Thursday, June 09, 2005

Common Sense

Ken over at Common Sense usually has more than a few good words to share. Were he running for Governor of Ca, he'd get my vote. Take a look at these few sentences and tell us what you think:

...But politics has no real claim to family values or public entertainment or philanthropy, other than to encourage people to find common acceptable standards while tolerating those that are not in the mainstream, but also not illegal. Once a political system begins to legislate or manipulate the daily functions and beliefs of the individual and society, freedom goes out the window, replaced by a kind of opiatic melancholy and eventual apathy.
This certainly begs a larger question: Should politicos be in the business of legislating morality, and how does one really separate Church from State?

7 comments:

Jet said...

It's beginning to feel like the only this this group is capable of is micro legsilating the populace. There are bigger fish out there, really.

Hey Washington! I can guarantee you, in complete faith, that NONE of you would get re-elected if what you promised during your campaign was to negate our personal privacy. Seriously. NONE OF YOU.

Can't wait for 2006.

Nedhead said...

Two big questions, mr. philosopher.

Arent't laws governing a society, any society, the rule of the "moral" majority? To make an general example: If most people in a community think that it best not to have pornographic magazine shops within the town, they pass an ordinance banning that particular use. Voila, the politicians just legislated according to a moral code. Politicos are, ideally, put in power to lead a community and part of their job is to create legislation that should satisfy their constituents. And moral code guides the populace.

Part II, how does one separate Church and State? For the record, I have deep misgivings about most major organized religions. The church of any faith, to me, is a tool that can be, and often is, used to control people. That being said, you can't take away someones faith, nor separate their actions from their personal beliefs. If a Senator has very strong religious leanings, they will no doubt influence his actions. So, on that level, you can't "separate" church and state. However, our government's structure has done a good job of keeping out undo influence from any one major organized religion. But you have to look at the big picture. Along the way their are many bumps, current administration is one. Fortunately, I have faith in the melting pot characterstics of America, and believe that the voting public will only put up with religious shenanigans from one group for so long, and will rotate in new opinions.

windspike said...

Dear Ned - Thanks for the comments, and glad to have you on the EdWhisper comment train. By the way, it seems like you have a lot to say but I couldn't find a blog of your design on your profile. Do you have one? If so, let us in on it for a look see. If not, spark it up brother! Re: your comment: Like my brother has said (the one who got the free trip to the big kitty litter box under W1 and W2), I don't like it much when politics gets in bed with religion.

Dear Jet - thanks for the comment, although, I am surprised you didn't scroll down and comment on the God and Jesus Christ entry I had posted the other day. That may have been right up your alley as well. Have a gander as I would enjoy your insight. Blog on Sister.

SheaNC said...

I think that certain legal issues are inescapably "moral," like murder, theft, and other activities [practiced by the Bush government]. So, in that sense, government can't help but legislate morality. On the other hand, it should draw the line at the universally agreed-upon basics, and not muck about with things like censorship, sexual activities between consenting adults, and other comlpex issues. I know this statement will require clarification as it is adressed further in the thread, so here we go..! 8^)

Anonymous said...


''Moral'' and other majorities

The founding fathers warned of the tyranny of the majority. That's why we have a republic and not a democracy.

Minority rights are more important than majority rule. As individuals we are always in some minority or another. (Bloggers and commentors are a minority.) Majority rule is fascism, where the rights of the state are superior to the rights of the individual.

Majority rule leads to Jonestown results when a majority votes to drink the cyanide-laced Kool-Aid.

Nedhead said...

Windspike - Unfortunately, many people have pointed out that I do have a lot to say. Something about hot air? No blog of my own, too lazy to put in the effort. Kudos on yours, very thought provoking.

"Majority rule leads to Jonestown results when a majority votes to drink the cyanide-laced Kool-Aid."

I don't know if that is a good example. That was a bunch of religious fanatics. Tyranny of the majority is something to be wary of, that is why the minority has a voice. But the rules of any society are those of the majority. Our founding fathers couldn't have succeeded if a majority of the people didn't support their cause.

Anonymous said...


''Our founding fathers couldn't have succeeded if a majority of the people didn't support their cause.''

For a movement to succeed only requires the acquiescence of the majority, not its support. How do you think Bush got elected? He was elected by all those registered voters who didn't vote.