Sometimes the world simply seems dripping in irony. Our passions prompt us to think the compilation of our thinking is both principled and accurate - and all nicely fits together... even when our thinking may be porous.
A highly intelligent friend of mine recently posed a phenomenal question: how can a person be pro-life yet a supporter of both war and capital punishment? In other words, how can one be pro-life, anti-life, and anti-life? The contrary also holds true; how can a person be pro-abortion yet an opponent of war and capital punishment? OR -- anti-life, pro-life, and pro-life? (Note: this is where the fabulous adjective, “oxymoronic,” attains its meaning.)
Before referring to any organized political party talking points, can you logically substantiate your response? Let me add a word of caution: If you blindly base your argument on any political platform, the probability exponentially increases that the totality of your beliefs will feign hypocrisy. Pro, anti, anti... anti, pro, pro...
We must base our beliefs on something greater... otherwise the irony will only prompt continued chuckle...
As a nation, we have passionately debated the separation of church and state; the dispute centers between the mucky First Amendment clauses of establishment and exercise. It is a valid question, as the founding fathers did not intend for an absence of religion but advocated avoiding government control. They learned from their European predecessors. (One more note of caution: I have noticed this conversation is prone to spikes in individual blood pressure).
Yet here is where the irony arises. There are those who passionately proclaim that there should be no defined division between church and state. “Everything goes! We can talk about God in government and school however and whenever we want to!!” But some of those are persons similarly vocal about the current far-reaching of the government’s hand into the private sector. They claim there, the walls of separation must exist.
The contrary also holds true; many who believe in a impermeable wall between church and state are currently advocating no division between the private and public sectors. “There should be no mention of God in government, but if government wants to control the private sector, no worries. The government can control anything it wants to!”
Both are belief systems based on party platforms... pro-control, anti-control... anti, pro... What is your belief system based on? It must be on something greater...
The irony only prompts continued chuckle...
AR
Posts
5 comments:
I think the irony here is that, according to your interpretation, the Founding Father's intended for the separation of church and state to keep the state from controlling the church, but at present the arguments are against the church having control over the state.
Jules poses a valid angle: who is trying to control whom? The church controlling the state? Or the state controlling the church?
I think BOTH!
But it's true we pick and choose what to control.
The church and state thing gets blood boiling for some reason. I wish we could have better discussions about it. More logical about what the Fathers intended. And what's best now. But that didn't sound like the point of what you were saying today anyway.
Post a Comment