle the opposing ideology. As it gets down into the trenches, any ally is a good ally. We all need the Freedom to Compromise.
Regards, Live Dangerously Be A Conservative