This is something I posted on my facebook today, somewhat randomly, but despite the simplifications, I think it makes sense.
"An exercise in thought: Why should my employer be forced to pay for me to get orthopedic care if I break my leg? I don't even need a leg for this job. (This is all hypothetical, my leg is fine) You could argue that it would make me a better and happy employee if they did provide this service. You could argue it would be the decent thing to do. You could argue that proper bone health and care is important to overall health. But if they made a rule today, for any reason they like, that orthopedic care on legs (or anything else) was no longer covered, I don't think the government should be able to do a damn thing about it… Health insurance is a nice, and productive, service many employers offer. If they want to provide it fully, partially, randomly….whatever, I just don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to do so.
Mental Image: A Company Personified is walking down the street and comes across a homeless person right near his property. He decides to give the guy 20 dollars. The government steps in and says not so fast evil businessman. This guy needs way more than 20 dollars. I know you think you're doing a good thing here, but this guy needs rehab, job training, housing and education to really improve his life, so we are FORBIDDING you to give him just 20 dollars unless you give him all those other things.
That's stupid. It's just as stupid to tell a company they can't provide any health insurance unless they provide everything the president's administration says they should provide."
I think there's an idea worth fleshing out in here. I'll try to get to it soon. March will end eventually and life will go on. For now, back to work.
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Friday, March 9, 2012
The Greatest Threat to religious liberty
When considering this I'd narrowed it down pretty fast to Islam, or rampant secularism. I also considered a Christian theocratic system, but I just can't see that getting any real traction. The people who would vote for the people that would impose that really aren't religious, they just care about gay marriage and abortion.
Also, Christianity is thoroughly trained at existing within the system. We've co-existed with governments for a long time with fewer speed bumps than one might think, but I digress.
While I agree that radical islam is bad, and scary, it doesn't win. Radical islam taking hold worldwide would be disastrous to religious freedom, but in a decently run Muslim empire, they do tend to let Christians and other faiths do their thing with their own people. That is the crux of the issue.
But instead of either, I chose the the secular leaning "dictatorship of relativism."
I'll give the eye rolls a moment to subside.
It is my belief, that there is a growing movement in this nation, and I hypothesize it's not unique to us, that seeks to restrict religion to the privacy of one's own home. That is to say, to make it only a matter between a man and his God.
I don't believe we are on the verge of seeing laws passed to this effect, and in fact, I don't believe we'll ever see such laws. I believe we won't need them.
I'm going to rely on Christianity as the example here because I'm one and let's be honest, we're the big dog on the street anyway.
But we live in a county, and world leader of a country, that doesn't recognize good and evil anymore. We live in a place where if you attempt to judge the morality of any person's action, you are almost automatically considered a bigot.
How is this a threat to religion? Because clearly, religions judge actions. We're not talking here about issues that effect the state. We're simply, at this point, discussing judgement, which is internal.
There is the idea that any action is ok so long as no one gets hurt, or loses property.
Stay with me.
This attitude, leads most to then judge religions and the religious as out of touch, for believing that anything is morally wrong. Ignoring the obvious irony, I believe that has really seeped into our national moral identity.
We've become a nation that is tolerant of every thing a person can conceivably do, but one that is hostile to any group that dares to say thou shall not.
Taking this one step further, the great secular majority (And I know most people claim to be Christian but let's be honest, all most do is say, yeah Jesus is love and go about their lives thinking God wants them to be happy so they can do whatever) then begins to take this attitude toward religions.
If all things are permissible, then all religions are permissible. And if we stopped there, we'd be ok. Next, if all things are permissible, but a religion is trying to say that something isn't permissible (even if they aren't attempting to legislate it), then only one can be right.
And we so believe in the fallacy that all things are permissible, that we now seek to turn the opposite idea into crimethink.
Aside: I want you all to know that I'm sorry this blog isn't as well done as it could be, it's been a freaking TERRIBLE week at work. Very busy, and I've had little free time.
Anyways, the attitude that it's wrong for any group to dare tell anyone what they should believe permeates almost everything.
We can't have Kirk Cameron going on about mainstream evangelical views on gay marriage without assaulting his character with outlandish headlines. What right has he to an opinion?
We can't let the Church tell it's own employees that if they work for them, they don't get free condoms and other BC methods covered by insurance. How dare they?
And again, I'm not saying people can't or shouldn't criticize. They're welcome too, that's freedom. But there is a snowballing effect right now against religion.
And I believe the natural end of that snowballing will be a cultural turning of the tides against the open and outward practice of religions.
To summarize.
Our society believes all things are permissible.
This is in contrast to most religious views.
Therefore, our society views religion with disdain.
Therefore, our society is becoming more and more hostile toward religion
The natural result of this will be a cultural, and perhaps eventual legislative, shift against the open practice of faith.
Also, Christianity is thoroughly trained at existing within the system. We've co-existed with governments for a long time with fewer speed bumps than one might think, but I digress.
While I agree that radical islam is bad, and scary, it doesn't win. Radical islam taking hold worldwide would be disastrous to religious freedom, but in a decently run Muslim empire, they do tend to let Christians and other faiths do their thing with their own people. That is the crux of the issue.
But instead of either, I chose the the secular leaning "dictatorship of relativism."
I'll give the eye rolls a moment to subside.
It is my belief, that there is a growing movement in this nation, and I hypothesize it's not unique to us, that seeks to restrict religion to the privacy of one's own home. That is to say, to make it only a matter between a man and his God.
I don't believe we are on the verge of seeing laws passed to this effect, and in fact, I don't believe we'll ever see such laws. I believe we won't need them.
I'm going to rely on Christianity as the example here because I'm one and let's be honest, we're the big dog on the street anyway.
But we live in a county, and world leader of a country, that doesn't recognize good and evil anymore. We live in a place where if you attempt to judge the morality of any person's action, you are almost automatically considered a bigot.
How is this a threat to religion? Because clearly, religions judge actions. We're not talking here about issues that effect the state. We're simply, at this point, discussing judgement, which is internal.
There is the idea that any action is ok so long as no one gets hurt, or loses property.
Stay with me.
This attitude, leads most to then judge religions and the religious as out of touch, for believing that anything is morally wrong. Ignoring the obvious irony, I believe that has really seeped into our national moral identity.
We've become a nation that is tolerant of every thing a person can conceivably do, but one that is hostile to any group that dares to say thou shall not.
Taking this one step further, the great secular majority (And I know most people claim to be Christian but let's be honest, all most do is say, yeah Jesus is love and go about their lives thinking God wants them to be happy so they can do whatever) then begins to take this attitude toward religions.
If all things are permissible, then all religions are permissible. And if we stopped there, we'd be ok. Next, if all things are permissible, but a religion is trying to say that something isn't permissible (even if they aren't attempting to legislate it), then only one can be right.
And we so believe in the fallacy that all things are permissible, that we now seek to turn the opposite idea into crimethink.
Aside: I want you all to know that I'm sorry this blog isn't as well done as it could be, it's been a freaking TERRIBLE week at work. Very busy, and I've had little free time.
Anyways, the attitude that it's wrong for any group to dare tell anyone what they should believe permeates almost everything.
We can't have Kirk Cameron going on about mainstream evangelical views on gay marriage without assaulting his character with outlandish headlines. What right has he to an opinion?
We can't let the Church tell it's own employees that if they work for them, they don't get free condoms and other BC methods covered by insurance. How dare they?
And again, I'm not saying people can't or shouldn't criticize. They're welcome too, that's freedom. But there is a snowballing effect right now against religion.
And I believe the natural end of that snowballing will be a cultural turning of the tides against the open and outward practice of religions.
To summarize.
Our society believes all things are permissible.
This is in contrast to most religious views.
Therefore, our society views religion with disdain.
Therefore, our society is becoming more and more hostile toward religion
The natural result of this will be a cultural, and perhaps eventual legislative, shift against the open practice of faith.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)