Loyalty to God and country

Over at The Jury Talks Back, Not Rhetorical asked an interesting question:

“I’m a Christian first and an American second.” If you heard someone say that, would you consider it divided loyalty? What if a soldier said it?

I responded that I would not be surprised at all, because if anyone claims to believe in God but doesn’t place him as the primary influence in his life then that person does not really believe in God. It doesn’t matter which god – the God of Israel, Allah, Zeus, you name it – if God exists, then your entire existence is shaped by that fact. Anything else you do must be in the context of what that all-powerful God wished you to do or to be. I think the US Armed Forces understand this, given that they’ve allowed soldiers whose faith prevents them from fighting to serve other roles so as not to force a showdown between God and country.

This quote, however, comes from Nidal Hasan, the Ft. Hood shooter. He apparently made it public knowledge that he considered himself a Muslim first and an American second – a fact which is being played up as another sign of his blind devotion and barbarism. This should surprise no one. No political entity can match the sheer clout of a deity. The fact that he considered his religion to be the primary motivator in his life is a perfectly rational response to his beliefs, and using this point as evidence of his insanity is at best intellectually dishonest and at worst outright anti-religious propaganda. Continue reading Loyalty to God and country

20 Years of Freedom

At the end of World War II, what remained of Germany was divided into four territories, each occupied by one of the major Allied powers – The US, France, Britain, and the Soviet Union. Berlin was set as the central control area for all four powers, an arrangement which doomed it into being split by political strain between the victors.

The Soviets refused to agree to the reconstruction plans put forth by the other three powers, which would have allowed a devastated Germany to again become self sufficient, and continued to pillage the city for goods and dismantling any industry it had left. As the tensions grew, Britain, France, and the US combined their controlled areas and extended the Marshall Plan even further, allowing the western part of Germany to being rebuilding and growing again.

Following these disagreements, Stalin instituted the Berlin Blockade in 1948, which many consider the first major crisis of the Cold War. This prevented food or supplies from arriving in West Berlin. The other allied countries responded by airlifting in a massive amount of food and supplies to West Berlin, causing a war of propaganda to erupt between the Soviet and Allied governments. Ultimately the blockade was lifted, but the damage was done. Only a few months after the shipments restarted, East Germany was formally absorbed into the USSR as the German Democratic Republic, and West Germany began to embrace western capitalism and democracy wholeheartedly. Throughout the 1950s, the West’s economy and standard of living grew rapidly, while the East saw only stagnation, resulting in a permeating feeling of envy and a desire to escape to the West. Continue reading 20 Years of Freedom

Realistic Libertarianism

Several of my fellow conservatives have pointed out to me that I’m being inconsistent by espousing libertarian values while also saying I tentatively am fine with keeping in place the idea of controlled substances in place, especially so with a relatively harmless one such as marijuana. I realize that I did not fully flesh out my explanation as to why I think that way, and figured that said explanation could make a good followup post, so here we are.

First let me say that while I do hold to libertarian political values and ideals, I would consider myself to be realistic and responsible as a higher priority than those ideals – which means that sometimes a (hopefully temporary) compromise must be made between my ideals and my principles. While this may sound haughty or offensive to other libertarian thinkers, I don’t mean it to be – my point is simply that I don’t think we’re at a place where a full on overnight libertarian revolution would be a good thing – rather, it would be best to gradually move culture back to a place of responsibility and morality, and transition the political situation back to where it should be in the process. Let me explain why.

John Adams said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” He was right. In order to live in a society where personal freedom is left mostly unimpeded, that society must be responsible and moral, with a firm foundation. Unfortunately, our society today is neither responsible nor moral. A century of living with a government trending toward socialism and a dominant public education system created by Marxists and used to turn its students into drones has shredded the fabric of our society, and left us with a situation in which your average person thinks the government is a mother to protect and provide for them, and shuns the very idea of a disciplining father.

In order to be consistent with libertarian ideals, not only would marijuana be legalized, but the whole idea of controlled substances would go out the window. The DEA and FDA would cease to exist. All prescription drugs would be available over the counter at any drug store, and you could buy opiates at the Circle K on the corner along with your milk and bread. Can you imagine this being the case right now, in our current society? It would be suicidal to push for that kind of change without also pushing for a society where responsibility is a basic, essential value for every person. And I am not saying this society would be perfect; there will always be abusers and thieves and those who would exploit any system. Such is the nature of man. But I would submit that in a society where personal accountability was highly valued and the government was not looked to for any need but those few listed in out Constitution, such as that this country enjoyed when it was written, we would find that such ideals could play out with far less ill effect than if we were to find ourselves in that ideal today.

We cannot sit here and pretend that we have not failed our country miserably for the last century by allowing it to go this far. We cannot ignore the situation we live in and think everything will somehow work out for the best on its own. We need to undo all the evils that have been done in the last hundred years, for with that will come a natural shift toward personal responsibility, accountability, morality, and ultimately, liberty. Let’s not get ahead of ourselves.

Reader Question: Legalized Marijuana?

The first issue I was asked to address was that of legalized marijuana. Thank you so much, Elisabeth, for giving me such a non-controversial, easy to discuss topic… oh, wait. Nevermind. You’re trying to get me in trouble, aren’t you?

This subject is obviously controversial, with many people on either side holding beliefs so tightly it borders on religious fervor. Personally, I have never smoked marijuana and I do not plan to. From a Christian perspective, its intoxicating effects violate the instructions we are given concerning drunkenness, and from a personal perspective I just hate not having complete control of myself – this is why I never drink to excess either. I say this to show that I do not have a personal stake in this, and to be up-front about where my biases lie. These strong beliefs, along with the fact that society has such a bizarre and convoluted viewpoint on the subject, makes it difficult to establish any sort of real, balanced public forum or debate on the topic – as California is finding out right now the hard way. Let me then start by addressing some basic aspects of “how” and “why” legalization could or should occur before I get into whether or not it actually should happen. Continue reading Reader Question: Legalized Marijuana?

I don’t think this headline was supposed to elicit a guffaw

Obama awarded 2009 Nobel Peace Prize.

This is full of money quotes. Bear in mind that the guy had only been in office for a week when the nominations were done.

[Chairman of the Nobel committee Thorbjorn] Jagland said he hoped the prize would help Obama resolve the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Former Finnish President Martti Ahtisaari, last year’s laureate, said it was clear the Nobel committee wanted to encourage Obama on the issues he has been discussing on the world stage.

“I see this as an important encouragement,” Ahtisaari said…

And Wangari Muta Maathai, the Kenyan environmentalist who won the 2004 Peace Prize, said the win for Obama, whose father was Kenyan, would help Africa move forward.
“I think it is extraordinary,” she said. “It will be even greater inspiration for the world. He has shown how we can probably come together, work together in a cooperative way.”

“Probably.” They’re giving away the Nobel prize on “probably” and “encouragement” now. To a guy who claims he wants to push for war in Afghanistan and has created international incidents in Honduras, Iran, Israel, and Poland.

Well, maybe this will encourage him to do something worthy of the prize, right? Like Yassir?

Where’s my prize? I could maybe unite some people.

Seriously though, I wonder what possible justification could be used for this other than shameless pandering.  It’s absurd to the nth degree, and the fact that the world is so publicly assuming the position for this hollow shell of a president – note that Nobel is not an American institution! – makes me nauseous for what the next three years will be like.

(EDIT: Even HuffPo thinks it’s absurd. When you lose Huffington…)

(EDIT) More prize quotes from around the web:

Continue reading I don’t think this headline was supposed to elicit a guffaw