Originally Posted by detbuch
Paul, this sentence strikes me as one of the most interesting ones I've read by you. Obviously, I know little to nothing about you except for the sentences you post on the forum. This one is loaded with, on the one hand, the powerful positive influence of God, or a God, in directing your life to a better end; and, on the other hand, the judgment that straying from, or denying, that God's influence results in the negativity of hate.
Now, I don't know if your God demands that you counter hate with love, and if in your judgment of, and commiseration with, Raider Ronnie's presumed hate, you do counter it with love. Your brief statement doesn't imply that . . . but it might be there, merely not expressed. Interesting as that might be, what is more interesting to me is how you translate this implied relationship with God into your political persuasions.
That is, actually, pertinent to the subject of this post. Religious freedom and expression of it were paramount to the Founders and their unique document which guaranteed it along with other inalienable rights. The contentions which arise from the individual differences protected by that document have been considered too unwieldy by those, mostly collectivist statists (socialists, Marxists, progressives, etc.), who view the most efficient and effective society as one in which humanity and all its interests and aspirations are more inherently uniform, or are made so by the molding and directive of the State.
I don't know, and am curious, if your relationship with your God is religious in form (organized into routine commandments and rituals), or religious in nature (a personal, spiritual, belief in a being or force beyond our ability to conceive).
In either case, is your belief subservient to the "will" of the State--does the State have the supreme power to bend your belief to its "will"? Or does your belief supersede that fictitious "will"? If it's the former, I'd suggest that your belief is an insignificant whim, and probably not worth inserting into a judgment of Raider Ronnie, or anybody else.
If it is the latter, is it important enough to you to protect it from the dictatorial power of the State to narrow your ability to live by that belief? And do you think that same protection should be given to others?
|