Saturday, January 29, 2011


 Found some folks in Egypt who's blogs I used to read a lot a few years ago now posting on their twitter accts somehow. while these folks are young intellectuals with ideas of more (and much needed) freedom. I can only hope these folks have a plan, as both history and the word of God state that even bad government is better that no government at all. this group of young, educated (usually educated overseas in American and European universities) have lived in oppression there for years. some of the bloggers I followed had been arrested and beaten for minor off the cuff remarks on their blogs against Mubarak's government this has happened time and again and they are tired of it. they deserve a better government. my concern, however is that a radical and even more despotic organization could step into the vacuum if these folks don't have some plan to keep that from happening. The Muslim Brotherhood are largely popular amongst the poorer and less educated young masses there and they are a large and probably well armed group. this bunch getting into power would be disastrous to the cause of personal freedom, and stability in the middle east. as the very idea OF personal freedom is completely foreign to Islam. I pray this all works out for the good. the history of revolutions teaches that they can be either good or bad. just study the difference between the American revolution and the French one. and the importance of the philosophy that was behind both that were very different. In America the obvious truth as our founders saw it was that God created all men equal, and the God gave men certain rights, chief amongst them were the right to life (and that's the best start, right there) liberty, and the personal freedom to pursue their happiness.

The french revolution was quite different, their mantra was Liberty, equality, and fraternity. and you have to note that they believed in fraternity first and foremost, then equality, then liberty as last. note there was no idea in the french revolution that anyone had any "God given" right. rights were recognized as liberties provided by the government to the individual and there was no recognized right to life at all! Fraternity meant the individual was to submit to to the will and the way of the revolutionaries in power, agree with them or meet with madame Guillotine, and many did! you see that if nobody has a right to life, there is NO liberty to be had. the leader of the french revolution had his own philosophy about this jump up and bite him in the ass. wonder if his last thought was that philosophy matters? and what of equality? Just because people are created equal does not mean they will remain equal in all the range of pursuits people will roam after. we all have differing abilities and ideas and goals. this guarantees differing finish lines. If  I witness my neighbor go to the store and get a coke, and I want a coke, what should I do? petition my sheriff my grievance that my neighbor has a coke and I don't have one? after all, is not my neighbor ignoring my "right" to equality? should he not meet the Guillotine for this heinous crime? so you see, the idea of equality is not personal liberty either. if you want a coke, get a coke. if you can't afford a coke, get a job, then get a coke. the issue of covetousness is a dead end. society can't deal with it, only persons can, nine of the ten commandments God gave Moses deal with actions, the one last commandment forbids a thought, the thought that is nothing but a big dead end waste of time. covetousness.

 Building a government requires building a philisophy of government first and foremost, maintaining a government requires maintaining that philosophy in word and deed and teaching that philosophy to the generations after. America is falling down on the job here, one might even say rolling backwards here. and the results of that could be catastrophic.


Fiat Veritas said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Fiat Veritas said...

I must disagree with the notion of covetousness because it is not always true that one will want what another has. I live my life to pursue knowledge. Therefore, if I see another person drinking a coke, I will be curious to know why the person is drinking a coke. In addition, I will wonder what the coke tastes like. As a result, covetousness does not lead me, but curiosity.
I certainly believe that nature creates man equal and that no man has any right over any other. So, whenever a corrupt government wrongs its people there is at least one person who meets the guillotine because this person raises grievances against the norm. I hate to say this but this person becomes a sacrifice to raise awareness of the oppressive conditions. This sacrifice also becomes a catalyst for revolution because those oppressed will see how intolerant the government is and will want to secure its own natural liberties, i.e., a right to life, a right to say whatever one please, and the freedom of choice.
Sadly, I do not see the relevance of the last paragraph to the rest of the text because I do not know how America fails to uphold its philosophy of government. I do not know if America is acting as a whole or if the parts of America are acting separately and therefore failing in either case. In addition, the text deals with authoritarian governments denying its citizens their natural rights and I have never felt that the United States has started to deny its citizens their rights.
As far bringing God into the argument, I feel that as an atheist that God is irrelevant to the argument because people are leading the government. Even with the existence of God, it is difficult to argue that God controls man because He gave man the freedom of choice. The prime of example of this freedom is when man chooses to eat from the tree of knowledge. Man choose to eat from the tree of knowledge knowing that he will be punished so it is irrational to say that God controls all.